TO the Editor of the "Evening Mail."

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XVI, Issue 3, 4 January 1881, Page 2

TO the Editor of the "Evening Mail."

Sir,—At the meeting of the Council on Thursday Councillor Graham very properly called the attention of the Council to the incorrectness of the Surveyor's report, and expressed surprise thut he was unable in fourteen days to furnish an estimate for recoping the sea wall. He also asked for the production of the autkority by which th« coping of dressed stone 18 inohes wide and 9 ioches thick had been departed from, as being unfair to the contractors and a waete of public money. Instead of producing the authority called for (as by law he was bound to do) the Mayor said the upecification did not mention dregsed stone, and he would let the work remain as now finished.' That answer is likely to mislead the public, aa it may be taken to imply that the work has been done according to contract, which ia not the case, as the following extract from the specifications will show :—" The top of the wall to be finished with a coping not less than 9 inches thick and 18 inches v/ide laid level, and one thicknei9 throughout, to mako a level finish on top from end to end." Practical stonemasons say it would be impossible to comply with that part of the specification without dressing the stone, no matter what kind of stone was used. Councillor Trask seems to make light of the matter, and considers that £100 (more or less) added to our already heavy overdraft ia of no consequence. And Councillor Everett at the last meeting exonerated the Surveyor by taking part of the responsibility upon himself in the matter of the work at the Port. Mr Lightfoot, after seven years apprenticeship, ought to know his duty better than to be dictated to by an individual Councillor, as it is treating the other Councillors with contempt and thosa who placed th«m there by overriding their resolutions, which has been done too often lately. Councillor Trask is perfectly right in saying that it should be done over again as it is no credit to any one, and those who had the presumption to alter the contract ought to be made to pay for it, as the public have paid quite sufficient already for experiments at the Port. Councillor Little also called attention to work ihat had been authorised in April last not having been done, and other works having been done in the meantime not authorised, and when he atked for the resolution of that date to be produced it was refused by the Mayor, as there wai no resolution to tliat effect before the Council. Some one was wrong, not Councillor Little. If such proceedings are allowed to pass unnoticed, and the representatives of the ratepayers ignored by the Mayor, it is useless .endeavoring to send men to represent us unless the Mayor is consulted previous to an election-; but, sir, we feel assured there is something in the Municipal Act to prevent such infringement of the laws, and it is our intention to proceed against any Mayor or Councillor who will enforce hu principles contrary to the law. From the Ratepayers' Association.