New Zealand Times. (PUBLISHED DAILY) FRIDAY, APRIL 13, 1877.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXII, Issue 5009, 13 April 1877, Page 2

New Zealand Times. (PUBLISHED DAILY) FRIDAY, APRIL 13, 1877.

The report of proceedings at yesterday s meeting of the City Council occupies a large portion of space in our present issue, and is replete with interest to the ratepayers. It will be noticed that one subject, to which we have directed some attention of late, obtained a certain degree of prominence during the meeting. Two letters were read having indirect and direct reference to the '' waterworks con : tract." On this subject tlie New Zealand Times has written more than some people appear to care about having read, and has given offence because it has written without prejudice and without personality. There are some journalists who are nothing if not nasty; and to these our temperate remarks have given offence, simply because those remarks stated plain facts, and by abusing nobody left no :chance for a flow, of counter abuse, in which the attention of the ratepayers might be drawn away from the real question at issue. Some time since we pointed out that for particular reasons the New Zealand Times was the only journal in Wellington that dared to speak out about certain blots in municipal management, and the result has so far justified us. This can be easily understood by the public. 'lt is unfortunate that newspapers, owing to circumstances over which they have no ! control, should be hampered in the expression of. their opinions; but we can easily understand how some writers dare not go: against the interests of the proprietary which employs them. If A, we . will suppose- for instance, has a lease of 'a portion of O'Malxey's reclamation, 1 and also an interest in. the paper of which B is editor, it is perfectly comprehensible. that B will not care to advocate the turn-' ing out by the General Government of all : O'Malxey's lessees. It is perfectly easy to apply a somewhat similar set of circumstances to the waterworks contract. However, having no wish to bear hardly on any one, we do not care to say any more on this point, though we should be quite. justified in doing so, seeing that no opportunity is lost by some papers of connecting the names of directors of the New Zealand Times Company with the tone of leading articles which appear in our columns. Our object in alluding to the waterworks contract is to ipoint to one letter read at the meeting of the City Council yesterday. It will be seen that the contractor, Mr. Saunders, wrote a species of minatory letter to the Council re the concrete wall, the putting up of which forms a portion of his contract. The subj ect, by the resolution- of the Council, has been practically "hung up " for a while ; but this is not comfort-" ing in the face of Mr. Saunders' threat of legal proceedings for the recovery of damages in case of delay. Now this is an exact instance of the kind of thing of which we have all along been complaining in connection with this waterworks contract. Mr. MARCHANThas been pleased to hold a perfect festival of indignant virtue and honesty, because we, without in the least questioning his honesty, took exception to the fact that, as it seemed to us, the city had to pay several thousands of pounds for the new water supply works more than, with proper prevision, it should have paid. And Mr. Saunders' letter proves that we are right. In all contracts of any magnitude there are of course alterations from the original specifications; but in the waterworks contract the alterations are so great as to produce the resulting loss to the city which we have mentioned above. In fact, the whole thing is as if a man called for tenders for building a house, and then permitted the successful tenderer to build an island. With the matter involved in the letter from the secretary of the Builders and Contractors' Association we have nothing to do, nor with the peculiar ethics of the contracting business developed therein. Our contention has had nothing to do with successful or unsuccessful tenderers for the water supply works. We simply protested, and do protest, against what we are prepared to admit is an unintentional waste of public money, but which is nevertheless an undoubted loss of several thousands of pounds to the ratepayers. His Worship the Mayor has developed two faculties. The one an inability to understand the English language when plainly written ; the other a competency for pronouncing an authoritative opinion on the construction of wharfs; Thus he was quite unable to put a question to Mr. Marchant, as it was originally simply stated by us, and yesterday he stated quite authoritatively that the new specifications for the extension of the Queen's wharf did not differ materially from those previously drawn up, and rejected after tenders had been called, and that the rejection and subsequent advertising for fresh tenders had not done any harm. Now, on the first of these points the Mayor was very effectively contradicted by Councillors Mills and George ; and indeed a comparison of the two specifications will show anyone that he is wrong; whilst as to the second we can only say that the alteration in the specifications cost a number of gentlemen who came to Wellington to tender for the work no inconsiderable loss in time and money, and furnished another instance of the' points about our municipal management which seem to us most objectionable, and against which we desire to protest. It is gratifying to see evidences that these points will receive full investigation. It is plain that further development of them will soon bo forthcoming, and that the ratepayers and the New Zealand Times will be able to have everything in connection with them fully brought forward.

A novel feature about the Council's proceedings of yesterday was the fact that contractors were permitted freely to take part in the deliberations. The thing wants reforming altogether.