New Zealand Times. (PUBLISHED DAILY.) SATURDAY, APRIL 14, 1877.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXII, Issue 5010, 14 April 1877, Page 2

New Zealand Times. (PUBLISHED DAILY.) SATURDAY, APRIL 14, 1877.

When first we mentioned the unsatisfactory circumstances in connection with the waterworks contract, and indeed with other Corporation works in progress or contemplated, the writers whose interest it was to keep everything comfortable in these respects, announced that the New Zealand Times was quite in the wrong and assuring the public that nothing unsatisfactory could possibly happen, proceeded to lead the ratepayers on a wrong, scent by raising a hubbub concerning other municipal matters, and making light of those of much more serious import, to which we had attracted attention. Of course time is gradually settling all this, and we are now glad to find that in one quarter at least it has been discovered that the city may be put to very serious expense by some circumstances connected with the carrying out of the water-supply works. It has been found out that Mr. Saunders’ position, as stated in his letter to the City Council, published in yesterday’s issue, may put the ratepayers to no small expense. Now it is perfectly evident that the whole affair is the outcome of the situation as stated by us at first. A departure from the original specifications has been allowed, of such importance as to cause the works to be executed by the contractor much cheaper than we must suppose he imagined he could construct them for. The contractor is now ready to go on with the foundations of certain concrete work, and Mr. Marchant now does not care to authorise this without the sanction of the consulting engineer, Mr. Blackett, who is not likely to be in Wellington for some weeks. For the delay Mr. Marchant claims Mr. Saunders announces his intention to claim damages. The affair, as a sample of our municipallcontracts, is as pretty a one as need be desired. However, as Mr. Marchant has been ordered to write a reply to the Council on Mr. Saunders’ letter, we do not desire to say more on the subject at present. As to the specifications for the extension of the Queen’s wharf we have, however, a word or two to add to what was written in these columns yesterday. A competent authority assures us that the alterations in the specifications should cause the saving of two or three thousand pounds on the execution of the work. Under these circumstances we are at a loss to know the data before the mind of his Worship the Mayor when he was pleased to call those alterations “trivial.” And here we may be permitted to remark that we know of no special immunity from criticism that can be claimed for the Mayor from us. He himself, indeed, as a gentleman of fair sense, who has never been treated with alternate abuse and adulation by us, who has more than once received a proper support from us, would be the last to expect such; but if foolish people will claim it for him, and because we advocated his claims to the representation of the city in Parliament, would fain insist that we must admire all his acts as Mayor, why then wo cannot avoid pointing out to them that we supported the Mayor as against Mr. Travers, because we thought him the better of the two candidates; that if the contest had to bo fought over again, we would support him again ; but that whenever his conduct as Mayor seems to merit disapproval, that disapproval will be found expressed by us. With our part in the last municipal mistakes, to which wo

alone dared draw attention, we are quite satisfied. The public mind is now quite aroused, and the public _ attention is directed to them. The beginning of the end we fancy is not far off, and that end will be one satisfactory to the ratepayers, and securing them so far as possible againat such mistakes in future.