The New Zealand Times. (PUBLISHED DAILY.) SATURDAY, MAY 12, 1877.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXII, Issue 5034, 12 May 1877, Page 2

The New Zealand Times. (PUBLISHED DAILY.) SATURDAY, MAY 12, 1877.

By our report of proceedings at the meeting of the Wharf Committee yesterday it will be seen that no decision has yet been arrived at as to whose tender or tenders shall be accepted for the extension of the Queen’s wharf. Since, despite the efforts of the Mayor who, it is but fair to say, did his best to keep matters from drifting into confusion, the proceedings did largely partake of what the Yankees would call a mixed character, it may be no harm to place before our readers the exact conclusions arrived at so far by the Wharf Committee. In the first place, then, it was unanimously agreed that the whole of the works for the construction of which tenders have been called shall be carried out. Next, it was also unanimously resolved that ironbark, andnot black birch, should be used for piles. This, therefore, narrowed the question as to whose tender should be accepted a good deal, A question arose as to whether the schedule prices forwarded by each tenderer should be taken into consideration; Councillors Mills and Cleland maintaining that they should, since a good deal of extra work might be required, when such schedule prices would largely determine the ultimate cost of the work. The Mayor explained that in Government contracts it was not customary to take the schedule prices into consideration in accepting a tender, but to give the contract to him whose tender was the lowest ; and Councillor George and others placed their opinions in definite opposition to those of Councillors Mills and Cleland. The City Surveyor pointing out that there would be little or no extra work required, and that the schedule prices of one tenderer (and he amongst the lowest) were, for the superstructure of the wharf where extra work was most likely to be wanted, one hundred per cent, in excess of his (the Surveyor’s) estimate, it was resolved to consider the tenders per sc, without their attached schedule prices. Then arose the question as to whether the tender which was lowest in gross for all the works should be accepted, or whether the tenders for each item should he considered separately, and the lowest in each case agreed to. Councillor Cleland stated that by giving the contracts for three out of the four items advertised to one tenderer, and the fourth to another, a great saving would be effected as against giving the contract for all four items to the tenderer lowest in gross. It was concluded that unless a saving of at least £IOOO could be eflectod by adopting Councillor Cleland’s idea of dividing the contracts, it would be better to take tho lowest lump tender. The City Surveyor explained that the object of calling for tenders in two divisions under each contract, No. I. and No. 11., was to place the Council, should the tenders for all four be in gross largely in excess of the funds at the disposal of tho Council, in a position to accept tenders for two or three of tho portions into which the contracts were divided. But Mr. Marchant positively stated that the object of dividing tho contracts was not in order to accept separate tenders for each; and he was also definite in saying that under the terms of tho advertisement the only division that could be made would be to accept one lump tender for No. I. contract, and one for No. H. Of course Mr. Marchant may bo quite wrong, and his opinion need not of necessity bind the Council. We are merely endeavoring to give a coherent statement of matters as they now stand with regard to the wharf contract, decision on which has been again adjourned. The reasons given for accepting a tender in gross, or for accepting separate tenders, will ho found in our report, and will commend themselves either one way or another to the ratepayers. McKikdy’s is the lowest gross tender. By accepting Coffey's tenders for items 1,2, and 4 a saving of £10,328, as against £10,830, would be eflectod ; whilst by accepting McKikdy’s tender for item 3 a saving of £5047, as against £7450, would bo effected. But thou comes the consideration whether the contractors themselves would take up the contracts thus offered them, and also the opinion expressed by the City Surveyor, which is distinctly against tho procedure indicated. In reference to this matter of tho wharf contracts a small explanation may bo permitted. We have seen a printed statement, mentioning amongst other gratuitous untruths that a reporter of this journal had alone been apprised of the meeting of tho Wharf Committee on Thursday. Tho fait is, that no reporter

of the New Zealand Times was so apprised. A representative of this journal, knowing the interest taken in the letting of the contracts, took care to be present at the meeting, where was also a member of the Press Agency. That other reporters who ought to have been present were absent was due to their neglect. An ex-Oouncillor connected with the local Press called on Mr. Reeves yesterday morning, and on Mr. Reeves refusing to show him the tenders, because he had no power to do so, puffed, gasped, and rolled out numerous denunciations of the Wharfinger, threatened to report him to the Mayob, and to annihilate him metaphorically. The whole business was characteristic of the petty fuss which has before now been raised by the same person. Mr. Reeves, we have reason to believe, will not be absent from his duties on the wharf to-day.