WATERWORKS COMMITTEE.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 5238, 7 January 1878, Page 3

WATERWORKS COMMITTEE.

The committee appointed by the City Council to inquire into the Waterworks contract met on Saturday afternoon. There were present Councillors Hunter (chairman), Macdonald, Logan, Fisher, and Diver. Mr. Maßchant again attended to give evidence, and in. answer to Councillor Macdonald stated that he had not received the message requesting him to attend the preliminary meetings of the committee. The document had been sent to a house he had left. The first intimation he had of his attendance being required was a notice in one of the newspapers. Councillor Diver said that Mr. Hester had stated that he had sent several communications to Mr. Marchant, and Councillor Logan remarked that the inference to be drawn from Mr. Hester’s statement was that he had personally seen Mr. Marchant on the subject. Mr. Marchant said that was evidently a wrong impression. He had not been spoken to by Mr. Hester on the subject. Mr. Marchant’s evidence was continued, and' in reply to Mr. Logan he said that from the first he allowed himself £SOOO for extras, because the true nature of the bed of the stream had not been ascertained. It was specified that the contractor should go deep enough till a satisfactory bed was reached, and after a certain depth he would be paid as per schedule. By ’ Councillor Hunter ; There was very little plant connected with the work. Cement, was the chief material used. About £250 worth would be the most ou the ground at one time. It would be used as fast as delivered. About 3000 casks were .used, which would be worth about 255. per cask. The contractor could claim 50 per cent, of the value of the materials on the ground, and 25 per cent, more when embodied in the work. The schedule of items for extras was rendered the first week in December, and he issued the certificate on the 7 th. One of the items was for extras in January last year, and others were for various times since. It was customary for extras to be rendered and paid for montldy. The reason this rule was departed from was because he believed certain deductions would probably be made in relation to work struck off. Saunders rendered bis accounts monthly, and frequently requested him to issue certificates, but he did not deem it necessary. He had issued no certificate for extras till December 7. He had not been particularly aware that certificates should remain fourteen days before the Council before being given effect to. He had read the conditions over and over again, but he could not carry them all in his head. After a certificate was issued he had nothin,' more to do with it. He had not obtained the sanction of the Council for alterations. The matter was left to Mr. Blackett and himself. There was no arbiternamed in the contract. Councillor Hunter then read from the original copy of the conditions of the contract that tho arbiter appointed was John Bhlckett, Assistant Engineer-in-Chief to the Government of New Zealand. Mr. Marchant said that was put in by the lawyer afterwards, and after the document bad been signed. He would take his oath that it was not there when the document was signed. Had it been, he would have run his pen through it. In reply to Councillor Diver Mr. Merchant said he could have had access to the document in the lawyer’s office. Councillor Diver : That is the document which would bind all parties, and which would be put in as evidence in a Court of Law. It is highly necessary that Mr. Blackett should be examined. Councillor Hunter said it was arranged to call Mr. Blackett. He was the party who was clearly appointed arbiter. Mr. Marchant, in reply to Mr. Hunter ; There should have been no reasonable doubt in the minds of tenderers at the time the contract was under tender as to where the materials could be taken from. By Councillor Diver : He had the schedule of items three or four days before issuing the certificate. He did not visit the ground to see whether the items were correct. He consulted the foreman about extras, and was furnished with his notes. • Councillor Fisher ; You are aware that the Corporation was very anxious about the supply of water, and that when the specifications were drawn out the 31st of December, 1877, was the closest limit of time by which the work could be carried out. You say that the work could have been finished by September. Is it not reasonable to suppose that tho engineer was very much out in his estimate, or that the work has not been faithfully performed by the contractor ? Mr. Marchant : No, that is not a reasonable assumption, though I never expected the work to be completed in tho time it was, I took notice in allowing claims for extras of the clause that no claim should be allowed tor extras for part* of the work which were absolutely neoeasary, though not mentioned in

the specifications. He did not generally put - his authorisation for extras in written form. Councillor Fisher then read one of the conditions of the contract, to the effect that nomoney should be paid for extras except -the work had been authorised in writing by the engineer. It was also stated that no alterations were to be made without the sanction of the Council. Mr. Marchant replied that in this matter he was vested with the full powers of the Council. The Waterworks stream was running at the rate of 300,000 gallons a day. It was not a mere dribble, though it might appear so. It was not a fact that some of the tenderers were £6ouo or £7OOO above Saunders’, because he told them that they would have to fetch material from a distance. Nearly all the alterations were made at the request of Mr. Blackett. By Councillor Macdonald: The items of the claim for extras amounted to £3900 odd. He did not keep an order book for extras. He gave instructions to the foreman. He had only a record made up by the inspector of the works returns. The Corporation never paid for extras monthly. That was the difference between the General Government and the Corporation. There was not a standard of charges among engineering men for a percentage upon extras in such works as the Waterworks contract, where a good deal of the work was underground. The figures in the items were not in point of fact Mr. Saunders’ figures. The foreman in charge was a competent man to measure the work. He had frequently checked his work, and found it correct. He would not say that the foreman was a sober man ; he might drink too much, but he had never noticed him drunk at the works. The whole of the work was not entrusted to the charge of a man -who' had a character for drunkenness. He (Mr. Marchant)' never missed two days in visiting the works within the past four months. He was often absent from the works through the preparation of the wharf plans. Piece-work did not require an engineer’s constant supervision. By Councillor Hdntbr : With regard to extras no order has ever been given in writing. At this stage of the proceedings the committee adjourned.