The New Zealand Times (PUBLISHED DAILY.) MONDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 1878.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 5262, 4 February 1878, Page 2

The New Zealand Times (PUBLISHED DAILY.) MONDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 1878.

There appears to be an impression in certain quarters that there is after all only a (inference of some five hundred pounds between Mr. Blackett's estimate of “extras” on the Waterworks contract and Mr. Makchant’s, but the impression is founded on a very slight knowledge of the various matters connected with this famous contract, and particularly of the evidence given before tho Committee of Investigation. The subject is somewhat involved; however this much has clearly boon brought out, that tho £2970 cheque for extras given to Mr. Saunders was simply an amount paid on account, and could in no way be taken to be the estimate of Mr. Marchant of tho sum total for “extras” on the contract. His own evidence before tho committee of investigation is clear and explicit enough, al least ou this point. In the first week in December last Mr. Saunders sent in a claim for £3909 to the Waterworks Engineer, for “ extras.” A day or two afterwards, on tho certificate of Mr. Marchant, he received a cheque for £2970, or £IOOO less than tho amount of the claim. Mr. Blackett’s estimate of tho full amount of “extras” up to tho end of January is £2487. Hence, by a simple method of substruction, the very knotty problem of tho “extras” is solved, and it is made to appear by Mr. Marchant’s friends that he was only out in his calculations to the extent of £COO. However, the above is an utterly fallacious way of arriving at the truth on this particular question, and could only have boon resorted to by those who had a very imperfect acquaintance with the various matters which have been brought to light by the labors of the Investigation Committee. Mr. Marchant should be a very good witness as to the amount he himself considered would have to be paid to Mr. Saunders for “extras” on tho contract, and from Mr. Marchant’s own words we undertake to prove that tho certificate for £2970 was merely a payment on account, and could not be taken as an estimate of the amount to which the conti actor was justly entitled. When Mr. Marchant was giving evidence before the committee, Councillor Macdonald asked, in reference to tho certificate for the £2970, “Do I understand that you did not go over every item in tho schedule before issuing your certificate, but you

looked at it, and deemed that by taking £IOOO oft - you would be on the safe side?” To this Mr. Merchant replied: “No; I gave £3OOO on account of that, and when Mr. Blackett comes back the whole question of extras will be gone into and closed up.” The answer is somewhat ambiguous ; but this much is apparent, that the Waterworks Engineer considered that a further sum would have to be paid to Mr. Saunders. Mr. Marchant stated that he had some items to put in as a set-off against the claim for extras ; but the charge of £lOll, as an extra on the pipe culvert, could not have been taken into consideration by him, for that, item alone would make up the difference between the claim and the amount certified to. Mr. Saunders also stated in his evidence that the £2970 was paid on account. It will be remembered that Mr. Marchant issued certificates to the extent of £16,000 on the main contract, although the contractor was only entitled to receive 75 per cent, on the amount of his tender till such time as the work was completed and passed. Tho Engineer was asked to explain why he had given certificates to tho extent of £16,000, when Mr. Saunders was only entitled, according to the terms of the contract, to about £12,900. That was after the cheque for £2970 had been paid. He replied that he had still guarded the Corporation to the extent of £3OOO. Now, this answer affords a tolerably fair idea of what Mr. Marchant considered would be the amount for “extras.” There would be owing on the general contract £1195, and Mr. Saunders, therefore, would, according to Mr Marchant’s estimate, be entitled to a further sum of £IBOS for extras. Mr. Blackett’s report shows that the contractor has been already paid £SOO in excess of his legitimate claims. The Consulting Engineer’s report is to tho effect that the contractor is only entitled to £2487 14s. for extras up to the 30th January, which, added to the sum for the original contract, amounts to £19,682. Up to the first week in December last, ’ the Waterworks Engineer had certified fori payments to Mr. Saunders to the extent; of £18,970, and gave it as his opinion that: the Corporation still held back £3OOO from the contractor. Mr. Blackett, on the 30th January, proves that Mr. Saunders is only entitled to the sum of £712, both on the main contract and extras, above the amount which had been certified to by Mr. Marchant before tho ’ 6th December, although the contractor has been doing extra , work, in . the meantime.' This much may be gathered from the evidence given before the Investigation Committee, that Mr. Marchant believed that ■ the total sum to be paid to Mr. Saunders for the main contract and extras would be £21,970 ; Mr. Blackett’s figures are £19,682. Tho difference between these two. sums is £2288, : which represents the difference between the calculations for “extras” in Mr. Blackett’s report, and the amount which was estimated by Mr. Marchant. There were other large claims to bo brought forward by Mr. Saunders for extras, but after Mr. Blackett’s report, it is not likely that the City Council will hear anything more about them. We have refrained from comment;, being content to let the facts speak for themselves. When the inquiry is concluded we will take another opportunity of referring to the subject.