WATERWORKS CONTRACT INVESTIGATION COMMITTEE.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 5265, 7 February 1878, Page 2

WATERWORKS CONTRACT INVESTIGATION COMMITTEE.

The above committee met yesterday afternoon at four o’clock. There were present— Councillors Hunter (chairman), Macdonald, Logan, and Fisher. The following letter was read from Mr. Blackett . “ Sir,—in reference to your letter, of the 16th iust., to which I replied stating that before advising ins Worship the Mayor as to the completion of the Waterworks extension contract I should take further time to examine the state of th« works, T have the honor to state that, having done so, I am now able to report satisfactorily as to their progress. The pipe culvert has been closed, and water is now being stored in the new reservoir.: The engineer is employed in pressing forward the remaining items of work, no great amount of which now remains to be completed. I do not think that the proposal to engage another engineer to superintend the remainder of the work would be attended with any satisfactory, result. Air. Alarchant should be present to complete. everything as quickly as possible, and I shall, with the concurrence of the Alayor, make a point of giving as much time as I cair spare to aid him iu his desire to bring the works to a speedy completion.—l have, &0., “John Blackett. “0. O. Graham, Esq., Town Clerk.” Air. Graham (town clerk) produced the ■letters which had passed between the Alayor and Air. .Hutchison with reference to, the return of the £2970 for extras. Air. Graham stated the Alayor had asked him to see. Air, Saunders aud explain that he (Air. Dransfield) did not refuse to hold the cheque through any doubts as to Mr. Saunders’ solvency, or as to the value of the cheque. Air. Saunders expressed himself satisfied, and stated that from the first he intended that the money should be paid into - the Corporation account. The cheque had since been.paid. In answer to the Chairman, Air. Graham stated that practically no payment has been made for extras up to the present time. The Chairman stated that he had received a letter from Air. Cromble, in reply to certain charges which had been made against him at a meeting of, the committee. As he (the chairman) had ruled that Air. Crombie could not reply, he thought it would only be fair to him that the letter should be read. The committee concurred, and the following letter was then read : “ Wellington, 4th February, 1873. “ Sir, —I will be much obliged if you will allow this letter to be read to the committee, as au answer to the statements made by Councillor Fisher. “ The paragraphs altered by Councillor Fisher in the evidence of the witnesses numbered 58 at the least, and I believe all the alterations were made after the evidence was signed. In Air. Hester’s there were 3, in Mr. Page's 14, iu Councillor Alaodonald’s 17, in Mr. Chappie’s 1, in Councillor Moss’s 1, and in Mr. Saunders’s 22. , “ Nearly all are iu questions put by Councillor Fisher. I have not examined each carefully to see its real bearing, but many are not by any means trivial. “ Some questions and answers have been entirely struck out by Councillor Fisher. “The cost of correcting alterations which were not discovered until the evidence had been printed is at the least £1 Is. “ Councillor Fisher asked me not to say anything about the addition he made on page 1 of Councillor Macdonald’s evidence; but I dissented, and clearly gave him to understand that Councillor Macdonald’s attention would be drawn to it wben the evidence was printed. “ Before I spoke to any member of the committee on the matter, I told Councillor Fisher that his alterations could not be allowed, and he had better see Councillor Macdonald and arrange that the affair should not come up publicly, as it would tend to throw a doubt upon the whole proceedings. Before the meeting I told ths Chairman, but not Councillor Alaodonald ; however, I am of opinion that I would have been quite justified in asking the clerk to call a special meeting to consider what had been done, directly I discovered it. “ Councillor Fisher in a note to the committee says, some person had the impertinence to ‘ erase his corrections.’ The fact is, the ‘ impertinence ’ was committed by the instructions of the Chairman. Aloreover, at the private meeting of the committee Councillor Fisher, in answer to me, said he had not corrected any errors. “ Aly attention was first drawn to the alterations other than that on pago 1 of Councillor Macdonald’s evidence, by the foreman printer at the New Zealand Times office, who was in doubt as to how a part of the altered evidence should be set. “ Had it not been for the fact that it was arranged that I should revise the evidence when printed— an unusual thing for a shorthandwriter to do—it would have been published as altered. “ I may add, although it is really unnecessary to do so, that I did not give the information on which the subleader in the Argus appears to have been founded. “ I have been neither ‘ fussy’ nor ‘ meddlesome ’ in this matter, but on the contrary was reticent, and in answer to great numbers of questions rather made light of the whole affair. But after Councillor Fisher’s attack on Friday I have been compelled to take another course. “ It was clearly my duty to protect the witnesses by seeing that no alterations were made ia the evidence after it had been signed. “ Perhaps the committee would go through the manuscript, and judge for themselves as to the nature and extent of Councillor Fisher’s alterations. Hehas declared most positively that alterations made by Councillor Logan had been allowed to pass. That ia entirely incorrect, and is au utterly unfounded assertion. Councillor Logan never wrote one word on tho manuscript, and no alteration has been made at bis suggestion. " I desire it to ha borne in mind that I did nothing to bring the matter before the public

until after Councillor Fisher’s conduct at Friday’s meeting, and lam not his accuser. Any action X have taken has been in self-defence, and in reply to an unprovoked and most cowardly attack, made after you, sir, had ruled that I had no right to reply.—Yours, &c., “On as. M. Ckombie. “ The Chairman, “Waterworks Investigation Committee." - Councillor Macdonald moved that the letter be incorporated with the proceedings of the committee. Councillor FiSQER intimated that he would reply by letter, and ho hoped that the two papers that were not under the influence of the contractors* ring would publish it. The Chairman said it was not his intention to have made any remarks, but after the observations which had fallen from Vlr. Fisher be felt bound to state that in his opinion Mr. Crombie had done his duty to the committee in a highly satisfactory manner. His reputation had been attacked, and he had no alternative but defend himself. Councillor Macdonald said that from the first a great deal had been said about a contractor's ring. It was highly desirable that the members of the committee should be free from suspicion. It had been stated in a public manner that Mr. Fisher had received £lO from Mr. Saunders on account of some notice which had appeared of the first Waterworks contract in a local paper. It was further stated that Mr. Fisher bad asked Mr. Saunders for a loan of £SO, which, however, he did not get. In justice to Mr. Fisher he brought the matter forward, to give him an opportunity of making An explanation. Councillor Fisheu said he thought it better to answer the charges by letter, as he felt that the Chairman had treated him in an exceptional manner. He had not been allowed the game latitude as other members of the committee. The Chairman had frequently ruled him out of order, whilst Councillor Macdonald had just been allowed to repeat a foul slander against him. Councillor Macdonald said he had brought the matter forward in the interest of Mr. Fisher, and simply with a desire of having the matter explained. Councillor Fisher then stated that it was an absolute falsehood that he had received £lO from Mr. Saunders for writing anything In connection with the Waterworks. The time he was building his house he got into difficulties through the contractor failing to carry out the work. Mr. Saunders expressed sympathy for him, and uninvited offered to lend him £SO. About a week afterwards be met Mr. Saunders, and asked him to lend the sum promised ; but he wanted an endorsed bill, and he (M r . Fisher) informed him that be would not then have the money on any account. That was the simple history of the affair. Three years afterwards the matter had been brought up by a person who would not have the manliness to repeat it before him. He would like to have the man who slandered him in his possession for a quarter of an hour. The Chairman said he had frequently been placed in a difficult position in conducting the inquiry, but he had endeavored to act fairly and impartially, and to the best of his ability had done »o. The committee agreed that it was not necessary to call further evidence.