The New Zealand Times (PUBLISHED DAILY.) SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 21, 1878.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 5456, 21 September 1878, Page 2

The New Zealand Times (PUBLISHED DAILY.) SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 21, 1878.

Is tho House of yesterday, Mr. lliciiAUDfctON asked tho Minister for Public Works, AVhcthcr lie will, at an early date, lay before this House the flpwslllcalJons ami general conditions of contract submitted to contractors on which to base their tenders for constructimi of tho Tapanui railway; tho date of first udver isrment calling for tenders-; date for deposit of tenders; list of tenders sent in ; dato of accept unco of tender sent in hy .Messrs. T’roudfoot and McKay ; tho authority of Parliament on which tho Government have hicim*r«l tho present liability ; nnd whether any arrangement is made by which tho present contractors have.any preference for the contract for tlio proposed extension of the line 7 ; To tins Mr. Macanduew auwserod, I .have to thank the . honorable member for putting this question, because U cnibles mo to tell tho House tho Government have nothing whatever to conceal in tho matter, all its proceedings in relation thereto having been thoroughly bona tide and aboveboard. I now lay on tho table tho specifications and general conditions of contract submitted to tho contractors on which to bate thelf tenders, and the date of the flrot advertise-

ment calling for. tenders, and dato for deposit cf tenders, list of tenders sent in, and data of acceptance of tender of Messrs.M’roudfoot and McKay. With regard to the authority under which the Government incurred liability, I may say no present liability lias been incurred. The liability is entirely prospective, nob coming into operation until two years hence. The--authority under which we ac ed is a resolution of this House, which the h:>n. member will recollect was passed last year ; and I hope under the authority of a Bill which will shortly be passed through this House.': (A laugh.)’ The line will appear in the schedule, to ! the Railway Construction Bill. • AVith'regavd to the last question, as to “whether any arrangement is 1 made hy which the present contractors have any preference for the contract for the proposed extension of the line," I would wish t 7 ** say no such arrangement exists witt& tlio present contractor or with any other contractor! 'The thing' is- perfectly absurd. Any Government which entered Into such an arrangement if not liable at any rate would deserve impeachment. Our statement of the case is confirmed by tho Minister for Public Works. The. resolution moved by Mr. Bastings as amended by the committee of the House of Representatives, which approved, of the setting apart of laud of tho value of £50,000, is the only authority which the Government can show for entering into a contract for tho expenditure of £01,500 of tho money of tho people on the work of making a certain portion of the Tapanui line. This money must come out'of tho Consolidated Revenue. The tender of Mr. Pboudfoot was accepted, as we said originally, whilst the Parliament was in session, viz., on the 30th July last, —the day after the period fixed in the advertisement as being the last day for receiving tenders, —and not, as Ministers said in their newspaper, a day or two before the session. Not a word of this contract having been made was said to tho representatives of the people until tho 27th August, when, in the Public Works Statement, it was announced in an involved and not yet quite intelligible style, that “as regards “the branch Hue Waipahi to Heriot “ Burn it will be recollected that last ses- “ sion tho House decided that the branch .“should be constructed as far as Tapanui. “It voted, no money for the work, but “ resolved that it should be paid for out “ of land to be set aside for tho pur- “ pose. I am pleased to say that that “ branch is now under way.” In the schedule of works proposed for the future we find two items, viz.: Tapanui extension to Heriot Burn, 10 miles, £40,000 ; Tapanui to Heriot Burn, 101; miles, £40,000. In Mr. Maoandhbw’s resolution, which,,as we have shown, was negatived by the House of Representatives without a division, the lino is mentioned as a branch from “ Waipahi to Tapanui.” In Mr. Bastings’ resolution the railway mentioned is from Tapanui to Waipahi. In neither is there any mention of Heriot Burn. An inspection of the map attached to tlie Public Works Statement shows that the main line from Clinton crosses the Waipahi ; the distance from the main line to Tapanui scales apparently lOi to I<l miles. Uhder any circumstances, then, no larger project than this branch of 101- miles from Waipahi to Tapanui was even considered by the committee of the House of Representatives. But it appears that tho contract made with Mr. Pboudfoot is for a greater length of line, and for a very much larger sum of money than was ever mentioned in Parliament; and thus, even supposing that tho resolution of the committee, which Mr, Maoandukw erroneously calls a resolution of the House, did give a certain authority, that authority has been grossly and . deliberately' exceeded.

But wo persist in thinking that the resolution of a committee of tho House of Representatives is not a resolution of tho Parliament of New Zealand, and that the money of the people can be lawfully appropriated only by an Act of the Legislature. The Government, have undertaken to pay to the contractors £01,500 from the Consolidated Fund for a work which was not authorised by Parliament, of which indeed one portion was not even mentioned. It is a fraud-of language to say that because the Government have given an engagement to pay the money in two years it is not a “ present” liability. Mr.. Pboudfoot knows better. He may possibly know that as there was no legal authority to make such a contract there is no legal liability on the part of tho Crown, but havingcoveredhisriskin the item of “ contingencies” ho, no doubt, sees his way. But ho also probably feels that the colony would, for its own honor, take the responsibility for the act of its servants, the Ministers, and that whatever punishment might be infliptod upon tho perpetrators of the wrong, ho (tlio co'ntractor) would certainly get paid for the work which ho had done, and compensation for that wjiich he might be prevented from doing.' Tho conduct of the Government in this business is wholly inexcusable, and, to borrow Mr. Mauandbbw’s words, if they are not liable to impeachment for it they most certainly deserve it. One can -imagine the agonies of virtuous indignation into which Sir Gbobgf. Obey would have been thrown last year, and how Mr. Rees would have stormed in concert, if there had been even the suspicion of such official misconduct on tho part of the late Government as is now confessed on the part of his own Government.