The Oamaru Mail. MONDAY, MAY 3, 1880.

Oamaru Mail, Volume IV, Issue 1270, 3 May 1880, Page 2

The Oamaru Mail. MONDAY, MAY 3, 1880.

Mb. Gbobge Matthews has lodged a complaint with as that lie has been deprived, through the mismanagement of the Government inspector, of a portion of the payment justly due to him from the Government on account. of an.- earthwork cutting which he partially performed on the Windsor-Livingstone fine/ Suspecting some inaccuracy in .the inspector's computation,* he* toys that he employed two competent men to check his measurements, the result being that he found that whilst the -insnector's estimate was 1924, the estimate of the persons whom he em--plo"9d was 2309 cubic Mr. Matthews also informs us that when the works were abandoned in the'"'middle of February last, he waited upon Mr. Fraser I for payment, and that on that occasion that gentleman told him that he should have an opportunity of resuming work on the cutting.which he had commenced; that, hearing that the works had been recommenced, he. proceeded to the inspec-.. tor's office at Windsar, and was there met by-the clerk and the time-keeper; that he requested information regarding the cut-, ting, and was told that it hid been let toa Mr. M'Minnamin, a contractor who had previously undertaken a' cutting in connection with the same works, but which was not completed when-the works- were stopped that he expressed astonishment that Mr. Fraser had broken faith with him, and asked whether .the cutting had been re-commenced, and that he received a reply that it had not; Weare not going to argue whetheror not it was just that Mr. Matthews should have been superseded by Mr. M'Minnamin. But there is something very singular about the management of the construction of this line. We neverbear of any tenders being invited, for any of the work. _ This. appears to .us. to be improper, and places the officers in .charge in an invidious position. For instance, people will naturally ask themselves the question, how it is that this work was taken from Mr. Matthews and given to Mr. M'Minnamin. If the latter was prepared, to do it on terms more favorable to the Government, how is it that Mr. Mathuw* was not apprised of the fact and given an opportunity of undercutting his opponent? We. do not for a moment argue that Mr. Mathews had any right to resume the cutting, although Mr. Fraser, it appears, promised that he should do~so. ' What we say is that if the principle of giving work to the man that offers to do it at the lowest price is recognised as just to contractors and advantageous to the Government, Mr: Mathews should have been afforded an opportunity of tendering, or, better still, .the system invariably adopted, by the Government and public bodies — that of advertising for tenders—should have been adopted. By any other system of treating public works, not only- is it likely that the Government may be made to pay extortionate rates for work done, but even the most honorable officers may be tempted to act with favoritism towards friends. The other matter—that of the j measurement—calls for some investigation. The discrepancy between the two estimates is considerable, and, as we are. I not ot those who view Government officials as being infallible, we think that when any dispute of this kind arises, the Government should see that it is settled by having another and authoritative computation made.