Published. Every Evening. GISBORNE: FRIDAY, DECEMBER 15, 1882.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume X, Issue 1226, 15 December 1882, Page 2

Published. Every Evening. GISBORNE: FRIDAY, DECEMBER 15, 1882.

The accusations, or rather insinuations, made in the Borough Council against the gentleman who holds the important office of Engineer to that body, Mr. John Drummond, are seriously damaging, and deserving of much grave attention and investigation at the hands of those under whose instructions he performs the functions of his office. Mr. Drummond it is asserted, passed as complete, a contract under which Mr. McDevitt, a contractor, had agreed for certain considerations to deposit a certain quantity of road material upon the Borough road between the Town boundary and Gladstone Road, known as Carnarvon Street, in all about 900 cubic yards. The contract was when completed as alleged by McDevitt submitted to Mr. Drummond, who after measurement, and making certain minor alterations, passed it as complete and certified to the Borough Council that McDevitt had completed his work, and was entitled to receive in full the considerations stipulated in the contract. At the time of the completion of the contract no objection is raised by any one as to the quantity or quality of the material deposited, and the road was allowed to remain open for traffic for several weeks, during which the weather was doubtless more than ordinarily severe, rain falling in large quantities, and high winds prevailing for a considerable portion of that time. Suddenly crops up a whisper among the Council, no one can tell whence it first arose, that the Carnarvon Street contract was a swindle, and that the Engineer had certified to a much larger supply of material than had actually been deposited by the contractor. From a whisper this intensified into rumour, and from a rumour grew daily, and attained vigor, strength, and stature, which at last culminated in what was once a whispered rumour being alleged as a positive fact. The Councillors to whose ears this rumour came in embryo, watched its growth day by day, I and witnessed the arrival at maturity of this i “ filius nullus,” not without anxiety. As in duty bound they mooted the question of enquiry into the facts, but it must be remembered that many weeks had elapsed since the completion of the contract before an actual determination to this effect was arrived at, but when arrived at, vigorous action was insisted upon and the services of Mr Tattley, an Engineer resident in Gisborne, were enlisted to measure the deposit which had been laying on Carnarvon-street exposed to rain, wind, and traffic, for weeks of varied weather. Mr Tattley in accordance with the wishes so expressed of the Borough Council, measured the material, and from the results of his measurement reported to that body that there was a deficiency of 461 cubic yards, or slightly above 50 per cent, of the amount of material stipulated in the contract to be delivered by McDevitt ; that contract being for 900 cubic yards, which Mr Drummond had certified to as having been duly delivered in completion of the contract. A discrepancy of 50 per cent. In a large contract such as this is naturally so startling as to surprise even those who were prepared to believe that even some deficiency existed, but the 50 per cent was enough to take their breath away, and it was felt that some serious steps must immediately be taken. Mr Tattley’s report

was read in the Borough Council, and Ml* Drummond was requested to give an exph> nation, for the purpose of hearing whion an extraordinary meeting of the Council was convened for Tuesday evening, 13th December, when the following reply from Mr Drummond was read ;—

“ Sir, —I have the honor to lay before you the following reply to the reports of the Public Works Committee ami Mr Tattley in ' reference to the Carnarvon Street contract. I shall first deal with Mr Tattley’s report. “Mr Tattley having taken 119 measurements of thickness and 48 widths, arrives at the conclusion that there is a deficiency of 461 cubic yards. “ The conclusion arrived at I consider together fallacious and in direct con.trav ention of facts, which will, I think, be V,orne out by the following statements : —I shall first reiterate the mode adopted during the progress of the contract, in order t. o check the quantity of shingle delivered. The shingle being laid in heaps, 1 inst ructed the Inspector to count the numbe r front the Gladstone Road to the termination of th* contract, near the town boundary. It Was found that between the Gladstone Road and and Childers Street 104 loads had been deI posited within a distance of fiJ chains. We, i the Inspector and myself, agreed that an i allowance of li cubic yardn to the load would be a fair average, making a total of 24 cubic yards to the chain, as against 26 according to the specification. I informed the contractor of our decision, who represented that we had underestimated the quantities, and upon again going over the heaps carefully with the contractor, I agreed to allow an extra 12 yards’ measurement. On the portion from Childers Roart to the termination of the contract near the town boundary, a deficiency of about 20 yards existed at the time of measurement, which deficiency I saw made good. “ From Gladstones Road to the Palmerston road I counted tb.e heaps, and found the numbers correct, but complained to the contractor that I considered the heaps were not so large as those on the south side. The contractor put on an an extra thickness on the places pointed out. From Palmerston road to Aberdeen road, the heaps were counted, and after going carefully over the shingle, I found it in excess of the quantity specified and agreed to recommend the extras asked for. Cr. Tutchen in a conversation with myself expressed his approval for some extras being allowed. “ I shall now proceed to give you my reason for protesting agaist Mr Tattley’s reference that because certain measurements gave certain results, that there must necessarily be a deficiency of 461 yards or somewhat over 50 per cent.

“Ist. Taking into consideration the loose nature of the seil and the light and pliable nature of the shingle, the weather, during the progress of, and after the completion of the works up to the date of inspection large allowances must be made for subsidence, compression and waste. The works from the date of completion to that of inspection were severely tested by the prevailing high winds and heavy rains which had the effect of considerable waste on the one hand, and a loosening of the sand contained in the shingle, which became amalgamated with that of the roadway. “The best authorities on road making allow one-third for compression on roads composed of blue or limestone rock ; my own experience of the soil and material here in use leads to the result that at least one-half should be allowed for the effect of weather, traffic, &c., and this is fully borne out by tests made all over the Borough. As an instance—in opening the Gladstone Road for the purpose of pipe-laying, I instructed the laborers to lay aside the shingle and metal so as to top dress ; out of a depth of eight inches of shingling which to my knowledge had been spread on the crossing, a cake of about 1 inch in thickness was all I could conserve ; and on the roadway out of a layer of broken metal 4 inches in thickness and 4 inches of beach shingle, a cake of conglomerate 4 inches thick was all that was obtained, the shingle having become completely ground into the interstices of the metal. “ The alleged deficiency in the width of the footpaths I do not consider of great importance as the full quantity of metal has been delivered to cover the 12 feet, and if the width is at present 3 inches less, then the 11 feet 9 inches has the benefit, but the deficiency in width can be largely accounted for by the outer edges becoming broken from the weather. I had at one time serious thoughts during the progress of the work—further reducing the width to 14 feet instead of 20 so as to afford a better basis for traffic. At the present width no alteration or reduction was made in the quantity contracted for at the 20 feet width. Mr Tattley is quite right in the deficiency of length of chains constructed, but wrong in his inference that the works should have heen carried to the town boundary. The error arose thus (and I may state that I was for some time puzzled to account for the discrepancy) the lengths were taken from the longitudinal section, which, of course, are continuous from the river to the town boundary, including the widths of all the cross streets. I omitted to deduct the widths of Gladstone and Childers Road, upon which no works have been done, from the whole length of contract which makes a difference of 2£ chains to be deducted. “For the reasons adduced I hold that no such deficiency as that stated by Mr Tattley exists, and that my mode of supervision and testing must be taken as far more accurate, fair, and equitable than the result arrived at by’either the P. W. Committee or Mr Tattley and that the state of the works at the time of the last inspection was so different from that at the time of completion that it now becomes a physical impossibility for anyone, an expert or otherwise, to arrive at an approximately correct estimate of the original quantity delivered. Mr Tattley does not touch on any further subject contained in the Public Works report as to defective formation, or excessive charge for filling in Derby-street drain. I, therefore, presume these were found satisfactory, or perhaps his instructions did not include these items. The Public Works report, as submitted to me for reply, contained a statement that 1000 cubic yards and upwards, was deficient, which was altered about an hour before the Council meeting, by the Chairman, to 500. Might I ask how the Chairman arrived at the amount of deficiency in the first place, and upon what grounds it was reduced to one-half.

“ Upon the amended report being read, Crs. Whinray and Tutchen spoke as fully endorsing the whole report, although they must have been ignorant of the alteration made bv the Chairman; by a parity of reasoning, had the Chairman increased the alleged deficiency from 1000 to 1500 yards, then the above Councillors would no doubt have still endorsed the correctness of the allegations made.

“ Referring to the discussion on Mr Tattley’s report by Cr. Tutchen and Cr. Clayton, surely Sir, it would be better for them or any other Councillors to bring forward specific charges on any other matter ip dispute. In conclusion, Sir, I hold it as most monstrous to suppose for a moment that I should have passed the work as completed, if such a discrepancy existed, nor is it pos sible that such does or can evist.

“John Drummond,Borough Engineer.” This reply is supported by a letter from the Cook County Engineer, Captain Winter, who unhesitatingly says that only a rough

apyroxiwatlon of the quantity g rave j could how be arrived at after a | a p Se o f time. A great deal of took place Mid not a little sarcastic reol -iminatton, on the reading of this the only person who really seemed fairly being Captain Tv z CK w } lo sa j f ] matter resolved itself into an accusation of conspiracy between the Engineer and Contractor to defraud the Council, and that accusatitVa was either true or untrue ; he believed it to be untrue. Mr. McDevitt plainly told the Council it was untrue, that his contract was completed and certified to ; that he wanted his money ; and that if hewere not at once paid he would sue the Council; the Council very wisely paid him, but what about Mr, Drummond? He is allowed to remain under a stigma of dishonesty unj til there sßoVld be a Council present to | investigate the matter. To our mind it was the duty of the Council to have held a special meeting at 9 o’clock the following morning to investigate the matter, from Which meeting they should never hava arisen until the charges against Mr. Drummond were either substantiated or disproved. What is their time compared to the agony caused to an honorable man by in accusation of dishonesty which he knows to be false? Mr, Drummond has long been resident in Gisborne; has been long a servant of the local bodies ; during that time has ever a single accusation of dishonesty been alleged against him ? Has he ever shewn himself incompetent as a professional man ? Has he ever been wilfully neglectful of the interests of the Council ? Is there any reason by which the Council should believe Mr Tattley’s report of what is, in preference to Mr Drummond’s report of what was ? Or, on the other hand, and here we come to grave charges also, but charges which the many-tongued rumour, which has its origin no man knows whence, has set afloat, is this grave charge of fraud and dishonesty merely set up as a means whereby to oust Mr Drummond from his position as Engineer ? We do not allege that it is ; we know not; we hope not ; hut the knowledge which we, in common with many residents of Gisborne, have of the cliquey feeling existing therein, which stops at nothing to attain its end, and bearing in mind the honorable and upright character borne by Mr Drummond hitherto, are fain to confess that there is a grave air of suspicion about it. Let enquiry be at once fully instituted. Let the evidence of experienced men be taken, and if it can be shewn that a fraud has been perpetrated, let the guilty ones suffer, but in (rod’s name, in the name of honor and probity, let no injustice be done to an honest citizen. Let not so much as the breath of slander injure the good repute of an innocent man, and if it be proved that any conspiracy has existed, or does exist, to oust Mr Drummond in favor of any one else, let those who have conspired so to do suffer the penalty they would fain have inflicted upon the Borough Engineer. “ Fiat justitia. ruit ccelum.