Untitled

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume XI, Issue 1370, 18 October 1883, Page 2

At the Harbor Board meeting on Tuesday evening two letters were read from different contractors asking that some consideration be shown for mistakes which had been made in tendering for certain public work. The first one was from Mr Prim, and stated that he had made a mistake in casting up for the Tariff Board, and had only counted 800 letters instead of 1,800. Member Tutchen immediately proposed that the mistake be allowed for. This proposition was carried. The next communication was from the proprietor of this journal asking the Board to consider a matter in connection with printing the Harbor Board Bye-laws. When the specifications and samples of the works required to be contracted for were shown to our manager, he formed the mistaken idea that the Government Harbor Regulations, comprising some eight pages would be supplied by the Government aud that he would only be required to bind them in with the Bye-laws. Tins proved to be an erroneus idea and he accordingly took the ordinary business course of asking the Board to consider the matter. Now we find no fault with the decision of the Board, but on the contrary, are compelled to say that they dealt with the matter strictly in accordance with their responsibilities. Had the Board departed from the strict conditions of the contract they would undoubtedly have committed a great error and injustice not alone against the ratepayers but also against all those who at any time desire to tender for public works. But what we call attention to is the different manner in which the tw similar applications are dealt with. In the first instance Member Tutchen, (who is so particularly solicitous about the ratepayers pockets where the Standard is concerned), at once agrees to rectify the mistake made, but when we appear on the scene with a far more reasonable excuse, Member Tutchkn immediately moves that the claim be ignored and that the contract be strictly enforced. On looking at the contract price it will be plainly seen by the very low figure of the tender (and which was remarked by Member Townley), that we undoubtedly misunderstood the terms. The widely different results of the two applications tend most clearly to prove that considerations otner than that of concern for the ratepayers pockets, sways the “ Public Guardian.”) In this matter as also in th’ 1 one previously mentioned, the conduct of Member Tucker, (who refrained to vote on the question) showed the immense superiority of intellect, nvei ignorance. “ Ho.ior to whom honor is due.”