The Telephone. PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. GISBORNE, FRIDAY, JANUARY 11, 1884. THE WHARF CONTRACT.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume I, Issue 37, 11 January 1884, Page 2

The Telephone. PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. GISBORNE, FRIDAY, JANUARY 11, 1884. THE WHARF CONTRACT.

A letter appeared in a previous issue, under the above heading, containing some most startling facts to persons unacquainted with the official proceedings referred to; but we were rather prepared for the revelation, seeing that, at a late meeting, the strange and reprehensible proceedings were the subject of much discussion. Dealing first with the letter referred to, we find that the writer says:—• “ Having carefully examined the plans and specifications for the new wharf,

I.fel't much surprise on seeing the bill of extras presented by the Engineer to the Board to pass for payment, and on subsequently going down to the wharf was still more surprised to find that some of the work against items in the bill (had they been legitimate extras) wete tiot even began. The first item, £35, is for an Alteration in the sheet-piling, which was in itself an advantage to the contractor, and, therefore/ should not be paid for fis an extf-a. The second itetid, £1 165., for joists, is part and parcel of the contract, and iiot an extra. Third item, £0 125., for landing, is clehrly itriplied in the specification, and could not be called an extra without a considerable straining of that important document, together with the general conditions of contract. Fourth items £5, for packing, is a useless expenditure that could easily have been avoided, Fifth item-—the earthwork in this item is also part of the contract. The sixth and last item, £8 Is.-, is the only legitimate extra in the bill.” Well might the Writer feel surprised that the Engineer could fe'cbmmend such a bill to the Harbor Board for payment, and state that the work was done to his satisfaction ; but there is a probability that the Board’s servant — Who may not be properly qualified for the work he has undertaken—thought he »u doing right in passing the Work. It is very evident that there is something radically wrong in connection with the wharf contract; either the Engineer is acting dishonestly—which we do not think is the case — or he is laboring under a wrong impression. Now this is a most serious matter. The public, in their confidence, have elected certain gentlemen to manage the affairs of the Borough—and also, of course, the haiodrworks; and they naturally expect their representatives to carefully watch over the Interests of the ratepayers. Granted that the wrong man was selected unwittingly to superintend the carrying out of the harbor-works, there have been plenty opportunities of late, we should think, for the Board to arrive at a just estimate of the abilities of their servants, and put a stop to public money being thrown away with impunity. There is no disguising the fact that there is something radically wrong about the wharf contract, and we hope the matter will be thoroughly gone into, so that the public may understand how the rates are being expended, and whether the Board’s servants are competent to perform their duties or not.