OUR LETTER BOX.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume XLVI, Issue 106, 9 May 1904, Page 4

OUR LETTER BOX.

- ♦ (We are at all times willing to publish correspondence on mattors of public interest, but it must be distinct ly understood that we are not identified with the letters of our correspondents.—Ed. Daily News.) : lIQ|:ANI)ERING ITDLIC MONEYj EC! MONT ROAD. (To the Editor.) Sir,—Living in the backblocks of New Plymouth, where 1 occasionally get your paper, 1 notice in to-day's issue a report of the annual meeting of the F.gmont Road Hoard. The speakers seem to lie .lames R. Hill and William Stanley, who are evidently very close allies, and did ul! the talking, such as it is. I was mush surprised, hut at the same time gratified, to find that they had "buried the hatchet," though possibly it may be a matter of policy on Mr Hill's part to propitiate his present associate, Mr Stanley, to save perhaps being "dammed" at some future factory meeting. The two in the course of their criticism of work done for the board at the upper (lower) end of the road by Mr Skeltou. say that the work is badly done. If all the work previously done by one of the complainants on Egmont Road had been done as well and conscientiously as Mr Skeltou has done his, the road by Rishop's wotdd not show the big boulders—really dangerousjutting above the surface of the road. I don't think Mr Skeltou did or would offer to pay the surfaceman sixpence a day more than the wages paid by the board to put the boulders out of sight, when they should have been broken. Mr J. R. Hill may In- an expert in resuscitating ancient jokes and worn-out puns, but his knowledge of road work is infinitely small. 1 only wonder that two such heaven-born engineers did not try and take the place of the ■duffers" like the Egmont Itoad Hoard. A grievance formulated byMr Hill for his friend Mr Stanley is that Mr lluckthought and myself let a contract to Mr Stanley verbally, anil afterwards had the work done by day work, .Mr Hill should lie more certain of his facts before he makes such mis-statements. The facts are that the work in question was open for tender for some months hut nobody seemed to want work. At last a certain firm of contractors, seeing we were stuck, put in a tender for the work for over £IOO. This was put aside as exorbitant. Another party then otTcred to do the work for £OO. This was considered excessive. The board then resolved to have the work done by day work, and Mr lluckthought and myself were authorised to get it done. Then it seems that Mr Stanley wanted a job, and he gave Mr lluckthought a tender for over £SO. We considered I his too much, but as the work was pressing 1 arranged to see the other members, and we came to the conclusion to do it by day labour as previously resolved. I sent Mr Stanley a note, telling him what we had resolved. The day men were put on, and the result was that the work MiStanley wanted to do for £SO was well done for less than half the money. As for Mr Hill's grievance that the board did not put a fence where he wished and also give him gravel at the ratepayers' expensewell, it is like the child crying for the top brick ofi* the chimney.—l am, Wm. HALE, One of the Squanderers. Dorset Road, May 0.