THE TAPUAE CONTRACT AGAIN.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume L, Issue 60, 3 September 1907, Page 2

THE TAPUAE CONTRACT AGAIN.

The Tapuae contract still continues to create its "divarshuu" at the County Council meetings. Tlie following letter, handed ill (without signature) by Mr Hurtle Harford, was before the Council yesterday:—"ileferring to tile contract with your Council which 1 recently completed for tlic deviation o£ the Main Soutli road at Tapuae, and which has resulted in very serious loss to nie, I beg to inform you that I claim from your Council the sum of £4OO in ;v: * pect of losses suffered by me owing to three washouts which occurred while the work was in progress. The cir-, cumstanccs of the washouts are, no doubt, familiar to your Council, and 1 do not therefore propose to go into details at present, but I can assure you' tliat as the result of the washouts 1 I'm a loser by the contract to a very much greater extent than the amount of my claim. X have already made a claim | upon the County for £G33 for extra filling required by the county's engineer and should be glad to receive payment of both amounts as early as possible. I trust your Council may see its way to pay the amounts which I have chimed, but in the event of there being any disagreement as to the amounts I would suggest that the question be left to Oie arbitration of two arbitrators and an ■ umpire as provided by ''The Arbitrc. ition Act, 1890."'

The engineer reported that Mr Har-j ford was entitled to .CIS 12s Cd, and recommended payment of that amount.] The chairman said that ho had, in company with the engineer and Mr Montefiore, gone fully into the matter of Harford's claim. He considered that if the engineer's recommendations were! carried out, the contractor would have absolutely nothing to complain about. He was opposed to any arbitration. There was nothing for tho Council to arbitrate about.

Or Adlam thought the solicitor should be consulted before any payment was /made.

Cr. Tate moved tliat Mr Harford be paid £127 12s Cd, provided the county solicitor approves. Cr. Andrews could not see why there should be such a claim for extras. In spite of the engineer's statement to I Jig contrary, ho {Cr. Andrews) was convinced that the'' specifications had been carried out.

Mr Skinner (engineer) explained some I of the extras. There was a culvert, for instance. Then thoro was the difference between the cost of "packing" Ihe filling and allowing the earth to take the natural run. These extras were the result of the recommendations of the Omata members. Cr. Andrews wanted to know if it was intended to metal the filling as it was now, or to raise it. He moved that the filling he raised by six feetCr. Adlam seconded pro forma, in order to point out that raising would mean great expense in widening In answer to Cr. I-lopson, Mr Skin* ner said that to raise it six feet would give a roadway of only six feet wide on the top. The cost would be about

£3OO. Cr. Tate said the Council could not afford this expense. The deviation and filling would be a great improvement on the old order of things. The engineer asked to be allowed to explain that he could not build a permanent bridge for tho amount of (lie contracts, filling and tunnel, probably about £IBOO.

The chairman said that the engineer had carried out tho Council's instructions to lie econo|mieal. The motion was lost. Cr. Andrews asked if the Council was going to continue paying 12s a day (wet and dry) to tho overseer at puae. Ho saw from the returns thitj it cost the Council £l4 8s to supervise i £4O worth of labor last month. lie moved that the overseer be paid only on working days. Cr. George, wliilst opposing tlie .notion, seconded pro forma. The work was lieing done very economically, at somowhere about 6d or fid a yard. The Barrett Road Board had paid Td and Sd. The cJiairman assured tlie Council that some of the work was done at less than (id a yard. The motion was lost.