THE Temuka Leader. TUESDAY, JULY 26, 1892. ILLEGAL CONDUCT OF THE HARBOR BOARD.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2387, 26 July 1892, Page 2

THE Temuka Leader. TUESDAY, JULY 26, 1892. ILLEGAL CONDUCT OF THE HARBOR BOARD.

Wrni characteristic indecency ,the majority of the Titnaru Harbor lioatci. decided at their last meeting to call a special meeting to receive tenders for the shingle-shifting apparatus. They might very well have waited until the usual monthly meeting. They have acted with sufficient insolence &!i#.&.a l dy to disgust the whole district, without going to-the extent of wasting money "in this way. Meetings cannot be held without an expenditure of money, for country members must he paid their expenses ; but evidently these people do not care so long as they can carry their point. They have already defied public opinion ; they have shown the contempt for their cou-

stituents, but perhaps that ought, to be forgiven them on the ground that they know not what they are doing. Decently they sent Home to a gentleman in England —Darling, we believe, is his name—authority to call for tenders on their behalf, and cable out to them such tender or tenders as he should think fit. Now we should like to ask them Who gave them authority to deputeMrDarlingto receive tenders on their behalf, or by what right, have they done this ? They certainly have no such right by law. Their powers with regard to contracts are defined by clauses 65, (56, 67, and 68 ol the Harbors Act, 1878, and these give them no power to depute anyone to receive tenders on their behalf, neither do they allow telegraphic tenders to be accepted. Clause 65 simply says that they may enter into contracts, but Clause 66 says that “ Every such contract shall be in writing, and shall specify the work to be done or executed, and the materials to be furnished, and the price to be paid for the same, and the time or times within which the work is to be completed, and the penalties to be suffered in case of non-performance thereof, or other the nature and terms of the contract entered into. The power hereby granted to the Board to enter into contracts may lawfully be exercised as follows, that is to say : Any contract which if made between private persons would be by law required to be in writing and under seal, the Board may make in writing and under the common seal of the Board, and in the same manner may vary or discharge the same. Any contract which if made between private persons would be by law required to be in writing signed by the parties to be charged therewith, the Board may make in writing signed by the members thereof, or any two of their number acting by the direction and on behalf of the Board, andinthesamemanner may vary or discharge the same. Any contract which if made between private persons would be by law valid although made by parol only and not reduced into writing, the members of the Board, or any two of them acting by the direction and on behalf of the Board, may make by parol only, without writing, and in the same manner may vary or discharge the same: Provided that any agreement made by parol only shall not be valid for any sum exceeding ten pounds.” Clause 67 reads ;“ No contract the amount whereof exceeds fifty pounds shall, except in cases of emergency, be made except after public tender, of which public notice shall be given ; but the Board shall not be compelled to accept the lowest tender.” Clause 68 simply gives the Board power to compound for a breach of contract.

Now do these clauses give power to the Board to depute anyone to call for tenders for them ? Most certainly they do not. The Act provides for the appointment of an agent to raise a loan on their behalf, and to sign monetary instruments, but it gives them no power to appoint anyone to call for tenders and receive them. As will be seen in the clause quoted above, the tenders must be in writing, and they shall fully specify everything appertaining thereto.. Can it be said that tenders held in London by Mr Barling will comply with these conditions ? Is it not possible that a mistake may be made in transmission by cable '? Will such tenders bear the signatures of the tenderers as required by law‘. J What proof will the Board have that these tenders wore advertised for, as required by law '? In fact, will they be in a position to prove that one single condition insisted upon by the Act lias been complied with '? Then, bow cun they attach the common seal of the Board to a telegram'? and as they gave Mr Darling discretionary power to vary the specifications. What position will they be in to know what modifications he may make ? It will be seen that po one has power to vary any contract except the Board, or any turn members thereof acting by the Board’s direction, yet Mr Darling has this power. At any rate it was understood at the meeting that be would have this power, because when fault was foqnd with the specifications it was said that each tenderer would provide specifications with his tender. Even the first clause in the special conditions drawn up by the Board, and under under which tenders are to be received, contemplates this, for it says ; “ This specification and the plan accompanying same is (we are not responsible for the grammar) to be considered as a genera) guide only, and should any medication be required therein //. is to be

effected by the builder.” The second clause of the same conditions demands that the contractor shall supply the Board as soon as possible after the acceptance of the fender with complete detailed working plans,” etc, etc. Now mark this ; The Board in effect says to thetenderer: “'These an? ft}, an specifications, and, if they don t salt yon, y(JH my- alter them to suit yourself; and, when .•*« l/apn UffPjfi,ed, your tender, without hariny the yhusi aj an idea as to what alterations yon hare made, yon can then let ns see what sort „f a ressel yon are yointy to hndd for tis,’ : TfctS h? business-like, is it not? It reminds ns (if the Yankee statesman who said “ Them's my septiinepts, and if they don’t suit you’ they pan be altered.” Now supposing the contractor produces an inferior article, end tk’P Board thinks tit to go to law with him, i>vh# then? The contractor’s lawyer wjii ycry soon find that the whole thing was illegal and will snap Ids fingers at the Board. Tin’s is a serious point.

Now to put it in a practical way, these fcflse specifications have gone to Mr .John JtaTiiug; on the strength of them tenders will be tabled out, the Board will not know what modifications may be made, but will bind the district to pay for anything that may be supplied to 'tycm. Will this comply with the conditions insisted upon by the Act as quoted above ’/ Wc say

it. will not: we say that it is entirely illegal, and we advise the minority of the Board to consult a lawyer as to their responsibilities as members of a public body, which tramples the law under foot in this manner. We are not in a position to say whether members can be made personally liable or not for illegal actions, but this we feel certain of. In next February a new Board will be elected, and that Board can, if it likes, repudiate the illegal actions of its predecessors. The district is almost unanimously opposed to the action of the present Board, and it is more than probable that a new Board will repudiate sooner than pay £1(5,000 for what they do not want. In that case, who will the contractors come on for damages? We shall not take on ourselves the responsibility of saying that members will be personally liable, but we warn the minority that they would do well to know exactly their position, and if they find that they run any risk, we should advise them to resign before a tender is accepted.