THE PATENT SLIP DISPUTE.

Wairarapa Standard, Volume I, Issue 18, 4 May 1867, Page 3

THE PATENT SLIP DISPUTE.

We have not hitherto said a word upon this subject. We prefered waiting before duin o- so to hesj what the Government would advance in defence of its conduct. We regarded net the partial judgements pronounced ex cathedra upon ex partie statements bv the press of the colony. We determined tc hear both sides and then come to a conclusion one way or the other. We have, carefully read the documents published by Mr. Kcnnard, we have read as carefully the remarks made bv His Honor in bis speech to the Council, and we have arrived at the conclusion that either the Government is in honor bound to ratify the contract, or to compensate the contractors, the amount to be settled by arbitration, for any losses thev can prove they have sustained though its non-ratification. Mr. Ivennard denies that he stated in the presence of the Executive that lie knew when he signed the contract that the bottom was not rock; but we think that the published ■documents render the fact plain without anv such admission. The drawings anil specification were prepared on the understanding that the site for the slip was sufficiently firm to cany without yielding the foundations of the slip, and the Government if not legally is morally bound to pay the cost which may be incurred in making the artificial foundations. We at one one time thought that it was a monstrous proposition on the part of the contractors to ask the Government not only to provide the artificial foundations, but to he responsible for their stability ; hut after perusing the whole of the evidence we have come to the opposite conclusion, and consider that the proposition of the contractors, under the circumstances, was only fair and reasonable. On many subjects the opinion of His Honor would outweigh that of a thousand other persons; hut upon such a subject as this it is not his opinion at all but that of engineers and attorneys, which can he only taken for whatitisintriusically worth and that they themselves would not be disposed to rate at a very high value. It is denied that Mr. Carter was the Provincial Engineer, hut the Superintendent, in his letter to Mr. Morrison of the 14th November, 18(35, admits that he was acting in that

capacity, and - that he had taken an active part in the preparation of Messrs. Kennards contracts; but the question is not whether he was appointed by the Government Provincial Engineer, but whether the Messrs. Kennard did not have grounds, from the tenor of the remarks of Mr. Morrison, and the documentary evidence before them, to believe that he was. But apart from the questions in dispute between the Superintendent and the Contractors, we would ask was it good policy under all the circumstances of the case for a Wellington Government to delay the erection of the slip after being assured by their own Engineer that the cost of bolting the slip to the artificial foundation would be much less than to solid rock, which would compensate in part for the additional cost of foundation '{ We think the reply must be given in the negative. The cost of laying the foundation would have in no'case amounted to the loss sustained by the Province in consequence of the course adopted. We will in conclusion remark that while there is not the least grounds for asserting that the conduct of the Government has been intentionally dishonorable, it has been very unwise, very short-sighted, and the reverse of prudent.