THE TE ARO RECLAMATION FIASCO.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume 5, Issue 1475, 5 September 1883, Page 2

THE TE ARO RECLAMATION FIASCO.

A. STARTLING REVELATION 1 We are as yet unable to place our readers in full possession of all the facts of this remarkably unfortunate affair; but we are well assured that the following, as far as they extend are true:-After the failure of Mr McGrath, the contractor {or the Te Aro Reclamation, tho City Counoil. in agreement . with' the terms of the contract, re-let the work. The successful tender of O'Malley and Pepperell was upwards of 46000 higher. The Council therefore decided to call on O'Malley's sureties for the amount of' their bond, 45000. At a meeting of the Council Mr Travers was instructed to issue, writs against the sureties, lins was done, and all went merrily until two or three days ago, when a rumor came from Christchurch, where the sureties live, to the effect that the solicitors for the defence, Messrs Harper and Co., had discovered a grievous flaw, which quite defeated the City Council,, and rendered harmless their efforts. When the news filtered through to this city, great was the commotion and direct the consternation among the Councillors and all concerned. Tho amazed City Solicitor instantly set to work to find out the blunder. After a search had been made, a notice was handed to him as a copy of the one he had sent to the" sureties. Mr Timers' legal eye instantly detected that it was not the one he had written. On referring to Mr Travers 1 original memorandum, it was spen that two -or; three most important ' lines (which, we hope to get for our readers soon) had been erased, and inthe • Mayor's own well-known handwriting ' there appeareiTsome fresh sentences! ,

It is said that the effect of this erasure and substitution has lostfor tho ratepayers all chace of getting the £SOOO due to. the. Corporation, . and further thafc the seizure of plant, .cement; and tools js valueless—at ieaat another £ISOO gone, Whatexplanation the Mayor can "give we know not. We are altogether bewildered. Can' it be that upwards of £6500 of ratepayers' .money has been thrown away by His Worship, Rumor has it that the Councillors are utterly astounded. It is • said that- so anxious fere the Councillors toaee that everything'sliould be right, and that no hitch and no accident should occur, that they resolved that the City Solicitor should give' the necessary notice, and they went evon further, in their anxiety to put everything right.' It is said they actually passed absolution which, till now,- we should have thought quito redundant and useless, to the effect that the City Solicitor, and the City Solicitor alono, should draff up the notice, so as to be quite sure there should be no mistake. This resolution was put carried unanimously. Yet, in defiance ef this resolution the Mayor took upon himself to alter Mr Travers' notice! i We feel completely astonished at , the position of affairs. Did the Mayor think he knew better how to draft such a not'.ce ? If he did, how did he dare to do so in the face -of a special resolution? It is clear that he ; consulted,no one; in'the matter certainly not the City Solicitor. The ratepayers will demand a most search'ing inquiry. It really'looks as if'the groaning, overtaxed ratepayers are to find that no less than ,£6500 must be recklessly thrown into the sea. That £6500 remitted from our own taxes would have gladdened the heart of many a struggling ratepayer.—N.Z. Times. •