WAIRARAPA EAST COUNCIL.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume 6, Issue 1831, 4 November 1884, Page 2

WAIRARAPA EAST COUNCIL.

The Waiaarapa Eaßt County -.Council met' this morning. Present—Crs McGregor (chairman), Maunsell, Chamberlain, Meredith, W, H, Beetham, Mackay, and McCardle. - , V

The chairman stated that the meeting was a special one to consider the charge made by Mr Reese. He invited Mr Reese to make his statement.' Mr Reese said, on behalf of himself and Messrs Girdwbod, Jule, and Dawson, that they had carefully measured the Mungapakeha bridge and found a great variation in the plan (as already published in our columns). He did not consider the bridge an ordinary good piece of work. The bridge was only an 88ffc lOin Rpan instead of a 90ft span. He stated that on a visit to the county office he found that the plan had been altered since his previous visit.

Cr Meredith asked if the discrepancies in the timber applied to the original design or to the bridge as constructed 1 Mr Reese: To the bridge as constructed.

At the request of the chairman, Mr Reese gave the number of the bolts (16 to 20) which Were short and which had to be cut into the timber. This had not been allowed in his contracts. There was over 10,000 feet of, timber less in this structure than in the original plan. ' , Or Maunsell inquired if there was much difference between the quantities in the bridge and in the plan of it.. Mr Reese replied that there was not much. Ho considered that the second site was no better than the first.

Cr Beetham: "The committee who visited the spot considered it was." ' _ Cr Maunsell: Would the difference in the sizes of timber weaken the bridge 1 Mr Reese: Certainly. Cr Maunsell : Have the timbers shrunk 1 . Mr Reese: No.

Cr Maunsell: What is the descripancy between the material in the plan and on the bridge, Mr Reese: That was a question he did not go into. He adhered to his view as to the site and maintained that the estimates made by Mr Girdwood and himself as to the value of the contract which was £2OO less than the amount of the original bridge. This he looked upon as a concession to the contractor.

The Chairman asked if one long span did not cost much more to construct than three short ones,

Mr Reese said he allowed 50 per cent more for staging, Cr Beetham; Are we to understand that it is not worth more to work up a long truss bridge than a pier bridge. Mr Reese said the original bridge was not altogether a pier bridge. Five pounds ten shillings per foot was about the average result of their bridge building, and tested by this their estimate was correct.

- &•#. £5 10s a raWa'dm|.''fesult. '- If a forty Iqot bridge,.cflst cost£4o would a 200 feet truss bridge cost £2OO.

Mr Reese replied that as abridge increased in length it was increased in height and weight, and something would have to be allowed for staging. Tne'chairman asked if,the bridge built differed materially from the bridge planned? Mr Reese said the plans were not sufficiently complete to enable this to be judged. Possibly working plans were supplied to the contractor. Two unnecessary piles appeared in the wings. He did not estimate the value of these in his schedule.

The chairman hoped Mr Reese would finish his statement as soon as possible and call his evidence, He had no wish to.hurry the enquiry, but they had a good deal of other'business to despatch. Cr Meredith asked at what Mr Reese estimated the difference in tlie timber to amqunt tq.

Mr Reese sai4 he valued the 10,000 feet difference, at £1 per hundred feet. The saving in the timber was £IOO and the excess in the ironwork about £2O. He pointed out that in the specification the timber was to .be- dpliyered on the ground in six weeks, and he was prepared to prove that the contractor who had the job wasaware that it need not be delivered for six months. Before the tenders; were open Mr King asked him if he were the lowest tenderer whether he would;be willing to accept an alteration in the specification and he replied that he would. He. also pointed out that the Public Works department in their plans set forth more fully.than •the county the details of all work. Cr MoCardle aiiked if anyone had been appointed to inspect the bridge. The Chairman said ilrbad; attempted to do so and failed.

.&• McCardle thought ft should be dons for the honor of the Council. The' Chairman- said htL propose! to hear the other sideband then\if .the Connoii thought proper, }£ cQulcl.'take further stops. Cr Ifackay would like the Council to decide whether it would accept the' opinion of'Mr Beese's experts. He regretted that the other side was called jti at a former meeting, when many of them were not present. In juajp to all tbey should oany out the resolution.

The Chairman agreed that if at.the close of the present examination it.was necessary to take. further steps, let it do so. It was not their fault that certain Councilors were absent at th,e previous meeting.

Or Meredith denied that the Goipil throw the onus on Mr Reese of proving his case. They simply failed to secure the services of an expert, Cr Beetham said Mr King refused to appoint a man and the Council met and after severalhours failed to find a man,

Or. MoOardle oom,plajned of the short notice given of the fast meeting, Cr Jlackay accepted this responsibility, but regretted that the Chairman had npt convened a meeting whenMr King'a reiußal was given, The Chairman thought th? ; questjon sboujd ba closed before the present Council went out of office.; Had-' the appointment been madq .this'coulcl not be done. • ! He not insult Mr King' by • calling in a man v,t£ measure his'work; '■ ', • Ijsrfi. : Cr Meredith against "■?! '•' y^ Cr Manniielltaid h» taught he was

defending Mr King by the course he adopted. Or Mackay said he took. the. Ban?*, viewi' " '."."

Cr McCardle said as representatives of the public it was their duty to. appoint the best possible man to'nlear'iip" Mr King's character. -die thought" that either Mrßlaokett- orMrfiaird would have cleared up the matter if they had .been appointed, He did not think that they would get any result from comparing Air King's arid Mr Reese's figures. Cr Chamberlain thought the real mistake made was by the Chairman not calling the meeting in the first instance. This would have given ample time. . ' iA The Chairman requested Mr Ron to retire while the other evidence mra taken. Cr Chamberlain objected to M" Reese leaving the room. The Chairman poiuted out that MrKing was not present when Mr Reese gave his evidence. ,: ' * ....... , Cr W, H. Beetham said that assuming the charges - made by Mr Reese were against the Council for having allowed a contractor to pocket a sum of £2OO, would any sane man, he would ask, credit such a charge against the Council or against auy section'of it." The charge was hot that of a settler against the county for wasting, the funds of the ratepayers, but the charge of a disappointed contractor, assisted by another disappointed' contractor, against an engineer who had been too honest to suit them. What would the superintendent of police think if two huaglars came to his office to'complaik that his police officer was too string with them, but had allowed another burglar to rob him 1 Mr King' was too strict for these contractors and they did not like him. If he had allowed them an extra here and there, this charge would never have been brought. He maintained that the charge should never have been listened to for a moment, They had proof "that'Mr Reese made mistakes in figures, - Did he not come to the Council once'and say that he had made a mistake in his tendcr,having taken the figuress6 for6s" and based his calculations accordingly. He (the speaker) put as much reilance on the figures Mr Reese now produced as he did on those where the 56 appeared. He had no objection to a competent Engineer measuring Jhe bridge, but it was absurd to send a carpenter up with a foot rule to estimate its value. The Chairman said the discussjjjr was out of order. Let them hear™ evidence of both sides, and then debate the question. Mr Reese expressed a wish to sit and listen to Mr King. Cr Mackay said it was not the fault of the Council that Mr King was not present while Mr Reese was speaking. A The Chairman withdrew his objection.™ to Mr Reese remaining on the understanding that he would not interrupt Mr King's evidence. Mr King then entered the room and stated that before works were let he had been in the habit of preparing- a careful estimato of their cost.. He pointed to the estimates he had made during the,,past five years, and called the attention of the Council to the fact that the prices at which contracts had been let had verified the correctness of his estimates. He affirmed that .a ninety foot truss bridge could not be built in Masterton at Mr Reese's estimate viz. £5 10s per foot. He asserted that the schedules of quanrifas attached to the estimate agreed, ™e trilling discrepancies, with the work as completed. There were always some discrepancies in a contract but more in Mr Reese's work tbanu other peoples, There was a good deal of delay with the bridge owing to tljo site difficulty. (To Cr Maunsell): He did not think it was desirable tq cajl for fresh, tencjers when tlie second plan, was adopted.. (To the Chairman): Mr Reese's measurement of the length of the bridge showed that the' contractor adhered exactly to the plan. Cr Mackay: How about the differ, ence in the size of the timber?' ■''.'. '.* Mr King: The qnjy I }ss. of is in the flooring, and that wqs done by agreement, with the contractor. If there jg,>a/ mistake irj;the timber, I believe it-will be ,theiaulV'cl : 4ho timber merchant. J beji?ye:thq,t ; ,the bolts.will; be- found to''boß»j<li6g to specification, I spent-nearly i wbola afternoon examining 'the gtrucjggt before it' was 'passed, . I found [iWi w}th some of the work and had a good"! deal of it rectified. My estimate for No 1 bridge jb £722, for flo, 2 £733 4s 4d, prices being based'oin.tbß .satue sjhedulo of values,'. There were seven thousand feet of timber 'Jess:, m-' the second bridge than .in the first, valued at* pound per hundred feet.- .'The iron in the second bridge I estimated at LI 14 3s, and in the first at, L6B Us 4d. After some further discussioV lYwas resolved.to refer the whole question of the relative valuo of the two structures to the Publio Works Department - .' (Left' Sitting.- '