That Cement Affair.

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume II, Issue 251, 24 January 1889, Page 2

That Cement Affair.

MR C. D. BENNETT’S OPINION. [TO THE KMTOB.J

Sib,—Actuated by the interest which all ratepayers should take in the matter of local government, and also in response to the request of other ratepayers, I have gone minutely into the terms of the cement contract recently entered into by the Harbor Board. I hold that the Board was justified in obtaining and accepting the lowest tenders for the cement, and if not satisfied with the first tenders to again try the market openly, and placing all tenderers on an equal footing, no partiality being shown to any partioular firm. On going into tha figures I make the result decidedly in favor of the colonial tenderer, inasmuch that by the figures ot the Engineer McEwan and Co's price in London is 84s 5Jd per ton; Bank exchange added to that sum is equal to per cent, which brings the price up to 88s 3]4. McEwan and Go’s sixty days’ draft on the Board would probably mature a month before arrival of tha ship, whereas the Mortgage Agency’s tender would be cash on delivery, which would be still more in the Board’s favor if they had accepted itaa against McEwen's. I may mention that the Board, in addition to this loss ot interest, will also have to pay colonial stamp duty on £B5OO, amounting to over £8 10s, and for cablegrams, say £l2. I append tha following statement to show the difference between the two tenders in question

McEwan and Co’s tender .. B4e 5Jd 4i per cent exchange added .. 8s 9}d 88s 3+i Mortgage Agency's Co’s tender 88s 01 Dif.—2ooo tons at 3|d.. £27 1 8 Extra charges as above .. 20 10 0 Total loss .. £47 1 8 -I am, etc., C. D. Bkhneti.

[TO THS BDITOB.I

Sib,—Some time ago I drew your attention to the amount of money voted by the Harbor Board for cablegrams re the cement contract business. I see that the amount has Hen increased by another £5 15a fid, making now a total of £l2 12s, and doubtless more to pay when the bill comes in from the other side. After I last wrote, “Honesty” took ma to task and said the Board had saved the ratepayers no inconsiderable sum by their action. I was so self satisfied it was the other way round that I took no notice of your correspondent leaving time to dispel his hallucination, little thinking it would coma so soon. The savings teen to be made have on their own calculations been shown so erroneous that other matters before the Board require tee utmost scrutiny.—l am, &6., Fant fiufl mso X 0 FMfi)