THAT CEMENT CONTRACT BUNGLE.

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

THAT CEMENT CONTRACT BUNGLE.

The blunder which the Harbor Board made with regard to the cement tenders is bad enough, but the unblushing effrontery with which a Gisborne paper endeavors to deceive the ratepayers in regard to the matter exceeds all the previous efforts which that journal has made to mislead the public in connection with harbor matters. Why don’t they “tell the truth and shame the devil"?—more good would come of making a clean breast of the affair than of seeking to shroud the thing with mystery and deception. Below we reprint our contemporary’s article, the remarks in parentheses being our own:— The Board acted wisely [spending £333 6s Sd more than it need have done] in rejecting Mr Matthewson'a motion for rescinding the cement contract with McEwen and Co., of London. There was no honest retreat from the arrangement [not contract] entered into. The negotiations had teen conducted by cable, and as a matter of course the specifications fancy cabling specifications] submitted to the English tenderers were Of the briefest kind such m, “What price delivered here 2000 on« Cement?" Quality of article, condition no arrival) time for delivery, or penalties (if any) not stated]. One is not even certain mw tint Un baiii si iin MhttMi it

thoroughly understood [and yet the matter must be glossed over—oh !J. Mr Sievwyght calculates that a saving of sevenpence per cask [six to the ton means 3s 6d per ton] will result from the acceptance ot McEwen and Co.’s tender. Approximately, the total saving amounts to £3OO [read the figures we have published]. Captain Tucker is of opinion that by standing to the arrangement of the London firm the Board will gain to the extent of £5O [who is right, Sievwright, Tucker, the Herald, or the Engineer ?]. There is considerable discrepancy between the estimates of the exChairman and the present Chairman [and the Herald has not gone into the matter to find out that both are wrong, but gives its opinion without doing soi. In all likelihood the Board will not financially suffer [But the ratepayers will 1] through the rejection of the tender of the National Mortgage and Agency Company. The Board, however, has not acted in a business-like manner [ln giving McEwen and Co. £333 6s 8d more than another firm for their goods]. Practically there has been a breach of faith with the original tenderers. The Mortgage Company was the lowest, and consequently that concern baa the principal reason to feel agrieved [Ot course, the ratepayers ought not to raise their voice against it. Oh, dear no I If the Herald says so !J that its tender was passed over. ... On the second occasion, the Board having gone the length it did [asked McEwen and Oe., by cable, the price of cement] was bound to accept the offer of McEwen and Co., which, apparently [Mark the word “ apparently ’’] at any rate, was the lowest. The principal cause of complaint arises from the Board not observing ordinary business principles in dealing with the first tenders [Of course ratepayers do not care a dump abont making a saving; they have no complaint], . . , There could be no conten-

tion that the National Mortgage Company [Not having applied for a credit in London] was not in a position to carry out any arrangements which might be entered into with the Board. The Company is of good standing [Excepting with the Gisborne Harbor Board], and might [just possible] ba trusted to faithfully fulfil its engagements [When backed up by two good sureties, which is quite unnecessary to the Board when dealing with the present successful supplier]. The whole matter does not resolve itself into one of £ s d |lt certainly does to all concerned, the ratepayers particularly, and to newspapers generally]. Let us give an illustration. Suppose the Borough Council [how flattering] called for tenders for carrying out a work [To be finished in a certain'time, of certain material, and had to deposit a certain amount, and find certain security, and get paid in a certain place], and after all the tenders were in and opened, the Council invited [by cable, tor which the Council paid, and which expense all the other tenderers calculated in their prices] a person who had not previously tendered to make an offer [without telling that person that ths work would have to be done in a certain time, or that certain security was required, or if the ship sunk en route they would have power to purchase in the colony at the ten. derer's cost, risk, andexpense], There would be an outburst of indignation at such a proceeding, and that is precisely the kind of thing which has happened over the cement contract. When affaire had reached the stage indicated, the Board was bound to accept the lower tender [Sometimes called offer] on the second occasion [that being McEwen and Co.]. The Board cabled to McEwen and Co. that their tender [Quotation by cable; not very dear about what it really did mean] was accepted, and practically that ended the matter [And a saving of about £350 was effected, according to ths Engineer], It afterwards transpired that certain charges had to be added to McEwen and Co.’s price [That firm asking, by cable, to have a credit opened in London, which costs money], which considerably reduced the difference between that Arm’s offer [Not tender this time] and the offer [Tender reduced to offer] of the National Mortgage Company. As the wired conditions were necessarily meagre [there were no conditions wired], the London flrm must be allowed the benefit of the fairest interpretation [And the £333 6s Bd, although they cabled to ths Board for a credit in London when the Board had previously understood their price meant cash in the colony, and which gave the Board an opportunity of having a distinct understanding with them], . . . Whether the contract [private transaction] involves loss [to the ratepayers] or gain [to McEwen and Co.] it must be carried out. . . . Had Mr Matthewson’s motion been carried, the Board would have laid itself open to a lawsuit, [although McEwen and Co. did not gat their second price of 14s 9d per cask confirmed by the Board, and which virtually and in commercial law cancelled their first offer of 14s 3d per cask] probably resulting in monetary loss and most certainly in loss of prestige [as a Board, they have none to lose]. The wisest course has been followed in finally disposing of an affair which speaks little for the business knowledge of the Board, but st the same time the ratepayers should not over, look the fact that throughout the business [Calls it business; we say bungle] the harbor authorities [we thought it was the Board] were influenced by economical reasons, and no interested or unworthy motive was at the bottom of their action, [but we pay servants, and have a Board to manage affairs, that when figures are placed before them interpret them to make a saving which is impossible for any business man to make other than a loss to the ratepayers. That being so, it is not prudent or wise to gloss over their faults and make them appear virtues.]

Since the above was written we have received Mr Bennett’s calculations, which are considerably below our own, because the Engineer allows there will not be quite six casks to the ton. Without necessarily admitting our own basis of calculation to be wrong, we will accept Mr Bennett’s figures as indisputable, and then ask any ratepayer to consider the position.