OPEN COLUMN.

Inangahua Times, Volume X, Issue 1596, 4 September 1885, Page 2

OPEN COLUMN.

Our columns are open to the discusgion of j all matter* of public interest, but we \ are in no waif identified with the view* j of our correspondent*. REEFTON AND GREY ROAD MAIN-. TENANCE CONTRACTS AND ROAD MAINTENANCE I\ GENERAL. (To the Editor Inangahua Tijuh.) Sir. There's been much comment and criticism of vituperative nature iudulged in fur the last few months, and not a little meaningless twaddle and frothy balderdash reiterated in reference to the above, on account, I believe, of the lowest tenders not having been accepted by the Council as was their wont on former similar occasions, and there's been a perfect plethora of arguments advanced fur, and against the system of accepting the lowe3t tenders although mostly of an exceedingly desultory character. Albeit, some argue with a fair amount of reason on both sides of the question. I have listened attentively to tbe numerous discussions and diversity of opinion expressed and carefully noted the most salient points debated, for and against said system. But I cannot accept the chain of reasoning adopted by those who advocate as a rule the letting of all contracts to the lowest tender. On the contrary, I am, if anything, more fully convinced in my opinion that the letting of contracts indiscriminately to the lowest tender is a penny wise and pound foolish policy, and I think our Council has had ample proof, and sufficient reason from past experience to think so likewise. True, there may be exceptions where i\ v ould be justifiable and proper to accept the lowest tender, and I submit the Council is in » better position than the general public to determine what tenders should, or should not be accepted, as they (the Council) are in possession of all necessary data and information with respect to the approximate cost or value of the work proposed to be done through their Engineer, who should be a competent authority upon such matters. Sometimes I have known the lowest tender to exceed the estimate of Engineers but invariably in such cases fresh tenders are called for. I have also known the lowest tender to be acujpted when ap« proximate to, or did not exceed, the Engineer's estimate. But to argue that the lowest tender should necessarily be accepted, no matter should it be 50 per cent below estimated value, while the contractor is supposed to possess sufficient means to make good the deficit and complete such contract at his own expense, is, in my opinion, a principle unworthy of respect, and n policy minus any good principle. If the Council, or any other employers of labour are cognizant of the fact that tenders received for certain works are far below carefully estimated value of such wotk, and take undue advantage of the error committed by (f«>r error it must be whether from oversight or ignorance) said contractors by accepting their tender, and binding them by legal bosds to fulfill their engagement, knowing full well that such engagement, if fulfilled, would cause heavy loss, if not absolute ruin to those concerned then, I say, such would disclose a pernicious policy, a vicious principle, and dishonest dealing on the part of the employers, I , maintain it would be judicious, and much better for the public to pay (through the Council) a fair price for their work, and have it well and faithfully executed, than to accept tenders at unreinunerative prices on the utterly erroneous assumption that they are acting economically in the interests of the public by (not getting the work done) letting their work so cheap ; whereas the facts are that our work heretofore has not been half done in accordance with necessary and specified conditions. I am n«>t aware of a single iiiinstance where any road contracts subject to supervision of the Council were carried out to the letter of the specifications, and when Councillors are interrgated as to the cause they say it would be rather hard lines to hold men to the strict letter of the specified conditions as they know the work was taken far too cheap and could not be done for the money. Well, I would not blame them so much for not compelling men to do the work at a uerious loss to themselves, as I do them for lotting the work far below its legitimate value, knowing that such work could not be done for the price. I repeat that the better policy would be to pay a fair price for our work and have it Cone in the best possible manner, for it can in nowise benefit a whole community or any portion thereof to compel a few contractors to do public work at a ruinous loss to themselves and probably others dependent upon them. I believe in the principle of pay, and be paid, and if a thing is worth doing at all, it is wor h doing well, and if worth doing well, it is worth paying for and should be paid for. Therefore, while I hold with the principle of having our work done woll and in accordance with the specified conditions, 1 do not hold with the principle of letting work at prices that will not admit of such conditions being complied with. But, as I have already stated, I am not aware of any road contracts subject to the Council control that has been executed in accord with specified conditions. Contracts let at fair prices, and contracts lot at un remunerative prices, are alike dealt with, paused, and mid for by the Coiricil, utterly regardless whether specifications are complied with or not. For example we need not go outside of Reef ton. We can see in the very centre of the town wherti a contract has been let at a fair prico. The specifications provided for the road to be properly formed and to have 9 inches of metal put thereon ; v^ ell we b'nd tlio work wan passed and paid for. But the mutal has yet to be provided. Another example, without going far from home, is the Black's Point and Murray Creek roads. I do not know what quantity of metal was provided for in the specification*, but I do know there was one stone deep put on, distributed like annuls visits in places few and far between, and if there in more evidence required we can go farther from homo, and meet with similar results. It in qut> evident that if our roads are to be kept in proper repair there n»u»t be a better system of doing no adopted, and our Council would do well to take a leaf nut of the book of older and more experienced communities in n>ad making, for it must be plain to the merest tyro in tbe science of political econiHuv that our 1 public expenditure is not conducted in such a nianuer as to warrant satisfactory results for our large outlay. Now in reference to road maintanance I would (if it be not too presumptive on my part) suggest to our Council to adopt the system practised and adhered to ■in Victoria for the last 30 years, and that is to call tenders for the quantity of metal required, to be delivered and stacked where wanted <$ per cubic yard. When

the same is supplied it could then be distributed and spread to the depth either by contract or day labor as circumstances would suggest, 'hen we would get value for our money and our roads put in proper repair for the tint time in this County. ; lam, etc., ! r-BSIRVKii. ' Reefton, September Ist, 1885. I