LOCAL BOARDS AND CONTRACTORS.

Auckland Star, Volume XIX, Issue 113, 14 May 1888, Page 2

LOCAL BOARDS AND CONTRACTORS.

(To the E liter.)

Sir,—ln your issue of the 7th irist., Elias Pascoe, under the abovo heading, complains of the action of the Arch Hill Road Board re the payment of his work done by contract. As a member of the Board at the time the contracts were entered into,^ I must point out that Messrs I'ascoe and Co. added in a great measure to their own trouble, having been warned that the Board had no money to meet their claims, and not making the inquiry that the circumstances demanded and placing too much confidence in their own sagacity. They are now reaping the fruit of their misplaced confidence. You will see that the contract price for both streets was £375 ss. On the 16th January, 1886, progress payments were due to the amount of £110. Bid Messrs I'ascoe and Co. receive payment of same? No ! they show by Mr Pascoe's letter that they continued the work up to the 19th of March, and then took an acknowledgment of debt, signed, as Mr Pascoe states, but which was not authorised by the Board. (If anyono doubts the correctness of this statement let him examine tho minute book and see if any one or more were instructed to give acknowledgments or guarantee interest). " We went on with our work, and on the 6th May, 1886, we had done £225 10s worth more work." And then Messrs Pascoe and Co. take another acknowledgment as before, with one signature less. You will note that the contracts amount to £375 5s : tho work done amounts at- this time to £455 15s, or £80 10s in excess of contracts, and up to the present they (the contractors) have received no payments. By their agreement, they were entitled to a payment of 75 per cent., I believe, on the amount of work done as the works progressed, and they applied for it, and more than once. At this they apply for their deposit on contracts, £30, and they find—what? Not only that they have received no payments for work done, but that the Board had spent their deposit money, and they could not get even that. Says Mr Pascoe, "On the sth October, 1886, we had more work done to the amount of £129 8s lid." This amount they received ; when they have done work worth £585 3s lid, they then continue work to the extent of £175 5s more, or a total of £760 8s lid.

" We did all the work to tho satisfaction of tho Board's engineer, and received his final certificate and a letter complimenting us for the manner in which we had carried out the works." Will this place Messrs Pascoe and Co. in a better position ? Mr Pascoe states, " We knew the Board was not over flush of funds, and so we made this arrangement to take acknowledgments from the Board." Again, Mr Pascoe states lower down " We did not know what funds the Board had when it made these contracts, but of course we concluded that the Board could pay for the works, or it would never have entered into them." How can Mr Pascoe reconcile these two statements, that because they knew the Board was not over-flush with funds, they agreed to take acknowledgments ? After this again they say that they did not know what fund 3 the Board had, but concluded that they had enough to pay for the works. Then, Mr Pascoe, why not have cash instead of acknowledgments? "I and my friends," says Mr Pascoe, "are not able to go to law." Mr Pascoe has iepeatedly threatened legal proceedings against the Board, and the number of legal opinions he has obtained with the above statement is enough to show the present Board that they need not fear proceedings being taken. It is to be hoped, sir, that astoplaeput to contractors doing work when they know there is no money to pay them with, thus leading on members of local bodies (whose only object is to improve their own or their friends' property at the expense of the whole district) to do works which aie nob beneficial

to tho district, and for which they are unable to pay. I am quite satisfied that Messrs Pnscoe and Co. have found out by now that they have to thank me for their bill not being £100 or £150 larger than it is, and they have received a lesson that they will not forget for the remainder of thenlives, and it is late in tho day for them to blame others for what they themselves aro in a creator measure responsible for.—l am, etc _ b J. T. B. Dines. [it must be perfectly manifest to every impartial person that contractors have nothing whatever to do with the question whether a work advertised by a local body is a necessary work or not. If a Board duly elected by the ratepayers invites tenders, a contractor is justified in assuming that the Board is in a position to fulfil the engagements into which it is entering, and the ratepayers are in honour bound to see that private persons arc not put to pecuniary loss through the action of trustees whom thoy havo appointed to administer the public affairs of tho district. Imagine what tho consequences, would be if members of tho City Council or other corporate bodies considorcd themselves at liberty to repudiate as unnecessary, work authorised by a majority, leaving the contractor, who had performed the work in good faith, to suffer loss. Tho position assumed by Mr Dines is not tenable for a moment, and wo hope that the Board will see that engagements openly and legally entered into are faithfully kept. If ratepayers are dissatisfied with tho administration of tho affairs of a district by any Board, the legitimate way to show it is by putting in other men at the next election, not by repudiation.—Ed. E.S.]