CORRESPONDENCE.

Press, Volume XXIX, Issue 3896, 17 January 1878, Page 3

CORRESPONDENCE.

THE CITY COUNCIL.

TO THB EDITOB OT THB PBESS. ' o __ T nos,, in your issue of this morning s date a report of the City Council's meeting l«t night, in which I find two things that pnirie mc very much. Can you elucidate the The City Council let a contract to some one for forming a certain street, and the contractor has thrown up his contract and forfeited his deposit. I then find that another contractor has been offered the contract, and the third lowest tenderer has signified his willingness to take it at his price if the City Council think fit to give it him. Why the City Council should allow any contractor to derive a profit from the carrying on of any necessary works I cannot conceive. If the reason were that it being harvest time hands were scarce, I might understand it. If there was more work going on in the city than the surveyor or the foreman of works couia attend to, then, sir, I say the true solution of the enigma might be more easily ">wad; °™ that thi City Ccmncfl should pay their officer. to carry on works, and then (for no reason) caU for tenders and let them by contract, thus affording *£°PP°'; talfcy of making a profit out of ratepayers _Z - andaTthe tame time to approve of paragraph 4 of the city surveyor s report :- Sgtfmen **"> discharged on Saturday in order to reduce the staff "-appears very strange. Surely if there was work to be done, tbe foreman of works could cany it on as cheaply (I think at a far less cost) than, with his own practised hands, as any contractor in the place. I can't understand giving money away to contractors. Yours, &£., Aaovß. Jan. 11th, 1878.