GUILLOTINED.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1096, 7 April 1911, Page 6

GUILLOTINED.

TRAM ADVERTISEMENTS DEBATE

THE TENDER.

A NEW DEVELOPMENT.

Some interesting developments occurred last evening at the City Council meet- • ing regarding advertising on the tramcars in , Wellington. 'The subject-was introduced by Councillor Fletcher asking that a letter be read from the successful tenderer for the advertising. The letter was as follows: — Through the publication of the figures before the contract was definite- . ly. settled showing my figures to bo considerably higher than the other tenders—l am now unable to procure the necessary sureties. I must, therefore,' withdraw my tender. I am, however, in a. position to submit an amended tender, with tho - necessary sureties. P. J. GOLDFINCH. Councillor Fletcher recalled what had rtaken place at the last meeting of tho (council, when ho had .spoken about the matter of the tenders. The Mayor liad pulled him up sharply for having suggested that the public might draw inferences, from tho wav tenders had been dealt with, that .something must be wrong. Tho Mayor: You stated that in regard ,to the Auckland tender. ! Councillor Fletcher: But,now you go back to the Auckland tender. . The Mayor said, no, that tenders would be called again. Councillor Fletcher: That is the proper thing if it is done. He went on to say that he did not see why the council could not appoint an officer to do the necessary canvassing for the advertising, and then have a contract, let for the execution and .carrying out of the work. He was. not satisfied with the whole thing so far. It was wrong to say a man's tender was informal if he were not given information in the specifications. Councillor.Barber complained that..the usual course had been departed from in this case, and tho tenders published before the contract had been signed. (Hear, hear.) Tho Mayor said he would like' to know the man responsible.

City Loses £2900. Councillor Barber pointed out that the city lost .£2900 by the untimely publication of the tenders. The usual procedure ■was for tenders to be kept-secret until the legal documents' were signed. In this case .'the man had been unable to get his securities because his tender wns found to be so much higher than the others. He thought.thcro had.been some breach either on the part of the council or i,ts officers , . ' The Mayor defended the council's officers. It was a- most regrettable thing that in a- public matter like this information jshonld leak out. It was tho third time it had occurred since he had been '. Mayor. Councillor Barber hoped this result would be an object lesson. It occurred •. to him at the time that this individual, 'when he saw how much higher he. was than the others, would come to some arrangement to have the next one accepted.- He did not know of course that that was done. Councillor Trevor spoke about the long time it took to'get city contracts signed. Ihe Mayor said that the officers of the council really worked well in the interests of the city. He must Stand up for them. He could • not answer for the general delay complained of. All work was disposed ■of as soon as possible after meetings. ■ Councillor Trevor: Ton will allow me to state -that what I say is perfectly true: . Councillor M'Larim said he had understood ,frqm the Mayor's statement that the specifications', required tho presence of ,the .samples of advertisements. Now they found it was only "understood." The Mayor said the inference seemed to bethat it was'his duty , to go through specifications,-although that was-not a Mayor's, duty. ■ ,■.' -' • ;. .'.- '

' , Another Letter. ' The council 'considered 1 , hi , committee the following: letter from a Wellington firm trading as "Lucas Browne":— . • Wβ write to ask if it is imperative for us to find sureties for the amount of tender, ns our late manager, Air. Goldfinch, has left our employ, and we ..still wish to carry, out the. contract. ' Since the figures have teen published, the people who arranged to ■ tack us have reconsidered their de-cision-on account, of ■ the vast difference in the tenders—they think that our price might bo too high— and we are now nl'aced in tho position of teiiig without sureties. • We are quite satisfied that our'estimate is not too high, as, when the • whole position is boiled down, 25 per cent, of the takings would not • go far to pay the salary and expenses .of a canvasser-to tour the principal cities and also to keep un a showroom ' in the city with up-to-date samples.' If we could riot receive about 5:500 ~ per year the business would not pay ns, and we have gone very carefully into the matter. ■ • ' We understand the position to be ■■ that tho agent would be liable to ' make good any deficiency in the total amount. This sounds very fair, but when the question is looked further into it seems hardly practicable. The City Council would be bound to accept any advertisement so long as the advertisements were within the bounds of common decency and propriety, and since they reserve the right to reject any advertisement we cannot see how they could exercise that right, and still hold their advertising agent responsible to make good a deficiency after they had debarred ' his client, as there are many tablets, although in good taste that might not appeal to the council's officers. We desire to point out that the quality of this work will very largely.' contribute to the success of the undertaking;, which is after all in an experimental etnge, and are sure that to bind an agent to any set price would be liable to detract from tho scheme. Tho agent would necessarily consider moro about the monetary part than in pleasing the public eye withchaste novelties in the way of advertising tablets. ' He would bo tempted to rattle through, a cheap class of work which would no doubt pay, but would in no way gratify the aesthetic sense. We claim to be expert craftsmen at tramway advertising—our samples show—thoroughly conversant witli this business, and since wo have been unsuccessful in obtaining sureties through the figures being published we write hoping that the council will consider if they cannot make arransomrmts whereby we can still fulfill the contract. Thanking you in anticipation of your kind consideration, we are, Yours, etc.,

GEORGE BURNEY. F. LUCAS. L. BROWNE. Committee's Recommendation. When the council resumed tho Mayor reported that the following motion had been passed in committee: "That tho tender submitted by Lucas Browne through their agent, I'. J. Goldfinch, be accepted on the original conditions." Councillor Atkinson moved, Councillor Trevor seconding, that the work done in committee in reference to the advertising tenders be approved. Councillor Fletcher said ho intended to oppose the motion. He submitted that no tender had been sent in by this "Lucas Browne," P. J. Goldfinch was th« only name submitted to tho council when it accepted the advertising tender at its previous meeting. The speaker submitted that P. J. Goldfinch was not the agent of Lucas Browno in this matter—at least the council was not aware of the fact. It was only pointed out in a letter to-night that Lucas Browne were willing to take up the contract as submitted to Goldfinch, with certain conditions. The two conditions mentioned were very important ones. First was the question of sureties and then they wanted the city to accept any adverisements "within tho bounds of common decency and propriety." In view of these at- -■ ■'£.■ ..varx.the..conditions tho ,city_

surely must annul tho whole of the contract. ■ Lucas Browne h,ad not offered to carry out tho conditions set forth by their agent, Goldfinch. Tho council had done wrong to accept a tender of this kind. A public body was, on duty bound, when anything was found tb be wrong with tenders or specifications, to call for fresh tenders. "A Great Amount of Evidence." Councillor Slurtclift'o said he supported the motion. The council had before it a great amount of evidence that this tender was really put in on behalf of Lucas Browne. ]t was well known that Goldfinch was manager for Lucas Browne, and he.had informed several councillors that he was tendering on behalf of that firm. Lucas Browne's letter, considered that evening, showed clearly that they understood that Goldfinch was tendering on their behalf, and they accepted responsibility for that tender. The tender was dated from Lucas Browne's business address. ComicUlor Fletcher: "That is not so." Councillor Luke: "It was." Continuing, Councillor Shirtcliffe said Goldfinch's letter bore Luc'as Browne's address on the bottom of tho page. The speaker had not attended the previous meeting, but from what he had heard that evening he was convinced that a majority of councillors at last meeting were certainly of opinion that the tender came from Lucas Browne. The speaker could not explain why the tender had been signed, "P. J. Goldfinch." As to conditions, the argument of tho firm in regard to sureties was reasonable. They had been prejudiced owing to the amount of the tenders being disclosed The other remark (hat they made was not in the form of a condition, but was more a suggestion. The council would certainly not be carrying out its duty to the citizens if, it did not accept the tendor. Councillor Smith declared himself surprised at the arguments used by Councillor Shirtcliffe. Until this discussion took place, the speaker thought, no one had connected Goldfinch arid Liicas Browne. Lucas Browne had appeared simply as manufacturer of the. articles required for advertising on the trains. Goldfinch clearly figured as the princinal. Ho.did not even say "wp" in his tender, or imply in any way that there was anybody behind him'. "I think it is clear!" said Councillor Smith, "that he intended this tender for himself." "I fail to see," said the councillor soon afterwards, "why this council should accept a tender from a person who., never tendered, and was never in evidence at all until this evening. I think this council is doing wrong." Councillor Luke rose to speak, Imt Councillor Hindmarsh intervened with a motion "that the question bo now put." This was carried, on a division, by ten votes to five. The motion that, the work done in committee in reference to tenders be approved, was also approved by ten votes to five. Councillor Trevor moved that the contractor be given seven days in which to sign the contract. Eventually an amendment, by Councillor Hindmarsh, that the contractors bo granted U days in which to conclude, the contract was carried on-the voices.-