THE HARBOR WORKS.

Evening Star, Issue 4760, 4 June 1878, Page 1

THE HARBOR WORKS.

Mr Fish is very disappointing and does not make at ,all a good average as a public man. Our ink ia scarcely dry after affording him well-deserved commendation for his excel- ' lent speechat the last meeting of the School ' Committee when he rushes off to the Harbor i Board and delivers himself of the very extraordinary oration briefly reported in our * issue of Ihursday, and more fully in the morning papers. There was nothing, apparently m the proceedings an exhibition of zealous zeal on behalf of the contractor, as the members of the Bokrditi •> pressed their perfect willingness toMs&f .that gentlemaD, in accordarce*; ylp^ : * request, further time for explanation with regard to his dredging contract, and in the absence of such explanation it was, of course, out of/the question to go into the ~ subject. Mr Fish, however, is either behind the scenes and acted upon '- instructions, or otherwise ias, in "» moat indefensible manner, assumed his , brief, and haß indeed ".rushed in" where men more expert in law and engineer- .' ing might "fear to tread." He condemns tnedredges; assumes that they were guaranteed as it were to complete the contract by their own volition, entirely irrespective of the uses to which they might be put "or the general conduct of the work ; he would in-,. ducethe belief ; that-the contractor, in the" innocence of his soul, undertook the contract. ' as a veritable "pig in a pqke," without knowing very well the ins and outs Of every condition, and without full knowledge of the; character of the plant which was to be- ??? e i OV ? rto him b y*ne Board'; he sneersattne iingincer, being stiil sore, we may presume, at the non-appreciation .by that officer of his (Mr Fish's) new and original p l aa . for the docks, and insinuates that W-. rtoes not _ understand his business, and is responsible ,for the occasional breaking down of the dredges, which may? arise from a variety of causes other than faulty construction of the -machinery, for which by-tfae by, if faulty, Mr D. :L biKPSON is in: no way responsible. This is m- the non § en , s e, according to'tieDaily Times' report, talked by Mt FisH upon the subject:.-- . • '' tJ?S kno . w « s a matter, of fact (hat the oontraotors•" for this work were,fully under the impresston that toedredges they were to have been thlm by the Board were snffloient to complete the wtrk within the contract time. That this is so lam warraated minJL L *♦£ m « e . tlD KB-either of the Works Committee or the Finance Committee-xeoently. te S&f *? that h j? Relieved the dredgeVwi&'ihe wSkJ^SS'-^l 1 !* b0 to comylete the Z £flui a « l th * 8^ cified ttme.' That this is sufficiently proven is clear from the feet that the contract price of this work is £89.000* ™ d .s°; perß ? n POfseesed of common sente (and contractors in a large woy are generally bud. posed to posßoes a little common sense wouTci for a moment dream of taking a contract at m.QOQ. which involved as one of its results the purchasToi fift? a T ff *? carry out the works at a coTt of £35,000. The statement that those dredees wera Bupposedtobe amply sufficient to cawyout the Si S o S n Uppo J ted b *P* £acts surrounding the care, ffil a estloll we have to consider is this: Axl these dredges capable of doing it? The Eneinee? : ' who is responsible for the repairing andttnkeK of the one dredge, and entirely for the building ol the other, alleges that they are ; and the conK tors-so far nsl have had the opportunity of gather, ing their opinions, for I do not state it as coming from them-allege that it is perfectly impossible for the dredges to do the work within the time

Mr Fish, according to his own statement, nas had aa opportunity of "gathering th» opinions of the contractor," upon-thiamatter, but does not make the statement "as coming from them," thus investing Mr David Prq.udfoot with a plurality, .which, if' not technical, may be existent. In the latfof the case Mr .Fish is entirely at home; : We quote some of his legal dicta, which, if not instructive, are decidedly amusing. If the Board have any idea of preventing the utter failure of the duty they have in hand, I warn them most solemnly to avoid doing that which will launch this Board into a lawsuit. Let us assume for a, moment we ure going to act upon the dictum, advice, or recommendation of our Engineer, that we determine the contract, how are the Board Koine to proced ? What is the first atep they would take? Of course they would go to their lawyer, and their lawyer would tell them something that would in* volve delay. Then they would have to get posses* sion of that plant, and how will the Board do that ? Would they go down and, vi ct armis, take the plant out of the hands of the contractor ? These things must be looked at «ense way.*- ; - »-»"» We are aware that the coutractor guaranteed to finish the work in a certain time; and it is also beyond the shadow of a doubt, notwitWanding what the absolute words of the deed may say, it w a % understood that the dredges which the Board gave into the possession of the contractors were amply sufficient to enable them to complete ihe worJt within the contract tinio. I have no doubt that I shall be met, if anybody chooses to answer my remarks, with a reference to the terms of the con« tract deed, wherein no such details as these are specified.

It appears, therefore, that in the eyes of Mr Fish the duly signed, sealed, and executed contract is mere waste paper, set aside entirely by some remarkably obscure verbal understandings. Upon the strength of these he solemnly exhorts the Board by no means to even attempt enforcement of the contract, any proceedings in which direction must, in his opinion, lead to their confusion and defeat. He was so insistent upon this, and put it so strongly and in so many different lights—now beseeching, now threatening—that the idea may possibly suggest itself to some minds of inspiration in this portion of his argument. We do not wonder at Mr Tewsley expressing astonishment at the "fighting man" of the City Council thus caving in and cowering before the bare pessibility of a row wilh the contractor; he who might have been imagined "First in the field, and eager for the fray," wanting to run away before the bugles sound the advance ; but there are wheels within wheels, and, as in a watch, although we do not see it, we perfectly well know the motive power—-so it is with other and more complicated machinery,social and economic. Pending what Mr Proudfoot has to eay, and its consideration by the Harbor Board, we shall defer discussion of the matter presumably at issue; but we would suggest to Mr Fish and his sympathisers, if ho have any, that the contract was entered into by the Board, not as a private firm, or as individuals, but as. trustees for the public; and that, whilst affording reasonable concessions to tho

contractor, they are not authorised to allow evasion of the terms or spirit of suoh a document, and could, no doubt, be restrained from such a course by the arm of the law. No one will believe but that Mr Prototooe knew very well what he was was aboutwhen he signed the contract, and it ia childish ( to talk qf, .verbal understandings trust, win be firm in itsau%, whilst acting with all possible consideration towards the;, contractor.