THE STORES BUSINESS.

Evening Star, Issue 9833, 23 October 1895, Page 2

THE STORES BUSINESS.

BRISCOE, UAOKEIL, A HO 00,’S CONTRACT.

[Fsoip Oca Paewambntaby Reporter.)

WELLINGTON, October 23,

In view of the interest which is certain to be taken in commercial circles in Dunedin in the "stores” contract with the Public Works Department, and in view of the allegations made concerning the manner in whioh the same has been carried out by Messrs Briscoe, Maoneil, and Go., 1 send the report of the Public Accounts Committee on the matter in extenso !

1. The Committee find that on the 31st day of January, 1805, the Government, through tho Public Works Department, entered into a contract with Messrs Briscoe, Maoneil, and Go. for the supply of general ironmongery, iron, steel, Ship cnandlefy, teffient, lime, drain, pipes, and tents for the current year ending Shi December, 1 1895.

2. That it had been alleged by one Jamed Hendry Jenkins, a former employe of the contractors, that in carrying out the said contract they wilfully made certain overcharges and mistakes of weights qnd measures iu respect to goods supplied. 3. The Committee have sat for twenty-two days bearing evidence, and have examined twenty witnesses for and against tho allegations made.

4. From the evidence given by the said J. H. Jenkins and Messrs Gellatly (manager) and Bridson (ironmonger) for the contractors, Messrs Blow, Wilson, Ibbetson, Turner, and Biddell, officers in the service of the Government, the Committee find that there has been carelessness and looseness on the part of the contractors in connection with tho delivery of goods under the said contract, and for these irregularities the Committee consider the manager and servants of the contractors responsible. But there is no evidence of fraud on the part of the contractors. . s

5. The Committee find that there were a number of errors in the voucher sent by the contractors to the Government. These errors consisted for the most part of errors in weight and price, or were owing to wrong or inferior goods being supplied. They were, however, in many instances satisfactorily explained. But in connection with the supply of tents' an instance was brought before the Committee _in which very inferior tents wore supplied in lien of tents according to the sample ordered by the Government.

6. The Committee also find that under the terms of the contract several Government departments have the right to order and take separate delivery of goods. The Committee also find that the Railway and Marine Departments maintain efficient checks upon goods received from contractors. The Public Works and Land and Survey Departments each exercises a fair check on goods supplied where delivery is taken at Wellington. When, however, goods are sent by contractors to the order of the several departments outside of Wellington, the Cdmmittee are of, opinion that the present system of check is defective, 7. The Committee therefore recommend that a more efficient system of check should be established by the Government, whereby all goods purchased should, in the first place, be taken delivery of at central stores in the several chief cities and afterwards distributed to the different departments for the works as required. While such a system might entail tome expense in handling goods, yet the Committee consider-, that a greater compensating benefit would* accrue to the colony by the safer and more satisfactory management of such an important and necessary annual business. 8. During the course of the investigation it came to the knowledge of tho Committee that the managing partner at Wellington of Messrs Briscoe, Macneil, and Co. had been accepted by the Government as bondsman for the proper carrying out of their contract. The Committee think that this is objectionable, and that bondsmen should have no interest as partner in any contract with the Government.

A debate was raised by Captain Russell saying that a serious matter was involved, and pleaded for an opportunity . of discussing the report.—The Premier replied that it was only a “twopenny-halfpenny” concern, and that there was only about £4 in dispute when the whole thing was “ squared up.” Under these circumstances, it was absurd for the Leader of the Opposition to ask that a day be set apart for the consideration of the report, particularly as hon. members had not yet had an opportunity of reading the evidence.—Mr G. Hutchison, as a member of the Public Accounts Committee, said it was to be deprecated that the Premier had shown a bias in fa/or of the contractors. There was considerably more than £4 in dispute, and the Premier was misleading the House in seeking to minimise the amount. The member for Patea continued by quoting from the evidence given before the Tariff Commission by Mr Macneil, jun, regarding the cement contract, in which he alleged “influence at headThe Premier again took the floor with a motion that the report be considered on Friday next. This he took as the groundwork for the statement that he had felt that trade jealousy bad been at the bottom of the action which had been taken on behalf of Messrs E. and W. Mills and Co., the former contractors, for an investigation, At the instance of Mr Bussell, a son-in-law of Mr Mills, a great stir bad been made before the Public Accounts Committee by Mr G. Hutchison, who, after starling the turmoil, which had cost the country £2,000, had run away from the inquiry.—Captain Bussell gave it as his opinion that no opportunity for further discussion would be given on Friday, and characterised the Premier’s proposal as shelving the matter. He alleged, from information placed at his disposal, that the errors in regard to overcharges were more than mere mistakes.—Before the motion was put, Sir B. Stout, as a member of the Public Accounts Committee, stated that the report was stronger against Briscoe, Macneil, and Co. than, in his opinion, the evidence warranted, and several of the passages in the report were only carried by the casting vote of the chairman.—The motion of the Premier was carried.