CLARENCK- KAIKOURA ROAD DIVERSION CONTRACT, I.E.FLOOD BELIEF.

Marlborough Express, Volume XXXI, Issue 17, 23 January 1895, Page 2

CLARENCK- KAIKOURA ROAD DIVERSION CONTRACT, I.E.FLOOD BELIEF.

TO THE EDITOR, Sib,— Kindly permit me space to reply to a letter signed by H. B. Haddleston, C.E., whioh appeared m your issue of tho 18ih inst., referring to this contract : giving a long explanation about the way m whioh the work waa carried oat. Anyone reading this artiole might think the contract waa one of great magnitude and importance. Noth" ing of the kind. It was only a bridle traok, and the contract prioo was £850. Mr Hnddleston says be put £250 iato the oontraotor's pookot by alterations made by him. Ba thia as it may, I cannot oredit any engineer aooepting a position of trust to & public body being guilty of suoh an ao'.ion and acknowledging it m the publio press. What puzzles me also is the affinity this contract (whioh was swept out of existence 11 or 12 years ago) has with Foster's Channel, Rose's Overflow, and engineers connected with flood relief (perhaps Mr Editor you can answer my query). Mr Huddleston'B effusion having nothing to do with looal affairs, and as I happen to be the " James Muir" so persistently referred to, I presume I am justified m replying, giving a plain statement of the facts. Mr Huddleston was quite oorreot m stating that he altered the oonstruotion of the pre-viously-mentioned work, and he did it so effectually that Mr Fitzgerald, then Resident Engineer m Blenheim, failed to recognise it m comparison with the plans prepared by the Government engineers, and consequently refused to pass it. Mr Huddleston is also correct m stating that I endeavored to get compensation from the Eaikoura County Council for alterations and deviations made by their engineer (Mr Huddle&ton), and failed ; but he conveniently withholds the reasons of my failure. The reasons are simply these : — My foreman eleoted to make the alterations as instructed by Mr Huddleston instead of attending to my instructions, m whioh I drew bis attention to a clause m the general conditions to the effect that no payments would be made for any alterations or deviations except authorised m writing by the engineer m obarge. This was fatal to my claim, Mr Huddleston quietly ignoring any responsibility. But tbe statement made by Mr Huddleston that my men went on strike, and could not get their wages, is fslse For what reason ho makes this untruthful statement I am unable to determine. The men who were then employed by me on this oontraot are still m Blenheim, and can substantiate my assertion. I do not know what the oontraot price for Buch a class of work may be, say m India, but so far as the above-mentioned oontraot n oonoerned, I was satisfied, and wish I had a few others like it; my men were quite satisfied ; tho merchant who supplied the plant, stores, etc, was extremely well satisfied ; and, Mr Editor, it seems funny that every one who had to do with the contract was satisfied oxoepting my friend Mr Huddleßton.— l am, etc , Jab. Mdir.