MR MAGUIRE'S CLAIM.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 955, 20 June 1890, Page 28

MR MAGUIRE'S CLAIM.

One story is good enough until the other story is told, and this is assuredly the case

v. r ith regard to the claim made by Mr Maguire for extras under the Te Aro reclamation contract. Mr Maguire’s side of the case has been very skilfully placed before the public by a contemporary. It is just as well that a plain and simple statement, of the other side —the case on behalf of the ratepayers —should also be given. It has been contended that Mr Maguire has probably a legal, aud certainly o moral, claim for the compensation he seeks, and that tho Corporation ought to settle the matter by arbitration or otherwise, so as to avoid litigation in which the city would be almost certain to come off: second best. When the ratepayers have read and considered the answer io this case we suspect that they will scarcely feel disposed to agree with this view. The grounds on which Mr Maguire bases his claim are stated as follows : tion provided for the erection of a substantial concrete sea wall. The planß were of a very elaborate and precise character. They showed the contour of the harbour bottom along the line of the wall, with the depth at frequent intervals, as ascertained by soundings, indicated even to low decimals. The foundations of the wall were to be on the bottom shown. When the work of erection was in progress, however, the engineer inaisttd that excavations for the foundations should be made to a depth of in some instances several feet below tho bottom line as shown on the plans. This excavation in deep water was necessarily a very difficult and expensive work. There was no provision made for it in the specifications, it was cot shown on the plans, and no information was given to tenderers that it would be required. The soundings and ground plan were bo complete and precise that tenderers naturally relied on their accuracy when making up their tenders The Council now objects to pay for the excavation aud extra depth of wall, relying on a general provision in the specifications that tenderers must satisfy themselves of the accuracy and sufficiency of all measurements, aud that tho fact of tendering shall be deemed to be an admission that they have done so. Of course no tenderer could have gone to the enormous ex pense of taking full soundings for himself- Contractors had to rely on the official figures and plans*as to the depth of walk Even now Mr Maguire .does not contest the perfect accuracy of both plans and figures, so far as they go. The bottom of the harbour was correctly mapped, and the depths were accurate. .Bub the excavations below the line of bottom shown, and in excess of the depths specified, being in fact below the line bottom, were not in any way provided lor, and Mr Maguire contends that the work was an extra, and should be paid for as such, having been duly ordered by the Engineer.” It is further Btated that a claim of about £2OOO is now advanced by the contractor on these grounds, and that the Corporation’s position is “ considerably weakened by the fact that during the progress of the contract a change took place in the office of City Engineer, Mr Lougbrey, who had signed the planp, &c., being replaced by Mr 'Wiltshire.” 1> is alleg'd that ‘‘the contractor was m-v, r notified of t hichange, arid that as a matter of law bis assent was m ces-sarj to place Mr "Wiltshire in Mr Lougbrey*a place a-« tJhe responsible engineer of tho work.’

'I he las' point is very easily disposed of. No such ass.-nt on the part of the contractor is “necessary to place Mr Wiltshire in Mr Loughrev’s. place.” On the contrary, it is *xpressly and moßt explicitly provided tin the contract, that the officers r*iferred to therein, including the City Surveyor and A ssistaTlt City Surveyor, shall be the persons hold rug those aj - pointments for tho time being, ft urther, Mr Wiltshire, who is City Surveyor now, vtas A ssisf ant City Surveyor then, and possessed all necessary powers of action.then as now. That is so clear, that nobody who has taken the trouble to read the contract through can f r - tertain the slightest doubt on the sub ject. As to the alleged amount of the claim, “ about £2000,” the Corporation at any rate have no knowledge of that. No such sum has been named to the civic authorities, and only Mr Maguire himself and his friends are aware what charge he purposes making for these alleged

“extras.” We have no doubt, however, that the statement is made on good authority and informal ion, and that the amount will prove to be as asserted. The question is not one of amount but of merit, for if 'he claim is unfounded then, whether its amoaut be £9OOO or £2OO or £2, the City Council is equally bound to resist it rather than pay away the ratepayers’ money where it is not due. If the case were open to any doubt then it might be one for arbitration or compromise, but as stated on behalf of the claimant it does not seem one on which any doubt can exist. The claim mud be either well or ill-founded, and no medium position appears babbie. After a careful examination of that portion of the contract wh : ch deals with this part of the work to be done, and of the various documents relative thereto, we are unable to find that it bears out Mr Maguire’s contention. As the City Surveyor, Mr Wiltshire, justly points out in his report on Ihe subject, the plans do not define the depths of the footings of tho wall, but simply the depth from the top of the wall to the surface of the harbour bottom on the denned lir-ie at the time the levels were taken. Mr Maguire does not question the accuracy of the depths, but complains that he has had to “clean off” for foundation to a greater depth than he anticipated. The contract specification, however, requires that the blocks shall be laid square aud solid," and that where, to ensure this, such a proceeding may be necessary, the bottom shall he “ cleaned eff ” to such extent as may he needful. That is to say, the superincumbent mud and silt have to be removed and a solid base left for the wall to rest upon. It is not a case of submarine “ excavation ” properly so called, but merely one of clearing away accumulated mud or silt. Indeed, so far from “ excavation ” in the proper sense of the term having been required of the contractor, he has been actually excused from doing it in one case where it was required by the contract. According to the plans the lowest blocks of concrete must be laid i:, » line horizontally. This, if if strictly carried out, would have entailed some heavy work, on the contractor, wherever the ground sloped considerably. But he has been allowed in those eases, we understand, to “ step ” the. blocks, or to set them on a slop;-, gradually decreasing with each successive upward block until a tjue horizontal was reached. Ii appears that an average depth of 12in of mud and silt> was allowed for in calculating the plans. In any case, however, the contract would not be affected by the work which Mr Maguire regards as an extra, because, by the contract, he expressly took the risk of having to do such work as might be required to provide a suitable bottom for the wall to rest upon. We learn t hat it is not a general rule in such cases to specify fixed depths to which foundations have to be carried, the provision being substituted that the structure is to be carried “ to a solid or approved foundation or depth,” the contractor taking the risk of what' depth such “solid foundation” may involve. This was the case in regard to the Destructor contract, and also, we are informed, in respect of many brickbuildings erected on tho reclaimed land.

In view of these facts w.v are unable to see that the contractor has made out either a legal, a mors!, or a COii-eq oen‘ mI > l.oio for *■ X pay umn* If the w«>rh which he umk-rtook has necessitated 050-rat ions more eowly than he counted up»*n, we regret 'hat he should loive sustained any loss, but 11. vert he we canno 1 see why the. ratejiavers sh> -uhl he c»ll-o| on to pay fi r what was npi&rently a niiscafi-uls! ion or misconception on his part ID- ’m.k the contract with all its risks aid contingencies, and no good reason hrs been shown why ho should not abide by the result, as other contract ora have to do. Most certainly the' City Council will lay 1 itself open to grave cenni*e and suspicion if it entertains the claim upon any grounds that have yet been adduced.