Poverty Bay Herald PUBLISHED'EVERY EVENING.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume XIII, Issue 4736, 9 December 1886, Page 2

Poverty Bay Herald PUBLISHED' EVER V EVEN ING.

GISBORNE, THURSDAY, DECEMBER 9, 1880. I HARBOUR TENDERS. ■ 'The correspondent who writes in this issue under the signature of " Public Money" has done what members of the Board should have figured out for themselves. If the figures are at the disposal of an outsider and he considers it worth the trouble to work them out for himself surely ifc would, have come with added weight from a member of the Board. A few facts ■of tho kind that " Public Money" produces 13 worth whole eveniuga of argument nnd puts the acceptance of the cement lender in an entirely new light. There cau be no cavelling with figures such as these, and if those members who pretend to have the interest of the ratepayers so much at heart would but devote some of their time to working out matters of this nature they would be doing infinitely more service to those they represent. We yesterday deprecated the considering of informal tenders, and may again state that the action of the Board was perfectly right in throwing out McEwen's tender. Still , it is worth while considering the question of whether any tender should be accepted at all when tho fact is patent and clearly shown that the Board would save at least £25(3 by treating the t snders as a private individual would his o\fvn business. Let us look at the figures oi yen by " Public Money " which we have hawd verified. Messrs McEwen's tender comes, with all charges, to £7604. The next two tenders are both set down at £7983, or nearly £380 above McEwen's tender The cement now on its way out with the plant cost £3 8s 6|d in I *>ndon, and taking this as a standard the 2000 tons, after paying all charges, wou Id cost £7727, or £25(5 lower than the lowe at formal tender. It therefore is clear that this amount wouM bo saved if the ceme nt were purchased in the open market, • or the larger sum of £380 by treating priva tely with Messrs McEwen and Co. It m ay be pertinently asked of members avhether they would givo £7983

or an article which had been offered for £7604, especially as thoy had a few days previously purchased in a falling market tho same article for £7727. Tho question now appears to be whether in the face of these undisputed facts it would not be advisable to reject all the tendeia as being too high and call for new tenders, or purchase direct as is done elsewhere. The sum that could be saved by doing so is worth more consideration than appears t> liave been given to it, and no real injustice would be done to those who have already submitted tenders. Any individual or public body in calling for tenders reserves the right of rejecting any or every tender sent in when it is clearly seen that more advantageous terms can be had otherwise. In the one instance it means a saving of £380, or in the other £256. When a sum of money such as cither of these sums can be fairly and honestly saved it is unmistakeably the duty of the Board to effect such a saving. If this course is not adopted then it will be for I the ratepayei'3 to ask themselves which section of the Board it is that is working best in their interest, and what the opposition and obstruction is costing the district.