THE Wellington Independent. Tuesday, February 12, 1861. MR. TONKS' CONTRACT.

Wellington Independent, Volume XVI, Issue 1496, 12 February 1861, Page 2

THE Wellington Independent. Tuesday, February 12, 1861. MR. TONKS CONTRACT.

Daniel O'Connell is reported to have once remarked, that he who could make a lie believed for four and twenty hours before his adversary could refute it, had already gained a great advantage. If this remark is true, then the Advertiser has gained a thrice greater advantage than that contemplated by O'Connell, since the lie promulgated on Saturday, with reference to Mr. Tonks contract, necessarily remains unrefuted for three times four and twenty hours. But however great an advantage gained in such a way may be, it can rarely prove other than a temporary one; because the.promulgator of the deception generally finds out that in some way or other, sooner or later, lies, like young chickens, come home to roost.

The word " lie," is a coarse and disreputable one — a word which sounds harshly even when spoken in the excitement of the moment; but which, looks decidedly ugly when calmly written. Harsh as it sounded, it was the only word perhaps, which would correctly express what O'Conneli meant to convey; and ugly as it appears above when written, yet no milder word will fitly describe the statement put forth in the Advertiser's leader, by which the circumstance of Mr. Tonks having thrown up a contract, because he had made an error in his calculations, is perverted into a case of jobbery on the part of the Provincial Government, which, if true, would cover them with lasting disgrace. Fortunately Mr. Tonks has come forward and exposed the cheat which the Advertiser attempted to palm upon the public in his name. The Advertisers lie has come home to roost with a vengeance, and we therefore content ourselves with reprinting the accusation and its refutation. The minor statements, not noticed by Mr. Tonks, are as inveterately false as those which he has refuted ; but it would be idle to comment upon them. Our readers scarcely need be told that it is the rule, universally followed by Governments and other public bodies, not to allow of any addition being made to the amount after the tender has been accepted, and also that if the accepted tender is thrown up the next highest obtains it, on the simple ground that had the party so withdrawing not tendered, the next highest would have been the lowest and receive lit in the first instance. The con • duct of the Provincial Government and of Mr. Waring Taylor, (the bondsman of Mr. Tonks) has been so perfectly straightforward in this matter, that to deliberately write such calumnies as those which appear in the Advertiser, is. not only a disgraceful act, but is literally a piece of villany for which there is no excuse. It is only increased instead of palliated by attempting such a justification as that which is too often nsed on such occasions — that which we believe to have been .the motive which originated the whole — simply an intention to injure political opponents at the forthcoming election.

[From the " Advertiser."]

The announcement made by the Independent yesterday that the tender of Mr. Carter for the beach breastwork bad been accepted by the Government, must have rather startled those at all acquainted with the facts of the case ; seeing that his tender was more than £1000 higher than that of another person's, who, after due deliberation, was fully prepared to execute the work. The facts, as far as we can learn, are briefly these : — The Government having invited tenders for a brick breastwork to the land now being, without any legal sanction, reclaimed fi'omjbe bavbour, ihree tenders were sent in That of Mr.^VT Tdnk's* junior, was £1950;' that of Mr. C. R. Carter, #2958 ; and tbat of Mr C.jMills, £3247. Before accepting Mr. Tonks tender, the Government sent for him to know whether he had not made some mistake, as the amount of his tender was so much less than that of either of the other two tenders received. Mr. Tonks, however, informed them that he had made no mistake, that, he was, confident tbat the work could be done for tbe sum he had stated, and tha the was prepared to execute the work according to specification. The Government having no excuse afforded them at the moment to reject his tender, informed him that it. would be accepted, on his entering into the required bond, with securities for the due performance of the work. It, however, subsequently turned out that, for some reason or other yet to be explained, ' one of Mr. Tonks proposed bondsmen had not so much confidence in the paying character of the undertaking as he had himself. This gentleman, fortunately or unfortunately, possesses? the bump of caution in a pre-eminent degree. This is discoverable in the deliberate manner of his speech, as well as iv his physiognomy,.and whole bearing ; and would, consequently, render an examination of the crauium by a professional phienologist altogether superfluous. This bump, . on the present occasion, having been, for purposes, best known to the operators, unduly excited, the colleague of Mr. Carter iv tho General Assembly

declined to sign the bind. N>w, a? wa have a sight to assume that M r . Tonks knew something of tue nature and cost of the W>rk he had undertaken to execute, and that his proposed ' bondsman knew nothing about it except what he was told by others, we must conclude, if the real reason why tho former threw up his contract was tho one alleged, that his proposed, bondsman had been persuaded to back out by' some person or other who, we must suppose, understood better the value of the work than he did. Be this as it may, Mr. Toriksfrom ; this or some other cause threw up his contract, * and the Independent tells us, "Mr; Carter's tender 1 has been accepted accordingly." But why accordingly? Why should the public be oom- » pelled to pay £1000 mire on a £2000 contract than what another person, after due deliberation, and a sufficiency of caution, expressed his willingness to do it for ? It is true that Mr. Carter is a member of the Provincial Council-— that he sits on the Treasury benche. — that in aod out of the House he is a thick and thin supporter of the present Government —that he is one of their colleagues in the General Assembly— and that he has somehow or another, with or without contract, managed- . to get into his bands all the best paying jobs in the gift of the Government— so much so indeed as to have obtained for him the sobriquet of :" the lucky contractoi"—bu,t all these reasons, singly or cojmbined, were not .sufficient to justify the Government in accepting his tender, simply because Mr. Tonks, who was. willing to undertake the work, was unable to find a bondsman.

It may be that the same regard for.the public interest actuated the Government on this occasion as when Mr. Carter undertook the comple* tion (a large portion of which being without contract) of the Waiobine bridge. ';' Still vr'Hr maintain that it was their duty to have eitbef, under the circumstances, issued fresh tender*, or to have referred the tenders to an impartial board of practical men for the purpose of ascertaining- if Mr. Tonks* tender was top low, whether that of Mr. Carter's was no more thau fair and reasonable. It is just possible,. but. highly improbable, tbat they did so. Whether^ however, they did so or not, if the Council were sitting, tbe subject would be a very prope_ : one for an immediate and searching ihvestiga''■tion. - !

Mr. Carter, by accepting this contract, has forfeited bis seat for the Wairarapa, and as he has frequently said that no Government Cori- . tractor ought to have a seat in the Couneil-r-au., opinion in which we, and the members of the Government, coincide— the electors, of ,tha t district will have to look out for another member to be their nominal representative in His Honor's nominee legislature; that is if they „ think it will be worth their while. . i

(Mr. Tonks Refutation,.) Copy of letter to the Advertiser also forwarded to us for publication :■ —

To the Editor of the New Zealand Advertiser.

Sib, — I beg to inform you that your surmises and conjectures about my Tender, for the Sea Wall are incorrect. In the first place Mr. : W. Taylor, one of my sureties, to ; whom you uumistakeably allude, never refused or objected to sign the Bond : —he was quite willing to do ao. In the second place, I found I had made a mistake in my Tender ; and the Superintendent was asked if he would give me j6503 more, than the amount of my Tender: he said he «ould not. I therefore threw up the contract rather than suffer a tuinpus loss.. . .'j v

William Tonks, Jon. Wellington, llth February, 1861.