Appendix
pp. 77, 79, 81, 87, 92, 102, 104, 107, 113, 115, 218, 243.
(vi)
7. With regard to the first subject, the Commission has found considerable difficulty in ascertaining the precise nature of the charges of which the Officers of the Public Works Department have complained. The vague although not the less serious allega- tions of corruption to which public currency was given by the Hongkong Telegraph were so guarded as not to admit of direct enquiry being made in respect of them, and the Commission has found a good deal of its time unsatisfactorily employed in the endeavour to gather from the witnesses who have given evidence any facts known to them, or state- ments made to them, unfavourably affecting the system adopted by the Department in carrying out Public Works or the character of its Officers. In substance the allegations which have come in any form to the notice of the Commission, or which may be inferred from the evidence, have been as follow:-
*
a. That insufficient publicity is given to advertisements calling for tenders for Public Works, and that partiality and favouritism are shown in selecting the tender to be accepted.
b. Extravagance in the execution and cost of Public Works.
c. Corruption amongst the Overseers of the works, in the form of taking bribes or presents offered as inducements to them for passing bad work, inferior material, or excessive measurements, and generally for conniving at irregularities on the part of the Contractors.
8. With reference to these the Commission reports that,-
a. The evidence taken from the Officers of the Royal Engineers, the professional witnesses engaged in private practice as Architects, and the Surveyor General and his Officers, is conclusive that the system adopted by the Public Works Department in calling for tenders and in settling contracts is as satisfactory as that adopted by the Royal Engineers, or by private firms, no practical improvement on which has been suggested by any of the gentlemen examined. The Commission has had before it a list of all contracts undertaken by the Colonial Government for Public Works during the last three years, from which, as well as from the evidence, it appears that the rule has been, and is, to accept the lowest tender unless there is some special reason to the contrary, such as the notorious insolvency or incompetence of the person tendering. The Contractors usually employed by the Government are described by impartial witnesses as sufficiently numerous to ensure fair competition, and as comprising nearly all the most responsible and best workmen in the Colony.
b. Similar independent evidence is also satisfactory as regards the cost and character of the execution of Public Works. All the professional witnesses who have been examined testify to the generally superior quality of the work done for