( 35 )
3. (1.) Can, I presume, be ascertained with certainty before the work is com- menced, by means of the tenders sent in, and as the responsibility of both design and supervision will in any case fall upon the Government as well as the acceptance of the tenders, I am not sure whether the liability for any failure on the part of the contractors would not rest with the Governinent in any case. If this were so, it would seem that the element of speculation on this score would be as great when the work is not done for the direct benefit of Government, as if were done for its direct benefit.
4. As regards (2), I should be glad to know more exactly the data for the estimate of $7,910,821 which deducting estimated cost would give to the existing lot-owners an estimated profit of over five and a half millions of Dollars. If the work were done by the Government for its own benefit this profit would of course be lessened by the amount of (3). But it seems to me that the element of speculation on this score would be almost altogether removed by the manner in which it is now proposed that the work should be done. By doing the work in sections, one or at most two at a time, it would be possible to ascertain with a near approach to certainty, what the profit or loss would be, and the decision of the question would be left open to discretion whether the work were proceeded with or not. It seems scarcely conceivable however that so large an amount as $5,764,593 is not a sufficient margin to cover all contingencies and leave a large profit in addition.
5. These considerations are certain to occur to the Secretary of State, and it is well to anticipate them by a completely satisfactory answer which, I confess, at the present moment I do not see my way to give.
Though I shall require a written reply from Mr. PRICE, I fear that at the present moment he may be more than usually overwhelmed with work, in conse- quence of the late destructive storm; and it might be well therefore that he should now give me his views orally, in order that I may be quite satisfied whether I should not make some further communication of my doubts to the lot-owners before their Meeting on Tuesday next.
27th June, 1888.
G. WILLIAM DES VEUX.
(16.)
(Surveyor General's Report on Governor's Minute of the 27th of June, 1888.)
1. In reply to His Excellency the Governor's Minute of the 27th of June,
1888, I deal first with the questions raised in paragraph 3:-
(a.) The cost of the work has been ascertained by means of the Public Works Department schedule of prices, and would be confirmed by the tenders when these come in.
(b.) The responsibility of design and supervision will fall upon the Government as well as the acceptance of tenders, but liability for failure on the part of the Contractors would be provided against in the usual way i.e. : by requiring from such Contractors a preliminary money-deposit by way of security for the proper completion of their contracts. Moreover, from every payment for work done a draw- back of 15 or 20 per cent. can be retained in the hands of the Government.
(c.) Contracts must contain the provision that all damage from typhoons during the progress of the works and for twelve months after their completion, shall be made good by the Contractors at their sole expense.