2.
23
damages. This question was carefully examined at the
time. The contractors urged that they did not receive
orders to proceed with some part of the work until nearly
a month after the contract was placed in their hands; and
that they had great difficulty in procuring the mat erial,
as the contract included comparatively small quantities of
a variety of big sections of steel, and they were unable to
get these amall quantities rolled. As soon as they received
the materials they worked overtime, gave the contract pre-
cedence over other work, and did everything in their power
to expedite it. On these grounds the Consulting and Inspect-
ing Engineer, Mr. Waring, recommended that no deduction should
be made. After careful consideration of all the circumstances
we arrived at the same opinion, which, on further review, we
see no reason to modify.
3.
I need hardly explain that, having regard to the
general practice of large buyers in this country, the harsh
or arbitrary infliction of penalties on firms who have done
their utmost to carry out their obligations would only result
in injury to the business of this office and hence to the
Colonies.
When there has been neglect or avoidable delay on
the part of a contractor we do not hesitate to punish him, but
the present was by no means such a case. I would further
observe that the total deduction to which the contractor could
possibly have been subjected was in this case only £50 approxi-
mately, which bears a very small proportion to the sum to
which the Hong Kong Government have rendered themselves liable.
4.
As regards the subject generally, I would point out
that