!
96
)
8th. of August, 1903. It was the subsequent detailed drawings required from the Architects who were the successful competitors, that were faulty.
5.
The matters referred to in paragraph 6 (a) and
(b) were satisfactorily settled with the Architects in a letter of
the 14th. of September, 1904, from the Acting Director of Public
Works to the Architects.
6.
Regarding the excess on the estimate for heat-
-ing the building in June, 1906, Mr. Chatham reported that the
Architects'estimate for heating apparatus was $750 and that Mr.
Fisher estimated that the heating apparatus required would cost
$1,500. The Architects' estimate was for a partial heating of the building only. Opinions seem to have differed widely as to how much of the building should be heated. The late Mr. L. A. M. Johnston, Postmaster-General, recorded the opinion that the Post Office did not require heating at all and pointed out that the old Post Office was not heated. However, in the result it was decided by Sir F. Lugard to heat the building throughout by means of hot water which involved very considerable additional expendi-
-ture.
7.
I am unable to offer any explanation of the delay of over 2 years by Mr. Chatham in dealing with the design of the roof. The Committee who reported on the delay in constructing the building thought that the defects were not pointed out early enough see paragraph 6 2(a) of the report. Mr. Chatham has replied in his minute of the 16th. of October, 1912, copy of which was enclosed in my Confidential Despatch of the 31st. 89 December, 1912, that the plans were dealt with in time to admit of
the necessary alterations in design being made. Even if that is so it does not absolve Mr. Chatham from blame for the delay in dealing with these plans. I enclose a brief statement of facts connected with the design of the roof. These facts which I believe to be accurate do not agree with Mr. Fisher's statements in several particulars. It will be observed that a great deal of
osure.
the