1
O
ง
100
*was mislaid. He has recently called my attention to it and, "after a search, his letter has been found and I now forward it. "In view of what has occurred in connection with the Post Office "and Law Courts, I do not feel in a position to recommend that "Mr. Fisher's application be granted. I would submit that the best # course will be to refer it to the Committee which has been
"appointed to enquire into these works.
"With regard to the last paragraph of his letter in "which he states that he was without assistance at all for some
"months, Mr. Fisher alludes to the months of November and
*December, 1909, when he was without an Assistant in his office. "His two present Assistants arrived in the Colony on the 20th. of
January and 17th. of February, 1910, respectively".
Mr. Fisher's application was referred to the
Committee who, on the completion of their report, recorded that
"they could not see their way to making any recommendation on the
"subject of Mr. Fisher's application". The matter was submitted
to me in July, 1912, and I caused Mr. Fisher to be informed that
I regretted I was unable to entertain his application.
+3
12.
The reasons for the excess of expenditure
arc
over the original estimate for this building is fully explained in
Mr. Chatham's Memorandum of the 9th. of November, 1911, enclosed
in my Confidential Despatch of the 31st. of December, 1912.
The difference in cost of the superstructure
over and above the contract for it amounted to 851,195, and this excess was principally due to deficiencies and omissions in the Bill of Quantities. The question of whether the Firm of Messrs. Denison, Ram and Gibbs could be made liable for this excess was fully considered and the Government was advised that the deficien- -cy being only some 5 per centum on the total cost of the building was not so large as would justify an action at law to recover the
amount.
13.
Reviewing the whole case I am forced to the conclusion that although the principal cause of delay in the construction
318