272
losure
while the Contractor was overpaid to the extent of $15,000 there was due to him a sum of at least $32,000 in round figures.
Paragraph 15. In the absence of Mr. Chatham I am unable to comment on this paragraph.
Paragraph 16. As I have said that I am unable to reconcile the figures given in Mr. Fisher's letter of the 20th of July, 1911, with those in Mr. Chatham's reply of the 19th of August, 1911. There is no record of Mr. Chathan having over-ruled Mr. Fisher in the matter of the manner in which the accounts should be kept. I do not know, therefore, to what Mr. Fisher alludes.
Paragraph 17. In order to explain the allusions in this paragraph I attach copy of a letter from Mr. Fisher dated the 20th February, 1909, in which he asked for further assistance,
diosure 5. and of a minute thereon by the Director of Public Works dated the
16th of March, 1909. In view of Mr. Chatham's opinion the increase in staff desired by Mr. Fisher was refused by Sir F. Lugard.
The correspondence raises once more the question to which I have alluded elsewhere of the desirability or other- wise of having a separate branch of Quantity Surveying. The officers trained as quantity Surveyors to whom Mr. Fisher alludes were himself, Mr. Little and Mr. Wright, his assistants, and Mr. Ross appointed in 1910 to succeed Mr. Little.
Paragraph 18. I would observe in connection with this para- graph that architect's fees and such like accounts would not affect the accounts of the Engineer in charge of the work, but merely the total ledger expenditure.
Paragraph 19. In recommending advances to the Contractor Mr. Chatham was no doubt guided by the figures of account suppli- ed to him. As I have said I cannot reconcile Mr. Chatham's
figures with those of Mr. Fisher. As regards the extra of $4,845.61 for timber this sum must have been charged to the Con-
tractors
|
*