J
1.
A.
15003 20
A.
04 Q.
A.
The Chairman:-
Er Humphreys:-
Er Shelton Hooper:-
A.
1816.
834
he hoorderde ext
whether $2.50 was a reasonable price to pay ↑
No, not beyond tendering. They were advertised in the
Gazette and Chinese papers, and that was the lowest
tender forthe work.
Did it notocour to you that a combination might have 15703 been entered into, and that an unduly high tender might
have been sent it as the lowest tender?
No, it did not occur to me and as I say, these tenders
were recommended by the Board.
Did you ever hear that a man so long as he had not to 15104 pay undue squeezes could do the work and make a very handsome profit on $1.30 or $1.40 à floor ?
No, I have never heard that.
That is about the price, is it ?
$1.20.
$1.10.
15705
I personally thought we paid a little hipher because we
asked these men to go in and linewash in infected premises, and also I supposed because the work was
required to be very well done,
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference:-
wwwwww...O. 537
36
RECORD OFFICE, LONDON OUT PERMISSION OF THE PUBLIC REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHICALLY WITH- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH - NOT TO BE
15706
The Chairman; ·
06
Apparently no proper step was taken to chew hat $2.56 was a high price for the work.
A.
Yus.
'r Humphreys!"
07
Why should it be better? It was done by the same contractor in other houses, under the supervision of
15707
the Inspector.
15703
A.
Yr Shelton Rooper:-
08
A.
I thought it was done better because of the price. In the case of infected premises, they require it to be
well done.
Dont you require it to be well done with uninfected
premises?
I dont inspect premises.
W
Page 660Page 661
#88
A.