CO885-(7-8) — Page 549

70

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

LC.O. 885

8

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

126

subsequently heard from the Colony that the order had been placed in the United States at the price of £738, delivery to be in three months. The case, although relevant to the question of the comparative merits of English and American makers, does not disclose any shortcoming on our part, and, as a matter of fact, no complaint was made against us. We may add that the date of this requisition was 23rd January, 1897, and that as the cases specified conie down to near the end of 1901, it has only been possible to bring in this "complaint" by extending the period of three years named by the Secretary of State to one of nearly five years.

Case (2). The delay in question was on the part of the contractors, and was attributed to the engineers' strike. The error in the design was in the plan supplied by the contractors. No complaint was made against us.

Case (3)-A shortage was reported by the Colony; the suppliers maintained that the full supply had been sent, and gave particulars in support, but at our request refunded the amount in dispute, which was 5s. 3d.

Case (4) Here it is stated that there was a complaint of excessive breakage, and that the Crown Agents denied that breakage was due to careless packing. We made no such denial, but simply conveyed the denial of the makers and asked for particulars to place us in a position to claim against the makers. We attach a copy of the correspondence. We received no reply to our letter of 10th June, 1898, and presume that the Colonial Government acquiesced in our view that the particulars given were not strong enough to enable us to

March 22, 1898, Requisition

26700

April 26, 1898,

June 10, 1898.

take up the case against the makers.

Case (5)--It is stated that apparently Crown Agents did not reply to a com- plaint of delay from the Government Printing Office. All the stores in question had been shipped and advised before the complaint was received here.

Case (6)-Helmets received without buttons. The order was properly given, and the omission was the fault of the contractor, who apologised for it and sent the

buttons.

Case (7).—The "excessive cost of freight of certain Doulton pipes was 1d. per pipe, and was due to the fact that the first consignment was from London, and the second (at the lower rate) from Liverpool. The difference of charge was pointed out by the Colony and we were asked to "look into the matter"; the above explanation was given. It hardly correct to say that a complaint was made, and certainly no such expression as "excessive cost" was used.

Case (8). The first point here is that a package of envelopes was damaged by sea water. It is correctly stated that the cost was recovered by us (from the insurers). We do not know if we are to infer that the Colonial Government considers us respon- sible for mishaps in transit at sea of this character. The overcharge for the sta tionery was discovered irrespective of the Colony's mention of it, and the money was refunded by the suppliers.

Case (9)-Here a length of brass tube (not inspected) was sent short by the suppliers. The value of the shortage was 7s. 4d., and we obtained this from the suppliers.

--Case (10)-Certain syringes were missing; the Medical Officer stated that the case had been cut open and that a theft had probably been committed during transit and suggested recovery from insurers. We reported that the insurance did not cover, theft. No complaint against us has until now been suggested.

Case (11) The delay was on the part of the contractors, and was attributed to the engineers' strike. We telegraphed to Colony, “Bridgework delayed by strike." On this the Director of Public Works wrote, “it is difficult to understand how a delay of altogether 15 weeks can be justified by the fact of the strike." We need hardly observe that this is attributing to us a statement which we did not make.

Case (12). The Colony wanted dynamite containing 40 per cent, of nitro- glycerine. In this country dynamite is only made with 75 per cent. We can hardly be blamed for this.

Case (13)-There was a complaint of bad packing and the case states that the contractors offered to replace the damaged goods. The goods complained of and re- turned consisted of one cataract knife, and, we may add, as the circumstance is not mentioned, that it was at once replaced by the suppliers.

Case (14)--The wording of the "complaint that gold chevrons were supplied in- stead of worsted ones" would seem to imply that worsted chevrons were ordered.

127

The order was for "chevrons" simply. We, however, got the articles replaced without cost to the Colony.

Case (15).-The pliers were ordered and duly forwarded to the shipping agents; on Colony stating that they had not been received another set was sent out without charge.

Case (16)-The Consulting Engineers attributed the delay in supplying these telegraphed materials to the difficulty of obtaining a suitable quantity of the raw material. All, however, were shipped on 1st June. We enclose the bill of lading* to show this, as the case states that the goods were sent on 21st August.

Case (17). This case states that the Director of Public Works complained of delay in supplying iron joists, that we were written to on 25th June, 1900, and apparently did not reply. We received a letter asking us to procure the early shipment of the goods, but no complaint was made. The goods had been shipped on the 1st June, and duly advised.

Case (18)-We sent to the Colony a reply from Messrs. Waterlow requesting the return of the skivers complained of for their inspection. About six months after- wards the Colony asked for a reply to their complaint and we referred them to our letter. The Colony wrote back that our letter had been received, and that their subsequent letter had been addressed to us in error. The skivers have not been returned, and nothing more has been said about them.

Case (19). The goods in question had been shipped before the complaint was received. The contractors had taken about six weeks over the contract time.

Cases (20), (21), (22).—C'ases of contractors' delays. The correspondence is in the Colonial Office.

Case (23)-Alleged defective packing by Messrs. Arnold and Sons, causing injury to certain surgical instruments. We obtained replacement from the firm of the damaged articles.

Case (24)-Alleged shortage in a box containing "microscopic stains." shortage was made good. The supplier in this case was named by the Colony, and no The complaint was made against us.

2

Case (25)-Contractor's delays in supplying clothing; letter to Colonial Office of 6th July, 1901.

Case (26).—It is stated that Crown Agents were written to about the police. uniforms on 18th February, 1901, and that no reply was yet received. We submit that the Colonial Government might fairly have set out the facts that the articles in question were shipped on 19th February, 1901, and were duly advised.

Case (27).-Certain lamp posts were broken in transit at sea. values and credited them to the Colony. In this, as in many like cases, we are at a We obtained the loss to understand what the complaint against us is, unless we are to believe that the Colonial Government considers that all accidents which goods may suffer in transit are evidence of negligence on our part.

Case (28)--Requisition for postal order forms (about 160.000) received 14th February, 1901, and sent to Messrs. De La Rue on the 16th: delivery promired in three months. Governor was informed and wrote to urge an earlier date, as they were urgently required. Part delivered in third week April, rest third week in May.

It was not alleged that this was an unreasonable time.

(No. 503.)

SIR,

Correspondence relating to Case (4).

CROWN AGENTS to COLONIAL SECRETARY, Jamaica.

Jamaica. Requisition 26700.

March 22, 1898.

I HAVE the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter. No. 963/976, of the 31st January, enclosing a copy of a letter from the Managing Commissioner of the Kingston General Commission respecting pans and traps supplied by Messrs. Bodin and Company.

2,

As regards the breakages complained of, we are assured that every care was taken, and that the goods were well and efficiently packed by an expert packer.

• Not printed.