CO885-(7-8) — Page 563

,,,,,。,:་

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

TITIFIC.O. 885

8

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

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

160

Enclosure "D" in No. 38.

FIJI.

1. The contractors replaced the pipes without cost to the Colonial Govern- ment. They stated that the defective pieces were never intended to form part of the delivery, and were accidentally mixed with the correct pipes during shipment. In this case they would never have come before the inspector.

In addition to replacing the pipes the contractors were suspended from our list for a year to mark our sense of their carelessness.

The Administrator remarks that " possibly the Crown Agents themselves were not to blame in the matter."

2. The correspondence is given in the appendix to the despatch.

3. Tramway line.—

Indent received from Colonial Office, December 7, 1900.

Order for tram rails placed, January 18, 1901.

Tram rails due, February 1, 1901.

*Ready on February 20, 1901.

*This delay was due to a question arising re punching the rails.

The goods could not be shipped till April 5, 1901, that is about six weeks after they were ready.

G. I. Piping.-

Order placed, February 1, 1901.

Piping due, February 29, 1901.

Reported ready by inspector, March 2, 1901.

The material could not be shipped till April 5, 1901, that is, one month after they were ready.

4. The suppliers maintained that the tar anchor lamps sent out were not, as alleged, of cheap construction, but of quality equal to those supplied to the Admiralty and leading steamship companies. Two more were sent out in June, 1899, and no more has been heard of the matter. The explanation of the difference between the 47s. 6d. quoted in the first instance and the 55s. charged for cach lamp was that we had the lamps polished at an extra cost, so as to make them as new and perfect as possible.

Enclosure "E" in No. 38.

CYPRUS.

1. The Island Government sent two requisitions, the later of which included some things ordered in the first, and on discovering the mistake, telegraphed to us that the order had been inadvertently included in the requisition of 6th November. This telegram was misunderstood, as the requisition meant had been registered here ...as of the date entered upon it by the Director of Public Works. The case arose out of the mistake of the local Government, and the subsequent misunderstanding could not have occurred if the Government had followed the ordinary practice of numbering their indents, and referring to them by their numbers; this we asked them to do in future.

June 12, 1899.-Indent received.

June 15, 1899-Estimate issued.

July 19, 1899.-Referred back to Colony, estimated cost being insufficient. September 20, 1899.-Reply received.

September 22, 1899.-Order placed.

January 13, 1900.—Work duc.

March 28, 1900.-Part shipped.

May 14, 1900.-Remainder shipped.

The delay was due to (a) difficulty experienced by suppliers in obtaining material;

(b) a breakdown at the rolling mills. We suggested a reply by telegram to our reference back, but the Island Government did not do this, and took six weeks to reply to our question. There was no delay in this office.

161

C

87

3. A is annexed of our letter to the Island Government, giving the circum- March 21,

copy stances of this case. The Government ordered 100 kegs of blasting powder "for 1901. salutes, but blasting powder in the ordinary sense would be dangerous, and would damage the guns used, and we accordingly ordered Powder blank L.G.," which, according to the War Office Vocabulary of Stores is used for salutes. It will be seen that no exception is taken to our action in respect of the quality of the article supplied, and we presume, therefore, that so far as this consideration is concerned, we acted correctly. The cost was, however, substantially above that given in the Colonial estimate, and we should no doubt have acted more properly if we had referred the matter back but the excess is over-stated by the Government, as about £40 is recoverable if the kegs and barrels are sent home. The Colonial estimate of £55, including freight, was obviously impossible.

4. We obtained from Messrs. Moss and Company a more favourable offer than that made locally to the Cyprus Government by the Messageries Maritimes Company,

a copy is annexed of our leiter of 4th March, 1901, giving the particulars. The Colony March 4, did not follow out our instructions, and in the result, however, the Bell's steamer 1901. which we expected to take the silver to Alexandria refused to do so on the terms agreed upon with Messrs. Moss and Company, and the latter firm was therefore unable to carry out their agreement.

5. The circumstances are referred to in our letter.

6. The requisition in this case was for" road rollers (23) for two mules, each to weigh about 1 ton without ballast. Each with ten cylinders 3 feet diameter and together 4 feet 6 inches long over all, with axles, brackets, shafts, frame, &c., some- what similar to attached engraving, &c." The Colonial Government some months after supply wrote that ten were fractured in the cylinders and spokes, and that the injuries indicated that the metal of which the cylinders were constructed was not of sufficient thickness "to render the rollers fit for the work for which they were designed." The fault in this case was, we submit, in the design and specification. The thickness of the rollers was naturally ruled in a great measure by the weight specified, and it was found difficult to get down to that weight. The specification was strictly carried out, and we were not asked to consider whether it was a proper one, nor were any particulars given to us of the "work for which they were designed." 7. The letter of the Chief Secretary of 8th January, 1900 (received by us 22nd January) requested that "payment should be made before the 31st of March, 1900," which clearly meant that the suppliers should be paid before the goods were delivered; this, however, we are not permitted to do. There was a great delay subsequently by the contractor, and as he was also behindhand with other contracts, his accounts were not passed until after a general enquiry and explanation. An extract from the contractor's letter is annexed and will show that the war made the G. 104. circumstances very exceptional.

April 4. In the case of the mohair braid, &c., we were directed to obtain supply from the War Office, and did so. The details are as follows:--

Indent (transmitted in despatch 50 of March 5, 1900) received March 23, 1900. The demand (to Royal Army Clothing Department, Pimlico) sent, March 28,

1900.

Demand acknowledged, March 29, 1900.

Reminder to Pimlico, May 31, 1900.

Pimlico admit loss of demand and samples, August 4, 1900.

Letter sending duplicate samples received by Crown Agents, September 19,

1900.

Pimlico urged to complete on receipt of a telegram, September 28, 1900. Pimlico report inability to supply certain articles, including braid, October 23,

1900.

Pimlico report supplies ready for shipment, November 2, 1900.

Pimlico reminded of two odd items (olivets and mohair buttons) December 28,

1900.

Pimlico report one odd item ready (buttons), January 18, 1901.

Pimlico send that odd item, value 7s. 1d., March 15, 1901.

It will be observed that a great delay was caused by the Royal Army Clothing Department losing the order and samples; this was explained to the Cyprus Govern-

ment.

*

9922

===P-D?

X

TE