CO129-382 - Public Offices - 1911 — Page 24

2.

23

damages. This question was carefully examined at the

time. The contractors urged that they did not receive

orders to proceed with some part of the work until nearly

a month after the contract was placed in their hands; and

that they had great difficulty in procuring the mat erial,

as the contract included comparatively small quantities of

a variety of big sections of steel, and they were unable to

get these amall quantities rolled. As soon as they received

the materials they worked overtime, gave the contract pre-

cedence over other work, and did everything in their power

to expedite it. On these grounds the Consulting and Inspect-

ing Engineer, Mr. Waring, recommended that no deduction should

be made. After careful consideration of all the circumstances

we arrived at the same opinion, which, on further review, we

see no reason to modify.

3.

I need hardly explain that, having regard to the

general practice of large buyers in this country, the harsh

or arbitrary infliction of penalties on firms who have done

their utmost to carry out their obligations would only result

in injury to the business of this office and hence to the

Colonies.

When there has been neglect or avoidable delay on

the part of a contractor we do not hesitate to punish him, but

the present was by no means such a case. I would further

observe that the total deduction to which the contractor could

possibly have been subjected was in this case only £50 approxi-

mately, which bears a very small proportion to the sum to

which the Hong Kong Government have rendered themselves liable.

4.

As regards the subject generally, I would point out

that