в
170
1
:
security amounting to 31,675.26, the whole of which should have been retained by the Government and ought never to have been parted with till the work was finished, he ceased work and even raised difficulties as to re-entry of the site. On the 15th June, 1911, the Government of Hongkong obtained possession of the works and I was then left to complete same at that date.
Owing to Mr. Chatham's action on his return from leave, as stated above, the building was not occupied until practically two (2) years after he came back, viz:- 15th
January, 1912.
For further particulars respecting the advances, etc., I beg to refer you to clause 19. pages 16-19 in this letter.
?
12.
It was my duty as Executive officer to prepare for and enter into contracts on behalf of the Government
by the powers conferred on me, and such contracts were
between me and the Contractor. It was also my duty to supervise the works and generally attend to the due per- formance of contracts and all matters incidental thereto and to do all such work as would be performed by an Archi- tect in England.
he
The duty of Mr. Chatham in connection with such
contracts, by virtue of his position as Director of Public
Works, was practically that of an Arbitrator in the event
of a dispute between myself and the Contractor, but /exceed-
ed his duty and interfered with and obstructed the due
performance of my work.
Indeed, when I declined to certify for sums for
work which had not been executed, it was only necessary
1
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.