Source: Local Government and Taxation of Towns Inquiry Commission (Ireland).
Supplement to Part III. Report and Evidence, with Appendices: Kingstown and Dalkey. Presented to both Houses of Parliament by Command of Her Majesty ,
1877, Dublin, 24
Date: 5 April 1877
Place: Kingstown, Ireland
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE
Mr. ENNIS re-called.
. . .
242. *** Has any portion of that £10,000 been applied, and for what purposes? The £2,000 which was to be laid out in Glasthule has been already expended.
243. How has it been expended? For the purposes for which it was borrowed alone, namely, the internal sewerage of Glasthule district.
244. Were there estimates prepared for that work? Yes; by the town surveyor.
245. When was the first payment made out of that £2,000? In the commencement of 1876. I will give you the exact date. The Provisional Order was passed in 1875.
246. But you did not get the money until the 20th of May, 1876? No; but we got the powers to borrow the money for certain works. The first sum paid by us for that work was on May 4th, 1876, a fortnight before the loan was completed. Those plans that were submitted in 1874 of course embraced all the works that were to be paid for out of the £2,000. That first payment was £22 10 s ., and then on the 9th June we paid our contractor the sum of £430 for portion of the plans dealt with in the Provisional Order.
247. Who was your contractor for those works? A gentleman named Thomas Sexton.
248. Mr. EXHAM. Is he a Commissioner, or a relative of the Commissioner of the same name? He is his brother, but he is not himself a Commissioner.
249. When was the contract advertised for? In 1875.
250. What is Mr. Thomas Sexton? He is a general contractor for houses and sewers.
251. Were there many tenders for the contract of this particular sewerage? I cannot say.
252. Was the entire of those Glasthule works taken by Mr. Sexton under one contract? He got only one contract in the Glasthule district. All the rest of the contract work near there was divided between a Mr. John Pluck and a Mr. George Dixon. The £22 10s. was for a little bit of sewerage. £430 was the amount of all his contract work in that district.
253. Were not all the works put up for competition in one contract? No; the drainage district was divided into sets of contracts, and Mr. Sexton got that contract only. All the rest of the £2,000 has been paid away between the two other contractors Mr. Pluck and Mr. Dixon.
254. Is Mr. Dixon a relative of any of the Commissioners? He is son-in-law to a member of this board, I believe.
255. Have the contracts been executed in that district? No; one is going on at the present moment. In fact all the contracts have been completed except one, and that is going on towards completion.
256. Will the £2,000 complete all the sewerage contemplated in Glasthule? No.
257. Was the estimate too low? The money is expended, and the work cannot be completed. The works intended to be done are more than the money would cover.
258. Mr. LAWLESS. Have you got the tenders that were put in for those works in Glasthule upon which the £2,000 was to be expended? I was not prepared for this, but of course if you wish I can produce them.
259. Was Mr. Pluck a Town Commissioner? Mr. Pluck had no connexion with the Commissioners in any way.
260. Mr. EXHAM. Did the Commissioners bind themselves to take the lowest tender? In advertising we put in the usual statement The lowest or any tender not necessarily accepted.
261. Who certifies as to the completion of the works? The town surveyor.
262. Does he see that they are in accordance with the specification? Certainly.
263. Are the payments made on his certificate? Yes. Since we commenced to carry out these works we have appointed a clerk of works at £2 a week. He is only appointed temporarily during the progress of the sewerage works.
264. What is his name? Peter Milligan.
265. When was he appointed? On June 16th, 1876.
. . .
*** Sequential number of question and answer in the minutes of evidence.