20

1.—7

The Committee will see that the reservation of rights was simply for the purpose of being able to say to the Messrs. Brogden, you shall not bring in your claims in such a manner as to inconvenience us. Then follows Mr. Travers letter of 31st January, 1877. That refers to a conversation Mr. Travers had with Mr. Eeid. Mr. Travers refers to the fact that he had discussed the subject with Mr. Eeid, and from aletter I shall refer to later on it appears that Mr. Travers understood from Mr. Reid at that interview that the Government would not insist upon clause 31 of the Act. In the letter of the 81st January, 1877, Mr. Travers suggests to Mr. Eeid the course which should be adopted. Mr. Travers proposes that the existing notices should be treated as having been given under the Act, that he should at once file his propositions of law and fact, on the Napier contract, that the Government should file theirs in reply, that issues should be settled and a day appointed for hearing the case. He concludes the letter with the following words: — It is not my -wish, acting for the Messrs. Brogden, to pursue these investigations in any spirit of hostility towards the Government, or in a manner likely to embarass or inconvenience them ; and I trust that the Government, on their part, will consent to carry on the proceedings with as much freedom from technical difficulties as may be consistent with their duty; I, on the part of the Messrs. Brogden, being quite willing to waive technical points in the course of the proceedings. Mr. Eeid forwards this letter to the Under-Secretary with the following memorandum. I send you this letter received by me to-day. It seems to me Mr. Travers's proposal is fair and reasonable, and one that should be entertained by the Government. The decision in one of the cases will practically settle all the questions in dispute respecting the various contracts ; and should this be favorable to the Government it is not likely the Messrs. Brogden will proceed with other cases ; and if, on the other hand, the Government do not succeed in their view it would be useless going to increased expense and loss of time in further cases. Will you please lay this before the Minister for instructions. The details, of course, remain to be finally settled. W. S. Eeid. And on the 14th February, Mr. Ormond minuted on the correspondence " The course advised by the Solicitor-General is approved." Mr. Travers had proposed a course of procedure in which neither party was to rely on technical difficulties, the Government assent to it, and say let us get through with it at once. Then there is Mr. Eeid's answer to Mr. Travers, dated 14th February, 1877 : —■ I have the honor to acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 31st ultimo, respecting the submission to arbitration of Messrs. Brogden's claims against the Government, and, in reply, to inform you that the Government are prepared to adopt the course indicated in the letter above referred to. I think it will be more convenient that Mr. Henderson should meet the Bngineer-in-Chief and settle the items in dispute before the Jclaim is filed, and these gentlemen can arrange accordingly. Sir, all we wanted at that time—in 1877 —was to get the enquiry through and have it over. Perhaps it is not strictly evidence, but I may be allowed to say that I was then acting Crown Solicitor, and I received instructions from the Crown Law Office, given under the belief that the matter was to be finally settled then once and for all. And so it would have been but for the letter of Bth March, 1877. Messrs. Brogden suddenly changed their front, and said, "We will have nothing to do with the Act." Mr. Travers had settled with Mr. Eeid in January that the cases should be settled under the Act of 1872, but Messrs. Brogden, in March, fulminated their blast against the Act, and declared they would have nothing to do with it. Then what followed ? The Messrs. Brogden had broken off the negotiations, and would not proceed in the form prescribed by law, though Mr. Travers offered to do so. Ido not propose to read the letter of the Bth March or Mr. Ormond's reply at length, but the Committee will find that, in reply to the letter of the Bth March, in which Messrs. Brogden repudiated the arrangement made by Mr. Travers, and made a long attack on the honor and good faith of the colony in reference to the Act of 1872. To the course formerly proposed on°your behalf, and assented to on behalf of the Government by the SolicitorGeneral, I am prepared to adhere ; but I cannot consent to such terms for conducting the references as would preclude the Government from having a thorough investigation of the matters alleged to be in dispute. On the 15th May, 1877, Mr. Travers wrote, reopening the former negotiation. Apparently the Messrs. Brogden had reconsidered their decision, as expressed in the letter of the Bth March, for the letter of the 15th May refers to contemplated proceedings under the Act of 1872. Mr. Travers, in the fifth paragraph of this letter, says : — Some doubt exists in the mind of their agent here whether, in our former correspondence, you consented to waive any question of time under section 31. I have informed them that I understood you to have agreed on the part of the Government to do so, but it would be satisfactory to|my clients if you would, assuming I rightly understand you, repeat that assurance. In Mr. Eeid's memorandum to the Minister the Committee will find these words :— Eespecting clause 4, Mr. Travers asks that the disputes might be referred at once to the Judge. To this there could be no objection : nor, to refer to another clause (31), which limits the period within which proceedings can be taken to six months, would advantage be taken of this clause. It is, of course, desirable to get the dispute settled, and refusing to go under this Act would only involve the Government in other proceedings. On the 4th June Mr. Eeid replied to the letter of the 15th May, the last paragraph being as follows:— Eeferring to that part of your letter which asks for an assurance that I have been correctly understood as having consented to waive any question of time under section 31, I may remind you that no statement has been made by me as to any particular clause in the Act the provisions of which would be waived; but, in answer to your letter of the 31st January last, in which, after detailing the course of proceedings under the Act, you expressed a hope that the Government would carry on the proceedings with as much freedom from technical difficulties as was consistent with their duty, you being prepared to do the same on behalf of your clients, I replied in general terms that the Government were prepared to adopt the course indicated in your letter. However, I may say that, acting in the spirit in which these proposals were made, I should have considered that the question of time under the 31st section was not one of which the Government would have been advised to take advantage, and I should have been prepared favorably to consider a proposal that the provisions of section 4 should not be insisted on. But, since the correspondence to which I have referred took place, your clients thought proper, on the Bth March last, to address a letter to the Minister, couched in language which almost rendered further correspondence impossible, and certainly was not calculated to facilitate proceedings. Under the circumstances, therefore, I think it better at present not to make any promise, either with respect to sections 4 or 31, and content myself with repeating the assurance contained in my reply to your letter of the -31st January.