29

L-7

with the solicitor, he distinctly informed me (and doubtless would also inform you) that up to the time he served the notices above referred to he was wholly unaware of the existence of the statute. The agent (myself) was equally ignorant of its existence. At the time it was introduced, I, as engineer superintending Messrs. Brogden's contract works, was with my engineer wholly absorbed in assisting the Government, making surveys and laying out railway-lines. The Bill was introduced into Parliament only ten days after Messrs. Brogden's contracts had been signed, and it was pushed through both Houses almost immediately after its introduction;" and so on. —There is a fallacy running through that. I was perfectly aware of the existence of a statute on the subject, but", as I have said before, from the time that I first saw the draft I never read it. If you will go a little further down page fifteen you will see this in your letter : " It then appeared to me that the Government and the Legislature by which the Act had been passed had been guilty of a gross breach of faith towards the Messrs. Brogden by introducing into the Act a set of provisions which materially modified the rights they had under their contracts. Messrs. Brogden were informed by the Government in office, when their contracts were entered into, that an Act would be requisite to give the Judges of the Supreme Court authority to act as arbitrators under the contracts, and to provide for the course of procedure; but they assumed that the Government would act in good faith, and therefore did-not watch the Act as it passed through the Assembly. The consequence of their reliance on the good faith of the Government has been that their rights under their contracts have been seriously interfered with." If you had remembered when you wrote that letter that you had actually, under the instructions of Mr. James Brogden, as you now tell us, revised and added to the first proof of that Act, you would have mentioned it of course in your letter ? —I do not know that I would. It does not appear to be called for. lam speaking rather of the statute as it existed, not that I had seen a draft of the proposed Bill in its present condition. I do not think I should. It was absurd of Mr. Henderson to say I did not know of the existence of a statute which I knew was absolutely intended to be passed for the purpose of giving effect to one of the principal conditions of the contract. In the letter which Mr. Henderson had written in the New Zealand Times, to which the letter in the Evening Post is an addition, Mr, Henderson had complained of a number of provisions which were actually in the draft of the Bill as settled by you. —Which provisions ? Ido not know what you refer to. Look at the letter in the New Zealand Times (copy produced). —I do not know that I ever read that letter. It is a long letter. I have no recollection of having read it. Tour letter is a wind-up to the correspondence in the Press.—But you will observe that my letter of the 4th April has reference to what was published on the 2nd. I may have seen this letter, but I have no recollection of it. My letter of the 4th April has reference to what was published in the Evening Post. But it is sent to the New Zealand Times, you will observe ? —I do not know where it appeared. However, there is no doubt, Mr. Travers, that this account to which you have referred Mr. James Brogden did instruct you to peruse, on behalf of Messrs. Brogden, this Act? —The entry is as follows: "Attending you as to arbitrators," &c. What is the date"?—l3th August. There is no doubt now that, acting under the instruction of Mr. James Brogden, you did peruse the first revise of this Bill on behalf of Messrs. Brogden ? —I will not say that. Whether it was a first draft or anything else I cannot tell you. All I know is that I perused a draft and suggested alterations, which were accepted, but beyond that I never had anything to do with it. What I want to fix } rou with is this, that you, as legal adviser of Messrs. Brogden, perused this draft, and that you did not do it as Mr. Travers, solicitor, but as acting for them ? —Most certainly. Mr. Travers, I want to know this from you: You drafted the Bill which has been introduced into the House this year, did you not ? —I believe I settled it. lam not sure that I did not even draft it. Tou will observe that there is a limitation clause in that Act?' —I dare say there is. Do not ask me, because really I cannot remember. It is very likely. What I want to know from you is this : Could you conceive that a Bill of this kind —such as that of 1872 —to give effect to an arbitration in the contract, should not contain some limitation ?—I conceive that a limitation was perfectly desirable. But not only desirable, but did you not consider it an essential part of such Act ? —Well, I think so. I assume that some limitation would be considered necessary by both parties. It seems to me a proper and reasonable thing that there should be a limitation to the power of referring such matters. I may tell you at once that I was under the impression that the matters to be referred were rather the class of disputes that were likely to arise during the currency of the works than the major disputes that might arise afterwards. Ido not look upon it in the light of being the creation of a final tribunal for the adjustment of every matter between the Government and the contractors ; and I should 'consider, if the Bill were before me in the original condition again, that a fair and proper limitation of time should be fixed for proceeding with the arbitration clause. But do you not-consider it was an essential clause ? —I should say it would be an essential clause in the Act; but certainly I do not contemplate that the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court would be completely ousted. That makes a distinction in the matter. I think the limitation of six months w,as a reasonable and proper one; but I doubt whether it was proper without the consent of all parties in regard to ousting the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. I will ask you to go one step further, Mr. Travers ? —I think I may say it would be necessary for both parties that there should be some limitation of that kind. There is a limitation of six years by law to ordinary proceedings in the Court, and I think there should be a limitation of much less than that in regard to questions of arbitration during the currency of works of this kind, because there would be changes in the personnel of the staff and of the Government, which would render it essential that these things should be brought forward early in order that the evidence on both sides might be available.