1.—7

52

Mr. Gave : I think it was after. Son. Mr. Miller: I cannot understand why there was no distinct answer to the letter of the 14th February, 1877, from the Solicitor-General to Mr. Travers. The Solicitob-G-enebal to Mr. Tbavebs. Crown Law Office, Wellington, 14th February, 1877. SlB, —• The Government and the Messrs. Brogden. 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 G-overnment, 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 Engineer-in-Chief and settle the items in dispute before the claim is filed, and these gentlemen can arrange accordingly. . I have, &c, W. T. L. Travers, Esq., Solicitor, Wellington. W. g. Ebid. Now it appears to me that throughout Messrs. Brogden have evaded any compliance with the request of the Government. Mr. Cave : Here is the letter of the 15th May, 1877, from Mr. Travers to the Solicitor-General: — Mr. Tbavees to the Solicitob-Genebal. Sib,— Me Brogden. Wellington, 15th May, 1877. I have been requested to address you again with reference to the contemplated proceedings under the provisions of "The Government Contractors Arbitration Act, 1872." The Messrs. Brogden are desirous that the Government should waive any proceedings under the 4th section, allowing all matters in dispute to go direct to the Judge in the first instance. They are further desirous that the Government should concur with them in preventing the applications of sections 12 and 13 to the proceedings to be referred. I have pointed out that this could only be done effectively by alteration of the law, but that in all probability the Judge would consent not to use the powers given by those sections if both parties concurred in requesting him to abstain from doing so. They are further desirous that the Judge should be empowered, at the request of either parties, to submit any question of law for the decision of the Supreme Court, if his decision should be unsatisfactory. I have pointed out that this is not provided by the Act, but I apprehend that by consent such, a power might be given to the Judge independent of the Act, and that such a power would probably be satisfactory to the Judge himself. 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 understood you, repeat that assurance. With respect to the first three points above referred to, I have the honor to request that you will inform me, at your early convenience, whether the Government will consent to all questions going direct to the Judge instead of first passing through the stage mentioned in section 4; whether the Government will concur in an arrangement, pending legislative alterations, to avoid the Judges acting under the powers given by sections 12 and 13 ; and whether the Government will consent to give the Judge power, at the request of either party, to refer any matter of law for the consideration of the Supreme Court. I have, &c, The Solicitor-General, Wellington. Wi. ThoS. Locke Teavebs. Now, it is clear that Mr. Henderson had doubts as to whether the Government would waive or not; and it was, no doubt, in consequence of that uncertainty that the arbitration did not go on. Mr. Bell: Mr. Reid's answer says, —■ 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 thirty-first section was not one of which the Government would have been advised to take advantage, and I should have been prepared favourably 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. Mr. Gave : Unfortunately he goes on to make a special reservation. He says, " 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." It must be borne in mind that Mr. Henderson was not a principal in these negotiations, but that the principals were many thousands of miles away; and he probably felt that, by allowing the arbitration to go on without some provision which he considered necessary, he might place the Messrs. Brogden in a very considerable difficulty. Very probably if one of the Messrs. Brogden had been here at that time the whole difficulty would have been removed. Son. Mr. Oliver : When the Government seem to have agreed to the proposals of Mr. Travers, Messrs. Brogden seem to have become dissatisfied with Mr. Travers. Mr. Gave : Not exactly Messrs. Brogden, but Mr. Henderson. I must again ask you to consider that Mr. Henderson was only an agent, and of course he was bound to act with very much greater caution, and be thoroughly satisfied on every point he thought doubtful, before he committed his principals to any particular line of action. It really was a most important matter, on which an agent could scarcely be expected to decide or take any responsibility. Son. Mr. Oliver: Are we to understand that when Mr. Travers sent that letter containing proposals, which were immediately adopted by the Government, he was acting as the trusted legal adviser of Messrs. Brogden ? Mr. Gave ; He was then so acting; but immediately afterwards Mr. Barton was consulted by Mr. Henderson without the knowledge of his principals at home. Mr. Barton, probably through having had fewer dealings with the Government than Mr. Travers, had not the same confidence in them as Mr. Travers had. That is the only way in which I can explain it; but no doubt (as I have already said), if one of the Messrs. Brogden had been here at the time, the whole thing would have been settled, and this inquiry might have been held then instead of now. But still I would strongly urge that if there was any ground for granting an investigation in 1877, still more ground exists now, and it would be nothing more than an act of justice to grant such an investigation. Messrs. Brogden have never had an opportunity of testing the merits of their claims—no opportunity on which both sides could be heard. Son. Mr. Johnston : In 1877 you decide not to proceed to a reference, because you believed the Act of 1872 not to be in operation, or for some other reason of your own you elected to take another course. Now you bring your chosen position before the Committee, and say you are under a grievance.