1.—7

14

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. I have, &c, W. T. L. Travers, Esq., Solicitor, Wellington. W. S. Reid.

Messrs. Traters, Ollivier, and Co., to the Solicitor-General. Sir, — Be Brogden. Wellington, sth July, 1877. We have the honor to forward herewith petition under "The Crown Redress Act, 1871," and to request you will be good enough to procure the necessary consent of His Excellency the Governor to the filing of the same. The claim arises under the contract between the Queen and the Messrs. Brogden for the construction of the Waitara and New Plymouth Railway. We have, &c, The Hon. the Solicitor-General, Wellington. Thaters, Ollivier, and Co.

Messrs. Brogden and Sons to the Hon. the Minister for Public Works. Sir,— Wellington, 20th July, 1877. We have the honor to submit for your consideration the following method of settling all differences between the Government and ourselves relating to the railways we have constructed in New Zealand: — 1. That the Engineer-in-Chief and Mr. Henderson go through the accounts with a view of agreeing to as much as possible, and eliminating such items as are agreed on. 2. That all differences as to work and labour done and materials supplied, or as to the price of extra work, or as to whether we are entitled to the various claims in our accounts, or as to any other matter upon which the Government and ourselves may not agree, should be referred to either of the following gentlemen, viz., Thomas Higginbotham, Esq., Engineer-in-Chief for Victorian Government, and Robert Watson, Esq., Assistant Engineer-in-Chief for Victorian Government, to decide such differences upon their respective merits, and whose decision shall be finally binding and conclusive on both parties, each party being at liberty to be represented by counsel if they so desire. We make the above offer without prejudice, and request the favour of an early reply. We have, &c, The Hon. the Minister for Public Works, John Brogden and Sons, Wellington. (per John Henderson.)

The Sohcitoe-General to the Hon. the Minister for Public Works. The Hon. the Minister for Public Works. Respecting, the proposal of Messrs. Brogden and Sons in their letter of the 20th instant, I have to remark that, as a whole, it is not one which, in my opinion, the Government could be advised to entertain. Quite apart from the merely legal aspect of the case, and the somewhat vague nature of the proposal, there is the question of expense to be considered, and the policy of submitting difficult legal questions to the decision of a gentleman who, whatever his qualifications as an engineer may be, cannot be expected to arrive at correct legal conclusions. With regard to the first proposal made in the letter, it is one which was made and acquiesced in long ago, when first proceedings were contemplated under the Government Contractors Arbitration Act, and of which, as far as I am aware, the Messrs. Brogden never availed themselves. Indeed, the matters in dispute never have been definitely ascertained, and it has always seemed to me that the real objection of these gentlemen to proceeding under the Act above mentioned was the necessity, as a first step, of stating " the propositions of law and fact," to be submitted to a Judge upon the claims they preferred. The power of obtaining opinions from engineers or other skilled persons upon questions arising out of the proceedings for arbitration is conferred upon the Judge by sections 12 and 13 of the Act; and this very power was one of these the Government was lately asked to consent should be waived in the then proposed proceedings. Upon the whole it seems to me that the writers can only be informed that the contracts between themselves and the Government have prescribed a method of settling disputed questions arising thereout, and that the Legislature has provided ample means of giving effect to the proceedings contemplated by the contracts, and that the Government are now, as they have always been, quite willing to have such questions settled in the manner so prescribed. 25th July, 1877. W. S. Eeid.

Minute oy the Hon. the Attorney-General. I see no reason to depart from the course the law prescribes.—Fred. Whitakeb.

The Under-Secretaey for Public Works to Messrs Bbogden and Sons. Gentlemen, — Public Works Office, Wellington, 14th August, 1877. I am directed by the Hon. the Minister for Public Works to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 28th July, in which you propose that all the differences between yourselves and the Government relating to the railways you have constructed in New Zealand should be settled in the mode therein suggested, and, in reply, to inform you that, after giving the matter very full consideration, the Government are unable to accede thereto. I am to point out that the contracts themselves prescribe a method of settling all disputed questions arising out of the same, and that the Legislature has provided ample means for givicg effect