15

1.—7

to the proceedings which those contracts contemplate. Under these circumstances, and bearing in mind that the Government are now, as they always have been, quite willing that the questions in dispute should be settled in the manner so prescribed, there does not appear to the Minister to be any sufficient ground for warranting a departure from the course which the law directs to be followed. I have, &c, John Knowles, Messrs. Brogden and Sons, Wellington. Under-Secretary for Public Works.

The Undee-Secbetaet for Public Works to Messrs. Teayees, Ollitiee, and Co. Gentlemen, — Wellington, 17th August, 1877 In reply to your letter of the sth July, in which you enclose a petition by Messrs. J Brogden and Sons, pra}nng the Governor's assent to certain claims arising out of their Waitara and New Plymouth Railway contract being filed under " The Crown Eedress Act, 1871," I am directed by the Hon. the Minister for Public Works to inform you that His Excellency will be advised to consent to the filing of the petition. Will you be good enough to communicate further therein with the Solicitor-General. I have, &c, John Knowles, Messrs. Travers, OUivier, and Co., Wellington. Under-Secretary for Public Works.

CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE SECEETAET OF STATE FOE THE COLONIES REFEREING TO THE ACT OF 1872, AND PAPEES EELATING THERETO. See Appendices to Journals, 1878, E.-No. 3.

LETTEES WRITTEN BY ME. HENDERSON AND ME, TEAVEES TO THE WELLINGTON NEWSPAPERS IN 1878. [Extract from the New Zealand Times of the 23rd February, 1878.] MESSES. BEO&DEST AND SONS AND THE LATE MINISTKY Sih, — To the Editor of the New Zealand Times. Mr. George McLean, member for Waikouaiti, who filled the office of Commissioner of Customs in the late Atkinson Ministry, is quoted in your article of Wednesday morning in the following words : "He would now come to the £170,000 discrepancy. What was it ? They had heard of the large contractors, Messrs. Brogden and Sons, who had come to this colony to get contracts. They had obtained a number, but they were not satisfied with the settlement of the Engineers, and claimed £100,000 for work which they never got, but which they say they should have got. The late Ministry were not going to throw away £170,000 because the Brogdens thought proper to dispute that amount. He considered that the proper course was to leave the contractors their remedy at law, for he preferred not to give any contractors £100,000 for work which they had not got, but which they said they should have got. While he was in office the Government decided not to pay away a penny except they got value for it. They were determined to see justice done to the contractors, but the Government must be dealt with justly also." Upon this language of the ex-Commissioner of Customs, quoted by you, the writer of the article makes the following comment: "As the claims of the Messrs. Brogden against the colony are to come before a Court of law, it would not be advisable at this stage to express an opinion as to their character, but there is little doubt that the people of this colony will indorse the action of the late Ministry in refusing to include the claims in the list of colonial liabilities. It is a matter of notoriety that the representatives in this colony of the great contracting firm were very anxious for the downfall of the Atkinson Ministry, for it was perfectly certain that the Brogdens would not get a single shilling above what Ministers believed them justly entitled to." Now, Sir, apart from the unfairness of your and Mr. McLean's remarks respecting a claim the merits of which you, and doubtless Mr. McLean also, are probably unacquainted with, I have to complain that Mr. McLean's statement that the late Government were " determined to see justice done to the contractors," and his further statement (which your article in effect repeats) that the contractors were " left to their remedy in a Court of law," is incorrect, and, as far as Mr. McLean is concerned, is most unaccountably so, as will appear from the following facts: So long ago as February, 1877, Messrs. Brogden and Sons placed in the hands of Messrs. Barton and Fitzherbert for recovery a claim of £173,000, together with considerable claims for finished contract work. Other claims had previously been placed in the hands of Travers and Ollivior. On looking into Messrs. Brogden's ease and the law applicable to it, our solicitors found, to my great surprise, that a statute entitled "The Government Contractors Arbitration Act, 1872" (of the existence of which Messrs. Brogden and Sons had been up to that time entirely unaware), opposed a complete barrier to the prosecution of Messrs. Brogden and Sons against the Government of ordinary legal proceedings before a jury, at the same time depriving them of valuable clauses in their contracts which would have enabled them to surmount technical difficulties. Messrs. Brogden were advised that, by the operation of that statute, they would be forced to submit to the adjudication of the Supreme Court Judge, not only without the intervention of a jury, but without any right of appeal from his decision to any Court either here or in England ; that full power was vested in such Judge to take unsworn evidence, not only unsworn but ex parte if he so pleased ; and, lastly, that his judgment was to be given in the simple form of a certificate for money payable from one party to the other, such certificate giving no reasons or explanations of any kind respecting his decision. Such was the