17

1.-7

However, in fairness, we feel bound to accept the writer's assurance that such was the case. We have given no opinion as to the merits of Messrs. Brogden's claims, as Mr. Henderson infers in his letter. Our remarks were simply to the effect that the Ministry were justified in acting in accordance with the advice of the Government Engineers. —Ed. N.Z. Times.~\

[Extract from the Evening Post of the 2nd April, 1878.] Messrs. Brogden and Sons and the late Ministry. We have been requested to publish the following letter, which was refused insertion by the New Zealand Times, as it is only just that Messrs. Brogden and Sons should have an opportunity of placing their side of the case before the public : — To the .Editor of the New Zealand Times. Sib, —In an editorial footnote appended to my letter in your issue of the 23rd ultimo you mate no attempt to combat my charge against the late Ministry that they unjustly deprived Messrs. Brogden (and, through His Excellency the Governor still deprive them) of a trial before a jury of New Zealand colonists of their claim for work done for the colony. No doubt you felt that it exceeded even your power to argue that if they were allowed to prove, and should succeed in proving, that they had done the work, they ought nevertheless to be deprived of their just reward. You take a convenient side-issue that the late " Government were justified in acting on the advice of their Engineers," that advice being stated by you to have been " that the claims should not be paid." Now, Sir, assuming such advice to have been given, it may have afforded an excellent reason for refusing payment without a lawsuit, but surely it is an insufficient reason for refusing the power of litigating the claim. But Iby no means admit that the Government did refuse " upon the advice of their Engineers." When Messrs. Brogden, at the conclusion of their contract works, applied through me to the Superintending Engineers for their certificates that the works had been performed according to the contract and specifications, those Engineers replied to me by letters, at present in my possession, that the Government had expressly forbidden them from taking into their consideration the propriety of our charges, and the Government also wrote to me insisting that Messrs. Brogden should deal, not with the Superintending Engineers, who by the contract were the proper persons to certify, and who also had personal knowledge of the works done, but should deal with the Engineer-in-Chief at Wellington, Mr. Carruthers, who is not the person appointed to certify. Thus the Superintending Engineers refused their certificates, or even to enter into consideration of the matter, not because Messrs. Brogden's claims were improper claims, but upon the sole ground that they were forbidden by their superiors to inquire into the merits of the several cases. Perhaps, Sir, after this explanation, you will withdraw your side-issues that the late Government were justified in acting upon the advice of their Engineers that the claims should not be paid. But you raise another issue, that it "verges upon the wonderful that ' The Government Contractors Arbitration Act, 1872,' should have passed both Houses of Parliament without the knowledge of the solicitor and agent of the firm resident in Wellington," and should " remain five years on the statute-book without the party chiefly interested being aware of its existence." In reply to this I will first answer for Mr. Travers, the solicitor alluded to, and then for the agent (myself). The solicitor certainly was not aware up to the end of the year 1876, for he at that time served upon the Government a number of notices based upon stipulations in the contract done away with by the statute, and which notices were immediately objected to by the Government, who called attention to the statute, and declared their intention of enforcing its provisions. When, after receipt of this letter, I consulted 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. I was at that time under the impression, and no doubt so was Messrs. Brogden's solicitor, that the material rights and obligations of the parties had been immutably fixed and ascertained in and by the contract, and I had no shadow of a suspicion that the Government, without consulting Messrs. Brogden, and under pretence of an arrangement with them, intended to pass a Bill through the Legislature so seriously affecting their rights and obligations. When in February, 1877,1 learned for the first time the provisions of this statute I was astounded. Immediately on finding out the extent to which Messrs. Brogden's rights had been interfered with, and after I recovered from the surprise and indignation consequent upon the passing of an Act which embraced articles coutrary to the agreement between the Government and Messrs. Brogden, I sent the letter of the Bth March, 1877, and I also communicated with my principals in London, who were, if possible, even more amazed and disgusted than myself; and I confess that I felt in a position of very great responsility, that of having expended hundreds of thousands of pounds of the moneys of Messrs. Brogden, while, in case any dispute should arise, it was at the mercy of the Government through the operation of this statute. Disputes have arisen, caused, I fully believe, not by want of merits in Messrs. Brogden's claims, but by desire on the part of the late Government to avoid payment. Those who do a great wrong frequently seek to cover its perpetration by slanders and abuse. The members of the late Government appear to form no exception to this rule, and hence the misrepresentations they have so industriously propagated, and hence their untruthful statement that the Courts are open for Messrs. Brogden for the assertion of their claims. The Courts are closed. Trial by jury is for Messrs. Brogden an impossibility. Appeal is cut away from them, and the Government Contractors Arbitration Act amounts to an act of repudiation, as being utterly at variance with contracts entered into by the Government with Messrs. Brogden previous to the passing of the said Act. I do not blame the Parliament, but I do blame the late Ministry, or such other persons as have misled the Parliament. I have, &c, John Hendebson, 3—l. 7.