37

1.-7

settlement of your claims was not effected in January, 1877, upon a basis, and following a procedure, proposed by your own legal adviser and accepted without even an alternative suggestion by the Government. And lam still further to remind you that, in his reply to the most unjustifiable and uncalled-for communication of the Bth March, 1877, Mr. Ormond, the then Minister for Public Works, used the following words : " On behalf of the Government I entirely disclaim any wish to embarrass you in taking proceedings under the Act of 1872. ... To the course formerly proposed on your behalf, and assented to on behalf of the Government by the Solicitor-General, I am prepared to adhere ; but I cannot consent to such terms for conducting the references as would preclude the Government from having a thorough investigation of the matters alleged to be in dispute." On the 15th May, 1877, your solicitor, Mr. Travers, again wrote to the Solicitor-General, suggesting modifications of the previous agreement. You will find, on reference to Mr. Beid's reply of the 4th June, 1877, that he repeated the assurance contained in his letter of the 14th February that the the Government would carry on the then proposed proceedings with as much freedom from technical difficulties as was consistent with their duty. The Minister regrets that you should have thought it advisable to repeat a charge against the honor and good faith of the Parliament of the colony in relation to the passing of " The Government Contractors Arbitration Act, 1872," which, on a former Occasion, was completely refuted by evidence of the most convincing character. Tou say that you have suffered most grievous wrong by this kind of legislation, passed without consulting you and behind your backs, and in the same sentence it is insinuated that the Act was passed with the design of materially affecting your interests and position without any intimation to, you. The Minister feels it incumbent upon him to deny in the most emphatic manner both the statement and the insinuation. Pie accepts without question the assurance of the writer of the letter under reply that he was personally ignorant of the scope and intent of the Act; but it is a fact, which is capable of absolute proof, that both Mr James Brogden, who was then the duly-authorized representative of your firm in the colony during the session of Parliament of 1872, and your solicitor, Mr. Travers, were then fully aware that the Act, in the form in which it now stands in the Statute-book of the colony, was being passed through Parliament. I am to remind you of the following facts : — 1. The terms of the General Conditions of your contracts with the Government were drafted by the Government counsel, and settled by Mr. Travers on your behalf in the year 1872 ; Mr. James Brogden, a member of your firm, and fully accredited as the attorney and agent of the other members, being then in the colony and directly supervising everything done. 2. The main difference which arose on the settlement of such conditions was the question of arbitration. The Government wished the Engineer-in-Chief to be final arbiter, while Mr. James Brogden insisted on an independent referee. 3. Finally it was agreed that the Judge of the Supreme Court, within whose district the works under a contract were to be executed, should be the final arbiter. A memorandum to this effect was signed by the Minister and Mr. James Brogden. 4. It was obvious that legislation was necessary to give effect to this agreement. A provision for reference to a final arbiter named in the contract, and to no other, would be absurd,.unless such arbiter was bound by statute to take the reference. It was also obviously necessary to confer on the Judges special powers when sitting as arbitrators. 5. Six of the contracls with your firm were signed on the 10th August, 1872. Mr, Travers was the attesting witness to Mr. James Brogden's signature for those contracts. At that very time he must have had in his possession a copy of the first revise of the Act, for only three days afterwards, on the 13th August, 1872, he wrote to the then Attorney-General, suggesting certain alterations in the Bill, which were in part adopted. G. The Bill was introduced into the House of Eepresentatives on the 16th. August, 1872, and finally received the Governor's assent and became law on the 10th October, 1872. During the whole of that time Mr. James Brogden was in Wellington, and in constant attendance behind the chair of the Speaker of the House, 7. Between the dates of the first and second readings of the Bill in the House, the Fox Government resigned and the Stafford Government took office. Mr. Stafford moved the second reading of the Bill in a speech in which he said he did not approve it, but found that the Government was bound by an honorable obligation with the Messrs. Brogden to carry it through. 8. Mr. Stafford's speech is reported in Hansard. It was also reported in the Wellington Independent of the 21st September, 1872. If Mr. James Brogden did not hear the speech, he could hardly have missed the reference to his firm in the report in next morning's newspaper. 9. Tour firm signed the three other contracts on the 19th June, 1873, ten months after the Act had been passed, and Mr. Henderson's signature, as your attorney, is attested by your solicitor, Mr. Travers. The three last, like the six first, contracts contained the condition for reference to a Judge of the Supreme Court as arbitrator, which Mr. Travers must have known had been rendered effectual by the Act of 1872. No objection whatever was then offered. 10. By section 31 of the Act the time within which you were entitled to refer disputes was not limited but extended. By the General Conditions of your contracts it was provided that you should give notices of any disputes within fourteen days after the delivery of an Engineer's certificate. By section 31 the fourteen days were extended to five months. It is true that section 31 was not in the first revise seen by Mr. Travers, but that the form of a Bill should be altered both before and after its introduction into Parliament is quite a common occurrence. It is entirely incorrect to say that the addition was a breach of faith. • The preamble of the Act recites that "It is expedient that provisions should be made for summary and final settlement of disputes," and, therefore, clause 31 was one which was quite in accord with the scope and intent of the Act. I am, however, to remind you that the charges which you made in 1877 and 1878 were not levelled at the addition, but at the whole of the Act itself, which you then alleged " was aimed directly against your contract rights, and placing or endeavouring to place you under heavy and serious disabilities," and had been passed " without your knowledge and consent, under colour of an arrangement