41

1.-7

As to the Committee of the House having decided against our claims for compensation in respect of the Immigration Contract, we beg to observe that the report was that we had no claim, meaning—we suppose, legal claim, and not that the claim was unreasonable. We have, &c, The Hon. the Minister for Public Works. John Beogden and Sons.

The Assistant Undee-Seceetaby for Public Woeks to Messrs. Beogden and Sons. Gentlemen,— Public Works Office, Wellington, 22nd March, 1882. I am directed by the Acting Minister for Public Works to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 18th instant, having further reference to your claims, and in reply to inform you that most of the statements in your letter could be answered if necessary, but the Minister does not see that any useful purpose would be served by such a controversy. I have, &c, Messrs. J. Brogden and Sons, Chaeles T. Benzoni, Wellington. Assistant Under-Secretary for Public Works.

Messrs. Beogden and Sons to the Hon. the Minister for Public Works. Sir,— Wellington, 12th June, 1882. Our attention has just been drawn to the enclosed telegram published in one of the Dunedin newspapers. As the statements are grossly inaccurate, we shall be glad to have your assurance that the information did not emanate from your department as stated, as we purpose to set the matter right through the same channel. We have, &c, John Brogden and Sons, The Hon. the Minister for Public Works, Wellington. {per J. Lawson.) mi.- j?„n „•„„,-« -o.„ +„i„„„„™ ~„r~™ n A +„ +„t™„ -P„^„, t-i„^„,k», 7i/T„™„,\,„ zr„„„7,j .

The following is the telegram referred to, taken from Dunedin Morning Herald: — The Beogden Claims. (Per Press Association.) Wellington, 7th June. The Public Works Department supply the following particulars regarding the decision of the Appeal Court in the case of Smyth v. the Queen : The Messrs. Brogden claim £12,000 for extras. Of this, about £700 had been allowed and paid for by the Government in 1876. Of the balance, items amounting to £4,000 were referred to Mr. Scott, as arbitrator, who awarded less than £100, and as to that sum he stated questions of law. Items amounting to £8,000 were tried before Mr. Justice Richmond, who found against the suppliant on all items except one, amounting to £750, as to which he stated a question of law on the construction of the contract, not arising out of a technical objection. If, therefore, the Crown had waived all technicalities the suppliant would only have recovered £700 out of a total of £12,000, or about one-seventh of his claim.

The TTndee-Seceetaby for Public Woeks to Messrs. Beogden and Sons. Gentlemen,— Public Works Office, Wellington, 12th June, 1882. I am directed by the Minister for Public Works to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of this date, in which you request to be informed whether the telegram sent by the Press Agency on the 7th June, and therein enclosed, was furnished by the Public Works Department. In reply, I am to state that the information was supplied for the Press by the Crown Solicitor, and that two errors appear in the print. Mr. Bell wrote that, of the items referred to Mr. Scott, less than " seven huundred," not less than " one hundred," had been awarded ; and Mr. Bell also wrote that if the Crown had waived technicalities the suppliants would have recovered £700, about " oneseventeenth," not " one-seventh," of their claim. The Minister is informed that Mr. Bell's memorandum for the Press was strictly accurate, and it is to be regretted that the Press should have misprinted it. I have, Ac, John Knowles, Messrs. J. Brogden and Sons, Wellington. TJnder-Secretary for Public Works.

Messrs. Beogden and Sons to the Hon. the Ministee for Public Woeks. Sie ; — Wellington, 13th June, 1882. We have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of yours of yesterday's date, explaining that the Crown Solicitor's version of the result of the case of Smyth v. the Queen (as rendered to the Press Agency) was " strictly accurate," but that two errors appear in the print to which we drew your attention, viz., the substitution of £100 for £700 as Mr. Scott's award, and a statement that one-seventh, instead of one-seventeenth, of the total claim was inserted as the proportion recoverable in the event of the Crown waiving technicalities. Accepting your explanation, we have still to complain that Mr. Bell's version is both inaccurate and unfair, inasmuch as he must have been aware that the amount above referred to, instead of being " less than £700," was actually £865. Mr. Justice Richmond's finding was for £1,250, and therefore, if the Crown waived all technicalities, the suppliant would have recovered £2,115, instead of the £700 stated. We have, &c, John Beogden and Sons, The Hon. the Minister for Public Works, Wellington. (per J. Lawson.) 6—l. 7.