1.—7
44
The under-payment here shown was taken into account in a general statement of under- and over-payments in February, 1879, and the excess of the under-payments over the over-payments, £588 4s. 3d., together with interest at 10 per cent, from April, 1877, to February, 1879, £110 Is. 4d., was paid to the contractors in the following month.
APPENDIX E. CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN MESSES. BEOGDEN, HENDEESON, AND BILLING. Wellington, N.Z., 10th February, 1877. Deae Sies, — Ourselves v. Government. As you are aware, immediately upon my return, I commenced serving the Government with notice of submission to arbitration relative to our claims for extras, all being done under advice of Mr. Travers. After two months you will see the Government have notified us in an indirect manner that our notices were informal, not being in accordance with an Act passed on the 10th October, 1872, called the Government Contractors Arbitration Act, of which I knew nothing. Mr. Travers then finds he has lost two months, and has to commence de novo. Messrs. John Brogden and Sons, London. J. Hendeeson.
21, Queen Anne's Gate, Westminster, sth April, 1877. Gentlemen, —The only letters received by the Fr'isco mail, which arrived on the 27th ultimo, were one from Mr. Henderson, with enclosures, and one from Mr. Blaney, with the usual accounts. We are very much disappointed at the absence of other information, as we are not able to write you so fully by this mail as we should otherwise have done. We note in this letter the principal points that strike us with reference to the matters named in the enclosures sent by Mr. Henderson. We have perused the Government Contractors Arbitration Act of 1872, and compared it with our contracts, and we find there is a marked difference between them. This seems to us to be a very serious matter, and to be really ex post facto legislation. We do not see it stated in the Act itself that we have given any consent to the new conditions it contains, nor do we know that our consent has been given in any other way, and we are therefore at a loss to understand how we can be bound by them. Mr. Tahourdin is not at his office to-day, so that we are unable to send you his opinion ; but we must urge this question upon the very careful attention of yourselves and Mr. Travers, as we look upon the difference in the contracts and this Act as a very serious matter, especially as the Government do not waive anv right or privilege which they allege is vested in them by the Act. We shall write you further on the subject via Brindisi. We note that a proposal has been made to the Solicitor-General, but no copy of it is enclosed, so that we are quite unable to judge of its contents. For J. Beogden and Sons, W. A. Beogden. Messrs. J. Brogden and Sons, Wellington.
"Wellington, 9th April, 1877. * # # # # # * Upon Mr. Henderson's return from Australia in December, he saw Mr. Travers respecting the course of procedure to be observed in sending in our claims, and Mr. Travers naturally took the arbitration clause of general conditions of our several contracts, being quite unaware at the time of the existence of the Government Contractors Arbitration Act of 1872 until his attention was called to it by the Solicitor-General in February last. The Premier has apparently urged his colleagues to force us to go under the Act of 1872. Their letters show no concession, no compromise, but a rigid interpretation of every clause in that Act. On our part we cannot accept the Act for the reasons shown in our letter to Government of Bth ultimo. We are doing all we ran to get redress or fairplay, but there is a desire to fence on their part, to keep us here dilly-dallying until Parliament meets. The stakes are too heavy to be trifled with, and I can assure you we are both perplexed as to what our course of action should be. Our letters to them have been couched in such terms as we thought would meet with your approval, and our recent course of action is in many respects similar to that taken by you in respect to Emigration Contract. # * # # # # # Messrs. J. Brogden and Sons, London. J. Billing.
Dear Sies, — 21, Queen Anne's Grate, Westminster, Bth June, 1877. From our previous letters, and those of Messrs. Tahourdin and Hargreaves, you will now thoroughly understand that the Government Contractors Arbitration Act does not bar the recovery of our claims under the general law and by the ordinary methods of procedure. It is merely an Act for regulating the method of proceeding if arbitration takes place, and its limitations merely apply to proceedings under that Act, should any be taken. As you have now refused arbitration under the Act, you will have to proceed under the ordinary laws, and will ignore the Act. This we think is made quite clear in the previous correspondence. At the same time we think you ought to lose no opportunity of enforcing upon the attention of the Government the injustice of withholding payments, and especially of retentions, which are not made because certificates are withheld by their Engineer, acting under their instructions. If an amicable settlement can be obtained, we are sure that we need not impress upon you its desirability, so as to avoid the great delays and expense of legislation. If the latter cannot be avoided, of course it will be conducted with a view to the proceedings being prosecuted here, should the decision be against us in the colony; and from this point of view alone you will see the necessity of keeping us fully informed of your proceedings in the colony. For J. Brogden and Sons. Messrs. J. Brogden and Sons, "Wellington (W. A. Bbogden.)
Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.
By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.
Your session has expired.