D.-«4a

27

the report of the said Committee as finally adopted as aforesaid." Then, passing by the interpretation clause, we come to the third section of the Act, which is as follows: "As soon as conveniently may be after the passing of this Act, the Governor in Council, in the name and on behalf of the Queen, may enter into a contract with the company for the construction, under the said Acts and this Act, of the Midland Bailway. Such contract shall, as far as practicable, contain provisions to the same effect as are set forth in or authorised by the said Acts or either of them, or in the original contract, with such additions thereto and modifications thereof as are contained in the draft contract annexed to the report of the Select Committee hereinbefore mentioned, as the same was finally adopted as aforesaid, or as may be necessary to give full effect thereto ; and may also contain provisions for working sections of the said railway as near as conveniently may be in accordance with the resolutions relating thereto agreed on by the House, of Bepresentatives on the twenty-first day of December, and by the Legislative Council on the twenty-second day of December, one thousand eight hundred and eightyseven." Here, then, we have merely an empowering Act, which would authorise the Governor, in the name of the Queen, to enter into a contract with another party upon certain lines " as far as practicable." It was still, therefore, a matter for negotiation. The main points only were indicated. Then, the fourth section is : " The contract authorised by this Act shall, when executed on behalf of Her Majesty and by the company, operate as a substitute for the original contract; but all acts and things lawfully done thereunder before the execution of the new contract shall and be deemed to have been valid, and shall be of the like force and effect as if they had been done under the contract authorised by this Act, and it shall not be necessary that any allocation of land under such new contract shall be approved by the General Assembly, as provided by the said Acts or either of them." The actual contract was some months afterwards entered into, but, although authorised by statute, it is not, I contend, a contract which may not be subjected to the ordinary rules of interpretation applicable to contracts. I say it must be so subject. There is nothing to exclude the ordinary law of evidence with relation to it, and I propose to open as to acts and things which occurred prior to the date of this contract. I cannot understand how it is possible to exclude the ordinary application of the laws of evidence and interpretation in the case of a contract which is not itself in the form of a statute, but made eight or nine months after the statute which empowers it to be made, and which validates all acts and things done since the previous contract for which it is substituted. I submit I should be allowed at the proper time also to adduce evidence on all matters arising out of the first contract in 1886, and leading up to this one of 1888. Sir B. Stout: Part of the contract to which my friend referred was in the draft contract. Mr. Hutchison : We do not know that as yet. Sir B. Stout: It is known perfectly well, and, if there is any doubt about it, it may be easily settled by producing the draft. My friend has no right to put in anything which he does not know is a fact. Mr. Hutchison : This is one of several facts. Sir B. Stout: The point is this :By the Act of 1887 there was power given to make a contract. There was a certain draft that the Legislature said to the Queen, " You must follow as near as may be." In that draft is this clause. How, then, can this clause, which was given to the Queen to follow, be modified or altered or interpreted by any verbal statements made by the Minister? Here is a report which says, " All lands which from time to time, in the opinion of the Governor, are or may be required for bona fide mining for gold or silver, and the several purposes connected therewith or incidental or conducive thereto, and which lands shall from time to time be set apart and defined by Proclamations to be issued in that behalf; but no more than 10,000 acres shall be so set apart or proclaimed in one block at any one time, and the lands so set apart and proclaimed from time to time shall not in the aggregate exceed 750,000 acres." There is no modification except that the words " or silver " are struck out. Mr. Hutchison : That itself is a modification. .Sir B. Stout: That point is this : Can the words of a statute, which these really are, be explained by contemporaneous statements made by a Minister? There is no power given by that Act. There was power given, no doubt, to the Queen to modify the terms of this contract; but there was no power given to say that the interpretation shall be modified by verbal statements of Ministers. Where, then, is the statutory right to do it? I submit that there can be no power to do that inherently in a Minister. It must be by virtue of some statutory right, and where is the statutory power? Sir B. Burnside : I would like to ask one question, upon which I think Sir Bobert Stout could enlighten me. Is the Queen represented in this contract, or in carrying it out ? Who is the party we have to look to as doing anything which affects the contract as far as the Queen is concerned since the contract was made ? Sir B. Stout: No doubt, in carrying out the contract under the terms here mentioned, the Governor has to do certain things. The contract so provides. Sir B. Buenside : I see that; but, say the Governor had made a distinct allegation or statement which either you or Mr. Hutchison wished to put in : how far does the Governor represent the Queen ? Sir B. Stout: He cannot represent the Queen as regards anything made prior to the contract. He cannot bind the Queen in any way unless he has statutory authority for so doing. If he has to carry out the terms of a contract and he does not carry them out, then the Queen would be bound . by his not carrying them out. ... Sir B. Buenside : Are you prepared to say that the Governor in Council cannot enter into a contract and cannot bind the Queen in so far as he would bind the colony ? Sir B. Stout: Not without legislation. Igo that full length, and I have authority for it. Sir C. Lilley : Surely the Queen would be bound by an administrative act of Ministers ?