New Zealand Times (PUBLISHED DAILY.) FRIDAY, JULY 20, 1877.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXII, Issue 5093, 20 July 1877, Page 2

New Zealand Times (PUBLISHED DAILY.) FRIDAY, JULY 20, 1877.

There was laid upon the table of the House of Representatives yesterday the full correspondence between the AgentGeneral and the Government concerning immigration to New Zealand. This correspondence is an effectual proof that, as far as regards Sir Julius Vogel as AgentGeneral, he is the right man in the right place. His large knowledge of official and departmental business, as well as what may be termed his no small capability as a diplomatist, enable him to carry on negotiations to a successful issue with a smoothness and a courtesy, and at the same time a direct benefit to the colony, which cannot be too highly commended. More especially so is this the case in connection with the Sloman and Kirchnee matter, to which we have alluded in a previous article. When we wrote before we were not, of course, in possession of the complete correspondence which is now at our disposal ; but it is gratifying to find that this correspondence in every respect bears out the opinion we then expressed. In the article alluded to we traced the history of the Sloman claims upon the Government of New Zealand, from the State papersthen in ourpossession. We are enabled to complete the accountof thefinal settlementof those claims, of which settlement we previously gave the bare facts. It will be remembered that Mr. Sloman’s claim amounted to £25,000, and after several interviews had taken place, and several letters passed between that gentleman and Sir Julius Vogel and between Mr. Mackrell, the English legal adviser of the Government, and Mr. Sloman, this claim was settled for a lump payment of £9538 ss. sd. It will be noticed from the correspondence that Sir Julius Vogel had to take up this question where it was left practically unsettled by the late Dr. Peatherston’s temporary successor, Sir William Tyrone Power, and the letter from Sir Julius explaining the consequent negotiations, and their final issue is worth reprinting in full. It is as follows ; The Agent-General to the Hon. the Minister for

Immigration. 7, "Westminster Chambers, Victoria-street, Westminster, S.W., 30th April, 1877.

Sir,—l have the honor to address you in continuation of my previous letter No. 1, of Bth January, on the subject of the disputed claims of Messrs. Sloman and Co. and Mr. Kirchner.

2. in my letter of the Bth January, I explained to you that Mr. Mackrell declined to commit himself to the view entertained by the late Dr. Featherston, that the failure of the contractors to carry out the Queens* land contract in time forfeited their claim to the second—l should have written third—contract, for sending out 4000 emigrants, without first studying all the papers. He explained to me that he had accepted the forfeiture view on Dr. Featherston’s authority. Accordingly I asked Mr. Mackrell to study the papers, and then to advise me. Copies of all the documents were supplied to him, and after a considerable period, he prepared a digest of the case (which I forward to you), and I then had a personal interview with him, in anticipation of the arrival of Mr. Sloman. Mr. MackrclFs opinion was to this effect, that there were no specific terms whatever in the documentary evidence to support Dr. Feathorston's views that the coming into operation of tho third contract depended on the faithfully carrying out the first two, but that there was constructive evidence, to be gathered from the conduct of the parties and. from tho correspondence, which went far to establish Dr. Featheraton’s views and which might possibly lead a Court of equity to affirm it. This, whilst vindicating by constructive evidence Dr. Featherston's opinion, pointed to the great difficulty of proving it. Mr. Mackrell laid much stress upon the disadvantage we should bo under through the want of l>r. Featherston's personal evidence, and strongly advised me to compromise the matter by paying the Fritz Router claims in fnll, and agreeing to a lump sum in addition. Ho advised me also to make a compromise with Mr. Kirchner, by paying him tho amounts actually due to him to the closing of his office, and a lump sum in addition. 3. A few days afterwards I had a lengthened interview with Mr. Sloman. He said he believed he could recover a very large sum if he pressed his claims before a legal tribunal, but that he was willing to make a compromise by accepting £l2,ooo—viz., about £6OOO for Fritz Reuter, and tho balance of about £6OOO in discharge of his claim for compensation for the noncarrying out of the 4000 contract. 4. I offered to pay him the amount found to be due on account of tho Fritz Router, and £IOOO additional. This offer he would not entertain. It was then agreed we should each consider the matter, and meet again in two days, he in the meanwhile to call on Mr. Mack'ell. 5. Mr. Sloman at this interview impressed me with the idea that he was thoroughly satisfied in his own mind of tho genuine nature of his claims. Ho denied altogether that the 4000 contract depended on the execution within time of the other two contracts, and even if it did, ho urged his was not the fault that the other, two contracts were not sooner completed. At the risk of somewhat anticipating the course of events, I may say that on investigation I became convinced that, supposing we were able to support our contention as to tho third contract depending upon the other two contracts, wo should entirely fail in the attempt to show that Mr. Sloman was responsible for the delay in carrying out tho second of tho contracts. It was the Agont-Gencral'a duty, by his agent. Kirchner. to find tho emigrants: Sloman had to provide tho shipping. Now, I could not find that Mr. Sloman had ever failed to provide shipping when asked for it, and I found that one of his vessels was despatched with only 145 immigrants, although by tho contract 250 ought to have been provided. Ho might indeed complain that he was prevented from completing his contract sooner, or at tho best for our view it could be said that by mutual agreement tho completion of tho contract {was 'delayed. In cither case we could not hope that a Court of Equity would see in tho delay a ground for punishing Mr. Sloman, by depriving him of tho third contract. It appeared to mo therefore very important to settle with him. 6. Mr. Sloman came to see mo again. He had in tho meantime an interview with Mr. Mackrell, and after a long discussion brought Mr. Mackrell.to recommend to my favorable consideration a payment of £4726, In addition to tho £OOOO odd for the Fritz

Renter. Mr. Mackrell explains in his letter the grounds of this recommendation. The amount was arrived at by a calculation of the average sum per emigrant which under the three contracts would be payable for the emigrants already sent. I told Mr. Sloman that, after seeing him, Mr. Mackrell had discovered another element of the calculation which reduced the amount to £33G5, and that I was prepared to recommend my Government to pay him £3OOO, in addition to the Fritz Renter payments. Mr. Sloman said the question was one of amount with him. The amount which Mr, Mackrell had recommended, as above-mentioned, he was prepared to accept rather than take proceedings, but he considered that lie would be able to recover much more if he went to law. His real claim was for the damage he sustained by not carrying 4000 emigrants at £l4 per head. 7. He absolutely declined the £3OOO in addition to the Fritz Reuter payments, and I then raised my offer to £3305, subject to the approval of the Government by telegraph. He undertook to consider the proposal. The next day he sent me word that my offer, with the Fritz Reuter payments, would amount only to £9533, and that ho would take a round sum of £IO,OOO. I told him, however, I would not increase my offer, and, after two or three days of negotiation, he finally agreed to accept it. and I at once | despatched the telegram to you, of which copy is I appended. (No. 37 of this paper.) 8. I enclose you also copy of a letter from Messrs. Mackrell and Co., after Mr. MackrelTs interview with Mr. Sloman, in which they advise me to go as high as £II,OOO, rather than to fail to effect a settlement. 0. You will, I hope, see that I have done well in arranging for £9538 ss. 5(1., instead of the large limit to which, under Messrs. Mackrell and Co.’s advice. I might have gone. In explanation of my not going to a higher figure, I may say that, though Messrs. Mackrell and Co. recommended my doing so to escape litigation, the amount they seemed to think an equity Court would beyond all doubt decree, in addition to the Fritz Reuter claim, was about £3OOO. This they looked upon as due to make up for the low rate of the first contract. They recommended besides from £IOOO to £2OOO to escape the risks of litigation. I should certainly have followed this advice if with me rested the final effort t© stay litigation, for I recognised the difficulty of proving that the third contract depended on the other two ; besides that, as I have already said, supposing that were even admitted, there seemed to be no hope of proving that Mr. Sloman was responsible for the default in carrying out the Queensland contract. Upon this point Messrs. Mackrell and Co. say in their letter, “If this be so, of course there would be no answer in equity to his claim for full damages.’’ If Messrs. Sloman and Co. went to law they might very well have recovered a largo sum to represent the profits on 4000 emigrants at £l4 a head. Certainly if on me depended stopping the action, I should have been inclined to go great lengths. But I reflected that alter all the action could only be brought in the colony, and it would be open to you to allow it to proceed or to compromise it. Therefore I determined to offer no more than the amount I named. It was as much as Messrs. Mackrell and Co., by one computation,recommended, and I considered that Messrs. Sloman and Co., by their unwillingness in the first instance to fulfil their undertaking under the “Louis Knorr” contract, were not entitled to extra consideration on our part. 10. Regarding Mr. Kirchner, I arranged with him to receive the amounts actually due to him to the closing of the office, including one month's notice, and a sum of £SOO by way of compensation for the loss of the 4000 contract, or for salary. I think this is a fair settlement. Instead of £SOO. lie would at least have made £IOOO if the contract had proceeded. He alleges that this £SOO will be absorbed bj r claims of agents. I did not, however, enter into this question. Whether or no he will have so to dispose of it, r considered it was not more than he was entitled to receive.

11. I have the honor, in addition to other correspondence, to enclose you a copy of my telegram to the Government, and of the Colonial Secretary’s reply thereto.

12. immediately on receipt of the reply, I sent instructions to Mr. Mackrell to prepare a formal deed for Mr. Sloman to sign, making it clear that the settlement covers all claims, including those in relation to the Terpsichore, as also Mr. Mathei’s claims 13. I have to express my acknowledgments for the zealous assistance rendered to me by Mr. Kennaway during the negotiations with Mr. Sloman. 14. I shall be glad to learn that the Government are satisfied with the course I have taken.—l have, &c.,. Julius Voof.l, Agent-General. The Hon. the Minister for Immigration, Wellington.

Now, to show that in reality Sir Julius Vogel, as advisedly Messrs. Mackuell, the legal advisers of the Government, had not a leg to stand on in resisting the claims, or agreater portion of them, of Mr. Sloman, we will quote a parapraph from Messrs. Mackrell’s letter of advice under date April, 14, 1877. They say;—“We think that on all hands it is admitted that payment for the emigrants sent by the Fritz Reuter cannot be properly resisted, and it has, as we understand, only been hitherto postponed lest the payment might bo held to be a condonation of the breach of the Queensland contract, and in consequence bring into operation the arrangement as to the 4000. We think, considering that Dr. Fbathebston is not alive to rebut what may be stated by Mr. Sloman, and all the circumstances of the case, and the importance on many grounds of its being settled if possible on an amicable footing, that if you can succeed in satisfying the claim of Mr. Sloman and Mr. Mathei, by payment of a lump sum of from £IO,OOO to £II,OOO, your Government may congratulate themselves on the result of your exertions in disposing of this very difficult case.’’ After this no one can deny that the Agent-General’s office in England is being efficiently tilled.