Untitled

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 5311, 3 April 1878, Page 2

A letter from Mr. John Henderson in reference to the claims of the Messrs. Brogden was published in a contemporary last evening. The writer takes exception to an editorial footnote which appeared to a letter of his in the New Zealand Times some weeks ago, wherein we stated that it seemed unaccountable that the Messrs. Brogden or their agents were not aware of the existence till 1877 of the Government Contractors Arbitration Act, 1872. On this point Mr. Henderson says The Bill was introduced into Parliament only ten (10) days after Messrs. Brogden’s contract had been signed, anJ it was pushed through both Houses almost immediately after its introduction. I was at that time under the impression, and no doubt so was Messrs. Brogdens’ solicitor, that the material rights and obligations of-the parties had been immutably tlxed and ascertained in and by the contract, and I had no shadow of a suspicion that the Government, without consulting Messrs. Brogden and undec pre* tence of an arrangement with them, intended to pass a Bill through the Legislature so seriously affecting their rights and obligations. When in February, 1877, I learned for the first time the provisions of this statute I was astounded.

Mr. Henderson lias not read Hansard, or he never would have penned the above lines. The Bill was introduced into Parliament in consequence of previous arrangements entered into between the Government and the Messrs. Brogden. The Bill passed the Legislature daring the four weeks Mr. Stafford was in office in 1872, and it was thou clearly understood that not only were the Messrs. Brogden fully cognisant of the measure, but that they strongly approved of it. Had there been a doubt of this, the Stafford Ministry would not have undertaken the duty of carrying the Bill through Parliament. We will quote from Hansard the proceedings of the House of Representatives on September 20,1872; —

GOVERNMENT contractors arbitration bill. Mr. Stafford, in moving the second reading of this Bill, said that he did so because he found, by correspondence which had taken place between the' lute Government and Mr. Brogden, that there was an express understanding 1 arrived at : with that gentleman that Judges of the Supreme Court should be made arbitrators in case of dispute between the Government and the contractors with respect to the construction of-works. At the same time he took the opportunity of stating that lie altogether disapproved of the principle, and if he had not found that there was an honorable obligation binding the Government, he should not have taken up the Bill. There was also a correspondence with the Judges, who expressed their objection to.the method proposed, while they at the. same time stated their willingness to assist the Government in the matter. There being an honorable obligation on the Government, under'which contracts were submitted to Mr. Brogden and accepted by him, those contracts reciting that Judges of the Supreme Court should be the arbitrators, the Government had no option but to ask the Legislature to fulfil that obligation by passing tills Bill into law.

So it will be seen from the words of Mr. Stafford that the Bill was in accordance with the terms, of the contracts which then had been accepted by the great contracting firm. We give a few more extracts from the same debate. Mr. Rolleston said : The present Government was in a moat difficult position with regard to this measure, for .in the contracts already entered into with Mr. Brogden, they were committed to those Courts of Arbitration, although the House had not given its sanction to that system. If, however, they were to throw out this Bill Mr. Brogden might say to the Government, “We entered into contracts with you on the understanding that the Judges were to bo arbitrators; that condition has not been fulfilled, and therefore we will come down upon you for compensation.” In such a case as that the Government might be placed in great difficulty. He wished, therefore, to record his opinion that under ordinary circumstances he would certainly have opposed this Bill, but as matters stood, he thought the Government and the House were committed to it.

Mr. Fxtzuerbbrt said: An agreement had been entered into with Messrs. Brogden, contemplating an arrangement of ’this sort. Now, should they give these gentlemen any ground for complaining that this contemplated arrangement had not been carried out.

Throughout the debate there was an honorable feeling that it would only be justice to the Messrs. Beogden to pass the measure, and that it would amount to ; a breach of faith to refuse to do so. And yet Mr. Henderson now states, in the face of Parliamentary records we have quoted, that the “ Government Contractors Act amounts to an act of repudiation, as being utterly at variance with contracts entered into by the Government with the Messrs. Beogden previous to the passing of the said Act.” Ten days after the Bill passed its second reading in the House of Representatives it was debated in the Legislative Council. The Hon. Mr. Hart remarked Uwt ■ honorable members would learn from papers that had been laid on the table tbe precise agreement with Messrs. Brogdcn that had led to the framing of the Bill. There is not the slightest doubt, from the tenor of the debate in both Houses, that the Act was passed, at the particular request of the Messrs. Beogden, to prevent questions in dispute going before a jury. The whole circumstances of the case are so fully recorded that we are astonished at the temerity of Mr. Henderson in asserting that the Act was passed almost surreptitiously, and in a hostile spirit to the Messrs. Beogden. We again say that it verges on the wonderful that the principals, solicitor, and agents of the firm should have lived for five years in entire ignorance of an Act which had special reference to the Beogden contracts, and which was passed in consequence of a previous understanding between the contractors and the Government. Mr. Henderson, in his letter, has entirely ignored every circumstance which led to the legislation he now complains of. We could quote the words of almost every member who spoke on the Bill, in support of this statement.