THE SOUTHLAND GOVERNMENT AND M.R. MARCHANT.

Southland Times, Volume III, Issue 243, 18 April 1866, Page 2 (Supplement)

THE SOUTHLAND GOVERNMENT AND M.R. MARCHANT.

i s rom the Otago .Daily Times.) A "History ofthe Causes of Ministerial Crisis in New Zealand,'" avo uld be in many respects an anVusing and a singular book ; but no part of ifc would cause more astonishment than such' # a statement as this — " lv the early pari of 1866, the Government of the Province of Southland was turned out of office by a vote of censure, because it had consented to submit to 'arbitration a claim for pay-ment-made by the engineer A\ r ho had superintended the construction of the railways within the Province." The secret history "of the growth of such an undertaking, and the notoriously public one of the greA'ious state into wliich the Province- was brought, mainly as a consequence of it — the prominence of personal motives arid the violence of jxrofessional recriminations which followed on the failure — would all have to be traced in explanation of the statement Aye have attributed to the supposed historian, and would certainly be amusing ; but, as certainly, nothing would do away with the feeling of .wonder, that a Government should be censured for taking a commonsense and speedy mode of getting a sfctlement of a dispute with one of its officers. We believe that we can state, Avilh general accuracy, the outlines of the claim made by TMr Bobert Mudge Marchant, and the result ofthe arbitration which took place recently in Dunedin—Mr T. Paterson, C.E. (late Eailway Engineer to the Otago Government), being chosen by the Southland Government; Mr S. Hutchison, C.E., by Mr Marchant ; and those gentlemen choosing Mr William Mason, architect, &c. (and Mayor of Dunedin), as the umpire.

In February, 1863, Mr Marchant was Engineer to the Toavu Board of Invercargill, an ofiice which he had not^tong held. TBeing applied to by Dr Menzies, then Superintendent of the Province, to become resident engineer of the Bluff Harbor and Invercargill Eailway, it resulted that TMr Marchant accepted that office, also at £600 a year, and under the condition that in all eases of conflicting professional engagements, the Government should have a. preferent claim on his services. In September, 1863, Dr. Menzies further applied to Mr Marchant to take charge of the construction of the Oreti Eail way— which had not been projected when the original engagement was made, Mr Marchant consented; nothing being said on either side about remuneration. Mr Marchant also superintended the works of the Campbeiltown pier, Avhich was said not to be in any sense railway Avork. In May, 1864, the works were stopped, owing to_ the embarrassments of the Government ; but in July there was a resumption ; and in October, 1861, there AA r as a final stoppage, except so far as attempts to complete some eight miles for traffic. Mr Marchant's contention Avas that he was not ont of the service of the Government, so far as his salary of £600 a year for the BlufF line Avas concerned, until the latter part of 1865.

There having been no agreement as to

remuneration for Mr Marchant's services on the Oreti line, he claimed to be paid 5 per cent, on the amount of the works .- and he admitted that up to June or Jul}' last, he had never done more, in respect to such remuneration, than apply for payments on account, without claiming to be entitled to any particular rate of commission. At five per cent the total of the commission was £7108 15s 9d ; but in. fact this was somewhat reduced in the amended claim before the arbitrators. The £7106 15s 9d ; was thus made ud : — Contract A. £81,942 2s 73— £4097 2s 2dTNo. 4, £5,2 L 3 5s 9d— £26o 13s 3d-, rolling-stock; £5,433 6s Sd— £27l l3s id \ final certificate, £13,558— £677 18s : uncompleted works, £40,500— £1012 10s '; Campbeiltown jetty, £15,739 — £786 19s. The Government denied any liability, except for £266 13s 4d, balance of wages.

During the sittings of the arbitrators, Mr James Smith appeared for Mr Marchant, and TMr J. 77H7. Harris for the Grovernment. It was contended for Mr Marchant, that as there was no agreement made when he undertook the superintendence of the Oreti line, there was no other principle on which he could be paid, than the recognised one at 5 per cent, on the amount ofthe works. It was admitted that so much as is at home called " Parliamentary work " had been done by Mr Heale ; but Mr Marchant, and Mr J. E. Davis, the contractor, gave evidence to show that, substantially, the line had to be laid out after TMr Marchant took charge. The case for the Government seemed to be — That Mr Marchant was their servant at £600 a year ; that it was not irhkown, in USew Zealand, for Provincial Engineers to undertake railway or other important works, without special remuneration ; that the real engineering work was done by* Mr Heale ; and that weight ought to be attached to the long delay by Mr Marchant in claiming to be paid a per centage. Mr Marchant admitted the delay, but said it arose from the embarrassments of the Government, which were such that he could not, with anj-thing like regularity, obtain his TBlufl' line salary He admitted also, that, in September, 1864, he agreed — -after much communication with TDr Menzies, and pointing out the special nature of his agreement — to a reduction of 25 per cent, in the £600 salaiy , and that, subsequently, there was a lurther reduction of £50. It was attempted to show that Mr Marchant had signed certain pay vouchers as " railway engineer," but Uttle was really made of the point ; and Mr Marchant's statements, that, as a rule, he signed as " resident engineer," and that he had never been gazetted as an officer of the Gdveriynent, were not questioned. Another point relied upon in support of the claim was, that in an estimate supplied to tbe Government, andprinted in theofficial documents of the Council, there was an item, " engineering expenses, £3800," which was about five per cent, on the works then contemplated J The only witness called for- the Govern- 1 meat was Mr J", T; Thomson, chief sur- 1

voyor, and engineer of roads and .works;, under the Otago Government. His evidence, however, was, th,at he should by no means necessarily consider that he was called upon by his office, to superintend a, railway, although he might consent to do so, under special circumstances ; aud thafc, in the absence of au agreement as to the remuneration of an engineer, a per centage payment Avas the only one he could recognise, the rate being five per cent, or more or less, according to the nature and amount of the work. The case before the arbitrators was complicated, by questions as to the assistants and office accommodation supplied to TMTr Marchant by the Government, the expenses of Avhich, it was said, w.ere always paid by the engineer, Avho received a per Centage. For Mr Marchant, it Avas contended that these matters had been fairly allowed for.

The arbitrators have awarded Mr Marchant £1700; and we believe that this bears aboufc the same proportion to the amount of the Oreti line and the Campbelitown pier works, as the salary paid does to the expenditure on the Bluff Harbor and Invercargill Eailway. The Government are to pay the costs of the submission and of the arbitration ; the parties respectively paying the expenses of counsel and witnesses.