The Southland Times. TUESDAY, JANUARY 23, 1872.

Southland Times, Issue 1528, 23 January 1872, Page 2

The Southland Times. TUESDAY, JANUARY 23, 1872.

" God sends meat, and the devil sends cooks," is a doctrine which may be objected to by the purist, but it cannot be doubted by the observant. The latest phase in the development of the Oreti railway arbitration case is more immediately responsible for these reflections. The result, so far as it is yet known, supplies another link in the evidence already obtained that, however good the end, or laudable the object may be, in the hands of an incompetent or unscrupulous agent, they are bound to be sacrificed. We admit that there exists a glorious uncertainty in the law, and we suppose that the same characteristic applies to its kindred pursuit — judicial arbitration — but when we recall the many episodes that have occurred in the chequered career of railway construction in Southland, this uncertainty, glorious as it may appear, faiis to account for all the improvidence that has been committed. The reason must be traced to some source other than unforeseen contingency. Misfortunes may not, as a rule, come alone, but it is equally true that they seldom dog the fooc-pritits of one particular scheme or individual throughout every turn and condifciua of existence. The metaphysics of human life teach us that after buffeting their victim, the fates become more propitious, unless indeed the understanding has be^n so thoroughly dimmed that it fails to exercise its prerogative as a rule of life. This, then, is the alternative we are forced to contemplate. Either we have been robbed under color of law, or the public trust has been betrayed by gross iacompetency. In view of the public works scheme about to be inaugurated, these facts cannot be too carefully considered. Humiliating as the admission may be, past experience has shown that we have, or at all events have had, railway ingenuity in our midst of the inverse ratio quite sufficient to render the entire system of public works in New Zealand an abortion. We are forced to mention that fact in the interest of public morality, as well as that of social economy, and we trust it will not be without its effect upon the mind of the Minister of Public Works, and those having control in the administration of the policy. Speaking from experience as a province, we say emphatically that it would be better tor New Zealand to want railways altogether than to have them provided for as a dark page in her history similar to that which blotted out the existence of the late province. We do not profess to know the merits of the dispute upon which the late arbitration was founded, but. if report speaks truly, the Government committed an unheard of blunder in allowing the matter to be gone into at all. We are told that, by a duly executed contract of agreement, the contractors were bound, to adopt a legal fiction, hand and foot, to abide by the decision of the engineer appointed by the Government ; that; the provisions of that agreement were so stringent that appeal from the engineer's award was quite impossible. If that id a correct version of the agreement, and, judging from what is usual under similar circumstances, we are inclined to believe the report is founded on iact, then the Government has unnecessarily embroiled the province in a protracted litigation, and involved it in a large unnecessary expenditure. In the present imperfect state of our information, it is scarcely lair to lay too much stress upon that point, still the conduct of the Govern, nient can suffer no injustice by a searching

investigation, and wo hive no doubt sufficient patriotism will be found in the forthcoming session of Council to make the experiment. Kogarding the proceedings themselves, our information is similarly defective. AH that we know authoritatively is, thatthev have extended over a period of seven calendar months. During all that time, barely a fragment of information was allowed to ooze out as to what was doing. Here again the Government appears, to say the least of it, to have betrayed a lamentable want of judgment and forethought. Involving as the proceedings did, a claim for £3G,000, provision ought to have been made for the fullest publicity being given. By that means the public mind would have had an opportunity for satisfying itself that the public interest was not being trifled witb, and that unnecessary delay in arriving at a decision had been avoided. We may be told that arbitrations, unlike actions at law, are not usually opened to public inspection. That however is a mere matter of arrangement, and a very little forethought on the part of the Government would have shown the -wisdom of such a stipulation being made. From what little has been revealed, we gather that the contention on the part of the Government was, that after deducting progress payments, damages, &c, the contractors were not entitled to receive more than £13,237. The sum awarded by the arbitrators amounts to £27,000, nothing being said about the progress payments, so that we take it for ('granted that they have to be deducted. After allowing for these payments, the contractors claimed £32,23 i, so that they 1 get exactly £13,763 more than the Government allege to be due to them, and £5231 less than the full amount claimed. The entire proceeding is eminently unsatisfactory, and we look forward to the next session of Council to have the facts of the case brought out more fully.