The Evening Star. PUBLISHED DAILY AT FOUR P.M. Resurrexi. MONDAY, AUGUST 28, 1882.

Thames Star, Volume XIII, Issue 4261, 28 August 1882, Page 2

The Evening Star. PUBLISHED DAILY AT FOUR P.M. Resurrexi. MONDAY, AUGUST 28, 1882.

When the Public Works Policy wag introduced in 1870, the great English contractors, the Messrs Brogden, took in hand to construct certain of the railways. They finished their business years ago, but, as is usually the case with contracts, they had their little bill for extras, which they have pressed quite recently, but which the Government declined to recognise. They petitioned for leave to sue the Government, but a Parliamentary Committee has brought in a report decidedly antagonistic to their request, on the following grounds :—The contracts affected by this inquiry were nine in number, and that the first six of them, amounting to £560,446, were signed on the 10th of August, six days before the Government Contractors' Arbitration Act was introduced into Parliament; that three other contracts, amounting to £240,750, were signed on the 19th of June, 1873, eight months after the Government Contractors' Arbitration Act became law; that the contracts given to Messrs Brogden and Sons were without competition, and on terms exceptionally farorable to the contractors, allowances amounting to 32§ per centum over and above the contractors' prices then ourrent in the colony having been made to them ; that the Messrs Brogden insisted upon having provision made for the appointment of a special arbitrator to whom disputes arising out of tk«ir projected contracts might be referred; that it was agreed that a Judge of the Supreme Court having jurisdiction in the Supreme Court district in which a dispute might arise should be made arbitrator; and it became, therefore, necessary to pass an Act so that these duties should be imposed on the Judges, and also in order to give them the requisite powers to obtain evidence; that the Government Contractors' Arbitration Act, 1872, was accordingly passed with the knowledge of Mr James Brogden, the partner representing the firm, who was at that time in Wellington, and who conducted the contract negotiations with the Government; that no disputes resulting in application for arbitration appear to have occurred during the whole period when progress payments were being made to Messrs Brogden upon their several contracts; that it was competent for Messrs Brogden at any time when claims on their part were disputed by the Government to have caused the matter in dispute to be referred to arbitration in the manner provided by their contracts. That the Messrs Brogden did not, within the proper time and in the 'manner prescribed, upon any occasion bring the disputed claims to be arbitrated;

that when the time within which disputes could be legally brought to arbitration had been allowed by the Messrs Brogden to elapse, the Government expressed their willingness, both before and after the receipt of the letter of date March Bth, 1577, from Messrs Brogden, to allow the contractors to bring their disputed claims to arbitration under the Act, that the Messrs Brogden refused to avail themselves of the opportunities thus afforded to them, and did not, until a recent period, attempt to bring their disputed claims to arbitration in the manner originally agreed upon and as provided by law. That, owing to the action of Messrs Brogden themselves, several years were allowed to elapse, dur-« ing which no effort was made to refer their claims to arbitration in the manner prescribed. That, in consequence of the delay, much of the evidence which would be necessary to enable the arbitrator to arrive at a complete knowledge of each disputed claim is no longer available. In one case, the words themselves are effaced, and in the case of the evidence it is no longer available. The Committee cannot recommend that the consent of the Government should now be given to a reference of the Brogden claims under the provisions of the Government Contractors' Arbitration Act, 1872."