THE SOUTHLAND GOVERNMENT AND MR. MARCHANT.

West Coast Times, Issue 175, 11 April 1866, Page 3

THE SOUTHLAND GOVERNMENT AND MR. MARCHANT.

(From the Otago Daily Times, Mar. 30.) " A " History of the Causes of Ministerial Crises in New Zealand," would be in many respects an amusing and a singular book ; but no part of it would cause more astonishment than such a statement as this — " In the early part of 1866, the Government of the Province of Southland was turned out of office by a vote of censure, because U had consented to submit to arbitration a claim for payment made by the engineer who 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 grievous state into which the province was brought, mainly as a consequence of it — the prominence of personal motives and the violencs of professional recriminations which followed on the failure — would all have to be traced i.i explauatiou of the statement we 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 bo censured for taking a common sense md speedy mod 3 of getting a settlement of a dispute with one of its officers. We believe that wo can sate, with general accuracy, tho outlines rf tiio the claim made by Mr Robirt Mudge Marchant, and the result of the arbitration which took place recently in

Dunedin— Mr T. Patersou, C.E. (late Railway Engineer to the Otago Government) being chosen by the, Southland Government; Mr S! Hutchison, C.E., by Mr Marchant ; and 1 those gentlemen choosing Mr William Mason, architect, &c. (and Mayor of Dunedin), as the umpire. ' '/ , , In February, 1863, Mr Marchant was engineer to the Town Board of Inver cargill, an office which he had not long held. Being applied to by Dr Menzies, then Superintendent of the Province, to become resident engineer of the Bluff Harbor and Invorcargill railway, it re* suited that Mr Marchant accepted that office also, at L6OO a year, and under the condition that in all cases of con' flicting 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 Railway — 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 Campbelltown pier, which was said not to be in any sense railway work. In May, 1864, the works were stopped, owing to tho embarrassments of the Government ; but in July there was a resumption ; and in October, 1864, there was a final stoppage, except so far as attempts to complete some eight miles for traffic. Mr Marchaut'B contention was that ho was not out of the service of the Government, so far as his salary of £600 a year for the Bluff line was 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 July last, ho 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 commissi )n. At five per cent, the total of the commission wa« £,"106 15s 9d; but in fact thi* was HOtAewhat reduced in the amended claim before the arbitrators. The £7106 15s 9d was thus made up: — f'ontract A. £81,942 2s 7d— L4097 2s 2d; No. 4, 5213 5s 9d— £26o 13s 3d ; rolling-stock, £5433 6s Bd— £27l 13s 4d; final certificate, £13,558— £677

18s; uncompleted works, £40,500 — £1012 10 ; Campbelltown jetty, £ 1 5,739— £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 Mr J. H. Harris for the Government. It was contended for Mr Marchant, that as there was no agreement made when ho undertook tho superintendence of the Oreti line, there was no other principle on which he could be paid than tho recognised one of five per cent, on tho amount of the works. It was admitted that bo much as is at home called " Parliamentary work" had been done by Mrlleale; but Mr Marchant, and Mr J. R. Davis, the contractor, gave evidence to show that, substantially, the"- line had to bo laid out after Mr Marchaut took charge. The case for, the Government seemed to be — Tnat Mr Marchant was their servant at £600 a year ; that it was not unknown, in Now 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 anything like regularity, obtain his Bluff line salary. He admit, ted, also,; that m September 1 864, he agreed — after much communication with Dr Menzies, and pointing out the special nature of his agreement — to a reduction of 25 per cent, in the £600 salary; and that, subsequently, there was a further reduction of £50. It was attempted to show that Mr Marchant had signed certain pay-vouchers as " railway engineer," but little 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 Government, were not questioned. Another point relied upon iv support of the claim was, that in an estimate supplied to the Government, and printed in the official documents of the Council, there was an item, " engineering expenses, £3800," which was about 5 per cent, on the works then contemplated. The only witness called for tho Government was Mr J. T. Thomson, chief surveyor, and engineer of roads and works, under the Otago Government. His evidence, however, was, that he should by no means necessarily consider that ho was called upon, by h's office, to superintend a railway, although lio might consent to do so, under special circumstances ; and that, in tho absence of an agreement as to the remuneration of an engineer, a percentage payment was the only one he could recognise, the rate being 5 per cent, or more or tess, according to the nature and amount of the work. The. ense before the arbitrators was complicated by questions as to the assistants and office accommodation supplied toMrMarchant by the Government, the expenses of which, it was said, were always paid by the engineer who received a per centage. For Mr Marchant, it was contended that these matters had been fairly allowed for. ' The arbitratoj's have awarded Mr Merchant £1700; and we believe that this bears about the same proportion to he amount of the Oreti line and the

Campbelltown pier works, as the si.liry paid docs to tho expenditure on the Bluff Harbor and Invorcargill Rail way i The Government are to pay the costs of the submission and of the arbitration, the parties respectively paying the expenses of counsel and witnesses.