The Daily Telegraph. TUESDAY, AUGUST 19, 1890.

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Issue 5913, 19 August 1890, Page 2

The Daily Telegraph. TUESDAY, AUGUST 19, 1890.

A itECEXT cablegram from Sydney referred to a jjdgraent tfiven in tho Supreme Court of Now South Wales in tho case of the Pacific Mail Steamship Company v. the Post master-General of that colony. In the course of that trial it appeared that some severe strictures had been inado on the want of dignity and liberality of spirit shown by the G ivernment of New Zealand in their action in the matter of the contract with tho plaintiff company. With this, however, the Court had nothing to do as expressed by Mr Justice Windeyer, and we are at a loss to understand why this was referred to iuthe cablegram whilo no mention was mado of the attitude of the Company in its attempt to enforce Daymen, 1 ; of a sum of money from New South Wales to whioh it completely failed to provo it ht.,d any claim. The action of the Company wan to recover from tho New South Wales Government the sum of £11,7.50 and interest thereon, in all £14,301 14s lOd, for services rendered in the carriage of mails between Sydney and San Francisco from the 2!ith November, 1884, to the 29th Novembor, ISBS. Now, it appears from the judgment delivered by Mr Justice Windeyer that, in the contract entered into botweou the Company and tho Governments of New Zealand and New South Wales, there was n stipulation that the latter colony could withdraw from the contract, aud at a certain period it availed itsolf of its right mid did withdraw. The contract with New Zealand still remained iv full force, and which bound tho Company to nut its vessels betwecu San Francisco and Sydney, calling at Auckland. It was argued by the Company's counsel that it was impossible to suppose plaintiffs would have entered into such a contract that could bo worked with such hardship as to compel them to carry tho mails from Sydney to San Francisco and buck when Now South Wales withdrew her contribution for tho conveyance of those mails. But it appeared that when this somewhat one-sided contract was mado the idea was entertained that a subsidy would bo mado to the Company by tho United States for the maintenance of the line of steamers. After tho withdrawal of fc'ow South Wales the Company entered into negotiations with tho Government of that colony with a view to induce a return to the contract, and offered a special contract to carry tho mails for tho unexpired period of two veurs for £11,760. Tho Now Zealand Government then stepped iv and objected to • such an arrangement unless sho wero given a similar reduction. Tho Company refusod to do this, and wrote the following letter to tho Postmaster-Gonoral of New South Wales :__" Wo havo the honor to inform you that wo have been in communication with tho Houorablo tho Postmaster-General of New Zealand, and have tried hard to obtain his consent to your cancelling your withdrawal notice, but regretto say without success. The only condition on which New Zealand will givo hor consent is provided sho bo allowed by tbe contractor tho sumo reduction in subsidy as New South Wales, namely £7000, and this they are utterly unable to comply with. Seeing that tho contractors cuunot got any ullowance from the United States Government * * they suggest that under tho circumstances » * Now South Wales should agree to divide tho allowance of £7000 with Now Zealand * * Iv the event of your agreeing to do so, wo will endeavor to obtain Now Zealand's consent to such an arrangement." This consent, however, was never obtained- It appealed to tho Court, therefore, that tho attempt on the part of the plaintill's to establish a contract betwecu j themselves and the Government of New I

South Wales, by which as thejr said that colony had beoome bound to pay them the sum of £11,750 for the conveyance of mails, had entirely failed. The end of the negotiations was that New South Wales paid £7000 to New Zealand for the carriage of mails by the line of steamers which was wholly subsidised by this oolony. Mr Justice Windeyer then made the following remarks :— '« Whether the dealings of the Government of New Zealand as far as those dealings were carrie.-"- on by the Ministry of Sir Julius Vogel were characterised by that dijrnity which should disti'.cv.iisb the conduct of public affairs, or whether, as had .been strongly urged, the plaintiffs had not been dealt with in that liberal spirit by the Government of New Zealand which they, perhaps, had the right to exp-. ct in dealing with the Government of a British community, was a matter upon which the Court'were n»t now called upon to express uu opinion, as far as the Government of New south Wales were concerned, howevfr, it seemed to the Court that the plaintiff: company h.-id no right to complain." New South Wales w-as in this position— that sho had either to p«y £7000 to New Zealand or run the risk of her mails being refused conveyance to and from San Francisco. Wo hardly see where the dignity would have come in if Not South Wales, after withdrawing from the contract, expected her mails to bo carried for nothing.