The Lyttelton Times. THUESDAY, MAY 26, 1864.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XXI, Issue 1241, 26 May 1864, Page 3

The Lyttelton Times. THUESDAY, MAY 26, 1864.

The reasons which the Government have to give for putting an , end to the Panama contract were published in our last issue. Our readers will see that they contain no new feature whatever.; But it is satisfactory to have them in detail, and with as much explanation as the Government think proper to give "publicly. And we have therefore less reluctance to go over the beaten ground again. In so doing we are not about to reargue the general question on its merits, but to examine merely the technical ground chosen by the Government upon which they r mainly rest their case.

The memorandum of the Colonial Secretary, euclosed, in a letter to Mr. Reader Wood of the 7th April, quotes the resolutions passed by the House of Eepresentatives in .the session of 1862. These resolutions are seven in number. The first three refer to the Panama route: they declare that a monthly service by that route is desirable; that its advantages should be shared by other colonies in order that its expenses should be partly borne by them also; and that £30,000 a year for. five years should be applied by way of subsidy- to the service. The remaining four resolutions ; apply to> the intercolonial and interprovincial services. And it is necessary to observe; that the two sets of resolutions' have no connection with one another. They were Recommended by the same committee; but at two different times, and upou : two different subjects, in the order in which those subjects were referred to the committee. This fact, which we find in the Journals of the House, is so far of importance that it must prevent the conditions attached to one set of resolutions from being applied to the subject matter of the other. For instance, the seventh resolution provides, that all contracts shall be yearly, determinable at six months' notice. : It is obvious that this provision cannot apply to the Panama service; and yet the resolutions when read together, as they must be in Mr. Fox's memorandum, appear to ; be so applicable among themselves, any one of them to all the rest. , ,

In point of fact, the Committee in question had a double duty to perform, as is obvious from their reports to the House, published ill the Journals. First, they had to consider the best means of providing for the immediate steam postal wants of the colony. Secondly, they had to report upon a proposed service ' which could only come into operation after Several years. The report upoii each was submitted to the House separately, and so debated. No amendments were made to the Panama report ; but when that on the local services came on, a long and warm debate ended in the adoption of several amendments. It is quite obvious that the provisions of the latter were not meant to have, and have not, any relation to theformer. But the two sets of resolutions were forinally reported to the House and adopted, all debate being over, at the same time ; and were by that accident numbered consecutively, thereby assuming the appearance of a series, a character which they do not really possess. It is necessary to point out the very simple fact above stated, because the arugment of .the. Government is made to rest in a great measure upon the opposition of the contract to the declared views of the House of Representatives. The only views declared by the House upon the Panama question were expressed iii the resolutions above referred to, and an the Act which. was based upon them; both of which are easy to understand by themselves. , Let us see then what,the House oi ltepresentatives did mean by the resolutions in question.. ;.' : Having declared that the Panama service ; is calculated to confer very great benefit upon the colony, the second Resolution says considering the probable expense of-such an undertaking, it is desirable that th'e'isprvice should be so constructed as to confer advantage on, and obtain the support of the neighbouring colonies." The probable expense was roughly estimated at the time at £150,000 a year—a sum tar beyond the power of the colony to pay. The only hope then entertained of securing the service was to ally ourselves with New South Wales, and: together to solicit the help of the Imperial Government. But even in the resolution'itself, independent action by this colony was contemplated. It supposes that a contract is to be made by New Zealand, and that other colonies are to be invited' to defray the expense. Without a shadow of doubt, the Assembly was quite prepared'to undertake the work m either way —as a colleague of New South Wales, or independently—only that the_ expense must, not fall too heavily on New Zealand whichever course should be adopted. The measure of expense to be borne was fixed in the next resolution; it was to be a sum " riot exceeding £30,000 per annum, as a contribution towards the coloma portion of the subsidy." The meaning is obvious. If the Imperial Government ana the colomes combine to make the contract, _New Zeaand is pledged to £30,000. If New Zealand makes the contract alone, the balance aftqi receiving the contributions of other colonies and countries is not to exceed the same sum. We see, therefore, that the House of Representatives distinctly contemplated the case of an independent contract, and by nomeans fixed the total amount of the subsidy, but only the portion to be paid by this colony. We now proceed to examine the reasons pf the Government; and first that which is

.iDo.it relied on, the antagonism of the contract to the will of the Legislature. This is said to exist in three poiats. ' Tbo.first point is that the cost was limited to £30,000,. while the contract proposes to bind the colony to £63,000 a-year. Against this amount, the G-overnment will allow a set-off of £13,000 a'-year, arising from postages receivable and savings on the Suez contribution, leaving, they say, an excess of £20,000 payable by the colony beyond the vote of the House. But that is the whole cost q£ the not the contribution of New Zealand ; and we have shewn that the House did not limit the former amount but the latter. We are now considering the question, not of cost* but of the declared will oi the Legislature. The Government refer to the resolutions, and rely upon them. We. distinctly assert that they not only do not. support their case, but even shew an authority for the contract in its present shape. ; - The sum of £20,000, which; the Government state to be in excess of the vote, isarrived at without deducting any saving likely to be effected in the curtailment of the intercolonial branches of the Suez service ; and of course also without allowing the smallest credit for contributions from other colonies. As to the former point, the Government allege that it would be contrary to the decision of the Legislature to withdraw; any of these, .(inasmuch as the, fourth resolution of the series declares that the requirements of the colony will not bd fully satisfied with any smaller number. This is one result of the confusion of resolutions above referred to. The fourth resolution dealt' with the services of the; current year, and until the Assembly should meet again. It affected postal lines always within the power of the G-overnment, and for which another resolution declares that contracts may be made only /rm year to year. It has reference peculiarly to the continuance of the receipt and dispatch of English mails by way of Australia ; for it is only for this purpose that such expensive contracts are needed. It is idle to quote such a resolution as - affecting postal communications after the establishment of a Panama service, which was then several years in the future, and the consideration of which had been kept as a thing apart. As good reason exists against Mr. Ward's contract, in that it was made for more than one year, for this also is provided by one of the resolutions quoted. - But the Government wisely, do not raise the latter point. Why, then, do they make much of the letter of another resoliilution, the spirit and meaning of which is not ait, all more applicable to the question ?

The Colonial Secretary, adds that it is contrary to the resolutions to reduce the interprovincial services. Whether this is so or not is little matter, iuasmuch as no such thing was attempted. The contract made by Mr. Ward affected the number of the interprovincial services only by securing three for the future iat : the present price of two. We are also told that the contract is in opposition to the resolutions because the second of the series provided that the service should be so constructed as to confer advantage on,, and obtain the support of, the neighbouring colonies, whereas New South Wales vvxrma nrOUOSed service than New Zealand. .wCto imagine a Panama service suited to iNew Zealand that would not be open to this objection ; nor can we conceive one in which sonie advantage would not be gained by all the other colonies. Therefore we believe that the House of Eepresentatives did not intend to lay down any rule of the sort against which the contract errs.. What, they did mean was obviously that this colony should, if necessary, give way on any minor point if it were made a condition for obtaining the Support of the rest. That an interprovincial service has been arranged for five years by Mr. Ward's contract, is a more real instance of antagonism to the declared views of the Legislature than any other.. It is only to be said that if this part of the contract be good in itself, and has been in any sort rendered necessary for the obtaining of the Panama service, the antagonism is not so great but that the House would admit cheerfully the excuses of the Executive.

The Government say also that a resolution i of the House in 1863, unknown to Mr.' 1 Ward, is binding upon them. If this ■ means that they are thereby not permitted . to confirm the acts of their colleague and representative, completed' before his new instructions reached him, we must tell them that they are altogether wrong. Any such act is as binding on the colony as any one of their owu before the meeting .of the Assembly. We regret exceedingly , that such an expression should have escaped the Colonial Secretary; for it contains the very essence of repudiation. ~, The Government wind up this.part of the case with the ..following words They have no inherent power to bind the colony to a contract so greatly in excess of, and in such decided opposition to, the declared views of the Legislature." We have shewn that the resolutions of the House as a whole cannot be so read; and, though the Act is not ; quoted, we are able to say that its meaning is 110 - stringent than theirs. In one minor point—the lengthened interprovincial contract —r an objection may be maintained, but it alone is unworthy of notice. We maintain, therefore, that the Government were at liberty to ratify the contract or not as they might choose. And this is the main argument upon which their case rests. The .point of next importauce taken by the memorandum is that the Government were not compelled to ratify the contract, because Mr. Ward, in making-it, exceeded his powers and instructions. We think, on reference to his powers,, that they were ample for every conceivable purpose, so far as the Governor and his advisers were able to confer power upon their representative. And as to instructions we find this one only—that he was not to fix the port of call. We presume that when a Minister is sent to England to represent the colony, with full powers, his instructions are impliedat least, if not described, to be—to do his best; and that if limits are placed to his discretion they are defined. It appears to have been so at least in Mr. Ward's case, for his discretion is limited in the matter of the port of call. The exception proves the rule. Further than this, Mr. Ward was. bound, as the Ministry are, by the declared will of the Legislature, which point we have already examined. The Memorandum proceeds with its argument in this wise. Even if the Government were able to ratify .the contract; they would not do so, for it Is not an advantageous one to the country, because of the cost and because of the'monopoly clause. Ot this we will only say that the calculations of cost five absurd, both in the estimate and in the

manner of statement. We have before now gone' so fully into this question, that it will only be necessary, on a future occasion, to poilit out the principal errors, which occur in the statement of cost made up by the Goyernment. As to the monopoly clause, we fully agree with' the Government in deprecating its appearance in the contract; but we cannot think that the obligation to respect the contract is at all diminished on that account, or that anything will be gained by trying to compel its withdrawal, when the same result might have been otherwise attained.