CALLIOPE DOCK.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXVI, Issue 11232, 29 November 1899, Page 3

CALLIOPE DOCK.

THE AGREEMENT WITH THE ADMIRALTY. Upon- the return of Mr. J. M. Brigliam, secretary of tho Harbour Board, from London, after concluding negotiations with the. Admiralty authorities regarding the equipment of Calliope Dock, tlm agreement which lie had entered into on behalf of the Board was considered somewhat ambiguous as to certain clauses, ar.d Mr. TV. J. Napiei forwarded the following communication to Sir Evan MacOregor, secretary to the Admiralty: — "Auckland, August 7, 1899. Sir,— liavo the honour to state that tho secretary of our Board, Mr. ,T. M. Brigliam, duly arrived from England on July 2, bearing with him, to us, the original agreement dated May 1, 1899, and made on behalf of the Auckland Harbour Board by Mr. Brigliam with the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty. I take this opportunity of conveying to the Admiralty, and to yourself, and all the officers ill connection with tho departments with which Mr. llrigham had to deal, the hearty thanks of the Auckland Harbour Board for the kindness and courtesy which was extended to our representative 011 all occasions, and also for llio contribution agreed to bo made by tho Admiralty towards the necessary equipment of Calliope Dock. I feel certain that the Admiralty will have no reason to regret the agreement which has been made, and that it will tend to promote the interests of Her Majesty's navy in these parts, and also the interests of the port of Auckland. I may cay that this Board will do its utmost to meet the wishes of the. Admiralty in every reject, and will be at all times prepared to consider any further proposals which my Lords may make for the supply of further convenience for the navy, if, in the course of time, such should lie found necessary or desirable. I may remark that one or two of the, clauses in the agreement appear to us to bo slightly ambiguous, though we have no doubt of "the meaning that was intended by the Admiralty. I refer to the clauses relating to the state of matters between the Admiralty and the Board after the expiration of 30 years from the date id the agreemont. We readily admit that tho Admiralty slio.ii 1 havo a right not limited to 30 years of usiii", without cost, the dock and machinery for which they have paid the subsidy, but it did not appear quite clear to us whether or not the agreement meant that after the expiration of 30 years, the Board would havo to supply new machinery out of its own resources without receiving any consideration from the Admiralty. We felt sure, of course, that this was not the intention of the Admiralty, but tho wording of the agreement, as I have said, appeared to leave the matter in some doubt. In order to set at rest these doubts, wo consulted our legal advisers, who gave us thoir opinion as fol--Assuming the legal validity of tho document, wo are of opinion that taking tho agreement as a whole it appears to proceed upon tho idea of there being a term of 30 years to which all the clauses except clause 26 are referable. The proviso to clauso 21, which contains the promise to pay tho annual subsidy, expressly refers to tho 30 yoius mentioned in tlm clause as the whole ' term,' and although in tho other clauses the term is not expressly mentioned, yot it seems unreasonable to hold, for instance, that the provisions of clauses 35 and 16, as to participation in profits and rendering accounts, are to go on for ever. If the limitation of 30 years does not apply, there could be no object in the Admiralty desiring tho insertion of clause 26, preserving their right to use the machinery after tho expiration of the 30 years. If there is no limitation of time in respect of the Board s obligations, clause 26 was unnecessary. Its introduction into the agreement scorns to us necessarily to imply that all tho other provisions of the agreement expire at tho en 1 of 30 years, and that clause 26 alone remains. The well-known principle of interpretation that when one intention is expressed an inconsistent interpretation is excluded, seems to us to apply here. I have, no doubt that you will admit the force of our counsel's contention. I may add that j we are proceeding to carry out the agreement as speedily as possible. An engineer will be appointed at our next mooting, and immediately thereafter the preliminary work will be commonced, so that no time will ho lost in making the' dock completely serviceable for Her Majesty's ships.W. J. Napier, Chairman." At the meeting of the Board yesterday the following reply to the chairman's letter was rood:— Admiralty, October 19, 1899. Sir,— With reference to your letter of August 7, 1899, No. 13/15/98, relative to the interpretation to be put upon certain clauses of the agreemont entered into by the Admiralty with tho Auckland Harbour Board in respect of their contribution towards the nccessniy equipment of the Calliope Dock at Auckland, New Zealand, I am commanded by the Lords Commissioners of tho Admiralty to acquaint von they concur with your Board, that although the Admiralty retain the ri"ht of gratuitous use, aftor the expiration of the term of 30 years the Harbour Beard arc under no obligation to the Admiralty to execute repairs after the expiration of that period. My Lords note with satisfaction the intention _ expressed that Admiralty requirements will be met to the utmost, and 1 am to convey the thanks of My Lords to your Board for their desire and willingness to further naval interests.--Evan MACGItEGOIt."