THE MIDLAND ARBITRATION.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1211, 17 May 1895, Page 40

THE MIDLAND ARBITRATION.

THE PREMIER’S REPLY.. The Premier has forwarded the following reply to Sir Bruce Burnside’s letter on the arbitration: — 25th April, 1895. Sir, —I have the honour to acknowledge the recept of your letter from Auckland dated the 20th inst., in which you, refer to a paragraph which appeared in the Auckland Star of the 19th idem., and you state that you deem it to be your duty to your colleague, Sir Charles Lilley, who is absent from the Colony, to’say that there is no truth in much that is therein asserted as fact, and the statement generally as to what took place between the arbitrators is incorrect and misleading. In reply permit me to say that, in my opinion, you have signally failed to do justice either to your colleague or yourself, for it would have been much better had you stated definitely Avhat there was in the paragraph in question which was incorrect. To leave the position as you have done will scarcely satisfy the public mind. HoAvever, you must know that the main statements in the paragraph are correct, and there are also statements in the same Avhich it Avould have been impossible for you to have known at the time you Avrote either directly or indirectly. Speaking on behalf of the Government, Sir James Prendergast, the Judges in Are •Colony, or any of the Chief Justices in the other colonies, and also the puisne Judges A’Becket and Owen were acceptable ; and further, although not officially, the Government were given to understand that if they selected a person outside New Zealand as arbitrator the Company would accept Sir James Prendergast. The appointment, however, of umpire rested with yourself and your colleague Sir Charles Lilley, in whom the Government had, and still have, the utmost confidence.

You say “ Neither Sir Charles Lilley nor I would feel justified in making public the nature of the communications between us which resulted iu the selection of an umpire." Evidently Mr Salt has done you both an injustice, for he has given to the press and the public what purports to be the communications which passed between you. Has he violated your confidence ? I also fail to understand Avhy you should have permitted the injustice to be done to your colleague, which, owing to the statement which appeared in the Christchurch Press from its Wellington correspondent, has unquestionably been done ; and certainly from your own showing, was improper. The statement is as follows : “The two arbitrators having power to appoint an umpire, the Company made all arrangements for proceeding with the arbitration oil the 3rd April, the date when the three months would expire from the time of notice. The Government did not appoint their arbitrator until the 27th of March, and after his arrival in Wellington on the 3rd of April the arbitrators met, when it was at once found that it would be necessary to appoint an umpire. The Government arbitrator proposed as umpire Sir James Prendergast, the Chief Justice of New Zealand. It was, hoAvever, obviously impossible for that gentleman, to act —first, because he Avas head of the Supreme Court, to which reference might have to be made ; and secondly, because he is ex officio • Deputy-Governor, and in the absence of the Governor from the Colony would, for the time being, assume his position. This latter point was altogether fatal to the appointment. The Company, naturally anxious to proceed with the arbitration, suggested one or two Judges of the Supreme Court of New Zealand, a commercial gentleman from Melbourne of experience and position, ■whom they named, and any of the Chief Justices or puisne Judges of the British colonies. But none of these offers were acceptable. The Company also suggested, as the speediest and least expensive manner of concluding the matter, that the arbitration should be held at once, and that in case of any difference between the arbitrators the whole evidence should be referred to some independent umpire in England for his decision. To this arrangement tho special consent of both parties Avould be necessary, as under the terms of the contract ail the proceedings had to take place |in NeAv Zealand. The Government obj jected to all these suggestions, and it bei came clear to tho Company that, even if | the arbitration Avere to be commenced at once, there was every probability of its being prolonged over many months. After much discussion it has been finally agreed between the two parties that the date of making- the award should be extended to the 30fch of January, 1896."

From this it is evident that Mr Thomas Salt has committed a breach of confidence, for, if the report he true, he has made statements which are positively alleged to be a portion of what transpired between you and your colleague, and has made the same public to the world. One statement is as follows : <<r The Government arbitrator proposed as umpire Sir James Prendergast, the Chief Justice of New Zealand.” If this was given by you to Mr Salt in confidence, then that confidence has been violated. It is a- positive assertion, and so is that contained in the statement which appears in the Auckland Star of the 19th April that the Company's arbitrator objected to anyone in New Zealand or any New Zealander being appointed. A f urther assertion is made that the Company suggested one or two Judges of the Supreme Court of New Zealand, a commercial gentleman from Melbourne of experience and position, whom they named, and any of the Chief Justices or puisne Judges of , the British colonies, but that none of these

offers were acceptable. I have no doubt that to this you will say you were not bound to accept the suggestions of the Company, and to this portion of Mr Salt’s statement both you and Sir Charles Lilley may properly take exception. There is a further statement made in respect to the two arbitrators proceeding, and that in case of a difference between them the whole of the evidence should be referred to some independent umpire in England for his decision. From this and the final selection falling upon a gentleman in England, it might reasonably be inferred that the statement made to the effect that the Company’s arbitrator was not agreeable to anyone either in New Zealand or in the colonies being appointed as umpire is correct; and that if the suggestions were made by the Company as stated by Mr Salt, then you had not chosen to accept the same. The statement made by Mr Salt that the Government objected to these proposals is absolutely incorrect. Under the terms of the contract all proceedings have to take place in New Zealand. The Government simply refused to go outside the terms of the contract, and allow them to take place in London as suggested. The Government had nothing whatever to do with the status of the umpire, which was left entirely to yourself and your colleague. Mr Salt further says, “ After much discussion it has been finally agreed between the two parties that the date of making the award should bo extended to the 30th January, 1896.” The two parties had nothing whatever to say in regard to this extension. Probably Mr Salt intended to state that it was the two arbitrators, not the parties to the arbitration, but, as it appears in the report in question, it would be inferred that it was the Government and the Company, who were the two parties to the arbitration, that had so consented to the fixing* of this date, whereas the responsibility for the postponement rested with yourself and your colleague. The Government were apprised of the extension after it had been agreed to by yourself and Sir Charles Lilley. I think, therefore, that you will agree with me, after a perusal of the report of the interview between Mr Salt, chairman of the Midland Railway Company, and the Wellington correspondent of the Christchurch Press— and of course without holding the former responsible therefor —that there are statements which are not in accordance with the facts within your knowledge and that of your colleague. As you were on the eve of leaving Wellington at the time, probably this report in the Christchurch Press escaped your notice, and hence you had not treated it as i you treated the paragraph which appeared in the Auckland Star. I have the honour to be, sir, Your obedient servant, R. J. Seddon. Sir Bruce Burnside, London.