New Zealand Times. WEDNESDAY, JUNE 30, 1875.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXX, Issue 4455, 30 June 1875, Page 2

New Zealand Times. WEDNESDAY, JUNE 30, 1875.

Some time ago we published the substance of the voluminous correspondence on the San Francisco mail] service, submitted to the New South Wales Parliament. There were several points of interest and importance to New Zealand in this correspondence, which appears to have been prematurely made public by the Sydney Government. The Hon. Mr. Samuel, late Postmaster-General of New South Wales, who acted with Mr. Russell in negotiating the contract in London, complained in the Legislative Council, that a breach of faith had been committed, that the documents were the joint property of New Zealand and New South Wales, and that it was improper to publish them without the consent of the Colonial Executive at Wellington. It was thought probable at one time that Mr. Samuel would move a vote of censure on Mr. Robertson’? Government, but this he refrained from doing, contenting himself by “ calling attention to “ the matter under cover of a motion for “ adjournment.” In doing so, he appears to have been quite in the right ; and he has had the support of the Sydney Press in the course he adopted. As the Morning Herald remarked, “ the action “ complained of was too grave in charac- “ ter to be rightly passed by without “ notice.” The same paper explains the position in the following passage, which we extract from a recent issue. It says :

Mr. Samuel's charge against the Government is that, —in publishing an agreement entered into with the New Zealand Government whilst negotiations were pending, and the time was unexpired during which action under that agreement might be taken by other parties, and in publishing it without the knowledge or consent of the New Zealand Government,—a breach of faith was committed, the public interest was endangered orinjured, the princix>lesregulatingthe conduct of ordinary business were set aside, and the recognised rules of responsible government were broken. The obnoxious document was an agreement between Messrs. Samuel and Russell, in were set forth the outlines of a new service to be contracted for in the event of the failure of the late contractors for the originalpermanent service.” Those outlines included mention of the maximum cost of the proposed new service, for which tenders have been invited both here and in England ; and, as Mr. Samuel states, the time for the acceptance of tenders has not yet expired. It is obvious that if the Government had any bona fide intention to act upon the agreement in question, or to leave the chances of action open, the publication of these particulars was an unbusiness-like proceeding. Its _ tendency was to destroy either the prospect of getting any tenders at all, or the probability of getting tenders founded upon an independent calculation of cost and profit. When a Government is acting for itself and by itself it may take unbusinesslike courses upon its own responsibility ; but when one Government is acting jointly with another, and the interests of that other are involved in the successful management of the undertaking, the case stands in a very different position. _ In this instance the two Governments had united in calling for tenders ; and for the one. without the knowledge and consent of the other, to take a course adapted to make this call for tenders a mere waste of time and money, was clearly to compromise interests that ought to have been protected, and to break through that common understanding or faith between the parties to an agreement, which is at the foundation of all contracts. As Mr. Samuel maintains, the agreement was the property of New Zealand as well as of New South Wales, and our Government had no right, without the consent of the New Zealand Government, whilst the agreement lasted, to do anything to put the objects of it in peril. Bub could our Government have withheld the agreement from publication after the Assembly had called for it ? According to the authorities quoted, this might have been done in accordance with parliamentary The custom in the Imperial Parliament is, that Ministers withhold from publication papers relating to negotiations pending, and that the House does not insist upon their production, except when want of confidence or censure is Intended to be expressed by doing so. When papers are thus withheld, it is at the discretion and upon the responsibility of the Ministry.

The defence set up was that the correspondence was asked for, and that the publication of the agreement in question was necessary to render the other documents intelligible. This plea cannot be admitted for a moment. There is clearly a discretion with the Government to refuse documents, the publication of which would be prejudicial to the public interests, and if ever there was a case in which such discretion should have been exercised, this was one of them. It was clearly in the. interest of the public that the maximum cost of the proposed new service should not be disclosed until the time for receiving tenders had expired. Nor can the plea be admitted that nothing was done under this agreement. This was an accident arising out of circumstances b§yond the control of the Sydney Government, whose offence is a want of courtesy to another Government with whom they were acting, and a total disregard of their interests. We trust that a similar occurrence may not again take place. Meanwhile we have to express our satisfaction at the action taken by Mr. Samuel to vindicate the New South Wales Legislature from participation in the indiscretion of the Executive, and also our appreciation of the friendly remarks of the Sydney Morning Herald . It is of the utmost conseqence that the most cordial relations should subsist between the two colonies ; but if a good understanding is to continue, when the respective governments take any action in common they must be careful not to take any step affecting their joint interests without the knowledge and consent of both.