THE NEW ZEALAND GOVERNMENT AND THE MESSRS BROGDEN.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 5247, 18 February 1882, Page 2 (Supplement)

THE NEW ZEALAND GOVERNMENT AND THE MESSRS BROGDEN.

(Manchester Courier.)

A contention arising mainly out of the important contracts for railway construction •undertaken by the well-known firm of Messrs I John Brogden and Sons, in Now Zealand, has involved those gentlemen and the New Zealand Government in a lawsuit which presents curious as well as instructive features In addition to Messrs Brogden's claim on the Government for the unpaid balance on the railway 'works.which they state at over a quarter of a million sterling after the deduction of some £21,000 for items upon which they are prepared to give way, there is or was a claim made for compensation on account of losses sustained on a large emigration project undertaken at the urgent instance of the Colonial authorities. But this part of Messrs Brogden's claim has already been adversely decided upon by the House of Representatives, and however much they may be entitled to sympathy on the subject, it cannot be denied that, looking in at the matter from that purely legal standpoint which alone could be well adopted, the decision arrived at was the only one possible, notwithstanding the moral hardship undoubtedly inflicted. But the dispute in respect to the balance due on the 10 railway contracts stands on an altogether different footing The history of the matter is shortly as follows :—Under the authority of the Colonial Legislature Messrs Brogden undertook 10 different railway contracts, of which the £j& esS m, a> te of ,c<? st was c*ose upob! £800 000. But, as usual m such undertakings by deviations from the originally - intended routes, .and the substitution of superior for inferior construction and material, by the time the work was finished the addition for extras had swelled the total amount to £1,223,721. Of this sum the contractors have received £9?9 000 and some £21,000 was also charged to them in connection-with the emigration scheme already mentioned. This brings the payments made to close on £900,000, and the balance in dispute is actually £252,749. It may be observed that no objection appears to have been made as to the character of the work done, and the at tempt of Messrs Brogden and Sons to discover on what grounds their claim is disputed has not been successful. Payments were made from time to time until at length no further payments could bo had, and so far as the published correspondence throws light upon the matter the New Zealand Government refuse Messrs Brogden and Sons the information they required, in the first instance, because it would cause a great deal of labour to their officials ■ and next, because if Messrs Brogden and Sons' contemplated litigation, it would be impolitic. Neither of these grounds seems either dignified or satisfactory. The public interest in the matter arises however, from another source than the mere fact, however important to the parties concerned, of there being a, serious dispute between them. It, is the peculiar policy pursued by the Government, and the position they have taken iip, which oiler very legitimate material for criticism, whilst the case may bo studied with advantage by all who are or may become interested in similar undertakings either in New Zealand or elsewhere.

Tho negotiations with Messrs Brogden and Sons wero closed in Juno, 1572, when the intended works were duly commenced. Shortly after this period an Act, called the Government Contractors Act, was passed, which amongst other provisions, enacted substantially that no claim. against the Government should bo entertained unless it was made within six months from tho dato of any dispute which had arisen, or might arise. It appoars that the solicitor of the Messrs Brogden had his attention called to this rather summary species of legislation, but was reassured on the subject and loft quite unprepared for its ex post facto application to his clients. And tho unreasonableness of such a limitation as six months when the contracting parties to an agreement arc virtually separated by 12,000 miles of salt water is certainly striking. This Aofc, however, has been set up as a defence against tho claim of Messrs Brogden and Sons for the balance duo to them. The Government roply was in effect, "You are too late ; your claim is barred by tho Contractors Act." Under this awkward condition Messrs Brogden and Sons availed them* selves of the only resourco remaining to them. They applied to the Governor, who gave his assent to a petition of right. .Without this Messrs Brogden and Sons could not sue tho Government, and under the provisions of a later Act than the ""Contractors," but one arising out of it, even this would bo debarred to them. But armed by it they a.ro now seeking to recover some £19,000 due on the " Invercargill contract," which forms one of. the lines undertaken. It is the course adopted by the Government of Now Zealand in meeting this claim which is a fitting matter for comment and reflection. They do not say that tho money is not due to the claimants, they do not admit a part and dispute tho remainder. Thoir ono'ploa is that tho Contractors Act, an Act passed after tho engagements with Brogdon and Sons were entered into, an Act not supposed to apply to them, and with the provisions of which it was impossible for them, with their chief partnors in London, to comply, is a sufficient bar £o thoir relief, and to all appearanco, on this very peculiar statute of limitations they intend to rely. The Supremo Court has therefore to decide whether the eourso pursued is or is not legal; about its justico nothing can bo said. If the decision is adverse to Messrs Brogden and Sons they have only the Privy Council to look to for redress if it can be afforded. Should the Supreme Court decide that tho Now Zealand Government cannot use the Contractors Aot as a means of avoiding payment for tho railways it ordered j to be mado, then the claim now made will be' argued upon its merits, and there is no reason' to suppose that Messrs Brogden hope or wish! for anything bettor. It is certainly a mistaken polioy for any Government to allow the notion to becomo general that its good faith or its strict justioe

cannot be relied on when it deals with those who claim to be its creditors. Capital is now leaving Ireland, because it cannot be safely employed there, and it certainly .will not go to New Zealand_ if the Government allows so unfortunate an impression to arise as that it will not honourably recognise and discharge its just liabilities.