THE MIDLAND RAILWAY DISPUTE.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 10359, 14 May 1895, Page 3

THE MIDLAND RAILWAY DISPUTE.

j (From Our Own Correspondent.) Wellington, April 19. I Referring to my Srsfc interview with the chair- ! man of tho Midland Railw_y Company, the New Zealand Time 3 makes the following remarkable

statement: —" We 3ee no reason to doubt our j view that the company is, through ita arbitrator, responsible lor the delay. Tbey objected to New Zealauders, and they wenfc so J tar as fco oppose the appointment of anyone in j the Australasian colonies." Did fchey? Mr Salt distinctly and in terms to me stated forcibly the contrary.

Ttio Government; have apparently decided to bring an action against; the Midland Railway Company for uon-completion of the line within fche contract; time, and ifc is stated that tae writ will ba served in a few days. lam told the company view the action with entire com-

placency, being fully fortified by opinions of leaders Of the English bar thafc their cause ia good both in law and equity.

[The Wellington correspondent; of the Lyttelton Times, who has been favoured by the Premier with a statement of facts, says the Government arbitrator was quite willing to accept as an umpire either Puisne Judge A'Beckefct; or Puisne Judge Owen. Respecting the rumours that; Parliament would be asked next session to again deal with the bill brought; in last session, Mr Seddon emphatically denied thafc the Government had any such intention. The courso the Government is taking, he added, in bringing an "action against the company for non-fuililment of contract, would practically settle the whole matter before Parliament meets.] April 24. The following correspondence has been published :— Crown Solicitor's Office, Wellington, 11th April 1895. Midland Railway Company. Sir,—lt seems very evident that proceedings upon the reference to arbitration will be hung up for a long and indefinite period. The result will be, if this i 3 permitted, that a*large area of the public estate will continue to be locked up. The damages chargeable against the company, if it turns out to be liable, will go on increasing, and in any event the colony must suffer by the delay. For this rea-*on, and also because tbe Government are advised that the company has substantially failed to perform its obligation to the colony under the contract, I am instructed to notify you that an action will be commenced at once against the compauy, claiming damages for breach of contract. The statement of claim is being prepared, ; and the writ will be issued and served immediately after the Easter vacation. May I ask you whether you will instruct your Wellington solicitor ? ' Further, I have to request that I may be supplied with particulars of your counter claim agaiust the Crown. It is manifestly absurd to suggest that the matters of complaint urged before a parliamentary committee can form any guide to the formulation of a legal'cause of action. , The formulated * claim handed to me by your * solicitor in: answer to my request in the arbitration proceedings can hardly be Taken seriously, as you will see from the copy which I.append.* I suggest that without waiting for the expiration of the time for pleading you should furnish specific particulars for the reasons above Btated, and also because it will be necessary that steps should be taken at once, and in point of fact to collect evidence upon the possible points involved. I; am without information ,as to any specific charges intended to be relied on by your company. For instance, Ido not know what reserves under clause 16 you intend to attack, although I can hardly suppose it possible that you will propose to attack all. Neither do I know whether you seriously intend to urge all matters which were put as grievances before the Public Accounts Committee. It is surely perfectly plain that some at least cannot in law be supported. Why hot indicate the actual points upon which you now rely, so as to minimise the inconvenience and expense of preparing for trial? 1 trust this will commend itself to you as being reason- | able. If you can*see your way to give further particulars without* our ; .waiting for the formal defence, I should be obliged if you would let me have them at once. - ,

Meantime I think you must take the responsibility of - imposing on the Government the necessity of goings to great expense in getting evidence, of which a part at least will certainly turn out to be useless.—! have, dtc, "-• : Hugh Gully, Crown Solicitor. R. Wilson, Esq., general manager New Zealand Midland Railway Company.

Memo, re Midland Railway and the Queen. The claim of the compauy will be in respect of the breaches of contract and grievances :—(1) Under, "sub-clause (c) of clause 16. (2) Under clause 18. (3) Under clause 33. (4) Under clause 42. (5) In respect of the misrepresentation of the Minister and of.his officials before the committee of 1893, haviag made it impossible for the company to raise the necessary capital to complete the railway. (6) In respect of the oppressive taxation imposed since the contract was entered into. "

tt _-. -~ ~ r- Wellington* Wth April 1895. H. Gully, Esq., Crown solicitor, Wellington. He Midland Railway. Sir,—l cannot .but express my astonishment at your letter of the 11th inst.' It displays such a disregard for the interests of all concerned that I cannot too strongly protest against the course proposed to be taken. If the proceedings you threaten are designed to force a disclosure of the company's case on the matters in dispute between the Grown and the company, ,1 cannots eSonicrp the right of the Crown to endeavour to anticetiae the proceedings of the Arbitration Court. That more precise particulars of the company's claim will be necessary I readily admit. The company has had prepared ready to file such particulars as the Arbitration Court would probably consider should be lurnished to the Crown, and that these are not already in your hands is a matter of regret to the company, but the delay in the arbitration proceedings has not been due ti any action oh the part of the company. It awaits the direction of tbe Arbitration Court as to the procedure to be followed, and I am advised that the Supreme Court will probably not seek to anticipate the -jurisdiction of that tribunal. At the same time I beg to assure you that (apart from any proceedings such as you threaten) I am, prepared to give you puch information with regard to the claims of tbe company under the headings 1, 2 3 and 4 of the summary you acknowledge to have received in sufficient time to enable you to collect all the evidence available before the date when the Arbitration Court is expected to sit. lhe claim of the company for an extension of time for the completion of the railway is one of which the Crown has*had repeated notice, and arising as it does from the intention of the parties as frequently expressed and from the grounds indicated in the summary you have, can admit of no uncertainty. If the Crown is still determined on the proceedings you indicate, I have, in response to your request that the company instruct a solicitor/to refer you to Mr G. Hutchison, who will act for the,company:—l have, (fee, v ~ • Robert Wilson, Engineer-m-chief and general manager N.Z. Midland Railway Company.

Crown Solicitor's Office, Wellington, --M---I-" i,.-.. 20th April 1895. h. T ,- •■" Mioland Railway. Sir,—l have the honour to acknowledge receipt ?v U™S? terT2t'. tl? c 13th inat'* received by me on tne ipn.- 1 think it unnecessary to comment on the /.tone,of your letter., It, seemssomewhat peculiar that the assertion of the public right as against a company which has failed to perform four-fifths of its contract should be described as a threat, or said to display a disregard for the interests'oi'all concerned. However, in reply I bave to inform you that the whole question is now under consideration,,and that the Government will shortly decide what steps ought to be taken in .he interests of the colony. Meantime the writ will not be served.—l bave, &c " •r xfftUo_ w HuGH Gn, LT' Y. Crown Solicitor. R. Wilson, Esq., general manager Midland Railway Company, Wellington.

m, ti ■ , _ April 30. _ The Premier has forwarded a reply to Sir B Burnside's letter stating that there was much in the report; of the interview wifch tha'Premier at Auckland on the subject of the Midland railway arbitration that was not in accordance with facts and was incorrect and misleading. The Premier says it would have been much better if Sir B Burnside had definitely stated what was" incorrect. "You must know thafc the main statements are correct, and there are also statements in the paragraph which it would have been impossible for you fco have known at the time you wrote, either directly or indirectly " The Premier says : " Speaking on behalf of the Government, Sir J. Prendergast, any of the judges in the colony, or any chief justice of the other colonies, also puisne .Judges A'Becketfc and Owen were acceptable." Mr Seddon proceeds fco point oufc that though Sir B. Burnside said thafc neither he nor Chief Justice Lilley feel justified in taking part in a public discussion of the communications between them with respect to tha selecting of. an umpire, yet Mr Salt evidently felt no such scruples, if the reported interview with him was correct The Premier further states that fche Government had nothing to do with the extension of the matter to January 30, 1896. They were only apprised of ib after the two arbitrators had agreed to it.

Christchurch, April 25. The following letter has been sent; by Sir Bruceßurnside,theMidlandßailwavCompany's arbitrator, to tho Premier :—" April 20, 1895. Honourable Sir,—On the eve of my departure from New Zealand, my .attention has bean called to a paragraph in a newspaper called the Aucklaud Star, of yeßterdav's date, under the heading ' The Midland' Railway Arbitration— A Ministerial Statement,' &c. Whilst Ido not for one moment wish to hold you responsible for the statements therein made and asserted to be made on your authority, I deem ifc my duty to my colleague Sir Charles Lilley, who is absent from the colony, as well as to myself, to say thafc there is no truth in much that is therein asserted as fact, and the statement generally as to whafc took place between fche arbitrators is incorrect and misleading. Neither Sir Charles Lilley nor I would feel justified in making public the nature of the communications between us which resulted in the selection of an umpire, and I am sure you will agree with me tbat ifc is scarcely fair that; fche public should be led to believe that either of us had done so. I am sending a copy of this letter to Mr Robert Wilson, the "attorney of the company, who has my authority to deal with it as he may think lit.—l have, &a., Bruce L. Burhside."

The following is the Wellington telegram in the Auckland Star referred to in the letter :— " The Hon. Mr Seddon favoured me to-day with the following statement of facta so far as they are known by the Government respecting the appointment of an umpire in the Midland railway arbitration case:—The appointment; of an umpire reafced solely with fche arbitrators,

bufc the Government were given to understand that the company's arbitrator, after consultation wifch the company's representative here, laid clown the ultimatum thafc he would not consent to the appointment of auy resident in Now Zealand or any New Zealander as umpire. The suggestion that one of the puisne judges from one of the British colonies should be appointed umpire could nofc be accepted, as the arbitrators had decided that; the umpire must be of the same status as themselves. Regarding the statement made by Mr Salt, chairman of fche company, fchat; it had be3n suggested thafc fche chief justice of one" of the Australian colonies should ba appointed, Mr Seddon said ifc was questionable whether such a proposal had been formally submitted by the company's arbitrator, and pointed out that had ifc been made it would have been impossible to get any colonial chief judge, a3 afc least three were at; present acting as Deputy- j Governors. The Government arbitrator was quite willing fco accept as umpire either Puisne Judge A'Beckett or Puisne Judge Owen, bufc owing to fche arrangement alluded to above fche company's arbitrator would nofc accept either of these gentlemen. The suggestion fchat tho umpire should come from England came from the company's arbitrator, who further stipulated that; no New Zealander, even though named by Sir Robert; .Herbert, would be acceptable fco the company. Respecting the rumours that Parliament would be asked next session fco again deal with the bill brought in last session, Mr Seddon emphatically denied that the Government had any such intention. The course the Government are taking, he added, in bringing an action against the company for non-fulfilment of' contract; would practically settle the whole matter beforo Parliament meets." ..*

THE CHAIRMAN'S LAST WORDS,

Auckland, April 22. Before the departure of the -Mariposa a Herald representative saw Mr Salt, chairman of the Midland Railway Company, who was then leaving for England. He, had seen the Premier's statement; as to the dispute concerning the appointment of an umpire, and replied to that as follows:—" The only'offer of an umpire thafc the arbitrator appointed by the Government made, after consulting-with the' Government, was that of Sir James Prendergast, the Chief Justice of New Zealand. To him the company would have had no objection had it not been that he holds a commission as LieutenantGovernor, and consequently the absence of the Governor from fche colony for even one day would have rendered abortive the whole of the proceedings. The company, through Sir Bruce Burnside and through the Crown solicitor, offered to accept; eifcher Mr Justice Richmond or Mr Justice Williams ; in fact; the company, through their arbitrator, offered fco accept; any judge of any of fche British colonies all over the world, and also a commercial man from Melbourne, whom fchey named. None of'these having been accepted, the; company further;offered, with: a view, fco saving time aud expense,; that; th. arbitrators should proceed to take the whole of the evidence, and in case they should be unable to agree upon ah award, to refer the evidence fco England, the award to be made by some gentleman in England to be previously agreed upon between the arbitrators. The only suggestion as _ar as fche company is. aware that was made on behalf of fche Government was that; Sir Robert Herbert should 'he asked to accept; the position of umpire if he would come oufc to New Zealand to take evidence, or,-if not, that one of two gentlemen to, be nominated by him should be appointed by .the arbitrators as umpire. This the company reluctantly acceded to, as they were very desirous that the matter shonld be concluded forthwith.

Asked as to what the company intended doing now that a writ; for alleged breach of contract was to be issued, Mr Salt; said:— . "We shall return as soon as the umpire is appointed and carry the thing through." ~-r "The issue of the writ, then,* will not interfere with your going to arbitration ?" -" Not in the slightest," was, the reply. " The issue of the writ is simply a waste of the colony's time and money." , "And," added Mr Burchell, who was with Mr Salt, "the proceeding is purely vexatious, and one thafc -in England.the courts would at once set aside with costs." '-...-. In conclusion, Mr Salt said his company .only wanted fche matter fairly arbitrated upon-by competent and just arbitrators. . ~..:,.