Wellington Independent SATURDAY, APRIL 22, 1871.

Wellington Independent, Volume XXVI, Issue 3180, 22 April 1871, Page 2

Wellington Independent SATURDAY, APRIL 22, 1871.

The new mail contract, as it has appeared in our columns, differs so little from the previous one entered into with Messrs Webb and Holladay, through their representative Mr J. B. M. Stewart, and that again so nearly coincides with the line No. 2 in the Neilson contract, that we must consider the latter as the basis on which all the subsequent negotiations have proceeded. The .Neilson contract was so generally accepted by the colony — only two of all the Ngw Zealand journals, (and these the " Otago Daily Times," and the Wellington " Evening Post,") dissenting, that the Postmaster-General doubtless considered any future contract would be acceptable just in proportion as it resembled it in its leading features. It is not of the slightest interest ov importance now to enter upon the question, whether Neilson in the first place, and Stewart after him, exceeded their powers. It is sufficient to know that the present and final contract has been made, not by agents, but by principals, and that a bond of twenty-five thousand pounds has been entered into by the contractors for its due fulfilment " according to the true intent and meaning thereof." They may assign the contract, but if their assigns fail to perform it satisfactorily, the penalty falls still to be paid by " the above-bounden William 11. Webb and Ben Hollad^y their heirs, executors or administrators." At the conclusion of the negotiations .Mr Holladay was not present, but the precautions taken by the Postmaster-General preclude all possibility of repudiation on his part. First of all, we have the signature to the contract of his attorney, Wiliam 11 . Webb ; then we have an oath made before and witnessed by a notary public, that he executed the same as such attorney as and for the act and deed of the said Ben Holladay ; next we have the certificate of the British Consul that this notary public was known to him to be a notary public ; next follows the ratification of the contract by S. K. Otis on the seventh day of March, as attorney of Ben Holladay (by a later instrument than that constituting Webb), and lastly, we have this ratification witnessed before this notary public again, and attested by his seal of office. American lawyers are proverbially ingenious; but the Postmaster-General seems to have taken special precautions to have the contract so clearly worded, and so fully attested, that even a Philadelphia lawyer will be puzzled to find a flaw in it. The great characteristic distinction between this and former contracts is simply this, that it has been made with principals, and entered into by them with their eyes open. The preamble, as it may be called, differs only in the date from Stewart's contract. The firßt and the second sections, relating to the lerm of the contract, and its ratification by the Assembly, are also identical. The third — enumerating the ships to be employed — allows an additional ship, viz., the Santiago de Cuba, with this stipulation that she is to be employed only if a vessel in addition to the Nevada, the Nebraska, and the Danotah, shall be required for the performance of the contract. The fourth provides in the same terms ss before, that the PostmasterGeneral's consent must be had in writing, before any ship will be accepted as a substitute for those named. The fifth, as in former contracts, provides for these ships being properly fitted out, furnished, and provided with every requisite as first class mail and passenger

steam vessels. The sixth provides for the carrying out of the resolution of the Assembly, passed by an overwhelming majority, namely that a vessel leaving San Franrisco once in every twenty-eight clays shall proceed thence to Port Chalmers, by way of and calling at Auckland, Wellington, and Lyttelton. As some remarks have been made about this clause, it is well to note that all the contracts contain it in totidem verlis, and that in all the negotiations, neither the contractors nor their agents ever demurred to it. A miserahle pandering to local jealousies has led many to forget, that this very point was deliberately debated in Committee ; the resolution of the Committee was, after several days, formally reported to the House, and after an interesting debate, the House adopted it, the division being 36 to 10. It is, therefore, grossly unfair to represent Mr Yogel as actuated by Otago predilections, when ho is only carrying into effect a resolution which, until it is rescinded, must be regarded as a specific instruction to any Postmaster-Ge-neral in arranging the San Francisco service, just as it is ridiculous to assert that he is only actuated by Auckland proclivities, and his sole aim is to have an Auckland service, and that the " Port Chalmers terminus is all a sham." Had Mr Yogel deliberately gone against the resolution of the House by arranging a service with Wellington as the terminus, what a howl of indignation at his perfidy would have been raised from one end of the colony to the other ! He is blamed, forsooth, because in every contract he has scrupulously carried out the wishes of the people of New Zealand, ascertained in the only cognisable and constitutional manner, viz, by the vote of their representatives in Parliament assembled. It is somewhat amusing to hear great sticklers for the supreme authority of the Colonial Legislature finding fault with a Minister for not deliberately Hying in the face of it ? But, it is impossible to characterise the conduct of those who not only agreed with the decision arrived at by the Assembly, but in the principle on which that decision was founded, and who now turn round and talk against both the resolutions and the preamble which introduced them. Of these, the Hon. Mr Stafford is the most conspicuous example, and we cannot better show Ins shameful inconsistency than by printing in parallel columns his late speech at Timaru, and the resolution and his speech thereon from " Hansard" : —