Wellington Independent. THURSDAY, 25th SEPTEMBER.

Wellington Independent, Volume XXVIII, Issue 3910, 25 September 1873, Page 2

Wellington Independent. THURSDAY, 25th SEPTEMBER.

These have been many curious things this session, but one of the most curious is the report of the Public Works ana* Immigration Committee on the petition of Messrs Brogden and Sons. Our readers are aware that the petitioners prajed the House to take into con sideration the losses they had sustained in their contract with the. Government for the supply of immigrants, and set forth the grounds upon which they based their claim to be relieved from the loss they had incurred, We need Upt recapitulate them, as the petition itself has already been published in full in our columns. The Committee to which the petition was referred had power to ' call for persons and papers', and it took a considerable amount of evidence on behalf of the petitioners, and yesterday the Report was brought • up. It is as follows : — -The Public Works and Immigration Committee to whom the petition of Messrs John Brogden and Sons wa3 referred, .have the honor to report that the petitioners pray to be relieved from loss to which they allege thej ; have been subjected under their immigration contract with Government. The committee having taken all the evidence that wjis, available to them on the subjeob of the . claims put in the petition of Messrs Brogden andrSons, are of opinion, that the jrtntementß in the said petition are not nubatantiateci, and so far as they are able to judge - there is no, good ground for suoh claim either in law or equity. The committee are further of opinion that, in the absence of proof it Tfopld be a bad precedent to entertain claims founded uppnT ? .yiag«e »U?jgationß, and the ad-

mission of which would do away with all finality in a system of publio contraots under written agreement. And further, in the opinion of the committee, it is not desirable that the evidence should be published.

It is not our inteution at present to traverse the opinion of the Committee, but we would ask, What is the meaning of the rider to the report—" It is not desirable that the evidence should be published P" And we would ask further, how it is that the Committee allowed itself -to rest contented with a mere extract from one of the Agent-General's despatches relating to this question? The Government have already placed themselves in a very false position in the House by encouraging -the suppression of official documents ; and in one notable instance they have been compelled to recognise that there is such a thing as the power of Parliament in matters of this kind. And it is to be hoped, for the credit of the House, that the motion of the Hon Mr Fitzherbert, of which notice was given yesterday — that the evidence taken by the Committee be published — will be carried, and that in addition the Government will give the House full opportunity of ascertaining what the ideas of the Agent-General are on the subject. If we are not wmngly informed, the letter addressed to the Agent-Gene-ral by Messrs Brogden, proposing a transference of their liability for the recovery of passage moneys from their immigrants upon certain terms, was the result of an interview and discussion between Mr Brogden, the Agent-Gene-ral, and the Hon John Hall. "We have reasons for knowing that this interview was of a most amicable character, and that it was a tacit understanding that if a certain offer was made the AgentGeneral would recommend it to the sanction of the Government. There is no . moral doubt whatever that Dr Featherston has recommended the Government to accept the proposal made by Brogden and Sons. The extract placed before the Committee sufficiently explains this ; it is evidently a summary of more detailed matter. In sup port of this opinion we may state that briefly the proposal of Messrs Brogden was that they should transfer their liability with respect to immigration to the General Government, and that the money which might be recovered^for the immigrants introduced by them should be applied pro rata in reduction of the passage charges already existing . against the firm. It will be seen that, coming under this arrangement Messrs Brogden accepted a share of the risk .of recovering the immigrants' promissory notes, but thought that if the Government took over the immigrants it would be better able to recover. The extract from Dr Featherston's despatch, which the Government was good enough to sup ply to the Committee, contains an expression of opinion that no difficulty need be apprehended in recovering the amount, Is it to be supposed that the Agent-General meant to convey an opinion that Messrs Brogden would have no difficulty in recovering the. amount of the promissory notes they had taken? Certainly not. It it palpable that this opinion covered a recommendation to the Government to accept the proposal Messrs Brogden had made. "We must confess to a feeling of intense surprise that whilst the Government has invited the House to condone the penalties in the case of the Webb contract, and in doing so placed all possible information before members, it should in another case of a similar, if not parallel character, have placed a garbled paper before the committee appointed to inquire into it. The excuse i.s, that the despatch was " confidential." Was it so marked by the sender ? For if so, what riejht had the Government to produce a part of it ? We entirely doubt whether there was anything more confidential in this second suppressed despatch than in any of the numerous documents which the Government have already laid upon the'table.