1.—7

2

That the three other contracts, amounting to £249,750, were signed on the 19th June, 1873, eight months after the Government Contractors Arbitration Act became law. That the contracts were given to Messrs. Brogden and Sons without competition, and on terms exceptionally favourable to the contractors; allowances amounting to 32|- per centum over and above contractors' prices then current in the colony having been made to them. That, before entering into specific engagements with the Colonial Government in the year 1872, the Messrs. Brogden insisted upon having provision made for the appointment of a special arbitrator, to whom disputes arising out of their projected contracts might be referred. That the usual custom, which makes the engineer the final arbiter in disputes arising out of contract works, was, in the case of Messrs. Brogden, and at their instance, departed from. That it was agreed that a Judge of the Supreme Court having jurisdiction in the Supreme Court District in which a dispute might arise should be made arbitrator, and it therefore became necessary tojass an Act in order to impose these duties on the Judges, and to give them the requisite powers to obtain evidence. That " The Government Contractors Arbitration Act, 1872," was accordingly passed, with the knowledge of Mr. James Brogden, the partner representing the firm, who was at that time in Wellington, and who conducted the contract negotiations with the Government. That no disputes resulting in application for arbitration appear to have occurred during the whole period when progress payments were being made to Messrs. Brogden upon their several contracts or agreements. That when, upon completion or other termination of the several contracts or agreements, attempts to arrive at a final settlement were made, disputes arose. That it was competent for the Messrs. Brogden, at any time when claims on their part were disputed by the Government, to have caused the matter in dispute to be referred to arbitration, in the manner provided by their contracts, and in terms of "The Government Contractors Arbitration Act, 1872." That the Messrs. Brogden did not within the proper time, and in the manner prescribed, upon any occasion, bring the disputed claims to arbitration. That when the time within which such disputes could be legally brought to arbitration had been allowed by Messrs. Brogden to elapse, the Government expressed their willingness, both before and after the receipt of the letter of date Bth March, 1877, from Messrs. Brogden, to allow the contractors to bring their disputed claims to arbitration under the Act. That Messrs. Brogden refused to avail themselves of the opportunities thus afforded to them, and did not until a recent period attempt to bring their disputed claims to arbitration in the manner originally agreed upon and as provided by law. That, owing to the action of Messrs. Brogden themselves, several years were allowed to elapse during which no effort was made by them to bring their claims to arbitration in the manner prescribed. That, in consequence of this delay, much of the evidence which would be necessary to enable the arbitrator to arrive at a complete knowledge of the circumstances of each disputed claim is, in the case of the works themselves, effaced, and is, in the case of other evidence, no longer available. That, for the foregoing reasons, and after a careful consideration of all the circumstances and of the documents and evidence appended to this report, the Committee cannot recommend that the consent of the Government should now be given to a reference of the Brogden claims under the provisions of " The Government Contractors Arbitration Act, 1872." E. C. J. Stevens, 25th August, 1882. Chairman.