PUBLIC RECORD
OFFICE
6
Reference :-
C.O. 882
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- | COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH—NOT TO
Private information.
Intld. W. J. T.
234
MEMORANDUM OF SURPLUS COAL.
(June 30, 1905.).
Keppel Harbour, Cattle Wharf
Borneo Wharf Y Godown
•
Tanjong Pagar, Artizans' Quarters
In addition to the above we have surplus coal as
follows
محمود
At Stone Crusher, East Reclamation At the Tanjong Pagar Shops
41
*
At the Wharf, all sections, T.P. and B.W.
At Keppel Harbour, Shops, &c.
For Tugs.
250
•
250
B/G. 1...
150
B/0
B/V
B.W.
150 Godown, E.
800 off :--
Enclosure 2 in No. 231.
(Miscellaneous. 5889/05.)
From S. TOMLINSON, M.I.C.E.
COUNSEL,
5,717 Tons. 8,830 7,300
21,847
19
800 estimated
2,500-1900 estimated
8,000 estimated
500, also 370, 500,
50, 50.
33,647
1. Raffles Quay, Singapore, July 14, 1905. Expropriation of Tanjong Pagar Dock Company, Limited. Coal Stocks.
I HAVE, as directed, made further enquiry into the statement of coal in stock on 30th June, 1905.
2. The facts appear to be that the Company was responsible to owners for 124,099 tons 9 cwts. 2 qrs. 4lbs. according to the books. Mr. Trowell by some measurements assured himself that the quantity in stock was sufficient to cover that demand. Mr. Nicholson assures me that he is quite satisfied that the coal held against the liability is sufficient to fully meet it-in fact that there is a surplus.
The whole of the coal was not measured on the 80th June.
3.
4.
As to the claim for surplus coal at
Tanjong Pagar Wharf and Docks
Keppel Harbour
Borneo Wharf
Total
7,400 Tons. 8,830
5,717
21,947
Mr. Nicholson informs me that this is an established surplus on closed transactions: that the coal has been entirely separated from the general stock and that no one has any claim on it. Much of the 5,717 tons at Keppel Harbour was received there from Tanjong Pagar Wharves, being accumulated surpluses on the full quantity signed for having been re-delivered to credit consignees.
*235
5. With regard to current accounts Mr. Nicholson believes there is a surplus; a figure of 10,000 tons has been mentioned, but as stated above the coal was not measured.
6. I have not spoken to Mr. Rennie on the subject, but I think we must be pre- pared for the Company claiming on, the, approximately, 22,000 tons which it has formally taken possession of: in money this quantity will be roughly, I suppose, worth $220,000, is not sorted into kinds and the heaps are made up of all sorts and con- ditions of coal.
7. It appears to me that the heaps making up the 22,000 tons of surplus should be measured as a check.
8. The Company never having traded in coal it appears strange that it should
be in a position to approximate 22,000 tons of coal deposited with it as caretakers for considerations. So far as I can judge the Company must say in order to establish its claim to the ownership of this coal:-
9.
(1) That having given receipts for a certain quantity of coal ex-steamer it is responsible to the consignee for that quantity-no more no less.
(2) That, therefore, having returned the weight so received to the orders of the consignee its obligation to him has been filled and if in order to do that other coal had to be purchased, the Company must stand the loss and has at times had to do so-but if there has been a surplus it belongs to the Company.
(3) Seeing that weighing in and out is only at best an approximation, it is not to be expected that weights will always tally and that it is but fair and reasonable for the Company to approximate the surplus if it is to make good any deficiency that may arise.
A large number of points appear to me to arise on this contention out of honesty, dishonesty, and local circumstances; out of honesty, é.g., cargoes taken in bulk on arrival without being weighed here on the trade allowance of 2 per cent. for errors and loss by dust and handling may, as a rule, work out at a loss of only 1 per cent., being a clear gain to the Company of 1 per cent. of the weight of the cargo. Cardiff coal is said to be much more carefully attended to as to weights than Japanese. At present the Tanjong Pagar stocks are largely Japanese.
Out of dishonesty the Company's employees will try to short-weigh cargoes from which they have not received considerations for fair play, and similarly will short deliver when bunkering under similar circumstances. As against the above, which would operate in favour of the Company, there are the opposite cases of cargoes over- weighed when consideration has been paid to secure this result, bunker coal short- weighed similarly, loss by theft (consignees insure against fire). From local circum- stances there is the great humidity of the Singapore atmosphere and the heavy rainfall in favour of the Company, as probably it will be said most cargoes are discharged drier than they go in.
10. The most usual practice is to weigh one basket in ten out or in. 11. The total coal discharged is, say, about 750,000 tons per year. A difference of 1 per cent, at each operation steadily in favour of the Company would account for 15,000 tons in a year.
12. It is probable that there are legal decisions on points similar to this one because there are similar businesses carried on elsewhere and similar influences at work. And, as suggested by His Excellency the Governor, it would be well to have the matter referred home to ascertain if there are any cases governing this. I am informed that the questions did arise over pig iron in Connell's Stores some time since where the allowance for sand and rubbish had worked out in favour of the stores.
13. It may be accepted as established that the considerations I have mentioned are all at work and that this could be proved if necessary, but I suppose no one will be prepared to say in what proportions honesty, dishonesty and local circumstances have contributed to the satisfactory (?) result of a surplus of 22,000 tons.
14. It will I think be admitted by the Company that it has previously appro- priated surpluses and burned them in boilers of its works.
15. Counsel should, I suggest, advise whether in resisting the claim we should produce evidence proving that dishonesty has taken place presumably to the extent that dishonest practices of the Company's employees have contributed to the surplus the Company could not legally claím. Would it vitiate the whole of its contention?
203-05
2 II
1