PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference :-
C.O. 882
8
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
312
Company under Section 6 of Ordinance No. 7 of 1905. By correspondence which took place in Singapore between the Government of the Colony and the Company it was agreed that the matters in dispute under the above section should be referred to arbitration, and in order to avoid expense and the difficulties which would arise from submitting such matters to the arbitration of gentlemen who were not pre- viously acquainted with the history of the Company, it was agreed that Mr. Inglis and Sir Edward Boyle should be asked to act as Arbitrators and that your Lordship should be approached to undertake the duties of Umpire in such arbitration.
Mr. Inglis has, we understand, consented to act as Arbitrator on behalf of the Government, while Sir Edward Boyle has not yet expressed his consent, the matter being still before him. In the meantime certain questions of urgency have arisen with which both Mr. Inglis and Sir Edward Boyle are acquainted and which we We now under- requested Mr. Inglis to bring to your notice on the 8th instant. stand that no opportunity has occurred to Mr. Inglis to place the matters in ques- tion before your Lordship and that in effect your Lordship has not been asked whether will be prepared to undertake the duties of Umpire in such proposed second arbitration. We have, therefore, to ask you to inform us whether or not you would be prepared to undertake such duties, in which event we should esteem it a favour if you would place yourself in communication with Mr. Inglis, who would be able to acquaint you with the position of affairs.
you
We venture to address you on the point as it may be you might think it proper, having regard to the concluding words of Section 6 of the Ordinance to make some provision in the award in the main arbitration that the position of the parties in regard to the subsidiary arbitration is not to be thereby prejudiced.
Viscount St. Aldwyn, P.C.
DEAR SIRS,
We are, &c.,
SUTTON, OMMAnney, and ReNDALL.
Enclosure 2 in No. 346.
Coln St. Aldwyn, Fairford, May 30th, 1906. Straits Settlements.
Tanjong Pagar Dock Company, Limited.
Re Dividend.
I SHOULD be quite willing, if duly appointed, to act as Umpire in the dispute with reference to the amount to be paid by the Government to the Company under Section 6 of Ordinance No. 7 in 1906.
But I do not think I should be justified in communicating with Mr. J. C. Inglis, as suggested in your letter of May 30th, until I have been so appointed. I assume that any such appointment must be made, like that of Umpire, in the arbitration on the main question, by the two Arbitrators.
I do not feel at all sure, having regard to the express provision of Section 6, that any reference should be made to this matter in the award on the main arbitra- tion. But I will consider the point before making that award.
Messrs. Sutton, Ommanney, and Rendall,
22323
No. 347.
I remain, &c.,
ST. ALDWYN.
MESSRS. SUTTON, OMMANNEY, AND RENDALL to COLONIAL OFFICE. (Received June 21, 1906.)
SIR.
[Answered by No. 349.]
3 & 4, Great Winchester Street, London E.C., June 20, 1906.
Straits Settlements.
Tanjong Pagar Dock Company, Limited.
REFERRING to our letter of the 26th of January, and to your reply of the 1st
313
of February, we have now to inform you of the result of our negotiations with Mr. G. L. Bannerman with reference to finally adjusting the amount of his claim for services rendered and expenses incurred in connection with the reporting of the proceedings of this arbitration.
Being unable to either agree with Mr. Bannerman's estimates or his method of reckoning the folios contained in the proceedings and the appendices, or the claims which he founded thereon, we have caused the folios of the proceedings and appen- dices to be counted, with the result that we have ascertained that in the proceedings there are 5,360 folios, or allowing a margin for error in counting, 5,370 folios, and in the appendices, 1,151 folios, the number of folios, for the purposes of payment on account, having been previously estimated at 8,000.
As regards the transcript of the proceedings, Mr. Bannerman claims that he is entitled to be paid according to the practice which he asserts has been hitherto followed by your Department in cases where he has been previously employed, namely, to estimate the number of folios per page of the proceedings in lieu of count- ing the folios throughout and he suggests that the folios in the proceedings should be taken at 5,652 folios, or an estimate of 9 folios per page on 628 pages. We pointed out to Mr. Bannerman that we saw no reason why, now that the number of folios in the proceedings had been definitely ascertained, an estimate should be accepted, but he desires us to bring his contentions to your notice on the ground that estimates have, as we have already stated, been accepted by your Department. In this connection, we may state that the folios as counted by us give an average per page of 8 folios.
As regards the appendices, Mr. Bannerman claims to be paid for the whole number of folios printed, whether he transcribed the same or not. In view of the fact that the larger part thereof was not transcribed by him but represent printed tables handed in by the witnesses, we are unable to recommend his claim be paid This in respect of such parts of the appendices as were not transcribed by him. will affect 770 folios, reducing the length of the appendices actually transcribed to 381 folios in all. To this, we have agreed, should be added 220 folios in respect of certain additional work which Mr. Bannerman had to undertake. The folios of the appendices on this basis amount to 601.
In addition to claiming to be paid as if the total number of folios contained in the appendices had been transcribed, Mr. Bannerman claims payment of a sum equal to transcribing a further 500 folios and copying the same as compensation for the loss of work which at the time of undertaking the work he considered he could reasonably look forward to in connection with this arbitration, upon the grounds that in undertaking the work of reporting and transcribing the proceed- ings his estimates were based upon a total number of folios not less than 10,000, and that in consequence of the folios reaching a less number, he has now on his hands large quantities of stores which are useless to him.
With reference to this contention we have drawn Mr. Bannerman's attention
to the fact that in his estimate he was only required to supply 25 copies of the Notes from day to day, whereas, in fact, 50 copies were required and supplied at the price of 2d. per folio for each copy, thereby more than equalising the amount of work which Mr. Bannerman states he took as his minimum in making his estimate. are accordingly unable to recommend that Mr. Bannerman's claim in this respect be admitted.
We
Subject to any custom of your Department to the contrary, we are of opinion that Mr. Bannerman should be paid upon the actual number of folios transcribed in the proceedings, and as regards the appendices, that he should be naid only for such part thereof as he can prove to actually have transcribed. especially in view of the fact that in our experience it is customary in arbitrations of this nature for both sides to hand in tables which have been printed, and Mr. Bannerman must be taken to have made his estimate with knowledge of such practice.
The sum of £60 12s. claimed by Mr. Bannerman represents the cost of the passage of Mr. Dawson, his principal clerk, who fell ill on the voyage, and which sum was refunded to us by the Shipping Company. Mr. Bannerman. however, claims payment of this sum on the ground that his contract was to provide a staff of two principals and four assistants at Singapore, and that he complied with his contract in this respect by securing further assistance at greater expense to himself from
Nos. 308 and 313.
314