12842.
"
No. 89.
(JAMAICA.)
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference :-
TLC.O.885
ון
14 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
LONDON:
:
PRINTED FOR HIS MAJESTY'S STATIONERY OFFICE, B DARLING & SON, LTD., 31-49, Bacox Street, E
SIR,
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL to COLONIAL OFFICE.
Royal Courts of Justice, July 23, 1895.
I was honoured with your commands, signified in Mr. Wingfield's letter of the 11th instant, respecting a Bill which had been passed by the Legislative Council of Jamaica entitled The Wharfage Law, 1895."
Mr. Wingfield stated that he was directed to enclose the papers noted in the margin The Wharfage
beroof.
Latw, 1895. Meniorial
Jamaica Laws,
That the Jamaica Railway Company contended that the enactment of the Bill would Jamaica constitute a breach of faith towards them on the part of the Colonial Legislature, and Rv. Co. that the grounds of such contention were fully set forth in Mr. Wesson's Mémorial, A., Jamaica,
Copy Report, and that the grounds on which the Colonial and Legislative Council rejected the 29 of 1869. contention of the company were stated by Sir H. Hocking in his report.
That the Governor had withheld his assent to the Bill pending a reference to the Law Officers of the question raised by the company.
That it would be seen that there appeared to be a discrepancy between the Memorial and the Report of the Attorney-General for Jamaica as to the rate of wharfage actually charged for bananas by the Government at the railway wharf at the date of the Agreement scheduled to the Jamaica Railway Company's Act, 1889,-that according to the former it was 14. per bunch, the rate that was subsequently fixed by Law 24 of 1891, while according to the latter it was 1d. per bunch, but that this did not appear to affect the principle of the question in dispute, as in either case the rate prescribed by the Bill (d. per bunch) was very much lower than the rate charged at the date of the Agreement.
That Mr. Wingfield was to request that I would advise,
Whether the enactment of the Bill in question, so far as it precludes the Jamaica Railway Company from demanding wharfage rates not exceeding by more than 10 per cent. the wharfage rates which were charged by the Government at the railway wharf at the date of the Agreement of the 29th March 1889, contained in the schedule to the Jamaica Railway Company's Law, 1889. would constitute a breach of contract or a breach of faith towards the Jamaica Railway Company, and whether the Governor of Jamaica should be advised to assent to the Bill.
In obedience to your commands, I have considered the matter, and have the honour to
Report
That, upon the facts before me, I am of opinion that there is no sufficient ground for the contention that the passing of the Wharfage Law, 1895, constitutes a breach of contract with or a breach of faith towards the Jamaica Railway Company. The only ground upon which any such contention could with justice be urged would be that Clauses 40 and 41 of the Agreement of the 29th March 1889, scheduled to the Jamaica Railway Companies Law, 1889, and confirmed by section 2 of that law, coupled with Schedule 2 of the same Agreement, gave the railway company the absolute power to fix the wharfage charges, provided that they do not exceed the charges mentioned in the schedule. If the charges in question fell within the category of charges for the carriage of goods or of terminal charges, I should be of opinion that the contention of the railway company was well founded, but, in my judgment, this cannot be successfully maintained. Charges for wharves as such are different from charges for carriage or terminal charges, and are controlled by a different law. The law as to wharfage charges in Jamaica was governed by Act Number 29 of 1869. This Act by section 6 limited the amount of wharfage charges, but there was no special reference to bananas, and I gather that the general words at the end of the schedule to that Act could not well be applied to the case of bananas. In the year 1892, by Law 24, of that year, the schedule to the Wharfage Law, 1869, was amended, and wharfage charges for bananas were fixed. By the proposed law of 1895 wharfage charges, properly so called, including those for bananas, are again altered and fixed by the schedule, and the charge proposed is for the use of the wharf or shipping, exclusive of labour. In my opinion the railway company cannot successfully maintain that such charges are either charges for the
• 85965.-15. 25.-8/95.
Do. 24 of 1891.
Du. 13 of 1889.