PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference :-
C.O. 885
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
15 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
show a loss, that the Government contribution was earmarked for the payment of interest, and must be devoted to that purpose exclusively, and that any deficit which might arise on working expenses could not be met from the contribution of the Government, but must be carried forward to the debit of the succeeding half year.
That on these grounds they asked that the Cumulative Preference Shares should be designated in such a way as would indicate that 4 per cent. interest on those shares was guaranteed by the Colonial Government.
That in other words the Directors' contention was that the valuable consideration given by the Government was a guarantee of interest and not a subsidy, and that a mode of dealing with losses in working should be sanctioned which would increase the liability of the Government to be called upon to pay subsidy, and which appeared to be precluded by the references to "net revenue" in the Clauses of the Contract which had been quoted.
That on the other hand, the view to which you were inclined to adhere was, that the interpretation which the Directors thus sought to place on the 3rd section of the Ordinance could not be admitted, that Section 3 of the Ordinance merely defined the position of the 4 per cent. Preference shareholders relatively to the holders of Preferential and Ordinary Stock existing before the extensions were undertaken, that it in no sense gave to the shareholders any chim on the resources of the Company, whether derived from traffic or from subsidy, different from those which shareholders usually have, and that nothing in either the Ordinance or the Contract authorized the Company to devote the Government contribution to the payment of a dividend while carrying forward losses ori actual working to the next half year's account.
That you were disposed to regard Clauses 28 and 29 of the Contract as merely defining the basis on which the Government's liability to pay subsidy was to be assessed, and as having no reference whatever to the claims of any class of shareholders.
That Mr. Lucas was to request that we would take these matters into our considera- tion, and favour you with our opinion as to whether the Contract and the Ordinance together or separately could authorize the Company to make the Shareholder dividends a first charge on the Government contribution, and to carry forward any deficit on workiug expenses to the next half year's accounts.
We have taken the matter into our consideration, and, in obedience to your commands, have the honour to
Report.
THAT in our opinion, under the Contract and Ordinance taken together, the dividend on the Preference Shares is a first charge upon so much of the Colonial Govern- nient subsidy as is payable under the Contract each half year, but only as between these shares and other shares and stock, and not as against creditors. This seems to us to be shown by the exposition given in Section 3 (4) of the Ordinance of the meaning of the "first charge" in the passage beginning and accordingly," and is borne out by the provi- sion in 3 (a) that the dividends are to be cumulative, and by the language of 3 (c).
The amount of the subsidy so payable must be ascertained on a calculation each half year of the "net revenue " under Clause 34 of the Contract. Should there be a deficit in any half such deficit could not be carried forward into the accounts of the next half year
year so as thereby to decrease the "net revenue." and thus increase the amount to be paid as the Colonial Government subsidy,
Under these circumstances it is impossible to accede to the contention that the Preference Shares should be designated as carrying 4 per cent. interest guaranteed by the Colonial Government.
The Right Hon. Joseph Chamberlain, M.P.,
&C.,
&c.,
&c.
We have, &c.,
R. B. FINLAY. EDWARD CARSON
21565.
SIR,
No. 41.
(LEEWARD ISLANDS.)
LAW OFFICERS to COLONIAL OFFICE.
Royal Courts of Justice,
July 5, 1900. WE were honoured with your commands signified in Mr. Lucas's letter of the Gov. Lee- 28th ultimo, stating that he was directed to transmit for our consideration the documents wards, noted in the margin with reference to certain circumstances under which you felt an, with yourself compelled to dispense with the services of Sir Henry Wrenfordsley, the present in original. Chief Justice of the Leeward Islands.
enclosures
Gov. Lee-
with en-
That in December last, Sir H. Wrenfordsley applied to the Governor, Sir Francis wards, Fleming for 9 months' leave, and stated that he had arranged with one of the Puisne 15 Jan., Judges, Mr. Justice Danavall, to act as Chief Justice during that leave. That as the closures in power to make an acting appointment rested with the Governor, and as precedents original. seemed to the Governor to point to the Attorney-General rather than to one of the S. of S. to
Gov., Puisne Judges acting for the Chief Justice when absent, Sir F. Fleming intimated to
21 Feb. Sir H. Wrenfordsley that the Attorney-General, Mr. Stoker, claimed to act.
That Sir H. Wrenfordsley then withdrew his application for leave, pending an wards, 14 appeal to the Secretary of State, in which he proposed to submit the grounds on which March, he objected to Mr. Stoker acting as Chief Justice.
Gov. Lee-
12 Apr.
with en-
closure in
That he based his objections partly on allegations as to Mr. Stoker's deficiency in original. professional standing and qualifications. partly on assertions as to that gentleman's s. of S. to pecuniary embarrassments, and partly on covert allusions to scandal as to Mr. Stoker's Gov., relations with Government House, and a member of the Governor's family.
Gov. Lee- That the letter to the Secretary of State in which Sir H. Wrenfordsley embodied
wards, 21 the above-mentioned very grave allegations was forwarded through the Governor, covered March, in by a confidential despatch, dated the 3rd January, in which the Chief Justice's state- original. ments were traversed, and with which was also sent a copy of a letter from the Attorney- Leeward General, also traversing the Chief Justice's statements in every particular.
Islands
Ord., 13 of That by the following mail, Sir F. Fleming forwarded another confidential despatch, 1878. dated 15th January, enclosing and commenting on further correspondence between him- Leeward self and the Chief Justice, in which the latter, without explaining or proving any of his falands previous statements, proceeded to insinuate other vague and apparently irrelevant charges, Ord., 7 of on that occasion directed more especially against the alleged incompetency and favouritism Leeward of the Governor.
Islands
1881.
1880.
Corr. on re-
That under these circumstances, a despatch, dated 21st February, was addressed by Ord., 2 of the Secretary of State to the Governor, instructing the latter to call upon the Chief Justice, either to withdraw and apologise for what he had written, or to state definitely moval of and specifically the charges which he had hitherto only insinuated, and to name the Col. Judges persons against whom he advanced such charges; that the reply by the Chief Justice to (C. 139), this demand was to be submitted for the consideration of the Secretary of State, and that Leeward if it should then appear necessary, a commission would be appointed to enquire into the L. Patent whole matter.
Islands.
and In-
as to re-
That further correspondence was forwarded by Sir F. Fleming under cover of a structions confidential despatch of the 14th March, showing that the Chief Justice did not respond moval of to the demand by the Secretary of State for withdrawal and apology, or for specification Officers. of the charges beyond naming two colonial officials, Sir George Melville and Dr. Pierez, as the authorities for some of his statements. That Sir H. Wrenfordsley in this part
of the correspondence offered to retire on pension on the ground of his age, which it might be convenient to inform us was seventy-four.
That the rejoinder by the Secretary of State was a reiteration of the demand either for apology and withdrawal, or for definite charges and primâ facie evidence, and it was added that until this demand had been complied with the question of Sir H. Wrenfordsley's retirement could not be considered,
That again with a confidential despatch, dated 21st of May, the Governor forwarded yet further correspondence with Sir H. Wrenfordsley, in the course of which the latter still maintained his attitude of unsubstantiated insinuation, and entirely failed further to specify the charges which he had suggested, or to withdraw them,
6352-25-7/1900 Wt 324 D & S
}