96
determine, and the sum paid to the Company as compensation to the London Com- mittee for loss of office shall be distributed amongst the members of that Committee entitled to such compensation in such proportions as those members or the majority of them determine.
17. In each half year the Board shall pay into the general revenue of the Colony at such times as the Governor shall direct a sum equal to 5 3 per cent, per annum of the total amount paid by the Government under the provisions of this Ordinance.
(2) At the end of each half year the net revenue of the Board after providing for such payment and for a sufficient working balance shall be paid into an Account to be called the Reserve Fund to be kept in the names of the Treasurer and of one or more members of the Board. The Reserve Fund shall be available from time to time with the sanction of the Governor and to such extent as he shall approve for any purpose connected with the business of the Board.
(3) Nothing in this Section shall affect the amount of the compensation payable to the Company.
97
12. I cannot accept any of the additions to Section 16, as they would place the employees of the Company in a far more favourable position than that which they now occupy. Primarily it is for the Company to make such provisions for their servants as they deem just out of the compensation awarded to them, and you will doubtless agree with me in considering that the Government could not consent to have this duty transferred to them as a statutory obligation.
13. The alteration in Section 17 (1) refers to a matter altogether outside the interests of the Company, and the added Sub-section (3) is unnecessary.
2259
No. 44.
I have, &c.,
ALFRED LYTTELTON.
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference :-
C.O. 882
8 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
2443
SIR
No. 43.
MR. LYTTELTON to GOVERNOR SIR J. ANDERSON.
(Confidential.)
Downing Street, January 27, 1905. WITH reference to previous correspondence I have the honour to transmit to you, for your information, a copy of a letter from the London Committee of the Tanjong Pagar Dock Company offering suggestions for the amendment of the draft Ordinance for the expropriation of the undertaking.
2. I may explain that at the request of the Committee they were supplied with a copy of the draft forwarded to you, with certain alterations embodying the effect of amendments which you had communicated to me by telegraph. At the same time they were warned not to publish the draft or to regard it as authentic, as it was still under your consideration, and might undergo further alteration before being introduced into the Legislative Council. They were, however, told that the general lines of the provisions for arbitration would be as stated in the copy sent to them.
3. I do not propose to enter into any discussion with the London Committee on the subject, but as their amendments will doubtless be pressed in the Legislative Council, I think it advisable to indicate briefly, for your guidance, my views upon them.
4. The use of the expression "undertaking" in the preamble and elsewhere
is an improvement on the language of the draft, and should be accepted.
5. In Section 2, "investments" should stand. There is no objection to the words immediately following.
6. The addition at the end of Section 3, and the consequential amendment in Section 7, cannot be accepted.
may be added.
7. In Section 4 "liabilities "
8. In view of Section 11, it seems unnecessary to bind the Government to the words added at the end of Section 5, but I leave the matter to your discretion, and also the alterations proposed in Section 6.
9. I am unable to approve the amendments in Section 8. It may be a question for consideration whether the costs of winding up the Company should be borne by the Government but the Court would doubtless take this into consideration in giving their award, and in any case the words inserted in the middle of the section are too wide.
10. I cannot accept the alteration in Section 10.
11. I have no objection to the new Sections 11a, and 11B (b). I leave to your decision the question whether 11B (a) should be accepted, though I fear that it might cause great inconvenience to the new administration. As regards this point and that raised by Section 11B (c), I would refer you to your telegram of the 18th and to my reply of the 19th instant.t
• No. 42.
† Nos. 38 and 39.
(Secret.)
SIR,
MR. LYTTELTON to GOVERNOR SIR J. ANDERSON.
Downing Street, January 27, 1905. I HAVE the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your secret despatch of the 28th ultimo, respecting the proposed expropriation of the Tanjong Pagar Dock Company.
That despatch was written before you were fully in possession of my views on the subject, and you are now aware that in the draft Ordinance power is given to pay the compensation, wholly or in part, in Straits Government Stock.
I am informed that this mode of settlement will probably commend itself to the share- holders, and I therefore do not propose to give instructions to the Crown Agents in the sense of paragraph 6 of your despatch pending further developments.
Even if payment in cash has to be made, it would seem to be more advantageous to raise a loan than to sell securities for the purpose.
2443
No. 45.
I have, &c.,
ALFRED LYTTELTON.
COLONIAL OFFICE to TANJONG PAGAR DOCK COMPANY, LIMITED. SIR,
Downing Street, January 28, 1905. I AM directed by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 25th instant, † with its enclosure, respecting the proposed expropriation of the Tanjong Pagar Dock Company, Limited.
2259
SIR,
No. 46.
I am, &c.,
C. P. LUCAS.
MR. LYTTELTON to GOVERNOR SIR J. ANDERSON. (Confidential.)
Downing Street, February 1, 1905. IN your telegram of the 22nd January, you suggest the possibility of appoint-
ing Mr. Hyndman Jones as sole arbitrator in the matter of the expropriation of the Tanjong Pagar Dock Company.
I have considered this suggestion but I am not aware that Mr. Jones has had any experience in arbitration proceedings of this nature and magnitude, and I am of opinion that a single arbitrator should only be accepted by the Government if he
• No. 41.
YOKUS
↑ No. 42.
No. 40.
X
98
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.