we have now to inform you that the Solicitor for the London Committee of the Com- pany, whom we have to-day seen, is prepared to advise that Committee to agree the appointed date as the 1st July, and to enter into an agreement to give effect to the conditions stated in our letter now under reference. He will advise the Committee accordingly when they meet on Wednesday next, and inform us their decision in the course of Thursday.
We should add that Sir R. T. Reid will not be accepted by the Company as sole arbitrator, and it would appear that unless Mr. Secretary Lyttelton is prepared to accept Sir
Wolfe Barry as sole arbitrator, that two arbitrators and an umpire will have to be appointed, pursuant to the provisions of the Ordinance.
We have submitted a case to Mr. Balfour Browne with a view of obtaining his opinion as to who should be nominated as arbitrator on behalf of the Colonial Govern- ment, and whose name should be suggested on their behalf as umpire, and will inform you his views in due course.
16440
We have, &c.,
SUTTON, OMMANNEY, & RENDALL.
No. 101.
GOVERNOR SIR J. ANDERSON to MR. LYTTELTON. (Received 8.20 a.m., May 16, 1905.)
TELEGRAM.
[Answered by No. 102.]
Anxious for reply to secret telegram of 10th May.* Company anxious to know whether 1st June agreed to? Matter most urgent.
16440
No. 102.
MR. LYTTELTON to GoVERNOR SIR J. ANDERSON. (Sent 6 p.m., May 16, 1905.)
(Paraphrase.)
TELEGRAM.
[Answered by No. 107.]
Referring to your telegrams of 10th and 16th May, † I am quite satisfied that the balance of advantage lies in our making agreement with Company on the lines stated in my telegram of 9th instant. I have, therefore, made the offer to Com- mittee. They promise a reply on 18th May, and you should hold yourself ready, in case they do not accept, to take over on 1st June.
16658
SIR,
No. 103.
MESSRS. SUTTON, OMMANNEY, & RENDALL to COLONIAL OFFICE. (Received May 18, 1905.)
3 and 4, Great Winchester Street, London, E.C., May 17, 1905.
Straits Settlements.
Tanjong Pagar Dock Company, Limited.
We enclose copy joint opinion of Mr. Balfour Browne, K.C., and Mr. E. W. Hansell, on the case submitted to them, and referred to in our letter to you of the 15th instant, § and have to confirm our appointment to call upon you to-morrow morning after our interview with the Solicitors for the Company.
We have, &c., SUTTON, OMMANNEY, & RENDALL.
• No. 93.
† Nos. 93 and 101.
‡ No. 91.
No. 100.
163
Enclosure in No. 103.
Straits Settlements.
Tanjong Pagar Dock Company, Limited.
QUESTIONS Submitted to counsel and joint opinion of Mr. J. H. Balfour Browne, K.C., and Mr. E. W. Hansell thereon.
1. As to the qualifications of the arbitrator to be nominated on behalf of the Colonial Government in the event of no agreement being come to for the appointment of a single arbitrator.
2. As to the qualifications which in counsel's opinion the umpire to be appointed by the two arbitrators, pursuant to sub-section (c) of section 11 of the Ordinance, should possess, it being thought desirable, having regard to the fact that it is improbable an umpire will be agreed upon and that ultimately the Lord Chief Justice of England will have to appoint an umpire, pursuant to sub-section (d) of section 11, that the Secretary of State for the Colonies should be in a position to state definitely the qualifications which in his opinion such umpire should possess.
3. Who counsel recommends should be nominated by the Colonial Government to act as their arbitrator, and who they should suggest as umpire.
4. Whether the arbitration is to be conducted in accordance with the Arbitra- tion Act, 1889, or in accordance with the Arbitration Ordinance, 1890, of the Colony.
5. What facts the Company should be asked to admit in London through their London Committee with a view of shortening the proceedings in the Colony.
6. Whether, having regard to sub-section (f) of section 11, it is necessary that the umpire should attend the sitting of the court in the Colony.
7.
Whether if any such agreement with the Company, as is referred to in the letter of the 5th May is come to, and which, although the London Committee may not have power to enter into, is regarded by them and their solicitors, and by the Colonial Government, as a binding agreement, is entered into, it will in any way invalidate the arbitration award.
8. Whether, having regard to section 10 of the Ordinance, the Company can successfully contend in the circumstances that they are entitled to an allowance on behalf of the shareholders for loss of interest and costs of reinvestment, and
9. Whether, in reference to the despatch of the 29th April referred to in the case, the suggestion made by Mr. Tomlinson should be given effect to, and if not, what other course counsel would advise to be adopted with a view to limiting, as far as possible, the Company's claim in the above respect, and also so as to spread the payment of the compensation over as long a period as possible.
We are of opinion that:-
OPINION.
1, 2 and 3. It is very desirable to agree upon a single arbitrator who, we think, should be a barrister of first-rate position in the profession, such as those mentioned in conference. If there has to be a tribunal of three, we think that the Government arbitrator should be an engineer, and the umpire a barrister.
4. The arbitration must be conducted in accordance with sections 11 and 12
of the Tanjong Pagar Dock Ordinance, 1905. This incorporates certain clauses of the Arbitration Ordinance of the Colony. The English Arbitration Act is not applicable.
5. We think that at this stage it is not practicable to obtain any admissions which would be of use to the Government in the arbitration.
6. Sub-section (f) of section 11 of the Ordinance does not relieve the umpire from the duty of attending the reference, except for some temporary cause, applic- able to a particular sitting. Sub-section (e) appears to us to show that if there is a tribunal of three, they should all sit and hear the evidence unless prevented by one of the causes specially provided for.
7. The proposed agreement would not in our judgment affect the validity of the award.
8. Section 14 of the Ordinance provides for the recoupment of loss of interest pending reinvestment and for cost of reinvestment, and section 10 gives the Company three months after the award in which to exercise the option to take payment in inscribed stock. But we think that the arbitrator may properly be asked to make
20503
Y
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
keference :-
TILIC.O. 882
mimimmi...
8
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.