CO885-(15-16) — Page 298

42702

R

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

།། ༴། ༄། ‛། ཏ།

C.O. 885

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH—NOT TO

15 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

No. 207.

(TRINIDAD.)

LAW OFFICERS to COLONIAL OFFICE.

[Application of the New Trinidad Lake Asphalt Company for leave to commence proceedings against the Colonial Government.]

SIR,

Royal Courts of Justice,

23rd November, 1903. We were honoured with your commands signified in Mr. H. Bertram Cox's letter of the 12th instant, stating that he was directed by you to transmit to us the accompanying despatch from the Governor of Trinidad, with its enclosures, relating to an application made to him on behalf of the New Trinidad Lake Asphalt Company for leave to commence proceedings against the Government of the Colony in respect of certain matters set forth in the enclosed Statement of Claim.

That the Governor sets forth in his despatch certain reasons for refusing the consent desired by the Company.

That the first of these reasons was the fact that the competency of the Supreme Court of Trinidad to entertain an action against the Attorney-General of the Colony in respect of a breach of contract entered into by a past Governor in the name of the Sovereign and alleged to have been broken by a subsequent Governor had been called in question, and was one of the issues to be decided by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council on appeal from the Supreme Court of Trinidad, in the case of "The New Trinidad Lake Asphalt Company v. the Attorney-General of Trinidad " now pending.

That the second reason was that the Company's complaint was based upon an interpretation of the term "win" in the Deed of Concession to the Company's pre- decessors, which was contrary to the interpretation laid down by a Commission of Enquiry appointed last year to investigate the circumstances connected with the asphalte industry in Trinidad.

That the third reason was that the real object of the proceedings was believed to be the postponement of certain legislation regulating the industry and defining the rights and duties of the Colonial Government, the Company and other interested parties, which the Secretary of State had directed the Governor to introduce.

That Mr. Bertram Cox was to transmit to us copies of "The Judicature Ordin- ance 1879" (Order LX. of which regulates the form of procedure in suits for or against the Government), of the Letter of Instructions, with annexures, communi- cated to the Commissioners appointed last year to investigate the circumstances of the asphalt industry, of the Report of those Commissioners and of the Minutes of their proceedings. That he was also to enclose copies of Reports of our predecessors dealing with the question on the grounds on which it was proper to refuse His Majesty's fiat in cases of Petitions of Right.

That Mr. Cox was to request us to be good enough to take the papers into our consideration and to favour you with our opinion whether the Governor would be justified in refusing leave to commence proceedings, either upon the grounds stated by him or upon any other grounds.

We have taken the matter into our consideration, and, in obedience to your commands, have the honour to

Report-

That in our opinion the Governor would not be justified in refusing leave to commence proceedings for any of the reasons stated.

The fact that there is already pending an Appeal from the Supreme Court of Trinidad which raises one of the points which may have to be decided in the present case may afford grounds for an application to the Courts in Trinidad to postpone the trial of the present case, but it is no sufficient ground for refusing leave to commence proceedings.

As to the second reason, the Asphalt Company are not bound by the interpreta- 100 of the word “win“ laid down by the Commission of Enquiry, and are entitled

have the construction of the Contract judicially determined.

20 W 661 12:33 P&S 7

16192

↑

2

The third reason suggested is merely a matter of surmise, and the proposed legislation need not necessarily be deferred in consequence of proceedings pending in the Courts. If the proper construction of the Contract is a matter which may affect the proposed legislation, it would be a matter for the consideration of the Legislature whether the Contract of Concession should be construed by a competent authority before such legislation is passed.

We cannot suggest any reason for refusing leave to commence proceedings.

The Right Honourable

Alfred Lyttelton, M.P.,

&c.,

&c., &c.