CO885-(15-16) — Page 575

R

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

C.O.88

16 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO

2

That the land on which the tramroad was constructed was vested in the Crown by Section 27 of the Ordinance of 1856, but that, in the opinion of the Attorney- General of Trinidad, this was only for the specific purpose of its dedication to the public user as a tramroad way under the management of the Commissioners.

That Section 33 of the Ordinance of 1856 provided that passengers, goods, and merchandise were to be carried as well as estates' produce, and that Section 43 enabled the Commissioners to fix tolls with the approval of the Central Road Board.

That it was provided by Section 53 of the Ordinance of 1856 that, subject to audit by the Central Road Board, the balance of all moneys received in respect of tolls should be applied to the purposes and in the order following:-

(I.) The formation of a fund for the maintenance and keeping in repair of the tramroad, such portion as the Central Road Board might direct being deposited in the Colonial Treasury, and applied in such manner as the Board might direct.

(II.) In or towards the satisfaction of the annual payments due to the Crown in respect of the moneys advanced for the construction of the tram- road, and in relief of the lands charged with such payments.

III) In repayment of the moneys actually paid by the owners of any such lands in respect of such annual payments with interest on such moneys at six per cent.

(IV.) To the improvement and extension of the tramroad; and

(V.) To the general benefit of the ward or wards through which such tram- road should run in such proportions as the Central Road Board might from time to time direct, and in such manner as the Warden and auditors of the respective wards might from time to time determine. That in connexion with Section 53 of the Ordinance of 1856, Mr. Fiddes was to invite our attention to the inquiry addressed to the New Colonial Company and Tennant's Estates, Limited, on the 21st April, 1909, and to their reply of the 11th May, in which it was stated that as there had been no balance of receipts over expenditure, it had not been possible to form such a fund as was directed by Section 53 (1). That the writers also stated that the receipts from public traffic had been applied firstly to the working of the line and then to payment of the rental of the San Fernando tramway, any further balance being applied to upkeep of the permanent way and rolling stock, and that deficits had been made good by levying tolls on the remaining guarantors who used the line. That, on the other hand, our attention was invited to the minute of the Attorney-General of Trinidad, dated the 27th August, 1909, with the reports annexed, from which it would appear that the Commissioners failed to deposit their surplus profit in the Colonial Treasury for the specific purposes limited by Ordinance 4 of 1856; and that the surplus revenue was really devoted to reduction of tolls affecting themselves and not the general public who had an interest in the line. That a copy of Mr. Agostini's minute would be found in the enclosures to the Governor's despatch of the 1st Sep- tember, and the statement of Major Johnstone, the Warden, to which reference was made, would be found on page 18 of the enclosures to the Acting-Governor's That Ordinance 4 of 1856 had been despatch of the 19th of September, 1908.

repealed by the Law Revision Ordinance, 1901, subject to the saving clause con- tained in Section 3 of that Ordinance.

That it would be seen from the minute of the Warden of Naparima, dated 29th March, 1906 (page 18 of enclosures to the Acting Governor's despatch of the 19th September, 1908), that the Commissioners of the Cipero Tramway were "of That in their letter of opinion that the line is absolutely their private property." the 2nd April, 1909, the New Colonial Company and Tennant's Estates, Limited, contended that it would not be equitable for the Government to acquire the tramway without providing for "the recoupment of the original cost of the line to the original contributors or their representatives."

That the writers stated in that letter that the owners of the estates served had repaid the sums raised on debentures for the construction of the road with interest at six per cent., the total so paid for the extinction of capital and interest in 24 years amounting to £103,087, of which they had contributed 68.32 per cent. That they also stated that the Commissioners of the Tramway were, in fact, the representatives of the parties by whom its cost had been provided, and that beyond certain responsibilities defined in the Ordinances the Commissioners owe no duty to the public or to the Government.

That the Law Officers of the Colony had advised the Colonial Government that, if the construction which they put on the Ordinance of 1856 was correct, there

3

could not be any grounds for the proposals suggested for the transfer of the tram- road on payment of moneys by the Government to the Commissioners, but that on the contrary a case was made out for the taking over by the Government of the tramway without compensation, with the object of laying down an improved system of railway for the benefit of the district.

1909.

That a copy of the joint opinion of the Colonial Law Officers to that effect would be found among the enclosures to the Acting Governor's despatch of the 8th March, That Mr. Fiddes was to invite our attention to the further minute by Mr. Agostini of the 8th August last, in which he dealt with the question whether an action for breach of trust would lie against the Commissioners, and to a report by the General Manager of Railways dealing with the accounts of the Cipero Com- missioners for the ten years from 1899-1908, which would be found among the enclosures to the Governor's despatch of the 1st September last.

That it would appear that another tramroad constructed under the Ordinance of 1856, the Guaracaro tramroad, was acquired by the Government in 1879 with- out payment of any compensation other than the extinction of the outstanding payments under the charging order. That in that case an agreement was made with the Commissioners and that Ordinance 17 of 1879 then confirmed the agreement and transferred the tramroad to the Crown.

That Mr. Fiddes was to request us to be good enough to take into our considera- tion the enclosures to his letter and to inform your Lordship what answers should, in our opinion, be returned to the following questions:-

(1) Was the Cipero tramroad the private property either of the Commis- sioners or of the owners of the estates included in the original charging order or their successors in title, or of any other persons?

(2) Supposing that we were of opinion that the Cipero tramroad was private property, did we consider that the owners were equitably entitled to be recouped the original cost of the line to the original contributors with or without interest; and, if not, on what basis did we consider that compensation should be assessed?

(3) Supposing that we were of opinion that compensation should be paid to the Cipero Commissioners, would the Commissioners be entitled to deal with any money received by way of compensation as they thought fit, or would they be bound to expend the money so received as nearly as might be on the object specified in Section 53 of the Ordinance of 1856, or to apply it to any other, and if so, to what, specific purpose or purposes?

(4) Supposing that we were not of opinion that the Cipero tramroad was private property, would it be equitable, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, that the Legislative Council should pass an Ordinance whereby the trainroad; or so much of it as might be required, would be absorbed in the railway system of the Colonial Government without providing for the payment of any compensation? That Mr. Fiddes was further to request that we would be good enough to favour your Lordship with any observations which might occur to us on the matter.

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

That in our opinion:

Report

(1) The Cipero tramroad is not the private property of the Commissioners or of the owners of the estates included in the charging order, or their successors The land is vested in the Crown by Section 27 in title, or of any other persons. of Ordinance No. 4 of 1856. The control and management of the tramroad are vested in the Commissioners by Section 3 of Ordinance No. 20 of 1869.

No property is by either Ordinance expressly vested in the Commissioners, but the grant of control and management would carry with it the right to possession and such powers as are necessarily incidental to control and management. All these powers are subject to the trusts for public purposes imposed by the Ordinance of 1856, and can only be exercised for the public use of the inhabitants of the ward or wards through which the tramroad passes.

The rights of the owners of the estates originally charged, or their represen- tatives, are confined to the rights defined by Section 53 of the Ordinance of 1856. The owners or their representatives are entitled to be repaid out of the balance of receipts over expenses, if the Commissioners have any such balance after forming