* C.
C.
June 30, 1900
611,487 30
December 31, 1900
June 30, 1901
December 31, 1901
June 30, 1902
December 31, 1902
June 30, 1903
December 31, 1903
786,950 81
83,734 21
84,733 63
557,753 09
$ 275,000 00
e.
$
C.
702,217 18
275,000 00
181,389 73
499,649 29
27,649 29
472,000 00
215,000 00
-
544,244 65
544,244 65
215,000 00
+4
744,613 52 | 234,921 78
587,807 41
657,778 33
569,691 74
215,(c0 00
60,253 86
527,553 55
155,000 00
275,693 66
207,692 02
430,086 31
Yearly Average
**
500,814 70
[4,963,346 01 |
1,240,836 00
138,028 47
362,786 23
150,000 00
100,000 00
837,013 26 4,126,332 75 1,600,000 00
209,253 00 1,031,583 00 400,000 00
$ C. 222,000 fu
222,000 00
222,000 00
205,936 39 222,600 00
259,000 00
259,000 00
222,000 00
150,000 00; 222,000 00
763,019 78 1,850,000 00
190,755 00 462,500 00
Singapore, 21st
June, 1904.
June 30, 1904
***
863,168 50
270,649 19
592,519 31
150,000 00
222,000 00
12096
No. 80.
141
the proposed expropriation of the Tanjong Pagar Dook Company,, and to acquaint you, for the information of Mr. Secretary Lyttelton, that Mr. Balfour Browne, KC, the Counsel who has been retained by the Colonial Government, recommends that the firm of Messrs. Deloitte, Dever, Griffiths and Company, of 4, Lothbury, E.C., should be retained and that, if possible, the personal services of Mr. W. Plender, the senior member of that firm, should be secured.
2. From enquiries that have been made it has been ascertained that Messrs. Deloitte, Dever, Griffiths and Company were retained by the Metropolitan Water Board in the arbitration under which that Board purchased compulsorily the under- takings of the several Metropolitan Waterworks Companies, and were also employed on behalf of the authority who acquired compulsorily the Band Waterworks."
3. Mr. Plender gave evidence in the case of the Metropolitan Water Board and his partner, Mr. Maltby, went to South Africa and gave evidence in the Rand Waterworks arbitration.
4. Our solicitors have seen Mr. Plender and ascertained that his firm are willing to accept their retainer, but Mr. Plender himself will be unable to leave England for Singapore in October next. He would, however, be prepared to per- sonally superintend any work which has to be done in this country in connection with the Company's accounts and would arrange with Mr. Maltby, who is at present in Johannesburg, to proceed to Singapore about October next and attend the arbi- tration proceedings in the Colony.
5. Negotiations are now proceeding with Messrs. Deloitte, Dever, Griffiths and Company as to the terms on which the work would be undertaken.
6. I would add that Mr. Balfour Browne, who was retained in the arbitration proceedings which arose out of the acquisition of the undertakings of the Metro- politan Water Companies and the Rand Waterworks, has recommended the employ- ment of Messrs. Deloitte, Dever, Griffiths and Company being secured.
14232
I have, &c.,
FOR CROWN AGENTS,
A. BERRIEDALE KEITH.
COLONIAL OFFICE to CROWN AGENTS.
[Answered by No. 81.]
GENTLEMEN,
Downing Street, April 25, 1905. WITH reference to the letter from this Department of March 25th,* I am directed by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton to inform you that a telegramt has been received from the Governor of the Straits Settlements stating that the selection of an account- ant, in connexion with the proposed expropriation of the Tanjong Pagar Dock Company, is a matter of urgency, and I am to enquire what steps have been taken with a view to the engagement of a suitable person.
13907
1
SIR,
No. 81.
I am, &c.,
C. P. LUCAS.
CROWN AGENTS to COLONIAL OFFICE. (Received April 27, 1905.)
[Answered by No. 84.]
Whitehall Gardens, London, S.W., April 26, 1905.
Straits.
I HAVE the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter, No. 13096/1905, of the 25th of April,‡ in regard to the selection of an accountant in connection with
+ No. 80.
• No. 64.
↑ No. 77.
(No. 139.)
SIR,
No. 82.
GOVERNOR SIR J. ANDERSON to MR. LYTTELTON. (Received April 29, 1905.)
Government House, Singapore, April 6, 1905.
I HAVE the honour to transmit, for your information, a copy of the "Tanjong l'agar Dock Bill" as amended in Committee.
2. The third reading will be taken on Friday, the 7th instant, and I propose to assent to it.
3. You will observe that an addition has been made to section 4 to make it clear that the Company would be able to maintain a claim for compensation paid to officers and servants and others who may suffer direct pecuniary loss by the transfer of the undertaking. In view of the provisions of the Metropolis Water Act and of the Port of London Bill, I felt it would be impossible to refuse to make it clear that some compensation would be paid to those who may be disestablished, and I drafted the clause with a view to allow full opportunity for the submission of any claims to the Court, without admitting any obligation on the Government to pay compensation where it would not have been payable by the Company. At the same time I think that in such a matter any hardship or loss to individuals should if possible be avoided, and that fair and reasonable compensation should be paid in every case where either a legal or moral claim can be established.
4. An amendment has been made in section 10 to make it clear that the Directors may agree with the Government as to the price to be paid, as there was some doubt whether under the Articles of Association they had power to do so.
20508
T2
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
1 ། ། ། ། །
Reference :-
C.O. 882
8
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH—NOT TO BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC-
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.