CO885-(7-8)-2 — Page 450

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

TELEC.O. 882

8 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

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

152

Jecurities would be inflated. A large claim will, therefore, be put forward on this account.

3. The suggestion which follows is based on the assumption that the Govern- ment is not a purchaser at current rates and that our case will not be prejudiced by a rise in the value of the shares now (Section 13).

4. If instead of the compensation being paid at one time or within a brief period it were spread over a long period, and if, in addition, the date of payment were at the option of the shareholder instead of being an uncertain date at the option of the Government, the argument for a large allowance would be greatly weakened and I think to some extent would be destroyed.

5. Expropriation and the consequent payment of compensation being certain, we have only to consider the most economical means of effecting the payment, and I submit the Government is in a very strong position.

6. With diffidence and as a suggestion only, because I am probably not acquainted with all the points to be considered and because I can see that some objections can be raised to the suggestions, I would point out that if Government were to announce that it will be prepared to advance from, say, the appointed day, $240 per share (or £24 in London) on any share deposited as security to the extent that this were availed of there would not be payable any sum for cost of re-invest- ment of loss of interest pending re-investment on any sum so advanced.

7. Of course the taking of an advance would not prejudice the shareholder in the matter of amount of compensation; the advance would be deducted from the total amount to be paid and he would receive, meantime, his interest at the rate of 12 per cent. (Section 21) and would pay interest to Government (say, 4 per cent. on dollar advances and 3 per cent. on sterling advances on the sum advanced).

8. The state of the money market here is such that I believe advances would be availed of (but upon this point expert opinions could easily be obtained) and the arrangement would in that case be presumably to the benefit of the shareholders who could, therefore, have no claim on this portion of their compensation to the allowances under discussion and would be further precluded from claiming as a condition of the advance.

9. Government would get interest for the money advanced and the payment of compensation would be distributed over a longer period with consequent less disturbance of the market and greater opportunity for each party to make good arrangements and be less dependent on outside influences.

10. That the issue is important there can be no doubt. Suppose three months were allowed by the Court as the period during which interest would be lost and the rate were taken at 4 per cent., the sum per million dollars compensation would be $10,000. Add to this one per cent. for cost of re-investment, $10,000 per million; multiply these by the number of millions of dollars the total compensation will come to and the amount becomes a very substantial one, We cannot be sure what allow- ances the Court will make under the peculiar circumstances, the benefit of any doubt will be given to the shareholders.

11. Further it appears to me that the fact that $240 per share had been avail- able to each shareholder at call without loss of interest to him so that he could choose his own time for changing his investment would be a very good argument for urging the Court not to allow anything on account of this proportion of the compensation, for loss of interest pending re-investment, even if the money had not actually been taken. The sum left in argument would be 37,000 shares x $240 $8,880,000, less the amount of money actually drawn by the shareholders, as to which there could be no dispute.

====

12. You will notice that as the shareholder will draw from the appointed date $12 per year interest per share and would pay only $9.60 for his dollars advance at per cent, he will have a balance of $2.40 per share until the balance of the com- pensation be paid. The balance of the sterling advances would be greater probably, depending on exchange.

4

March 31, 1905,

13907

GENTLEMEN,

133

No. 84.

COLONIAL OFFICE to CROWN AGENTS.

Downing Street, May 1, 1905. I AM directed by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 26th instant,* with regard to the engagement of an accountant in con- nection with the Tanjong Pagar arbitration.

2. It would appear from your letter that Mr. Maltby will not be able to go to Singapore before the arbitration proceedings begin and I am to enquire whether it has been found possible to arrange with Messrs. Deloitte, Dever, Griffiths and Company for the despatch, at an early date, of an accountant to undertake the necessary preliminary work.

3. If you cannot make satisfactory arrangements with that firm, I am to sug- gest that you might apply to Messrs. Turquand, Youngs, and Company.

13096

No. 85.

I am, &c.,

H. BERTRAM COX.

COLONIAL OFFICE to MESSRS. SUTTON, OMMANNEY, AND RENDALL. [Answered by No. 87.]

GENTLEMEN,

Downing Street, May 1, 1905. WITH reference to previous correspondence with regard to the proposed expropriation of the Tanjong Pagar Dock Company's undertaking at Singapore, I am directed by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton to inform you that the Governor of the Straits Settlements has recommended that the date on which the expropriation should take effect, should be June 1st next.

2. The Chairman of the London Committee of the Company desires that the date should be July 1st.

3. It appears to Mr. Lyttelton that it is a question of expediency. On the one hand, if the arbitration is to take place in October it is desirable to take over the property at the earliest possible date, since, until this is done, the Government has no access to the Company's books, and cannot therefore prepare its case or proceed to a valuation of the land for the purposes of the arbitration. On the other hand, if the Government refuses to meet the Company's wishes, it would be easy for the Company so to lengthen the preliminaries as to make it impossible for Mr. Balfour Browne to undertake the Government's case, while it is understood that they are prepared to give an undertaking that, if the date of taking over the property is fixed for July 1st, they will do all in their power to facilitate the hearing of the case in October.

4. In these circumstances, Mr. Lyttelton would be glad of your advice as to which date should be fixed in the interests of the Government.

15132

No. 86.

I am, &c.,

H. BERTRAM COX.

MR. C. H. OMMANNEY to MR. G. V. FIDDES. (Received May 5, 1905.)

[Answered by No. 94.]

3 and 4 Great Winchester Street, London, E.C.,

Straits Settlements.

Tanjong Pagar Dock Company, Limited.

WITH reference to Mr. Collins's letter to me of the 2nd instant, and my

S. TOMLINSON.

DEAR Mr. Fiddes,

May 4, 1905.

• No. 81.Page 451

ة من

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

C.O. 882

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

8 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

154

interview with you to-day, I think I cannot do better than send you a copy of my letter to the Crown Agents of the 18th ultimo, and inform you that Mr. Maltby left Cape Town on the 3rd instant, and is expected in London about the 23rd or 24th instant, and therefore will be able to be in London to acquaint himself with the details of the work he will have to undertake before he proceeds to Singapore to qualify himself to give evidence. I think that you will be satisfied, having regard to the information contained in the accompanying copy letter to the Crown Agents, that Mr. Maltby is fully qualified to undertake the examination of the Company's books, and to give evidence at the arbitration, my personal opinion being that having regard to the fact of Messrs. Price, Waterhouse and Company, being retained by the Company, you could not do better than retain Messrs. Deloitte, Dever, Griffiths and Company, on behalf of the Colonial Government, but I can, of course, if you so wish me to do, after negociations with Messrs. Deloitte, Dever, Griffiths and Company, are discontinued, communicate with Messrs. Ingram, Young and Com- pany, or any other firm of accountants.

As a result of my further interviews with Messrs. Deloitte, Dever, Griffiths and Company, I have to inform you that their charges for Mr. Maltby's services (exclusive of travelling and hotel expenses) in connection with the visit to Singapore to investi- gate the Company's books with a view to qualifying himself to give evidence, and to appear as a witness in the arbitration proceedings would be £1,000 for an absence from London of three months, and that if it is necessary that he should be personally absent from London for a longer period, an additional charge at the rate of ten guineas per day would be made. In this respect I may add that if competent clerks are sent out to do the detailed work in connection with the examination of the ('ompany's books prior to Mr. Maltby's leaving this country, it would appear to me that he need not be absent from London for a longer period at the most than four months. For such clerks who are required to go out before or at the time of Mr. Maltby's departure for the purpose of assisting him in the details of his investigation of the Company's books, the charge for each of their services (exclusive of travelling and hotel expenses) would be at the rate of three guineas per day. Any time which it may be found necessary for Mr. Maltby to devote to the business in London before he leaves for the Colony would be charged at the rate of ten guineas per day, and for any clerks that are employed in London the charge for their services would be at the rate of three guineas per day each. The senior member of the firm, Mr. William Plender, has stated his willingness to place his services at the disposal of the Colonial Government without making any additional charge therefor.

I shall be glad to know whether, providing Mr. Maltby will, if necessary, proceed to Singapore within, say, a week or ten days after his arrival in this country, I am to make an arrangement with his firm for their services on the terms indicated above.

G. V. Fiddes, Esquire, C.B.

Enclosure in No. 86.

Yours, &c.,

C. H. OMMANNEY.

3 and 4, Great Winchester Street, London, E.C.,

April 18, 1905. Straits Settlements. Tanjong Pagar Dock Company, Limited.

SIRS,

REFERRING to our recent interviews with you respecting the appointment of an accountant to examine and report upon the accounts of this Company, and to attend the anticipated arbitration proceedings in the Colony to give evidence on behalf of the Colonial Government as to the Company's accounts, we have, as suggested by you, conferred with Mr. Balfour Browne, K.C., the Counsel who has been retained by the Colonial Government, who recommends that you should employ the firm of Messrs. Deloitte, Dever, Griffiths and Company, of 4, Lothbury, E.C., and if possible to secure the personal services of Mr. William Plender, the senior

member of that firm.

155

From inquiries we have made, we have ascertained that Messrs. Deloitte, Dever, Grifhths and Company were retained by the Metropolitan Water Board in the arbi- tration under which that Board purchased compulsorily the undertakings of the several Metropolitan Water Works Companies, and were also employed on behalf of the authority who acquired compulsorily the Rand Water Works.

It would appear that Mr. Plender gave evidence in the case of the Metropolitan Water Board, and that his partner, Mr. Maltby, went to South Africa and gave evidence in the Rand Water Works Arbitration. We should, perhaps, also state that Mr. Balfour Browne, who was retained in the arbitration proceedings which arose out of the acquisition of the undertakings of the Metropolitan Water Com- panies and the Rand Water Works, expresses a definite opinion as to the desirability of the services of the firm of Messrs. Deloitte, Dever, Griffiths and Company being secured.

We have seen Mr. Plender and ascertained that his firm is prepared to accept our retainer, but it appears doubtful whether that gentleman will himself be able to leave England for Singapore in October next. If Mr. Plender's existing engage- ments prevent him from undertaking the journey to Singapore, he would be prepared to personally superintend any work which has to be done in this country in connec- tion with the Company's accounts, and would arrange with Mr. Maltby to personally attend the arbitration proceedings in the Colony.

In these circumstances we await your further instructions before suggesting the employment of any other firm of accountants, and as to retaining Messrs. Deloitte, Dever, Griffiths and Company, subject to agreeing their fee.

The Crown Agents for the Colonies.

15133

We have, &c.,

No. 87.

SUTTON, OMMANNEY, AND RENDALL.

MESSRS. SUTTON, OMMANNEY & RENDALL to COLONIAL OFFICE.

(Received May 5, 1905.)

3 and 4, Great Winchester Street, London, E.C., May 5, 1905.

Straits Settlements.

Tanjong Pagar Dock Company, Limited.

SIR,

REFERRING to your letter of the 1st instant, and our interview yesterday with Mr. Fiddes, while we agree with the views expressed in the third paragraph of your letter, we are of opinion that in the circumstances it would be advisable to endeavour to agree with the Company the date on which the Government intends to take over the property of the Company pursuant to Section 3 of the Ordinance, and with this view we think it would be desirable that you should communicate with the Chairman of the London Committee that you are prepared to agree that "the appointed date" shall be the 1st July, provided an agreement is entered into between the Company and the Government, by which the Government is: (1) to have, as from the date of the agreement, all proper facilities for free access to the lands, works, stores and premises and all parts of the Company's property for the purpose of inspecting the same, and also to all books, accounts and documents in the possession of the Company either in London, Singapore or elsewhere for the purpose of inspecting, copying and making extracts from the same: (2) that failing an agreement being come to between the Government and the Company as to the appointment of a single arbitrator, the Com- pany should, within one week from the 1st July, appoint their arbitrator, and: (3) that the arbitration is to be commenced at as early a date as may be practicable and may be agreed in October next and proceeded with continuously.

If this proposal is agreed to on behalf of the Company, we think it would be advis- able that we should prepare and submit to the Company's Solicitors for their approval a formal agreement evidencing these terms.

• No. 85.

20305