CO885-8 — Page 243

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

C.O. 885

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC-

COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO

A

Miscel- laneous, No. 142. P. 159.

37, 94.

p. 153.

p. 73.

6

When it is desired in any particular case, and at the same time take the consequences. that inspection should be dispensed with, a note should be placed on the indents to that effect, as suggested in the Crown Agents' letter to the Hong Kong Government of 23rd September, 1898.

16. What I judge from the correspondence to be one of the most fruitful causes of delay, as it is certainly one which is most easily avoided, is that the Colonial Governments are too often not content to take stock articles, but require some special articles to be specially manufactured for their particular requirement. The Crown Agents point out 30, 85, repeatedly in their letter of the 7th April, 1902 (paragraphs 51, 59, 96), as they pointed out specially to the Government of Jamaica, how much time might be saved if an order, instead of requiring an article to be specially made, authorises its being supplied from stock, and if stock patterns are asked for whenever possible rather than articles of special manufacture; and again in their letter of 30th July, 1902, they write "we can do much to prevent delays if it is understood that we can buy from stocks whenever this is practicable." Sir David Wilson in his despatch of 12th March, 1902 (paragraph 9), corroborates this view. He points out that "as there are very many articles required for similar purposes in all the tropical colonies, an effort might be made to establish uniformity of pattern, design, or sample, and to enter into contracts with reliable firms to supply all the colonies with the goods of that description which may be required." He instances a number of articles which might be supplied in this uniform manner, and he adds the suggestion, of which the Crown Agents have taken note and to which their attention will be further called, that the latter should supply the Colonial Governments with price lists and patterns, showing improvements in manufactures of such articles as they require. A similar suggestion is made in Mr. Olivier's letter to the Crown Agents of 8th October, 1901. I am therefore of opinion that the recommendations made in the 51st paragraph of the Crown Agents' letter of 7th April, 1902, should be adopted, and I am confident that the Colonial Governments will find their orders carried out more expeditiously, if, so far as ordinary stores are concerned, they are prepared to give the Crown Agents authority to supply them, especially in cases of any urgency, with standard articles instead of articles made to order.

p. 153.

P. 31.

p. 85.

pp. 74-5.

pp. 24-5.

P. 154.

Pp. 136

6.

P. 137.

PP. 12-22.

P. 160.

i

-

17. The last cause of delay which I need notice is that referred to in the 7th para- graph of the Crown Agents' letter of the 7th April, 1902, viz., the necessity, on occasions, of referring to the Colonial Office for the Secretary of State's authority before complying with requisitions. This authority" the Crown Agents write "is not infrequently refused, and in some cases is only granted after a considerable time in any case there is a delay." I shall deal with this point further before I conclude this despatch, but I may say here that, while it must be admitted that, when references are made to the Colonial Office, there are not unfrequently delays which ought to be avoided; such references would rarely take place if the Colonial Regulations which govern the sending of requisitions were duly complied with.

The

18. Apart from the question of delays comparatively little criticism is made. list of complaints from Hong Kong enclosed in Sir H. Blake's despatch of 12th September, 1901, refers mainly to bad packing of the articles forwarded to the colony. The Crown Agents answer in their letter of 30th July, 1902, that "the allegations of careless packing show no negligence on our part, and it will be seen that in every case in which there was ground for doing so, full compensation was obtained from the contractors,' and they "again protest against this tendency to identify us for all purposes with the suppliers of goods and the shipowners." You will note that the print, which forms the enclosure to this despatch, includes extracts from a Report on the Public Works Depart- ment of Hong Kong dated March, 1902, which was received while this correspondence was in hand. In the course of the enquiry, evidence was taken as to the Crown Agents' methods of doing business, and as to the complaints made against them; and the Com- mission came to the following conclusion: "Those Witnesses who have had practical experience of the Crown Agent system, including Mr. Chadwick, all speak highly of it, and the Commission is of opinion that it works well, and that it would not be easy to substitute for it any other system that would work so satisfactorily."

19. The complaints from Fiji under date of 13th August, 1901, are of delay, of failure to accept a favourable tender for the conveyance of coolies, in which natter, as far as I follow the correspondence, i cannot hold the Crown Agents to blame; of pipes of defective quality for which the contractors were duly called to account; and of defective quality of certain lamps and non-compliance with instructions for replacing them. In this last case, as far as I can make out, the Crown Agents departed from instructions ufter certain explanations from the makers and in order to save time, and they did not give

7

477

Miscel- laneous,

an explanation as to difference in cost which they now give and which might well have No. 142. been given at the time with somewhat fuller coinments on the question of quality which was at issue than were contained in the Crown Agents' letter to the Colonial Secretary of Fiji of the 9th April, 1900.

P. 160.

p. 22.

20. Sir H. Goold-Adams in his despatch of 3rd September, 1901, complains that pp. 22-3. "goods ordered through the Crown Agents are accepted by them in London and paid for at once," and that therefore the Colonies are bound to accept the goods whether suitable or not, whereas, if the goods were supplied by local tender, they need not be paid for till actually delivered, and if found unsuitable need not be accepted. This statement raises the wide question of local purchases as against purchases direct from the United Kingdom through Government Agents in the United Kingdom, and no doubt the position of Crown Colonies and Protectorates in South Africa is somewhat special, in that there is a much wider field for local purchases in South Africa than is the case elsewhere where Crown Colonies are concerned; but it is of little value to discuss the contention which is put forward on general grounds without the evidence of particular cases. only be said that presumably some goods, at any rate, must in any case be ordered from this country, and that the Colonies, as the Crown Agents point out, would pay far more p. 154. highly for them if payment were deferred until they had been received and tested in South Africa.

It can

The Crown Agents in their letter of the 7th April, 1902, paragraph 31, write:- "We attach great value to prompt payment of contractors as helping to obtain their lowest p. 81. terms, and we have been frequently informed by contractors that they give preference to our orders owing to our prompt system of payment." I believe this view to be entirely sound and the system of prompt payments to be in the best interests of the Colonies.

With regard to the other points raised by Sir H. Goold-Adams, I concur generally in the remarks which the Crown Agents have made in their letter of the 30th of July, 1902.

21. The longest list of specific complaints against the Crown Agents comes from p. 26, &c. Jamaica. Reference is made to a recent case in which I held that the Crown Agents, though not the Crown Agents alone, had been at fault in connection with the supplying of rolling stock to the Jamaica railway, and ruled that they should make good certain additional expense which had been, in my opinion, thereby incurred by the Jamaica Government. I shall have occasion again to allude to this case, but need not dwell on its details. For the rest the complaints appear to be on the one hand complaints of delay and want of business-like methods, the Crown Agents being unfavourably contrasted with the Agents of the Jamaica Government in New York, and, on the other hand, complaints of high prices. The conclusion arrived at by Sir A. Hemming is that "it will probably p. 28. be found advantageous rather to increase than to decrease the amount of purchases made from the United States of America for the services of the Government.' In my opinion the Crown Agents give for the most part conclusive answers to the various complaints brought against them by the Jamaica Government, and it is to be wished that greater discrimination had been shown in presenting the case on behalf of that Government. On the other hand, the Crown Agents in the 72nd paragraph of their letter of 7th April, p. 89. 1902, while fairly commenting upon the fact that in Enclosure C. to Sir A. Hemming's despatch too short a time is allowed for transit of goods, viz., 32 days, seem to have rather overlooked the fact that the "date of receipt of Crown Agents' letter advising shipment" need not be the same, though it usually is the same, as the date of receipt of the goods themselves. I do not consider that any useful purpose would be served by further comment upon the Jamaica correspondence, but I will refer again in a later paragraph to the question of purchases in the United States.

may here note that besides Sir A. Hemming, hardly any Governor except the Governor of the Falkland Islands, complains of high prices being charged by the Crown Agents. Mr. Grey Wilson writes in his despatch of 2nd April, 1902, that " prices paid by the Crown Agents for many articles in frequent demand by all Colonies are often in excess of the prices paid by the War Office and Admiralty for similar stores," but he does not give instances, and the Crown Agents' comments on his statement, which are contained in their letter of 30th July, 1902, seem to me to carry conviction.

23. To Sir F. Swettenham's despatch of 28th November, 1901, with its general pp. 48–9. observations on the position of the Crown Agents, I have already referred and will refer again. An instance of delay is given in regard to the supply of a dredger, the time taken being about one and a half years, whereas the Tanjong Pagar Company at Singapore is said to have ordered and received a similar dredger within six months.

22.

the p. 136.

A second complaint is of departure from instructions in respect of certain iron

p. 156.