187~~-80. ~ -'-- VICTORIA. I I \ THIRD Pl10GRESS REPORT I I FROM THE I ' i SELECT COMMITTEE ON 'I'D OASE OF MRS. LEG G.AT; TOGETHER WITH THE PROCEEDINGS OF 'fHE COMMITTEE AND MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. I I I I t • Ordered by the Legislativ4 Assembly to be pr:~~ed, 27th January 1880. ,i --I \l'I.utborit~: lOHN FERRES; GOVERNlIIENT PRINTER, MELBOURNE. D.-No.1. EXTRACTED FROM THE VOTES AND' PROCEEDINGS. WEDNESDAY, 10TH DECEMBER 1879. :MRS. LEGGAT.-Mr. Nimmo moved, pursuant to notice, That a Select Committee be appointed' to enquire into and report upon the allegations contained in the petition of Margaret Leggat, presented to this House on the 12th day of August last; such Committee to consist of Mr. Fincham, Mr. Bell, Mr. A. Ii.. Smith, ~'[r. Dixon, and the Mover, three to form a quorum; with power to call for persons and papers. Mr. Grant moved, That the debate be now adjourned, Motion, for Ithe iMOlirnnient. oi tlledebate,'byheii"ve wrthdrhw"n:' ";'. 7" ( ( '1 Debate ensued. ' Mr. :Ifrancis moved, by leave of the Assembly, That Mr. Woods and Mr. Fraser be added to the Committee. Question-put and resolved in the affirmative. Question-That a Select Committee be appointed to enquire into and report upon the allegations contained in the petition of Margaret Leggat, presented to this House on the 12th day of August last; such Committee to consist of Mr. Fincham, Mr. Bell, Mr. A. K. Smith, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Woods, Mr. Fraser, and the Mover, three to form a quorum; with power to call for persons and papers,:-put.and resolved in the affirmative. THURSDAY, 18TH DECEMBER 1879. MRs. LEGGAr'S COMM1TTEE;::::l!Ml")Nimmo, 'Ohairman,;havingnl(ived for, an'it'ootiUn~'5Ieav~, Jfr~light\ip a Progress Report from this Committee. ' , . ,; .1' .'{>' , Ordered to lie on the Table, and to be printed. Mus. LEGGAr'S COMM1TrEE.-Mr. Nimmo moved, by leave of the Assembly, That leave be given to Mrs. Leggat to appear before the Committee appointed to enquire into her case by counsel. Question-put and resolved in the affirmative. ! t' t :,..; TUESDAY, 20TH JANUARY 1880. MRS. LEGGAT'S COMMlTTEE.-Mr. Nimmo, Chairman, having moved and obtained leave, brought up a Second Progress Report from this Committee. :,J Ordered to lie },n the Table, and:'to be printed. r ) MRS. LEGGA;'S ComllTTE~:""':Mr. N'immb mofed\' by llea-Je of :·th~'. Assembly, Tliat" Jeive be granted'tb the Railway Department to be represented by counsel before the Select Committee appointed to enquire into the case of Mrs. Margaret Leggat. Question-put and resolved in the affirmative. :1 ; APPUOXU[ATE COST OF REPOl!T. Preparation £6 6 0 Shorthand writing <to 19 9 l'rintl.ll8' (77G cople.) .. '56 15 0 Total 104 0 9 RE.. PORT. THE SELECT COMMITTEE of the Legislative Assembly appointed to inquire into and rt;.port upon the allegations contained in the petition of - Margaret Leggat, have the honor to present to your Honorable House the following additional Progress Report :- 1. That in consequence of representations made to your Committee as to the present state of health of Mr. 'Vatson, the Engineer-in-Chief, who was summoned as a witness on behalf of the Railway Department, and whose evidence is essential to the due prosecution of this inquiry, your Committee have· resolved to adjourn their investigation until the return of Mr. Watson from Tasmania, by which time his health will, in the opinion of his medical adviser, be restored. 2. Your Committee also beg to report the evidence of the witnesses up to the present examined before them. Committee-room, 27th January, 1880. o , . j i· ) PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMITTEE. WJ<JDNJ<:SDAY, 16m DECEMBEH lSi9. Members present: Mr. Nimmo, Mr. A. K. Smith, Mr. Fincham, Mr. Bell. Mr. Fincham moved, That Mr. Nimmo do take the Chair. Question-put and resol ved in the affirmative. , Ordered-That the petition of Margaret Leggat be referred to the Committee. The petition was read by the Clerk, and is as follows :- H To the Honorable the Spe'lker and Member .• J.r the Legislative Assembly of Victoria ill Parliament assembled. "The Petition of the undersigned Margaret Leggat, the widow and representative of the late James Leggat. "HU!IBLY SHEWETH "That one Neil MacNeil on the nineteenth day of January in the year of our Lord One thousand eight hundred and seventy-five, entered into it contract with the Board of Land and Works to construct the first section of the Gippsland railway, subject to certain specifications and conditions, for the sum of Ninety-eight thonsand five hundred and twenty pounds thirteen shillings and eightpencc. "That after thc said contract had been commenced in the month of "r~rch, Onc thousaud eight hundred and seventy­ six, the dceeased James Leg'gat entered into partnership with MacNeil in the contract and, afterwards, on the seventeenth day of l\fn.y One thousand eight hundred and seventy-six such partnership was by mutual consent dissolved, and from that date the contract was carried on aud completed by the said James Leggat alone, with the consent of the Board of Land and Works. "That during the carrying out of the contract the said James Leggat had,amongstother things, to supply sleepers to construct the line of railway, and in furtherance of the same he did so supply sleepers in every way in accordance with the specifications and which, with a fair and reasonable intcrpretation of the sallie, would have been received and passed by the officer superintending the contract, but such officer unfairly, capriciously, und arbitrarily rejected upwards'of fifteen thousand of such sleepers, and refused to allow the same to be used although sleepers of a precisely similar character and from the same sawmills were being then uniformly and without objection used by the Board of Land and Works and other contractors in the construction of railways, uudcr other contracts containing the sallie conditions. "That, although sorne three thousand of the rejected sleepers were. aftcr remonstrance by the said James Leggat accepted at a reduction in price, the residue have becn rejectcd and refused. by the superintending officer, who stated that a more rigid and strict supervision than usual over this contract had been ordered and this, your petitioner alleges, without any just cause or reason whatsoever. " That in consequence of this unfair and arbitrary rejection of sleepers, mill owners who had been supplying the said James Leggat with sleepcrs wholly refused to supply any further sleepers, although thcy were at the same time supplying similar sleepers to other contractors for other lines of railways then ill proeess of construction, which were passed and accepted without objection, and your petitioner alleges that such wholesale rejection was wholly unwarranted and could only have arisen from an unrcasonable, unfair, and improper reading of the specification, oj' from personal animosity to the said James Leggat on the part of thc superintending officer. " That by such rejection the said James Leggat was put to delay and useless expense in procuring sleepers t,hat would Satisfy the superintending officer. Your petitioner further alleges that during the execution of_the contract large quantities of material for fencing, ill strict accordance with the specifications were obtnined by the said James Leggat, and although such materials were appro\'ed of and passed by the superintending officer, nevertheless, large portions of the fencing, after its erection by the said James Leggat in strict accordance with the specification and plans, were unfairly and improperly rejected and condemned by the snpcrintending officer and ordered by him to be removed and taken down without ~ny reason whatsoever, thereby causing great and serious loss and damage to the said James Leggat. "That the said Neil MacNeil during thc execution of the said contract, in order 10 supply ballast for the railway, sunk certain trial shafts upon certain land and obi ained stone, which was duly inspected and approved by the superintendiog officer and passed by him as suitable for ballast, that after such inspection and approval Neil .MacNeil erected machinery on the land and crushing machines and opened out a quarry and obtained therefrom large quantities of stone, in every way suitable for ballast, and in accordance with a fair and reasonable interpretation of the contract, yet afterwards and after great outlay had been incur'red on the faith of such approval, and although the superintending officer had inspcctcd and approved of the stone and, although he was constantly on the site of the works and daily saw the quarry and stone produced, unreasonably, vexatiously, and of no cause whatBoever, arbitrarily condemned the ballast and stone obtained from such site, and refused to pasR the same, and by unfairly insisting upon arbitrary conditions, which were not warranted by the terms of tbc contract, in respect to the working of the quarry, he obliged the said James Leggat to abandon and give up the quarry and forced him to' obtain ballast elsewhere under great difficulties and severe and unwarrantable restrictions, causing great addition,,1 expense a~d in consequence of such action on the part of the superintending officer, he was obliged to pay compensation to the owner of the land for surface and other damages done thereto, fllld lose the sum so paid and all moneys cxpcnded in erecting machinery, and was delayed in the execution of the contract to bis great injury. "Your petitioner further alleges that the superiotending officer arbitrarily and, unfairly and contrary to the universal and uniform practice