ROTORUA-TAUPO RAILWAY.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 20832, 26 September 1929, Page 7

ROTORUA-TAUPO RAILWAY.

EVIDENCE BEFORE COMMITTEE. ! : i ;• ■ • «■, SOME, BREEZY INTERLUDES. ’ (Peb Uniteu Press Association.) WELLINGTON, September 25. Mr F. Q.' DalzieUj continuing his evidence, enlarged; bn ’the Totara Timber Company’s policy of ■ making timber pay for transport so' as to help settlement in the pumice country. He urged the committee not to recommend the construction of the railway till it knew the route and the amount it would probably cost. He suggested a consultation (among those interested to arrive at the beat solution, and favoured a committee of experts id preference' to a royal commission. In answer to Mr-; Sample, witness said he did not think the line should be put in. until the Government found it would pay., There phould be a thorough investigation by experts, who should determine the matter. Mr Semple: Surely you have an opinion to offer. Witness: I don’t like to give opinions. I like to rely on facts. f 1 Mr Semples Surely it is quite easy to answer whether you arshin favour of it or not. r 5 kave done so several times. Mr Semple: Are you opposed to the railway or not? That is, a plain uues* tion.

_ Witness: That is not a plain question. You cannot answer that “ Yes " or “ No.” That is a foolish question, and I cannot give a foolish answer. Hie chairman: I understood that he preferred the Holmes’s route to any other, but he did not consider the railway was necessary yet. When it would come he was not prepared to say. Witness: That is the position. The chairman later protested against members of the committee putting leading'vquestions, and said'the witness was entitled to answer as he “liked. Mr Samuel objected to the chairman’s very indiscreet remarks," and to his BU BS es tion that bias had been shown Mr Semple said he had been the first to suggest bias. He had been uuable to get an answer from the witness whether v,ras .(h favour of a railway or not. j , witness beat me. He is a lawyer and has learnt to wriggle.” • - Several members arose amid a clamour. n fsF Jen!kj: 1181 We require the protection nrA^ e chair- i 1 rose to a point of order several others rose. The chairman; I did not see you rise, rou had a perfect right. , ness > replying to Mr Samuel, said he’aid not regard the proposed railway as a ™ b 1 ? 11800 to his company. The inquiry was adjourned till to-mor-