Papers Past | Parliamentary Papers | Appendix to the Journals of the House of Representatives | 1876 Session I | REPORT OF WESTPORT COLLIERY RESERVE COMMISSION,...

Image
Text
Research info
Title and Usage info

A.—3.

1876. NEW ZEALAND.

REPORT OF WESTPORT COLLIERY RESERVE COMMISSION, TOGETHER WITH OTHER DOCUMENTS RELATING THERETO.

Presented lo both Souses of the General Assembly h/ command of Su Excellency.

A.—3

CONTENTS.

I.—Royal Commission, and Extension thereof ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 1-3 II. —Report of the Royal Commission ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 3-9 Schedules ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 10-16 A Form of Lease ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 16b 111. —Order in Council defining portions of "Colliery Reserve "at Weßtport required for Railway purposes ... 16b Schedule ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 17 IV.—Notice to Claimants under Subdivisions 1, 2, and 3—Schedules C and D ... ... ... ... 17 V.—Minutes of Proceedings of Commission ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 18-21 Vl.—Evidence taken before Commission :— Allotted Claims—Class B ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 22-58 Ditto „ ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 66 Old Business License Sections—Class A ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 58-100 Ditto „ ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 104 Wakefield Street Wharf ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 100-101 Insurance Rates ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 101 Henley Street Sections, and formation of Palmerston Street ... ... ... ... ... 101-102 Discussion re production of Mr. Thomas Mackay's Report to Government on "Colliery Reserve" ... 71-72 Ditto ditto ditto ditto ... 83 Ditto ditto ditto ditto ... 103 Documents put in ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 103-104 Unclaimed Sections ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 104 APPENDIX. 1. cobbespohdence ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 105-116 2. Bxjxlee Coal Field :— Evidence of W. M. Cooper ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 116-119 „ R. B. Denniston ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 119-120 „ John Munro... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 120-122 „ John Core ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 122 „ J. B. Pisher ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 122 3. Bfllee Bae and Haebofe :— Eridence of Harbour Master Leech ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 122-125 Sailing Directions, Buller River ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 125 4. Memoeanda re Newcastle, N.S.W. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 125-126 6. Mbmoeanda re Coal Regions oe Ameeica:— The Conditions of Success in the Coal Trade ... ... ... ... ... ... 126-129 ILLUSTRATIONS. Plate I.—Map of Westport, marked A, referred to in page 4. „ lll.—Plan of portions of the "Colliery Reserve" required for Railway purposes, marked C, referred to in page 17. „ IV. —Map and Sections of Buller Coal Field, to illustrate Messrs. Cooper and Denniston's evidence, pages 116-120, marked D l, D 3. „ V.—Map of Buller Harbour and Lagoon, to illustrate Harbour Master Leech's evidence, pages 122-125, marked E. „ Vl.—Fairdown Quarry and Mount Frederick Range, looking N.E. "" „ VII. —Fairdown Quarry and Mount Rochfort, looking E.S.E. „ VHl.—Westport, the Pakihis and Cape Foulwind, looking W.S.W. m .„ ~ „ IX.-Mount Rochfort Plateau, Mount William, and Paparoa Range tTo &»**» esß^- C °°P« ™* Dennisfrom Mount Frederick, looking S.W. by S. tou 8 ™*e™> P*g<* 116-120. „ X.—Rocks Point, Mount Frederick Plateau and Lyell Range, looking N.N.E.

A.-o

1876. NEW ZEALAND.

WESTPORT COLLIERY RESERVE COMMISSION, (REPORT OF, AND OTHER DOCUMENTS RELATING THERETO.)

Presented to loth Houses of the General Assembly by Command of His Excellency.

I.—Royal Commission, and Extension thereof. (1.5.) Normanby, Governor. To all to whom these Presents shall come; and to Thomas Shailer Weston, Esquire, of Hokitika, in the Province of Westland, a Judge of the District Court; and Richmond Beetham, Esquire, of Queenstown, in the Province of Otago, Resident Magistrate, Greeting:— Whereas in the late sitting of the General Assembly, held in Wellington, in New Zealand, a Committee of the House of Representatives was, on or about the eighth day of October last past, appointed to inquire into and report upon certain matters connected with the Colliery Reserve at Westport: And whereas, on or about the fifteenth day of the said month of October, the said Committee reported (amongst other things) as follows : —" 1. A Royal Commission to be appointed to inquire into the whole circumstances on the spot: 2. To report fully what claims or liabilities are in existence upon the Reserve, whether legal or equitable : 3. To report also whether the original character of the claims or liabilities has been changed or modified by subsequent action of the Legislature, the Colonial or Provincial Government, or of the parties themselves : 4. To recommend explicitly in what way each such claim or liability, or each class of such claims or liabilities, should be dealt with, in accordance with justice to the individuals concerned and to the interests of the Colony : " And whereas by a Resolution of the said House of Representatives, passed on or about the said fifteenth day of October, the said Report was adopted by the said House of Representatives: And whereas it is expedient that effect should be given to the said Report, and that a Commission should be appointed for the purposes in the said Report mentioned, and to make inquiry therein, and in the several matters and things herein set forth, in the manner hereinafter provided: Now therefore, know ye that I, George Augustus Constantine, Marquis of Normanby, the Governor of the Colony of New Zealand, having full trust and confidence in your impartiality, ability, and integrity, in pursuance and exercise of all powers and authorities enabling me in this behalf, and by and with the advice and consent of the Executive Council of the said Colony, do hereby appoint you, the said Thomas Shailer Weston and PulChmond Beetham, to be Commissioners, by all lawful ways and means, and subject to the terms of these presents, to examine and inquire into the several matters and things hereinafter set forth, that is to say —Eirst, To inquire into and ascertain for what purposes and in what manner and by what authority the lands situate at or near Westport, in the Province of Nelson, known as " The Colliery Reserve," were originally set apart and reserved for the purposes of such Colliery Reserve, or for any other and what purposes, and whether the purposes of the said reserve have been in any manner changed or affected, and, if so, by what autbority or for what purpose or purposes. Second, To ascertain what claims and I—A. 3.

A.—3

liabilities are in existence in respect of or upon the said reserve, or any part thereof, whether of a legal or equitable nature, and whether affecting public interests or the interests of private persons. Third, To inquire and ascertain whether the original character of such claims or liabilities has at any time, and if so at what time, been changed or modified by the Legislature of the Colony or of the Province of Nelson, or by the Government of the Colony or of the Province respectively, or by or through the action of any person or persons claiming any interest of a private nature in the said reserve or any part thereof. Eourth, To consider of and report upon the expediency or otherwise of certain proposals made by the General Government of the Colony to permanently utilize the said reserve as a security on behalf of the Colony, under the authority of any Act of the General Assembly affecting the said Colliery Reserve, or any part thereof. And also to consider of and report upon the proposals of the said Government respecting the settlement of certain alleged claims made by persons in occupation of certain parts of the said reserve; and to recommend in what way each such claim or each class of such claims should be settled and disposed of, and whether in accordance with such proposals as aforesaid, or otherwise in respect of the premises as you may think fit and expedient to recommend. And generally in the premises, and by all lawful ways and means, and subject as aforesaid, to examine and inquire into every matter and thing touching and concerning the premises, in such manner and at such time or times, at or near to the Town of Westport aforesaid, as you shall deem expedient, but so that at least seven days' notice shall be given, within which all and every persons or person having or alleging that they or he have or has claims or a claim to occupy the said reserve, or are or is entitled to compensation for any interest therein, or in any part thereof, taken or proposed to be taken for the purposes of the railway from Mount Rochfort Coal Eields to Westport or otherwise, in respect thereof shall be enabled to lodge their claims with you at such place as you may appoint. And further, that before you proceed to the investigation of such claims or any of them, that at least two days' notice be given by you of the day, time, and place on and at which such inquiry shall be held : Provided that any such inquiry may be adjourned by you from time to time, or from place to place, but so that no such adjournment shall be for a longer period than three days at any one time, nor to any place more than five miles from the Town of Westport; and I do hereby authorize and empower you to give any such notice or notices as aforesaid by advertisement in some newspaper published in Westport aforesaid, or in such other way as you shall judge expedient; and also to have before you and examine all books, papers, maps, plans, documents, and writings whatsoever, which you shall judge necessary or expedient relating to the subject-matter of this inquiry or any part thereof; and also to have before you and examine on oath or otherwise as may be allowed by law all witnesses or other person or persons (whether claimants or otherwise) whom you shall judge capable of affording you any information touching or concerning the premises: And Ido further require you, within two calendar months from the date of these presents, or as much sooner as the same can conveniently be done (using all diligence), to certify to me under your hands and seals your several proceedings and your opinion touching the premises: And Ido hereby declare that this Commission shall continue in full force and virtue, and that, subject to these presents, you the said Commissioners shall and may from time to time proceed in the execution thereof at such place or places and at such time or times as aforesaid as you shall judge convenient: And lastly, I do hereby declare that this Commission is and is intended to be issued subject to the provisions of "The Commissioners Powers Act, 1867," and "The Commissioners Powers Act Amendment Act, 1872." Given under the hand of His Excellency the Most Honorable George Augustus Constantine, Marquis of Normanby, Earl of Mulgrave, Viscount Normanby, and Baron Mulgrave of Mulgrave, all in the County of York, in the Peerage of the United Kingdom, and Baron Mulgrave of New Ross, in the County of Wexford, in the Peerage of Ireland, a Member of Her Majesty's Most Honorable Privy Council; Knight Commander of the Most Distinguished Order of

A.—3

Saint Michael and Saint George, Governor and Commander-in-Chief in and over Her Majesty's Colony of New Zealand and its Dependencies and Vice-Admiral of the same; at the Government House at Wellington, this third day of November, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and seventy-five; and issued under the Seal of the said Colony. Daniel Pollen. Approved in Council. Eorster Goring, Clerk of the Executive Council.

(1.5.) Normanby, Governor. To Thomas Shailer Weston, Esquire, District Judge, and to Richmond Beetham, Esquire, Resident Magistrate, Greeting:— Whereas by a certain instrument, in writing or Commission bearing date the third day of November last past, issued under the Seal of the Colony of New Zealand, you the said Thomas Shailer Weston and Richmond Beetham were appointed to be Commissioners for the purposes and with the powers and authorities in the said letters patent more particularly mentioned : And whereas by the said Commission you were directed and required to report to the Governor of the Colony of New Zealand your proceedings and your opinion touching the matters mentioned therein within two calendar months from the date of the said Commission : And whereas it is expedient that the said period should be extended as hereinafter provided : Now, therefore, I, George Augustus Constantine, Marquis of Normanby, the Governor of the Colony of New Zealand, by and with the advice of the Executive Council of the said colony, and in exercise and pursuance of every power and authority enabling me in this behalf, do hereby extend the period within which you shall (using all diligence) report to me, as by the said Commission provided, to three calendar months from the date thereof; and with the like advice and consent, and in further pursuance and exercise of the said power and authority, I do hereby confirm the said Commission except as altered by these presents. Given under the hand of His Excellency the Most Honorable George Augustus Constantine, Marquis of Normanby, Earl of Mulgrave, Viscount Normanby, and Baron Mulgrave of Mulgrave, all in the County of York, in the Peerage of the United Kingdom; and Baron Mulgrave of New Ross, in the County of Wexford, in the Peerage of Ireland; a Member of Her Majesty's Most Honorable Privy Council; Knight Commander of the Most Distinguished Order of Saint Michael and Saint George; Governor and Com-mander-in-Chief in and over Her Majesty's Colony of New Zealand and its Dependencies, and Vice-Admiral of the same; at the Government House at Wellington, this fourteenth day of December, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and seventyfive ; and issued under the Seal of the said Colony. Approved in Council. Daniel Pollen. Eorster Goring, Clerk of the Executive Council.

ll.—Report of the Royal Commission on the Westport Colliery Reserve. To His Excellency the Most Noble the Marquis of Normanby, P. 0., K.C.M.G., Governor of New Zealand. May it please your Excellency,— Upon the receipt of your Excellency's Commission of the 3rd day of November last, and in exercise of the powers which your Excellency was pleased to confer upon us thereby, —by notice published in the General Government

A.—3

Gazette, the Gazette of the Provincial Government of Nelson, and the several newspapers on the West Coast of the Middle Island, we called upon all persons who claimed to occupy the whole or any part of the land known as the " Colliery Reserve," or who sought compensation for any interest therein, or in any part proposed to be taken for the purposes of the railway from Mount Rochfort Coal Eield to Westport, to lodge their claims with us upon a day mentioned; and we appointed the 27th of that month to take and receive evidence in support of the same. Three hundred and fourteen claims were preferred, which, for the sake of convenience, were divided by us into four classes—A, B, C, and D. Each of these has been again subdivided into four sections. ( Vide Schedules at end of Report.) The goodwill of the allotments comprised in classes A and B, with the buildings and improvements thereon, were valued at £42,957, whilst the allotments and improvements included in C and D have been estimated at £10,522, or a grand total of £53,479. Realizing the fact that extensive private interests and a valuable public estate might be alike either prejudicially or beneficially affected by the result of the inquiry we were invited, by your Excellency to institute, we determined to conduct the proceedings in the most open and public manner, and assented to hear counsel on behalf of the claimants. The Commission, which was formally opened on Saturday, the 27th of November, reassembled for the transaction of business on the 29th of the same month, and sat continuously in the Court House at Westport for the reception of evidence until the 18th of December last. Mr. Thomas Mackay appeared to represent the Crown; Mr. J. B. Eisher and Mr. Haselden, Barristers, attended as counsel for a large proportion of the claimants ; whilst the remainder of the applicants were unrepresented. It is in our opinion unnecessary to trouble your Excellency with the miniitice connected with the inquiry : suffice it for us to inform your Excellency that, out of the entire number of claimants, 312 appeared with their witnesses, and were heard at length without reference to the rules or law of evidence. That, to enable us to satisfactorily report upon the matter committed to us, we elicited evidence upon {inter alia) the following subjects :— 1. The condition of trade in Westport in the past, and at the present time. 2. The past and present returns, together with the future prospects of the alluvial gold fields in this district. 3. The nature and extent of the communication between the Reefton Gold Eield, Greymouth, and Westport respectively, and the ability of the last-mentioned town to compete satisfactorily with Greymouth for the trade of such inland gold field. 4. The coal resources of the district; the probabilities and estimated cost of time, labour, and capital for their development, and the market likely to be obtained for such fuel. 5. The character and accommodation of the port and the Buller River, and the utility, extent, and probable cost of protective works required thereat. Upon the first point submitted to us by your Excellency, we have the honor to report as follows :— That the Hon. J. C. Richmond held the office of Commissioner of Crown Lands for the Province of Nelson from the 21st day of November, 1862, to the 31st day of January, 1865. That upon the original plan of the town of Westport, prepared in the Survey Office, Nelson, Mr. Richmond wrote over the parcel of land now called the Colliery Reserve the words " Reserve for a public quay and for a colliery depdt;" but, in the absence of that gentleman in England, it is impossible to accurately fix the date of such notation. A certified copy of that plan, marked A, is annexed hereto, and signed by John Gully, the chief draftsman in the Survey Office, Nelson. It is certain that Mr. Richmond, as Commissioner, had no inherent right to make reserves, and that during the interval above mentioned reserves "for purposes of public utility" could only have been created under the Nelson Waste Lands Act of 1858, read with "The Waste Lands Act, 1858," or under "The Nelson Waste Lands Act, 1863," subsequent to the passing thereof. It is evident that the Governor in Council did not reserve the land in question under the 12th section of the secondly-mentioned Act. There is no evidence to show, or to lead the most credulous to suppose, that the Waste Lands Board, acting

A.—3

under the Nelson Waste Lands Act of 1858, set apart the premises mentioned as a reserve; and it is equally certain that, during Mr. Richmond's term of office, the Waste Lands Board did not, under the Act of 1863, "by resolution published in the Gazette, reserve the said land" for any purpose whatsoever. Under such circumstances, we venture to declare Mr. Richmond's act to have been ultra vires. It is difficult to believe that the provincial authorities of Nelson could have relied upon the action taken by Mr. Richmond; inasmuch as on the 3rd September, 1866, His Honor the Superintendent, acting as the delegate of His Excellency the Governor, by Proclamation included the so-called reserve in the Nelson South-West Gold Eields. Again, the same officer, by another Proclamation of the Bth June, 186S, whilst revoking that lastly mentioned, embraced within the new limits of the gold field inter alia the unsurveyed portion of the reserve tinted pink on the map annexed, together with that tinted green, then subdivided into town sections, and held by business licensees under the Gold Eields Act. However, on the Bth Eebruary, 1872, the Nelson Waste Lands Board proclaimed the whole of the "so-called Colliery Reserve" a reserve for "public utility;" and the question then arises whether, assuming that the land had not been already dedicated by Mr. Richmond, and under the circumstances already detailed, the Board was capable of dealing with it. The Gold Eields Acts of this colony are numerous; many of their provisions are incongruous and frequently incomprehensible; but, notwithstanding the ambiguity with which section 48 of the Act of 1866 is clothed, we are of opinion that at the period mentioned it was necessary to withdraw from a gold field land included therein before it could be " dealt with, sold, occupied, and disposed of," and that the Waste Lands Board had no power to reserve, but could simply enjoy, after reservations made, such rights in respect of the land so appropriated as their Lands Act might confer upon them. Upon that construction of the section referred to, we have no alternative but to pronounce the dedication of 1872 invalid. Taking the invalidity of the acts of Mr. Richmond and the Nelson Waste Lands Board as our hypotheses, we are constrained to treat as irregular the Proclamation of His Excellency the Governor, dated the 26th December, 1872, which declared that the " Reserve" should cease to form part of the " Crown lands," and therefore be no longer available for occupation as a gold field. That Proclamation professes to be made under the sth section of the Gold Eields Act of 1868, and was passed upon the sole, and, as we contend, incorrect, assumption that Mr. Richmond's act was legal: it must be restricted to that, even if the validity of the proceedings of the Nelson Waste Lands Board in 1872 could be conceded, inasmuch as the section under notice can, in our opinion, operate only against land " declared set apart or applied " prior to the passing of that Act. Whether action taken by the Governor in Council under section 10 of the Act of 1866 would be tantamount to a withdrawal of land from a gold field, it is unnecessary to advise : suffice it for us to express the opinion that the Proclamation of December, 1872, was not made under, neither can it be read with, the section mentioned. If the argument just advanced is sound, it must follow, we apprehend, that at the passing of " The Railways Act, 1874," the land coloured pink and green was, to all intents, a portion of the Nelson South-West Gold Eields. Whether "The Railways Act, 1874," and your Excellency's Proclamation of the 19th April, 1875, read therewith, or " The Immigration and Public Works Act, 1875," have or has removed the whole of the Reserve from the operation of the Gold Eields Act, and has enabled the colony to deal with both parcels of land for the purposes mentioned therein respectively, it is, we deferentially suggest, the province of the Law Officers of the Crown to advise your Excellency. It is, we conceive, enough for us, upon the facts elicited during the progress of this inquiry, to inform your Excellency that the notation by the Hon. Mr. Richmond and the acts of the Nelson Waste Lands Board in 1872 (although irregular), the declarations and conduct of the Provincial Government and their officers, together

A.—3

with the representations made by them to the occupants of the Reserve, are, in our opinion, sufficient to warrant us in pronouncing that the land comprised therein was always intended to be, and that your Excellency's Government would be perfectly justified in taking all necessary measures to have it utilized as " a reserve for a public quay and for a colliery depot;" and inasmuch as without a railway from Westport to the Mount Rochfort Coal Eield a coal depot would be useless, and the trade in such town would languish and probably die, we recommend that the " Reserve " should be held as a security for the whole or any portion of such railway, and be treated in manner prescribed by "The Immigration and Public Works Act, 1875," sections 23 to 28, both inclusive. Before dealing with the claims preferred against the Reserve, it will be, we apprehend, necessary to refer your Excellency to a few of the circumstances under which it was used and allotted. During the years 1871, 1872, and 1873, serious encroachments were made upon the town of Westport by the sea and the Buller River when flooded; a considerable area was entirely submerged, much was placed in jeopardy, and the loss to its occupants was, in many cases, considerable. Early in Eebruary, 1872, a number of the settlers, who either had been, or who expected to be, washed out, waited upon his Honor the Superintendent of Nelson, who happened to be at Westport, and requested to be supplied with land in lieu of that so sacrificed or likely to be lost. After such request had been discussed by the Provincial Council in May and June of that year, Mr. John Sharp proceeded to Westport to deal with some portion of the Colliery Reserve in terms of the Resolution No. 2 passed by such Parliament. ( Fide the Journals of the Proceedings of the Provincial Council, Nelson, 1872.) Mr. Commissioner Sharp, by advertisement in the Westport Times, called upon persons who had preferred claims to attend at the Court House at Westport upon the 12th July to draw lots for order of choice, and to select their sections out of that portion of the reserve coloured pink on the plan annexed, marked B. Accordingly, 98 sections were so selected and allotted. No rent or tenure appears to have been fixed; but as a fee of £5 was paid to December, 1872, we are left to conjecture that the occupation was to be similar to that acquired by virtue of a business license. Erom a speech made by Mr. Sharp at a public meeting, published in the Westport Times of July, 187^, it would appear he stipulated that buildings to the value of £50 should be erected upon the allotments so taken up. He is reported to have said: " A " liberal construction would be placed upon the restriction that building should " be commenced within ' six months of the time of entering upon occupation of " sections.' Probably it would reckon from the time approaches were finished to " the sites." In 1873 more land was required for other sufferers ; and after the Provincial Council of Nelson had been again appealed to (vide Proceedings of that body for 1873), Messrs. Giles and Dobson allotted 66 sections; and subsequently the Municipal Corporation of Westport appropriated 14 more. It must, we think, be assumed that the terms and conditions attached to the last two allotments were intended to be identical with those prescribed by Mr. Sharp. It was proved to us that Mr. Warden Giles inserted in the Westport Times the following advertisement:— Collieet Reseete, Westpoet. It is notified for general information that a rent of £5 per annum will be charged for the occupation of each allotment on the Colliery Reserve. It is the intention of the Provincial Government to apply to the Council for power to grant leases for fourteen years to those persons who shall have built on their allotments before the 31st December next, occupation until that date being allowed on payment of £5. P.S. —Parties holding business licenses which expire during the current year will be allowed to reckon the value of such licenses as part of the rent to be paid in proportion to the time they have to run. Joseph Giles, Westport, 31st January, 1373. Warden. Many of the claimants admitted to us then knowledge, whilst others asserted their ignorance of the alleged conditions referred to by Mr. Sharp at the public

A.-3

meeting; but the occupiers of the allotments, by asking the Superintendent for a reduction in the rent, and for the term of years mentioned for the first time in Dr. Giles's notice, must, we think, be taken to have accepted the terms thereof; and we are of opinion not only that Mr. Sharp made the building stipulation, but that it was known to and accepted by the allottees, that Dr. Giles's notice had reference thereto, and that, to insure the bond fide use and occupation of the allotments taken up, it was fair and equitable, and should have been respected. On the 24th Eebruary, 1873, his Honor the Superintendent attended a public meeting at Westport, called with a view to obtaining a modification of the terms which, in our opinion, were made upon the allocation of the sections. His Honor is stated to have delivered himself upon that point as follows : — " In settling the terms upon which such sections should be held, the Pro- " vincial Council had determined to withdraw the Colliery Reserve from the gold " fields, and proposed that the same rate of payments heretofore made under " bnsiness license, namely £5 per annum, should be continued under lease. But " since coming to Westport he had found that, owing to the necessity of removal " of buildings, the inhabitants looked upon the proposed rate of £5 per year, for " 14 years, as far too much, and after fully considering the subject he was now " inclined to agree with them, and he would suggest that, instead of asking them " to sign leases for 14 years, at a rental of £5 per year, the terms might be £1 per " annum for the first two years, £2 10s. per annum for the next five years, and " £5 per annum for the last seven years, thus making the burden lightest when " difficulties were most pressing." The original occupiers of the land coloured green located themselves under business licenses, and for a time paid the usual licensing fee. Eventually, however, they relinquished the privileges acquired under the Gold Eields Act, and claimed to be, and indeed they were admitted to hold as, tenants in terms of the Superintendent's promises. It was proved to our satisfaction that, whilst in many instances the allottees have not performed the conditions imposed by Mr. Sharp, the Provincial Goverment of Nelson have made no effort to fulfil the promises made by the Superintendent in 1873. At the instance of Mr. Commissioner Mackay, the Receiver of Land Revenue refused to receive rents for the said allotments subsequent to November, 1874. Your Excellency will perceive, by referring to Schedules A and B, that a number of each class have built and paid rent, that others have built and yet have not paid rent, and vice versa, whilst many have not complied with either condition. Upon the premises just disclosed, we respectfully submit to your Excellency that neither of the claimants have any legal or equitable right against the General Government of this colony, inasmuch as, by nonpayment of the business license fee, some virtually abandoned, whilst others never availed themselves of the provisions of the Gold Fields Acts, and there is no evidence of the creation of any other tenure. The claimants comprised in the first three categories of each class are entitled to relief at the hands of the Provincial Government of Nelson, and we commend them to your Excellency's favourable consideration; but the claims mentioned in the last subsection of B should be discarded. The original occupants of the allotments pink and green were alike injudicious, the former for not taking up and holding under business licenses, the latter for abandoning a position acquired under the Gold Eields Acts. At the same time we conceive they were justified in assuming that the Provincial Government would invoke the aid of His Excellency the Governor, and the Provincial Council of Nelson, to enable them to respect an agreement so easy of performance, and upon the faith of which people when in extremis were induced to expend both labour and capital. Such of the claimants in each class and subdivision thereof as hold under derivative titles should be, we conceive, permitted to stand in loco the original allottee and business licensee. To direct otherwise would be to inflict injury upon many who have acted up to the letter of Mr. Sharp's conditions. Some of the business licensees, who, in anticipation of being washed out, succeeded in obtaining fresh allotments in the land coloured pink, have sold the com-

A.—3

pensation sections, yet retain and occupy the original selection. Those cases should be, we think, specially dealt with. At an early stage of the inquiry it became obvious that the nature and extent of the relief which we might thereafter respectively recommend must be governed to a great extent by the present condition and future prospects of this district. It must be admitted, we think, that the buildings erected upon the reserve are, with some exceptions, flimsily constructed, indifferently finished, likely soon to decay, and are in value greatly overrated. It was admitted by the claimants that, as a consequence of the diminution in the yield of gold from the alluvial gold fields, the present inability of Westport to compete satisfactorily with Greymouth for the Reefton trade, the cessation of public works and consequent public expenditure, together with the limited area of open and available land in the district, trade had become stagnant, and the value of town property was reduced to a low ebb; so the condition of the future would entirely depend upon the development of the vast mineral resources of the country, the removal of snags from the bed of the Buller River, an improvement in the communication with the Reefton Gold Eield both by land and water, the construction of protective and other harbour works, and a railway between the town of Westport and the Mount Rochfort Coal Eield. The uncertainty of an influx of miners to prospect and work the alluvial gold fields, and the limited operations upon the coal field, were conceded. It must have been apparent to all that, even assuming your Excellency's Government were prepared to proceed with the public works referred to, and to assist in developing the coal mines, the expenditure of large capital would be necessary to produce and insure a constant supply of coal; a considerable period of time would be required, not only therefor,. but to secure one or more markets, and in overcoming prejudices which shipowners and masters would entertain towards a new, and, comparatively speaking, an unknown port. Whether it would be advisable for the colony to undertake such works, and to aid in coal mining operations, we do not presume to offer an opinion : it is enough for us to lay before your Excellency the copious, interesting, and certainly most valuable evidence we have elicited from witnesses, books, and other sources upon the subjects referred to, in the belief that it will be used by your Excellency's Government to the advantage of the people of this district, and of the colony at large. Taking into consideration the present condition of Westport, and the improbability of substantial traders and others entering into improvement and restrictive clauses, which a long lease of town property should contain, we are of opinion that, with the sanction of your Excellency, a lease for a reasonable term, at a nominal rental and upon easy conditions, should be granted to the claimants, so that, whilst they will receive consideration at the hands of the Government, the colony will, at no very distant period, be able to derive from the Reserve a revenue commensurate with the value which possibly will then be created by the outlay in the neighbourhood in the meantime of large sums of public money. We therefore beg to suggest to your Excellency, — 1. That, upon payment of all arrears of rent at the rate of £1 per annum, the claimants whose names are included in the first and second subdivisions of A and B respectively should be permitted to receive for the allotments claimed by them respectively a lease, in the form appended hereto, for the period of seven years, to be computed from the Ist day of January, 1876, at the yearly rent of £5 per annum, payable half-yearly clear of all rates and taxes. 2. That upon the erection, by the claimants comprised in subdivision 3 of each such class, prior to the Ist day of July next, of an approved building of the value of £50 upon the allotments claimed by them respectively, and upon payment of all arrears of rent at the rate of £1 per annum, they also might be permitted to receive a lease for the term, at the rental, in manner, and upon the conditions referred to in the last preceding paragraph. Provided always that the claimants against whose names we have written our initials shall not be entitled to receive a lease prior to the payment to your

A.—3

Excellency's Government of the amounts received by them upon the sale of the allotments granted to them respectively in anticipation of the submersion of the allotments for which they now respectively claim. 3. We make no recommendation for relief to such of the claimants as are included in subdivision 4 of each of said classes. We have bestowed much anxious consideration upon the claims for compensation of the sections mentioned in Schedules C and D, taken or proposed to be taken for railway and other purposes, and have the honor to recommend as follows :— 1. That those included in subdivisions 1 and 2 of classes C and D should be permitted to receive from the Crown an allotment upon the said reserve, and to remove thereto, prior to the first day of June next, the buildings erected upon the several allotments so required for railway and other purposes, and upon the re-erection of such buildings they shall be respectively entitled to the sums set against their respective names in our estimate "of the expense of the removal" thereof, and to receive a lease of their selection for the term, at the rate, and according to the conditions already mentioned. 2. That those included in subdivision 3 of each class should be allowed to receive from the Crown an allotment upon the said reserve, and upon the erection, prior to the first day of July next, of a building to the value of £50, to receive a lease of the same from the date, for the term, at the rate, and upon the conditions hereinbefore mentioned. 3. That the claims of subdivision 4 of each of such classes we advise should be expunged. We further recommend that the claimants under subdivisions 1, 2, and 3 of Schedules C and D be permitted to choose their allotments from the unoccupied ground in the reserve, at the Court House at Westport, on the first day of April next, at noon, according to the order shown in the exhibit marked " Order of Choice of New Sections." We beg to call your Excellency's attention to the evidence upon the special topics descanted upon by us in this Report, supplied by — Mr. Andrews, Manager, Bank of New Mr. Jones, Manager, Bank New South Zealand; Wales; Mr. Cooper, Topographical Surveyor; Mr. Leech, Harbour Master; Mr. Denniston, Coal Viewer ; Mr. Munson, Stationer; Mr. Dobson, Engineer, Public Works ; Mr. Munro, Auctioneer; Mr. Eield, Merchant; Mr. Powell, Merchant; Mr. Graves, Linendraper; Mr. Riley, Mariner; Mr. Hughes, Publican; Mr. Sheehan, Publican ; Mr. Humphrey, Merchant; and also to the valuable testimony furnished by Mr. Warden Giles upon the first point submitted to us by your Excellency. Appended hereto is an Index of Contents, together with a Schedule of the papers and documents relied upon at the hearing of the claims. The profession more than once referred in flattering terms to the great ability evinced by Mr. Mackay, the representative of the Crown, at the inquiry now being brought to. a close. That great research and learning were displayed by that gentleman in the compilation of the report handed to the Hon. the Minister for Public Works, and in the conduct of the investigation, must have been apparent to those who have read the one and who have witnessed the other; and we are free to admit that the Commission —lengthy and tedious at the best —must without his aid have been more protracted, and probably less satisfactory in its results. Given under our hands and sealed with our seals at Westport, this eleventh day of January, A.D. 1876. Thos. S. Weston. (1.5.) Richmond Beetham. (1.5.) Approved. Normanby. 2—A. 3.

A.—3.

UNALLOTTED SECTIONS.—CLASS A. SCHEDULE I. Showing Sections which have been built upon, and upon which Rent has been paid.

SCHEDULE 11. Showing Sections that have been built upon, but upon which no Rent has been paid.

N To. of lection. Street. Frontage in Feet. Depth in Feet. Name"of Claimant. His Valuation. 51 52 53 70 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 81 82 83 84* 113 119 120 125 128 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 138 149 152 152 153 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 173 174t 192 Bright Lyttelton . ji • • • .> * * 5) ,, . 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 17 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 15 67* 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 36 66 66 66 821 821 821 S2i 82* 82| 82 821 821 82* 82i 82i 82i 49-. 66 66 70 70 82-', 82i 821 821 82* 821 821821 821 33 33 821 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 George M. Clark Jules Simon John Corr Timothy Sheahan ;> )) £ s. d. 400 0 0 80 0 C 30 0 0 70 0 C 200 0 0 500 0 C 215 0 0 900 0 C 200 0 0 512 10 C 200 0 0 200 0 C 150 0 0 ,, . . >> >> JJ ,) )> J) ' * Cobden Anthony Horn Timothy Sheahan it * .» • * • >> ,, . . „ [T.S.W.,R.B.] . AVallabi . Wharf . Reid and Tyrrell John Corr )> » AV. S. Munday . John Lindley . ) J 580 0 0 40 0 0 Cobden James Powell . ,, . . . ,, . . . Timothy Sheahan Catherine O'Grady Thomas Field . 30" 0 0 80 0 C 33 ,, . 1,000 0 0 „ . j? j? • ,, . . . Nelson 3) 33 ' * Graves and Fleming 475 O 0 ,, . . . „ . . 33 Palmerston, Southern Side „ . 33 J. Powell B. E. Oxner . Robert Hicks . Anne AVebster . AVilliam Lloyd . Richard Rowlands Henry Stannard John Hughes . 33 33 3 50 0 0 150 0 0 200 0 0 100 0 0 380 0 0 600 0 0 170 0 0 33 51 33 ' * 33 2,100 0 0 33 810 0 0 260 0 0 400 0 0 225 0 0 170 0 0 ,, . ■ • 33 33 * ,, . ,, . 33 ,' 37 ' * Smith and Barkley Job L. Munson Bailie and Humphrey . James AVeston John AVard James AVeston . 33 33 Henley * J. _!orr shoi t Tl ;laimaut Corr was allotted frfr this sectio uld refund to the Government the lie lease for section 174 not to bi for this section) the amount, £39, in 156b, win > sum of £15 ie issued un , agreed upo ich he sold to T. G. McCarthy for £15. It is r. i before he is entitled to receive a lease for section 8itil Ward has become legally bound to pay to Jc in between them. icommended thai t. )hn Hughes (thi

44 45 - 46 ] 47 48 49 50 51a EM 55 56 ! 57! Bright-street .j 3> >5 )) )> 88 88 88 83 88 88 83 83 83 38 33 33 82-1 66 82* 821 821 82* 66 66 66 66 66 66 George Jervis . Job L. Munson William Wignall Reuben Carne . E. A. Labatt AVilliam Lloyd . George M. Clark 80 240 120 40 120 100 200 205 120 200 30 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 J5 Palmerston Lyttelton 73 Mary A. Sullivan John Munro Donald Campbell Alexander Scott .j .. 3)

A.—3.

SCHEDULE 111. Showing Sections which have not been built upon, but upon which Rent has been paid. Nil.

SCHEDULE IV. Showing Sections which have not been built upon, and upon which Rent has not been paid. Nil.

No. of Section. Street. Frontage in Feet. Depth in Feet. , Name of Claimant. His Valuation. i 58 Lyttelton . 59 67 „ . 68 „ 71 33 33 33 33 33 66 66 66 66 821 G. Jervis and Walter Bull Anne Webster . William Evans . £ a. d. 180 0 0 108 0 0 ,, . . . Robert McFarlane Alfred Smith, as Trustee for Jane Brown j E. J. O'Conor . J. R. Frazer Walter Bull . 640 0 0 SO Cobden . 33 821 J 85 94 BZennedv . 95. „ 96 | „ 97 ! AVallabi . 98 „ . ' . 99 ! „ 101 | 102 j 103 i „ . 104 ;„ . 110 j Bright* [T.S.W., R.B.] . 110 AVallabif [T.S.AV., R.B.] . 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 82* 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 49* 49* 33 ... Jules Simon J. A. G. Vinal . Hooper and Dodson Julius Kelpe Walter Bull George Jervis . 180 0 0 30 0 0 30 0 0 65 0 0 300 0 0 80 0 0 150 0 0 50 0 0 100 0 0 150 0 0 150 0 0 Ill „ . . . 111 Bright 112 Bright 112 AVallabi . 113 Bright 114 Wallabi . 114 I Bright ... 11!5 ("Wallabi . 118, (.Bright . 115 Bright 116 Palmerston 117 „ 118 „ 121 AVharf . 122 „ 123 124 Cobden . 127 „ . . . 134 Nelson 135 „ . . . 136 „ 137 ...... 139 ,, 150 ...... 151 ,, 154 Pakington. 156 „ . . . 161 Palmerston 172 „ . . . 175 Pakington. 176 „ 155 „ 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 3 30 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 16 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 64 $ 35 49* 491 491 491 49* 66 99 33 66 66 66 66 66 66 821 82* 82* 821 82* 82* 82-1 82* 82* 821 821 66 66 66 66 . 821 33 ... Michael Organ . Sarah E. Balston Committee of the United Me- ) thodist Free Church j P. G. Bruen . James G. Hay . Jules Simon James G. Hay . Jules Simon Norris Blaxall . ;: : : } Stitt Brothers . Jules Simon AVilliam Patterson Stitt Brothers . J. B. McConnell E. J. O'Conor . John Martin George Low Thomas H. Dickenson . Joseph Shelly . J. B. Fisher . E. Gothard . . J. Barringer Alexander Scott Reuben Carne . Thomas Mansell J. Barringer Walter Bull . John Terry Michael Organ . Rebecca Smith . 30 0 0 240 0 0 70 0 0 60 0 0 45 0 0 95 0 0 100 0 0 100 0 0 80 0 0 150 0 0 360 0 0 30 0 0 200 0 0 45 0 0 70 0 0 20 0 0 400 0 0 190 0 0 140 0 0 70 0 0 90 0 0 150 0 0 140 0 0 90 0 0 240 0 0 300 0 0 170 0 0 45 0 0 80 0 0 33 Reuben Carne . * Michael Organ sold his moiety of al 'efund the sum of £3 to the Government t t Sarah Balston sold her interest in all should refund to the Government the sum lotted section 195b to Sarah Balston, for £3. It is recommended that he should >efore he is entitled to receive a lease for section 110. lotted section 195b to James McGavin, for £15. It is recommended that she of £15 before she is entitled to receive a lease for her moiety of section 110a.

A.—3.

ALLOTTED SECTIONS.—CLASS B. SCHEDULE I. Showing Sections which have been built upon, and upon which Rent has been paid.

No. of Section. Street. Frontage in Feet. Depth in Feet. Name of Claimant. His Valuation. W. M. Cooper George Caruthers W. S. Munday James S. Suisted } } £ s. d. 210 0 0 3 4 5 17 24 25 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 59 60 61 62 63 67 68 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 77 77 78 79 80 82 86 89 93 93 98 99 100 106 110 123 123 124 125 136 140 142 143 144 146 155 156 184 186 187 188 191 192 122 Rintoul 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 21 12 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 16-1 161 33 33 33 33 33 33 16* 16* 33 33 33 33 33 45 54 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 132 132 132 99 99 99 132 132 132 132 132 99 99 99 99 99 99 132 132 132 132 132 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 132 132 33 33 99 99 132 132 132 132 132 132 99 99 132 132 132 132 99 99 99 33 ' • 285 0 0 „ . . . 200 0 0 350 0 0 300 0 0 280 0 0 33 ' 33 ' • 33 • • Palmerston 33 AVilliam Mailer Bailie and Humphrey . 5 33 ■ * 750 0 0 33 33 33 • • 33 Gilmer Brothers Wakefield 33 2,500 0 0 „ 33 Bank of New Zealand . 800 0 0 J» JJ • * JJ • • JJ * Palmerston j. * • j» * • » * • » »» JJ • • Jj • " jj • « Jj • • JJ • • JJ ■ • JJ * • jj jj 3) Bank of New South Wales Felix West Catherine O' Grady Frederick White Frank Sontgen . Hugh Neil Job L. Munson. Edmund Roche. James G. Hay . Agenore Dupuis John Coffey Robert AVhyte . Thomas Field . 33 • Job L. Munson. James Powell . 73 John Blacklock. AVilliam Carpenter Hooper and Dodson C. G. Andrews . Reid and Company Emma Petersen Rebecca Smith . John Derungs . AVilliam McElwee G. Gilbertson . John Corr AVilliam Struthers 33 Thomas Jephcoate Robert Stewart Job L. Munson Reid and Company A. McLeod 5 j j 120 0 0 720 0 0 550 0 0 400 0 0 300 0 0 520 0 0 600 0 0 450 0 0 230 0 0 250 0 0 320 0 0 540 0 0 400 0 0 300 0 0 860 0 0 110 0 0 300 0 0 300 0 0 JJ • * JJ JJ * * JJ 600 0 0 250 0 0 330 0 0 180 0 0 30 0 0 100 0 0 300 0 0 jj JJ JJ JJ „ (northern half) „ (southern half) jj ... jj 100 0 0 jj Adderley . Palmerston „ (northern end) „ (southern end) Fonblanque 200 0 0 25 0 0 20 0 0 75 0 0 25 0 0 105 0 0 120 0 0 90 0 0 100 0 0 140 0 0 190 0 0 jj Adderley . Palmerston 37 • • Margaret Moody Angus Ambrose Peter Harder . Sarah E. Balston William Hanna Charles Wright T. G. McCarthy J) • Hush Neil Baillie and Humphrey . 33 33 Samuel Riley . J. B. McConnell '. } ! i j» jj jj Mill" 100 0 0 33 • • Palmerston 165 0 0 33 450 0 0 33 33 • • 33 200 0 0 13 Fonblanque 120 0 0

A.—3.

SCHEDULE 11. Showing Sections which have been built upon, but upon which no Rent has been paid.

JUMPED SECTIONS.—CLASS B. SCHEDULE 11. Showing Sections which have never been surveyed, but which have been squatted and built upon; no Rent has been paid; the Sections are unnumbered.

SCHEDULE 11. Showing Sections of the above-mentioned Class required for Railway purposes.

ALLOTTED SECTIONS.—CLASS B. SCHEDULE 111. Showing Sections which have not been built upon, but upon which Rent has been paid.

No. of Section. Street. Frontage in Feet. Depth in Feet. Name of Claimant. His Valuation. 22 23 64 65 65 90 91 94 96 97 121 Rintoul 33 ■ ' Palmerston „ (western side) „ (eastern side) 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 161 99 99 132 60 72 100 100 100 100 100 99 Henri Pain 33 F. F. Jungnickel Michael Organ Michael Scanlon Frederick McFarland . Ellen Connell . E. J. O'Conor . Reuben Carne . 33 Alice Adrian i £ s. d. 350 0 C 60 0 C 130 0 C 185 0 C 1,375 0 C 350 O C 365 0 C 225 0 C 200 0 C Fonblanque 22 0 C

Henley Palmerston 88 20 20 99 99 99 Jane Cochrane . Andreas Peterson I John Corr I 70 19 140 0 0 0 0 0 0 33

Henley 33 90 Henri Pain 140 0

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 20 21 26 27 28 53 54 56 57 58 66 S4 95 L01 L02 L04 LOS LOS L09 L12 L17 119 130 Eintoul 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 132 132 132 132 132 132 132 132 99 99 99 132 132 132 99 99 132 132 132 132 100 100 132 132 132 132 132 132 132 99 99 99 John Seaton 50 0 50 0 50 0 100 0 20 0 20 0 20 0 35 0 35 0 35 0 25 0 47 0 70 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 jj 33 ... jj jj 33 ■ • John Corr John Hughes . jj jj 33 ... jj 33 ... jj 33 ... John Seaton and John Munro . jj jj J) Palmerston 33 37 Rubena Askew Roberts and Munro jj Wakefield 37 Frances McFarland Roberts and Munro John Draghicavich Graves and Fleming Sclanders and Company 56 0 100 0 0 0 33 Palmerston 150 0 150 0 52 0 80 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 33 33 W. C. Roberts Rubena Askew William Lloyd J. R. Frazer 33 33 33 Adderley 73 33 33 . . . S. A. Leech John Corr James Powell . 33 Palmerston 33 33 . . . Morris Blaxall John Corr S. A. Leech Jules Simon 33 Fonblanque 37 8 0 0

A.-3

ALLOTTED SECTIONS.—CLASS B. SCHEDULE IV. Showing Sections which have not been built upon, and upon which Rent has not been paid.

No. of Section. Street. Frontage in Feet. Depth in Feet. Name of Claimant. His Valuation. 131 132 132 139 141 145 147 148 149 150 151 107 55 81 83 190 Adderley . I 33 161 161 33 33 33 99 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 132 132 1.32 132 132 132 33 99 99 99 99 132 99 100 100 132 George Low Job L. Munson Unclaimed John Tyrell Walton Pell . AVilliam Struthers John Hughes . £ s. d. 15 0 0 33 • 33 Palmerston 15 0 0 25 0 0 15 0 0 30 0 0 20 0 0 20 0 0 20 0 0 15 0 0 10 0 0 600 0 0 700 0 0 85 0 0 25 0 0 33 33 33 Mill 33 JJ 33 JJ 33 Stitt Brothers . J. A. G. Vinal . John Draghicavich John Curtayne AV. J. Patterson J. Finlayson Addeerly . Wakefield Palmerston jj jj Note.—Sections 55, 81, and 83 have been includi mly been recently erected — i.e., since the year 1874. The building clause to be inserted in the lease icforehand. ;d in this class, because, though being built upon, the buildings have issued to this class of claims will have simply been complied with

76 84 85 92 107 111 113 114 115 116 116 120 126 127 128 133 134 135 137 137 154 158 159 159 160 162 163 106 175 176 183 185 189 193 194 195 197 199 202 Palmerston 33 33 37 Adderly Palmerston 33 33 Fonblanque 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 16* 16* 33 33 16* 16* 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 100 100 100 100 132 132 132 132 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 132 132 132 132 132 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 132 132 132 132 132 99 99 99 99 99 99 George Jervis . Hercules Brinkley Hooper and Dodson James Weston . Felix West Joseph Shelly . P. J. Bruen William Stephenson Hooper and Dodson Oliver Pufflett . Norn's Blexall . Mary Mason and Thos. AVhyte Rebecca Smith . AVilliam Patterson Alexander ScottWalter Bull . 100 0 70 0 15 0 0 0 0 33 20 0 20 0 20 0 0 0 0 33 73 33 15" 0 0 33 33 Adderley . 33 33 • 15 0 15 0 15 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 33 33 33 Mills % 33 • . . Julius Kelpe Unclaimed E. J. O'Conor . AVilliam Stephenson Suisted Brothers Anne AVebster . John Johnston . Frederick Whyte George Jervis . E. J. O'Conor . John Tyrrell 15 0 8 0 8 0 15 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 Adderley . Palmerston ;, • . . Robert C. Parker George Jervis . . ■ Catherine O'Grady John Corr John Clark James McGavin George Jervis . 15 0 15 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 0 G 0 0 0 jj jj Bentham . jj 15' 0 0 65 0 15 0 15 0 0 0 0 33 • , • jj 33 . . .

A.—3.

UNALLOTTED SECTIONS REQUIRED FOR RAILWAY PURPOSES.—CLASS C. SCHEDULE I. Showing Sections which have been built upon, and upon which rent has been paid.

SCHEDULE 11. Showing Sections which have been built upon, but upon which no Rent has been paid.

SCHEDULE 111. Showing Sections which have not been built upon, but upon which Rent has been paid.

SCHEDULE IV. Showing Sections which have not been built upon, and upon which Rent has not been paid.

ALLOTTED SECTIONS REQUIRED EOR RAILWAY PURPOSES.—CLASS D. SCHEDULE I. Showing Sections which have been built upon, and upon which Rent has been paid.

SCHEDULE 11. Showing Sections which have been built upon, but upon which no Rent has been paid. Nil. SCHEDULE 111. Showing Sections which have not been built upon, but upon which Rent has been paid.

No. of section. Street. Frontage in Feet. in Feet. Depth iu Feet. iu Feet. Name of Claimant. His Valuation. - eet. £ S. d. 100 0 0 20 0 0 80 0 0 158 | Pakington 160 j „ 186 I Wharf 33 33 33 821 82 66 Andreas Josephson 33 Benjamin Oakes

145 146 147 148 157 159 177 178 179 183 184 185 187 188 189 190 191 Nelson 33 33 3, Pakington 33 Wharf 33 37 88 83 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 33 88 88 88 88 88 82* S2* 82* 82* 82* 82* 66 66 66 66 66 66 49* 66 66 66 66 George Jervis . 73 • John Martin John Derungs . Walter Bull . George Jervis . Daniel McLeod 33 33 Samuel Riley E. J. O'Conor . | 80 68 540 65 65 200 300 60 110 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 33 * 33 | 600 0 0 33 33 Elizabeth Keating Michael Organ . E. J. O'Conor . 110 150 0 0 0 0 33 • 33 73 Henley JJ | 800 0 0 )J

180 181 182 Wharf JJ 33 33 33 66 66 66 John Hughes 33 33 JJ

140 Nelson 88 CO F. H. Dickenson 164 0 0

40 ! Wakefield 41 i „ 42 i „ 43 48 33 33 33 33 33 I 99 99 132 132 99 J. L. Munson . Hooper and Dodson Edmond Roche 33 Elizabeth Keating " ] 2,150 0 700 0

15 10 IS 16 50 51 52 Rintoul jj Wakefield 88 88 88 88 88 88 33 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 I John Seaton and John Munro John Seaton and John Munro John Corr Rubena Askew William Evaus 33 • ■ J Roberts aud Munro 50 50 50 0 0 0 JJ ] 350 0 JJ JJ •• 60 0

A.—3

SCHEDULE IV. Showing Sections which have not been built upon, and upon which Rent has not been paid.

TABLE showing the Amounts it is proposed to award to Claimants occupying Sections required for Railway Purposes, towards defraying the expense of the removal of their buildings. CLASS B.

SECTIONS REQUIRED FOR RAILWAY PURPOSES—UNALLOTTED SECTIONS. List showing Order of Choice of New Sections. CLASS B.

No. of , Section. Street. Frontage in Feet. Depth in Feet. Name of Claimant. His Valuation. 47 Wakefield 47 j „ 198 Bentham . 33 33 33 132 132 99 £ A. D. Bayfeild . . 1,000 John Corr, lessee of Bayfeild . 2,600 Isaac Whayien s. d 0 0 0 C

No. of Section. Name. Amount. Remarks. 40 42) 43) 48 Job L. Munson £ 15 s. d. 0 0 Arranged for purchase of this cottage. E. Roche 480 0 0 Per builder's estimate for removal. E. Keating £350 has been arranged for purchase of this hotel, including building and all constructive damages. £20 has been paid to the claimants for the removal of their buildings. £90 has been paid for the removal of the store and the goods therein. , 41 Hooper and Dodson 47 J. Corr . CLASS A. 145) 146) 147 148 157 158 159 177) 178^ 179) 183 184 185 186 187 188 189) 190 £ 191) 15 0 0 G. Jervis J. Martin J. Derungs W. Bull B. Oxner G. Jervis 15 150 15 20 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D. McLeod 50 0 0 S. Riley E. J. d'Conor For removal of buildings. B. Oakes E. Keating M. Organ 10 15 15 10 10 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E. J. O'Conor 50 0 0 :'

No. of present Sectbns. Street. Names. ., , _. No. of Order ot _, .. _-, . section Choice- Chosen. Street. 42 43 ■1-S 41 40 47 49 50 51 52 15 10 IS AVakefield JJ JJ JJ JJ JJ JJ Edmund Roche 33 Elizabeth Keating Hooper aud Dodson Job L. Munson A. Bayfeild Rubena Askew William Evans 33 • Roberts and Munro Seaton and Munro 73 John Corr I ' • j 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 JJ JJ Ji Rintoul jj jj

A.—3.

SECTIONS REQUIRED FOR RAILWAY PURPOSES—ALLOTTED SECTIONS. List showing Order of Choice of New Sections. CLASS A.

No. of present Sections. Street. Name. Order of Choice. No. of Section Chosen. Street. 148 177 178 179 189 190 191 158 186 145 146 147 157 159 160 183 184 185 187 188 180 t 181 , 182 Nelson Wharf John Derungs Daniel McLeod 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 JJ 33 33 JJ E. J. O'Conor . JJ JJ Henley Pakington Wharf Nelson 33 73 33 33 Benjamin Oxner . Benjamin Oakes . George Jervis jj 37 33 John Martin AValter Bull George Jervis Andrew Josephson Samuel Ryley E. J. O'Conor jj Pakington jj Wharf 33 33 JJ JJ Elizabeth Keating Michael Organ John Hughes 77 33 33 J) jj jj 33 JJ JJ 2a—A. 3.

A.—3

FORM OF LEASE. This Deeu, made the day of , 1876, between Her Majesty the Queen, hereinafter called " the Lessor," of the one part, and , of , in the Province of , hereinafter called "the Lessee," of the other part, witnesseth, that, in consideration of the rent hereinafter reserved, and of the covenants, conditions, and agreements hereinafter contained and herein implied, the lessor doth hereby demise and lease unto the lessee, executors, administrators, and assigns, all that parcel of land situate at , in the Province of , containing by admeasurement more or less. Bounded — as the same is delineated in the plan drawn on the back hereof and therein coloured Together with the rights and appurtenances thereto belonging. To hold unto the lessee, executors, administrators, and assigns, for the term of seven years, to be computed from the first day of January, 1876, subject, however, to the provisoes hereinafter contained: Yielding and paying therefor yearly and every year the annual rent or sum of five pounds, by equal half-yearly payments to be made on the first day or January and the first day of July in each year, the first of such payments to be made on the first day of July now next ensuing: And it is hereby declared and agreed, That all covenants on the lessee's part implied in leases under or by virtue of the Conveyancing Ordinance of New Zealand (Session 11., No. 10) shall, except in so far as the same may be modified by these presents, be herein implied: And it is hereby expressly agreed and declared that the lessee, executors, administrators, and assigns shall not be bound to keep the buildings erected or which may be hereafter erected on the demised premises in good repair, nor shall he or they be liable to reinstate such premises as may be destroyed either by fire or other inevitable accident: And it is also agreed that the lessee, executors, administrators, and assigns, shall and may, prior to the expiration of the said term hereby granted, remove from the land hereby demised such buildings as may now stand or which may be erected thereon during the term hereby created. Provided always that if the rents hereby reserved, or any part thereof, shall at any time during the said term be in arrear and unpaid for the space of twenty-one days next after any or either of the days hereinbefore appointed for the payment thereof, it shall be lawful for the Lessor, Her successors or assigns, to re-enter upon the demised premises, and thereby determine this lease : Provided lastly, and it is hereby expressly declared and agreed, that in case it may be necessary to exercise the power of re-entry hereinbefore contained, or any other power or authority which may be exercised hereunder by the Lessor or Her successors, it shall be sufficient if such be exercised on behalf of the Lessor or Her successors by the Colonial Secretary of the Colony for the time being, or by any person authorized by him for that purpose. • In witness whereof His Excellency the Governor of New Zealand, on behalf of the Lessor, hath hereunto set his hand, and hath caused these presents to be passed under the Seal of the Colony; and the lessee ha hereunto subscribed name , the day and year first above written.

IH.—ORDER IN COUNCIL DEFINING PORTIONS OF "COLLIERY RESERVE" AT WESTPORT REQUIRED FOR RAILWAY PURPOSES. Nobmanby, Governor. ORDER IN COUNCIL. At the Government House at Wellington, this twenty-third day of February, 1876. Present: The Honobable the Pbemiee PEEsmiifo in Council. Wheeeas by the twenty-fourth section of " The Immigration and Public Works Act, 1875," it is enacted that such portions of the " Colliery Reserve" situate at Westport as are required for the railway from Mount Rochfort to Westport, and for a railway station and other purposes connected with the said railway, shall be forthwith defined by an Order of tho Governor in Council, and that thereafter the same shall be reserved and held for the said purposes and no other : And whereas the portions of the said " Colliery Reserve " described in the Schedule hereto are required for the purposes mentioned in the above-recited section : Now, therefore, His Excellency the Governor, by and with the advice and consent of the Executive Council of the Colony of New Zealand, and under and by virtue of the above-recited power and authority, doth hereby declare that such portions of the " Colliery Reserve " as are in the Schedule hereto defined shall be henceforth reserved and held for the purposes of the railway from Mount Rochfort to Westport, and for a railway station and other purposes connected with the said railway and no other. FOESTEE GOEING, JuLITS VOGEL, Clerk of the Executive Council. Presiding.

A.—3

SCHEDULE. Description of portions of the " Colliery Reserve " required for Railway Station, and other purposes connected with the Railway from Mount Roclifort to Westport. All that parcel of land, containing by admeasurement 18 acres 3 roods 27 perches, more or less, being portion of the Mount Rochfort and A^es'tport Railway and Colliery Eeserve,. in the town of Westport, Province of Nelson, in the Colony of New Zealand, comprising sections Nos. 140, 141, 142, 143,144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 157, 158, 159. 160, 177, 178, 179, ISO, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185,186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191; other portion of the aforesaid reserve, sections Nos. 100, 99. 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 18, 17, l(i, 15, and 14 ; also portion of Pakington Street, Henley Street, Brougham Street, Adderley Street, Wakefield Street, included within the boundaries hereafter described. Bounded towards the North-west by Nelson Street 418 links, by other portions of the above reserve 50 links, and by section No. 56 50 links respectively; towards the North-east by sections Nos. 149, 156, 176, 192, portion of sections Nos. 100, 99, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 53, 39, 19, by other portions of the above reserve and portions of Pakington Street, Henley Street, Brougham Street, and Wakefield Street, 975 links, 2150 links, 550 links, 150 links, 275 links, and 550 links respectively. Bounded towards the South-west by other portions of tho above reserve, by Wakefield Street, and Rintoul Street, 50 links, 250 links, 50 links, and 410 links respectively; and towards the South-west by the Buller River.

IV.—NOTICE. Westpoet Collieet Reseeve. In accordance with recommendation No. 3 of the Royal Commission in the above matter, I hereby give notice that I shall attend at the Court House at Westport, on the Ist day of April next, at noon, to afford the claimants under subdivisions 1, 2, and 3 of Schedules C and D the opportunity of choosing their allotments from the unoccupied ground in the reserve according to the order shown in the exhibit marked " Order of Choice of New Sections." I further give notice, that copies of the Report of the Royal Commission, with the Schedules appended thereto, can be inspected at the respective offices of the Warden, Town Clerk, and Resident Engineer, Public Works Department, at Westport, and at the Superintendent's and Public Works Offices, Nelson. Dated at Wellington', this 13th day of March, 1876. Thomas Mackat, Agent for the Crown. 3—A. 3.

A.-3.

MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS.

Commissioners: —Thomas Shaileb Weston, Esq., District Judge; Richmond Beetham, Esq., E.M. Satijbday, 27th Noyembee, 1875. The Commission was formally opened by Mr. Commissioner Beetham, and adjourned until Monday, 29th November, at ten o'clock a.m. Richmond Beetham, R.M., Commissioner.

Monday, 29th Noyembee, 1875. The Commission opened at ten o'clock a.m., Mr. Commissioner Weston and Mr. Commissioner Beetham being present. Mr. Thomas Mackay appeared to represent the Crown. Mr. J. B. Fisher and Mr. W. R. Haselden, solicitors, appeared to represent several claimants. By consent it was decided to investigate the right to allotted sections first. At the request of Messrs. Fisher and Haselden, the Commissioners adjourned till next day at half-past nine o'clock a.m. T. S. Weston, Chairman. Richmond Beetham.

Tuesday, 30th Noyembee, 1875. The Commission opened at half-past nine o'clock, Mr. Commissioner Weston and Mr. Commissioner Beetham being present. Mr. T. Mackay appeared to represent the Crown. Mr. J. B. Fisher and Mr. Haselden appeared on behalf of several claimants. The following claims were heard (allotted sections) : —Section 3, Rintoul Street, W. M. Cooper; sections 4 and 5, Rintoul Street, George Carruthers ; sections 6, 7, 8, 15, 16,19, 20, Rintoul Street, Munro and Seaton; sections 9, 18, 47, 98, 105, 117, 193, John Corr; sections 10, 11, 12, 13, John Hughes. Evidence having been taken in support of these claims, the Commission adjourned at five o'clock. T. S. Weston, Chairman. Richmond Beetham.

Wednesday, Ist Decembee, 1875. The Commission opened at half-past nine o'clock, Mr. Commissioner Weston and Mr. Commissioner Beetham being present. Mr. T. Mackay appeared to represent the Crown. Mr. J. B. Fisher and Mr. W. R. Haselden appeared on behalf of several claimants. The following claims to allotted sections were heard:—Sections 10, 11, 12, 13, John Hughes; section 17, W. S. Munday; sections 21, 49, 84, Rubena Askew ; sections 22, 23, Henri Pain ; sections 24, 25, 159, J. S. Suisted; section 159 (part of), Anne Webster; sections 26, 27, 52, 53, 66, Roberts and Munro; section 28, F. McParland; section 29, William Mailer; sections 30, 31, 32, Baillie and Humphrey ; sections 33, 34, 35, Gilmer Brothers. Evidence was taken in support of these claims, and the Commission adjourned at half-past five o'clock. T. S. Weston, Chairman. Richmond Beetham.

Thubsday, 2nd Decembee, 1875. The Commission opened at half-past nine o'clock, Mr. Commissioner Weston and Mr. Commissioner Beetham being present. Mr. T. Mackay appeared to represent the Crown. Mr. J. B. Fisher and Mr. W. R. Haselden appeared on behalf of claimants. The following claims to allotted sections were heard: —Sections 36, 37, 79, Bank of New Zealand; section 38, Bank of New South Wales; sections 39, 107, F. West ; sections 40, 63, 73, 123, 132, J. L. Munson; sections 41, 78, 115, Hooper and Dodson; sections 42, 43, E. Roche; section 47, A. D. Bayfeild. Evidence in support of these claims was taken, and the Commission adjourned at six o'clock p.m. T. S. Weston, Chairman. Richmond Beetham.

A.—3

Feiday, 3bd Decembeb, 1875. The Commission opened at half-past nine o'clock, Mr. Commissioner Weston and Mr. Commissioner Beetham being present. Mr. Thomas Mackay appeared to represent the Crown. Mr. J. B. Fisher and Mr. W. R. Haselden appeared on behalf of several claimants. The following claims to allotted sections were heard:—Section 44, E. J. O'Conor, no appearance; section 47, A. D. Bayfeild, adjourned case ; section 47, J. Corr, adjourned case ; section 48, E. Keating; sections 50, 51, William Evans ; sections 155, 156, T. G. McCarthy; section 56, Graves and Fleming; sections 54, 55, J. Draghicavich; sections 57, 58, Sclanders and Co.; section 60, Frederick White; sections 59, 189, Catherine O'Grady; section 61, F. Sontgen; section 62, Hugh Neil; section 64, F. F. Jungnikel; section 70, Robert Whyte; section 69, John Coffey; sections 74, 75, 108, 109, J. Powell and Co. Evidence in support of these claims was taken, and the Commission adjourned at six o'clock p.m. T. S. Weston, Chairman. Richmond Beetham.

Satueday, 4th Decembee, 1875. The Commission opened at half-past nine, Mr. Commissioner Weston and Mr. Commissioner Beetham being present. Mr. T. Mackay appeared to represent the Crown. Mr. J. B. Fisher and Mr. W. R. Haselden appeared on behalf of several claimants. Mr. Commissioner Weston, addressing the Crown representative and counsel engaged, stated that, in order to enable the Secretary to. bring up arrears of evidence and to give Mr. Commissioner Beetham and himself an opportunity to study the cases already heard, it would, he thought, be better to adjourn until Monday, the 6th December. Mr. Mackay concurred with his Honor, stating that the adjournment would be very opportune, as it would enable him to prepare for cases yet to be heard. Mr. J. B. Fisher and Mr. W. R. Haselden agreed with his Honor that an adjournment till Monday would be very desirable. The cases so far had been proceeded with so rapidly that they had had little time to prepare them or to attend to any other business. T. S. Weston, Chairman. Richmond Beetham.

Monday, 6th Decembee, 1875. The Commission opened at half-past nine o'clock, Mr. District Judge Weston and Mr. Warden Beetham, Commissioners, being present. Mr. T. Mackay appeared to represent the Crown; Mr. J. B. Fisher and Mr. W. R. Haselden on behalf of several claimants. The following claims to allotted sections were heard: —Sections 42, 43, E. Roche; section 65, Organ and Scanlon (joint claim) ; section 68, Hay and Dupuis (joint claim) ; sections 71, 72, Thomas Field ; sections 76, 163, 185, 197, 199, 202, George Jervis ; sections 80, 139, 175, 176, Reid and Co.; section 81, John Curtayne; section 82, Emma Peterson; sections 86, 126, Rebecca Smith ; section 77, Blacklock and Carpenter (joint claim) ; section 83, W. J. Paterson; section 84, Hercules Brinkley; section 89, John Derungs; section 90, F. McFarland ; section 91, Ellen Connell; section 92, James Weston; section 93, McElwee and Gilbertson (joint claim); section 94, E. J. O'Conor; section 95, William Lloyd; sections 96, 97, Reuben Came; sections 99, 100, 145, William Struthers. Evidence in reference to these claims was taken, and the Commission adjourned at 4.20 p.m. T. S. Weston, Chairman. Richmond Beetham.

Tuesday, 7th Decembee, 1875. The Commission opened at half-past nine o'clock, Mr. District Judge Weston and Mr. Warden Beetham, Commissioners, being present. Mr. T. Mackay, and Messrs. Fisher and Haselden, solicitors, were also present. The following claims to allotted sections were heard: —Sections 101, 102, 103, J. R. Fraser; sections 104,109, S. A. Leech; section 106, T. Jephcoate; section 110, Robert Stewart; section 111, Joseph Shelley ; section 114,158, William Stephenson ; section 121, Alice Adrian ; section 122, J. B. McConnell; section 127, Wm. Patterson; section 131, George Lowe; sections 124, 125, A. McLeod; section 137, Julius Kelpe; section 140, A. Ambrose; section 142, Peter Harder; section 143, Sarah E. Balston ; section 146, Charles Wright; section 151, Stitt Brothers ; section 162, Frederick White ; sections 154, 166, E. J. O'Conor ; section 167, J. A. G. Vinall; section 183,R.;C. Parker; section 128, A. Scott; section 190, John Finlayson; sections 191, 192, S. Riley; section 195, J. McGavin; section 198, Isaac L. Wheylan ; sections 133, 134, 135, W. Bull; section 130, Jules Simon ; section 120, Mason and White (joint claim). The following claims to sections held on account of old business licenses were heard :—Section 48, E. A. Labatt; section 49, William Lloyd. Evidence relating to these claims was heard, and the Commission adjourned at four o'clock p.m. T. S. Weston, Chairman. Richmond Beetham.

A.—3,

Wednesday, Bth Decembee, 1875. The Commission opened at half-past nine o'clock a.m., Mr. District Judge Weston and Mr, Warden Beetham, Commissioners, being present. Mr. T. Mackay, on behalf of the Crown, and Messrs. J. B. Fisher and W. R. Haselden, were also present. Tho following claims to sections held on account of old business licenses were heard:—Section 153, William Lloyd; sections 50, 51, 51a, G. M. Clark; section 117, Wm. Patterson ; sections 52, 53, 97, 116, J. Simon; section 55, J. Munro ; section 54, Mary A. Sullivan ; section 110, M. Organ and S. E. Balston. Evidence in reference to these claims having been taken, the Commission adjourned at 4.30 p.m. T. S. Weston, Chairman. Richmond Beetham.

Thuesday, 9th Decembee, 1875. The Commission opened at half-past nine o'clock, Mr. District Judge Weston and Mr. Warden Beetham, Commissioners, being present. Mr. T. Mackay, on bshalf of the Crown, and Messrs. Fisher and Haselden, solicitors, were also present. The following claims to sections held on account of old business licenses were heard : —Sections 119, 120, John Linley; sections 44, 103, 104, 159, George Jervis. Evidence having reference to these claims was taken, and the Commission adjourned at 4.30 p.m. T. S. Weston, Chairman. Richmond Beetham.

Feiday, 10th Decembee, 1875. The Commission opened at half-past nine o'clock, Mr. District Judge Weston and Mr. Warden Beetham being present. Mr. T. Mackay, on behalf of the Crown, and Messrs. Fisher and Haselden, solicitors, were also present. The following claim to allotted section was dealt with: —Section 116, Blaxall and Puflett. The following claims to sections held in virtue of old business licenses were heard: —Section 161, J. Terry; sections 145, 146, G. Jervis; section 59, Anne Webster; section 152, Webster and Hicks; section 58, Jervis and Bull; sections 95, 96, 102, 156, 157, W. Bull; section 71, Robert McFarlane; sections 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, T. Sheahan ; section 77, A. Horn ; sections 57,139, A. Scott; section 46, A. Wignall; section 85, E. J. O'Conor; section 114, Blaxall and Simon; section 81, Reid and Co. Evidence in respect of these claims was taken, and the Commission adjourned at 4 p.m. T. S. Weston, Chairman. Richmond Beetham.

Monday, 13th Decembee, 1875. The Commission opened at half-past nine o'clock, Mr. District Judge Weston and Mr. Warden Beetham being present. Mr. T. Mackay, on behalf of the Crown, and Messrs. Fisher and Haselden solicitors, were also present. The following claims to sections held in virtue of business licenses were heard: —Section 80, A. Smith and Charles Brown; sections 45, 170, J. L. Munson ; section 94, J. R. Fraser ; sections 70, 82, 83, 84, John Corr; section 124, George Lowe; sections 122, 184, 185, 189, 190, 191, E. J. O'Conor. Evidence in regard to these claims having been taken, the Commission adjourned at 4.30 p.m. T. S. Weston, Chairman. Richmond Beetham.

Tuesday, 14th Decembee, 1875. The Commission opened at half-past nine o'clock, Mr. District Judge Weston and Mr. Warden Beetham, Commissioners, being present. Mr. T. Mackay appeared to represent the Crown; Mr. J. B. Fisher and Mr. W. R. Haselden on behalf of several claimants. The following claims to sections held in virtue of old business licenses were heard : —Sections 129, 130, 131, T. Field; section 98, J. A. G. Vinall; section 111, P. J. Bruen and United Methodist Free Church ; sections 125, 126, 138, J. Powell and Co.; sections 132, 133, Graves and Fleming; section 135, J. B. Fisher; section 136, E. Gothard; sections 137, 154, J. Barringer; section 149, B. Oxner; sections 158,160, A. Josephson ; section 162, R. Rowlands; section 163, H. Stannard; section 113, Hay and Munday; section 128, C. O'Grady ; section 115, Blaxall and Stitt Brothers; section 118, Stitt Brothers ; sections 123, 147, J. Martin ; section 171, Baillie and Humphrey ; section 186, B. Oakes ; sections 175, 176, Rebecca Smith; section 169, Smith and Barkley; sections 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, J. Hughes; section 187, Mrs. Keating ; sections 180, 181, 182, J. Hughes; section 174, Hughes and Ward. Evidence in respect of these claims was taken, and the Commission adjourned at 4.30 p.m. T. S. Weston, Chairman. Richmond Beetham.

A.—3

Wednesday, 15th Decembee, 1575. The Commission opened at half-past nine o'clock, Mr. District Judge Weston and Mr. Warden Beetham, Commissioners, being present. Mr. T. Mackay represented the Crown, and Mr. J. B. Fisher and Mr. W. R. Haselden several claimants. The following claim to an allotted section was heard: —Section 113, P. J. Bruen. Evidence was taken in support. The following claims to sections held in virtue of business licenses were heard : —Sections 47,150, 155, Reuben Came; section 99, Hooper and Dodson; section 121, J. B. McConnell; sections 172, 178j M. Organ; section 56, Donald Campbell; section 148, John Derungs; section 151, T. Manscll; section 183, S. Riley ; section 134, J. Shelley ; section 101, Jules Kelpe ; sections 173,192, J. Weston; sections 177, 178, 179, D. McLeod; section 140, T. H. Dickenson; section 141, Walton Pell. The following persons claiming sections on the vacant space between section 100 and the corner of Henley Street were heard in support:—Jane Cochrane, H. Pain, J. Corr (for section occupied by Crowell), Andreas Peterson. Mr. A. D. Dobson, Resident Engineer, was called to give evidence as to the right of these persons to occupy, and also as to the date of the formation of Palmerston Street. The case of Mr. D. McLeod, who claimed £1,200 for the Wakefield Street Wharf, was called on; but Mr. Fisher, who appeared for McLeod, declined to offer evidence, and the case was not proceeded with, McLeod assenting to this course. Mr. Humphrey was examined as to the rate of insurance in Westport, and as to the character of the structures in the town generally. Mr. J. B. Fisher handed in copy of telegram from the Superintendent of Nelson to the Colonial Secretary with reference to the withdrawal of the Colliery Reserve from the operation of the Gold Fields Act, and also a draft of" The Immigration and Public Works Bill, 1875," as introduced to the House of Representatives, in which it was declared that tho Westport Colliery Reserve was " free from all incumbrances." The Commission adjourned at 5.30 o'clock p.m. T. S. Weston, Chairman. Richmond Beetham.

Thursday, 16th December, 1875. The Commission opened at half-past nine o'clock, Mr. District Judge Weston and Mr. Warden Beetham, Commissioners, being present. Mr. T. Mackay, on behalf of the Crown, and Messrs. Fisher and Haselden, were also present. Some discussion having taken place on the day previous upon an application by Mr. Fisher and Mr. Haselden for the production of Mr. Mackay's report to the Government upon the subject of the Colliery Reserve, — Mr. Mackay explained the relations subsisting between himself and the Government, and, following the practice adopted by the Home Government with reference to the production of reports prepared by responsible officers, declined to allow the perusal of the report submitted by himself to the Government. Discussion followed, and the Commission adjourned at 11.30 a.m. T. S. Weston, Chairman. Richmond Beetham.

Saturday, 18th Decembee, 1875. The Commission opened at ten o'clock, Mr. District Judge Weston and Mr. Warden Beetham, Commissioners, being present. Mr. T. Mackay, on behalf of the Crown, and Messrs. Fisher and Haselden, were also present. The following claims to sections held in virtue of business licenses were heard: —Sections 67 and 68, William Evans. The claim of Jules Kelpe to allotted section 137 was called on, but the claimant did not appear. Mr. J. B. Fisher made an application, on behalf of John Corr, to have his name inserted in lieu of that of Charles Crowell, as claimant to an unoccupied section near the corner of Henley Street. The application was received, upon condition that Corr should produce documentary proof of Crowell's withdrawal from the claim. The following persons, supposed to have right to the sections set opposite their names, were called on, but did not appear:—Old Business License Sections: Section 100, William Sloan; section 105, Anne Morris. Allotted Sections: Section r L29, F, Courtney ; section 137, P. F.'Smyth ; section 160, Jane Johnston; section 194, John Clarke. Mr. Thomas Mackay indicated certain documents which would be put in, and the Commission was finally closed. T. S. Weston, Chairman. Richmond Beetham.

6—A. 3.

A.—3

EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE WESTPORT COLLIERY RESERVE COMMISSION.

Monday, 29th Noyembee, 1875. The Commission opened at 10 o'clock a.m., Mr. District Judge Weston and Mr. Warden Beetham Commissioners, being present. Mr. Thomas Mackay appeared to represent the Crown. Mr. J. B. Fisher and Mr. Haselden (Solicitors) appeared to represent several claimants. Mr. Geoege Fisher, Secretary to the Commission, read the Commission, which is dated the 3rd of November, 1875, and issued under and subject to the provisions of " The Commissioners Powers Act, 1867," and " The Commissioners Powers Act, 1872," appointing " Thomas Shailer Weston, Esq., of Hokitika, in the Province of Westland, Judge of the District Court, and Richmond Beetham, Esq., of Queenstown, in the Province of Otago, Resident Magistrate," Commissioners. The document sets forth the duties of the Commissioners to be—" To report fully what claims or liabilities are in existence upon the reserve, whether legal or equitable. To report also whether the original character of the claims or liabilities has been changed or modified by subsequent action of the Legislature, the Colonial or Provincial Government, or of the parties themselves. To recommend explicitly in what way each such claim or liability, or each class of such claims or liabilities, should be dealt with in accordance with justice to the individuals concerned and to the interests of the colony." The particular and especial duties of the Commission being, — Ist. To inquire into and ascertain for what purposes, and in what manner, and by what authority, the lands situate at or near Westport, in the Province of Nelson, known as the " Colliery Reserve," were originally set apart and reserved for the purposes of such Colliery Reserve, or for any other and what purposes; and whether the purposes of the said reserve have been in any manner changed or affected, and, if so, by what authority and for what purpose or purposes. 2nd. To ascertain what claim and liabilities are in existence in respect of or upon the said reserve, or any part thereof, whether of a legal or equitable nature, and whether affecting public interests or the interests of private persons. 3rd. To inquire and ascertain whether the original character of such claims or liabilities has at any time, and, if so, at what time, been changed or modified by the Legislature of the colony or of the Province of Nelson, or by the Government of the colony or of the province respectively, or by or through the action of any person or persons claiming any interest of a private nature in the said reserve or any part thereof. 4th. To consider of and report upon the expediency or otherwise of certain proposals made by the General Government of the colony to permanently utilize the said reserve as a security on behalf of the colony, ttnder the authority of an Act of the General Assembly affecting the said Colliery Reserve or any part thereof. And also to consider of and report upon the proposals of the said Government respecting the settlement of certain alleged claims made by persons in occupation of certain parts of the said reserve, and to recommend in what way each such claim or each class of such claims should be settled and disposed of, and whether in accordance with such proposals as aforesaid or otherwise in respect of the premises, as the Commissioners may think fit and expedient to recommend. And generally in the premises, and by all lawful ways and means, and subject as aforesaid, to examine and inquire into every matter and thing touching and concerning the premises in such manner and at such time as shall be deemed expedient. Judge Weston, in reply to a question from counsel, explained that evidence would be taken on oath, and that neither time nor trouble would be spared in obtaining every scrap of evidence likely to lead to a satisfactory adjustment of the business. By consent, it was decided to investigate the right to allotted sections first. At the request of Messrs. Fisher and Haselden the Commission adjourned till next day, at halfpast 9 a.m.

Tuesday, 30th Noyembee, 1875. CLASS B.—ALLOTTED CLAIMS. Section 3.—W. M. COOPER, Claimant. W. M. Cooper, sworn and examined : I have been in possession of section 3, Rintoul Street, for twelve months. In proof of my right to possession I produce a transfer from the original allottee, Ivatt Graves, to Mr. Fielder, for the sum of £8 10s. I next produce a receipt from Ernest G. Kelling, for £1, the rent for said section to 31st December, 1873. Mr. Kelling was Receiver of Gold Revenue on the Nelson South-West Gold Fields. I produce also a document signed by John Fielder giving receipt in the whole for £140, being the amount I paid him for the section, upon which were a cottage and outbuildings. And finally I produce a document signed by Ivatt Graves, the original allottee, transferring his right in the section to me. Judge Weston : I understand this is not one of the sections required for railway purposes.

A.—3

Mr. Mackay : No. Of course I understand that the question of title, whether legal or equitable, is not to be discussed now. It is arranged, I believe, that there shall be test cases. Judge Weston : No doubt every claimant would like to make his own explanation. Each case must staud upon its own merits where the claimants are not willing as a body to have the question decided in one argument. My colleague and I have already discussed the matter, and if the claimants thought fit we would be willing to hear one argument, and one only; but at the same time, if each claimant desires to express his own views upon the subject, we must hear him. Mr. Mackay : I see that rent upon this section was only paid up to December, 1873, whereas the time at which rent ceased to be payable, in accordance with my instructions, was December, 1874. Now, Mr. Cooper got his title in November, 1874, and I wish to know whether the Commission will rule, in the event of the question of equitable title being raised, whether or not the non-payment of rent for the period ending December, 1874, will form a legitimate objection to the giving of an equitable claim. Judge Weston (to claimant) : You paid your rent up to December, 1873 ?—The former owner of the section did. Have you paid since ? —I tendered the rent to the Clerk of the Court, but he refused to accept it. When did you tender it ? —About a year ago ; the end of November, I think. Judge Weston : What is the point you wish to raise, Mr. Mackay? Mr. Mackay : I desire to know whether the non-payment of the rent which the Superintendent of the province said would be charged, and which was legally payable up to the end of December, 1874, will act in any way against these claims in an equitable point of view. Judge Weston :In this instance the claimant tendered the rent, but he says it was refused. At whose instance ? Mr. Mackay : At my instance, on behalf of the Crown. Judge Weston : Then who is to blame ? Mr. Mackay : I should say, as far as the refusal is concerned, the Crown is to blame. At the time I gave the instruction I was not in a position to give an opinion on the subject —as to the legal as well as the equitable position of the claimants—and to guard the interests of the Crown I thought it necessary to give a general order. Judge Weston : That would form an argument on the part of the claimants to equitable relief. Mr. Mackay : There are some claimants who have tendered rent, as Mr. Cooper has done, but those who have never tendered any rent at all are, I apprehend, in a different position. Judge Weston : We must deal with that matter when we arrive at it. Do you wish to obtain evidence upon any other point ? Mr. Mackay : No. I wish now to make an objection on legal and equitable grounds to the title. Judge Weston : I will ask Mr. Cooper to satisfy the Commissioners whether he has any legal or equitable right to the section. Mr. Cooper : It is not my intention to make any statement with reference to what took place many years ago, because really I have no knowledge of it; but there are a large number of persons here who can produce complete evidence as to what transpired when the sections were originally taken up. Judge Weston : You will have to show that this case is iv a similar position to those which may be successfully proved. Mr. Cooper : I think I can establish the fact that this section was granted by Mr. Commissioner Sharp, and that lam in exact affinity with other allottees. The only point that remains is to prove the allotment by Commissioner Sharp. t Mr. Mackay : I admit the allotment. Mr. Cooper : In that case I have nothing further to say. Judge Weston : What is the character of this building ? Mr. Cooper : It is a wooden dwelling-house. Judge Weston : What is its value ?—I paid £140 for it originally, and I have spent £70 upon it since. Mr. Beetham: Have you any objection to say what you think the property would let for?—l think it would let for 15s. or £1 a week. [Case closed.] Sections 4 and 5, Rintoul Street.—GEOßGE CARRUTHERS, Claimant. Claimant appeared in person, and was sworn and examined: I claim sections 4 and 5, Colliery Reserve. The paper sent in by me is a true abstract of my claim. Both sections were allotted by Mr. Commissioner Sharp, one to Mr. Thomas Anslow and one to Mr. Munro. The statement in my claim that one of the sections was allotted to me is an error. I bought section 4 from Mr. Anslow for £5, on the 17th October, 1872, and section 5 from Mr. Munro for £10, on the Ist November, 1872. Both sections were covered with bush at that time, and improved in no way whatever. I have paid one year's rent upon them from January, 1873, to January, 1874. I also tendered rent for the next year, but it was refused. I have erected a cottage upon the sections and cleared them, and am in possession of them now. I have let the property for as much as £1 a week, but I cannot expect to get that now, as property is not so valuable. Things have gone down. When I bought the sections I was under the impression I should get a lease from the Superintendent. We were all under that impression. Fourteen years was mentioned as the term of the lease. We were to pay £1 a year for two years, £2 10s. a year for five years, aud £5 a year for the succeeding seven years. I cannot say that I was aware when I bought the sections that the sellers had no direct title in themselves. If I had been I probably should not have bought them. I knew that the sections had been allotted by Commissioner Sharp, and I regarded that as sufficient. By Mr. Mackay : I am not aware of the number of the Native Reserve section which Mr. Anslow

A.—3

held. I daresay I could tell if I saw Commissioner Sharp's allotment. Mr. Anslow is not here, and I may have some difficulty in discovering the number of the original section for which the allotted section was given in lieu. The Commissioners : Are you able to argue the point as to whether you have a legal or equitable title to relief from the Government ? Mr. Carruthers : I cannot say that I am. I would prefer to leave the matter in the hands of the Commission. [Case closed.] Sections 6, 7, 8,15,16,19, 20, Rintoul Street.—MUNßO and SEATON, Claimants. Mr. J. B. Fisher appeared for claimants. John Munro, examined by Mr. J. B. Fisher : I am the owner, together with John Seaton, of sections 6, 7, 8, 15, 16, 19, 20. The claim sent in by me is true to the best of my knowledge and belief. [Mr. Mackay admitted that the persons whose names appeared in the claims as allottees were the allottees tinder Mr. Commissioner Sharp's allotment.] I remember the sections in the old township being washed away, and the agitation which was got up to induce the Nelson Government to grant sections in lieu of them higher up in the township. I recollect Commissioner Sharp coming to Westport. He was appointed Commissioner under Gazette notice, to give effect to certain resolutions of the Provincial Council with regard to giving compensation for sections washed away. The resolutions placed in my hand are the resolutions passed in Session XXII. of the Nelson Provincial Council which Mr. Commissioner Sharp was instructed to give effect to. [Resolutions contained in Votes and Proceedings of Provincial Council, Session XXII., 1872, read.] The report contained on page 36 is the report of the Select Committee appointed by the Provincial Council to consider the subject. It is signed "Alexander Reid, Chairman." It was to give effect to the resolution recommending that the people should obtain sections at a low rental that Mr. Commissioner Sharp came down subsequently. At that time there was no street above Nelson Street. Palmerston Street was merely described on the map. There was then no means of getting to the town allotments so as to enable people to settle and carry on their business. The whole of the land in the neighbourhood of this Court was dense bush and swamp. There was a general feeling at the time that unless facilities for taking up sections were given, and the recommendations of the Select Committee of the Nelson Provincial Council carried out, there would have been a general exodus from the town. Previously to the road being made at this end of the town, the land really had no market value. It was the settlement of the people and the improvements they made that gave it value. Shortly after Mr. Commissioner Sharp's visit, the road up to Palmerston Street was made at Provincial Government cost. As soon as the road was made people began moving up and availing themselves of the sections allotted by Mr. Commissioner Sharp, which were more or less built upon. When the matter was before the Provincial Council I saw an amendment moved by the Provincial Secretary to this effect:— " That all the words after the first word ' That,' be struck oitt, and the following substituted— ' His Honor the Superintendent be recommended to allow the people of Westport who have lost their buildings by the encroachments of the sea and river, as well as those who must from the same cause remove their buildings from the lower portion of the town, to occupy on lease, at a low rent, allotments on the upper portion of the Colliery Reserve : and that the remainder of the reserve, or such portion of it as the Government may determine, should be declared open for occupation under business licenses as soon as possible after the blocks to be leased have been set apart.' " I do not know whether Mr. Commissioner Sharp made any representation to the people as to the tenure upon which they could get the la_id. A pledge has been made by the Superintendent at a public meeting in Westport. A meeting was held to protest against the enormous charge of £5 for a section 33 feet by 66 feet, which represented something like £80 per acre per annum. The Superintendent arrived shortly after and held a meeting of his own, and said that some arrangement would be come to with regard to the compensation sections. The scale of rent to be paid was that named by Mr. Carruthers. The term was to be fourteen years, but I cannot swear whether £5 was to be the annual rental for the last five years. The Commissioners : Was the arrangement suggested by the Superintendent an arbitrary arrangement on his part, or was it confirmed by the Provincial Council, or any one else ? Witness : I think the arrangement was made by the Superintendent solely, and we considered his decision to be final. Rent was received from me under that arrangement, and from other people too. Upon some of my sections I paid rent up to January 1875; but Mr. Bowen, the Receiver of Revenue, in this matter refused to receive rent after Mr. Mackay's visit here about this time last year. I have always been prepared to carry out the arrangement proposed by the Superintendent. I have cleared the whole of the sections upon the assumption that we were to get a lease. I certainly should not have bought these properties if I had been under the impression that I was not to get a lease of them. The Commissioner: But we suppose you must have been aware, Mr. Munro, that these people had no title to give you ? We mean the people from whom you purchased. Witness : I believed that when tho allotments were made by the Commissioner appointed by the Superintendent, that the Government were acting with perfect bond fides. The sections cost tho amount stated in the claims, without adding interest on the money. We objected to build upon them in the absence of title. We cleared the land, but as the title was obscure we did not deem it advisable to build on them. We bought the land with the object of making a wharf at the end of Rintoul Street and stores in the neighbourhood, but the sections would have little value as long as the title remained doubtful. Sections 15 and 16 were actually leased by me to Mr. David Stewart, at £30 per annum for the two, and I have since had overtures from other people, but in consequence of the insecurity of the title I did not come to any arrangement. Mr. W. M. Cooper offered me £150 for sections 6, 7, and 8; but in consequence of tho insecurity of the title the negotiation was broken off. They had

A.—3

much higher value at the time we took possession of them, but I do not think their annual value would now be more than £7 10s. each. The offer to purchase 6, 7, and 8 was unconditional, but there was an assumption that the promise of the Superintendent would be carried out. 15 and 16 cost me about £50, and I should be happy to get that sum for them. They have a frontage of 33 feet by a depth of 132. We bought them as sites for a wharf, but the frontage has silted up, and they have not now the same value as they had two years ago, when I let them to Stewart. They are only valuable for residence areas. The selling value of sections 19 and 20 is not very great at the present time. They are worth about £35 each. The letting value would be about £7 10s. per annum. By Mr. Fisher: I and Mr. O'Conor waited upon the Minister of Public Works as a deputation appointed to represent the position of matters relating to this Colliery Reserve, and as the result of that interview, which took place in Wellington, the Minister for Public Works handed us this memorandum :— " Minister for Public Works informed deputation from Borough Council and Town of Westport that the Government proposed immediately to insert advertisements in local papers, calling upon all persons who consider that they have claims on the Colliery Reserve to forward them within one month ; that they will then consider them all carefully, and will as soon as possible make known what they propose to do in respect of them. " That in all probability all the reserve except that portion facing Palmerston Street will be required for railway purposes, and that they propose to grant leases upon fair and equitable terms, for a period of about fourteen years, of all the sections fronting Palmerston Street." That fairly expresses the result of the interview. All the transactions in these sections have been on the understanding that we would obtain leases for fourteen years. The land would never have had any value except for that belief, which induced people to settle on it. By Mr. Mackay : I did not say that Mr. Sharp indicated the terms upon which leases would be granted. I said the pledge was given by the Superintendent, aud that Mr. Sharp made no reference to the terms. Mr. Sharp's allotment was made in July, 1872, but I am not aware that it was a condition of his allotment of these sections that they should be cleared and premises to the value of £50 erected upon them within six months. I heard tho matter spoken of, but Ido not know it as a matter of fact. The Commissioners : Do you know of your own knowledge whether Mr. Sharp attached any conditions to the allotment of these sections ? —I do not know of my own knowledge. Did you understand that conditions of any character whatever were attached to the allotment of the sections?—L believe there was an understanding between the allottees and the Government, that as soon as the road was made available, section-holders would be expected to clear fheir sections and put buildings upon them, subject to a lease to be hereafter agreed upon; but Ido not think Mr. Sharp knew what the terms of that lease would be. As far as my memory serves me, I think it was understood that the whole of Palmerston Street was to be made, and then the allottees were to clear their sections within six months, when they were to receive a'lease from the Provincial Government. Mr. Mackay : I contend that Mr. Sharp made no condition, impliedly or otherwise, with reference to the construction of the road. The conditions he imposed were as I have stated—namely, that the sections were to be cleared within six months, and a house of the value of £50 erected. The Superintendent said he would recommend the Provincial Council to carry out the terms which he proposed—namely, a fourteen years' lease at a rental to be agreed upon. Now, did he get the authority of the Provincial Council to do that ?—I do not know whether it was ever ratified by the Provincial Council, but a Commissioner was appointed to investigate the matter, and an understanding come to that the allotment should be made, and a low rental charged. The only thing Mr. Sharp told us was, that it was the intention of the Provincial Government to give us these allotments at a low rental. • Mr. Mackay :I do not think Mr. Sharp had authority to make any statement as to the rental. I may mention here that sections 15 and 16 will be required for railway purposes. Witness : In that case I shall be glad to accept the value I have put upon them —namely, £50. If the frontage had not silted up, they would have been much more valuable to me. I value sections 6, 7, and Bat £150, because I was offered that amount for them by Mr. Cooper. I gave £30 for No. 6, £30 for 7 and 8, £15 for section 15, £10 for section 16, and £15 each for sections 69 and 20. There are improvements ranging from £5 to £11 on each of these sections. Mr. Mackay : Except as to the reservation as to the legal and equitable position, I have nothing further to say in regard to this claim. Witness : I do not recollect that the Superintendent extended the time within which people were to build from six months to eighteen months, but I do recollect that we were to get leases before building. That was a condition mutually agreed upon. Mr. Mackay said he wished to point out that in the speech of the Superintendent delivered in Westport, in 1873, the Superintendent made no promise that the time for building would be extended from six to eighteen months. [Case closed.] Sections 9, 47, 18, 98, 105, 117, 193.—JOHN CORR, Claimant. Mr. J. B. Fisher appeared to support the claims. John Core sworn, and examined by Mr. Fishee, stated: I heard the statement of Mr. Munro as as to the circumstances connected with the allotment of the sections by Mr. Commissioner Sharp, and I can neither differ from nor add to that statement, which I believe to be correct. Section No. 193, which I purchased from Mrs. Mills, was awarded to her by Commissioners Giles and Dobson, who were appointed to finish the work begun by Mr. Commissioner Sharp. I gave £15 for it. There is nothing upon the section. It is valueless at present, but I desire to retain it because it may be valuable hereafter. I therefore value it at £15. Section 105 was allotted in respect of a section in Gladstone

A.-3

Street. It is valueless to sell. Any value it had is taken away by the railway, which runs alongside it and leaves no means of access. If the Government made a road to it, it might be worth £5 a year; without the road it is not worth more than £1 a year. By Mr. Mackay : The section in Gladstone Street was on the freehold side. It was owned by Mr. O'Conor, but I will not swear whether or not he got a section in lieu of it. The Commissioners : What was the number of the section in Gladstone Street? —It was a small piece of ground on the Native Reserve. I paid rent on section 105 until the Government refused to receive it. In the first claim I valued it at £50, but the value has decreased since then; in fact it is of no value. When I sent in a claim to Mr. Mackay in May last, I put down the £50 as a mere matter of form. Ido not think the section was worth £50, but I thought that did not matter much. I bought section 18, Rintoul Street, from Mr. Grant, to whom it was allotted by Mr. Commissioner Sharp in lieu of a section in Kennedy Street, I think. I cannot say what the section is worth now, as it has been dug away by the Government until there is little of it left. I believe lam entitled to £50 compensation for that section. When it was taken by the Government it was looked upon as a valuable site. I was going to build upon it. It would bo much more valuable if the blank space between Rintoul Street and Wakefield Street were cut up into allotments. I should think the section would be worth £15 a year if it were let out. By Mr. Mackay : The consideration to Grant for this section was £50. I did not pay him any money. I dealt with him for another section. The amount was to be £50, and Grant gave me a receipt for that sum. No money passed. In fact I gave nothing for it. Why then did you get a receipt for £50 ? —lt was a bet for the two sections, and I won the bet. And you consider, under such circumstances, that the section is worth £50. —Yes. Mr. Fishee : You considered you were risking £50 against his £50 ?—Yes. The Commissionees : You drew lots as it were ? —Yes. Mr. Fishee : Could you ever have sold the section for £50 ? —I never tried. Mr. Mackay : Why did you get a receipt ? —ln case I should have to get a title. Do you consider it gave you a valid right to the title ? —I considered I was entitled to receive any title Grant got. When did the transaction take place between you and Grant ? —lt was in July, 1872, two or three months after the allotment by Mr. Commissioner Sharp, and I was going to clear it and occupy it just as the railway was commenced. Then the contractors used the section. At the time I had the transaction with Grant I had no idea the section would be taken for railway purposes. It was generally understood, the railway would como in at the bottom of the town. The Commissioners : If 105 is valueless to sell, why should 18 be fixed at a value of £50 ? — Because section 18 is on a street already made; 105 is in the bush, with no means of access. I considered 18 was worth £15 a year to let. The Commissioners : You do not appear to be very careful in the statements you make. You must remember that this is an important inquiry ; and when people come here to make claims, they must give good reason why they make such claims. They must not trifle with their oaths. We are here to do substantial justice to all parties, and we shall do substantial justice to all parties. We are not here to be played with, neither will we be played with. Mr. Fishee : Suppose the Superintendent had granted the lease of that section, what would the unexpired term be worth ? —I believe it would be worth £50. The Commissioners : What is its market value now ?—I do not think you could get any person to buy it. Then it is a fancy value you have put upon it ? Mr. Fishee : It is a value that has been paid for sections in the immediate vicinity. The Commissioners : Corr has never done anything to the section, so that he cannot be said to have enjoyed it. Therefore there can be no deprivation, as we may term it. Witness : I say that the section is not worth much now, because it has been destroyed by the Government. Section 117, Fonblanque Street, I bought from Mr. D. Emanuel, to whom it was allotted by Mr. Commissioner Sharp. [Mr. Mackay admitted allotment to Emanuel.] lam willing to keep the section upon the terms proposed by the Superintendent; but its outside value is £2 10s. per annum. On a previous occasion I valued the section at £50, but that was an over-estimate. At the present moment it is valueless. I put the £50 into the former claim as a matter of form. I claim £2,600 for section 47, Wakefield Street, because I consider it the most valuable section in the town. Mr. Fishee said that as this was a large claim, he would produce independent testimony as to value. The conveyances of the section—Martin to Monaghan, Monaghan to Bayfield, and Bayfield to Corr (seven years' lease) —were put in by Fisher. Witness : I bought the section to erect a store. The clearing and the erection of the store cost over £200. It had a peculiar value to myself by reason of my occupation as a merchant here. I used it as a store to receive goods from steamers, and it saved me a very large sum in cartage. It was in close proximity to the only wharf there was in the town. It had a frontage to the whole of it. I have paid Bayfield the rent hitherto, and paid the Government one year's rent at the time. The Government would not receive any more rent, and consequently I have not paid any since. £2,600 is a bond fide estimate of the value of the section. The Government moved my store from it, and paid the cost of removal; but there was a stipulation that this transaction should not interfere with my claim for compensation for the section. The store being close to the wharf, I saved a considerable amount in cartage. If the place had prospered as we all hoped it would, the store would have been of considerable value as a receiving store. It would have been worth £300 a year to me, and I should have 100 feet of ground available for letting. I received an offer of 30s. a foot per annum from McKenna, a butcher, who wanted a lease of the spare ground for three years. I had no other offers. I am liable now to the charge of £20 a year for the unexpired portion of my seven years' lease. When I had my store at the wharf, I was not compelled to bring my goods down to the store in Cobden Street.

A.—3.

I often sold goods at that store without taking them to my other store. For section 98, Palmerston Street, I claim £300, or £100 for the 32 feet required by the Government. There is a bonded warehouse on the section, which is included in the £300. The bond is built of wood and iron, and is 24 feet by 40 feet. Mr. Mackay : 32 feet are required for the railway. Witness :If that section is taken, I shall have to get a new store and a new license. Taking off the 32 feet would greatly interfere with the value of the section. A lease granted in terms of the Superintendent's promise would be worth £300 with the store upon it. £1 a week would be a fair rental. The 32 feet makes the section much more valuable, because you can change the frontage. Under the old allotment there was to be a right-of-way at the back ; and if the 32 feet are taken off, the right-of-way goes too. I cannot say what the building cost me ; I value it at £100. The Commissioners : Will the completion of the railway and protective works increase the value of the property ?—Yes, but I cannot say to what extent. By Mr. Mackay : I have seen the right-of-way at the back marked off on some of the plans, but Ido not see it on any of the plans produced. I was always under the impression that there was to be a right-of-way at the back of the sections, but I see, according to the plans, that the right-of-way ends at Brougham Street. Section 9 belongs to Spence Brothers, whose agent I am. Mr. Mackay said he had no further remarks to offer, except to make a reservation as to the legal and equitable rights of the claim. John Munro, auctioneer and land agent, sworn, and examined by Mr. Fisher, stated: I know the section in Wakefield Street which Corr rented from Bayfeild. It must have been of considerable value to Corr to have the store there ; but several elements enter into the consideration of value, so that it would be difficult to fix the value of the section. I should say the building itself would be worth £250 as a receiving store. It would be worth £300 a year, because there would be constant receipts and deliveries. If Corr kept the accounts, he ought to be able to tell what the revenue was. Such a building as I owned myself at Stanley wharf would be worth £300 a year to me, but this store was in a much better position. 1 don't know what the land alongside the store would be worth. The stand was only valuable to Corr for the purpose for which he used it. Mr. Mackay : Are you aware that Corr put in a valuation in November last ?—I am not aware. You have stated that you consider the building worth £300? —I said £250. Are you aware that Mr. Corr claimed only £200 for it ?—I am not aware. You stated that you considered the store worth £300 a year as a receiving store. Are you aware that Mr. Corr estimated the loss of his good-will in that store at £250 ? —I am not aware. Mr. Corr recalled : As regards the statement of Mr. Mackay about the £200 and the £250, I told him that I would sooner accept £200 from him, although the building was worth £250, than pull it down and remove it myself. Mr. Mackay : Before I arranged about the removal of your store, and paid £90 for the work, did you not hand in this claim ? (Mr. Mackay handed to witness the claim preferred by him in November, 1874.) —Yes, that must have been handed in to you before. Did I not offer to purchase the store from you before it was removed, and did I not offer to give you the £200 set down in your claim ? —Yes, I believe you did ; but I told you I would go to Bull, a man competent to form an opinion on the subject, and I said that if he agreed that it was a fair price I would take it; but Bull told me to do nothing of the kind. How do you reconcile the statement put in in 1874 with the statement in your claim in 1875, in the former of which you say, " I built a store on the section which cost me £200 " ?—ln putting these things down I did not keep a very close account of everything, and at the time I purchased the iron for the store it was very cheap. When you came to me again, I found that iron was up in the market. Does not the store on section 52 suit you as well as the other, with the exception of the short distance between the wharf and it ? —No. It is the distance that makes all the difference. If I had been allowed to remain where I was, I should have saved a considerable amount in cartage, because I could have trucked the goods into the store. The first arrangement I had with Mr. Bayfeild in February, 1874, was for a three years' lease, but in August, 1874, 1 induced him to make it a seven years' lease. How could you arrange with Bayfeild on the 14th February, 1874, when it has been stated here that he bought from Monaghan on the 31st July, 1874 ?—ln Monaghan's sale note to Bayfeild you will find that Bayfeild had acquired the right to the property some time before the execution of the transfer. You remember that in January, 1874, you called for tenders for erecting a building upon the section ?—I do. Did you get a letter from the Town Clerk ?—I did. This is a copy of it;— " Town Clerk's Office, Westport, Feb. 2, 1874. " Sir, —Observing that by advertisement in the Buller News you are calling for tenders for building on section 47, in Wakefield Street, on the Coal Reserve, it is my duty to inform you that at the last meeting of the Borough Council a resolution was passed requesting the Government to acquire or otherwise withdraw from occupation the said section, on account of the same being required as an approach to the wharf. " I have, <fee, " Geo. Caeeuthees, " John Corr, Esq., Westport." " Town Clerk. Mr. Mackay : What reply did you make to that ?—I considered it a great piece of impertinence, and I built all the same. Were you not aware that the Government were going to construct the railway alongside the section ? —I was not. Do you positively swear that you were not ? —I will not positively swear, but to the best of

A.—3

my belief I did not. I knew the railway was coming somewhere about there, but where I could not say. Mr. Mackay : —(Maps exhibited showing course of railway in town of Westport)—lt was well known that the railway would go in this direction and would pass this section, and you therefore went in the face of the letter of the Borough Council, and erected this store which you now claim for. The Commissioners : —Did you erect this store in the face of such knowledge ? —As regards the letter, I did not consider it anything. But did you know that the survey had been made, and that the railway would pass the section ?— I was not aware of it. Then when you erected that building you had no knowledge whatever that the railway would pass the section ? —I did not think the Government would require the section. They had left the right-of-way between the store and the wharf for some distance, and I do not think this section would be required. Mr. Mackay : Don't you think the Provincial Government of Nelson would have acceded to the request of the Borough Council?—l don't think the Provincial Government even took the slightest notice of the letter. They knew they had already dealt with the land. Mr. Mackay : You have no right to assume that at all. The General Government had the right to take that section at any time. The Commissionees : You are now touching upon the legal right. Did you serve him with notice ? Mr. Mackay : I served him with notice last year. Witness : The store had been erected six or nine months. I erected it in February or March. The Commissioners : How did you get section 52 ? —lt was given to me for the section taken. Mr. Fisher : But it was understood that the section given was not to interfere with the claim for compensation. The consideration was that Corr should allow the store to be removed. Mr. Mackay : The agreement between Corr and myself sets forth fully the arrangement between us. There is nothing whatever said about compensation one way or the other. Here is the agreement, witnessed by yourself:— Memorandum of Agreement. " I hereby agree to accept from Her Majesty the Queen the sum of ninety pounds, being in full for the cost of removal of the premises or buildings now standing on section No. 47, Colliery Reserve, Westport, and of the goods stored therein ; and I further agree to remove the said buildings before the 20th day of January, 1875, to section 52, Colliery Reserve, Westport, and to occupy said section subject to whatever terms of rent and tenure as the General Government may hereafter determine. " John Core. " Witness to signature — " J. Bickerton Fisher, Solicitor, Westport." The Commissionees : You claim £900 as rental of the place for six years. That is at the rate of £150 a year. Who would have given you £150 a year ?—I cannot say now, but I would have had no trouble in getting it. What do you mean by good-will of the business ?—lt was a free store, which brought in a revenue of£3ooayear. Can you tell us what your receipts were ?—I do not keep any account. I know some days I made £5 or £6, but it was not often I could make so much as that. That would be in addition to your own business ?—Yes. When you rented the property from Bayfeild were you aware of the nature of Bayf eild's holding ? —I was aware that it had been allotted to him by Mr. Commissioner Sharp. Do you claim this sum as if you were giving up business in that locality, or are you claiming for the loss of your store ?—I claim for loss of business. The store I have now is not of the slightest use as a receiving store. Do you ever use it as a receiving store ? —Yes. Then you have not altogether lost your business? —No. Then you claim for the difference in the value of the two places. If the Government gave you a section in lieu of the one taken, where is your damage ? —ln the former section I had 132 feet frontage, whereas now I have only 33 feet frontage. Mr. Mackay : Section 47 had only 33 feet frontage and 99 feet depth. Witness : I have measured it, and I ought to know. Mr. Mackay : All the Wakefield Street sections have only 33 feet frontage. The Commissioners : This claim, as you put it in, does not contemplate the utter extinction of your business. It is merely an allowance for the difference in the sites ? —-That is all. Mr. Fishee : Do you remember Mr. Evans coming here ?—Yes ; he made the new road. Did he give you any notice that your section would be required ? —No. The first notice I got was from Mr. Mackay. Mr. Mackay : I wish to state that section 47 was allotted to a person named Martin, by Mr. Commissioner Sharp, upon certain conditions none of which were ever fulfilled. Mr. Fishee : I object to such statements as being very irregular. Mr. Mackay : These sections were to be cleared, and a building erected upon them of the value of £50, within six months after allotment. The Commissionees : Where does that appear ? Mr. Mackay : Mr. Sharp stated it at the meeting of claimants which he convened. The Commissionees : Can you prove that? Mr. Mackay : I think any one can prove it who was present at the meeting. Mr. Fishee : The statement is wrong.

A.—3.

Mr. Mackay : Then we must got Mr. Sharp to prove what he did say. The Commissioners : AVas there any advertisement regarding the matter? Mr. Mackay : The basis of the conditions is contained in the fifth resolution passecl by the Select Committee of the Nelson Provincial Council in 1872, which stated that in default of erecting a house, value £50, within six months after allotment, the land should revert to the Crown. Mr. Fishee intimated that he would be prepared to address the Commission upon the question of damages on Thursday morning. [Case allowed to stand over.] Sections 10, 11, 12, 13.—JOHN HUGHES, Claimant. Mr. Haselden appeared for claimant. John Hughes sworn, and examined by Mr. Haselden : I bought section 10, fronting Rintoul Street, from Mr. Kiely for £20. I have cleared it, and paid rent up to December, 1874. I tendered rent after that date, but it was refused. I have discovered since the purchase that Kiely was not the original allottee, but I shall have no difficulty in obtaining a transfer from the original allottee, Mr. Corr. If I had obtained a fourteen years' lease for the section, £1 a year would be a fair rent for it. If the Government wish to take the land I shall be willing to accept what I gave for it—namely, £25. I also bought section 11 from Mr. Kiely. Sontgen was the original allottee. I purchased the section for the same price as section 10, and I think the annual value would be the same. I paid £20 for it, t and am willing to take £30 for it. It is cleared. James Colvin was the original allottee of section 12. I bought it from Suisted and Gothard for £20. I paid rent upon it until it was refused. I cleared it, and now value it at £40. It is more valuable than the others, as it abuts on the corner, and cost more to clear. I bought section 13 from the original allottee, Win. Struthers, and gave him £35 for it. I have paid rent upon it the same as upon the others. Its outside value is £50. It is a corner section in Palmerston Street, and in conjunction with the others might be worth 30s. a year. I have lived here from the beginning of the settlement, and can vouch for the truth of Mr. Munro's statements. I have been washed out twice ; and when sections were allotted to me the second time I was washed out, there was no sign of a road to them. The sections were valueless. I could not get near them. My business was sacrificed. I was present when Mr. Sharp made the allotment. There some talk about conditions, but nothing definite was said. Nobody ever said to me, "You must improve the land or erect buildings." I have spent about £100 on these sections, which I should not have done had I not had an idea that I should ultimately obtain a title. I believe we shall get a title yet. I purchased these sections in 1873, about June or July, and built my hotel on its present site almost immediately after. I claim these sections as purchased sections. They had nothing to do with sections in the old township which were washed away. Mr. Munro and Mr. Suisted were called to prove the sale of the sections to Hughes. [Case closed.] The Commission then adjourned till next day, at 10 o'clock.

Wednesday, Ist Decembee, 1875. Sections 147, 148, 149, 150.—JOHN HUGHES, Claimant. The Commissioners having pointed out on the previous day that the certificate of transfer for one of the sections was made out in favour of Messrs. Tonks and Hughes, and that it would be necessary to dispose of the equities of Tonks, evidence was taken to show that there had been a deed of dissolution of partnership duly executed. John Hughes, recalled: I dissolved partnership with Tonks in 1873. The deed of dissolution is now in the possesion of Mr. Tonks, of Greymouth ; but I am prepared to give the Commission the assurance that there was a covenant in tho deed of dissolution to the effect that the Westport property should vest in me, and the Greymouth property in Mr. Tonks. The Commissioners : Your statement is no doubt correct in every particular, Mr. Hughes, but it will still be necessary that you should produce the deed of dissolution, or a certificate from Mr. Tonks renouncing any claim to these sections. Mr. Hughes : Then I will produce the deed. I stated yesterday that sections 10, 11, 12, and 13 would be worth £1 a year. I wish to correct that estimate. I think the four sections in one block would be worth £8 a year. Sections 147, 148, 149, and 150 were granted to Tonks and Hughes by Commissioners Giles and Dobson, in lieu of sections previously occupied by me. I paid rent upon them until June, 1875. I claim £30 for section 147, as it is a corner section, which would be worth £2 a year for fourteen years as a cottage site. They are not suitable for the erection of an hotel. I value sections 148, 149, and 150 at £20, and I consider 30s. a year would be a fair rental. In the present state of things in Westport, I should not feel justified in giving more for them. When these sections were allotted to me they were not cleared. There was a road up Palmerston Street, but there were no business places around them. I have paid two years' rent upon them, and have not received a penny in return. There is no demand for cottages now ; but if I were to build a good large house, it might let for 20s. a week. I did not buy them for speculation. If 1 got the sections at a reasonable rate, I would build a good house upon the four sections. * The Commissioners : Why did Commissioners Giles and Dobson allot these sections ? —Because there was a second flood after Mr. Sharp's allotment; and besides, a great many people who were entitled to sections were left out of Mr. Sharp's allotment. You have stated that sections 147, 148, 149, and 150 are worth £90 collectively, and a rental of £6 10s. per annum. Do you estimate that upon the assumption that you would get a fourteen years' 7—A. 3.

A.—3

lease? —Yes. It would of course be better if we had twenty-one-year leases, because we could then deal with the sections as we liked. The rental in that case would be increased from £6 10s. to £10 or £12. People would go to greater expense in building houses. The element of uncertainty has a considerable effect in your estimate ?—Yes. I would sooner pay £3 a year for the sections if I could utilize them than pay 30s. for them now. Mr. Mackay handed in Mr. Commissioner Giles's allotment (A), and also Mr. Commissioner Sharp's allotment (B). C. H. W. Bowen, examined by Mr. Haselden, stated: I was appointed Receiver of Gold Revenue in 1870. The receipts for rent upon Mr. Hughes' sections are in my handwriting and signed by me. I collected the rents of sections on the Coal Reserve by authority from the Warden, who handed me certain correspondence from the Provincial Secretary. I had no direct authority to act. I had no list to guide me in receiving rent. I do not recollect receiving or seeing the letter dated 7th February, 1873, with list of allotments attached, until I discovered it on a shelf in the office on the 11th June, 1874. I hold a copy of a list in my hand which I received from Mr. Daniels, Commissioner of Crown Lands in Nelson. [List put in and marked C] I also produce copy of a letter which I discovered on the shelf in the Warden's office referring to the allotment made by Mr. Commissioner Sharp, and accompanied by a list of persons from whom rent would be received. [Letter and list put in—marked D and E.] I wrote a letter to the Provincial Secretary, at his request, on the 24th November, 1874, in which I referred to the discovery of the list in the Warden's Office. That letter I produce [F]. I received instructions from the Provincial Secretary as to the manner in which the rents for allotments on the Colliery Reserve should be charged |"G]. I regarded Mr. Mackay as an officer of the Govern- * ment, having full power to act as he did. He first instructed me to cease taking rent on 27th November, 1874. By direction of Mr. O'Conor, I continued to receive rent from any person who offered it, because I believed they knew their business better than I did; but that was previous to the receipt of Mr. Mackay's instructions to cease receiving the rent. For documents put in, see Appendix. [Case closed.] Section 17.—W. S. MUNDAY, Claimant. Claimant appeared in person. Mr. Mackay admitted derivation of title. Claimant, sworn: The statement put in by me is true in every particular. When I bought the section it was very heavily timbered. I got it at a merely nominal price, but it would have been much cheaper to have bought a section higher in price, which would have been more easily cleared. I have a cottage on the section. The improvements have cost me £200 altogether, and that is the sum I value the section at. The weekly rental would be about 12s. 6d. 30s. a year would be a fair rental for fourteen years' lease. A twenty-one years' lease might vary from 30s. to £2. It is suitable only for a cottage residence. I have paid rent to Ist January, 1875. [Case closed.] Sections 21, 49, 84.—REUBENA ASKEW, Claimant. Mr. Mackay admitted the allotment to Thomas Askew, husband of claimant, who was recently drowned. Mr. Haselden appeared for claimant, and called witnesses to testify to the value of the sections. J. Hughes, sworn: Section 21, Rintoul Street, would be worth from £20 to £25 if a fourteen years' lease were granted. The yearly rental would be fairly stated at 30s. to £2. If business improved very much, it would be worth £3 a year. The evidence I gave as to my own sections would apply to this section. I would rather give £3 a year for a twenty-one years' lease than £2 for a fourteen years' lease. A lease of section 49, Wakefield Street (which is required for the railway) would be worth £100 as it now stands. It is a good section, partly cleared, and in a good position. As a site for a store it would be worth £10 to £12 a year. My valuation is based upon the assumption that the tenants would be at liberty to remove their buildings at the expiration of the term, or have the option of renewing the lease. With a fourteen years' lease, section 84 would be worth an annual rental of £2. The fact of the section being freehold would not make much difference in the value of the rental. By Mr. Mackay: The section given to Askew was given in exchange for a section on the Esplanade. I think the Wellington Hotel, owned by Askew, was on the Native Reserve. I have heard that they got other land beside this section, as compensation for the section on the reserve. The Government Reserve is opposite section 84. I consider the Colliery Reserve the best side of the street. I should choose on that side even if the reserved sections were thrown open for sale. G. W. Salter, commission agent, sworn, stated: I have had some experience in the sale of sections on the Colliery Reserve, and I consider section 49, Wakefield Street, worth £100. I form that estimate from the price paid for sections in Palmerston Street. Ido not think a freehold is much more valuable than a leasehold, as a marketable commodity. A lease of the section for fourteen years would be worth £10 to £12 a year. I think section 49 is more valuable than section 84, which is only worth from £70 to £80. The Commission informed Mr. Haselden that it would be necessary to produce documentary proof that Reubena Askew was the administratrix of Thomas Askew. » [Case closed.] Sections 22 and 23.—HENRI PAIN, Claimant. Claimant appeared in person. Mr. Mackay admitted that F. West was the original allottee of section 22, and stated that it was not required for railway purposes.

A.—3

Henri Pain, sworn: I bought section 22 from Mr. O'Conor, who purchased from West, but I have no receipt from West. I gave £25 for the section, which sum included the purchase money for a horse, both being included in the one receipt. I have been in possession since July, 1873. I have built a store, storeroom, stable, cart sheds, &c, on the section at a cost of £410, which amount I claim. The two sections would be worth £4 a year under a fourteen years' lease. Ido not think a twentyone years' lease would be much more valuable. The sections are in an out-of-the-way place, though they are suitable for my business, that of a cordial manufactory. I have paid no rent at all upon them. I never thought of offering any, but lam quite prepared to pay when called upon to do so. Section 23 was allotted to me. The Commissioners : You have no papers to show that West sold to O'Conor. You must get a certificate from West to show that West sold to O'Conor. Your claim cannot be dealt with until we receive that paper. The certificate was subsequently put in by Pain. [Case closed.] Sections 24, 25, and 159.— J. S. SUISTED and ANNE AVEBSTER, Joint Claimants to 159. Mr. Haselden appeared for the claimant. Mr. Mackay admitted original allotment to H. Stannard by Commissioners Giles and Dobson. J. S. Suisted, sworn: I bought section 24 from F. Courtney, who purchased from Stannard for £20. I have paid rent upon the section up to January, 1875. I produce receipts. A fourteen years' lease of the property would be worth £1 to 30s. a year. I have erected a dwelling-house upon the property. If I had a twenty-one years' lease it would bo worth £1 or £5 a year, but Ido not think I should leave the buildings on the ground at the end of the term. I have spent about £250 upon the section. The improvements consist of fencing, clearing, planting garden, &c, which I value at £100. If the sections were improved, it would be worth £1 or £2 a year. A person named AVilkinson was the original allottee of section 25. 1 gave £25 for it. .In the state in which I bought it, it would be worth £1 or £2 a year, but with a fourteen or twenty-one years' lease it would be worth £4 to £5 a year. There is a four-roomed cottage upon it, and it is planted with trees. The remarks in the previous claim apply to this one. I claim half section 159, which was allotted to me by Commissioners Giles and Dobson in lieu of a section which was in danger of being washed away. No rent has been paid upon it. It is valueless at the present time, but it may become valuable if a road is made to it. The whole section is not worth more than £1 a year. Aim Webster, sworn : I produce receipts for the purchase of half section in Lyttelton Street, in exchange for which I was granted half section 159. 1 have no objection to a lease being issued jointly in favour of myself and Mr. Suisted. I have paid no rent upon the section. By Mr. Mackay : I still occupy my half of section in Lyttelton Street, which has not yet been washed away. I have a house upon it, which I let for ss. or 6s. a week. [Case closed.J Sections 26, 27, 52, 53, 66.—ROBERTS and MUNRO, Claimants. Mr. J. B. Fisher appeared for claimants. John Munro, sworn: I own these sections jointly with W. C. Roberts. The original allottee of section 26 was John Clarke, and of section 27 AY. J. Patterson. [Mr. Mackay admitted correctness of allotment.] I produce the sale notes from Clarke and Patterson. The transfer is blank, but I and Roberts are the persons whose names should have been filled in. Roberts gave instructions for their purchase, Section 52 was the subject of law process some time ago, and the receipt of transfer was forwarded to Hokitika to Mr. Button, and cannot now be produced, but we have a receipt from Graves and Fleming, and paid rent upon the section. Section 63 1 purchased from Robert McParland. That transfer is also iv blank. AYe were buying jointly, intending to divide the sections afterwards. Section 00 was bought from Dickinson. The Commissioners : But this is a transfer to Roberts, and not to Roberts and Munro. This is a most extraordinary way of doing things. The transfer was completed on the 10th July, 1873, and here we have a letter signed Thomas Dickinson, dated 12th July, 1873, giving his assent to the sale. So that really the sale was effected before his assent was obtained. Then, again, this style of making transfers in blank savours very much of speculation; but worse than that, it opens the door to fraud. AYe do not wish to impute that Mr. Munro would do anything of the kind, but what is to prevent a person coming here with a blank transfer and saying that he is the person whose name should appear on the face of the document. We can only say that if that is the way the people of AVestport conduct their business, it is not a creditable state of things. AV'itness : I had verbal instructions from Mrs. Dickinson to deal with this section, and it was sold in consequence of those instructions. The buyer, however, objected to accept the transfer without Mr. Dickinson's signature being attached, and I wrote to Mr. Dickinson for his consent to the purchase. He duly forwarded the receipt, and the transaction was completed. The Commissioners :It seems to us that the whole of these transactions are extremely lax. Such a state of things ought not to be tolerated. What right had Mr. Munro or anybody else to sign away another man's property without his approval ? That surely is not a correct or legitimate way of transacting business. AVitness : Mr. Dickinson was managing a quartz mine at the Lyell, and the means of communication at that time was not very good. Mrs. Dickinson represented that the property was her own, and that she had a right to deal with it as she pleased; and more than that, Mr. Dickinson was rather pleased at the price I got, because it was more than the reserve placed on the section. I paid £42 for section 26, aud have made improvements to the extent of £5. 1 gave £65 to Patterson for sections 27 and 28. The latter is the most valuable of tho two. It is worth £35. I gave £55 for section 52, and I spent £5 in clearing it. Section 53 I gave £51 for, and for 56, £40, and spent £5 in improving each. I paid rent up to the time it was refused. Under a fourteen years' lease the annual value of

A.—3

26 would be £2 10s., and of 27, £2 ;52 would be worth £7 10s. a year. A lease for twenty-one years might affect the selling value, but Ido not think it would affect the annual value. Section 22 would be worth about £7 10s., and section 53 about £5. Section 66 would be worth about £5 to £7 10s. The position, of section 52 is this: About twelve months ago the General Government possessed themselves of it, and have retained possession ever since. They have placed Mr. Corr's store upon it. The Commissioners : Do you admit that they are entitled to compensation, Mr. Mackay ?—Provided the decision as to the legal and equitable position is in their favour. Witness : Fourteen days before Mr. Mackay claimed the section, Mr. John Draghicavich and another person offered me £210 for sections 52 and 53, which I refused, because I wanted the sections. I claim leases for them in terms of the.promises made by Mr. Curtis and Mr. Sharp. If the Government retain possession of 52, I claim £150, because it was the most valuable of the two, and I assess its value by fairly apportioning the amount offered for the two sections by Mr. Draghicavich. By Mr. Mackay : I cannot fix the date of the offer made by Mr. Draghicavich. I was not aware that you had made up your mind to take my section. I knew that you were going to move Corr's store, but I had no special means of knowing that you were going to put it on my section. You never consulted me upon the subject. lat first refused to give up possession of the section when I was told the Government wanted it, but afterwards, upon the advice of my legal adviser, I consented to give up possession. If you say that was in January, lam quite prepared to believe it. Before I left for AVellington this time last year, 1 heard that Corr's store was to be put on my section, but I had no intimation to that effect from you. The Commissionees : If you refused to give up possession, you must have had an application for the section ? —The District Engineer sent an officer to take possession, but no one acting under authority from Mr. Mackay ever came to me. I don't recollect Mr. Mackay having any conversation with me upon the matter. Mr. Mackay :On the 18th December, 1874,1 saw you at Gilmer's Hotel, and you said, "So you are going to take my section 52 to put Corr's stqre on?" I said "Yes;" and you made no objection to the matter then. It was either the 18th or 19th January when you gave up possession of the section; and yet you say that fourteen days before it was taken from you, you had this offer from Draghicavich. Witness : I wish the Commissioners to note my statement that fourteen days before the section was taken I got this bond fide offer of £210 for the property. I telegraphed to Roberts for his consent to the sale, but he refused. Mr. Mackay : I say that on the 18th December you were aware, to my knowledge, that I intended to take the section, and it must have been after the Ist January that you got this offer. The Commissioners : Now, let us put the question to you, When you got that offer from Draghicavich, had you any idea that the section would be required for the purposes of the Government ?—Certainly not; neither had the person who made the offer. Mr. Mackay : I am in a position to contradict that. Iyatt Grayes proved the sale of the section to John Munro in July, 1873. P. J. McKenna proved that he bought section 26 from John Clarke for £5, and sold it to Mr. Munro for £42. J. Deaghicayich, sworn: I remember making Munro an offer of £200 for sections 52 and 53. It was a bond fide offer. I said ho could make it £5 more if he would make up his mind to sell. I was quite prepared to pay the money when I made the offer, but I had no idea that Corr's store was going to be put on section 52. John Coee, sworn: I do not remember the date upon which Mr. Mackay took" possession of section 52 for the purpose of removing my store there. I see by the agreement placed in my hands that it was on the 18th December, 1874. Mr. Mackay : I had been speaking to you about a fortnight before about the matter, had I not? —I daresay you had. It was notorious. Every one knew about it ? —I do not know that they did. Mr. Munro knew, did he not ?—That I cannot say. Mr. Mackay, sworn: During my negotiations with Corr as to the removal of his store to No. 52, he told me that Munro had had a conversation with him upon the subject; that Munro was well aware that the store was to be removed to his section. This was on the 17th or 18th of December. I also had a conversation with Munro myself upon one of those days, when he said to me, " You are going to take my section, No. 52," and 1 said, " Yes." By Mr. Fisher : My object in giving this evidence is to rebut Mr. Munro's statement to-day. I do not usually take notes of what people say to me, but I do take notes of every transaction I conduct, and 1 have a distinct recollection of what took place in reference to this matter. I came down here to represent the Crown. I first came here in "November, 1874, when I told Mr. Bowen not to collect any more rents. As representing the Crown, I had a right to do so, and it was by virtue of the same authority that I took possession of Munro's section and placed Corr's store upon it. I first told Mr. Bowen he was not to receive rent for certain sections, but I afterwards told him not to receive rent for any sections. I represent no other person but the General Government. My instructions are to recognize no legal or equitable rights to leases on this reserve. I cannot recognize any encumbrance upon it. I do not know what became of the rent received by Mr. Bowen, nor did I give him any instructions with reference to money matters. I did not promise Corr a title to section 52. He is just as much liable to be removed now as he was before. I can give you no information as to whether the people are to get any rights to their sections. By the Commissioners : The Commissioners are the proper persons to say what the rights of the people are, and say whether they are legal or equitable. [Case closed.]

A.—3

Section 28.—FRANCIS McPARLAND, Claimant. Claimant, sworn : I bought this section from John Munro, acting as agent for W. J. Patterson, for £65. I paid rent upon the section until the Government refused to accept it. I have not done anything to the section. With a fourteen years' lease it might be worth £2 10s. or £3 a year. I intended to build on it, and went so far as to place the material on the ground ; but in consequence of the insecurity of the title I delayed the work. I had gone so far as to call for tenders for the erection of the building, when I received a note from Mr. Mackay stating that it would be better not to build until the tenure was settled. Mr. Mackay said the section was not required for railway purposes. [Case closed.] Section 29.—WILLIAM MAILER, Claimant. Claimant, sworn: lam the original allottee. I have built upon the section an iron store, which I value at £205. It cost me more than that when I erected it in July, 1874. £2 10s a year is a fair rental for the ground. I do not know whether a lease for twenty-one years would make it any more valuable, or worth any more than that per year. It might be worth one-third more. I have paid rent to January, 1875. By the Commissioners: The statement attached to your claim puts the value of your shop at £280. How do you account for tho inconsistency ?—lf the statement puts it at £280, it is incorrect. By Mr. Mackay : Iv tho valuation you gave me you estimated the premises as being worth £180 and the section at £75, making £255 in all?— That must have been an oversight. I never intended to send in any valuation for the section. I simply wish to claim for the improvements I have made. I received the section in lieu of a freehold one in Gladstone Street, which had only 12 feet frontage. I paid £36 a year for it, being at the rate of £3 a foot. [Case closed.] Sections 30, 31, 32.—BAILLIE and HUMPHREY, Claimants. Mr. Humphrey, examined by the Commissioners, stated: AYe are in possession of the sections enumerated. Our store is built upon them. Nos. 31 and 32 were allotted to us by Mr. Commissioner Sharp, the other was acquired by purchase. I value the improvements on all the sections at £750. Taking the sections together in the block, I consider their annual value for a lease of fourteen years would be £15; for twenty-one years' lease it would be a little more, say £20. We have 99 feet frontage to Palmerston Street. I paid £10 for the section I bought from Williams. I believe he got it in lieu of a place in Gladstone Street, which I think was freehold. Ido not know whether he got compensation otherwise. The site we are on is a good site for our business. £20 a year would be 3s. a foot. It is perhaps a low rental, but there is little demand for property in this town. It is difficult to arrive at a correct estimate of what the value of the ground would be. As agent for a gentleman in Christchurch, I have let freehold sections in the neighbourhood of the Empire Hotel at 6s. Bs. per foot. By Mr. Mackay : Freehold section No. 6is let at 6s Bd. a foot for a period of seven years. Whatever buildings are on the ground are to be left at the expiration of the term. The Buller News and a store belonging to Mr. Corr are erected on that section. I have let other ground at 145., and a corner section at 28s. per foot. Freehold section No. 103, at the corner of Pakington Street, is let for fourteen years at 18s. a foot; the rest of the ground has been let for some time at 6s. Bd. a foot. The conditions of lease are that all buildings are to be left. There is a large hotel at the corner of this section, know m as the Red Lion. There is a chemist's shop, and also Manson's draper's shop on it. In my opinion, the Coal Reserve is the best sido of the street; but Ido not think the difference is very great. The Coal Reserve is certainly the best side for business. I consider the leases I have made as fair leases. Of course we tried to get as much for the ground as we could ; but I must explain that the applicants camo to us, we did not go to them. The ground upon which Mr. Richardson's shop stands (section 103) is let for fourteen years at 14s. per foot. The Buller News is a seven years' lease, of which five years are to run. AYe would not let the lease of this ground now at 6s. Bd. per foot. If we had it to let now, we would charge 10s. a foot. The same valuation would rule with regard to Mansou's. The corner lot was let within the last three months. The property has of course improved very much since the Empire Hotel was built, and houses began to multiply in the neighbourhood. By Mr. Fisher (through the Court) : The value of these sections to let per foot three years ago, before the street was made by the Provincial Government and the reserve was cleared, was virtually nothing. My principals in Christchurch sent me from time to time very arbitrary prices they expected to receive per foot, but I could not get those prices. They were much too high. I have a good deal of land now that is not let, but I do not receive any offers for it. The land transactions of the last twelve months have been very few. The business requirements of the town in that respect are now very limited. The lower part of the town near the Empire Hotel is the best for business. Tho principal portion of tho inhabitants live there, and, for retail trade, where the population is there of course the business will be. For wholesale purposes, the south end of the town is best. If it had not been for the promises of the Superintendent we would never have come up to this end of the town, because we could have bought good freehold sections in other parts of the town which would have suited us equally well; consequently I maintain that we are entitled to fourteen years' lease. By the Commissioners : The completion of the railway and the protective works will of course tend to increase the value of all the sections on the Colliery Reserve. I wish to qualify that statement in this way : I don't think the town itself will increase very much by reason of the completion of the railway. I think it will become a kind of depot. The population will be located on the coal field. I believe, however, that the completion of the railway will increase the value of property in the town by about one-third in two years' time. I believe the coal trade will be developed in two years

A.—3

after the railway is finished. Excepting in one or two mines, very little is being done at present. The Albion Company's mine is ready for working now. They could get coal out at once. There is another mine owned by Roche and party which could get out coal immediately ; in fact there are several other mines who have nothing to do but get out the coal. If the railway is not completed, land here will be of very little value indeed. AVestport will virtually die out. We are only hanging on for the completion of these public works. I have cleared sections 186 and 188, and expended about £450 upon them. I should like to have these sections leased to me in one block. For a fourteen years' lease £2 10s. would be a fair rental for each section. For twenty-one years, I think £3 would be a fair rent, the buildings to be left on the ground at the end of the term. To remove the buildings at the end of a fourteen years' lease, £3 10s. would be a fair rental per year. If I took a lease for fourteen years now, with a right of renewal for ten years at a valuation, I think £3 10s. would be a fair rental. A section adjoining my house was sold the other day for £10. I have paid rent to January, 1874, when the Government refused to receive any more. [Case closed.] Sections 33, 34, and 35.—GILMER BROTHERS, Claimants. Mr. Haselden appeared for claimants. John Gilmee sworn: lam a member of the firm of Gilmer Brothers. Sections 34 and 35 were awarded to us by Mr. Commissioner Sharp for sections in the lower town which were washed away. Section 33 we bought from Suisted Brothers for £30. I have paid rent upon the sections to December, 1873, after which date it was refused. I did not tender rent in 1874, because I heard Mr. Bowen had declined to receive from others. I did not go to his office to tender any myself. Upon the three sections we have expended £2,500. The sections were covered with dense bush when they were allotted to us. They cost us £30 to clear. There was no road to them at that time. In fact they were valueless. We built upon them on the faith of Mr. Curtis's promise that we would get a lease for fourteen years at £1 for the first two years, £2 10s. for the next five years, and £5 for the last seven. It was against my wish to build upon the sections, but Mr. Curtis strongly persuaded me to do so. He said the public buildings would be removed to this end of the town, and that business would improve in time. The price we gave for section 33 was quite as much as it was worth. It was our building upon these sections that gave them any value. When our sections in the lower town were washed away we were considered the heaviest losers, and Commissioner Sharp gave us the first choice of sections up here. I cannot form any idea as to what would be a fair rent for the sections. lam willing to pay the rent promised by the Superintendent. The highest annual value that can be attached to the sections would be about £10. I think ss. or 6s. a foot is quite enough to pay for them. [Case closed.] The Commission adjourned at 4.30 p.m. Thursday, 2nd December, 1875. Sections 36 and 37.—BANK OF NEW ZEALAND, Claimant. C. G. Andeews, Manager of the Bank of New Zealand, sworn, stated : The Bank claimed the section or a lease of it in terms of the promise made by the Superintendent (Mr. Curtis). Bent was paid upon it up to the date when its discontinuance was ordered by Government. With a fourteen years' lease the sections would sell for £70 or £100, and would be worth a rental of £10 to £12 a year. They have 33 feet frontage each. A lease for twenty-one years would of course make a difference in the valuation, but it is impossible to say where the town will ultimately be, there is so much land unoccupied. The value I attach to the sections is entirely dependent upon the railway and protective works being carried out to completion. At the present time they are of little value at all. Even when the coal mines are developed, Ido not think the town will become of any considerable size. The population will be located in the neighbourhood of the mines, as in the case of Newcastle, New South Wales, which is not a large town although there is a large trade there. By the Commissionee: It will be a long time before AVestport will bo such a prosperous town as Greymouth. Business sites there are valuable on account of the building space being limited, but there is a further reason which will always keep Greymouth in advance of Westport—it has far greater resources. It has a considerable extent of back country in the Grey Valley, which AVestport cannot be said to have. From what I have learnt, the development of the coal mines will be a slow process, so much so that there cannot be any large export for many years. Besides that, the gold yield of this district is steadily falling off. Sections in the neighbourhood of the Red Lion Hotel are more valuable than sections at this end of the town for rental or hotel business. I know that a rental of 235. a foot has been obtained for land in that locality, but I consider that excessive. No business but an hotel business could afford such a price. It is, I thiuk, one-half too much. Although the Bank sections are near the wharf and wholesale stores, I think I would advise tho Bank authorities to build at the other end, if they were going to build again. Buildings have increased down there during the last twelve months, and that is likely to be the centre of the town. The wharves will, I think, be down there because the water is shoaling at this part of the river. There has been an endeavour made to have the public buildings removed to the other end. The Government were petitioned to that effect, but a counter petition was got up by the people of this end. If tho public buildings were removed, the sites here would of course be less valuable. The Bank section would not then be worth £10 to £12 a year. The consideration of the wharf being at this end will be quite secondary when the protective works are completed, because there will then be quayage all along the river. By Mr. Mackay : I do not know what Mr. Maguire pays for the section upon which his hotel stands. The price per foot in his neighbourhood ranges from 6s. Bd. to 28s. Undoubtedly the development of the coal mines will improve the position of Westport, because supplies will have to be drawn from here. When the Reefton road is completed, I think a good deal of the trade of that place will

A.—3

come to Westport. Looking at the fact that Westport has the best harbour on the coast and'a deep river, I have no doubt that it will ultimately become the entrepot of the West Coast. It must at any rate become the principal port. By Mr. Fishee : It has been stated by Mr. W. H. Harrison that half a million of money has been spent in the Greymouth district. Only £100,000 has been spent here, and it is a fact that that expenditure has been wholly unproductive up to the present time. I do not think the sections on the other side of the street would have realized anything like the prices they did had the Coal Reserve been leased in accordance with the promises of the Superintendent. There is no standard by which the value of property on the reserve can be valued, on account of the insecurity of the tenure. By the Commissionees : If the railway were not completed and the coal mines not developed, the town must collapse. The people would have to leave, and undoubtedly they would leave. I have not travelled over the road from Greymouth to Reefton, but I have heard that it is a much better road than the road from here to Reefton. The Buller road will be bad for dray traffic for some time, owing to the slips. Ido not think it will compete satisfactorily with the Greymouth road. Freights may be lower to this port, but the increased cost of cartage will more than counterbalance that for a long time to come. [Case closed.] Section 79.—BANK OF NEW ZEALAND, Claimant. C. G. Andrews, sworn: I bought this section, as agent for the Bank, from Stitt BrothersIf a fourteen years' lease were granted on the terms promised by the Superintendent, it would be worth £70 to £80. Its annual value would be £11 to £12. There would, however, be great difficulty in finding a purchaser for it unless the railway and the protective works were completed. My valuation is contingent upon those works being carried out. lam not aware of any sections having changed hands on the Colliery Reserve within the last nino months. The completion of the railway and the protective works will improve trade, but the improvement in trade will be slow and gradual, not rapid. If 32 feet are taken off this section, it will depreciate its value one-tenth. Mr. Mackay handed in a paper showing the history of this section from its allotment by Mr. Commissioner Sharp. [Case closed.] Section 38.—BANK OF NEAV SOUTH WALES, Claimant. Hugh Jones, Manager of the Bank of New South Wales, sworn : A lease of this section for fourteen years upon the terms indicated by the Superintendent would be worth £50 to £60 premium. The lease is worth ss. to 6s. a foot per year. That valuation is contingent upon the town making fair and reasonable progress; but there is a probability that the trade will tend to the other end of the town when the railway and protective works are completed. The port of Westport is very much superior to that of Greymouth ; but on the other hand the resources of the Greymouth district are very much superior to those of the Westport district. I do not think Westport can compete with Greymouth for the Reefton trade. The Buller road runs through a country which will render a great expenditure continuously necessary. I agree with Mr. Andrews that, if the protective works and the railway are not completed, the place must collapse. By Mr. Haselden : The rent paid for the Red Lion site is much too high. By the Commissioners : The development of the coal mines will not add materially to the prosperity of the town, as the population engaged will be divided between the town and the mines. By Mr. Haselden : I think we have anticipated our future success to an extent that circumstances do not warrant. There was a great demand for sections when the railway was commenced, and people built in the expectation that the town was going to jump into prosperity at one stride. The consequence is, that there are now enough shops in the place to do all the business required for many years to come. The Bank has paid reut on this section since 1873. By the Commissioners : I should prefer to have a long lease at a correspondingly high rental to a short lease at a moderate rental. I have every confidence in the ultimate prospects of the place, but I do not think the development of the coal fields would warrant a very high value being placed on the sections. I believe the coal mines will be developed in eighteen months or two years from the completion of the railway. C. G. Andrews called, and examined by Mr. Beetham, stated : I consider it would be an advantage to have a long lease at a slightly increased rent to a short lease at a lower rent. If I owned land, I should prefer to let it on short leases. That, of course, is the converse of my first answer. [Case closed.] Sections 39 and 107— FELIX WEST, Claimant. Mr. Haselden appeared for the claimant. F. AVest, sworn: I bought this section from Mr. Munson, who bought from Mr. Rowlands. It is next to the Bank of New South Wales, aud I have expended £570 upon it in buildings and improvements. These consist of a baker's shop, bakery, and dwelling-house. If a lease for fourteen years in accordance with the Superintendent's terms were granted to me, the section would be worth £60 or £70. 4s. or ss. per foot would be a fair rent. Since the stoppage of the public works, there has been no demand for sections. AVhen I came to live up at this end of the town there was no road, and I had to bring my things up the river by boat. If the wharf was removed lower down the town, it would interfere with my business very much. I would prefer a long lease to a short one, because lam under

A.—3

the impression that when the railway and protective works are completed the town will be much improved. If they are not completed, I believe we shall have to leave the place. By Mr. Mackay : Assuming that the protective works are carried out from Roche's to the groin, my section would be worth £150. I value it now at £50 or £60. On the 21st May, 1873, I paid Munson £4 for his interest in 6 feet 6 inches of ground adjoining section 39. By Mr. Haselden : Section 107 was allotted to me by Commissioners Giles and Dobson. I have not paid any rent on it because it is not of much value. I only want the lease of it because it may become valuable hereafter. I would give £5 a year for it. It was given to me in lieu of section 69, Lyttelton Street, which was a very good site. By Mr. Mackay : 69, Lyttelton Street, is not yet washed away, but is close on the bank. I cannot say that the section will be of any value even when the protective works are completed. There is a person named Mrs. Taylor living on it now. I sold her the house she occupies for £10. [Case closed.] Sections 40, 63, 73, 123 (half-section), 132.— J. L. MUNSON, Claimant. Section 123 (halfsection).- —REID and Co., Claimants. J. L. Munson, sworn: Section 40 was allotted to Rowlauds and others, West and I being the " others." I purchased Rowland's share in sections 39 and 40, and have paid rent for them. I purchased no interest from West, but it was understood that his interest was transferred tome. I value the section at £200. It has cost me £50 or £60, but I claim £200 because I think it will be worth it in time. This section is bound to be in the centre of business if the protective works are not carried out, because the sections as far down as Lyndhurst Street are bound to be carried away if the protective works are not carried out. They are not worth a year's purchase. The protective works, therefore, are not likely to benefit this section much. With a fourteen years' lease it would be worth £10 a year. A longer lease would be more valuable, because at the end of the fourteen years the occupiers would not be compelled to move and build again. Ido not think the trade of the place will increase so much during the next twenty years as to induce us to give a much higher rental. The circumstances to which I look for improvement are the opening tip of the road to Reefton and the Lyell, and the development of the coal mines. Trade has been very much depressed during the last few months. People during that time have been living upon the money they had in their jiockets. The only receipts have been those arising from the expenditure of public money. The cessation of that expenditure accounts for the present dulness, because when the public works were finished, the men, instead of returning to the diggings at Addison's and the Terraces, left the place. AVhen tho Reefton road is finished, I think we shall be able to cope with Greymouth, and obtain a fair share of the Reefton trade. I know the road, and I see no reason why drays should not be able to travel over it when it is finished. By the Commissioners : Assuming that the railway and protective works are completed, the laud near the Empire Hotel will be the most valuable in the town; and then, again, there is this to be considered, that if there are extensive shipments of coal, it is possible the drapers, fruiterers, and other retail dealers may not care about that locality on account of the dust and smoke from the engines, which are sure to form a disagreeable element, if there should ever be any extensive coal trade. If the Government buildings remain at this end, it is possible this may be the most valuable land. On the whole, it is difficult to say which will be the most valuable sections in a few years' time. I think land down by the Empire Hotel is well worth 10s. a foot. I would prefer a long lease to a short one; and I think if the rental were increased 50 per cent, during the last seven years, it would be a fair advance. I do not think the town would increase much in size even if the coal mines were worked with success. AYe have too many buildings, so that there must be a very considerable increase in business before there will be any increase in the number of buildings. Section 49, opposite my section, is equally as good as mine, leaving out of the question the value of any buildings that might be on one or the other. I could get £100 for my section at the present time, without any building upon it —assuming, of course, that I got a lease for fourteen years. Section 63, Palmerston Street, is the section upon which my business stands. I gave £10 for it. I have paid two years' rent upon it, and have been in occupation of it since I bought it. I have spent £600 upon it, and that is tho value I place upon it. I name that sum as the value of tho good-will and improvements. For a lease which would permit me to take away the buildings at the end of fourteen years, 6s. Bd. would be a fair rental. Wooden buildings, however, would not be of much value at the end of fourteen years. If I were to covenant to erect stone, iron, or brick buildings, I should require a reduction in the rental, because they would be much mc re expensive to erect. Section 73, was allotted to me by Commissioner Sharp. I value the improvements upon it at £250. The premium fjpr a fourteen years' lease would be £150, and the rent per year the same as section 63. By Mr. Mackay: I held 33 feet by 99 on the Maori Reserve, in lieu of which I got section 73, and a freehold grant of portions of sections 476 and 477, Palmerston Street. I still have possession of 73 and the other two sections. I claim 45 feet of section 123. The remainder is owned by Reid and Co. AA re have come to an agreement about the partition of the section which is to be divided according to the paper put in aud signed by both of us. £3 to £5 per annum would be a fair annual rental for the entire section. It is the corner portion of this section, having a frontage of 33 feet to Fonblanque Street, that I claim. I agree to be bound by the paper sent in. John Tyrrell, representing Reid and Co., sworn : On behalf of Robert Reid and myself, I agree to the partition set forth in the paper sent in. I consider my portion of the section worth £2 10s. to £3 per annum. The premium on a fourteen years' lease would be worth £20. If a lease of the section is granted, the part belonging to Reid and Co. should be allotted to me, because I have arranged a deed of dissolution with Mr. Reid, under which I take the AVestport property. Examination of Munson continued: Section 132 was allotted to me by the Borough Council in lieu of old section 190. I consider it of no practical value at present, but it may be of value in a few years.

A.—3

F. West was called, and, being sworn, stated that he claimed no interest in section 40, which belonged to Munson. He was prepared to assign to Munson any interest he might have had in the section. [Case closed.] Sections 41, 78, 115.—HOOPER and DODSON, Claimants. Mr. Mackay stated that section 41 had been taken for railway purposes, and admitted the allotment of sections 41 and 78 to Hooper and Robinson by Mr. Commissioner Sharp. Mr. Haselden appeared for claimants. Richard Rowlands, agent for Hooper and Dodson, sworn: If a fourteen years' lease of section 41 were granted upon the terms suggested by the Superintendent, it would be worth a premium of £100, and a rental of £10 a year. Rent was paid up to December, 1874. Section 78 was cleared, and the statement sent in shows that there is a building worth £300 on one of the sections. I think it is 78, but I am not sure as 1 have only been appointed agent for the claimants during the last fortnight, and am not familiar with the circumstances attending each. I do not know the sections in the old business part of the town for which the sections were granted. There is no building on section 115, Palmerston Street. It has been cleared and rent paid upon it. The title to it is rather complicated. C. H. W. Bowen, sworn, stated that as trustee in the estate of George Falla he authorized the sale of section 115 to Mr. Blaxall, who purchased it at auction, but failed to comply with the conditions, when it was put up again and sold to W. J. Patterson. J. Muneo, auctioneer, proved the sale to Blaxall and the subsequent sale to Patterson, who sold to Hooper and Dodson. [Case closed.] Sections 42, 43.—EDMOND ROCHE, Claimant. Mr. Haselden appeared on behalf of Mr. E. J. O'Conor to claim section 43, but having no evidence to support the claim he withdrew from the case. He did not by any means wish it to be understood that he withdrew Mr. O'Conor's claim to the section ; what he desired to say was that he was not in a position to appear. Mr. Fisher, who appeared for Roche, made the following statement in reference to Mr. O'Conor's claim: —ln 1872,1 was, as lam now, practising as a solicitor here. At that time there was a company called the Buller Towing Track Company, of which Mr. O'Conor was Chairman. The Buller Towing Track Company had a debt owing to it by a man named George White, who was the owner of the section, which he held under lease. It is situated at the corner of Freeman Street and Gladstone Street, and upon it was a public-house called the Albion Hotel. AVhite was also carrying on business as a carrier. To secure the debt of the company, Mr. O'Conor took an assignment of the lease from White; and before White had paid the whole of the money to the company, Mr. O'Conor sent in a claim to Mr. Commissioner Sharp for another section, as the one assigned to the company by AVhite was in danger of being washed away. Section 43 was allotted upon the understanding that White should take possession of it as soon as he paid the debt due to the company. The whole of the money had been paid. White owes the Buller Towing Track Company nothing under the mortgage; still Mr. O'Conor removed all the material from the Albion Hotel when it was pulled down, and used it in erecting premises on his own land. Mr. O'Conor, you will see, lost nothing by that transaction. That was the position AVhite occupied when he sold the section to Roche. The Commissioners : Therefore Mr. O'Conor cannot justly claim the section. However, he does not appear or make a claim to it. E. Roche, sworn and examined by Mr. Fisher: I keep Roche's Hotel, at the corner of Adderley Street and Wakefield Street. Section 41 was allotted by Mr. Commissioner Sharp, and section 43 I bought from White for £15 or £20. I indorse the correctness of the statement made by you. I cleared the sections and erected a house upon them in 1872. There was no road at the time, and I had to bring my material up the river by boat. Altogether I have spent £1,150 on buildings and improvements upon the two sections, and have paid rent upon them as long as the Government would receive it. The General Government propose to take the sections, and I shall suffer damage to the extent of £2,300 in consequence. Provided I got a lease upon the terms indicated by the Superintendent, the sections would be worth £150 each. If I am compelled to leave them, I may not be able to get into business again for six months. Certainly I shall not obtain so advantageous a positipn, or one where I shall do half the business Ido now. From April, 1874, to April, 1875,1 made about £800, clear of all expense. My business has been better during the last seven months than it has been before. I experienced no depression until the last month. I produce a statement of receipts from the first day I opened business to the 25th April last [Statement put in—A.] The fact of people leaving the place was rather a source of profit, because my place is near the wharf and the boatmen's steps. £1,150 does not cover the actual cost of the building, as the following items will show: —A 7alue of material of hotel pulled down in the old township and re-erected here, £300 ; contract for re-erection, £300 ; painter, £110 ; three months of my own labour at 12s. a day, £46 125.; boatage, £9 ; chimneys, £33 ; fencing, £16 ; water closets, £5 ; kitchen, £25 ; pump, £10; timber for bar ceiling, £10 ; washhouse, &c, £8 10s. That makes a total of £1,173 2s. My receipts were sometimes as much as £52 a week, as shown by the book which I hold in my hand, in which the entries were regularly made. My bank pass-book will show what my takings are, as my deposits with the bank represent receipts from the hotel business alone. [Bank book produced.] That book shows that my receipts for the half-year ending 30th September, 1875, were £1,138. That money is wholly and solely the proceeds of my business. The Commissioners : How can you say that, when here we see an entry of a bill of exchange for £30 4s. 6d. having been paid in. Did you receive that in the ordinary course of business, or was it an. old grog score ? There is also another item of £25 which requires explanation. B—A. 3.

A.—3

Witness objected to divulge his private affairs in open Court, but tendered an explanation iv writing, which was handed to the Commissioners. The Commissioners said these entries showed that all the witness's statements could not be accepted as strictly reliable upon matters of account. The pass-book would therefore have to be left with the Commissioners for examination. Witness offered no objection to the book being retained by the Commissioners. Evidence proceeded: My business has increased by reason of its contiguity to the wharf and boat steps. If anybody had wished to purchase my hotel before Mr. Mackay came, I should have asked £2,000 for it. Mr. Mackay first offered me £100, and undertook to move my house to another section, and afterwards he offered me £850 if I would leave the section and move the house myself. Up to the last month I have been making a clear profit at the rate of £750 a year. By Mr. Mackay : Section 42 was allotted to me in lieu of a section in AVharf Street. The condition of allotment was, that I should clear the section within six months after allotment, and erect buildings of a certain value. The first claim I put in for compensation was £3,000 ; but I was told by my friends that it was too high, and I reduced it to £2,300, because I wished to have no dispute. By the Commissioners : If the Government compensate me to the extent of £1,000 for the loss of my business, I shall offer no objection to the removal of my house to another section. I fix that sum because I know I can take 2s. where lam for every shilling I shall take anywhere else. The construction of wharves along the river bank will not damage my business, though I believe they will improve the business of the town in connection with the railway when it is opened. I have a strong belief the trade will improve very much when the coal mines are opened up. My experience tells me that one-third of my takings are clear profit. I have no more accurate method of testing the matter. I have spent the profits in speculating in coal mines and reefs, and in buying land. By Mr. Mackay: Mr. Bull may have said that he could remove my place in seven weeks. I know nothing about what he may have told you, but I do know that it would take me six months to get into business again. You proposed to move me to the corner of Brougham Street, which may be a very good stand, but I don't consider it anything like equal to my present position. You tell me the railway station is to be placed there, but 1 was not previously aware of the fact. It is quite possible that Mrs. Keating, of the Alpine Hotel opposite, having been bought out by the Goverment, I received the benefit of her trade, and that might have swelled my takings. I value the good-will of my business at £827, that being the difference between the total of the items comprising my actual outlay and £2,000, which I might be willing to accept. In fact I would walk out of the House for £2,000. By the Commissioners : If Mr. Mackay were to remove my house to section 67 I should still want £1,000, and a little more, because that section belongs to me, and I have a store upon it which I value at £150. The section cost me. £20. By Mr. J. B. Fisher : When Mr. Mackay proposed to remove me to section 67, he told me I might do what I liked with the building upon it. He offered me no compensation for it, nor did he offer to give me any title to the section, so that I should have been just as much liable to removal. My hotel would not be worth so much after removal. No building ever is. By Mr. Mackay : I am sure you never offered to compensate me for section 67. C. G. Andrews, sworn: I think Roche's hotel and buildings, with the takings as sworn to, would be well worth £2,000. In fact it would be a very small price for a business bringing in a clear profit of £750 a year. The hotel is well adapted for carrying on a bar trade. It is, I may say, a good business in that respect; and if he left the locality he would lose it, because the custom would go to the house nearest to the wharf, whichever it might be. By Mr. Mackay : I have no experience in valuing the good-will of hotel businesses. If the Government construct a wharf along the river bank, it would tend greatly to diminish Roche's trade. It would not, of course, take away the whole trade. By the Commissioners : If there were no insecurity in the tenure, the business would be worth more than the sum I have named. If Roche had had a lease for fourteen years, he could have realized £2,000 for the business at any time within the last twelve months. He could realize £1,500 or £2,000 for it at the present moment, I believe. The Commissioners : We know that the prospects of these hotels depend upon the Government completing the railway and protective works. Have you taken that into consideration in expressing your opinion as to the value of this hotel and the section upon which it stands ?—I have considered that, and am still of opinion that Roche's hotel and business would realize from £1,500 to £2,000. That is a very fair estimate, I consider. Do you think this hotel is doing a larger business than Gilmer's ?—No. I don't think it is doing such a large business. Then if Mr. Gilmer tells us that business is wretchedly bad, and that it is likely to become still worse, will the dulness not affect Roche's business ?—Decidedly it will. John Munro, auctioneer and commission agent, sworn: I have had a good deal of experience in valuing properties in AVestport. I know the character of Roche's buildings and his business. It is Very difficult indeed to estimate the value of such a business. Even if you could put the exact takings and the exact amount of clear profit on paper, it would not be at all unreasonable to fix the value at a higher sum than these would seem to justify, because where an established business shows a good clear profit, it is worth a generous valuation. £2,300 is certainly not too much for such a business as Roche's, suppose he had a tenure of ten years assured. By Mr. Fisher : I was present at the last licensing meeting, when the Bench expressed itself as being unfavourable to granting any more licenses in Palmerston Street. As a matter of fact it refused a license to Mr. Lempfert for an old established house in Palmerston Street. By the Commissioners : From what you know of the business of Westport, would you say that Roche's business was likely to bring in £750 a year clear profit after every expense was met, payment of servants, clothing for family, and so on ?—lf there were large public works going on, and the building were allowed to remain where it is during the progress of those works, £30 or £40 would not

A.—3

be a high estimate of his week's takings; but in ordinary times, when these works were not going on, I do not think his receipts would be so much. I know that Roche's hotel is one of the most economically managed in Westport. By Mr. Mackay :Of course that might not be an element if another person had the hotel. It is within my own knowledge that it has a most profitable business as a bar trade. I remember that in 1867—and that was not in the full flush of the gold fields —Mr. Hughes gave Adam Porter £1,000 for the old Empire premises and good-will. Tho house was only a barn, so that in that case the money must have been paid for tho site and good-will. It was a leasehold section, and only five years of the lease was to run. Mr. Hughes also purchased Mrs. Savage's interest in the Ship and Castle Hotel for £650. The building in that case also was not much good. It was not worth £650 by a long way. The Commissioner requested Mr. Fisher to furnish evidence as to the value of the building, which Mr. Fisher undertook to produce on the following morning. E. Roche : Section 67 was purchased from Mr. O'Conor for £60. I spent about £150 upon it. If 82 feet were taken off the back of it, as Mr. Mackay proposes, I should claim £50 for that piece of ground. I would willingly pay that sum for it if I were going to put up an hotel on the section. The ground is worth 10s. a foot per year, and I value the section at £100. I consider the ground upon which my hotel stands to be worth £1 a foot per year. By Mr. Mackay : In the application I sent in to you in April last, I valued the improvements at £250, and the section itself at £400. That was a mistake. I was not on my oath then, and I was not particular, but I am now. [Case ordered to stand over.] Section 47.—A. D. BAYFEILD, Claimant. Mr. Haselden, who appeared for claimant, traced the title from Martin (original allottee) to Monaghan—Monatjhan to Bayfield —Bayfield to Corr (seven years' lease). A. D. Bayeeild, sworn: In July, 1!574, I purchased from Mr. Patrick Monaghan section 47, Colliery Reserve. (Transfer produced.) Afterwards leased it to Mr. Corr for seven years, at a rental of £20 a year ; consequently the amount I should receive from Corr up to the end of the seven years would be £140. Under the lease I take all the buildings that may be standing upon the section, and I pay to Corr a valuation to be determined by umpires in the usual way. The section is capable of being divided into five or six allotments, and as a site for a shipping warehouse is one of the most valuable sections in Westport. It is 132 feet in depth, according to the provincial survey map. Mr. Mackay : It is in reality only 99 feet in depth. Witness : I think you will find it is 132. Upon the presumption that the town makes fair and reasonable progress, I anticipate that I should derive considerable profit from the section at the end of Corr's lease, by letting the allotments at 255. to 30s. a foot frontage. I believe I shall have no difficulty in obtaining that price at the end of seven years. Its eligibility as a warehousing site gives it an enhanced value. By Mr. Mackay : Section 47 was allotted to Mr. John Martin in 1872. Ido not know what section Martin held in the old business part of the town. There was something said at the time of the allotment about clearing the sections and erecting buildings of a certain value, but I cannot say what the exact conditions were. I leased the sections to Corr more than two years after the allotment by Mr. Sharp. If there was a condition that a building should be erected upon the section within six months after the allotment by Commissioner Sharp, that condition was not complied with. But I have a recollection of a modification of the conditions having been made. The section is at present locked up for seven years for £140, but I base my claim of £1,000 upon the ground that I shall get a fourteen years' lease from the Government, and after the first seven years of that lease have expired the town will have improved so much in value that these allotments will be well worth that sum for the remaining seven years. If I were deprived of the street frontage I should still claim £1,000, because the river frontage alone would return me that amount. I consider my section more valuable than Roche's, because it has an immediate frontage to the wharf, which Roche's has not. When I leased the section to Corr, it was not known that the railway terminus would be so close to it. It was not known where the railway would come in, else I should not have leased it for £20 a year. There is no place higher up the river where a wharf could be erected. Mr. Mackay read clause 69, Immigration and Public Works Act, to show that Government had power to take the section without awarding compensation. Mr. J. Muneo, auctioneer and commission agent, was called to give evidence as to the value of Bayf eild's reversionary right, but stated that the value attaching to a piece of land of which possession could not be resumed for seven years was so vague and indefinite that he would not undertake to say what the reversionary interest would be worth. £1 a foot he thought would be a fair rental for a section opposite the wharf at the present time. [Case adjourned for evidence as to the dimensions of the section.] Commission adjourned at six o'clock p.m.

Friday, 3rd December, 1875. Section 47.—A. D. BAYFEILD, Claimant. Further evidence was taken in this case. Arthur Dobson, Resident Engineer, Public Works Department, sworn: I recognize the plan produced as the old original town plan, according to which the dimensions of section 47 are shown to be 132 feet by 33. I remember that when the sections were set out by Mr. Trent some of the sections were made 132 feet in depth, and some 99 feet, according to Mr. Sharp's directions. The small plan just placed in my hand by Mr. Mackay was made out under my directions, but it was made not so much

A.—3

to show the dimensions of the sections as to show those which were occupied and those which were not. It was taken off one of our smaller scale plans. The sizes of sections were not marked correctly on all the small plans, but they were on the large ones. The original plan is in Nelson. [Mr. Mackay consented to waive the question as to the depth of the section.] By Mr. Mackay : I commenced the survey for the railway in November, 1873. I laid off the line as it now runs, and suggested that that would be the best direction. It was pretty well known at the time, I think, which way the line would run, though it was not publicly notified. There were no lines cut, so that people could not tell how it would run, nor was it known for some time by the Government themselves at which end it would come in. Mr. Higginson thought it would be best to bring it in along the beach at the back of the Hospital; but it was found that it would run through so much freehold at tho lower end of the town that it would be much cheaper to come in at the top. I cannot say whether Corr or Bayfeild knew whether the line would come in at the top at that time. There was a temporary road made, and a road shown on the plan down the side of the section when Bayfeild and Corr entered into this preliminary arrangement. AVakefield Street is tinted as a street, and Adderley Street runs in the other direction. They are marked on the plan, altheugh there has been no Proclamation to make them streets. The allottees therefore would be quite justified in assuming that when they took up those sections they would be able to build either way. The Commissionees : They contend that sections 45 and 40 have been washed away; and that being so, that 47 abuts on the wharf, and is therefore peculiarly adapted for a bonded warehouse. If 46 stands, how can that be a sound contention ?—Section 46 does stand, and there is now no road between the section and the wharf. Then if the owner of 47 wished to utilize the long frontage, he would have to trespass on section 46?— Certainly; he has no frontage to the wharf. It would be difficult to place a value upon 47 ? Sections are estimated so variously, and I have so little experience in land transactions, that 1 have not the least idea what the section would fetch if it were placed in the market to-morrow. As a matter of fact, sales are very limited. Judging from the present condition of things, I should say that the lower end of the town is the best for business, either wholesale or retail. I say so because all the retailers are building there. I don't think the protective works will make very much difference to this end of the town. The freeholds are chiefly in the hands of absentees, who will not deal with them; and until they will do so in some way, there is not much chance of business places being erected from AVakefield Street upwards. People therefore are forced to the northern end of the town. Land opposite the Empire Hotel is letting for 10s. to 28s. a foot, and striking a mean between those prices one would think would be the best way of gauging the value of sections on the Coal Reserve, but tho question is a very difficult one. It would be really impossible to say what would be a fair annual value for sections on the Coal Reserve about the Empire Hotel, so much depends upon the trade of the place. AVhat, in your opinion, does the progress of this place depend upon?—lt is entirely dependent upon the opening up of the coal fields. If the coal fields are not developed and the railway is not opened up, the trade of the place will be very small. Then do you think there are sufficient buildings, wholesale and retail, to do the business of the district ? —There are more than sufficient. Do you go so far as to say that any rental the Government might ask, suppose they were disposed to lease these sections, would be entirely speculative ?—Yes; I think so. The value to-day of sections to lease is almost nominal. And naturally it would be so to buy ? —And naturally to buy, freehold or leasehold. The value is a matter that can only be determined by the progress of the place. In forming your opinion upon the present and future conditions of this place, have you taken into consideration the Reefton trade?—l do not think Westport will be able to compete with Greymouth for some time to come. The distances are about the same, but the Buller Road is much the worst to travel. I suppose you mean that the line of road is steeper, and therefore more difficult to travel ?—lt is much steeper and narrower; but, besides that, there are a good many farms on the Greymouth Road at Totara Flat, half way, where draymen can live, and therefore carry on their trade more cheaply. Here there is nothing of the sort. It has been said that the lower freights payable for carriage to Westport would enable merchants here to compete for the Reefton trade, notwithstanding the higher freights on the road ?— Westport may look forward to doing a good trade with Larry's and Boatman's; but I don't think it can compete with Greymouth for the Reefton trade. Ido not know what the population of Larry's is ; but the resources of the district are entirely quartz mining and reefing, which of course necessitate the outgoing of considerable capital. From what you have told us with respect to Greymouth and the inability of Westport to compete for the Reefton trade, you would not be prepared to say that the business sites in Westport would be equal in value to business sites in Greymouth ?—I do not think they could possibly be of equal value, for this reason: the town of Greymouth is limited in area, and there is only one side of the principal street. Here there is a wider choice of sites, and Greymouth has a great advantage over Westport in the Reefton trade. Suppose due diligence were exercised in the working of the coal mines with a view to their development, what time do you suppose would elapse before supplies would be obtained for export ?— If the more easily worked mines were in the hands of companies who would push matters, there would be no difficulty in shipping coal in quantities in twelve months time. If ordinary diligence were exercised, what quantity of coal could be taken out from and after that time?— That is a hypothetical question; but, if a properly managed company were to start at once, 500 tons a day could he shipped in twelve months' time. If 1 had the necessary capital, I could pick out a mine from which I would undertake to turn out 500 tons a day. The mines are not being properly worked. At the present time the companies are hanging back, because they do not know when the Government intend to complete the railway. With the exception of the Albion Obmpany,

A.—3.

which has made a few shipments, there is no company in a position to do any trade. There is no communication with the Albion Mine at present. To connect it with AVestport, 9| miles of railway will be required, in addition to that which the Government intend to complete. There was, however, an Act passed last session of the General Assembly which will facilitate the construction of a branch line. Assuming that the line were commenced immediately, when should it be completed P— In twelve months ; but there arc other companies which could ship coal as soon as the Albion Company, if matters were put in train at once, and the line completed. Do you know as a matter of fact whether this line of railway is to be completed ? We do not wish you to answer the question unless you choose. —I must object to answer the questiou. I am precluded from answering questions relating to official matters. What would be the effect upon the lower end of the town if these protective works were not proceeded with ?—The value of the land would become lower, because a good flood would probably wash it away. In that case the land at the upper end of the town would very much increase in value? —If the freeholders along Palmerston Street would not sell, the people would have to go back to Queen Street, and the value of property in Palmerston Street would depreciate. Russell Street or Queen Street would become the centre of the town. If a flood got behind the groin—and present indications show that it would —it would sweep away all the property below it. Can you state what nourishment, so to speak, Westport has been living on during the past two or three years ? —lt has been living upon the trade passing through it to Charleston and up-country. It has been a distributing trade. The trade to Charleston is declining; but there are other districts which draw their supplies from here, such as Mokihinui and Addison's Flat. The public works were the means of drawing a good many men from the diggings, consequently the gold yield fell off; and when the public works were finished, they left the place. The cessation of public works would improve the gold fields; because, when wages fall, the men will return to the gold fields, and I have no doubt that many would return here. Collingwood is an instance. It was almost deserted twelve years ago, when the Otago Gold Fields broke out; but now that mining is not so prosperous in Otago, the mining population at Collingwood is steadily increasing. Therefore, when wages get lower on the East Coast, many of the miners will return to the diggings of the AVest Coast. The large expenditure of public money in the district has no doubt assisted to keep the place up; but it has had its injurious effect in the way I have stated. Mr. Warden Giles and you allotted certain sections on the Colliery Eeserve ?—Yes. I think our instructions came both from the Superintendent and the Commissioner of Crown Lands. There were conditions attached to our allotment, the effect of which was that buildings should be placed upon the sections within six months. It was found impossible to comply with that condition, because, as a matter of fact, there was no means of getting at the sections. The Government, without making any distinct arrangement with the allottees, waived the condition for a period. There was no other condition that I recollect. There was no term provided for beyond the promise of the Superintendent. We merely allotted sites subject to any conditions that might be implied in the promise of the Superintendent or any other conditions that the Government might think fit to impose. lam still prepared to indorse the recommendations I made in the report which I forwarded to the Provincial Government, because I looked upon the reserve as a property let by the Provincial Government, from which the tenants had been washed away, aud I saw no reason why they should not be permitted to occupy other sections at a moderate rent. What became of the freeholders whose land was washed away ?—The Government gave them compensation. They got other sections. A man owning a freehold section washed away, and holding a business license, would receive a freehold in lieu of the section washed away, and would besides get a lease on the reserve in virtue of his business license, although business license referred to freehold ?—Yes, that is the case. As a matter of fact, a man having a business license could keep open half a dozen shops ?—I do not think that. He might keep sections. The police went into each shop and asked for the licenses, but it was difficult to find out the owners of unoccupied sections. ■ By Mr. Mackay : I cannot remember when Palmerston Street .was made, or when the Government buildings were removed. I think it was in 1872. I know that the building condition was not enforced on account of the road not being made. I cannot say whether it is strictly correct to say that the six months' occupancy condition should apply in exactly six months after the completion of the road. I cannot fix the date of the completion of Palmerston Street, as the official book is in Nelson. I will telegraph for the book and find out the date. I recollect a section at the extreme end of the reserve, where the telegraph wire crosses Palmerston Street, being sold for £120. Mr. AVatkins has refused £1 per foot per annum for a lease of section opposite the Post and Telegraph Offices, and adjacent to the Colliery Reserve at Wakefield Street and Palmerston Street. He wants £2 a foot for the front to Palmerston Street. I do not think he knows what he wants for the Wakefield Street front. £150 per annum rent has been refused by him for the corner opposite the Post Office, which has 66 feet frontage to Palmerston Street, and 2\ chains frontage to Wakefield Street. It is assessed by the Borough Council at £1,000. Mr. Fisher, the solicitor, had offered £1 a foot for a frontage of same section in Wakefield Street. By the Commissionees : If the protective works were completed and a quay made from the upper wharf to the lower one, I think it would tend to equalize the value of property throughout that line. One thing that would tend more to draw the business together would be to let part of the frontage on the Government Reserve for public offices between AVakefield Street and Henley Street. At present the street is broken. This would make the trade more equal. If the Government carried out the works, and the mines were opened, I believe the place would declare itself in two years; but really the whole thing depends upon the action of the Government. A long lease would be disadvantageous to the Government, because, if the value of property increased very much, they would be receiving a

A.—3

low rental, which would be inadequate to the value of the land. Considering the present condition of things, I think the best course would be to let the section on short leases. At the time these leases had expired the value of the land would have declared itself, and the place would either have come to utter grief or things would have reached such a state that the land could be definitely and fairly valued. A short lease at a low rental would, I think, be advantageous to both parties. The price could then be raised to such a sum as would compensate for a nominal rent during the first few years. £1 a foot per annum all round is altogether too high a price to charge at present. I believe the bulk of the settlers would prefer to forfeit their sections than pay it. I would suggest a two years' tenure, and then that the rate should be raised to a scale proportionate to the progress of the district. lam not at all certain how that could be done, but I think it could be arranged by arbitration. I think the bulk of the buildings in the town will have to be renewed at the expiration of ten or fourteen years. A large proportion of them have already been pulled down, and rebuilt wholly or in part. If the business does not improve sufficiently to justify the erection of new buildings, the owners will likely leave rather than erect new buildings. There are, lam told, about 350 sections on the Coal Reserve, and I estimate that not more than half of them are being used. Undoubtedly some of these are being used for speculative purposes, but I know that a great many people are looking forward to building dwelling-houses upon them. They are waiting to see what the place is likely to come to. If the Government think fit to ask a higher rent than these people are willing to give, the sections will, I think, revert to the Government. It would not pay to give a high rate at present. I think £1 a foot for business sites would be a fair rental when there is a good coal trade being done here. By Mr. Haselden: Mr. Evans commenced his survey in March, 1874, but I do not think it was knowni where the line would come in until he cut his survey marks, some time after. I think section 47 is about 30 to 40 feet from the wharf. I believe that if leases had been given to holders of sections, many of them would have been built on that are now lying idle. In other towns on the South-West Gold Fields the Government have granted freeholds to holders of business licenses. At Reefton they sold the freehold to persons who had held a business license for six months and built a place worth £50. The price of the land was not to exceed £40 an acre. The charge for 33 feet by 66 was £2, and 33 feet by 9!) £3. The Government sold sections in this way that would have brought large sums of money if they had been put up to auction. By Mr. Mackay: It was the Provincial Government of Nelson which made that arrangement in the inland townships. There is no analogy between those towns and the town of Westport, which has a port. I consider £1 per foot per annum an excessive rent at the present time. A rental to start with ranging from 2s. 6d. to £1 per foot in exceptional cases would be fair, provided the exceptional cases were few. The term of lease should be divided into three periods, at a progressive rate, and grea' care and judgment would be required in fixing the rents for the different sections. In the original letter of instructions which you now place in my hands [A], my original suggestion that no sections should be let within three chains of the river is embodied. Mr. Sharp, I may mention, utterly disregarded that suggestion when he made his allotment. Mr. Haselden, in addressing the Commission, admitted the difficulty of demonstrating the measure of damages. He argued that if the section was worth £20 a year at the time it was let to Corr, it was fair and reasonable, looking at the increased value of sections and their future value, to say that this section would be worth at least £60 a year at the expiration of Corr's lease. That valuation would give a sum of £420, which, being added to the rent receivable under Corr's lease, would make a total of £650. 10 per cent, interest upon that amount would be £280, —giving a grand total of £840, which would form Mr. Bayfeild's claim. [Case closed.] Section 47.—JOHN CORR, Claimant. This case stood adjourned from Tuesday, 30th November, to enable the claimant to submit a detailed statement as to damages sustained by reason of the Government having taken possession of the section. John Coee, sworn, and examined by Mr. Fisher, stated: At the time I bought the section I believed it to be 132 feet in depth, and to have four frontages. I built my store in the centre of the section, so that I should be able to let the vacant ground at each end. I calculated that I should be able to let 100 feet at 30s. a foot for the remainder of my term. If I had known I had only one frontage I should not have built my store in the centre of the section. There was, when I leased the section, a street on three sides and the wharf at the back. The Commissioners : There is nothing to prevent the Government running a fence along the boundary of section 46. Our opinion is that in dealing with this claim we have only to deal with the 33 feet frontage to AVakefield Street. Under clause 69 of " The Immigration and Public Works Act, 1870," the Government are empowered to take possession of land required for railway purposes. Mr. Fisher : And you will observe that under clause 71 persons whose land is so taken are entitled to damage. The words of the clause are: —" All persons being owners of land taken, occupied, or used, or which may be damaged by the construction of any such railway, shall be entitled to receive compensation." Now we claim for land virtually taken. The Commissioners : But Mr. Mackay would say that that clearly applies to cases where a person is deprived of his land, and not for the closing of a road. Mr. Fisher : Suppose, then, the Government were to run a railway along a street in which there are a number of drapers' shops or business premises, or of any other description, would those people not be entitled to compensation for destruction of their business through the street being fenced off? The Commissionees : Possibly not, unless such cases were specially provided for by Act. That would be Mr. Mackay's contention. Witness's examination continued : Then I claim for the 132 feet frontage, and leave the matter

A.—3

to be decided by the Commission. I next claim £900 damages for the loss of my business through being compelled to move, being at the rate of £150 a year for six years. I lost the storage of goods for Edwards' firm, of Nelson, though I received no intimation from them that it was on account of the removal of my store. I next claim £120 for six years' rent which I shall have to pay Mr. Bayfeild. Then I calculate that I should have got tenants for my spare ground at 30s. a foot, and that they would have left buildings on the ground at the end of the seven years worth £680. That sum I claim, and these items compose the £2,600. Mr. Fishee : In addressing the Commission upon the question of damages, I cannot help remarking upon the view taken by the Government, through their representative, Mr. Mackay, that because tho future of the place is greatly dependent upon the expenditure of public money, therefore these section-holders have no right to claim damages for land taken. That seems to me to be a very erroneous view. These people have been settled here a long time, and Mr. Corr was conducting a business upon this particular piece of ground, from which business he received certain profits. The Government dispossessed him of that land which was valuable to them. It was valuable to the public; therefore the public ought to pay for it. _> A long argument here arose between Mr. Fisher and the Commissioners upon the following assumption of Mr. Fisher: — 1. That the Crown being compelled to award compensation to owners of land abutting upon a road taken under section 69 of " The Public Works and Immigration Act, 1870," for the deprivation of their easement, the claimants' land should be valued as if the road were still in public use. 2. That in assessing the value of the land so taken by the Government, the Commissioners should consider not only the eligibility of the site for mercantile purposes, but also the loss of profits in the business, which he would have carried on in such premises but for the deprivation before mentioned. Upon the second point Mr. Fisher contended that the real question to be determined was —" AVhat is a fair sum to offer as compensation for the loss of a business bringing in £100 a year? " The Commissioners referred him to section 71, when the learned Counsel considered that the word "damage" mentioned therein did not relate solely to the injury created upon or to the land by the construction of a line of railway, but to the loss or damage which a person might sustain directly or indirectly through the deprivation or use of his property nolens volens; and that being the case, the Commissioners should not in the present instance be satisfied by taking into consideration the situation and market value of the laud taken, but should also award a sum of money for the loss of his trade carried on therein. Mr. Fisher proceeded to argue that the claimant having entered into an agreement with Mr. Bayfeild to lease the ground for a term of five years, and being liable to the rent notwithstanding the taking mentioned, the amount thereof should be added to the other damages. The Commissioners (to Mr. Fisher) : You have argued the case as if the land were taken under section 71 of " The Immigration and Public AVorks Act, 1870." Suppose it were not taken under that Act, but taken arbitrarily by the Government without any right whatever, what damages would you be entitled to recover from them ? Mr. Haselden : It is not part of our contention that the Government have taken it arbitrarily or without authority. AYe admit they were entitled to take it under the statute, but we say we are entitled to damages under section 71. It is a fair and reasonable construction of the language of the clause to say that a person whose land is taken shall be compensated for such land, occupation, use, or damage. The Commissionees : The word " damage " must have reference to something. Standing alone it would be meaningless. The first portion refers to one of three things : either taking, occupying, or using; but if you read ou you will find the words, "or which may be damaged by the construction of any such railway. You shall be entitled to receive compensation' —firstly, for taking such land; secondly, for occupying it; thirdly, for using it; and, fourthly, for the damage done by the construction of any such railway. Mr. Haselden : I perfectly understand the position you take up as to the words "occupation," " use," or " damage " being referable to a person taking the land; but, to my mind, the fair way to read the section is this: All persons being owners of land taken shall receive compensation not as remuneration for the Government using the land or occupying it, but as compensation for the loss of the occupation or use. The Commissioners : To receive compensation for what ? Mr. Haselden : For the loss of the use or occupation. The Commissionees : Show us under what section of the Act you can get damage for anything outside the value of the land. Mr. Haselden : 1 don't say that we are entitled to anything for the loss of business qua the loss oi business. I say that it should come in under the claim for compensation for the land. AYe will put it in this way : AYe buy the good-will of a business which produces £40 a week. AYe give £4,000 or £5,000 for it, but we do so, of course, upon the prospect of the continuance of that business. If you take the ground and we have to leave it, are we to receive nothing as compensation for the loss of the business ? The Commissionees : Show us that the business is part of the ground ? Mr. Haselden : There is a considerable amount of doubt about the language of the section, but to my mind it is clear that the land should be valued. Now, how are we to value it ? By the very basis your Honor lays down you look to the position of the land, and you must look to the position for business purposes. The Commissionees : Common sense will dictate that it must be valued according to the situation. Mr. Haselden: Exactly so; but if we are to look at the situation to arrive at an estimate of the value of the land, we must arrive at the value of the business in the same way. The rate-roll of the Borough of AVestport was put in by Mr. Fisher, to show the amount at which section 47 was rated—£so.

A.—3

Mr. Mackay drew attention to the fact that section 52, to which Corr's store was removed, was also rated at £50. He also drew the attention of the Commission to the agreement between Bayfeild and Corr respecting section 47, under which it was alleged that Corr was liable for six years' rent. Mr. Mackay pointed out that there was nothing in the agreement compelling such a payment, as the lease was conditional upon Bayfeild being able to obtain a lease from the Provincial Government, which had not been obtained. The Commissionees : We have up to this moment been under the impression that there was a solemn contract between the parties ; but we find upon reading this document that it may not be worth the paper it is written on. This will undoubtedly materially affect the decision of the Commission. Mr. Fisher: I presume that if the Government grant a lease in terms of the Superintendent's promise, the Commission will view the matter as a Court of Equity. Mr. Haselden said he had advised his client, Mr. Bayfeild, that the lease was valueless, but that he elected to go on with the claim. [Case closed.] Section 44.— E. J. O'CONOR, Claimant. The claimant failed to appear when called upon, and the claim was therefore struck out. Sections 50, 51.—WM. EVANS, Claimant. Mr. J. B. Fisher appeared for the claimant, and stated that Mr. Evans, who resided at Timaru, had not had time to forward tho documents relating to the claim. He had, however, telegraphed to say that they would be forwarded per first post. Rent had been paid to 31st December, 1873. J. Gilmer, sworn: I bought the sections from Roche, who bought from Hughes, the original allottee, on my account, and I sold to Evans about June, 1873. I gave £100 for the two sections, and spent £8 in clearing them. Mr. Evans built a small cottage on one section. He intended to build a store on it, which was to be connected with the wharf by a tramway, but he did not do so on account of the insecurity of the tenure. With a fourteen years' lease they would be worth £80 a section, and a yearly.rental of £7 each. One is a corner section. By Mr. Mackay : Mr. Evans was here in November last year, and up to that time he had done nothing towards building the store. There was a hut on the section worth £10, which he put up for the purpose of fulfilling the conditions of occupation. People were " jumping " the sections at the time. Edw. Ings, sworn, testified to the fact that Mr. Evans inserted an advertisement in tho Westport Times twice, calling for tenders for the erection of a building on the section. He then ordered its discontinuance on account of the insecurity of tenure of sections on the Colliery Reserve. [Case closed.] Section 48.—ELIZABETH KEATING, Claimant. Mr. J. B. Fisher, who appeared for the applicant, stated that this was a compensation claim. Mr. Mackay had agreed to give Mrs. Keating £350 for her public-house. Mrs. Keating, sworn : I gave Mr. O'Conor £120 for the section and an old building upon it. Rent was paid to July, 1873, and was refused subsequently to that. I value the section at £200. Since I have moved from my old site I have not done half the business. The £350 to be paid for my house had nothing to do with the section. [Case closed.] Sections 155, 156.— T. G. McCARTHY, Claimant. Mr. Haselden appeared for the applicant, and stated that he was not in a position to submit any documents, but would call evideuce to show the transactions in reference to the section. J. Core, sworn: Section 155 was allotted to E. J. O'Conor by Commissioners Giles and Dobson, and 156 was allotted to a man named Ferguson and myself. I bought 155 for McCarthy from O'Conor, and sold him 156 myself. By Mr. Mackay : I was allotted 156 for 84, Cobden Street, which I still occupy, or a portion of it. If I had still to make a choice between the two, I should prefer to retain 84, Cobden Street. T. G. McCarthy, sworn: Corr bought 155 from O'Conor for me, and gave £30 for it. I gave Corr £15 for 156. If I had a fourteen years' lease, they.would be worth £6 to £10 a year for the two. I have spent £100 upon them. I intended building a store upon them, but I stopped the work because of the insecurity of the tenure. I don't consider the Coal Reserve sections of much talue. I have seven freehold sections four times the size, which cost me only £25 each. I value 155 and 156 at £30 for the two. [Case closed.] - Sections 54, 55.— J. DRAGHICAVICH, Claimant. J. Deaghicayich, sworn: I bought section 54 from John Crate, to whom it was allotted in lieu of a section in Gladstone Street. 55 was allotted to me. I value 54 at £100, but I don't think you could get half that for it now. It is worth £5 a year, not more. 55 is worth £200, and £10 a year rental. By Mr. Mackay : I erected a building on 55 in January, 1875. There is an old store on 54, which I swear is worth more than £5. It cost £15 to move it* [Case closed.]

A.—G.

Section 56.—GRAVES and FLEMING, Claimants. Iyatt Geayes sworn: We bought this section from John Draghicavich, who purchased from Crate. I value the section at £80. AYe have let it for £15 a year. With a fourteen years' lease, it would be worth ss. a foot. There is a building on it worth £10. The land opposite to it is let for 6s. Bd. for a seven years' lease, and 28s. for fourteen years' lease. If 28s. is a fair value, ours would be worth the same, but it is purely an assumption. In regard to the sections on the Colliery Reserve, I desire to make the following statement: When the residents of Westport were washed out, they had no place to put their buildings on until the Government came forward and offered us inducements to stop in the town. We really would have had to leave the town, but Mr. Commissioner Sharp came to Westport and gave us sections on the Colliery Reserve, at the same time giving us a promise that we should have leases at a low rental. He, on the other hand, extracted a promise from us that we should put up buildings to the value of £50. I asked Mr. Sharp what assurance he would give us that we could take our buildings off again, and he told me I should have a lease for fourteen years at a low rental —not more than £5. After that the people found that £5 was rather more than they could afford to pay; and when the Superintendent came down, a deputation of section-holders waited upon him, and represented that £5 a year was too much. On inquiry he found that it was too much ; and at a public meeting he (the Superintendent), holding the delegated powers from the Governor, made a promise that he would giva us leases for fourteen years, at £1 for the first two years, £2 10s. for the next five years, and £5 for the next seven years. The people have fulfilled the terms of that proposal by paying the £1 rent, and are willing to continue to fulfil those terms; but, from what I can see, the General Government, which is another part of the Crown which offered us that concession, that bounty, wishes now to extract from us a rack rent. That, I think, is unfair in the extreme. They are now going to try and screw more than the £5 a year out of us. I maintain that we ought to be permitted to occupy the land upon the terms promised by the Superintendent, and upon which terms we took it from the Provincial Government. It seems strange to me that one part of the Crown should take from us what was given to us by another part of the Crown. Mr. Mackay refuses to recognize our rights either at law or equity, although Mr. Sharp, an officer of the Provincial Government, told us that we should be allowed to occupy the sections at a rental of £1 a year for the first two years, £2 10s. for the next five years, and £5 for the next seven years. Those terms were equitable to both parties, considering the position in which we stood when we took up the sections. They were offered to us to induce us to remain in the place ; and I consider that if the General Government exact more than £5 a year from us, they will be cheating us, for I can call it nothing else. The Commissionees : And yet many section-holders described their sections as being worth more thau £5 ?—That does not matter. If it had not been for that bounty we should not have remained here. Then the land would have been worthless. I speak as Ido because these facts have not come out in evidence. But, apart from the consideration of the bounty, do you not consider that, as a rent, the sum you named would be extremely low ? —Then why induce us to stop if they did not intend to carry out the agreement ? That was the special inducement held out to get us to stop here. In what way do you think the railway and protective works will affect the place ?—The future success of the place is contingent upon the works being carried out. If they are not, we shall have to leave. Then you look upon the railway works in the light of another bounty ?—1 have been waiting six or seven years for their completion, at any rate. AYe all knew that the development of the coal mines would be worth waiting for, and we have waited. AYe must have the protective works, or the town will be no good. Everything is contingent upon the development of the coal mines. There is a certain amount of digging going on, but the completion of the railway works and the protective works form the inducement for us to stop here. The railway works have done us harm rather than good, because indirectly they have been the means of a good many diggers leaving the place. I notice that Mr. Mackay makes a reservation as to the legal and equitable position at the end of every case. What does that mean ? The Commissionees : The Government have appointed this Commission to inquire into the legal and equitable rights of claimants, and when we have heard both sides we shall determine between the parties. If you have no agreement with the Government you have no legal right, but you may still have an equitable right. Mr. Geayes : Had the Provincial Government and the Provincial Council the right to deal with this reserve when they granted these sections ? The Commissionees : That is just the question we have to determine, but we cannot answer it until we have heard all parties. [Case closed.] Sections 57, 58.—MORRISON, SCLANDERS, and CO., Claimants. Mr. Haselden appeared on behalf of the claimants, and explained that they were resident in Nelson, and were original allottees, but he had no evidence to offer as to value or rental. He would therefore leave that matter to the decision of the Commission. Mr. Mackay stated that rent had been paid, but no buildings had been erected on the sections. [Case closed.] Section 60.-FREDERICK WHITE, Claimant. Mr. Haseiden appeared on behalf of the claimant. F. White, sworn : This section was allotted to me by Mr. Commissioner Sharp, and I have lived on it since 1873. I value the buildings at £300, and the section, at £100. When I took up the land . 9—A. 3.

A.—3

there was no road to it. With a fourteen years' lease, it would now be worth 4s. to ss. a foot. Rent is paid to Ist January, 1874. ' [Case closed.] Sections 59, 189.—CATHERINE GRADY, Claimant. Mr. J. B. Fisher appeared for the claimant. Catheeine Grady, sworn: Section 59 was allotted to me by Mr. Commissioner Sharp, and 1 have paid rent upon it to December, 1873. Section 189 I bought from Mr. Burke. Transfers put in: Munson, original allottee—Munson to Burke —Burke to Grady. [Case closed.] Section 61.— F. SONTGEN, Claimant. F. Sontgen, sworn : Roche and McFarlane were the original allottees, and I bought their interest partly from one, partly from the other. lam prepared to give £5 a year for a fourteen years' lease of the section, which I value at £150. Rent is paid to Ist July, 1874. [Case closed.] * Sections 82, 184.—HUGH NEIL, Claimant. Hugh Neil, sworn: This section was originally allotted to Neil and Draghicavich, whose share I bought. I value my buildings at £520, and the section at £60 or £70. It is worth £4 a year for a fourteen years' lease. Rent is paid to January, 1875. By Mr. Mackay :In the claim I sent in to you I valued my buildings at £420; but I have gone more carefully into the matter since, and I find that I omitted to include ovens and other things from my former statement. The Commissioners : Section 184 was granted to me direct. I have erected a cottage upon it, which I value at £150. The section is worth 255. a year, or £10 or £15 to sell with a fourteen years' lease. [Case closed.] Section 64.— F. F. JUNGNIKEL, Claimant. Mr. Haselden appeared for the applicant, who resides at Charleston, and stated that the section was originally granted to Sheahan. Sheahan sold to Roche, Roche sold to Gilmer, and Gilmer to Jungnikel. Rent was paid to 31st December, 1873. Mr. Mackay : I must make a reservation in regard to this claim, which I believe was a double allotment. [Case'closed.] Section 70.—ROBERT WHYTE, Claimant. Robert Whyte, sworn: I value the section at £85, and the buildings upon it at £455. £5 per annum would be a fair rent on a fourteen years' lease. Rent is paid to 31st December, 1874. [Case closed.] Section 69.—JOHN COFFEY, Claimant. John Coffey, sworn : I bought this section from Mr. Gilmer, but I have no receipt. I value the section at £70. I have erected a building upon it worth £250, but I think £5 a year a sufficient rent for a fourteen years' lease. John Gilmee, sworn : I sold the section to Coffey. Originally it belonged to A. Horn. [Case closed.] Sections 74, 75, 108, 109.— J. POWELL and CO., Claimants. J. Powell sworn: lam Powell and Co. Section 74 was allotted to me; section 75 I bought from Mr. G. Jervis. Rent is paid up on both sections. I have built a store upon them which cost £550. It has been used for eighteen months, and I allow £30 for wear and tear. The sections are worth £5 a year each. It would be difficult to sell them just now ; still I value them at £70 each on account of the improvements I have made upon them. Sections 108 and 109, which I bought from Mr. Christopher Brown, are unimproved. I value them at £25 each; but it would be difficult to sell them just now, on account of the number of sections in the town and the dulness of trade. Most of the reserve sections are only worth the annual rental, because freeholds can be bought for £40 or £50. They are worth 30s. a year each. At the present time the Empire Hotel end of the town is the best for business; but if the protective works are not gone on with, and heavy floods were to occur, people would have to move higher up or leave the place. If they did move higher up, that would of course improve the value of the land at this end. Queen Street would make a good site for a town, if the people were to move up bodily. In my former statement I valued my store and buildings at £700, and the section at £80. I did so because I considered it would take that amount to compensate me for removing to another site. By the Commissioners : There is really nothing to improve trade here but the completion of the railway and protective works, and the development of the coal mines. If these were completed, trade would improve in five years. It would not be much improved before that. The coal mines are not being speedily developed, because the Government have not completed the railway. I thought at one time that we should get a share of the Reefton trade, but I am afraid now that we shall not, because 'the Greymouth road is much superior to the Buller road; besides the drays from the Grey take goods

A.—3

30s. a ton cheaper than they can be taken from here. From the way the people have suffered in this place, I consider the Government ought to grant leases for fourteen years, without further trouble, on the terms promised by the Superintendent, and then, if the coal mines are developed in that time, they should give the option of renewing the leases for another fourteen years, at £5 a section. That would lock up the ground for twenty-eight years for £5 a year. Do you not think that would be a very small rental ?—Yes; but I take into consideration what the people have already suffered. Is not that apart from the question? If people are unfortunate, can they expect the Crown to compensate them ? Do you think it is the fault of the Government that the people have suffered ?— To a certain extent. I believe that a small expenditure nine years ago would- have prevented the river bank being washed away, and thus have averted loss to the people. If the coal mines are satisfactorily developed, do you think there will be a large increase of trade here ?—I don't think there will. That is to say, the town will not be much larger. Take Newcastle, N.S W., as an instance. That town is not much larger than this with all its trade; at any rate it cannot provide sufficient business for the four banks there; so I was informed by a gentleman who passed through here a short time ago. If there is no prospect of improvement in five years, many of the people here will have to leave. Of course the expenditure of £70,000 or £80,000 of public money will help us a little during that time. I would rather not give an opinion about the prospects of the hotel trade; in fact, Ido not visit them much, and may not be competent to express an opinion. I don't think the sections in Palmerston Street are worth £100 at the present time. There is really nothing to induce a man to start a business here. As a matter of fact, the sections are worth nothing more than the rent paid for them by the people on the spot. I will be nine years here next April. By Mr. Mackay : I am concerned in the lease of Cable and Drummond's coal mine, but we are doing nothing towards developing it, because we don't know when the railway will be completed. The only reason I know of to raise a doubt as to the intentions of the Government in regard to the railway is. that they do not go on with it. lam myself doubtful about their intentions, because they gave a promise when Parliament met that the railways would be proceeded with in three weeks. That is more than four months ago. I got the information through Mr. O'Conor, who said that the Minister for Public Works had given him to understand that the line would be gone on with within three weeks from the time mentioned. I have no reason to doubt Mr. O'Conor's word. By Mr. Mackay : Are you aware that the Government could not, until the Appropriation Act was passed, see their way to go on ? That Act is passed, and £80,000 voted for the railway and protective works this year. There can therefore be no doubt about that. Mr. Powell : I am glad to hear it. By Mr. Mackay : What is a fair estimate of the net profits of hotel-keepers ?—I believe they calculate upon one-third of their takings being profit. [Case closed.] The Commission adjourned at 5.15 p.m.

Monday, 6th December, 1875. Sections 42, 43.— E. ROCHE, Claimant. This case was adjourned for the purpose of obtaining an estimate as to the cost of the building. W. Bull, examined by Mr. J. B. Fisher : I visited Roche's building on Friday evening, and made an estimate of cost. To put up a new building of similar dimensions would cost £816. (Detailed estimate and rough scale put in.) Roche's building, although three years old, is worth £700 now, because a building does not depreciate as much in value during the first few years as it does toward the end of a long period—say fifteen years. The outside measurement of Roche's building is 42 feet 8 inches by 32 feet 6 inches, and it is 29 feet high. The estimate I have handed in includes the kitchen, but not fencing. By the Commissioners : The condition of Roche's building seven years hence would be very good, but it would be worth very little in fourteen years. It would require a new iron roof, because iron will not stand fourteen years unless it is of good heavy quality. The estimate put in is a minute calculation. I could put up such a building with local timber for a less sum, but there is a good deal of kauri timber in it. I have lived here for nine years, and have put up a good many of the buildings in Westport. Some of those upon the Coal Reserve are very flimsy structures. Such a building as the Empire Hotel will last fifteen years with very little repair. This Court-house I built eight years ago, and it is almost as sound as the day it was put up. Gilmer's Hotel will be good for twelve years, and the Bank of New Zealand for fifteen. Fleming's store is also a good building. Corr's store will last fifteen years, but the general run of the buildings will require a good deal of repairs in ten years. Speaking generally, I should say thatthere will not be much of the present buildings left at the end of twenty-one years. All the buildings in the town have been shifted within the last three years. Simon's is the only store that has never been removed. The majority of the buildings could be put up at a less cost now than originally. Timber is 30 per cent, cheaper, and labour is cheaper also. By Mr. Mackay : You simply asked me for an estimate of the removal and re-erection. I don't think you asked me for an estimate of its value. Until I now gave my estimate of its value, I don't think I had disclosed to any one what it was. Mr. J. B. Fishee : In addressing the Commission upon the question of damages, I will ask the Commissioners to notice that Mr. Roche had two sections, that he purchased one for £20, and supposing that the arrangement with the Superintendent would be carried out, he has in all things complied with the terms of the contract. He was the first person who came to live upon the Colliery Reserve before the road was completed, and jjuilt this house, not with a view to the immediate benefit that would accrue from the erection of a building, because there was no population here at that

A.—3

time, but because of the business he hoped to do in the future. I will next ask you to take into consideration the business he is doing, and ask you to estimate fairly the value of his property. Another view of the matter is this: that no money compensation can be made to Roche which will return to him the advantages he enjoys in connection with this property, because it is in a particular location, and commands a particular business. There is no other location which can command the same business, and he is entitled to have that taken into account when considering his claim. Mr. Roche is entitled to substantial damages, and I have no fear in leaving his claim in the hands of the Commission. The evidence adduced shows that he has one of the best cases of the whole for substantial damages, because he is losing a property which is bringing him in £900 a year. The evidence of Mr. Andrews and Mr. Munro went to prove that the house and land are worth £2,000, and the good-will must necessarily be taken into account along with that. I shall not labour the matter further. I shall ask the Commission simply to take into consideration that the value of the land has been made by the work, labour, and money of Roche, and that he is entitled to the utmost value that could be obtained for it had the promises of the Superintendent been carried out. [Case closed.] Section 65.—M. ORGAN and M. SCANLON, Joint Claimants. Receipts for rent to December, 1873, and deed of partition put in, under which Scanlon is to have the front frontage, and Organ the back. M. Organ, sworn: The whole section is worth £65. A lease for fourteen years would be worth £7 10s. per annum. By Mr. Mackay : Scanlon gave me £80 for the part I sold him, but land was then worth more than double what it is now. I would not give £65 for the whole section if it were unoccupied. I have two cottages on the back part of the section, one let for 10s., and the other for 7s. 6d. per week. They cost £130. By the Commissioners : I desire to get a lease at a moderate rental, but I should require a compensation clause for any improvements I might effect. A lease for seven years at a low rent, on the distinct understanding that we should have leave to renew, would be more beneficial to us all. Of course if I got a long lease at a moderate rent, I should not feel disposed to leave the reserve. Sections fronting Palmerston Street would be worth £5 to £10 per annum. I would be disposed to give one-third or one-half more for a long lease than for a short one. I consider the fairest arrangement would be to give half compensation for any buildings left on the ground. If no compensation were to be given, of course tenants would allow the property to go to decay as the end of the term approached. [Case closed.] Section 68—HAY and DUPUIS, Joint Claimants. J. G. Hay, sworn : This section was allotted to AVTiite and Dupuis. AVhite transferred his interest to me. Dupuis and myself are satisfied with the division of the land as shown upon the paper handed iv. I hold 21 feet on the south side, and Dupuis 12 feet on the north side. I gave £55 for the interest I hold in the section, but the whole section is not worth more than £80 now. I spent £220 upon my buildings, which have only lately been put up. The value of the section to rent would be about £5. I would rather have been allotted freehold ground iv Queen Street than be subject to a lease on the Reserve. I think we should be allowed half compensation at the end of our lease for any buildings that may be on the ground. I should prefer a twenty-one years' lease, which would be worth 25 per cent, more than a seven years' lease. The place will undoubtedly have declared itself in seven years, but still Ido not consider a twenty-one years' lease worth more than 25 per cent, advance. I quite agree that there should be improvement clauses in a twenty-one years' lease. By Mr. Mackay : Iwasoneof those who memorialized the Provincial Government to lay off sections on the Colliery Reserve; but had I known there were freehold sections available in Queen Street or Russell Street, I should have preferred to have been put there. A. Dupuis, examined by Mr. Mackay : I was allotted 10 feet by 132 feet in conjunction with White, but I subsequently purchased 2 feet from him for £10. Ido not think my piece altogether is worth more than £25 or £30. I bought it in 1873, before the railway was commenced, and before there were so many buildings in Palmerston Street. [Case closed.] Sections 71, 72.—THOMAS FIELD, Claimant. Claimant appeared in person. T. Field, sworn: These sections were allotted to me, and I consider that lam entitled to a lease in terms of the promise of the Superintendent. If I cannot get that, of course I must leave my case entirely in the hands of the Government. AVhen we were washed out, the Provincial Government kindly came forward and allotted these sections for the sections we lost; and if the original arrangement is not carried out now, I shall consider that the Government is dealing unfairly with us. I have been in possession of the ground since 1872, and have spent a little over £500 upon it in buildings. I have complied with Mr. Sharp's conditions from the first. A long lease would be better for the occupiers on the Coal Reserve. I should prefer that to a short lease at a moderate rent; but if the Government grant me a fourteen years' lease, I ought to be allowed to take away my buildings. The Government would receive the rent, and in honor and justice they ought not to look for any more. Take the case of Reefton. There the people clamoured for freeholds, and sections for which they were paying £5 a year were given to them for £2 10s. I consider the Government has treated us very badly indeed. Although we were washed out we. were not beggars. We did not want these sections. We could have bought sections in any of the back streets at from £10 to £30, and

A.—3

they would have suited us had the Government made the road. The Government, I consider, has done us a great injury. Speaking personally, I feel that I have been trapped. We were induced to spend a lot of money, and now we are told the Provincial Government had no power to deal with the reserve. I did all I could to get proper terms of lease ; and when the reserve was handed over to the General Government as security, I asked Mr. O'Conor for an explanation as to what had been done. He said the Provincial Government had handed over the reserve to the General Government; " but," said he, " I took care to see that the obligations of the Provincial Government would be duly respected by the General Government." I believe what he said to be true. I believe in him as a man of honor. I made inquiries, however, and I ascertained from Mr. Fisher that no such clause had been inserted. Of course I feel very much disappointed. I see that we are now entirely in the hands of the Government. I feel that we are caught, and that I must fulfil any conditions the Government choose to impose. The general feeling is that we have a right to have the Superintendent's promise fulfilled. We believe that the Superintendent had a perfect right to make the terms, and we believe that those terms should be adhered to. By Mr. Mackay : There is a cottage on sections 71 and 72 which cost me £100. It is let to Mr. Virtue for 12s. a week. There is another small tenement at the end of the sections, for which I receive nothing. I recollect signing a memorial on the 4th January, 1873, asking the Superintendent to allot sections on the reserve. [Memorial put in and marked A.] The Corporation values the sections at £100 a year. The Commissioners : This document is an admission that the subscribers had no tenure whatever in the sections ?—lt was the want of the leases that caused the memorial to be sent. Mr. Mackay stated here that Mr. Field could give the Commission some information respecting the Buller Coal Field. The Commissioners : Are you interested in the coal mines ?—Yes ; I am interested in the Albion Company. lam one of the original promoters of that company. What are you doing to the mine ? —Nothing at the present time. We are waiting for the commencement of the third section of the railway. What have you done to it hitherto ?—We have got out a good bit of coal, and done some prospecting. How much money have you spent upon it? —The Albion Company have spent nearly £10,000. And what permanent works have you there ? —There are not many, because the company had prepared to ship the coal by the river. The principal outlay has been in the purchase of a steamer, the " Coomerang." AVhat capital and time would be required to develop that miue to enable you to send a steady and considerable supply of coal to town ? —I think we could turn out 1,000 to 1,500 tons a week in six months. And what amount of money should be expended to prepare for such a yield ?—£3,000 to £4,000. Is the company able to bear that expense ? —Yes, we have a capital of £6,000. Is the Albion the only mine that has been prospected ?—There has been a good deal of prospecting at other mines. Only prospecting ?—Only prospecting. Have there been no permanent works undertaken, shafts and so on ? —Tunnels have been put in, but no shafts. It is hill side tunnelling. How many mines are there ? —There are several leases taken up, and I think all the companies are only waiting for the completion of the railway to commence operations. Considerable doubt exists as to whether the Government intend to proceed with the railway. But it has been stated that many of these mines are simply held by speculators, who are not anxious to develop them. Do you know whether that is the case?—l think there may be a few such companies, but they would soon be swept away when the railway was opened. Bond fide parties would immediately come forward to open up the mines. Would you have to go outside for capital? —A little assistance added to the amount subscribed in the place would suffice. Subscribed in this limited township ! What proportion of the Albion Company shareholders are there in the district ?—Origiually there were 400, but there are now only about 300 in Westland and Westport. Are the other leases held by residents here or by absentees ?—There is no other lease granted. There are prospecting licenses. Who are the licensees ? —There are a great many in Dunedin, and some here. Who are the persons who hold licenses in Westport ?—There is Mulholland's prospecting license at the Waimangaroa; and there is the AVaimangaroa Association, all composed of Westport gentlemen. The parties who can properly be called speculators are those in Dunedin, who have taken up land in the high country. I understand that some of these gentlemen have gone to England to form a company there to work the mines. Then are we to understand that the Albion Company is the only company that can send away a quantity of coal at an early period ?—To all appearances, at the present time. Why do you say so? —Because I have seen most of the others. I have taken a great deal of trouble to go over the country, and I know that it will take time and a great deal of expense to bring the others into working order. And having had some experience in coal mines, what capital do you think will have to be expended before coal can be shipped from these other mines? That depends upon whether the Government will make branch lines. If they do, the expenditure will be very small, almost nothing; but if they are compelled to make their own branch lines, then a great expense will be necessary. Then is it the case that the main expenditure would be involved in the construction of the branch lines of railway and not in the development of the mine itself?— That is the case. There would be very little expense in getting into the mine. You could go into some of the mines and supply 1,000 tons a day, and make very little impression on them.

A.—3

Has this coal been tested ?—Yes. What is it best adapted for ?—For steam purposes. What market do you look to for the sale of this coal? —New Zealand principally. Have you made any calculation as to the quantity of coal that you could rely upon having inquiries for per month or per year, as the case may be ? —That would also depend greatly upon the action of the General Government. The harbour is capable of great improvement. We will come to that presently. What quantity of coal can you rely upon being required per month or per year. Have you made calculations upon these matters? —No, I cannot say. The quantity will not be very great for some time. As one of the promoters of the Albion Company, and as one who has had a great deal to do with coal, I am quite prepared to say that it will take a first place in the market as a steam coal. We have taken a great deal of trouble to have it tested, and the returns have been good. But you cannot tell us the probable consumption ? —I cannot. Do you think you would be able to compete with Newcastle so far as the cost of production is concerned ? —Yes. What is the cost of producing coal from the Albion Mine ? —AVe calculate that we shall be able to put it into the railway trucks at from 4s. to 6s. a ton, and to that would have to be added the cost of carriage to the wharf. Do you know the cost of shipping coal at Newcastle after the railway carriage is paid?— A person in the body of the Court : 14s. a ton placed on ship board. By the Commissioners : Then it would be considerably less than 14s. a ton here ?—When I said 4s. to 6s. a ton, I meant that would be the actual cost of the coal. There is the company's profit to add to that, as well as the railway and shipping charges. If coal can be produced from the Albion Mine at that rate, it would cost no more from the other mines, providing the railway ran to them ?—No. You remarked that a great deal would depend upon the money expended by the Government in harbour works. AVhat did you mean?—lf the Government carry out the protective works so as to enable vessels of larger draft to enter the river than can enter at the present time, it would be a great advantage. If Mr. Higginson's suggestion to carry out a breakwater below low watermark were carried out, it would have the effect of deepening the bar. Then of course large vessels would come in, and trade would increase very much. What is the average depth of water on the bar ? —Vessels of 9 feet draught can come in very easily. AVhat tonnage does that represent ? —250 tons. Are we to understand that in your opinion vessels of 700 or 800 tons would not be able to enter the river?— Not unless they were built to enter bar harbours. But ordinary vessels of 200 or 300 tons will always be able to come in whether the protective works are made or not ?—Yes, if they are not too deep. They should not draw above 9 feet. But it all depends upon the state of the river. Do you think that condition of things will militate against the sale of the coal. Will the people in the colony and elsewhere be at all times able to obtain vessels under that draught ? —No doubt a great many vessels of that draught will come here, but we shall not be able to compete with Newcastle unless vessels of larger draught can come in. That is what we want to ascertain ?—Although these protective works may be completed, we labour under a disadvantage in respect of tonnage. You have told us what might come to pass if the protective works are made. Suppose these protective works are not so beneficial as you all anticipate they may be, what will be the consequence ? —It would limit the trade very much. Then the protective works would go to insure what ?—To increase the depth of water. If the depth of water were increased by the protective works, what tonnage could then come in ? —It has been calculated that if the protective works are carried out, 20 feet or over will be got on the bar. What tonnage would that represent ?—lt would represent large-sized vessels. Then you would be able to compete with Newcastle ? —Yes. Is there not 20 feet on the bar at high water of spring tides to be got sometimes now? — Sometimes, after a fresh ; but it is very exceptional, and not to be depended on. The average depth is 14 feet in ordinary tides, except when we have had very dry weather; then it may be less. Then why do you say that vessels of only 9 feet draught can come in ?—That is about the size of the vessels we have had here for some time. Suppose these protective works are made, and there is the water on the bar you say there would be, what depth would there be inside ? Sufficient for large vessels ?—Yes, there is plenty of water in the river. In your opinion, and judging from past experience, is the bar likely to shift at all, and thus affect the entrance and the depth of water ?—lt would do so if the Government delayed the protective works. I thought that if this morning's storm had lasted six hours longer the labours of the Commission would have been brought to a conclusion, for there would have been little of the reserve left to dispute about. If the water should get in behind the groin, the lower end of the town would be washed away, and very likely part of the railway. About a month ago a very urgent telegram was sent to the Minister for Public Works representing this to be the case. But even with the protective works, would the bar be likely to shift and affect the depth of water ? —From all I can learn it will not. It is a very straight run out now, which it has not had for years. Then you believe the protective works will keep the channel intact ?—Yes. Then, summing up, you are of opinion that the Albion Mine, the only mine at present available for the supply of coal, can yield about 1,000 tons a week within twenty-four months from this time?— Yes.

A.—3

That vessels of 200 or 300 tons can come in, and that if the protective works are completed vessels of 700 or 800 tons can come alongside the wharf; that there is plenty of water in the river, and that if the protective works are completed the channel will remain as it is now ?—Yes. What do you say, then, with respect to the other coal mines?— Some of them are being prospected. But the supply of coal in those cases, you think, will depend very much upon whether the Government will construct the branch lines to them ?—Yes. You say some of these prospecting claims are held by residents here, but that a large number are owned by absentees ? —Yes. In a small way, have you any regular customers for your coal ?—We could always sell what we got out, without difficulty. But have you any steady or regular customers ?—No ; but if we brought in 1,000 tons a week we could sell it. Then do the people who have had coal from you desire more ? —Yes ; they are satisfied with it. Did you not say in your examination that this place would not progress for some time to come ? —I think I did, and I will explain my meaning. Opening up a new place like this is like opening up a fresh business. For instance, those people who have been sending their vessels to Newcastle will not send them here for some time. You must show them that there is some special advantage, and I am quite sure the quality of the coal will do that. And therefore, even with your ability to get out 1,000 tons of coal a week, you think this place will not progress for the next five years ?—Oh no. A year or two might do it. Assuming that these lines of railway are made immediately, and the protective works are executed with all despatch, what time do you think will elapse before this place makes steady progress ? —I should think it will be eighteen months at least before the Albion Company will be able to get coal down on account of the delay in completing the sailway. Then it will take six months to get things under way, say two years. Then it will take a year to work up a trade. Say five years altogether. Then in five years do you think the place will be advancing ?—I think it will. Has this place anything beyond its coal to depend upon ? —There is a large mining district about Westport. It is very dull at present, but I think it will revive in time, if the people who left should return to the district. Is the ground sufficiently rich to warrant an influx of strange miners ? —I think not. As a matter of fact, miners are not apt to return to old diggings ? —They do not as a rule. So that, under these circumstances, your gold fields are not likely to be very productive ?—Not for a time. Can Westport compete with Greymouth for the Reefton trade ?—I am afraid not. Why not ?—We lost that trade, in the first place, through there being no road. The Greymouth people had a road, and, besides, they are more energetic than the Westport people. The trade has been cut off by the river, but I have no doubt we shall get some of it when the Buller road is complete. Have you travelled that line of road ?—No. Then you cannot say whether it is a road over which drays can travel conveniently ?—They will not be able to do so without considerable outlay to make the necessary bridges and the other improvements required. Assuming trade to be brisk in five years, can you form any idea as to what the value of land will be on the Coal Reserve, at per foot ? —Take your own section, for instance ?—lf at the end of five or six years my lease was up and it was put up to auction, no doubt it would fetch a very good price. Can you give us an idea of the price ?—lf trade was good it would fetch £1 a foot; but I should regard that as the effect of my having made a business on the ground. That is another thing; but you are satisfied, if trade is reasonably prosperous, that such price will be obtainable ? —I have no doubt of it. If Westport should progress in five years, do you think the number of buildings for mercantile purposes would materially increase; in other words, would the present town be large enough for the business ?—The present buildings are sufficient for a very much larger trade than we are doing at present. And if the place progresses during the next five years, do you think very many more business places will be required ?—I daresay a great many will go up, whether they are required or not. By Mr. Mackay : What other mines besides the Albion are in an eligible position with regard to the railway between AVaimangaroa and the Ngakawhau ?—The next to ours is the Buller Company, of which Mr. Rochfort, of Napier, is the engineer. That is Cable, Drummond, and Co. Is not that in an equally eligible position with the Albion Company ? —With the exception of the tramway. How far would the tramway have to be made? —The Government geologist, Mr. Cox, calculates that it would have to be brought two miles, down to the Albion spur. Are you aware that there are other leases applied for ? —Yes. You gave your opinion with regard to the bar. Was not the present channel formed by the flood of 1872 ?—Yes. Then the present channel will have existed four years next February ? —Yes. Did not the three-masted schooner " Alma," drawing 81 feet, come in a fortnight ago at half-tide ? —It was between high and low water when she came in. Are you aware that there is a depth of 20 feet of water on the bar at spring tides, with a channel 150 fathoms in width ?—lf it is so, it must have improved very much lately. Are you aware that at neap tides there is 16 feet of water on the bar ? —There is that depth at ordinary tides. lam aware that the bar has been improving within the last year ; so I hear. You are engaged in another coal license, are you not ?—Two more, but we have not applied for leases yet. We intend to do so.

A.—3

Where are the mines ?—On Crane's Cliff, above the Albion. Is there any coal development lower down than Cable and Drummond's, near the sea ? —I have not heard of any. By the Commissioners : You have referred to Crane's Cliff. If you obtain a lease do you propose to make a branch line to that "mine yourself ? —lt will not require a branch line. It will only require an incline tramway to bring the coal down to the foot of the Albion Mine. And will that mine furnish you with as great a supply as you will be able to obtain from the Albion ?—Yes. It is just as large a seam, 20 feet, and apparently unlimited in quantity. [Case closed.] . Sections 76, 163, 185, 197, 199, 202.—GEORGE JERVIS, Claimant. Mr. Haselden appeared for the claimant. George Jeryis, sworn: Section 76 was allotted to me. Upon this and the other sections I tendered rent to Mr. Bowen, which he agreed to accept "on account of whom it might concern." I declined to accept such a receipt, and the rent remained unpaid. I placed building material on the section, and intended to build, but did not do so on account of the insecurity of the tenure. The section is not worth more than £5 or £7 a year. Section 163 is worth £15; the extreme value for a lease of fourteen years would be £1 a year. It is a swampy hole. I value section 185 at £25; the extreme annual rent would be £3. I value 199, Bentham Street, at £15 j the rent per annum at £2 to £3. £15 is the full value of 202 ; extreme rent, £2 to £3. I purchased section 197 from Reid. It might be worth £2 to £3 a year, but it is close alongside the railway, and is nothing more valuable on that account. Those are all the sections I hold on the Colliery Reserve. I am a considerable holder of property in this town, and have paid large sums of money for business licenses in former times. By Mr. Mackay : I will swear that I tendered the rent to Mr: Bowen, and that he would only give me a receipt containing the words "on account of whom it may concern." I think section 163 was allotted to me iv lieu of 44, Bright Street. The three sections for which I was allotted 163, 185, aud 189 are still in existence, and I get rent from them. I have put in claims for both. The old sections are in danger of being washed away at any time. They might remain for six months, and they might not remain for six weeks. I got 76 as compensation for a section on the Native Reserve. I got a double allotment, one being a section of 37 feet frontage and 2\ chains depth, and the other 33 feet by 132 feet. I considered my old section on the reserve the best, seeing that I gave £4 a foot for it. Some of the freehold given to me in exchange would not fetch more than ss. a foot. I gave Reid £27 10s. for his interest. By Mr. Haselden : Nothing was said by Messrs. Giles and Dobson about giving up the old sections. lamin a position to build a house on the section if I get a title, and would take my chance of getting tenants. By the Commissioners : But Commissioners Giles and Dobson said that leases were only to be obtained upon condition that certain improvements were made by a certain date. By Mr. Mackay : I held business licenses for some of these sections in the old township, but not for them all. I bought 44, 103, and 145 in the old township before the floods took place, because I thought they were worth the money. You speculated in them, in fact ?—I would elect to keep the old sections and surrender the new ones if I must make a choice. Mr. Mackay put in the schedule of allotments made by Commissioners Giles and Dobson [marked A], containing the signature of George Jervis for three sections allotted to him on the new part of the reserve. H. AY. Bowen, Clerk to the Resident Magistrate's Court, sworn: I don't recollect Jervis declining to pay rent on account of the words " on account of whom it may concern " appearing in the body of the receipt, but I am quite sure that nobody ever refused to pay rent on account of those words being in the receipt. [Case closed.] Sections 80, 139, 175, 176.—REID and CO., Claimants. John Ttrrell, sworn: The firm of Reid and Co. is composed of Robert Caldwell Reid and myself, I bought this section from Richard Rowlands, agent for Mrs. Rogers, for the sum of £30, and have paid rent upon it up to October, 1874, after which date it was refused. I value the improvements, which include the Westport Times office, at £500, and the section at £100. £5 a year would be a fair rent for the section. I should prefer a long lease at a proportionately high rental to a short lease at a low rental, but I should object to leaving the buildings for the benefit of the Government at the end of the term. The rent the Government would receive should be a fair return to them. Even if I had a lease on the terms proposed by the Superintendent, I consider I should be allowed to take away the buildings at the expiration of the lease. Sections 175 and 176 were allotted to Ambrose and McKenna by the Borough Council. [Document showing awards made by the Borough Council put in and marked A.] I should be prepared to give up the sections for what I paid for them, £5 for 175, and £3 for 176. £1 or 30s. a year would be ample rent for them. I bought section 139 from Yardley. [Case closed.] Section 81.—JOHN CURTAYNE, Claimant. Mr. Haselden appeared for the claimant. John Curtayne, sworn: I bought this section from F. West, who purchased the interest of Luff, the original allottee. I have no transfer. I gave £70 for it, a price which was too much at the time, and would be much too high at the present time. £5 or £6 a year would be a fair rent for it. The

A.—3

building on the section cost me close up to £500. If 32 feet are taken off the back of the section, it will reduce its value by £10 or £12. I tendered rent in 1874, and it was refused. By Mr. Mackay : In April, 1875, I valued the improvements at £600, which I considered a marketable value at the time. F. West, sworn : I bought section 81 from A. Luff, the original allottee, and sold it to Curtayne. I have no receipt, but I know I received the money from Curtayne. This was a double allotment. [Case closed.] Section 82.—EMMA PETERSON, Claimant. Claimant appeared in person, and, being sworn, stated: This section was allotted to me by Commissioner Sharp. Under a fourteen years' lease it would be worth £5 a year. I got it in compensation for section 21, Bay View Street. I also got portion of sections 168 and 169 in addition to section 82 for my section in Bay View Street. [Case closed.] Sections 86, 126.—REBECCA SMITH, Claimant. Mr. J. B. Fisher appeared for claimant. Rebecca Smith, sworn: This section was awarded to me by Mr. Commissioner Sharp. I spent £30 in improving it, and then put on it the material of an hotel, which cost me £500, in the old township. The removal and re-erection cost £300. The house has eight large rooms, and is as good as before it was moved. I could get 30s. a week for the house had not the Licensing Commissioners refused the license. As it is, I could not get 10s. a week for it. I don't know what would be a fair rent for the section; I should be glad to sell it if I could. Section 126 was awarded to me by Commissioners Giles and Dobson. I have done nothing to it, because it would cost £40 to clear it. I should like to have a lease of it, because it is all I have to show for a washed-away section that cost me £40. [Case closed.] Section 77.— J. BLACKLOCK and W. CARPENTER,. Joint Claimants. Agreement to partition, signed by both parties, handed in. J. Blacklock, sworn, stated that the section was awarded to himself and Carpenter jointly, and that they had in addition got portion of a freehold section in lieu of section 47, Gladstone Street. Rent paid to 31st December, 1874. [Case closed.] Section 83.—W. J. PATTERSON, Claimant. Claimant, in person, sworn: I bought this section from Mr. Trent, who purchased from Charles Gregg, the original allottee, who resides at Nelson. I have no document to prove transfer from Gregg to Trent. The section is worth £5 a year at the outside. I put a small cottage on the section at a cost of £20. I purchased from Trent on the 15th July, 1874. There was no building on the section then. I don't know what section Gregg held in the old township. The Commissioners informed him that he would have to produce documentary proof of the transfer from Gregg to Trent. [Case closed.] Section 84.—HERCULES BRINKLEY, Claimant. Case called. No appearance of claimant. Mr. Mackay stated that this was an impudent jumping case, Brinkley having taken possession of the section in 1874 without any title whatever. [Case closed.] Section 89.—JOHN DERUNGS, Claimant. Claimant in person, sworn : I am the original allottee. I have spent £60 upon the section, and value it at from £80 to £100. £5 per annum would be a fair rent. Tendered rent to Mr. Bowen, but it was not accepted. [Case closed.] Section 90.— F. McFARLANE, Claimant. Mr. Haselden appeared for the applicant, who was too ill to appear, and stated that he was the original allottee. James Colvin, sworn :I am partner in the firm of McFarlane and Colvin. £4 to £5 would be a fair rent for this section, which, without the buildings, is worth £100. If 32 feet is taken off, the section will be damaged to the extent of one-third of its value. By Mr. Mackay : Other people paid rent on the section, but Mr. McFarlane always declined to do so until the Provincial Government put him in possession of a lease. W. H. Bowen, Clerk of the Resident Magistrate's Court, sworn: It was the habit of many people to pay rent upon the same section, and it was for that reason that the words "on account of whom it may concern " were put in the receipt. I know of five cases in which different persons paid rent on the same section, but I am not aware whether rent was paid upon this one. TCase closed.] 10-A. 3.

A.—3

Section 91.—ELLEN CONNALL, Claimant. Mr. Haselden appeared for the claimant, who stated that she purchased the section with buildings on it from F. McFarlane for £225. Valued the section at £100, and her improvements at £265, making a total of £365. No rent paid. [Case closed.] Section 92.—JAMES WESTON, Claimant. Claimant appeared in person, and, being sworn, stated that he had no title whatever to the section, which was allotted to J. C. Phillips. He had been unable to find Phillips, and therefore thought it better to occupy the ground rather than allow it to lie waste. If Phillips came back, of course he would have the best right to the section. No rent paid. The Commissioners said that after such a statement they did not desire to ask the claimant any further questions. [Case closed.] Section 93.—WILLIAM McELWEE and G. GILBERTSQN, Joint Claimants. AVilliam McElwee, sworn : I have commenced a building upon the northern half of the section, which 1 claim, and improved it to the extent of £30. The whole section is not worth more than £4 or £5 a year. G. Gilbeetson, sworn : I claim the southern half of the section. I have fenced, cleared, and otherwise improved my part to the extent of £100. There is a building upon it. By Mr. Mackay : Easton, the original allottee of the section, obtained a double allotment. Parties agreed to be bound by the partition paper handed in. [Case closed.] Section 94.— E. J. O'CONOR, Claimant. Mr. Mackay stated that no rent had been paid on this section. M. Oegan, examined by Mr. Haselden, who appeared for Mr. O'Conor, stated : I know section 94, upon which the Little Grey Hotel stands. It is worth about £75. The hotel lets for 255. a week. £5 to £7 would be an extreme rent to pay for a seven years' lease. 32 feet taken off would reduce the value of the section by one-third, and would make about £2 a year difference in the rent. By Mr. Mackay: I believe this section was allotted for a section on the Native Reserve. Mr. O'Conor got two sections for the one he lost. [Case closed.] Section 95.—WILLIAM LLOYD, Claimant. Claimant appeared in person, and, being sworn, stated : I am the original allottee. I value the section as it stands at £100. £5 per annum would be an extreme rental for a fourteen years' lease. If 32 feet is taken off the section, I hope the Commissioners will make an award according to the value of the land to the holder. For instance, in my business as shipping and commission agent I should require to use the river frontage as well as the Palmerston Street frontage. £24 ss. would be a fair compensation for the 32 feet. By Mr. Mackay : There was no road surveyed at the back of the section when it was allotted to me. I have not built upon the section. When Mr. Sharp was here in 1872 he said he had not power to grant leases, but that the difficulty would be settled by the allottees being permitted to occupy at a low rental, which would be satisfactorily adjusted. All along we have been promised leases; and even up to the time when the land was handed over to the General Government we were told, " Oh, your leases will be all right now." The Provincial Council drew up a series of resolutions, which were to apply to the difficulties of the case ; but that action was not followed up, and nothing but difficulty and delay has been experienced ever since. Mr. Emanuel jumped the section in 1874. Ido not remember seeing an advertisement signed by Mr. AVarden Giles, and dated 31st January, 1873, intimating that unless section-holders built upon their sections before the 31st December, 1873, they would not be entitled to lenses. I got my allotment in 1872 ; and had the people been compelled to carry out such a condition then, many of them would have been ruined. They could not be expected to carry out these conditions, under the circumstances. AVhen Commissioner Sharp was asked as to the "restrictions," he mentioned that a very great margin would be allowed, so that the rent would be low. Mr. Sharp's action was intended to prevent people leaving the town. I pointed out to him that, if the building condition was enforced, people would be ruined. I wish to point out that at the Superintendent's meeting nothing whatever was said about leaving buildings on the sections. The business license tenure was not considered sufficiently good to induce people to erect buildings of a permanent character. The rent, £5 a year, was too high. The Superintendent was appealed to, and he promised us leases with a fixed tenure. [Case closed.] Sections 96, 97.—REUBEN CARNE, Claimant. Mr. J. B. Fisher appeared for the claimant. Reuben Came, sworn : This section cost me £50 to clear, and I put buildings on it which cost me £150. If they were off the section it would be valueless. As they are now, they are worth £2 10s. to £3 per annum. 1 should claim a fair proportion to the whole if 32 feet is taken off. By Mr. Mackay : I built according to Mr. Sharp's conditions, but I have not paid rent on the sections. [Case closed.]

A.—3

Sections 99, 100, 145.—AVILLIAM STRUTHERS, Claimant. Claimant applied in person, and stated: I bought 99 and 100 from J. A. M. Turner, the original allottee, for £30. I have cleared and erected a cottage and store upon them. They cost me £600, but 1 suppose they are not worth more than £450 now. Assuming that I have no claim tothe sections, £5 to £10 would be a fair rental for these two. It is hard to say what a long lease would be worth; but if the Government complete the railway, Westport will be in a better position in three or four years than it is now. It would then be easy to say what the value of the land would be. There have been few sections sold since Mr. Mackay's first visit here. I am not interested in the coal mines. Section 145 is worth £15, and £4 to £5 a year rent. [Case closed.] The Commission adjourned at 4.40 p.m.

Tuesday, 7th December, 1875. Sections 101, 102, 103.— J. R. FRASER, Claimant. Claimant appeared in person, and stated : I am the original allottee of these sections, but I have done nothing to tiiem, because lhey are inaccessible. I did not take them up for speculative purpo^es. They are all 1 have to show for a very considerable loss by flood; but if the Government require them I am quite willing to give them up, provided I receive the rent and taxes I have paid upou them, amounting to £4 10s. By Mr. Mackay : The sections were allotted to me by Commissioners Giles and Dobson, in lieu of sections on the Native Reserve. I was one of the last who were awarded sections, although I was the first who sent in a claim to Mr. Commissioner Sharp. He rejected it, but subsequently he said he would grant the sections, subject lo the building conditions. 1 told him I had no money to enable me to comply with these conditions. I got as much as £2 a foot for the ground I held in Molesworth Street; in fact, I was in receipt of as much as £200 a year rental until the land was washed away. AVhen my claim was refused, I petitioned the General and Provincial Governments upon the subject, and the result was that I got these sections. The opening of the Colliery Reserve depreciated the value of the freehold sections. As to the condition of the town, I think it has a much better appearance than the old township, although it is rather scattered; but I do not recollect the old town being so bad at the time of the Hon. Mr.- Fox's visit, in February, 1872, that a subscription had to be got up to cleanse the streets. Ido not deny that something of the kind may have taken place, but I have no very distinct recollection of it. In my opinion the trade will improve very much in the course of five years. I believe this will be the Newcastle of New Zealand, and the land in Palmerston Street, from KennedyStreet to Rintoul Street, will be worth £1 to 10s. a foot, which should be the minimum, and £1 the maximum. [Case closed.] Sections 104, 119.—5. A. LEECH, Claimant. S. A. Leech, sworn: These sections were awarded to me by Commissioners Giles and Dobson. They are in the bush, and not accessible, so that I think £1 a year would be a fair rent for a fourteen years' lease. [Case closed.] Section 106.—THOMAS JEPHCOATE, Claimant. Case called. No appearance of claimant. Mr. J. B. FisnEß said Jephcoate had already attended two days, and being a labouring man, with a family to maintain, found it impossible to lose any more time, and therefore had decided to leave his ease in the hands of the Commission. He had no documents to hand in. Mr. J. R. Fraser said he sold the section to Jephcoate, and received the money for it. Mr. Mackay said this was a claim to which he had no objection to offer. The allotment to Fraser was a double one, and rent had been paid to 30th June, 1874. [Case closed.] Section 110.—ROBERT STEWART, Claimant. Claimant, sworn: In 1872 I occupied a house which was in danger of being washed away, and I then went up to Palmerston Street and took up this ground, which was not surveyed at that time. I have a brewery and dwelling-house on the property, which I value at £200. I believe the section was allotted to me while I was in Nelson. I saw an announcement to that effect in the Westport Times. I don't think the section is referred to in Messrs. Giles and Dobson's report as having been allotted to me ; but I saw Mr. Greenfield when I was in Nelson, and he told me that if it was not allotted to me he would make a special reserve of it, so that it should not be in the power of anybody to turn me off. By Mr. Mackay : I squatted on the section, there is no doubt of that. It was between Mr. Sharp's allotment, in July, 1872, and November, that I took up my residence on the section. There was no road then, though the timber along the line of road had been felled a year before. The Commissioners : I value the section at £35, because a year ago tho section next to it sold for that sum. 2s. per foot would be a fair annual rental. I have paid rent to 30th June, 1874. [Case closed.]

A.—3

Section 111.— JOSEPH SHELLEY, Claimant. Mr. J. B. Fishee appeared for claimant, and stated that the section was originally allotted to Charlotte Cooke, who had since married Shelley. A claim for £150 had been sent in, but he had no documentary evidence to offer in support of it. He would therefore leave the case iv the hands of the Commission. Mr. Mackay informed the Commission that no rent had been paid upon the section. [Case closed.] Sections 114, 158.—WILLIAM STEPHENSON, Claimant. Mr. Caeeuthers stated that he had always acted for Mr. Stephenson, who lived at Charleston, and was prepared to furnish particulars of the claim. The Commissioners said claimants who could not attend themselves should appear by counsel, and not by agent. Mr. Mackay said both sections were allotted to the claimant by Commissioners Giles and Dobson, but that no rent had been paid on them. [Case closed.] Section 121.—ALICE ADRIAN, Claimant. Mr. J. B. Fisher appeared for the claimant. Alice Adrian, sworn : I have been living in Westport about ten months. Ido not know where my husband is. I have been getting my own living for five years past. 1 bought this section from Mr. Gothard for £11, but have only paid him £9 10s., which he considered enough for the section. He gave me a receipt in full. (Receipt put in.) Mr. Fisher said he would not ask the witness to give any opinion as to value, as her testimony would not be the best upon such a matter. As the applicant was a married woman, he would like to have the lease made out to her, if one were granted, and in the meantime she could get a protection order. [Case closed.] Section 122.— J. B. McCONNELL, Claimant. Claimant, sworn : I was allotted this section by Commissioners Giles and Dobson. and have put a cottage and other improvements upon it, which cost me £100. Considering the situation of the section, 1 think £1 a year would be a fair rent for it. There is no road lo it. It is immediately alongside the railway, at the corner of Alderley and Fonblanque Streets. I don't think that would be too cheap a rent for a cottage residence. It is fit for nothing else. I have paid one year's rent. [Case closed.] Section 127— WILLIAM PATERSON, Claimant. Mr. Mackay stat?d that the claimant was too ill to appear, and that he had no objection to offer to the claim. In his former statement Paterson valued the section at £15. It was unimproved, and no rent had been paid. [Case closed.] Section 131.—GEORGE LOW, Claimant. Claimant stated that the section was allotted to him in lieu of one in Cobden Street, which he still occupied. He would give a nominal rent of £1 per annum for 131; but if more than that was asked for it, he would willingly give it up. [Case closed.] Sections 124, 125.—A. McLEOD, Claimant. Claimant stated that he valued the two sections at £50, and was willing to pay £1 a year each. Section 124 was granted to Thomas Watson, and AVatson sold to him. Section 125 was granted by Commissioners Giles and Dobson to T. W. Melville, who sold to Corr, and Corr sold to Watson, whose interest McLeod purchased. [Case closed.] Section 137.—JULIUS KELPE, Claimant. Case called. No appearance of claimant. Mr. Mackay stated that this section was granted to Kelpe and P. F. Smyth in lieu of section 101, Wallabi Street, but they still occupied the original section for which this section was allotted. No rent had been paid on the section. [Case closed.] Section 140.—A. AMBROSE, Claimant. Claimant stated fhat the seciion was originally allotted to E. Yardley, who sold it to J. Tyrrell. He bought Tyrrell's iuteiest for £15, cleared the section, and built a cottage on it. The section is worth £30, aud the cottage £90, though he doubted whether he could get £30 for the section now. £1 a year would be a fair rent for it. [Case closed.]

A.—3

Section 142.—PETER HARDER, Claimant. Claimant stated that this section was allotted to Andrew Peterson, whose transfer he produced. He bought it in 1874. Rent paid to that date,but not since. Had built a cottage on the section, which he considered worth £70. £l a year would be a fair rent for the section without tho building. AVas quite prepared to pay rent according to the terms proposed by the Superintendent. Under that arrangement he would now have to pay £2 10s. a year. [Case closed.] Section 143.—SARAH E. BALSTON, Claimant. Claimant stated that she bought the section from Robert Speer, who purchased from the original allottees, Frank and McFarlane. Since purchase of the section she had married George Jabez Cooper, who was now in luvercargill. Had no objection to the lease being made out in her husband's name. • [Case closed.] Section 146.—CHARLES AVRIGHT, Claimant. Claimant stated that the section was originally allotted to T. H. Dickinson, whose interest he purchased. He had built a cottage on the section, and otherwise improved it. A'alued it now at £180. £1 a year for such a section would be quite enough to pay. £2 10s., the sum named in the Superintendent's proposal, would be a very heavy rental. [Case closed ] Section 151.—STITT BROTHERS, Claimants. Claimants stated that this section was allotted to them by Commissioners Giles and Dobson, in lieu of section washed out in Gladstone Street. There were no improvements on it. They were willing to take a lease of the section at £1 a year, but not at £2 10s. They understood that the Superintendent's proposal referred only to sections fronting Palmerston Street. Rent had been paid up to the time of refusal to receive. Tho section was allotted to them iv lieu of section 109 in the old township, which belonged to Askew. [Case closed.] Section 162.—FREDERICK WHITE, Claimant. Mr. Haselden appeared for the claimant, who, he stated, was up tho river, and would be unable to attend in consequence of the heavy rains. The section was granted to White by Commissioners Giles and Dobson, and rent paid to 31st December, 1873. Mr. Mackay said he had no record of that. Mr. Haselden said he had no evidence to offer, and would therefore leave the case to be decided upon the written statement sent in. [Case closed.] Sections 154, 166.— E. J. O'CONOR, Claimant. Mr. Haselden, on behalf of Mr. O'Conor, applied to have these sections inserted in the list of claims, the omission being an oversight on Mr. O'Conor's part. The Commissioners consented to allow the claim to be inserted. Mr. Mackay said the sections were granted to Mr. O'Conor as compensation for two sections which were in danger of being washed away, but which two sections he still held and used. He had paid no rent upon 154 and 166, or improved them in any way. Mr. Haselden said he had no documentary or other evidence to put forward, and therefore he would say nothing further about the matter. [Case closed.] Section 167. —J. A. G. VINALL, Claimant. Case called : no appearance. Mr. Carruthers explained that Mr. A Tinall had been in attendance upon the Commission for two days, but that it would no doubt be impossible for him to be in attendance that day, as he lived at the Terraces, seven miles away, and the creeks were very high in consequence of recent rains. Mr. Haselden said Mr. Vinall had not instructed him in this matter; but as this was a merely formal claim, the Commissioners would no doubt excuse his non-attendance. Rent had been paid, but no improvements made. The section was valued at £10. [Case closed.] Section 183.—ROBERT C. PARKER, Claimant. Mr. Haselden appeared for the claimant, and stated that the section was allotted to him by Commissioners Giles and Dobson. The section had been improved to the extent of £10, and was valued at £25, but no improvements had been made upon it. [Case closed.] Section 128.—A. SCOTT, Claimant. Mr. J. B. Fisher appeared to support the claim as set forth in the statement put in. Mr. Mackay said the section for which it was allotted, 139, Nelson Street, was still in the possession of claimant. [Case closed.]

A,—3

Section 190.—JOHN FINLAYSON, Claimant. Claimant stated that he bought the section from the original allottee, J. G. Hay, for £8 155., and had spent nothing on it since. He valued it at £25, because he considered that the selling price. Hay paid rent upon the section, but he paid none. 30s. a year would be sufficient rent for it. [Case closed.] Sections 191, 192.—5. RILEY, Claimant. Claimant stated that this section was allotted to G. Carruthers, from whom he purchased. He had fenced it and added to the house, and he now valued the whole at £200. Rent had been paid to 30th June, 1875. A lease upon the terms proposed by the Superintendent would be fair. [Case closed.] Section 195.—JOHN McGAVIN, Claimant. Claimant stated that he bought this section from Sarah Balston (certificate of transfer put in). Valued the section at £15, and was prepared to take a lease upon the Superintendent's terms. Mr. Mackay said that Michael Organ and Mrs. Balston were the original allottees. The section was granted to them for section 110, Bright Street. They still hold the fatter section, although they sold the one now claimed. [Case closed.] Section 198—ISAAC AVHAYLEN, Claimant. Claimant stated that this section was granted to him for one on the Native Reserve, but he got no other section, lie understood that 198 was wanted for railway purposes, lie cleared the section and intended to build upon it, when he got noiice that it would be ri quired, and the building material was therefore left on his hands. £50 was a fair sum to ask for the section, considering what lie had done to it. It took him eight days to get out two trees. Altogether it took three weeks or a month to clear it. He was a splitter, and could earn 255. a day, but iie only estimated his labour at 12s. a day, which would make an item of £16 16s. He also hired a man at a cost of £3; and then there was a small loss on the building material. He considered he was entitled to £50, but of course he would be bound to accept whatever the Government might choose to award him. [Case closed.] Sections 133, 134, 135.—WALTER BULL, Claimant. Mr. J. B. Fisher appeared to support the claims as set forth in the statement put in. Claimant stated that the sections were granted to Bull and Bond by the Borough Council; but there had been a deed of dissolution, under which tho sections became his sole property. They were granted in lieu of sections 95 and 96, Kennedy Street, and 102, Wallabi Street, of which he still held possession. He had spent nothing upon the sections, and would pay £1 a year rent for them, but he was not particular whether he got a lease or not. He was willing to take them upon the Superintendent's terms. [Case closed.] Section 130.—JULES SIMON, Claimant. Mr. J. B. Fisher appeared to support the claim as set forth in the statement put in. - Claimant stated that this section was allotted by Commissioners Giles and Dobson to Mr. T. S. Rogers, whose interest he purchased (certificate of transfer handed in). The section was worth £1 a year, or £8 to sell. He had paid rent upon the section; but as it was in a back street, he was not prepared to pay £2 10s. a year for it. [Case closed.] Section 120.—MASON and WHITE, Joint Claimants. Mrs. Mason stated that the section was originally allotted to Mr. Sheahan, who sold to AVhite and Williams. Williams sold his half to her for £9, and she and White were quite willing to divide the section, but AVhite was now absent in AVellington. Being a married woman, of course the lease would have to be made out in the name of her husband, who was at the Lyell when she bought the land. Joseph Mason, the husband, signed the partition paper, claiming the west side of the section. [Case closed.]

OLD BUSINESS LICENSE SECTIONS. Section 48— E. A. LABATT, Claimant. The Commissioners : What is the position you assume, Mr. Mackay, in reference to these business license cases ? Do you consider that the holders of these business licenses are entitled to come here and occupy the same position as the allottees, and ask for leases ?

A.—3

Mr. Mackay : Certainly not. Then you say they are only entitled to occupy the ground so long as the Government think fit ?— That is all the claim they have. Then, again, they are entitled to hold if they pay either the business license or rent?— They were only entitled to hold for the term mentioned in the receipt. But they were not bound to pay the rent and the business license too in order to hold possession? —I say that on no ground were they entitled to ask for a lease. E. A. Labatt, sworn: I do not claim to be entitled to a lease. All I ask is to be allowed to occupy the ground as long as I pay taxes. It would be hardly any use to have a lease, as the section is washing away, and will be gone altogether in a few months. Three feet washed away this morning. I have occupied the section since 23rd December, 1867, but I caunot tell'up to what date I paid the business license, because I have lost the receipt. Mr. Mackay : If the claimants to business license sections wish to set up an equitable claim, they must prove that they have paid rent to 31st December, 1874. On the 9th September, 1873, Mr. Warden Giles issued a notice in the newspapers, intimating that those who desired to continue in the occupancy of sites on the Colliery Reserve would have to pay up their rates by the 31st of December, 1873. Witness : I am willing to pay ; and I have simply come here to say that, if the Government are willing to grant me a lease, lam willing to take it. I was away from Westport when the notice was issued, and when I came back in November, 1874, I heard that rent on the sections had been refused. I should have tendered it, lam prepared to take a lease on the Superintendent's terms—namely, £2 10s. now, and £5 for the last seven years. [Case closed.] Section 49.—WILLIAM LLOYD, Claimant. William Lloyd, sworn: I claim this section because I bought the interest of Mr. Phillips, who held it under business license. I have erected a two-roomed cottage upon it, at an expense of between £80 and £90, in which I reside. I have cleared it, fenced it, and drained it. I took out a business license immediately I purchased it. -I paid for my business license up to July, 1872. I have paid no rent since then, on account of the uncertainty as to whether the floods would wash the section away. The rent is three years in arrear; but I think advantage should not be taken of that, because we have been waiting all this time for the carrying out of the equitable arrangement proposed by the Superintendent for the granting of leases. By the Commissioners: But the proposition of the Superintendent applied only to the allotted sections, and not the business licenses ? —As far as I understood, it was to apply to the whole of the sections in the town. Mr. Mackay : Certainly not. By the Commissioners : If that be so, Mr. Lloyd, why did you take out a .business license to enable you to hold the section ? —I didn't take out a business license after 1873. Why did you not take out a business license after 1873 ?—Because I was in danger of being washed away. I didn't know how many days or hours I should remain there. Then, you abstained from taking out a business license on account of the danger of losing the section altogether ? —I was waiting for some arrangement to be made by the Superintendent—a special arrangement to meet the case of those section-holders who were in danger of being washed away ; such an arrangement as would not apply to the allotted sections. Then, if that be so, you actually admit that you were not to come in under the same arrangement as the allottees ?—I left it to him to settle that. Quite so. Then that particular arrangement was to apply to the allottees, and the allottees only? —From the remarks of the Superintendent, I believed the arrangement was to extend over the whole town. Your two statements contradict each other. In one breath you state you were waiting for the Superintendent to make some special equitable arrangement with you, and in the next you say you were to abide by the terms of the Superintendent. If you were to abide by the terms of the Superintendent, no fresh terms could be asked for?—l was under the impression that it was implied in the Superintendent's speech that the holders of business licenses should have a fourteen years' lease; but I confess that I can see no reference to the matter in the report of the speech handed to me by Mr. Mackay. Then I suppose we have a right to assume that the holder of a business license was to stand upon and derive his title from the business license itself. Is that the case ? —lt reduces itself to that. Then how can you come here and ask for a lease for fourteen years ? —Being in occupation of the ground till now, there being a probability that the ground might still remain there, and in view of leases being granted to section-holders in the locality, I thought that if the Government might think fit to grant a lease upon equitable terms, I would be willing to accept it. Ido not speak of any legal right. AVhat equitable right have you to a lease for fourteen years ?—The same equitable right that would exist in the mind of the Government in view of the people being washed out. I have been liable to be washed away at any time these seven years ; but I could not put in a claim for an allotment section, because I was within the line drawn previous to the last allotment of sections by the Borough Council. I simply place the matter before the Commissioners for their favourable consideration. If the Government are going to grant leases to those who had sections allotted to them, I think they should in like manner grant one to me. I do not ask for it as a matter of right. lam willing to conform to the terms proposed by the Superintendent, always supposing that the ground is not washed away altogether. The protective works will undoubtedly improve the lower end of the town, but at the same time the sections down there will always be of small commercial value.

A.—3

Who placed you on section 49 ?—lmmediately after I purchased from Phillips I pegged the section out; but I gave notice to no one, because it was not necessary to do so. Upon a person obtaining a business license, did the Government place him in possession of a particular section, or did he take what section he pleased ?—He took what section he pleased, and could sell the right of occupation of that section. I bought Phillips's right of occupation. A man was supposed to hold a business license for each section, but there was nothing to prevent any one pegging off any number of sections, though holding only one license. His only danger was that some one would find it out: then he would be jumped. That has happened frequently. AVere you put down on this section by anybody ? —-No ; I simply took it. Then do you think that because you took this land up many years ago under a business license that you have resided on the land; that because you have ceased to hold either a business license or a miner's right for several years, you have an equitable title to the ground?—My claim is based not upon the business license, but upon the justice of this Commission. But you must put something before this Commission upon which to base such a claim ?—There are many other people in the same position as myself. I think, in view of my having held a business license up to 1872, and of my having been allotted no section, although I was continually in danger of being washed out, I ought to be granted a lease upou the terms put forth in the Superintendent's speech. You seem to have mixed up Superintendent's speeches, equitable rights, and business licenses, until you are unable to understand the questions put to you. AYe ask you whether you base your equitable claim upou the grounds we have stated?—l base it on the business license. I claim as if I had been washed out. Are we to understand from you that every piece of ground must be represented by a particular business license ?—Yes. Every section. So that if you took up half-a-dozen sections you would have to pay for half-a-dozen business licenses ? —Yes. Then was this the particular business license you took out to cover section 49 ?—To the best of my knowledge it is. Mr. Haselden said he had been engaged in the Resident Magistrate's Court, and therefore did not hear the evidence or argument of Mr. Lloyd; but the question of tenure under business license having been raised, he desired to intimate that, when the cases came on in which he was engaged, he would contend that, although they had no such equitable title as would enable a Court of Equity to issue a decree, yet that, looking at all the circumstances, aud the fact that it was a Government they were dealing with, they ought to act upon the principle of conferring the greater good upon the greater number. He would rely upon telegrams forwarded to the Governor by those people, asking him to withdraw the land from the operation of the Gold Fields Act. Had that been done, his clients would then have had the right to occupy the land. The terms had never been settled, but he believed the Government intended at that time to set the ground aside for occupation. The Commissioners : To support a claim for a lease, you must have, if not a right, at least a colourable right. There must be something tangible to go upon. As far as Mr. Lloyd is concerned, he has made out no right at all. Mr. Haselden said he did not contend that his clients had any right at law, and as at present advised he did not intend to take up that position ; but he could take up this position: that although he might not be entitled to ask a Court of Equity to grant a decree, yet there were circumstances, such as the representation made to the people by the Government, which would give them a very strong moral right. [Case adjourned.] The Commission adjourned at 4 p.m. till half-past 9 on the following morning.

Wednesday, Bth December, 1875. Section 153.—AVILLIAM LLOYD, Claimant. William Llo__>, sworn: I claim this section both on legal and equitable grounds. It was taken up by me under business license, which I now produce. I believe it is the particular business license which I took up for this particular section. I first took possession of the section on 9th March, 1872. I held a business license from that date till June following, when I took out another from June to September, 1872. I have not held a business license since then, but I have paid rent to December, 1874. I renewed the license for a quarter only, because I understood the Colliery Reserve was to be withdrawn from the operation of the Gold Fields Act. Then I began to pay rent, which was received at that time by Mr. Kelling, who acted during the absence of Mr. Bowen. I should like to get a lease of the ground. There is an old building upon it which I use for an office, which I consider to be worth only 405., but I value the section altogether at £100. It was worth more than that six months ago, but the action of Mr. Mackay has greatly reduced the value of sections. By Mr. Mackay : The section is at the corner of Pakington Street, just on the other side of the Empire Hotel. Ido not know of my own knowledge that 28s. a foot is being paid for the freehold land opposite, upon which the Red Lion Hotel stands, but, even if the river bank were so protected that no damage could accrue to this section, I should not want more than £10 a year for it. I could Ixtve sold the section for £60. There were rumours to the effect that I was offered a great deal more, but they were not true. The best bond fide offer I ever had was £60 or £70, which Mr. Bull offered me about twelve or fourteen months ago. My estimate for the section in May last was £140. I have come down £40, and will likely come down £20 more before long if the General Government keep us waiting for the leases. It is the action of the Provincial Government that has kept the place back. They stated in 1873 that they would apply to the Provincial Council for power to grant leases, but

A.—3

they did not do so. They did not keep faith with the section-holders. So much for the Provincial Government. Then as to the General Government, when Mr. Mackay came down here in April last it was understood that he did so for the purpose of settling the question —to give us leases, and determine the rent to be paid. People went to a great deal of trouble to' furnish him with information, and sent him in forms, and now we find that we are no further advanced than we were then. That is why property has gone down. Mr. Lloyd appeared before the Commissioners at a later stage of the proceedings, aud drew particular attention to the notification of the 31st January, 1873, in which Mr. Warden Giles stated that the Provincial Government intended to apply to the Provincial Council to grant leases to those section-holders who built on their sections on or before the 3lst December, 1873. In his opinion, the notice in itself was informal. First of all, it showed merely that the Provincial Government intended to apply to the Provincial Council to grant leases; and as the leases were not granted, the people imagined they were in exactly the same position as before the notification of the 31st January. The notice, he held, was still more informal because it was signed by Mr. Giles, as AVarden, on the 31st January. 1873, although the land was withdrawn from the gold fields on the 26th December previously. He wished to bring those facts out prominently, because they affected his interest in section 95. There was then another circumstance to consider, that since the 31st December, 1873, the section-holders had been under the impression that their sections would be required for the railway, and did not build for that reason ; others, again, were unable to do so. In reference to section 153, he desired to explain that the only benefit he had received from it was eight weeks' rent at 3s. a week, and that ho had not received any other offer to rent it to the extent of one shilling. He had had many difficulties to contend with during his residence in the town, and he trusted the Commissioners would grant him a lease of section 95. [Case closed.] Sections 50, 51, 51a.—GEORGE M. CLARK, Claimant. Mr. J. B. Fisher appeared ou behalf of the applicant. G. M. Clark, sworn: In 1874 I bought section 50 from Mr. Struthers, who held it under business license. Sections 51 and 51a I bought from Mr. J. Hughes in August, 1872. Hughes held them under a business license. There are considerable improvements on the sections. I had one business license for section 51, and paid one year's rent upon it, but I cannot produce the business license, because I was in the habit of pasting them on the wall, and when the house was done up they were pasted over. Mr. Fisher : Neither Mr. Bowen nor Commissioner Giles could fix the identity of any particular license with any particular section. All they could do would be to show that in a particular year a certain person took out a business license. The Commissionees : If you rely upon your business license, prove that you took out a business license. A long discussion here ensued between Mr. Fisher and the Commissioners, upon the latter suggesting to counsel the advisability of adducing the strongest evidence they possessed in support of their claims under business licenses. Counsel contended, with much vehemence, that this class of claimants were in possession rightfully; that they acquired an irrevocable easement in the ground by virtue of such business license; and that it rested with the Government, who should be forced to assume the position of defendants, to prove that they were not entitled to either legal or equitable relief upon any grounds whatsoever, rather than that the claimants should be themselves expected to prove their own wrong; that the holders of the sections were prepared to accept leases, if such should be offered by tho Government, although they were not unwilling to hold as they had hitherto held. The learned counsel stated, moreover, that this class of claimants refused to give evidence, inasmuch as failure to make out a case would be disastrous to many, whilst success would not insure advantages ; to give evidence would be but to " plunge a dagger into the bosoms of the claimants." He proceeded to argue that Mr. Mackay, on behalf of the Government, had refused to recognize any legal or equitable right in the claimants; that he was taking notes with a view to availing himself of every flaw that appeared in the several cases ; and that, from the treatment the section-holders had received at the hands of the Government, it was evident they were not to be trusted; in short, that any evidence the claimants might give would be used against them, whilst any portion that might be in their favour would be discarded; that the Government proposed to do the best they could for themselves, without regard to the interests of the place and its people. At the same time the learned counsel acknowledged the right of the Commissioners to ask for the licenses under which the claimants held, although, in his opinion, they would be "fools " to furnish the information. It was at length arranged that the Commissioners should adjourn for an hour to enable the learned counsel to consult with his clients. Upon the Court resuming, Mr. Fishee : Mr. Haselden and myself have consulted with a great many of the claimants to sections on the Colliery Reserve, who express generally a feeling in favour of accepting the assurance of the Commissioners that the result of this investigation will be final, that the report made by the Commission will have weight with the Government, and that they will ultimately do us justice in the matter. The only matter I have to refer to is this: that in investigating these claims it does not seem necessary, for the purpose of reporting upon their real merits, outside of the legal question, that the Commission should go strictly into the question whether they have complied in every particular with the terms in which they took up and proposed to hold the land. I would like an expression of opinion from the Commission as to whether it is necessary, when reporting upou the real merits of the claims, to give any particulars which may be made use of in case of legal proceedings being brought by the Crown against the claimants. The Commissionees : You must know very well, Mr. Fisher, that the Commissioners cannot commit themselves to any opinion; and, therefore, as we have already remarked, it is much better that you should give us the very best evidence obtainable. 11—A. 3.

A.—3

Mr. Fishee : Of course, as far as the report of the Commission is concerned, we are all thoroughly convinced that we should not in any way be taken advantage of. I believe myself that the best way is to put the best evidence before the Commission; but at the same time we are placing a weapon in the hands of the Government if they wish to press us. The Commissioners : A very harmless weapon. Mr. Fisher : I hope it may turn-out to be so. However, I will go on with the case, and put before the Commission tho best evidence I can get. Examination of G. M. Clark continued: I held no business license in respect of section 50. Struthers did, I believe, up to the time I bought from him. There is now on the section a cottage containing six rooms, which was erected last year. I have paid no rent on the section. I have made improvements on it to the extent of £100 or over. I bought section 51 from Mr. Hughes, who held it under business license. Mr. Ambrose took up the section first, I believe. I have no transfer from Hughes to myself. I cannot estimate the value of the improvements on this particular section, because the Oddfellows' Hall is built on two sections, 50 and 51. Roughly, I value the improvements on the two at £600. I paid one year's business license for 1872, but no rent in respect of section 51. I bought section 51a in 1872 from Mr. Hughes, who bought from Bull and Bond, and held it under business license. It is cleared, and a building erected upon it, which is let to a weekly tenant. Hughes and Bull held business licenses for this section, but I never did, because there was a report about that time that the reserve was to be withdrawn from the operation of the Gold Fields Act, aud that leases would be granted. I value the sections and improvements at £205. I remember a case being brought in the Warden's Court between Hughes and Ward, in which the AVarden refused to adjudicate, on the ground that the reserve was withdrawn from the operation of the Gold Fields Act, in consequence of the Waste Lands Board having declared it to be a reserve for purposes of public utility. By Mr. Mackay : I gave Struthers £70 for section 50 in January, 1874. In my former statement, sent in to you in April last, I valued section 50 at £40, and section 51 at £50, but I do not adhere to that value now, as Ido not consider any section on the Colliery Reserve worth more than £10. I value each of these sections at £10 each. I have a block of freehold land on the opposite side of the street which cost me £100, and would yield more to me by selling it in £10 blocks than this land would. Section 69, which I bought in February or March, 1874, is not a corner section, although when I bought it I believed it was. It was supposed then that Lyttelton Street would run right through. I have two cottages on the section which brought me in 255. a week w rhen they were let; but one for which I used to get 10s. a week is now empty. I have one tenant on section 51a, who pays me 7s. 6d. a week. There is another cottage on the section for which I used to get 15s. a week, but I now use it as part of the hotel. I have paid no rent upon the section since I bought it from Mr. Hughes on the 20th August, 1872. It was the uncertainty caused by the decision in Hughes v. Ward (heard 29th October, 1872) which caused me not to pay rent. By Mr. Fishee: When I sent in my former statement, in which I valued sections 50 and 51 at £40 and £50 respectively, the town was in a fairly prosperous condition, and property was rising in value. There was an understanding that leases would be granted in terms of the Superintendent's promise, and it was on that basis that the values were framed. Since a doubt has been cast upon the performance of that promise, property has decreased in value, and I believe the estimate which I now give as to the value of the sections to be correct. I value the cottage and shop on 51a at £100. I cannot state exactly what the hotel cost me. I believe it was less than £600; but I name that as the price I would require if I wished to sell. By Mr. Mackay : I don't think the property will be very much improved in less than two years' time, even if the railway and protective works were recommenced now, because, judging by the progress made in the construction of the railway, it would take two to two and a-half years to complete it. If a number of men were employed on these works, of course it would increase my trade. Speaking candidly, I cannot tell you what the profits of a publican are. I have been making very little lately. It is rather a difficult question to answer, because this is a floating population. You may do a good business one day, and none the next. Since I have occupied the Oddfellows' Hotel for three years I have not cleared more than £700, and I consider I have had a fair share of business. By the Commissionees: I cannot say anything about the profits of other people's business. Some houses do a cash trade, and others take perhaps only half cash. Too much of the trade goes down on the wrong side of the ledger in Westport. It is generally supposed that Gilmer's is the best stand in town, because it is handy to the wharf and Court House. I should imagine that Mr. Gilmer does double the business I do: still I cannot say whether his profits would be more than mine, because, although he does a larger business, his expenses are greater. He has more servants to pay. I cannot say what Roche's trade is worth. I know he does a good boat trade ; but as to his other business, I cannot give any opinion as to whether it is very much larger than mine. As a matter of fact, I cannot tell what business the other houses do ; all I know is, that I have just made enough to keep myself and family. Ido not consider my house is as well situated as Roche's for trade. There would be a considerable difference between my bar trade and his ; but I cannot tell what the percentage -would be. By Mr. Mackay : The rateable value of my section is £150, but I was not aware that Roche's section was valued at exactly the same amount. [Case closed.] Section 117.—WILLIAM PATTERSON, Claimant. Claimant, sworn, stated that he bought the section from Alfred Brown in 1870. He had erected a boot shop and other premises upon it, which cost him over £200, but he would sell the whole property now for £100. No rent had been paid upon the section, but he claimed from the Commission the same consideration which might be extended to other claimants in this class. [Case closed.]

A.—3

Sections 52, 53, 97, 116.—JULES SIMON, Claimant. Mr. J. B. Fisher appeared to support the claim. Jules Simon, sworn: I bought section 52 at Mr. Munro's auction-room in November, 1871, for £48. I took out a business license for it, and paid rent to 1873. There is a free store on the ground, which I value at £80. Ido not consider the section very valuable, as I bought a freehold three times the size for £20, which is quite as accessible. I bought section 53 from Mr. Bull for £30 in 1873, after the land was withdrawn from the operation of the Gold Fields Act. Mr. Bull, I believe, purchased from Mr. Patterson. I have paid rent upou it. (Certificates for rent put in.) I fenced the section, which has a cottage on it bringing in 4s. a week. If I had a fourteen years' lease of the ground, and spent £100 on each of these sections, I should stand a poor chance of getting a return for my outlay, because Mr. Clarke's shop, on the next section, was shut up on account of dullness of trade. The fact is, the town is too large for the present trade. Section 97, AVallabi Street, is the section on which I carry on my own business. I bought it in 1866 for £5, and continued to hold it under business license till 1873, during which time I paid £45 in business licenses in connection with this particular section. Thepreseut buildings were put up in 1869 at a cost of about £400. In addition to building, I was obliged to make approaches all round, because it was impossible to get to them. Palmerston Street was not made then. I claim £300 for the buildings. I have not paid rent upon the section v because other people were not paying rent, but principally because it is always in danger of being washed away ; when the water is high, the premises are rendered inaccessible. If there were no buildings on the section, no one would take it. It is constantly inundated when northerly winds and high seas prevail. I paid £17 for section 116, and £30 for business licenses in connection with it; but I have paid no rent. There are three cottages on the section, which I use for storing goods, because I cannot get tenants for them. I value them at £60. The freehold of this section would be worth from £5 to £10 only. By Mr. Mackay : I don't know what rate I pay for the hotel on 97. If you say lam rated'at £901 will not contradict you, because I cannot speak accurately of the rates for any particular section. I pay rates in a gross sum for all my properties. I value the improvements on this section at £500. The ground itself is worth nothing. I value 116 altogether at £70. It is valued at £150 in my statement sent in in April last; it is a mistake on the part of Mr. Lloyd, who drew up the statement for me. The section is worth from £5 to £10. AYe could get freehold properties, six or eight months ago, at from £10 to £30. I bought a section in Lyndhurst Street for £20. Section 116 is worth more than the section in Lyndhurst Street at the present time; but it is likely to be washed away, and then the back sections will become valuable. [Case closed.] Section 55.—JOHN MUNRO, Claimant. Mr. J. B. Fisher appeared to support the claim. John Munro, sworn: I acquired this section by purchase from John Temperley, on 13th April, 1872, for £10, and held it under business license until the reserve was withdrawn from the operation of the Gold Fields Act. I built a store upon it of the value of £200, but paid no rent on the section subsequently. The statement in my written claim that I paid £1 a year rent for 1873 and 1874 is incorrect. I produce the business license, which I took out in March, a month before I purchased from Temperley, and I believe that particular license referred to that particular section, which is not worth more than I gave for it originally. £200 represents the actual cost of the building, which I use as a produce store. By Mr. Mackay : I held about a dozen business licenses, and, as transfers took place, they were either brought into use on other sections, or allowed to lapse. For section 55 I used the one put in, which held good from March, 1872, to March, 1873. I think the section is rated at £50. By Mr. Fisher : Even if it were a freehold I should be sorry to give £250 for the building and the section. The freehold of the section without the building is not worth more than £10. It is scarcely fair to ask persons who have improved their sections to fix the letting value of the frontages, because they cannot be expected to give a perfectly disinterested opinion. The best way to ascertain what would be a fair value to let, would bo to put the frontages up to auction, subject to the value of the improvements made upon the section : that value should be stated as the reserve, and then let people who desire to do so bid for the frontages. This plan has already been submitted to the Government. I myself broached the question to the Minister for Public AVorks when I waited upon him as one of a deputation to represent matters in connection with this reserve. It was asked in what manner this question could be decided. The suggestion was made that the allotments made by the Commissioners had either a value or they had no value, and, for the sake of argument, it was assumed that they were worth £5 for the right and interest of the allottee, subject to the proposals of the Superintendent. Mr. Richardson discarded the Superintendent's proposals, and it was then recommended that the frontages should be put up to auction, at a minimum price of 2s. 6d. a foot, with a reserve for improvements already effected. That plan met with Mr. Richardson's approval. The Commissioners : But don't you think the principle that a fellow-feeling makes us wondrous kind would operate if that plan were adopted ? For instance, if your own section were put up to auction for a term of fourteen years, at an upset price of 2s. Od. a foot, Mr. Field, Mr. Powell, and other merchants in this place, would probably not come and compete with you for that section, and, if they did not do so, you would simply get your section at the lowest possible rate? —The Government protect themselves by putting on a minimum of 2s. 6d. a foot. And if 2s. 6d. a foot was not a fair rental you would be getting it under its value ? —My experience of the people of Westport tells me that eligibility of site would be the chief element of competition. Of course it would rest with the Commissioners to determine the mode of assessing the value for the purpose of ascertaining what the reserve sum should be. It is not] fair to ask sectionholders to fix the letting value, because they will fix a low value when they apply for leases, and a high

A.—3

value iv compensation cases. The best way would be to ascertain what would be a fair assessment otherwise than by their opinion. By Mr. Fisher : Lyttelton Street is not passable now, except where Mr. Sheahan has made a road on the other side. The people were continually being called upon for subscriptions to make tho street passable ;it would have been worthless to the Government but for that. The Provincial Government distinctly stated that, in consequence of Lyttelton and Bright Streets being in danger of being washed away by sea encroachment, they would not be justified in spending money on the roads. They drew the line at Nelson Street. I asked them to furnish half the cost of making the road in Lyttelton Street, but they replied that they would not spend any money outside of Nelson Street. The same policy has been adopted by the Borough Council: they won't spend money on any road between Nelson Street and the sea. The present site, occupied by Jules Simon's buildings, is absolutely valueless. I know for a fact that big seas have rolled up to it. Insurance offices refuse to accept any risks on the Colliery Reserve, except on sections fronting Palmerston Street. My own opinion is that, unless the Government make a breakwater at the end of Palmerston Street, the sea will still encroach. It may be silting up a little, but when the weather is bad the sea still comes over. lam not aware that the land is "making" at that part of the town. There has been very little difference during the last twelve months. Speaking from my own experience, I know that fully three-quarters of a mile of the town has been washed away since 1867 and 1868. The theory has been expounded that, if protective works were carried a certain distance beyond Palmerston Street, the process of silting would take place. That is a matter I can give no opinion upon. All I can say is, that it would require a very strong breakwater indeed to stand the weather I have seen there. The sea sometimes comes up under the houses in Kennedy Street, and reaches as far as AVallabi Street. If these sections were unoccupied and to let, no one would pay anything for them. Bright Street is more habitable, and therefore more valuable ; but the tenure in that street even is not safe There is less than one-third of that street in existence now of what there was when I came here. Mr. Mackay : If you take the map as an authority, there are quite two-thirds remaining. AVitness : A large portion of ground existed then that does not appear on the map at all. I see no allowance made on the map for the shipping offices, wharves, and saw-mill, that existed outside of the allotments shown on the plan. The saw-mill was situated half-way across the present river. The sections along the river from Nelson Street to the beach have no marketable value. If the protective works are finished they would be improved. If I had £500 worth of property there, I should consider the effect of the protective works to form a large part of that £500. It would enhance tho value of the sections from nothing to the normal value of other sections. Even if the protective works were completed, sections in Kennedy Street and AVallabi Street would not be worth much, because they would be in danger of being washed away by the sea. There are two classes of risks —one the danger from the sea, the other the danger from the river. The Commissioners : If you were asked to value this ground for renting purposes, what course would you take? —I should assess the improvements both of the buildings and sections, and, subject to the upset price of the improvements, submit the frontages to auction or tender, or any other competitive process. Let the value of the improvements be the upset price, and let the Government fix the minimum. The minimum would depend on the site. Take the case of the Empire Hotel. That is a property worth £3,000. Let that be the upset price. I should start the price per foot at 2s. 6d.; and anybody desiring to give more than 2s. 6d., say he outbid Mr. Hughes, and gave 10s. a foot, then let him have the section, Mr. Hughes's improvements having been previously assessed in order to find out the exact amount of compensation to which he is entitled. £4 2s. 6d. for the 33 feet. Would not that be very low ?—lt would be low, but it would be no more than the original allottee was entitled to. He has given the place a value. He has added to the value of the whole neighbourhood, in fact. That was the suggestion submitted to the Minister for Public Works, and, as I have already stated, he regarded it favourably. Does it not strike you that, if the whole of the Colliery Reserve were to be put up in that manner, all the holders would get their sections at the upset price?— Not necessarily. I think there would be competition for most of the eligible frontages; for most of the sections which could be beneficially occupied competition would take place, provided the buyers were assured that the public works were going on. Our experience of sales of sections with buildings upon them is, that they go to the occupiers?— I acknowledge they do as a rule; but I think in this case it is only fair that the occupiers should have some consideration. If the sections would be knocked down to the occupier, why subject the Government to the trouble and expense of auctioning them ?—That would not cost the Government much. Do we understand you to say that the Government would have to fix the minimum? —It would not be fair to ask the section-holders to do it; but the whole subject, I confess, is a difficult one to deal with. The frontage of the Red Lion Hotel has been mentioned as having been let at 28s. a foot, and I think it only right to say that a more eligible site has been let for 12s. 6d. ; that is section 69, which has been let by Mr. Clark to Mr. Vorley, with a purchasing clause at £3 a foot within four years. The section is 86 feet deep, and the lease was made a year ago. Some of you want long leases. AVould it be fair to the colony that the land should be locked up for twenty-one years at a nominal rent ? —lt might not be regarded as fair ; but if the Commissioners or the colony has the slightest sympathy with the original allottees, or persons holding under them, it would be fair to give them the leases. Some consideration is due to this district for the sufferings the people have undergone. If the Provincial Government had no right to grant these sections, what should become of these claims?— People who wish to get compensation would have to go lo the General Assembly You are very likely aware, Mr. Munro, that many people were utterly ruined by the late war in the North Island, and have never received a shilling iv the shape of compensation ? —Yes ; but I think an Act was passed by the Legislature to put a stop to claims arising out of the Native war.

A.—3

Those claims were preferred just as these claims are being preferred here, and the Assembly found it absolutely necessary to shut its ears and receive no more. You have told us what the minimum upset price should be, can you tell us what should be tho maximum ? —lt is scarcely fair to ask me what the maximum should be, because a great many questions would enter into the consideration of that matter. There is the value of the property itself. Then there is the value of the business, and what a particular business may be worth to a particular person. These considerations would probably induce people to give a larger ground rent than they otherwise would, in order to retain the business they had made. Mr. Mackay : Do I understand your theory with regard to putting up these sections to be that the Government should pay the previous occupier the value of the buildings in the event of another person outbidding him ? —Yes, in the case of Mr. Hughes ; if he were outbid for the ground rent, the buyer would have to pay him the value of his improvements. The Commissioners : That would be one very great objection to your plan. How few would be prepared to buy a business requiring the production of a large amount of capital?— The Government would have to see that the outside value was fair and reasonable, so that the buyer should have a fair chance ; that is the only fair way to ascertain the real value of the frontages without imposing upon the Government or compromising the colony. But a number of these sections are not now held by the sufferers, but, on the contrary, are held by persons who never sustained the slightest loss. Are the Government to come forward and recompense these people ?—Certainly these persons have been the only genuine philanthropists in the whole transaction. I have given men £10 for their sections to save them from absolute starvation. Those people were washed out of house and home, and, as a return for what they had lost, they were offered barren sections in the bush which were utterly useless to them. Ido not say that the buyers gave more than the sections were worth purely from philanthropic motives, but I say this: that the only compensation the washed-out people ever got in return for their heavy losses was the money they received from those who bought their sections. As an illustration of the plan I suggest for disposing of the frontages, take the case of allotted section 66, which is at the corner of Brougham and Palmerston Streets, and submit that to auction at 2s. 6d. It is an unimproved section, in a very good position, and would be a very good test of the value of the frontages. AYe have been told that there are too many buildings in the town, and if that section were put up to auction, would it not either be purchased by speculators or bought in? —Those people who say there are too many buildings in the town, speak for themselves, I presume. I rent a building from Hooper and Dodson at the present time, because I don't care to build on my own sections until the tenure is settled. The only objection that can operate against the adoption of my scheme is the settlement of the minimum. I think it would be far better to make 2s. 6d. a foot than to fix an arbitrary amount; because if that were not done the .Government might inflict an unfair limit upon persons who had erected buildings worth from £3,000 to £4,000. By Mr. Mackay : I do not remember what value I placed upon section 66 in my previous examination, but I think I paid from £47 to £50 for it. It is jointly owned by myself and Mr. Roberts. AYe claim the amount of money the sections have cost us, with interest, if we don't get a lease. This section cost £47, then there is £5 for clearing, and then we charge interest on that amount, plus the rent we have paid. I will sell you the section to-morrow for that money if you will buy it. Since your first visit to Westport T have refused £100 for the section, because it would have more value if the tenure were assured in the meantime. lam perfectly willing to sell it for what it has cost us. The section is at the corner of Palmerston Street and Brougham Street, and you tell me now that the railway terminus will be close to it. Assuming that to be the case, the best way to ascertain the value of the tenure would be to assess the frontage on one Side or the other, and make the reserve price the cost it has been to me. Then you would say that it is almost impossible to value these sections ?—Well, they have a selling value. The notification by the Government that they would require some of the sections put a value upon them at once; and when this question is settled, the railway works recommenced, and the protective works gone on with, they will again have a market value. AVhat that market value will be I cannot say at the present moment. Assuming that the whole of the sections on the Colliery Reserve were let in terms of the Superintendent's promise, what value do you think could be attached to this section ? —£loo. At the present moment it is not worth more than I have expended on it. You have to imagine a state of things to fix an approximate value. Mr. Mackay : You say Mr. Roberts bought this particular section 66 in his own name for the express purpose of building the Bank of New Zealand upon it ?—He bought section 52 with a similar object. AVhen did he buy them ? —I think it was in 1873. And why did he buy them for the Bank when the Bank had been allotted by Mr. Sharp in July, 1872, two sections in Wakefield Street, Nos. 36 and 37, on which the Bank has since erected substantial premises ?—I received instructions from Mr. Roberts to buy section 66 while the Bank occupied temporary premises in Kennedy Street. The present Bank of New Zealaud was not built until January, 1874. The Commissioners : Assuming that this section is worth"£loo, and that the whole of the sections were leased for fourteen years in terms of the Superintendent's promise, what effect would the completion of the railway and protective works have upon the value of these sections ? —ln the case of section 66, it would raise its value to twice what it is now. It would perhaps give this section a peculiar value ; but the average increase on all the sections would not be so much. The prospect of these works being carried out would certainly have a material effect in raising the value of the sections, but to what extent I cannot say. But you say that you assess the value of this section at £100, upon the faith not only of the Superintendent's promise being fulfilled, but, as we understood Mr. Mackay, upon the carrying out of

A.—3

the railway and protective works. Now you say it would raise the value to £200 ? —I was asked by the Commission what would be the effect of a definite announcement that the Government intended to go on with the protective works. Scarcely so. In answer to a previous question you said that, if a lease in accordance with the Superintendent's promise were granted, section 66 would be worth £100? —Then I wish my answer to stand iv this shape: that if leases were granted for the whole of the sections for fourteen years in accordance with the Superintendent's promise, and the railway and protective works completed, the effect would be to raise the value of section 66 to £110 or £120. [Case closed.] Section 54.—MARY ANN SULLIVAN, Claimant. Claimant appeared in person, and stated that she had been in possession of the section since 1868. Had held a business license up to 1872, but had paid no rent since that time. The house ou the section was not of much value, because it was in a bad place. She had no idea why she claimed £110. [Case closed.] Section 110.—M. ORGAN and SARAH E. BALSTON, Joint Claimants. S. E. Balston, sworn: I have lived on this section since 186 S. There is upon it a small cottage, which is dangerous to live in on account of the river washing the ground away. I have destroyed my business licenses, aud therefore cannot produce them. I have paid no rent on the section because I did not consider it worth it. I claim 33 feet frontage to AVallabi Street by 49 feet iv depth. By Mr. Mackay : This section was allotted to me and Organ by Commissioners Giles and Dobson on the 2Sth July, 1873. AYe also got section 195, Bentham Street, and sold it to J. McGavin on the 29th December, 1874. Mr. Organ, sworn: I sold my half of section 195, Bentham Street, to Mrs. Balston for £3. I have no business license to show for it. In April last I sent in a statement to Mr. Mackay alleging that I took possession of section 110 about seven years ago; that I had not taken possession of the allotted one, having sold my interest in it; that I resided on section 110, and had done so for seven years. That statement is correct. I held six business licenses in 1872 ; in 1868 I only had one. 1 purchased section 110 from a person whose name I do not know. I did not take out a fresh business license when I took up the section. I have paid no rent upon it. I claim 33 feet to Bright Street by 49 feet 6 inches in depth. [Case closed.] The Commission adjourned at 4.40 p.m.

ALLOTTED SECTIONS.

Thursday, 9th December, 1875. Section 116.—0. PUFLETT and N. BLAXALL, Joint Claimants. Mr. Fisher appeared for Puflett. N. Blaxall, sworn: I claim section 116. Some time ago I gave Mr. Munro instructions to sell it, with a reserve of £20. I have heard that Puflett bought it, but I never signed a transfer to him. I cannot state the exact date when I instructed Munro to sell it, but I think it was about six months ago. I heard it was sold for something like £7 or £8, but the money never was tendered to me, although I have seen Mr. Munro since. I repudiate the sale to Puflett, and have never authorized Munro to sign a transfer to him. O. Puflett, sworn: I produce receipt to prove that I bought the section at Munro's auction. After I paid the money Mr. Munro said that there was a reserve of £20 upon it, but that was all he said. He gave me a receipt, and put me in possession of the section. I did not know that there was any reserve upon it or any dispute about it. Ido not live upon it, neither have I done anything to it, but lam sure that Blaxall never claimed the section from me. If I withdraw all claim to the section, I shall require to be repaid the sum I paid at auction and my expenses for attending here, which amount to £1. Blaxall stated that he had no objection to pay the £1, and leave Puflett to get his money back from Munro. Puflett signed a document withdrawing all claim to the section on the condition stated by Blaxall. [Case closed.]

A.—3

OLD BUSINESS LICENSE SECTIONS.

Sections 119, 120.—JOHN LINLEY, Claimant. Mr. J. B. Fisher appeared to support the claim, and stated that John Linley, the claimant, was at present absent from Westport. Maggie Linley, sworn: I am wife of John Linley, who purchased this section from Edward Yardley. I cannot say under what conditions he held the section previously, but he gave us a receipt when we bought the section in 1873. There is a house on the ground which is worth £40 to £50, and a garden made. By Mr. Mackay : When we bought the section from Yardley, we had no knowledge of the fact that a section in lieu of this one had been allotted to him in the upper part of the township. Mr. Mackay: I wish to inform the Commissioners that Yardley was allotted section 140, Palmerston Street, for section 119, Cobden Street, and sold his interest in section 140 to John Tyrrell for £15, on the Bth December, 1873. He was also awarded section 141, Palmerston Street, in lieu of 120, Cobden Street, aud he sold the interest in this allotted section on the 29th November, 1873, for the sum of £12. Mr. Fisher : I cannot deny the facts stated by Mr. Mackay, but I think it was the duty of the Provincial Government to look after these things better. Mr. Mackay : That does not excuse Yardley; but Ido not say that the sins of Yardley should be visited upon Linley. I desire simply to point out that this is a sample of many transactions carried on with regard to sections on this reserve. Mr. Fishee : I take it that Mr. Mackay admits that these sections were held under business license. Mr. Mackay : I do not admit anything of the kind. I make this objection now because the Government may take proceedings against Yardley by-and-by. Of course I guard myself against any legal or equitable title any of these parties may have. [Case closed.] Sections 44, 103, 104, 145, 146, 159.— G. JERVIS, Claimant. Mr. Haselden appeared to support the claims. G. Jeeyis, sworn : I bought section 44 from Reuben Came on the 7th April, 1873, for £54. It was originally held by Came under business license. I have not held any license for it, because I always feared that it would be washed away, and for this reason also I paid no rent upon it. If the protective works are carried out all danger will be removed, and then I should like to have a lease of it. There are two cottages on this section, which I value at £80. They could not be erected at anything like the money. I. bought section 159 from John Reid, whose receipt for the money I produce, together with receipts for rent paid upon the section. The Commissionees : You must remember, Mr. Haselden, that you are now assuming another position. Mr. Fisher yesterday relied upon the fact that the ground was taken up under business license, and now you say you cannot take away the ground because you have accepted rent for it. A receipt for rent, remember, does not at all times grant the ground for any lengthened term. Mr. Haselden: Do you know whether Reid held under business license? Witness : Ido not know. It was originally taken up under business license ; but whether Reid had business license I cannot say. If the river bank was protected, £5 per year would be a fair rent under a fourteen years' lease. There is a cottage on it let for 10s. a week. By Mr. Mackay : I purchased section 159 from Reid on the 13th September, 1875 ; and I purchased section, 197 which was allotted by the Borough Council to Reid in lieu of this section, at the same time. I paid him £27 10s. for the lot. Mr. Mackay: I desire to draw attention to the fact that on the 11th April, 1875, Reid put in a claim for section 159, Pakington Street, and attached a memo, stating that section 119, Bentham Street, was granted to him in 1873, but that it was not taken up by him. I contend that the sale from Reid to Jervis is illegal in every sense. Reid should have taken his selection of the two sections in 1873. The Commissioners : But in some instances rent has been received by the Provincial Government, which may be held by the claimants to constitute a right of occupation. Witness : I purchased section 44 in April, 1873, for £54 Ido not deny that in August, 1873, I was allotted section 163, Mill Street, by Commissioners Giles and Dobson, in lieu of section 44; and if lam bound to elect which I shall hold, I shall keep section 44 and abandon the other. But I abandon it conditionally. Section 197 was allotted to me as compensation for section 159 ; and if I am compelled to abandon one of these, I would prefer to hoM section 159, Pakington Street, which I understand may be required for railway purposes. I gave £27 10s. for that section, and considered it a good bargain, or else I should not have taken it up. I have laid out from £25 to £30 upon it since I have bought it; and I now value it at £60. It is in a good position, and provided the protective works are carried out it will be a valuable section. There is a four-roomed house with a lean-to upon it, with iron roof. It costs £90 to £100 to finish a house as that is finished. Mr. Mackay: In 1873 John Reid was awarded section 197 iv Bentham Street, in lieu of section 159, which was in danger of being washed out. I submit, therefore, that the Government are not liable to any claim in respect of sectiou 159, which is required for railway purposes. If Jervis chooses, he can remove his buildings from 159 to 197. Witness : Will you give me a right to occupy if I do remove ? Mr. Mackay : You cau occupy it under the terms to which Reid would have been subject.

A.-3

By Mr. Haselden: I was in Westport when all the allotments under Commissioners Sharp, Giles, and Dobson, and the Borough Council, took place ; and it was stated upon all those occasions that the Government did not recognize the allotments as compensation. The sections were given to persons who were washed out, and to those who were liable to be washed out. There were no compulsory conditions as to giving up one and holding the other. Had there been anything compulsory in taking up the new sections and abandoning the old, I should not have taken an allotted section at all. No notice was given to me verbally or in writing as to the Government requiring us to give up the old sections. I was never led to believe it, nor was any one else. Had such been the case, none but those who were actually washed out would have claimed. Mr. Haselden : Do you admit, Mr. Mackay, that £60 is a reasonable price for the house? Mr. Mackay : Certainly not. It is too much. Mr. Haselden : Then I will call evidence as to value. Waltee Bull, sworn: I know the house in Pakington Street lately owned by Reid, and now owned by Jervis. It is an old building. It will cost about £80 to put up a new building similar in design and construction. A new building would last from twelve to fifteen years. This would last five or six. If the river bank were protected, the section would undoubtedly be a good one. It would be valuable as a business site, but I do not feel competent to offer an opinion as to its value. By Mr. Mackay : I should not like to give £30 for the building at the present time. That would be its extreme value. G. Jervis, re-examined by Mr. Mackay : I will not swear positively that Commissioners Giles and Dobson did not say that those who got allotments were to give up their old sections. Ido not think they did, but I only speak from memory. But I am positive that it was not specified that it should be compulsory. Mr. Mackay : If you were an owner of property, and your tenant was in danger of being washed out, what would you say if, after giving him another section in anticipation of aud out of consideration for his probable loss, he then sold both sections. AVould you not say that he was a dishonest man ?— I scarcely know what answer to make. Mr. Mackay is full of assumption. He does not ask us to reply to straightforward facts, and therefore I decline to answer him. If lam bound to answer, of course I will do so, as I desire to show every respect for the Court. The Commissioners : It is a legitimate question to ask ; but of course, if you are unable to answer it, say so. —The question is not a fair one to put to me. Mr. Mackay to the Commissioners: This section 197 was allotted by the Borough Council after Dr. Giles's allotment, but the conditions were- the same as under the other allotments. Mr. Sharp distinctly stated .the conditions to be these: " That persons who had sections allotted to them in consequence of being washed out, or of being in danger of being washed out, should abandon their old sections." I can produce evidence of that. George Caeruthees, sworn: I was present when Mr. Sharp addressed the inhabitants of Westport in July, 1872, and explained to them the position he held under the Provincial Government of Nelson, with regard to the allotment of compensation sections to those who were washed out. I afterwards went to Mr. Sharp's office with the intention of making application for two sections in lieu of those I held in AVharf Street. He looked at the sections on the map, and said they were in a very good position if they w rere not washed away. He asked me if I was prepared to give up the sections if I got others in lieu of them, and I said I suppose I must do so. He said, " Yes, certainly. Any one who gets new sections must give up the old ones." I then declined to take up the new ones. I have not a distinct recollection as to what he said at the public meeting. Mr. Haselden : I understand Mr. Mackay's contention to be, that the condition upon which these sections were allotted were the same as those recommended in the Report of the Select Committee of the Provincial Council (vide page 37, Votei and Proceedings, 1872). Mr. Mackay : I contend that they were allotted under the instructions of the Provincial Government at Nelson, which instructions I shall lay before the Commission here as soon as I receive a copy from the Superintendent of Nelson. Thomas Dickinson (called and examined by Mr. Haselden), sworn: I am one of the oldest residents in AVestport. I came here at the beginning of 1866. I remember Mr. Sharp calling a meeting of section-holders to discuss the subject of allotment. There were no terms stated on that occasion. Afterw rards I had a conversation with Mr. Sharp with regard to these sections, and asked him whether it was the intention of the Government to give the sections as compensation. He said no. That the Government did not acknowledge their liability to give compensation. The sections were given in order to prevent strangers coming in aud shutting out those who were w rashed out from obtaining sites in the township. I asked him if I could hold both, and ho said they were only given to us in view of the possibility of our being washed out, so that we should have a place to remove to. The people had no idea that the old sections were to be given up to the Government; iv fact there was a contrary belief. By Mr. Mackay : I held sections myself on the south side of Gladstone Street, and was allotted a section at the corner of Brougham Street and Palmerston Street in lieu of it, but I did not remove to it. I sold it. I live now on a freehold section in Palmerston Street. I state positively that Mr. Sharp distinctly told me that we need not give up the old sections in consequence of occupying the new ones, or taking possession of them in any way. I asked Mr. Sharp the question, and I have given you the answer I received. That was four or five days before the first allotment of sections. He said nothing about the subject at the public meeting. Do not you think if he had instructions to that effect he would have said something about it to the meeting ? —I cannot say what he would or would not have done ; that is a difficult question to answer. You were allotted a section at the corner of Brougham Street. Were you allotted any other sections ? —I was allotted sections during my absence from AVestport, but I cannot say upon what date. It must have been the allotment of Commissioners Giles and Dobson.

A.—3.

Did not Commissioners Giles and Dobson say that it was a condition that the old sections should be given up if the new ones were accepted ? —I cannot say. I was not in AVestport at the time. The fact is they did ? —That is the first I ever heard of it. AVere you allotted any freehold sections ?—No. By Mr. Haselden : AVhen I first came here, Gladstone Street was the principal street; next in importance being Wharf Street and Queen Street. The town was first settled about the time of the Charleston rush, in 1866. It was then very small; in fact too small, and the sea was encroaching too much. I remember the first attempt to settle on the Coal Reserve. A lot of us took up sections upon it under business licenses. I remember an agitation being got up to take the town over to the other side of the river; but I can say nothing definite about it, as I lived out of Westport at the Waimangaroa at the time. I have a slight recollection of people being warned off the reserve. I did not take up any sections on the Colliery Reserve after that. By Mr. Alackay : I never saw the notice warning people off the reserve. I did not live in the town, and therefore could not be supposed to know much about it. I have taken up business license sites and sold them. I cannot fix any place for which the first business license was taken out. I had several business licenses, but I had no business place for them. I took out the licenses for the purpose of taking up sections for sale. I speculated in them in fact. John Munro, sworn: I came here at the end of 1867 or the beginning of 1868. At that time the town was built chiefly on the Maori Reserve, and on the Esplanade, down by the sea beach. The maps exhibited in Court do not correctly describe the configuration of the ground as it existed at that time. I have already referred to that in previous evidence. All the land to the south of Gladstone Street was then known as the Colliery Reserve. I remember a movement being got up to have the Colliery Reserve proclaimed as being within the gold fields. Ido not know the reasons that led to that movement, unless the object was to counteract an agitation in favour of removing the town to the other side of the river. I do not remember the date when the reserve was declared to be within the gold fields. There was more than enough ground within the township proper for the purposes of the town. But people preferred to settle in the locality I have indicated because it was convenient to the river, and they could " squat" down with the least possible trouble. Westport was partly a digging township at that time. Ido not remember how long it was after the proclamation of the reserve as being within the gold fields that it was cut up into streets and allotments. I think the streets were pretty well shown on the map in 1868. But there were no streets cleared. Kennedy Street was formed by the people themselves, who mostly used the river as a road. The great complaint against provincial rule at the time was that the Government were receiving the proceeds of the business licenses without spending any money on the roads. The settlement of the Colliery Reserve for some time after was very gradual; in fact, no settlement took place on the Colliery Reserve to any extent until after 1872. AVhen Mr. Sheehan built his present premises they were regarded as being buried in the bush. That was before the reserve was withdrawn from the operation of the Gold Fields Act. I think Roche and Gilmer also built before it was withdrawn. At that time each person who held a site was supposed to hold a business license. And it was the custom to place the license in some prominent position in the shop, so that the constable or any other person appointed to look after the matter could see the document without requiring it to be produced on every occasion upon which he should call. That plan was adopted for the reason that jumping and litigation were the order of the day, as soon as the sections were found to be of any value. The people were bound to take out licenses to protect themselves. There was no permanent officer appointed to look after the licenses. It was in 1873 when Sergeant Kiely, the first constable that ever did anything of the sort, Waited upon the sectionholders and insisted upon their taking out business licenses. The last license I took out was for the year 1872-73. Just at that time people began to get lax about taking out licenses, because of the doubt that existed as to whether the reserve was within the gold fields or not. That was the only year, 1872-73, in which the police collected the business licenses. Ido not know what led to the withdrawal of the land from the operation of the Gold Fields Act. I presume it was upon grounds of public policy. During all the time from 1872-73 the people were retreating before the sea; and when they came up to this end of the town, the sections began to acquire a value. The great flood took place in February, 1872, and then the people requested the Government to do something for them in the way of replacing them in the position they occupied before. In answer to that appeal Mr. Commissioner Sharp was sent to Westport, and in the meantime all that part of the reserve between Gladstone Street and Henley Street was being settled upon. Mr. Sharp drew a line in which he would allow no compensation sections. That line was drawn arbitrarily before the conference between him and the petitioners, and inside of it he made the allotments which he considered fair. A similar line was drawn by Commissioners Giles and Dobson. They drew a line within which compensation would be allowed, and outside of which the sections were considered unavailable. If the people occupied them, they did it at their own risk ; in fact, it was dangerous to live on that side. Sections on the river side of Gladstone and Henley Streets were washed away and compensation given. I had one section washed away for which I got section 5, Rintoul Street. The Government really extended the same consideration to the settlers on the Coal Reserve as they did to the settlers on the other side. There was no arrangement made between the Government and holders of sections as to the terms upon which persons might hold the particular part of the Colliery Reserve between Henley Street and Gladstone Street. I recollect Mr. Kynnersley putting a notice at the corner of Wharf Street and Gladstone Street notifying that persons who settled on the reserve would be subject to twelve months' notice to quit. This notice, however, was withdrawn. It was not very clear to us why it was withdrawn; but after the reserve was declared to be under the operation of the Gold Fields Act, the notice was removed. There was no notice to counteract it, as far as I know ; and my impression was that the notice was withdrawn in consequence of some alteration of the tenure. After that, sections were held under business licenses, and the people took up their allotments. Immediately after the appointment of Mr. Commissioner Sharp by the Provincial Government in 1872, the whole of the 12—A. 3.

A.—3

ground between Gladstone and Bentham Streets became known as the Colliery Reserve. Up to that time the Colliery Reserve was supposed to extend only from the beach to Henley Street. The other part was marked off as a reserve for quays. I recollect the proposal which emanated from the ratepayers that the whole of the reserve should be handed over to the Borough Council as an endowment, but I am not aware of any such proposal having been brought before the Provincial Council. I recollect also that in 1874 the Provincial Secretary, Mr. O'Conor, convened a meeting of the settlers in this Court-house for the purpose of persuading them to effect a settlement of their claims with the Provincial Government. He pleaded with the settlers to prefer their claims under the different Commissioners, in order to have them satisfactorily adjusted and the tenure fixed; but the people of the town preferred to deal with the General Government as they had been so frequently disappointed by the Provincial Government The result of the meeting was that the people still adhered to their determination. They moved the General Government, through the Borough Council; and in reply to the application of that body on behalf of the settlers, the General Government undertook to inquire into the circumstances, and decided that the question should be remitted to Mr. Mackay for investigation. The proceedings now going on are mainly the result of the applications made to the General Government by the Borough Council on behalf of the Colliery Reserve settlers. The Commissionees : Then how can counsel come forward and say that the General Government have behaved very badly to people on this reserve ? Your evidence goes to show that the General Government have dealt promptly with the request of the people that the matter should be inquired into. It was referred to Mr. Mackay, and from that has resulted the present Commission. Mr. Fisher yesterday condemned in loud and strong terms the conduct of the General Government. Mr. Munro's statement conveys a very different impression. AVitness : After the correspondence between the Borough Council and the General Government, the General Government were consulted again, and they replied that the Colliery Reserve was in the hands of the Superintendent and the Provincial Government of Nelson, but that so soon as it was handed over to them the claims of the settlers to sections on the reserve would be inquired into. The Commissionees : After the statement to which wo listened yesterday, your evidence, Mr. Munro, ought to be made widely public. Mr. Mackay : You stated that it was in consequence of an agitation in town that the Colliery Reserve was included within the gold fields ?—I did not. The agitation was got up to remove the township to the other side of the river. Then why was the reserve declared to be within the gold fields ?—I think I said it was on grounds of public policy. I may state for general information that the first Proclamation, issued on Ist July, 1865, did not include the Buller District. Upon the 3rd of September, 1866, a Gazette was issued including that district and also a supplementary one of same date, which latter contained the following Proclamation :— " Whereas it is desirable to further extend and alter the boundaries of the Nelson South-West Gold Fields: " Now, therefore, I, Alfred Saunders, Superintendent of the Province of Nelson, &c, &c, do hereby proclaim and declare that all that block of land reserved for a public quay, situate on the north bank of the River Buller, and forming part of the township of AVestport, shall be added to and form part of the ' Nelson South-AVest Gold Fields' from and after this date. " Given, &c, &c, at Nelson, this 3rd day of September, 1866. (Signed) "Alfred Saundees, " Superintendent." Examination continued: I cannot say how many sectious have been washed out on the Colliery Reserve. I should not be surprised to hear that the total number was 66. I am aware that some of those people who were allotted sections still continued to occupy the old ones. It is new to me to hear that 198 sections have been allotted in place of 66 washed out. The proportion is more than I expected it would be, but there are a large number of sections outside of the live that are really uninhabitable. But then it must be borne in mind that the compensation decided to be given by the Provincial Government was not confined to persons whose properties were washed away. It was also intended to extend to those persons whose properties were in danger. You must further remember the Colliery Reserve sections were awarded to persons for sections on the Native Reserve, which were freehold. I knew also that people who held business sites independently of the freeholders were considered by the Commissioners to be entitled to compensation sections. So that while the freeholder would get a compensation section for one washed away, the tenant under him would also get a compensation allotment for the same section. In all cases the occupier was recognized as well as the owner, for the reason that in most cases the occupier was the person that spent most money upon the land. The freeholders did not require a business license to carry on business on his own ground. Mr. Fishee : Warden Kynnersley decided that point in the case of Rosenburg. The Commissioners : A freeholder need not have a business license to carry on business on his own freehold. That point has been made clear in other parts of the colony. Mr. Fisher : So Mr. AVarden Kynnersley decided in the case of Rosenburg. Mr. Mackay : If the freeholders did not require to have a business license, had they any claim not only to get a freehold in lieu of the freehold, but a compensation section on the Colliery Reserve for the business license in addition?— That may be explained. If Jervis lost a freehold on the Native Reserve, and it had a building upon it, if he had any claim for compensation at all he might reasonably be regarded as having a claim for the business license as well as the freehold. If you were a landlord would you have granted him two sections under the circumstances ?—I think as a private individual having dealt with Jervis, having sold him the property and got his money, I should not consider that he had any claim upon me. To make a fair illustration: If I were in the position of Commissioner, I certainly would have taken the same view as Commissioner Sharp. Acting

A.—3

in the spirit of the instructions of tho Provincial Council, I should have made an allotment for the freehold; and if he satisfied me that he had erected a building of any value, I should certainly have given him a residence area on that account. The spirit of the instructions to Mr. Sharp must be judged by the debates iv the Provincial Council; he was left free to exhibit a charitable spirit, and very properly so. We had no claim upou the Government, and just as they thought proper to compensate us we were content to be dealt with. Mr. Haselden: May I ask the Commission whether counsel engaged in these cases have a right to examine Mr. Mackay's report?— All documents submitted by us are carefully scrutinized by him, and it would only be placing us upon an equal footing to give us an opportunity to peruse this document of mystery. The Commissioners : AYe have every desire to act fairly towards all parties concerned, but Mr. Mackay's report, as you are aware, has not been put in as evidence. It is true it was placed in our hands before we took our seats here, in order that we should understand the bearings of the matter, and we may go so far as to tell you that it contains nothing more than a history of the case, accompanied with Mr. Mackay's views upon the subject. You may rest assured that we shall allow nothing to influence our minds except the evidence. Mr. Haselden : Then I presume that any documents put in in evidence will be placed at the disposal of counsel ? The Commissioners ; Certainly. Mr. Haselden : I wish now to obtain some evidence from Mr. Mackay himself. Thomas Mackay, sworn: I was appointed by the Government to report upon the Colliery Reserve, and have reported accordingly. I gave evidence upon the subject before a Committee of the House of Representatives. Mr. Haselden : You stated that you not only inquired into the legal aspect of the case, but into what you understood to be the equities of the case. Do you still hold to the answer that you have pronounced against the claimants as having no title, legal or equitable?— Yes, whatever is stated in my evidence. These questions were put to you and you gave these answers: "And as Land Commissioner you treat their title as it exists at the present time ?"—Answer, " I look upon it that legally they have no title whatever." Question, " Have you gone into the equities of the case?"— Answer, "Yes, I have pronounced upon the equities of the case." Now I ask you, Mr. Mackay, have you pronounced against the equities of the claimants in these cases ? —I decline to answer that question. Are you aware for what purpose the whole of the Colliery Reserve was withdrawn from the operation of the Gold Fields Act in 1872 by the Superintendent as the Governor's delegate ?—The Superintendent did not withdraw it in 1872. The Governor did it. [Mr. Haselden cited the Gazette notice of 26th December, 1872, proclaiming the Colliery Reserve to be no longer Crown lands, and cited also the 2nd section of the Gold Fields Act of 1866, defining the meaning of the words " Crown lands."] Do you know for what purpose it was withdrawn ? —lt discloses no purpose there. Do you know that it was withdrawn for tbe purpose of granting leases ?—I don't know that it was. I can only speak of my own interpretation of the Gazette notice. You say you have not received the instructions given by the Provincial Government to Mr. Commissioner Sharp ?—No. AVhen I get them I shall decide at what part of the proceedings I shall hand them in as evidence. You have stated during this inquiry that Mr. Commissioner Sharp made specific conditions under which the land was to be settled ? —I do not recollect having said so. I think you said that Mr. Commissioner Sharp made conditions as to rent and buildings ?—I have evidence as to the latter. Did you ever speak to Mr. Commissioner Sharp about the matter ? —Never. You never asked Mr. Commissioner Sharp whether he made these representations at the time?— Certainly not. It would be an improper position to put Mr. Sharp in. Have you any objection to say what in your opinion would be a fair rental for these sections ?—I cannot give any opinion upon that just know. Have you reported what you consider a fair value? —I decline to answer that question. I do not think you can have any objection to say upon what basis you made your calculation ?— I also decline to answer that question. Is this a true copy of your evidence ? [Transcript of evidence taken before Parliamentary Committee exhibited.] —As this is not a certified copy of my evidence, I cannot say whether it gives a correct answer to every particular question put to me. I decline to give answers with reference to these matters until I see a certified copy of my evidence. You are asking me to answer a question in reference to an extract which has no authorized identification. I altogether decline to answer any questions contained in that paper. If you produce to me a certified copy of my evidence, under the hand of Major Campbell, the Clerk of the House of Representatives, I will tell you whether I will answer or not. Do you know who had control over the Colliery Reserve generally ?—I cannot answer that question. Are you aware when this reserve was handed over to the General Government by the Provincial Government ? —I cannot answer that question. The Commissioners : It will be necessary for you, Mr. Haselden, to look up and argue that point hereafter. Mr. Haselden : Of course we shall do so, but I ask the question because Mr. Mackay has had access to papers which we have not seen. The Commissioners : To whom was the Crown grant made? Mr. Haselden : It has not been granted by the Crown. There is a deed of grant to the Superintendent of a large portion of country in this locality, but the town of Westport has been left out of it.

A.—3

Mr. Mackay : I have had access to no documents which Mr. Haselden, or Mr. Fisher, or apy one else, could not avail themselves of, and I do not see that I have any right, except as a matter of courtesy, to give any information. If Mr. Haselden asks me for information consistent with my position, I will give it to him if I can, but I must be asked in a proper manner. Joseph Giles, sworn: I am Resident Magistrate, Warden, and nominally Receiver of Land Revenue for this district; but as to the sections the subject of the present inquiry, I have never acted as Receiver of Land Revenue. Mr. Haselden : Have you received the purchase money or the fees for sections ?—No, I have not. There have been auction sales, and in those cases the Clerk of the Court, the Receiver of Gold Revenue, has'acted —Mr. Bowen on one occasion, and Mr. Kelling on another. They did not act as my subordinates. They received instructions direct from Nelson. Money arising from the sale of land would not be strictly called gold revenue ; but I never had anything to do with it. I never received any money for town lands sold or leased on this gold field. I have never received money arising from the sale of freehold held under agricultural lease. The Receiver of Land Revenue is, I believe, a General Government appointment. I have never had occasion even to refer to my appointment, because I have never acted formally in that capacity; but I have no doubt it is a General Government appointment. Did you ever receive instructions to receive rent for the Colliery Reserve ? —I do not think I did. I have had correspondence with regard to the rents, but to the best of my knowledge I never received any. Mr. Bowen has always received them; I cannot say in what capacity. He had instructions from the Provincial Government, not from the General Government. Who has generally received the money arising from the sale of land in the township ? —Mr. Bowen, to the best of my knowledge and belief, acting on behalf of the Provincial Government. And you know that upon his receipt the Crown grant has been issued ? —I cannot say anything about that. I have no knowledge of any Crown grant at all. In your capacity of Warden upon this gold field, did you not exercise jurisdiction over disputes occurring on the Colliery Reserve ?—Yes, frequently. I cannot fix the time from memory, but I can get you materials fordoing so. To the best of my belief, the time at which I ceased to exercise jurisdiction was the publication of the notice by the Nelson Waste Lands Board withdrawing the Colliery Reserve from the operation of the Gold Fields Act. I have not looked at the notice, so Ido not know how it was worded, but it professed to make a reserve of it. The notification was issued in February, 1872, to the best of my recollection, and it was some time during that year that I had occasion to consider the effect of it, and from that time I ceased to exercise any jurisdiction. There was a case in which two persons had a dispute about some ground on the Colliery Reserve, when the point was brought up, and you ruled, I think, that as the reserve was not within the gold fields then, you had no jurisdiction ?—To the best of my recollection the question had been raised before that. The first time it wa3 raised was in this way:—AVhen Mr. Commissioner Sharp came here to allot sections, one of the first questions I asked him was how he got his power or control over the sections, because, as far as I knew, they were iv the gold fields? He said he did not know, and he immediately telegraphed to the Superintendent. In reply he was referred to the notice inserted by the Waste Lands Board in the Government Gazette, which made this ground a reserve "for purposes of public utility." The Government evidently considered that that had the effect of withdrawing it from the operation of the Gold Fields Act. After that, I myself communicated with the Waste Lands Board on the subject. I thought I saw reason to doubt the validity of that Proclamation, and I wrote to them about it. They replied that they had considered the matter, and were advised that they had power to make such a reserve. lam speaking now from memory. After that, the case you spoke of came before me. I still had some doubts. As there was not professional assistance in the case, at any rate only on one side, I thought I would consider the Proclamation as good, as it appeared in the ■ Gazette, and leave the Waste Lands Board itself to defend it, if a mandamus should be applied for in the Supreme Court. I therefore dismissed the case, and sent another letter to the Commissioner of Crown Lands telling him what I had done, that it might come before the Supreme Court, and thus they would take proper steps to make good their action in the matter. It never went any further, and since that time I have never been asked for any opinion upon it. You were asked to co-operate with Mr. Dobsou in the allotment of sections on this reserve ?— Yes. Was this reserve withdrawn for the purpose of being allotted amongst the settlers ?—lt was withdrawn from the gold fields after the proclamation by the Waste Lands Board. There was subsequently another proclamation by the Governor in Council withdrawing it. Are you aware of the reasons for its withdrawal ?—No ;I do not know that any reasons were stated by the Governor. If it was in February, 1872, that the AVaste Lands Board made their proclamation, then the one by the Governor was made about the December following. In that case 1 should think Mr. Sharp's allotment would be in 1872, and my own and Mr. Dobson's in 1873. Mr. Sharp's allotment was actually made when the reserve was under the operation of the Gold Fields Act ?• —I believe it was. It was not through any representations of yours, then, that it was withdrawn from the gold fields ? —I believe it was partly done in consequence of representations of mine ; but those representations only referred to the validity of the proclamation by the Waste Lands Board. Those representations simply referred to the legal aspect of the case as far as I recollect. The Commissionkrs : AVhat is the point you wish to lead up to Mr. Haselden? Tvlr Haselden-. I want to show that this reserve was withdrawn from the operation of the Gold Fields Act by ihe Government for ihe express purpose of granting leases to the persons to whom sections had been allotted, and who had taken up sections under business licenses. AVitness : The only evidence I can give you is this: The question was raised by me when Mr. Sharp arrived in July, 1572, in AVestport, before he made his allotment, and upon his putting the question to the Provincial Government he was referred to the proclamation of February, 1872, as

A.—3

being sufficient to give him control over the section; but afterwards, in consequence, I suppose, of my correspondence upon the subject, and of doubts which the Government and the AVaste Lands Board must have felt as to the validity of the proclamation, the subsequent one was issued by the Governor. Can you tax your memory sufficiently to say whether or not you ever received instructions from the Provincial Government to receive the rents from this part of the reserve ?—I am pretty sure I did not. They went to Mr. Bowen. I received many letters on the subject, and I may have received one asking Mr. Bowen to do something in the matter. By Mr. Mackay : I suppose you infer that the proclamation of the Governor of the 26th December, 1872, was to cure that of "the Nelson AVaste Lands Board of the 17th February, 1872?— That is an inference from my general kuowledge of the circumstances. I cannot say what other reasons there may have been. C. H. W. Bowen, sworn: I have acted as Receiver of Gold Revenue here for some time past, by appointment from the Provincial Government. I have somtimes, in the absence of Dr. Giles, accepted payments of money as Receiver of Land Revenue, and forwarded it to the Commissioner of Crown Lands, Nelson ; but in other cases, when persons purchased agricultural leased land, the money has been received by Dr. Giles. As to town lands, I have never received sixpence in the way of purchase. Mr. Haselden to the Commissioners: I want to show that the Provincial Government officer has been in the habit of receiving money for the purchase of freehold land, and that the General Government have always ratified the contract entered into by the receipt of this money by issuing the Crown grants ; and I shall be able to produce many receipts signed by the officer of the Provincial Government, and along with these receipts I shall be able to produce the Crown grants subsequently issued. The Commissioners : Admitting that you do, what bearing will that have upon the present case? Mr. Haselden: The receipt of this money from a Provincial Government officer would be implication that the General Government ratified the contract. The Commissioners : You will have to show that, if they did not directly authorize the receipt of rent, they accepted the money afterwards. , Mr. Haselden: I wish to show that the Receiver of Land Revenue was an authorized agent of the Government, in whom the power lay to let the land; that he was held out as the agent of the Crown, and this receipt should be binding on the Crown. To Mr. Bowen : Do you remember receiving £153 18s. for the purchase of freehold sections 70, 75, and 298, Town of Westport, from Mr. G. Jervis ? —I do not recollect receiving it, but I will not say that I did not. I received large sums of money for lands sold by auction on behalf of the Government. In what capacity did you receive that money? —I was appointed by the Commissioner of Crown Lands, Nelson, to act on his behalf, under the Waste Lauds Act; but Ido not know myself, nor do I think there is any record in the office to show, in what capacity I received that money. I forwarded it to the Commissioner of Crown Lands, who is a General Government officer paid by the province. I also received rent for sections on the Colliery Reserve, but this money was paid into an account called " the Provincial Account of the Province of Nelson." The first authority I had to act in the matter was a notification which appeared in the Westport Times, signed by Dr. Giles as Warden, and calling upon persons to pay their rents into the AVarden's office. I had no instructions direct from head quarters to receive rents. Dr. Giles : I received letters from the Provincial Government stating the terms upon which the sections would be held and so on, and asking me to announce the subject. I then put an advertisement in the paper, which was simply a following out of the letters I received. I had not special instructions to receive. I imagine, as Mr. Bowen says, that the advertisement must have stated that the moneys were to be paid into the Warden's office, and without further question they were paid to him. The Commissioners : Apparently the moneys were received by Mr. Bowen and paid into the account of the Province of Nelson; but you must go beyond that, Mr. Haselden, and endeavour to prove who were authorized to receive rents from this particular reserve. Mr. Haselden : 1 am seeking to establish a contract which might not bo binding in law, but which lam sure will be binding on the conscience. I want to show either that the General Government received the rents or that they authorized the Provincial Government servant to receive them. Mr. Mackay : Ido not think you will be able to establish that. I believe that the Provincial Government alone received these rents, and that the General Government never touched a farthing of them. Mr. Haselden : It might be useful to show what the practice has been in other parts of the country. I remember myself, in 1868 or 1869, a similar difficulty occurred in Hokitika. A great many people there, who had to move their houses in consequence of floods, located themselves on land which was partly reserve. After remaining upon it for some years, an agitation was got up to induce the General Government to sell the land, and they did so, charging 10s. a foot frontage for quarter-acre sections. Those persons who did not purchase were requested to send in claims for improvements, and 1 do not think the amount was disputed in any case. The land was put up to auction, and in fact a plan very similar to that sketched out by Mr. Munro was adopted. In Greymouth and Reefton the practice had been very similar. At Reefton, people were enabled to purchase eight perches of land for £2, or twelve perches for £3, although some of the sections put up to auction would have realized £100 a section. Therefore when it is urged against the people of AVestport that they had no right to come here and apply for leases of land held under business license, I reply that they are only claiming the consideration that has been extended to people in other towns, The Commissioners: They were acts of grace. You say you are entitled to this consideration. Mr. Haselden: They were not only acts of grace, they were acts of good government. However, that is all the evidence I have to offer upon that point. I will now touch upon the question of damages. Mr. Mackay says we are not entitled to anything because we have received another section

A.—3

of land. In answer to that, I say that it has been proved that the persons who have had sections allotted to them were not requested to give up their old sections. The very fact that Mr. Sharp said the sections would be given not only to those w-ho were washed out, but in danger of being washed out, shows that they had a right to these compensation claims. Then it must be remembered that when these sections were allotted to the people, they were really worth nothing. It was their improvements that gave them any value at all, and they only got something for that which they had lost; whereas the Government were giving away something for that which cost them nothing. J. AY. Humphrey, late Mayor of Westport, was examined to prove the authority of the Borough Council to allot sections, but failed to remember distinctly from what source the authority came: He believed it was contained in a letter signed by the Provincial Secretary of Nelson, authorizing the Borough Council to grant sections to those that might require them. Mr. Haselden : I do not think it necessary to address the Commission on the subject as to whether people are entitled to hold one or two sections; but I think it is quite clear that they are enabled to elect between the two, and in this case the claimant will elect to retain section 159, Pakington Street. For that section I think he is fully entitled to claim £60. He is getting 10s. a week rent for it. He has spent a total of £52 on the section, and it is proved that he could not get a similar house put upon it under £80. If he get the £60, he gets a sum equal only to the selling value of the house, and I think that at least he is entitled to that. Mr. Mackay : It must be remembered that John Reid owned section 159, which is now being claimed by Jervis; and in March, 1874, being in danger of being washed out, he was allotted a section in Bentham Street by the Borough Council, whose authority to allot I dispute. Reid not only sold the allotted section, but he sold the origiual section to Jervis, who now holds both. The Government require section 159 for railway purposes, and on that section there is a house valued by Mr. Bull at £30. Now it will be a question of after consideration with the Government whether they will allow Jervis what may be considered the value of the section, or whether they will say to him, " You have got section 197, which Reid was allotted in lieu of section 159, and you must remove your house from one to the other." The Commissioners : That is Reid's position; but is an innocent purchaser to suffer for the wrongful acts of another person ? Mr. Mackay : Caveat emptor should apply in these cases, in which I maintain the equitable view does not apply. < Mr. Haselden put in letters received by Dr. Giles as AVarden, to prove that the Government intended to grant leases. Reuben Caene, sworn: I was the occupier of section 44, Bright Street, which I held under business license. I sold my right to Jervis for £54 in April, 1873. I also sold him section 104, AVallabi Street. By Mr. Mackay : The section was let to tenants. I never used it myself. I cannot tell the exact date when I took it up. I had it three or four years before I sold it to Jervis. I took the house off the section that was washed away on the beach, and put it on this one. I took up section 104, Walhibi Street, under business license, but I cannot produce it now. I had no place of business on the section. The section was first pegged out by the Government surveyors. I settled on it immediately after. G. Jeeyis, sw rom: I value section 104 at £ 150. There is a large six-roomed house upon it, built of the best Auckland timber, which is let for 12s. 6d. a week. I could not build such a house under £220. Waltee Bull, sworn: I know the house on section 104. Approximately it is worth about £160. It will last seven or eight years yet, as part of it is built of kauri timber. A new house built of kauri timber would last more than twenty years. As agent for P. A. Monaghan I sold section 103 to Jervis after I shifted a house to it at a cost of £20. There are three houses on the section approximately worth £95. By Mr. Mackay, to Jervis: I was allotted section 190, Bentham Street, for this section. I claim 199 also. Ido so because, when the line was struck, I was invited to send in a claim for a compensation section. I think 1 had a moral right to sell the section. If I had been given to understand that I would have to give up my old section, I should have refused. I shall hold the old section as long as I can, but it is in danger of being washed away. 'If I were compelled to move, I certainly should not go up to 199, Bentham Street. Mr. Mackay : No rent has been paid upon any of these sections. [Case closed.] The Commission adjourned at 4.30 p.m.

Friday, 10th December, 1875. Sections 145, 146.— G. JERVIS, Claimant. Mr. Haselden appeared to support the claims. G. Jervis, sworn : I took up these sections in December, 1872, under certificates of registration of site for business license, which protect the section while they are not in beneficial occupation under the regulations. I built upon them. I value each section at £40, and allow £20 for improvements, making a total of £60 in the whole. The house is let for 6s. a week. It cost £14 or £15 to clear the sections, aud I was one of those who contributed to half the cost in the formation of Nelson Street. I include that in estimating the value of the sections, because they were of no use without it.

A.—3

By Mr. Mackay : Seven months since I sent in a claim for £136 for these sections and improvements ; now I only claim £120. I have not improved the sections since then. They would of course be a little deteriorated in value between that time and now, but I do not wish to cast aside my present valuation. Section 202, Bentham Street, was granted to me as compensation for section 145, which I believe is required for railway purposes. Mr. Mackay : As you have elected to retain sections 145 and 146, of course you cannot claim the other; but if you move your premises from sections 145 to 202, you cannot then have any claim as regards section 145. Witness : I have never taken possession of section 202, although I claim it of course. But you stated in Court a few days ago that we had no right to the compensation sections, therefore I prefer to keep the other. By Mr. Haselden: I have spent from £20 to £30 in business licenses on this section, and have had several offers to purchase it. Gilmer Brothers wished to purchase it about two and a half years ago. They wished to'move the Clarendon Hotel to it. It was considered an eligible site at the time. They offered £150 for it, but eventually they offered me £100 or £120 for the two sections, which I declined. Shortly after that a large flood occurred which did considerable damage to the river bank, and the negotiations with Gilmer Brothers were broken off. I have never attempted to sell them since, because I considered them a valuable business site, and would like to get a lease of it. It is immediately opposite Martin's Hotel, in Nelson Street. The stone groin, I consider, is keeping the foot of the street perfectly safe, and protecting the whole of the lower part of the town. John Gilmer, sworn : I remember making Jervis an offer of £120 for sections 145 and 146, which he declined. That was after we had built the Post Office Hotel again, in 1872. We intended to move the Clarendon Hotel to Jervis's sections. Walter Bull, sworn: I have made an estimate of the value of the dwelling-house on sections 145 and 146. £25 would be the extreme value of it as it stands. I speak, of course, of the letting value. If it were taken down and the material sold, it would not fetch half that sum. A new building of similar construction would last about fifteen years. This house was built a little over five years ago, but I do not think it would last above ten years, because it was built of old material. Mr. Mackay : No rent has been paid on these sections. [Case closed.] Section 161.—JOHN TERRY, Claimant. Mr. Haselden appeared to support the claim. John Terry, sworn: I bought this section from Michael Organ in 1867. There was a small cottage upon it then, which I occupied from the time of the purchase until four months ago. The improvements and cottage are worth £60; the cottage being let at present for Bs. a week. The section itself is not worth more than £5 a year. By Mr. Mackay : I have not paid rent on the section, and cannot produce business licenses, although I hold some, which I will undertake to send in to the Commission. I belonged to the Harbour Department during most of the time I occupied the section. [Case closed.] Section 59.—ANNE WEBSTER, Claimant. Claimant, sworn : I claim 16 feet of this section, on the Palmerston Street side. The remainder belongs to Suisted Brothers, from whom I bought my half. I believe Suisted Brothers held a business license for the section, but I never did. There is a cottage on the ground, which together with the other improvements I value at £100. I value the section at £8. •By Mr. Mackay : This is the section for which I and Suisted Brothers were awarded section 159, Mill Street. No claim sent in to other part of section. [Case closed.] Section 152.—ANNE WEBSTER and ROBERT HICKS, Joint Claimants. Anne Webster, sworn: I claim part of this section, 33 feet by 67 feet 6 inches, which I purchased from Mr. Munro. I claim the Nelson Street side (the north side). Mr. J. B. Fisher explained that a man named Layette originally held this section under business license, and mortgaged it to Mr. Munro, to secure a sum of £150. Munro took possession of it, and sold it, and Mrs. Webster became the purchaser of this part. Mr. Fisher undertook to put in copy of mortgage deed to Munro, and handed in a certificate from the Clerk of the Court, Mr. Bowen, to show that Layette took out a business license for it in November, 1872. Witness, examined by Mr. Mackay : I took out no business license for the section, neither have I any evidence that between the date of Layette's business license and the 20th August, 1873, when I purchased from Munro, any rent was paid. Robert Hicks, sworn: I bought my part of the section, 15 feet frontage to Palmerston Street, by 33 feet deep, from Layette on the 7th August, 1873. I cannot say whether his business license had expired when I took possession. I asked him whether he had paid rent, and he said he had. I never paid any. There is a shop and dwelling combined on the land, which I value at £145. In my statement I valued the section at £25, but I should be glad now to get what I gave for it—£ls. By Mr. Mackay : £25 is an excessive value for the section. I would be content to give £5 a year for it. If you are content to give £5 a year for it, how do you arrive at the value as being £15 ? Is it only worth three years' rent ?—I do not think anybody would give me £15 for it.

A.-3

Subsequently the witness applied to be allowed to correct his evidence as to the rental of the section. When he stated that he would give £5 a year for it, he was under a misapprehension. He admitted he had since been spoken to by several people about his evidence, and the answer he wished to be recorded was, that he was willing to take the section up on the Superintendent's terms. [Case closed.] Section 58.—JERVIS and BULL, Joint Claimants. Mr. Fisher appeared to support the claim. Walter Bull, sworn: This section first belonged to Mathew Steel, who took it up under business license in 1871. He became indebted to Suisted, and executed a mortgage to him, and he also executed a mortgage to Bull and Bond. AYe took up Suisted's mortgage, and subsequently exercised the power of entry and sale when Mr. Simon became the purchaser. Subsequently Bull and Bond bought it back again from Simon for the sum of £95; and when we dissolved partnership all Bond's interest was assigned to me. I sold Bond's interest to Jervis for £55, and we now occupy jointly. I have a building on the section which I value at £150. In my former statement I valued the section at £30, but that was a mere guess. It is not worth much now, as the locality is almost deserted. I let the house for £5 a month. I have paid no rent on the section, nor did I take out a business license, because it was not necessary at the time. Steel took out a business license. I think Mr. Mackay stated that the section was not required for the railway. [Case closed.] Sections 95, 96, 102, 156, 157.—AVALTER BULL, Claimant. Mr. J. B. Fisher appeared to support these claims. AValter Bull, sworn : I bought section 95 in July, 1869, from Mr. Simon, who I believe held a business license for it. I held sixteen business licenses after the purchase, but I cannot say whether any of them were taken out for this particular section. I paid no rent upon it. I have no certificate of sale from Simon. He gave us this section and £5 for removing a house for him. By Mr. Mackay : I got sections 134 and 135, Adderley Street, for this and section 96 ; but the frontages have been taken for the railway, so that I regard them as almost useless. I have spent nothing on those sections. Examination in chief continued : Section 96 was mortgaged to Mr. Bond. I purchased the equity of redemption in terms of the deed of dissolution between me and Bond. I valued the improvements at £40 and the section at £25 ; but if I were to make out a valuation to-day, I should increase the value of the improvements to £50 and reduce the value of the section to £15. I would do so because I have added to the improvements to the extent of £20 since I sent in the statement, and because the last flood nearly washed the house away. The house would have fallen to the ground but for the quantity of rubbish which the water washed up beneath it. If it were not that the houses are on the ground, I would not have the sections upon any consideration. I would accept a lease on the Superintendent's terms, but I should stipulate that I should not pay rent if the houses were washed away. By Mr. Mackay : If the protective works were carried out according to Mr. Higginson's suggestion that there should be piers extending out 1,000 feet, I have no doubt the beach in this neighbourhood would silt up, and land in Kennedy Street would become valuable. Protective works carried along the bank of the river would not do any good to this land. Examination continued: Section 102 I bought from Mr. Daniels, who occupied under business license, I believe. I built a one-roomed cottage and carpenter's shop on it, which I value at £80. The section I value at £20. The cottage is let for ss. a week, and the carpenter's shop for 2s. 6d. a week. The sea comes up to the section when the tides are high. I got section 133, Adderley Street, as compensation for this section. Section 156, was taken up by myself under business license in May, 1872. This is the only section for which I did take out a business license specially. I have built upon it a carpenter's shop and store 20 feet by 60 feet, which I value at £200. I have paid no rent on the section. I bought section 157, which is required for the railway, from a man named Levi, for £43 altogether. I first bought one part of it from him, and then the other. I have shifted the old cottage which was upon it and made a timber yard of it, with a seven-feet fence all round. I value the section at £40, and the improvements at £25. If the section is taken, of course it does away with the site as a timber yard, and I shall be compelled to procure a site elsewhere for the purpose, which will be an injury to my business. I should have to employ two men where I only employ one now. No rent has been paid on the section. Allotted Section 116—BLAXALL and PUFLETT. Mr. Blaxall having repudiated the sale by Munro to Puflett, all parties appeared before the Commissioners. It was recommended that Blaxall should make a refund of the £8 paid by Puflett to Munro for the section, but the offer was refused. It was then suggested that Munro should pay the amount to Puflett and exercise his remedy, whatever it might be, against Blaxall. The recommendation was refused by Munro. At a further stage of the proceedings Puflett and Blaxall appeared, and by consent it was arranged that Puflett should retain possession of the section.

OLD BUSINESS LICENSE SECTIONS. Section 71.—ROBERT McFARLANE, Claimant/ Claimant, sworn: I claim this section because I have lived on it for four years. I exchanged it for one occupied by James McGavin, to accommodate him. I paid business licenses for it as long as

A.—3

they were required. The last I took out was in 1873. I have an hotel on the ground, which cost me £600 four years ago. I have paid no rent. By Mr. Mackay : I exchanged a Section in Cobden Street with Mr. Corr, so as to give him a passage between the two sections. No money passed between us. The section my hotel stands on is worth nothing except for the buildings, which I would not sell for less than £600. I claim £40 for the section, because it has cost me that amount to clear it. I could buy the same quantity of freehold land for £10, I valued the section at £40 in the statement I sent in to you, but I don't think it is worth that sum now. By the Commissioners : I should like to have a lease of the section because I could not very well move my buildings off it. It would be a good site when the protective works are carried out. [Case closed.] Sections 72, 73, 74, 75, 76.—TIMOTHY SHEAHAN, Claimant. Section 127.—TIMOTHY SHEAHAN and B. DICKINSON, Joint Claimants. Claimant, sworn : I bought sections 72 and 73 from the former owner, Mr. Dupuis, in January, 1872. I held business licenses for them, and continued them to the end of 1874. I have paid no rent. I undertake to say that I held a business license for each I occupied. . (Business licenses handed in.) I have spent something like £700 or £800 in erecting shops on these sections since I bought them. The situation appeared to be very valuable, in consequence of the destruction of the old township, which rendered house property in that locality perfectly valueless. Property was to be had for a song. I bought five or six of these houses, and utilized the material in the erection of these shops. After the heavy flood in 1873 they became valueless tome, and I removed them to ground I owned in Palmerston Street. One of the houses on section 72 was bringing me in £2 a week in 1873, but since that date I have not received more than £10 in rent from it. The last time it was let it brought 7s. 6d. a week. Ido not value the buildings at £700 now, because I have removed some of them. It would cost about £300 to build similar premises to those standing on it at present. It would be hard to estimate their value now ; really they are only worth their value to remove, because the town has gone away from them; therefore it may be inferred that Ido not value the ground very highly. In ;fact, I do not attach any very great value to Westport property. There are far too many buildings and land which have attained a fictitious value. There is really too much of it available to admit of the possibility of its becoming valuable ; and that statement is borne out by the fact that there are 300 acres of ground laid out in the township, which would give about 1,000 sections of a quarter-acre each. The discovery of alluvial gold and other assisting causes, such as the opening up of the coal mines, might tend to improve trade and enhance the value of town property, but I do not think it would enlarge or assist the town to any great extent. At any time the port will only be available for local trade. It is not a first-class port; it is only a third or fourth rate port. Vessels of 300 or 400 tons will be the largest bottoms that will be able to come across the bar. It has been stated that vessels of very much larger tonnage, if specially built for crossing bars, could come in ; but I can offer no opinion upon that subject. The Commissioners : You say not only that the sections are of little value, but that the buildings in the town are of little value also? —I really think so. If property held in fee-simple from Rintoul Street to Jules Simon's store were put up to auction to-morrow, or at any time within say three months, I feel pretty sure it would not fetch the value of the improvements. I speak from experience, because I have dabbled a little in building. Do you consider the buildings in the town sufficient to transact the business of the place for some time to come ? —The present buildings could not exist under present circumstances. It is a question of living on accumulated means, or on credit. The population of the district is not sufficiently large, and its resources, which consist chiefly of the production of alluvial gold, are all but exhausted. Ido not see w rhat there is to make the town a great town. There is no agricultural land to be taken up and turned to profitable account, and it has nothing beyond its mineral resources to support it. Have you any reason to hope, if not to believe, that the alluvial gold fields will be worked again ? —I do hope so. I hope there will be a great amount of prospecting done when the public works are completed. By whom do you think the prospecting will be done ? —By the miners, with the assistance of the townspeople here, who have always largely assisted in this way. There is scarcely a business man in this town who is not paying out money weekly to assist in the development of the mineral resources of the district, particularly the Lyell, Mokikinui, and other places. Do you think you will have to go outside for labour to prospect the district thoroughly, or are there sufficient people in the district to do it ?—The people in the district will be sufficient to do the prospecting. There is a good deal of ground at the Terraces and Addison's Flat that would pay men £2 a week; but in the face of their being able to earn £4 a week on the public works, they are not likely to return to mining. I consider the public works of the colony have been a great drawback to the West Coast. Did not a large proportion of the men employed upon the public works leave the district imme. diately upon the cessation of those works ? —They have, in a great many instances. They have been withdrawn from their ordinary avocations'; and it is not likely that men will work for £2 a week when they can get £4 a week wherever public works are being carried out. Possibly the inducements of the alluvial workings would not be sufficiently great to induce them to return to their former pursuits? —Certainly not. It is not in accordance with the actuating principles of human nature to give up £4 for £2. Then you do not take a very sanguine view of the prospects of this town ?—I do not. I have hoped against hope for a very long time, but I see little chance of our former expectations being realized. 13—A. 3.

A.—3

But you will not decry the district; you are a large owner of property here? —That is what keeps me in the place. If I could get one-third of what I paid for what I own, 1 should be glad to clear out. Don't you think the commencement of the harbour works and the development of the coal mines will improve matters speedily ?—That will assist to a great extent. I am satisfied that if the existing condition of things were to continue for twelve months, half of us would either have to leave the town or seek relief as bankrupts. But suppose the Government proceeded at once with the railway, and the Coal Mining Companies proceeded with the development of their mines ; how many years do you think would elapse before a fair amount of prosperity would exist ?—That is a difficult question to answer; my own idea is that it would be about a hundred years hence. Why fix such a remote date ?—Because I well recollect the course of events connected with the Newcastle coal fields. The working of those fields was not at all satisfactory for the first eighteen months or two years. I remember the appearance of articles in the Melbourne Argus, which I read with great interest, announcing the failure of company after company. They entered into competition with each other, and the consequence was that three or four companies were ruined before the mines began to pay. That end was attained by the amalgamation of three or four companies, and a compact being agreed to not to supply coals except at a price that would pay ; and it is only within the last few years that the coal fields of New South Wales have given the trade of that colony such an impetus as to make it equal, if it does not exceed, Victoria in wealth and influence. It is for these reasons that I say it will take a very long time to develop the coal trade here. I do not see men of capital here in the position to float large companies to work these coal mines successfully. There is only one, the Albion Mine, that could enter upon the undertaking with any hope of success. But capital can be obtained from outside? —Certainly it must be obtained from outside. Ido not believe the whole of AVestport united could successfully work one mine. But do you suppose it was ever contemplated that the coal mines here should be worked by the people of Westport ? —I do not see how any reasonable man could contemplate such a thing as that. Even when the Government complete their line, auxiliary lines will be required, which may be more expensive than the main line. We have been told by two or three persons, that if the Government thought fit to make the branch lines, the expense of developing the mines would be almost nominal; it would be confined chiefly to driving for the coal, and making shoots to put it into the trucks? —Then the question becomes a very simple one. The cost of producing the coal would be estimated as would be the cost of producing anything else. Quite so; that is an abstract principle. But assuming that the Government constructed these lines, would the expense of developing the mines be very great ?—I am sure it would. I have never lived in the neighbourhood of coal mines, and therefore I speak of the subject in the manner in which it was dealt with by the Melbourne Argus; and that paper stated that companies could only be successfully worked by the employment of a large amount of capital. Mr. Fisher : Will the Commissioners permit me to state that the Government have refused to construct branch lines. The Commissioners : What we wished to ascertain was the cost of working the mines. The cost of constructing the branch lines is a simple matter of calculation ; we can always get at that. Witness : When I speak of the cost of production I have in my mind's eye the report of the Government Geologist, Mr. Cox, which states that the coal must be taken from the mountain plateau; and that is why I say it will require a large amount of money. - Much of the coal near the surface is not marketable. If coal were to be obtained along tho main line, of course the cost of production would not be so much ; on the other hand, if branch lines are to be constructed to mines on Mount Frederick and Mount AVilliam, with gradients rising to a height of 1,000 feet, the cost must be very great. Dr. Hector says that the real coal deposit will be found there, that the other is merely slips or falls ; aud if geology is to be relied upon, we must accept that opinion as correct. Practical experience, however, will be the true geologist; and if good coal is found alongside the main trunk line, then the expense of production will be comparatively small. Then, in your opinion, there is not sufficient capital in this district to work the mines successfully ? ■ —Assuming that the mines must be worked from the summit of the mountains, I should say certainly not. It would cost £100,000 to construct a branch line to connect with the main line. That is the opinion of people competent to judge. I have been told, in course of conversation with gentlemen from Dunedin, who hold a prospecting lease, that they propose to float a company in London with a capital of £250,000, retaining shares to the extent of £50,000 in the colony. They hold AValker's lease. It was Captain Malcolm, of the steamer "Maori," one of the promoters, who told me this; and he also said that it was estimated by some persons whom they sent to inspect their property, that a branch line would cost £100,000. I base my opinion on that information. You were going to tell us about the floods, and the washing away of the town ? —I came to Westport in 1868, and bought a leasehold property on part of section 18, Gladstone Street, which once belonged to Mr. E. W. Stafford. When I bought it, there was a largo yard at the back of it on section 19, on which was a brewery, a number of outhouses, and a garden ; that was rented at £10 a year from Mr. Jackson, who was then Provincial Auditor. In 1869, he made overtures to me to buy sections 19 and 20, Palmerston Street, which were freehold sections, and ultimately I did buy them for £130. AVhen the bargain was complete, he said he had other sections in the town on a lease, and he offered me four for £130. Two of them were on a line with the present church. He took me up Palmerston Street, which was then a miserable swamp, and showed me the section upon which the school-house stands, and the one at the back, which he held from the Educational Board of Nelson on a fourteen years' lease at £5 a section. I said I would not give him £5 a year for the whole of them. Knowing the extent of the town (some 300 acres), I could never see how the land would be of any value, except as a farm. That will show what my opinion was then; and I think these circumstances should be taken into consideration by the Commission when ascertaining the value of property here now. In 1868, the

A.—3

town extended from the river to section 18, Palmerston Street; that was the business portion of the town. On the opposite side of the street, from Molesworth Street to the river, commenced the Colliery Reserve; that block led into Kennedy Street, and from Kennedy Street to the river was really the town. All outside that land was worthless; the only portion I considered valuable as business sites, was on the Gladstone Street side. In 1809 or 1870, Gilmer Brothers bought a two-storied house on the corner of Kennedy Street and Molesworth Street, which covered an area of 35 feet by 42. It was built by Mr. Stevens, and was said to have cost from £900 to £1,000. Gilmer Brothers bought that house, in the best times Westport had ever seen, for £200. Opposite to that, at the corner of Molesworth and Kennedy Streets, was a large store occupied by a Mr. Alcorn, who conducted a large provision trade. He determined to leave AVestport in the early part of 1870, and to dispose of his store. The building covered a piece of ground 33 feet by 44, and at the back there was a nice cottage. That was bought by Mr. Patterson for £130. I mention these things to give you a comparative idea of the value of land at this time. In 1869 or 1870, there were about 1,500 people employed on the terraces, who produced about 2,000 ounces of gold weekly. That was a great support to AVestport. There was about the same population at Addison's Flat, who were profitably employed; and then there was the trade with Charleston, which was also a great support to this town. There was a population of about 3,000 there; and the Bank returns showed a yield of something like 2,000 ounces of gold a week. According to a statement in the Westport Times Almanac, the yield of gold from Ist October, 1867, to 30th September, 1868, amounted in value to £529,000. There must have been something like £LOO,OOO of that amount spent in AVestport alone ; and then we must look not only at the expenditure of the £100,000, but at the " turnover " of it, so to speak, which would create ten times the amount of traffic in selling and re-selling goods. Now, much has been said about the benefit of the Government expenditure to this place. Assuming that the Government propose to expend £100,000 here within the next twelve months, and that that sum was paid out as wages, it would only come to something like £2,000 a week. That would not bring us up to anything like the condition of prosperity Westport enjoyed in 1868 and 1569, when we had such large resources in active operation as I have just spoken of; and when I show you that the town was really small, as far as the business portion is concerned, and compare the value of property then, I cannot see that this Government expenditure is really of any intrinsic value. I have no hesitation iv saying that, if I owned the whole of the land along Palmerston Street, and had £20,000, I would rather let it to people who would build upon it at 2s. a foot than build upon it myself. The present rental of buildings would never cover interest and sinking fund, so that the freeholder would lose money by erecting buildings upon his property. If a man buys leasehold or freehold property at a fair market value in a fixed community, it is only reasonable to suppose that in the course of years the value of that property will increase; he will not only get his rental all the time he holds it, but if, at the expiration of a number of years, he wishes to sell, he will very likely get more money than he first paid for it. Here, on the contrary, a man may spend £700 to-day upon freehold property in a really good position, and at the end of twelve months he would probably not be able to sell at all, or would realize less than he paid for it. I repeat that property in Westport has attained a fictitious value; and I quite recognize that the Commission will have a difficult task in endeavouring to arrive at what is a fair value. lam not speaking now of anything that may affect the title of property here. 1 leave that element out of consideration altogether. I do not think there is a power in the realm that can disturb my title or alter the conditions under which I occupy my land. I confidently assert that I cannot be dispossessed without my consent. It will be understood, therefore, that I have no purpose to serve in making my valuation. I have every respect for the authority that created this Commission (the General Assembly), but I have no fear that my right to occupancy will not be respected. If the Commission will permit me, I will make a few remarks upon the Financial Statement of the Colonial Treasurer, Major Atkinson. He gives a tabulated statement of the value of gold, wool, grain, timber, flax, &c, exported from New Zealand for the seven years ending 31st December, 1874. From this statement I find that the total export trade of New Zealand during 1867 amounted to £4,362,777. Of that amount, the gold export alone realized £2,724,276, being more than half of the total export; and the proportion continues, throughout the seven years, to be almost equal to the total value of all other products exported from the colony. I have already referred to the gold exported from Westport in the year 1868-69. The table in the Financial Statement put the total export for 1869 at £3,922,712, and of that amount the gold export was £2,341,592, of which amount, as I have already shown, nearly onefourth was exported from this little port alone. Then, again, take the Customs duties. Since the settlement of this district, the colony has received something like a quarter of a million sterling in the shape of Customs duties. Now, I think the Government should take into consideration the efforts of the people here to develop the resources of the district, and should aid them in making further discoveries of gold. It has been admitted by the leading men of New Zealand that the discovery of gold in 1801 saved us from colonial bankruptcy. If it had not been for the discovery of the gold fields then, we should have no public works now; and I think it is ungrateful that the accredited agent of the Government should come down here and repudiate the engagements made with us. The Commissioners : There you take up an unfair position. Mr. Mackay does not repudiate anything. He was appointed by the Government to report upon things as they existed, and upon this inquiry he appears as their agent to watch the case. AVitness: Then'l beg Mr. Mackay's pardon. I understood him to say he had instructions from the Government of the colony not to recognize any claim of any kind to sections upon the Colliery Reserve. The Commissioners : As we expressed ourselves a few days ago, Mr. Mackay simply takes up that position to enable the Commissioners to decide between the colony on the one hand and the claimant on the other. There must be pros and cons in every inquiry, must there not ? AVitness : I have every confidence in the integrity of this Commission ; I believe it is actuated by a desire to do justice to the people. I regard the judicial bench as being free from the control and

A.—3

influence of Government, and I believe I shall receive as much justice as if Her Majesty the Queen came here to oppose my claim. It is ungrateful to a place like this, which has met with such sad reverses, where the property of the people has been swept away by the sea, to break engagements honorably entered into. The land was really valueless when we came here. In 1868 you could not have got Is. a section a year for any section along the whole of the reserve until you reached Wallabi Street. It was nothing but a miserable swamp, and I wondered that the few unfortunate people who lived there wore saved from disease. It was a pestilential quagmire. To convey an idea of the nature of the ground, I have seen a 12-foot rod driven into the land at my own place. It is the purifying agencies of the river and the sea that counteract the diseases that must otherwise surround us. Last year there were several cases of colonial and swamp fever; and if the town is ever closely built upon, it must be attended with great mortality. Under these circumstances, lam surprised that the Government should come down here and repudiate our claims. We ask for nothing but what a good landlord would give us, and I feel sure the good sense of the Commissioners will prevail upon them to regard it in that light. The whole thing seems to me to be within the compass of a nutshell. Adopt the scheme proposed, by the Superintendent; and if the Government want any portion of the ground, let them give fair and reasonable compensation for it. The people will then be satisfied. But if the Government intend to put additional rents upon us which we are unable to pay, all we can say is that we have been trapped. AYe must pay it; but the colony, lam sure, does not want us to be screwed down to a rack rent. The Commissioners : You want a lease, do you not ? —Yes; and I ask for it on constitutional grounds. If you had a lease on the Superintendent's terms, what would become of the buildings at its expiration ? —The condition I mentioned is a fair one: that if buildings are put up on the ground, reasonable price should be given for the right of renewal. The Government surely do not wish to exact high rents from us; we are paying rent in the form of taxation. But if the Government do not think fit to renew the lease, what would become of the buildings ? —We should be allowed to take them away. Then the effect would be that the colony would be receiving a nominal rent for fourteen years, and at the expiration of that time the buildings would be taken away. AVould that be equitable ? — Ido think so. I consider that if the Government does not think fit to give us the right of renewal, at least we might be allowed to take our property away. As to the sections we are now dealing with, I can buy freehold property at half the cost. I myself offered to lease section 99, at the corner of Palmerston and Cobden Streets, which I then considered the key to the town, so to speak, for £20 a year on a fourteen or a twenty-one years' lease. I would have leased it at £10 a year. You have told us that the gold fields will not be developed for many years to come. Upon what sustenance do you expect this district to live for the next fourteen years ? —When I said it would take a hundred years to develop the mines, you must not suppose that there will be no expenditure on them in the meantime. But we understood you to say there would be a difficulty in finding capital for that purpose ?—I do not think there will be any difficulty in obtaining capital. There is plenty of capital in the colony, which will be invested in the mines as soon as people become convinced that it is a good investment. The people here would certainly be unable to develop the mines unaided. As a matter of fact, these leases are held by men in Dunedin ? —I understand it to be so ; they are awaiting the completion of the line before beginning operations systematically. So that if the lines are completed, arrangements will be made for working the mines at an early date ? —I believe they will. If the Government were sincere in their endeavours to complete the line, and men of money saw that there was a possibility of working the mines profitably, they would come forward immediately; but from the way in which the Government have acted, no reasonable man would go into such a large expenditure. What is the difference in the prospects of Greymouth and Westport at the present time ?—There is a very considerable difference to my mind. They have a large agricultural district in the Grey Valley. They have the trade to Reefton, which is available to Greymouth alone; in fact, that portion of the country is the very seat of the alluvial gold fields of the West Coast. It is the pivot. All the best gold is discovered about Greymouth. Contrast that with Hokitika. There houses have been built and taken down in order to save proprietors from the payment of municipal taxes. Greymouth is a small town. There is too much room here. A city like Melbourne could be built upon the site of Westport. It is only a question of opening up the streets. Town property in Greymouth is much more valuable than here ?—lt is. How much more valuable?— There it has an ascertained value, because the building ground is concentrated. If you could confine this town into a small space —say, from Wakefield Street to Pakington Street—then the land would be valuable. I would under those circumstances, if I were building, rather pay £1 a foot for ground, than I would pay 6d. now. If capital is expended on these mines, and they are gradually developed, will not property also in this town greatly increase in value ? —lt would, in proportion to the trade that would be created, and the expenditure incurred in connection with it; but I cannot see, with a port such as we have, that we can look for a foreign trade. Vessels of 1,000 tons cannot come here ; it would be a local trade ; vessels returning to Melbourne will take cargoes, but that will be a limited market. We cannot under any circumstances compete with Newcastle. We cannot give such a good or cheap article. When you took up these sections, you hoped to make money out of the business you carried on ? —Certainly I did. When you came here and settled upon this swamp, you still had gold in view, no doubt; you could not have concluded your business without taking possession of the land you are upon? —When I took possession of that land, there was plenty of evidence that the gold fieids were becoming exhausted: population was leaving, and claims that were paying £20 to £30 a week in 1869 were either worked out or had become very poor.

A.—3

At all events that piece of ground was necessary to enable you to carry on your business, and you have enjoyed possession of it since ; so that while your labour gave a value to tho ground, you were obtaining the fruit of that labour? —Yes, but you must look at it from another position. If I had been able to get £300 or £400 for property that cost me £2,000, I should have left the town. Quite so ; then you remained here for recouping the loss you had previously sustained ; it was a matter of business ? —Yes. Then have you any claim for relief? —I do not seek relief. Ido not come here as a mendicant. I come here as a matter of right. Where is your right ? You took up this ground to enable you to carry on your business. The Government now say they want you to pay n fair rent; and you say you are not disposed to pay rent on account of the sufferings you have undergone; you say that you are entitled to this ground, if not rent free, at all events at a nominal price? —I do not take up that position. Iv the first place, I have given irrefragable proof of the conditions upon which I took up the ground, and I say there is not a power in England can dispossess me of it. AVhy do you say so ? —I will give you my reasons. Shortly after the discovery of gold in Otago in 1861, the General Legislature passed an Act called " The Gold Fields Act," which gave the Superintendents of provinces, as representing the Governor, power to issue miners' rights. The possession of that miner's right and compliance with its conditions preclude the possibility of the owner being turned off his ground by any one ; and according to my common sense understanding of the constitutional laws of England, there is no power that can put him off. Then why do you appear here and ask for a lease for fourteen years at a nominal rental ? —AVhen Mr. Curtis came down here, he appeared before us not only as the Superintendent of the province, but as the delegated representative of the Governor, appointed to administer the affairs of the gold fields ; and acting in that capacity, and considering the calamity that had befallen the people, he, as a kind and a just man, offered these terms. It is true I took up this ground under business license, and may not in the eye of the law be considered to have any right in the soil; but I think the Government should respect the promises of its officer, even if the Colliery Reserve were worth a million of money, and we were occupying it at a merely nominal rental. The Superintendent was a properly constituted officer. I knew that, and therefore it was not my duty to ask him whether or not he had authority to make promises of the kind ; but I know this, that he is the last man that would deceive the people, and I demand from the colony, as a right, the fulfilment of the pledge made by a duly accredited agent of the Government. I hope there is no constitutional Government that will not respect the actions of its officers. If I thought there was, I should have no confidence in Government; I should consider it a humbug. Assuming that the ground in Palmerston Street is worth 50s. a section, what do you think it will be worth in seven years' time, provided the public works are proceeded with and the coal mines developed in the interim ?—I should not build upon the sections on those terms if I had my choice ; but I have no choice. I have the ground and my buildings are upon it. I will give the land up to the Government to-morrow, if they will return me half the money I have expended on it; and I will allow Dr. Giles or Mr. Mackay to assess the amount of expenditure. Ido not think the property in this town will increase much in value during: the next seven years. Start from Gilmer's Hotel, say, and stop at Field's Store. If these sections are worth 50s. now, what do you think they will be worth at the expiration of seven years, provided the raihvays are proceeded with, and the coal mines developed speedily ?• —That is not a fair question to ask. If you will assume that the Government will expend £2,000 a week within twelve months, I can answer you. Then I would rather pay you £4 a year, than I would £2 10s. at the present time. If a man has already built, it is fair to presume that he can pay the same rental as a man who purchased, is it not ?—He must give it because his money is invested on the spot. Then if, instead of receiving £2,000 a week from Government expenditure, you received £2,000 a week from the working of the coal mines, would that make a difference in your valuation ?—Yes, it would make a difference ; it would be worth people's while to remain. Then do you think that the existing state of things will continue ? —I think not. The place has reached such a condition now that it must improve, unless the Government are Such a lot of fools as to leave the railway material lying idle, as it is at the present moment. You predict steady prosperity. Then, with that steady prosperity, will the ground steadily increase in value ?—lt possesses no value now, but it would steadily increase in value as the resources of the district increased. Examination in chief continued: The valuations shown in my statement are the same I would have to lay out if I were compelled to build again. I own half of section 127 ; I have sold the other half to Mr. Dickenson. I claim the western side towards the river. I held business licenses in 1874. As a matter of fact, lat all times held business licenses equal to the number of sections I claimed. It was my only protection against jumping. - By Mr. Mackay : I held freehold sections 19 and 20 in the old township. For these I was allotted two freehold sections, and section 37 of which I owned part. I was also allotted land not only for the freehold but the business site. Sections 64 and 65 were allotted to me for the loss of freehold and leasehold property on section 18. A man named Crate had the leasehold, and he got a freehold section also. I got no other compensation for that freehold. I now claim seven sections, and the half of No. 127 with Dickenson. I paid £35 a year for business licenses for these seven sections. If they had not been withdrawn from the gold fields, I should have no objection to continue the payment of that sum. I should not consider I had them at a fair rent, but I should not be able to throw them up, because of the property I have on them. The sections all had 33 feet frontage, so that I should pay about 3s. a foot. I value the sections at nothing at all, except for the buildings I have on them. If they were vacant and were offered me on lease at £1 a year, I would not take them. Section 76 is the only valuable one I have, and it is valuable to me simply because it would not suit me to have any other person build a public-house upon it. Sections 78 and 79 abut on the hotel property, and therefore I

A.—3

could extend the hotel in that direction, although I did not buy them for that purpose. The ordinary section was too shallow for me. I wanted a yard and protection from fire, and I thought I could paya little more to render myself secure. There were no insurance offices here at the time, and I bought them for the object already stated. They are essential to my property, and of course they are more valuable to me than they would be to any other person. I could not let them go from me. I paid Crate £1,000 for 40 feet frontage on section 18, Gladstone Street, and in addition £120 a year, equal to £3 a foot; but there was a valuable building upon it, and, besides, part of that was consideration money for the business. There was a brewery upon it, bringing in a rental of £40 a year, and then the Oddfellows and Freemasons held their meetings in another building, and that brought in a rental. The lease of section 18 was subject to a rental of £120 a year, and had ten years to run. I paid £1,000 for the property, aud spent £600 or £700 in improvements, so that I consider it cost me £2,000 in round numbers. I bought tho property in July, 1868, and" early in 1870 I offered it back to Trimble for £500, and he would not give £300. I commenced my improvements at the end of 1869. There were no indications of sea encroachment at that time, and I regarded the place as a home. AVhen I offered to sell in 1870 the diggings were failing. The returns from Brighton were falling off. Addison's Flat was being swamped' out, and a number of people were leaving for the Gympie, in Queensland. If I could have got £500 for that property, which cost me £2,000, I would have gone down to the Maori Reserve, where I could have got a valuable site in Freeman Street for a rent of £2 a foot. I never owned any section on the Maori Reserve, and I was glad I did not. There was one house there called the National Hotel, which I leased in December, 1871, for £100 a year. That was considered the most valuable hotel in town. But in the flood of February, 1872, it was swept away bodily, and was launched over the bar like a ship sliding down the ways. The sections on the Maori Reserve between Freeman and Molesworth Streets were occupied by McDowell, draper, now of AVellington, AVhite, chemist, Simpson, shoemaker, and the other section was held under lease from the Maoris by Graves and Fleming. These sections were taken up in the fever of the gold fields, and that block was more valuable than all the rest of the town put together. McDowell, who had the balance of a fourteen years' lease, paid a rent of £2 a foot. AValker's coal-prospecting license, I believe, comprised a party of nine Dunedin gentlemen ; Captain Malcolm is one, Mr. Larnach is another, but I do not know the names of the remainder. I was in Greymouth four years ago. The town is not surrounded with dense bush as AVestport is. There was a flat where bush had grown, but it was pretty well cleared away. There was bush within a quarter a mile of the town. If you wish me to make a comparison between Westport and Greymouth, I must tell you that I do not feel competent to make any comparison. My knowledge of it is confined to the town simply, and it struck me that the actual trade of the place was concentrated within a very limited area, and that those who had business places there had a monopoly of the trade. The valuable sites all front the river, but I am not aware, as you say, that it is so everywhere, but that some business places are in the side and back streets. It is not so in Hokitika, for instance. The valuable property there extends up Revell Street, at right angles to the river. Ten or twelve years ago we all settled near the river, on the beach, because it was the most available land, but the sections were utterly valueless, until the people improved the place; I could have bought the site upon which Hansen's Post Office Hotel, Hokitika, now stands for £5. J. Dickenson, sworn: I claim part of section 127 (the easteA side), which I bought from Mr. Sheehan on the 3rd of June, 1873. I never held a business license for it since then, nor have I erected any buildings upon it. I claim 16 feet, leaving Mr. Sheehan 17 feet. By Mr. Mackay : I have paid no rent. I was allotted a section at the corner of Brougham Street for my part of section 127, which my wife sold to Mr. Munro for £47. I ratified that sale. [Case closed.] Section 77. —A. HORN, Claimant. Claimant, sworn: I pegged this section off in February, 1870, and after I did so a person came and claimed it. There was a hut on it at the time. By arrangement between us I gave him £2 for his interest, and have remained in occupation ever since. I have a cottage and shop on the ground, which I value at £450. That is what they cost me. I produce business licenses and receipt for rent up to May 11, 1874. By Mr. Mackay ; The section without the buildings would be worth very little. If it were not for the buildings, I should not remain there. [Case closed.] Sections 57, 139.—A. SCOTT, Claimant. Mr. J. B. Fisher appeared to support the claim. ' A. Scott, sworn : I took up this section about five or six years ago under business license, and held a business license for it up to about two years ago, when the receipts were burned with my house. I have now three cottages on the section, which I value at £90 for the three. I took up section 139 under business license in 1869, but cannot produce a license for the reason stated. I value the three cottages on the section at £90. By Mr. Mackay : I have paid no rent. I received section 128, Adderley Street, as compensation for 139. [Case closed.] Section 46.—A. WIGNALL, Claimant. A. Scott, sworn: I am agent for Wignall, who is at present absent from Westport. He bought the section from Harry Pitt, and lived upon it under business license. There are three cottages on the section. [Case closed.] *

A.—3

Sections 85, 122, 184, 185.— E. J. O'CONOR, Claimant. M. Organ, sworn: I appear as agent for Mr. O'Conor, who bought section 85 from Mr. Crate in 1872. There is a store on it used by the Good Templars, which is worth from £80 to £100. It is valued at £180 in the claim sent in, but that is an over-valuation. There is a four-roomed cottage on section 122, which is worth about £200, and is let for 12s. a week. I am not sure whether Mr. O'Conor got sections 154 and 166 in lieu of section 85 and 122. Mr. Mackay stated that sections 184, 185, 189, 190, and 191, claimed by Mr. O'Conor, would be required for railway purposes. Section 114. —BLAXALL and SIMON, Joint Claimants. Mr. J. B. Fisher appeared on behalf of Mr. Simon. Noeris Blaxall, sworn : I purchased 33 by 33 feet of this section from Mr. Munro, as agent for a man named King, on the 11th October, 1872, for £80. Munro guaranteed peaceable possession. (Sale note put in.) Jules Simon, sworn: I purchased the whole of the section from Mr. D. Lees on the 11th January, 1872. King got possession of the piece claimed by Blaxall by jumping it during Mr. Lee's absence, and then sold it to Blaxall. When spoken to about the matter, King said Mr. Warden Kynnersley had informed him that we had a right to 66 feet only, and that, as the section was deeper than that, he should claim the remainder. Blaxall stated that he had had actual possession of the ground from the time of the sale, and held a business license. Simon said he told Blaxall, when he took possession, that the section had been jumped by King ; but he was now perfectly willing to divide, and leave Blaxall the portion he claimed. Both being agreeable to a partition, it was determined that Simon should have 33 by 66 feet, and Blaxall 33 by 33 feet. Mr. Mackay said no rent had been paid since the expiry of the business license. [Case closed.] Section 81. —REID and Co, Claimants. J. Tyrrell, sworn : The firm of Reid and Co. is composed of myself and Robert C. Reid, but we are about to dissolve, when the sections in AVestport fall to me by agreement. This section was purchased from John Draghicavich. Rent was paid to June, 1874; but unfortunately it was paid on the wrong section, 138, to which we lay no claim. [Case closed.] The Commission adjourned at 4 o'clock p.m.

Monday, 13th December, 1875. APPLICATION. Mr. Haselden, before the business was proceeded with, desired to make a statement which he hoped would be recorded. On the preceding Friday he made an application to the Commission to inspect a certain document which was in their possession ; in fulfilment of what they conceived to be their duty, the Commissioners declined to accede to the application. Since that time he had been in consultation with his learned friend Mr. Fisher, and they had come to the conclusion that they would not be able to do their duty to their clients unless they were made aware of the contents of that document. The position of the matter was this : The Crown had sent down judges to try a particular case, and had given them as a basis of their proceedings a report prepared by one of its own officers. He maintained that, however desirous the Commission might be to do justice to all parties, it was impossible that they could do so when the case was presented to them in the light which one side might choose to throw upon it. He had no doubt but that Mr. Mackay's report was not only able, but plausible, and he did not see how it could have any other effect than to sway the minds of the Commissioners. He and Mr. Fisher had come to tho conclusion that it was due to themselves and their clients that they should take up this position now, in order to avoid the hiatus which might arise at some future time. The Commissioners said they had already expressed themselves upon the subject; but since it had beeu brought up again, they would not give a hurried opinion. They w rould possibly mention the matter next morning.

OLD BUSINESS LICENSE SECTIONS. Section 80.—ALFRED SMITH and CHARLES S. BROWN, Opposing Claimants. Mr. Haselden appeared on behalf of Smith; Brown appeared in person; Mr. J. B. Fisher for Mrs. Brown. There being painful circumstances connected with the case, which it was deemed unadvisable to refer to in open Court, the Commissioners, Mr. Haselden, and Mr. Fisher consulted upon the respective claims of each party, when it was decided that a lease should be made out in favour of Smith as trustee for Mrs. Brown, leaving Brown to adopt any course he might think fit to assert his right as against Smith.

A.—3

Sections 45 and 170.— J. L. MUNSON, Claimant. Claimant, sworn : I bought section 45 from my brother, who is a stationer at Reefton. No money actually passed between us, but we did business together, and the purchase money for the section was placed to his credit on my books. He was aware of that, and took no exception to it, and I concluded that he assented to the sale. I don't know from whom he bought the section. I have had possession of it about four years. I had five business licenses at the time, but I cannot say whether any particular one referred to this particular section. As a rule, I had as many licenses as sections. I have paid no rent. I have a house on the section, which I value at £240; it was the second-best cottage in Westport at the time it was built. I took up section 170 under a business license, and produce the particular license, which I believe referred to this section. There is a cottage and shop on it, which I value together at £225. I have paid one year's rent upon the section. By Mr. Mackay : I don't place any value on section 45. A lease of section 170 on the Superintendent's terms would be worth £100. [Case closed.] Section 94.— J. R. FRAZER, Claimant. Claimant, sworn: I purchased the section for £50, and have expended about £115 altogether. In July, 1873,1 held it under a business license ; since then I have paid no rent. Half the section has been destroyed by the sea. [Case closed.] Sections 70, 82, 83, 84.—JOHN CORR, Claimant. Mr. Fisher appeared to support the claims. John Corr, sworn: I claim section 84, but, as there has been another section allotted to me for it, the Government may take it if they think fit. lam rather peculiarly situated in regard to this section, as my store is built on the dividing line between it and section 83. I should have moved the store before, had I been able to do so without difficulty. If tho protective works are carried out, I would be willing to give a fair rent for the section rather than remove the store. I have a house and yard upon sections 82 and 83, the store, as I have already stated, being partly built on section 83. The value I have put down in my statement is the actual cost of these buildings to me ; but I doubt whether they will bring that price at a sale. I value the whole lot at £580, which includes my share of forming Cobden Street. The street was a complete swamp when I went there, and my cost of formation amounted to £12 10s. a section. I consider the Government ought to act towards us as they have acted in other places : they should give us the freehold at a fair valuation. The sections in Cobden Street would be of little value but for the money we have expended on them. I cannot say what would bo a fair rent for a term of years : that will depend upon the conditions of lease. A lease upon the terms proposed by the Superintendent would be fair. I have business licenses to represent all the sections. I would be willing to pay a fair rental for section 70, because it gives me a right-of-way to the other sections. I cleared and fenced it, and paid rent till it was refused. There is also a stable on the ground. By Mr. Mackay : All the sections are essential to my business. I own laud in Palmerston Street, opposite Hicks's and Mrs. AVebster's. I have let 20 feet frontage, for £1 a foot, to Mr. Burns, and 12 feet frontage to Mr. Finch, for 255. a foot. The lease has ten years to run, with the option of renewal for another five years. [Case closed.] Section 124.—GEORGE LOAVE, Claimant. Claimant, sworn: I gave £5 for the section in 1867; I held a business license for it up to August, 1872, since which time I have paid no rent. I have erected a cottage on it, which I value at £50, and I put down £20 for the section, which represents the improvements I have made and expense in fencing and making a garden. I had a section in Adderley Street allotted to me in lieu of section 124, but I do not want a lease of it unless I get it at a nominal price. [Case closed.] Sections 122, 184, 185, 189, 190, 191— E. J. O'CONOR, Claimant. Mr. Haselden appeared to support the claims. M. Organ, sworn: I am agent for Mr. E. J. O'Conor, and produce paper containing extracts from Mr. Bowen's book giving the dates of business licenses taken out by Mr. O'Conor. There is a four-roomed cottage on section 122, which is let for 12s. a week. By Mr. Mackay : All Mr. O'Conor's business licenses were taken out for a period of twelve months, but I cannot swear that any of them referred to this particular section. One of them was taken out for the Buller Towing Track Company's office, which was in Molesworth Street, in 1872. Two of the licenses, I believe, were taken out for sections 184 and 185 ; and one of them, dated Bth May, 1872, was taken out for Mr. O'Conor for section 169, which he gave to me. The transaction occurred in this way: I had been acting as agent for him for some time, and when he came back to Westport he asked me what remuneration he should give me for my trouble. I said I would take no remuneration. Then he said, "You may as well take this section." I took it, and sold it to Suisted Brothers and Smith, and Barkly's shop is now built upon it. From June, 1872, to May, 1874,1 did not act for Mr. O'Conor, but since May, 1874,1 have had the management of his property in Westport. I will not swear that any of these licenses affected sections 189, 190, and 191. No rent was paid on section 122. Mr. Mackay : I wish the Commissioners to note that only three business licenses have been accounted for out of eight sections. By Mr. Haselden: When Mr. O'Conor gave me section 169, I applied to it one of the business

A.—3

licenses I had in my possession. There is a cottage worth about £150 on section IS4, which is let to Mr. Chambers at 10s. a week. The ground is cleared, fenced, and laid out as a small garden. There is a cottage, value £170, on section 185, which was let to Mr. AVeitzell at 12s. 6d. a week, on condition that he should expend £20 upon it before he went into it. He has improved the building to the extent of over £30, and I have reduced the rent from 12s. 6d. to 10s., in.order to recompense him. The ground is fenced, cleared, and laid out as a garden. Upon sections 189, 190, and 191 there is a house erected worth £300, which is let at £40 per annum. It is fenced, and has a good garden. It is in about the best spot in Westport for a private house. The block of ground is 66 feet by 99 feet; and if the river were protected it would become a most valuable site for business premises. Supposing there w rere no buildings upon the sections at all, a lease of them for fourteen years ou the Superintendent's terms would be worth £300 —that is, supposing the river bank was protected and the road made. Sections 186 and 185 would also be worth £100 each, because they are good sites for private residences. By Mr. Mackay :At the time of the washing out, in February, 1872,1 received a telegram from Mr. O'Conor, and endeavoured to settle the lease of the Albion Hotel with George White. We were to release him from the conditions of his lease upon the payment of £40. He offered £16, and subsequently the building was abandoned by AVhite ; and I, acting on Mr. O'Conor's behalf, instructed Messrs. Bull and Bond to take it down carefully with a view to its re-erectiou. I had it taken down for the benefit of whom it might concern. It lay in the street for a week, and was then removed to Palmerston Street, and used by Mr. O'Conor in the erection of the Little Grey Hotel. I swear that it was abandoned by White before I. took possession of it on behalf of Mr. O'Conor. I value the house on section 184 at £150. I was not aware that Mr. O'Conor in his statement in April last valued it at £110; £150 is my estimate. I value the house on section 185 at £170. I waa not aware that Mr. O'Conor in April last valued it at £120. The estimates I have given were made in accordance with instructions from Mr. O'Conor forwarded to me by telegraph. Mr. Mackay : Can you produce that telegram ? Witness : I can. (Telegram put in.) Mr. Mackay: According to this telegram, Mr. O'Conor claims £1,600. You said just now that the estimate was made in accordance with Mr. O'Conor's instructions ; yet you only make out a total sum of £1,120 as the value of the property. The difference is the difference between £1,120 and £1,600. Mr. Haselden: But there may be other items which Mr. Organ may have omitted from his calculations. There will be the cost of clearing, fencing, and making the gardens. How much will that come to ? Witness : About £6 a section. The Commissioners : That adds only £30 to the total sum, and still leaves a considerable difference between the two estimates. It is really very strange that gentlemen claiming such large sums of money should not attend personally to support their claims. Witness : I have telegraphed to Mr. O'Conor for instructions, but he has not thought fit to reply. I know that a large amount of money has been spent on the cultivation of the ground. There are fruit trees planted in it, and I know that when Mr. O'Conor lived in the house he spared no expense to make a comfortable home of it. There is a well on the premises, and the ground has been thoroughly drained, and it would take two years to work the ground into its present state of cultivation. By Mr. Mackay : The cottage on section 185 is really a first-class building. It is worth £40 a year to let. If you say that it is valued at £25 in the borough rate roll I suppose I must believe you, but I was not aware of it. I know that it has been very much improved in the last eighteen months, and that an allowance has been made in the rent on that account. There is a vat on the premises that cost £5, and a tank worth £4 or £5. By the Commissioners : I value the sections 189, 190, and 191, at £100 each. One of them is a most valuable corner for an hotel. If there were no buildings on the sections they would not be valuable at all. If the protective works were completed and a fourteen years' lease granted, £100 each would be a very small valuation to put on the sections. They would be worth £30 a year each under those circumstances. It would take about twelve months to protect the river-bank in this particular locality ; but, if it is not protected, this property will wash away in the course of a few years. I would certainly not accept a lease for fourteen years on the Superintendent's terms, if I had to pay the rent for fourteen years on the chance of its remaining there. I should insist on having a stipulation in the lease to guard me against a liability of that kind. Walter Bull, builder, sworn: 1 have made an examination of the houses on sections 184, 185, 189, 190, and 191. The cottage Mr. Weitzell lives in would cost £165 if built of new material. It is in very good repair, but I should not value it at more than £115 or £120. To build anncrw r house like the one Mr. Chambers lives in would cost £140, but at the present time I should value the cottage on it at £95. The house on sections 189,190, and 191 could be built for £275. The house in its present state is worth a little over £200. That sum, of course, does not include water tanks, well, or pump. The sections are very valuable. I put in a rough plan of the house, showing the number of rooms and their dimensions. The house has iron walls and roof; the ceilings are made of tongued and grooved boards, and there is a dado round the passage. The fencing would cost about £30. My estimate of £275 is merely for the building, and includes no etceteras. v Mr. Haselden said he had no desire to exact extortionate prices from the Government, but at the same time he must say that he did not wish to see a large number of persons deprived of property which they rightfully considered their own ; they ought to receive reasonable compensation for being deprived of property which was to them a source of considerable income. It was not reasonable to take away a man's house and home, and give him a sum that would leave him in a very much worse position than he occupied before. Geoege AVhite, sworn, and examined by Mr. Mackay: Section 43, upon which Roche's Hotel 14—A. 3.

A.—3

stands, was allotted to me for a leasehold on the Native reserve upon which the Albion Hotel stood. I bought some boats and horses from the Towing Track Company, and gave them bills for a portion of the amount. The company took possession of the hotel to secure themselves, and when it was in danger of being washed away it was pulled down by Mr. O'Conor's orders. I heard what Mr. Organ said, and I deny that I abandoned the hotel. I gave them no authority to pull it down. I never owed O'Conor any money personally. I owed money to the Buller Towing Track Company, but that debt is wiped out. After I sold section 43 to Mr. Roche, Mr. O'Conor claimed it on behalf of the Buller Towing Track Company, although he had no right whatever to do so, as my debt to him and the company was discharged. At a subsequent stage Mr. Haselden handed in to the Commission a list of the business licenses issued to E. J. O'Conor, from January Ist, 1871, to show that Mr. O'Conor had eight business licenses in force, and not three as stated by Mr. Mackay. Mr. Mackay submitted that the certificate disclosed nothing that was not already before the Commission. Organ was only able to account for three licenses: this certificate did nothing more. Besides, it included a business license issued to Alfred O'Conor, and there was no evidence to identify him with any of the sections claimed by E. J. O'Conor. [Case closed.]

MOUNT KOCHFORT COAL FIELDS. Dueing the sitting of the Commission, Mr. W. M. Cooper, Topographical Surveyor, at the request of Mr. Mackay, gave a description of tho nature and extent of the Mount Rochfort Coal Fields, together with an explanation as to the progress made by the Albion and other companies towards the development of the coal mines. Mr. Denniston, Mr. Cooper's assistant, was also examined at length, and some general evidence taken from Mr. Munro, Mr. Fisher, and Mr. Corr as to the capabilities of the companies to comply with the terms of their coal leases, and as to the amount of capital being raised to further that object. The evidence will be found in the appendix.

OLD BUSINESS LICENSE SECTIONS. i Tuesday, 14th Decembee, 1875. Sections 129, 130, 131.— J. FIELD, Claimant. Claimant, sworn: I bought section 129 from William Hanna on the 25th January, 1873, and sections 130 and 131 from Andrew McShane on the 16th September, 1867. I held business licenses for all of them, which did not expire until 1873, since which time I have paid one year's rent. My shop and dwelling-house are erected upon the sections. Altogether I have spent £1,000 upon the place, and would therefore like to get a lease of the ground. I had two other sections in the town which were washed away. I held business licenses for them also, but I cannot produce them in continuous dates because they were lost, I think, in moving my premises when I was washed out. By Mr. Mackay : I value section 129 at £50, 130 at £80, and 131 at £121. The freehold sections opposite my place of business were I believe sold some time ago for £130, but I only know that from hearsay. [Case closed.] Section 98— J. A. G. VINALL, Claimant. Claimant, sworn: I bought this section from a man named Austin in 1867, for £15, and held it under business license up to November, 1872. I produce the first and the last business licenses I have held. In my former statement I valued the section at £30, but I don't think it is worth that now. There is a small two-roomed house on the section. I have paid no rent since 1872, because the sea was continually encroaching, on the section and I did not know the minute I should have to move off. If I get a lease from the Government, I should like to stipulate that no rent should be paid in the event of the land being washed away. My house is one section from Palmerston Street. I was allotted section 167 in lieu of section 98, but I could not find it for a long time : it was covered with bush. I paid one year's rent on section 167, but none on section 98. [Case closed.] Section 111.—P. J. BRUEN and UNITED METHODIST FREE CHUROH, Joint Claimants. Mr. Mackay said he had no objection to offer to the claim of either party. A certificate of partition was put in by which Bruen bound himself to accept 33 feet frontage to Bright Street by 35 feet deep, and the Church Committee to have 33 feet frontage to Wallabi Street by 64 feet deep. [Case closed.]

A.—3

Sections 125, 126, 138.— J. POWELL, Claimant. Claimant, sworn: I have built a dwelling-house on section 125 of the value of £200, and to the best of my belief I held business licenses for all the sections until the land was withdrawn from the gold fields. [Case closed.] i Sections 132, 133.—GRAVES and FLEMING, Claimants. Ivatt Geayes, sworn: We purchased these sections from Mr. Robinson in May, 1870, for £46, and held business licenses for them until the land w 7as withdrawn from the gold fields. I value the store, cottage, back buildings, and fencing at £475. Rent was paid on the sections up to January, 1874. If leases are granted for the Colliery Reserve sections, I think they should contain a covenant to the effect that if they are washed away liability for rent should cease. [Case closed.] Section 135.— J. B. FISHER, Claimant. Claimant, sworn: I bought this section in 1872 from Frederick Macfarlane and J. A. Maguire. The section belonged to Macfarlane, but Maguire jumped it, and they both came to me to settle the matter, which I did by buying them both out. I claim £190 as the cost of clearing, fencing, building a house and stable, and otherwise improving the section. I value the section at £20. I paid no rent, because I thought the Government had no right to collect it. lam willing to take a lease at a fair rental, but if the rental is too high I shall abandon the section. Mr. Mackay ; Would you have any objection to pay as high a rent as you offered for Mr. Watkins' section—£l a foot ? Mr. Fishee : I did not offer Mr. Watkins £1 a foot. If Mr. Watkins says I did, he has drawn on his imagination for his facts. I offered 10s. a foot for a lease of seven years. [Case closed.] Section 136.— E. GOTHARD, Claimant. Mr. Fisher appeared to support the claim. Claimant, sworn : I held a business license for the section up to 1872, when the land was withdrawn from the gold fields. I bought the section from Dupuis in 1870, and built a house upon it and otherwise improved it, and have lived upon it ever since. lam willing to take a lease at a fair rental. By Mr. Mackay : I have paid no rent since 1872, when the business licenses expired. I value the house and section altogether at £40, but that is very much undervalued, because there is a fiveroomed cottage on the section. [Case closed.] Sections 137, 154.— J. BARRINGER, Claimant. Claimant, sworn : I took up section 137 under business license in October, 1872. The statement in my claim that I took it up in 1870 is therefore incorrect. I gave Mr. Lloyd 2s. for making out the claim, and I signed it without reading it over. I have paid no rent since 1872, because I did not think I had any title to the ground after the discontinuance of the business licenses. I have spent £30 on the section, and am willing to take a lease of it at a nominal rental. There is a cottage on the ground, which is let for Bs. a week. Section 154 was taken up under business license in 1872 ; I have improved it to the extent of £60, but I paid no rent upon it. The cottage was only worth £30, and if the protective works were carried out I should value the section at £60. By Mr. Mackay : Section 154 is within one section of Palmerston Street. lam not aware that in the last claim I sent in I stated that I took up section 137 under business license in 1869. I took it up in 1872, as I have already stated; I also took up section 154 in 1872. I had no other sections when I took them up. I have lived in Westport for the last eight years, and at the corner where Mr. Martin is now for four years. I have paid no rent since 1872. [Case closed.] Section 149. —B. OXNER, Claimant. Mr. J. B. Fisher appeared to support the claim. Claimant, sworn: I took the section up under a business license in May, 1870, and held a business license for it until May, 1870. I cleared the section, improved it, and built a one-roomed cottage on it. I value the section at £25, and the improvements at £25. Rent was paid to the Ist July, 1874. [Case closed.] Sections 158, 160.—A. JOSEPHSON, Claimant. Mr. J. B. Fisher appeared to support the claim, and stated that Josephson was absent at Charleston. B. Oxnee, sworn: I act as agent for Josephson, who pegged out this section in May, 1872, and took out a business license for it. He built a cottage and paid rent. He wishes to withdraw the claim to section 160, because he got a section in lieu of it. By Mr. Mackay : I understand section 158 is required for railway purposes. Josephson values the section at £25, and the cottage at £75, and I think that is a correct valuation. The cottage was

A.—3

built in 1872. Some of the material was second-hand. lam satisfied to leave the valuation to Mr. Bull. The Commissionees said they would, of course, receive any evidence that was tendered as to value, but they intended themselves to visit all these buildings, and satisfy themselves as to the nature of their construction, and the reasonableness or otherwise of the claims sent in. [Case closed.] Section 162.— R. ROWLANDS, Claimant. Claimant, sworn: I bought this section from Mr. Kiely in October, 1872, for what it cost him— the price of the business license. It is cleared and improved, and is worth £80 to sell, or £5 a year rent. There are a sailmaker's shop and dwelling on the ground, which I value at £300, making £380 altogether. By Mr. Mackay : I could get the same quantity of freehold land on the opposite side of Palmerston Street for £100. [Case closed.] Section 163— H. STANNARD, Claimant. Claimant, sworn: I purchased this section, which is next to Mr. Rowland's, from Mrs. Courtney. I have built an hotel upon it, which I value at £500. I don't know what it cost me : that is what I value it at. I value the section at £100. Business licenses had ceased to be issued just as I bought the section. I have paid one year's rent upon it. By Mr. Mackay : I value the section at £100 because it has cost me that. [Case closed.] Section 113.— J. G. HAY and W. S. MUNDAY, Joint Claimants. J. G. Hay, sworn: I claim 33 feet frontage to Bright Street, by a depth of 49^ feet. I held a business license for this section up to July, 1872, and have paid no rent since. W. S. Munday, sw rom: I claim 33 feet frontage to Wallabi Street by 49J feet in depth. I paid rent to June, 1875, and produce receipt. [Case closed.] Section 178.— C. GRADY, Claimant. Mr. J. B. Fisher appeared to support the claim. Claimant, sworn : I bought this section from James Weston on the 4th October, 1872, for £63, and have paid rent to the 31st December, 1873. There are two small houses on the section. [Case closed.] Section 115.—STITT BROTHERS and N. BLAXALL, Joint Claimants. N. Blaxall, sworn: I claim 33 feet frontage to Wallabi Street by a depth of 66 feet, together with 3 feet running through from Bright Street to Wallabi Street, now used as a right-of-way. I handed in a business license for this section when my claim to another section was heard. Alexandee Stitt, sworn: I claim 30 feet to Bright Street (eastern side of the section), by a depth of 33 feet. I held a business license for it up to 1873. [Case closed.] Section 118—STITT BROTHERS, Claimants. Alexandee Stitt, sworn: I bought this section from J. A. Maguire in May, 1870. The statement in my claim that I bought it from Maguire in 1871 is incorrect, as the receipt produced will show. I gave him £50 for it, and have since built a store upon it of the value of £300. The section is worth £60. AYe are prepared to accept a lease upon the Superintendent's terms, or we will pay a moderate rental under any lease that may be granted to us. By Mr. Mackay : I have paid no rent on the section. [Case closed.] Sections 123, 147.—JOHN MARTIN, Claimant. Mr. J. B. Fisher appeared to support the claim. John Maetin, sworn: I bought section 123, at the corner of Nelson and AVharf Streets, from Mr. Layette in March, 1872. I gave £30 for it. Layette held it under business license, and I also took out business licenses for it, which I produce. I paid rent on both sections up to July, 1874. I have an hotel on section 123, and have otherwise improved the property to a considerable extent; therefore I should like to have a lease of it. Section 147 I took up under business license. I believe it is required by the Government. I cannot say what the value of the section wrould be if I got a lease for it. I can only value it by the improvements I have made upon it. The building cost me £55 about two years and a half ago, and that, together with other improvements, would bring my outlay up to about £80 altogether. In dimensions the house is about 45 feet by 20 feet. It is built of kauri timber, and has an iron roof. It is let for 7s. a week. I make up the claim of £80 in this way: New material used in the erection of the building, and labour, £55; old material, £10; share of cost of making Nelson Street, £5 13s. 6d.; clearing section, about £6 : total, £76 13s. 6d. The remainder is made up of etceteras. I think £80 is a fair price for the Government to pay.

A.—3

By Mr. Mackay : I have no objection to leave the valuation to Mr. Bull. The section would have had no value if we had not made tho street. If it were not detrimental to the interest of my tenant, I would even now prefer to remove the house to another locality, because I don't think the section of much value. I was allotted section 47, on which Mr. Corr's store now stands, in lieu of a freehold on the Maori Reserve. I sold it to Mr. Monaghan, and he sold to Bayfeild. I first held a lease of the section on the Maori Reserve, and afterwards bought the freehold. I believe I was awarded a section for the leasehold as well as the freehold, but I have never seen it. Mr. Mackay : I must object to the Government being called upon to pay compensation for the making of streets. That is a matter which should not be imported into the valuation of the houso. I have every consideration for the hardships Mr. Martin has undergone as the oldest settler here, but I most decidedly object to the Government being asked for compensation upon such a ground. Mr. Maetin : Then 1 most decidedly object to the Government taking advantage of my labour without paying me for it. AValtee Bull, sworn : I have examined Mr. Martin's boat-shed, which is now used as a wheelwright's shop. It is 20 feet by 35 feet; walls, 10 feet high ; platform at the back, 20 feet by 22 feet. To put the place up new would cost £65. Its present value is £45. The roof is of iron, the platform at the back being wood. [Case closed.] Section 171.—BAILLIE and HUMPHREY, Claimants. Mr. J. B. Fisher appeared to support the claim. Thomas Baillie, sworn : Section 171 has a depth of 142 feet, and I claim £50 for the portion which the Government propose to take off the back. AYe took the section up under a business license, and held licenses for it as long as it was under the Gold Fields Act. Since then we have paid one year's rent. Mr. Mackay : The original depth of the section was 66 feet. There is a blank space at the back, but it was never plotted off as part of the sections, and you have no claim to it. Besides, the section is not required for the railway, and therefore no claim for compensation can be made. All the section-holders have used this blank space, but they have no right to it. The sections are shown on the map as having a depth of 66 feet only. [Case closed.] Section 186.—8. OAKES, Claimant. Claimant, sworn: I purchased this section on November 13, 1873, and produce the business license under which it was held before I purchased. I have paid one year's rent on it, and cleared, improved, and partly fenced it. There is a dwelling-house and outhouse upon it, which I value at £20. The section would be worth £60 to me, if I got a lease on the Superintendent's terms. By Mr. Mackay : I only paid £7 for the building and section when I bought it, but it was only a one-roomed house then ; there are two rooms now, and I have also put up the outhouse since. I have no objection to leave the valuation to Mr. Bull. By the Commissioners : I value tho section at £60, because if I got a lease of it I could sell it for that amount; or if I couldn't sell it, I should build a larger house on it. It cost me £8 to clear the ground, and half the cost of fencing, £4 10s. There is nothing else to claim for. I have paid three years' rent up to 1874. Mr. Mackay said the section was required for the railw ay, and that it was one of those in which the claimant had taken in the vacant space at the back. [Case closed.] Sections 175, 176.—REBECCA SMITH, Claimant. Mr. J. B. Fisher appeared to support the claim. Rebecca Smith, sworn : I took up section 175 under a business license in 1870 ; I built an hotel upon it in December, 1872. I took up section 176 in 1867, also under a business license. I built a two-roomed cottage on it, and also another small one. The business licenses produced are, to the best of my belief, those which refer to these sections. I have never paid rent, because I was washed out twice during eight months. I have received £800 from Home, all of which I have sunk in property in Westport. [Case closed.] Section 169.—SMITH and BARKLEY, Claimants. Mr. J. B. Fisher, in absence of Mr. Haselden, appeared to support the claim. Barkley, sworn : AYe purchased this section from Suisted Brothers in 1873, for £100. (Sale note and receipt for rent put in). By Mr. Mackay : Although we paid £100 for the section, I do not think it is worth half that now. If we get a lease for fourteen years, I should consider it worth £ 100, provided we were permitted to remove our buildings at the end of the term. The section is near the Empire Hotel, and is a good stand for business, but I do not think there is much difference between this end and the other as far as the business prospects are concerned. [Case closed.] Sections 164, 165, 166, 167, 168.— J. HUGHES, Claimant. Mr. J. B. Fisher, in absence of Mr. Haselden, appeared to support the claims. John Hughes, sworn: Captain Leech took up sections 164 and 165 under business license, and I purchased them from him under the agreement produced. I did not hold a business license for them

A.—3

after I took them up. Captain Leech paid rent upon them up to January, 1873. (Payment of rent admitted.) I fenced, cleared, and otherwise improved the sections, and built the Empire Hotel upon them. I value the hotel roughly at £2,000. I took up section 166 under a business license in 1872 ; I paid rent upon it afterwards. (Payment of rent in full admitted.) The Masonic Hall stands upon that section. Sections 167 and 168 were taken up under business license ; I gave £200 for them. Immediately after I built upon them, Smith and Barkley bought the adjoining section from Suisted for £100, and Suisted at once bought a freehold section twice the depth on the other side of the road for £200. I built two cottages on the section, one at a cost of £140, and the other at a cost of £160 or £170. Mr. Haselden pays 15s. a week for one as an office ; the Government use the other as a Public AVorks Office, and pay 15s. a week. Rent is paid up to date. The sections were absolutely worth nothing at all, until my expenditure gave them a value; I am therefore willing to lease them. £100 each is their outside value: even if they were freehold, they would not be worth m,ore than that. By Mr. Mackay : In the claim I sent in the sections are stated to have a depth of 99 feet, but I have since heard that they are only 66—that there is a blank space left in the middle of the block which is of no possible use to anybody but the owners of sections around it. It has consequently been used by them for the erection of outhouses, &c. By the Commissioners : You say you took these sections under business license ? —Yes, and 1 considered they would have lasted as long as we like to keep them up. I had not a shadow of doubt but that the Superintendent's promise would be fulfilled. But if your tenure was so good under the business license, why did you go to the Superintendent ? —I did not go to him from choiae. He had given the promise some six months before I built on the sections, and I considered that promise to extend to all sections on the reserve. Then, why did you take it up under business license at all ? —Because it was taken up under business license previously to the Superintendent's promise. And did you keep up the business license after the Superintendent's promise ? —I did. Is that not inconsistent with your previous statement ?—But the business license had run out. This land was withdrawn from the operation of the Gold Fields Act on the 31st December, 1872. AVas your hotel built then ?—No, it was begun in October, 1872, but it was not finished. , AVhat progress had you made ? —Really, I had nothing but the cottages on the section. Then, as a man of business, did you not consider it your duty to secure a tenure before erecting that hotel?—No; the Superintendent possessed the delegated powers, and I looked to him as having authority to make the proposition as to the terms of rental. But the land had been withdrawn from the gold fields ? But no one believed it could be done. But you must have heard the report that it had been done? Yes. Then why did you not consider your position ? —lf I had taken up a freehold section at that time, I should have been altogether away from the business of the town. You were in this position : Before your hotel was erected the land was withdrawn from the gold fields, and therefore, had you taken up a section without authority of some kind, you must have been a trespasser. In reply to that, you say you were compelled to build your hotel somewhere or other ? —lt amounted to this, that if I did not build there I should have had to leave the town. I did not know what to do. I had already been nine months out of business, and was losing money. But was it not rather rash for a man to build upon a section to which he had no title ?—I had to do that or leave Westport. Then when you built the hotel did you expect that you would be able to recoup yourself within fourteen years for the outlay on the building besides making the ordinary profits of a publican ? —Of course I did. So that you erected that building practically for fourteen years and for fourteen years only ?—I cannot say that exactly. I thought that we were ultimately to get a title according to the Superintendent's promise, upou reasonable terms. Then you really built the hotel in the expectation of getting fourteen years' use of it ? —I thought I would get more than that; I expected the lease to be renewed. I looked at it in this way: The ground was of little value at the time, and, after considering the matter well, I thought I could not do better than take my chance of the position. Then at the end of fourteen years you would desire to make fresh terms with the Government ? —Certainly I w rould. Then you accepted the position with all its risks ?—I did. I did not consider there was any great risk in the matter, having seen sections taken up under the Gold Fields Regulations in other places. I thought my position could not be worse than that of other people elsewhere. We all took up the land under business licenses, and never thought the rental would exceed the price of a business license. This land having been withdrawn from the gold fields before you commenced to build your hotel, as a matter of business it would have been as well had you taken the advice of counsel on the subject, but instead of doing so, you seemed to have said, " Being in want of a site, I must have one somewhere at all risks" ?—I weighed the matter for some considerable time, and came to the conclusion that I must have a central position. Freehold sections were not obtainable, and I thought the Superintendent's terms would be given effect to some day, and under these circumstances I took up these sections. [Case closed.] Section 187— Mrs. KEATING, Claimant. Mr. Fisher appeared to support the claim. Elizabeth Keating, sworn : I took up this section under business license in 1873, and paid one year's rent upon it. It has cost me £70 altogether, including fencing and draining and the erection of a tw-o-roomed cottage, and that is what I claim for it. The section is 33 feet by 49 feet 6 inches ; and I produce the transfer from Brewster to myself.

A.-3

By Mr. Mackay : The house cost me £60 ; and the fencing, clearing, &c, £10. lam satisfied to leave the valuation of the house to Mr. Bull. [Case closed.] Sections 181, 182.—JOHN HUGHES, Claimant. Mr. Fisher appeared to support the claims. John Hughes, sworn: I value these sections at from £50 to £60 each. They are invaluable to me in connection with the Empire Hotel. They form the back-yard, garden, and stables. They are, I believe, required for railway purposes, and if they are taken I must be content to accept reasonable compensation. I purchased sections 180 and 181 on the 3rd October, 1873, from Captain Leech, the original holder under business license. Section 182 I bought from Peter Seaton about the end of 1573. Rent has been paid on all these sections. By Mr. Fisher : I gave Seaton £10 cash, and wrote off a debt of £12 4s. 6d. that stood against him on my books, for section 182. It therefore cost me £22 4s. 6d. To that is to be added £30 for clearing, and £10 for fencing and making a garden. It was in a very bad state when I took it up. I had to carry a drain down to the river and make a road to it. It has cost me not less than £15 to improve section 181. Section 180 has cost me rather more than the others, because I had to carry the drain right through it. I am sure £60 a section is an under-valuation. I would rather give the Government £180 for them than lose them. The loss of these sections will depreciate the value of the whole property materially. By the Commissioners : The hotel is 52 feet in depth, so that, if I am confined to the 66 feet, the depth of the front sections, I should really have no accommodation at all. By Mr. Mackat : I use the vacant space between the front aud back sections, and if that space is taken away there is no easement between them. Mr. Mackay : I desire to say that in regard to this land I shall advise that the vacant space which is now unallotted be given to him in lieu of the back sections. The Commissioners : Then, must you treat the other section-holders who are similarly treated in the same way. Mr. Mackay : There are no others in the same position. I distinctly guard myself against any other claim of the sort. Mr. Fishee : What about Baillie and Humphrey ? Mr. Mackay : I shall not make the same proposition to them, inasmuch as they are not in the same category. Mr. Fishee : Of course you can make whatever report you like. Mr. Mackay : I cannot commit the Government in any way, but I will recommend what I have suggested. I should like Mr. Hughes to say whether he is satisfied with the proposal. Mr. Hughes : Yes, lam satisfied. The only difficulty I can see is, that I have improved all the sections, and I think some allowance ought to be made on that account. Mr. Mackay : You have had the use of the vacant space all this time, although you had no title to it. Mr. Hughes : If the Government give me a lease on reasonable terms I shall not object. [Case closed.] Section 174.— J. HUGHES and J. AVARD, Opposing Claimants. Mr. J. B. Fisher appeared for J. Hughes ; Mr. Haselden for AVard. Mr. FisnEE: As this is a somewhat peculiar case, I may explain that the facts are as follow: On the 14th February, 1872, section 174 being then unoccupied, Mr. Hughes took it up under business license. Palmerston Street was not made at that time ; and as it was difficult to improve, the section he obtained protection certificates from time to time in accordance with the provisions of the Gold Fields Act. On the expiration of the last protection certificate ho employed a man to improve the ground and remove a small house to it, in order to comply with the conditions imposed by the Act as to the beneficial occupation of the section by the person claiming to be the occupier. This occupation continued uninterruptedly until October 11th, 1872, at which date he had a large stack of timber on the ground with which he intended to erect premises, and a man named Graham and two others employed by him were on the ground to represent Mr. Hughes. On the date specified, Mr. AVard sent a notice to Mr. Hughes to take the timber off the ground, as he intended to claim the section. Mr. Hughes said the section belonged to him, and any interference with his occupation would be resented. On the 19th October, Mr. Ward again wrote to Mr. Hughes, stating that he should object to Mr. Hughes building on the section until he proved his right to do so before the AVarden ; Mr. Hughes, however, continued in possession, and AVard then served him with a summons. The case came before the Warden's Court on the 29th of October, and Mr. Hughes appeared to defend the action; but Mr. Warden Giles ruled that, as the Colliery Reserve had been withdrawn from the gold fields, by Proclamation in a Gazette dated 17th February, he had no jurisdiction. Mr. Hughes still kept possession of the section, but a day or two afterwards Graham, the man employed by him, was removed by force of arms, axes and hammers being used to eject him. His arm was badly cut, and he met with such rough usage that he would not go back to the section. The upshot of the matter was that Ward had remained in undisputed possession ever since, because Mr. Hughes was not prepared to face opposition of this sort, and there was no tribunal having power to deal with the case. The only remedy Mr. Hughes had was to sue AVard for damage for wrongful ousting, but he did not do so because AVard was a man of no substance. Mr. Hughes, therefore, deemed it prudent to wait until the time should come when disputes of the kind would be settled by this Commission. The claims were now before them, and he would call evidence in support of Mr. Hughes's claim. John Hughes, sworn: In February, 1872, I pegged out section 174, in accordance with the

A.—_.

provisions of the Gold Fields Act. The road was not made at the time, so that I could not go on with my improvements ; but I afterwards, about the month of April, made a contract with.a man named Graham for clearing the section. Air. Haselden : As this is in the nature of a Warden's Court inquiry, I maintain that the business license for the section must be put in. Witness : I had a good many business licenses at the time, and I believe I had one devoted to this particular section. At any rate I had two business licenses by me which I took out at Reefton, and either of them would cover the section, because I had them lying idle at the time. I had employed Graham to clear the section, and put timber upon it, intending to put up a four-roomed cottage. AVhen I was interfered with so much I put a small building on it, in which Graham slept. The first intimation I had of AVard's claim to the section was the receipt of a note from him, whereupon I went and saw him, and asked him what he meant ? I told him he might as well claim a section with a house upon it. Subsequently I received another letter, and then a summons. The case came on, and the AVarden dismissed it on the ground that he had no jurisdiction. After that I saw AVard again, and tried to reason the matter out with him, but as he became very violent I made up my mind to speak to him no more. All my further communications with him were made through Graham ; but one morning Graham came home and informed me that he had been assaulted by Ward with a hammer, and that he would not go back to the section again. He said he did not mind facing a man with his fists, but he did not care about being struck on the head with a hammer. His arm was bleeding all the way down at the time. Since then Ward has remained in possession. I cannot produce Graham, as he is either in Queensland or New South Wales. I have never abandoned the section, but have taken all precautions to assert my claim to it when the proper time came. The protection orders were posted up on the ground, and of course were destroyed, but copies of them still remain in the AVarden's office. I have not paid any rent on the section. I went to the AVarden's office to pay, but I found that Ward had been before me, and I considered that it would be needless complication to make a second payment. I advertised in the paper that if anybody purchased the section from Ward they would do so subject to my rights being asserted against him. By Air. Haselden: I took up the section about the 14th February, 1872. I then held five sections in the Colliery Reserve —three sections besides where I live at present. I had not purchased the two sections from Captain Leech then. It was not until the 3rd October, 1873, that I purchased the sections from Captain Leech. I held five sections in that month, but I cannot say how many business licenses I held. I will not swear that the business licenses which I took out in Reefton had not expired on the llth October, but to the best of my knowledge they had not; I think they had six or seven weeks to run at least. When I pegged out the section, on the 14th February, it was not cleared, but the trees were lopped down for firewood, and immediately after I applied for protection and obtained it. I took up the first protection certificate on the 23rd February, but I did not do anything to the section during that month. On the 16th April I again applied for protection. I think I had no other sections protected at this time. I was not in!possession of the sections on which the hotel is erected prior to 1873. On the 17th June I again applied for protection, and during all this time had spent not less than £10 on the section. I make that statement without any doubt. I cannot say whether I again applied for protection in August, nor have I any recollection of making an application for protection on 12th September, or of that application being struck out. A portion of the £10 must have been spent on the section between the Ist August and llth October. No one had lived on it up to that time ; there was no house there, but there were two or three loads of timber. I cannot say exactly when it was put on. Ido not say that I held the section from the 14th February to 23rd October, because of my having spent £10 upon it. I claimed the section because I was using it every day. I was building three or four houses at the time, anil I could not go on with them all at once, so I stacked timber on this section to dry, just as a timber merchant would. I cannot say positively how many business licenses I held then, but I believe I had enough to cover all my sections. On the llth October I got a notice fspm AVard to-remove the timber; and on the 19th October I got another letter. It was after Ward took possession of the section that I put a hut on it for Graham to live in. AVard summoned me to the Warden's Court to prove my right to the section, and I believe Air. Fisher raised the objection that the Warden had no jurisdiction. I threatened to bring an action in the Supreme Court against AVard, but I did not do so, because the section was not worth the cost. Up to the llth October it was not worth a great deal more than it had cost me, but still it was the best of the four sections I had, because it was a corner section. AVard has built a small shop and another house upon it since he has had it; it has increased in value from £10 to £80 or £100. Air. Bowen did not say he would not take the rent from me when I went to pay it. I said it was no use my paying if AVard had paid, but I never relinquished my right to the section, and AVard knew it. No one ever took steps to prosecute AVard for the assault on Graham. AVard started to build immediately after the llth October, and Graham quietly removed his material by my orders. I have never paid any rates on,the section, because the Borough Council has never communicated to me on the subject. I have sent in claims for sixteen sections in the town of AVestport. On the Ist December, 1573, a letter was sent to AVard, on my authority, asking him to deliver up possession of the section. I bought two sections in AVharf Street, from Mr. Savage, prior to the llth October, but I took out no business licenses for the sections, because Air. Savage held licenses for them. I held no other sections in the same way. I had a half-interest in a section in Lyttelton Street, in conjunction with Air. Alunro. I held no business license for that section, but Air. Alunro did. I am not aware that Mr. Lloyd jumped some sections belonging to me. The only sections I was interested in at that time were the three I had previously bought, and two from Airs. Savage—that is, excepting the section now in dispute. The business licenses I took out at Reefton were half-yearly licenses; if there is any doubt as to whether they had expired when AVard took up this section, I can get them down from Reefton in a day or two. By Mr. Fisher: Reefton is included in the Nelson South-West Gold Field, and any licenses taken out there could be used on any other gold field in the province.

A.—3

C. H. W. Bowen, sworn: I produce the register of applications for business sites in the town of Westport. All the protection certificates relating to section 174 were applied for by John Hughes. On the 23rd February, 1872, protection was applied for on section 174, and on the 13th March it was granted for one month. On the 16th April one month's protection for the same section was applied i for, and it was granted on the 29th. On the 17th June another application was made, and that was granted also. Then an application was made on the 12th September, but Mr. Hughes did not appear when it was called on, and it was struck out. The next record shows that John Ward applied for a business license for section 174, at the corner of Palmerston and Henley Streets, which was objected to by Mr. Hughes, and the Warden ruled that, as the section was in dispute, the matter would have to be settled bj r complaint and summons. The summons followed, and then tho Warden refused to hear Mr. AVard's application, on the ground that he had no jurisdiction. By Mr. Haselden : On the 11th October, 1872, Mr. Hughes had only one business license in force, issued out of the Warden's office here. That was a twelve months' license, issued on 23rd February, 1872. He took out four three months' licenses in February, which expired in May. The number of the twelve months' license was 151, but Mr. Hughes never put down number 151 as the business license under which he held section 174. Various other numbers were put down. John AVard, sworn, and examined by Mr. Haselden : I was one of the persons who were washed out of the lower township, and, in consequence, selected a section upon the Colliery Reserve. That section was No. 174, which was vacant at the time. It had not been cleared, and I know that it had been vacant for a long time, because I had been working in the neighbourhood. I therefore determined to peg it out. There was a small quantity of old timber on the section, which had lain there for three months, but I did not know whom it belonged to until I applied for a business license for the section. I then discovered that it belonged to Mr. Hughes, and lat once sent him a notice to remove it. I made inquiry as to the number of licenses Mr. Hughes had in force, and I found that he only had one. I therefore began to put up my house, and that same night it was pulled down :in fact it was pulled down twice. I never assaulted Graham with an axe. He insulted my wife, and that was why I struck him. I received one notice from Mr. Hughes claiming the section, and saw 7 his advertisement in the paper, but I took no notice of them, and have lived on the ground without molestation ever since. I have never held any other section on the Colliery Reserve, and the business license (599) which I now hand in is the license I took out for it. lam a carpenter by trade, and I put up a fourroomed cottage and a fruit shop upon the ground, which are worth about £250. When the land was withdrawn from the gold fields I paid rent on the section, and continued to do so until it was refused. I have also paid rates from the time I took possession of the section. Since the receipt of the letter threatening the action in the Supreme Court, I never had any notice of Hughes's intention to claim the section. By Mr. Fisher : I never had any other license but the one I have just put in. It is a six months' license, and I paid £3 for it. William Friend, sworn: I have lived in Westport since 1872, and know the section upon which AVard lives. I know that section 174 was not cleared in October of that year, nor was anybody in occupation of it. To all appearance it was a vacant and unoccupied section. Sections were of very little value then. By Mr. Fishee : There was no structure of any sort on the section when Ward commenced to build, nor was there any timber on it that did not belong to Ward. Maria Ward, sworn: AVhen we came up to settle on section 174, there was nothing on tlfe section but a few old pieces of timber. AYe have lived on the section ever since, and both worked very hard to make a home. William Lloyd, sworn: I recollect when Mr. Hughes held section 174. When Ward took possession of it, it had been partly cleared. There was building material belonging to Hughes on the ground, but no house, as far as I can recollect. I cannot say that Graham lived on the section, but I i _ow that he was driven off it by AVard. By Mr. Haselden : I cannot say that I have taken up sections belonging to other people. I know that other people have taken up sections belonging to me. Counsel having addressed the Commission upon the legal points of the ease, The claimants were recommended by the Commissioners to effect an amicable arrangement between themselves, as neither party was blameless. Ultimately an agreement was made, by which AVard was to bind himself to pay Hughes the sum of £39 aud retain the section: the lease, if any, to issue upon payment of that sum. The Commission adjourned at 4.30 p.m.

AVednesday, 15th December, 1875. Allotted Section 113.—P. J. BRUEN, Claimant. Mr. Haselden appeared to support the claim. P. J. Bruen, sworn : Section 113 was allotted to me by Commissioners Giles and Dobson, in lieu of section 18, Kennedy Street. It is cleared, but not improved in any other way. I paid £1 to Mr. Bowen as rent upon the section, and received a receipt "on account of whom it might concern." I paid no more after that. I think it was in July, 1873, I paid rent. Mr. Mackay said he would prove no rent had been paid. C. H. AY. Bowen, clerk in the Warden's Court, sworn: There is no entry in my books of rent having been paid by P. J. Bruen upon section 113. Bruen said he would not contradict Mr. Bowen, but he had always been under the impression that he paid rent on the section, though ho had no receipt to produce. He produced four business licenses which he took out for the old section. FCase closed.] 15—A. 3.

A.—3

OLD BUSINESS LICENSE SECTIONS. Sections 47, 150, 155.—REUBEN CARNE, Claimant. Mr. J. B. Fishee appeared to support the claim. Reuben Came, sworn: I bought the section 47 from a man named McGuire, four years ago. He took it up under a business license, and I held licenses for it subsequently, and also paid rent. There was a carpenter's shop on the section, which is now used as a private residence; and there is now another small house on it; one is let for 4s. a week, and the other for ss. I took up sections 150 and 155, under business license, in 1872. I cannot produce the licenses, but I can get a certificate from Mr. Bowen to prove that I took them out. My workshop and premises are on these sections. I have paid no rent for them, but I have spent a good deal in making the street, as well as in improving the sections. lam willing to take a lease of them together, because the Pakington Street section gives me an outlet at the back. [Case closed.] Section 99.—HOOPER and DODSON, Claimants. Mr. Haselden appeared to support the claim. Robert Rowlands, sworn: I am agent for Hooper and Dodson, the owners of the section, and produce a certificate obtained from Mr. Bowen as to the number of; business licenses taken out on account of this sectiou. There is a five-roomed cottage and lean-to on it, worth about £150. No rent has been paid. [Case closed.] Section 121.— J. B. McCONNELL, Claimant. Mr. J. B. Fisher appeared to support the claim. J. B. McConnell, sworn: I bought this section from a man named Burgett, on the 30th of May, 1868, and held a business license for it up to May, 1872, which I now produce. By Mr. Mackay : I got section 122, Fonblanque Street, in lieu of this section, but it is unapproachable. There is a residence on it, but we have to get at it through the bush. I claim that and section 121, Wharf Street, as well, but Ido not want section 121. I only claim what is on it. I will give up the section, if the Government will make a road to the section in Fonblanque Street. I have paid rent on section 122 up to the 30th June, 1874, but I have not paid rent on the other section, because it is nearly washed away. [Case closed.] Sections 172, 188.—M. ORGAN, Claimant. Mr. Haselden appeared to support the claim. M. Oegan, sworn: I took these sections up under business license about April, 1872, and erected premises on them in July or August of the same year. I produce list, prepared by Mr. Bowen, of business licenses taken out by me in 1872. I paid rent on section 172 up to July, 1874. Section 188 is required for railway purposes. By the Commissionees : I have put in a claim for £60 for buildings and improvements on section 188, and I also claim £90 for loss of the section. I made the claim on the ground that I was entitled to a fourteen years' lease, aud that the river-bank would be protected. If the river-bank is not protected, the section will be washed away. Under those conditions I should not attach much value to it, but I would risk £20 for it, as I own the front section. I took up the vacant space between the sections because I thought my business license entitled me to do so. If the vacant space is taken from me, it will of course reduce the value of the sections. AVithout the vacant space £5 a year would be a fair rent. If the river-bank is not protected I should say the section would wash away in three years. £15, three years' rent, would therefore be the value of the section. Why, then, did you claim £90 for it ?—Because I thought the river-bank would be protected. But suppose it is not protected ?—Then I am prepared to say that the £90 is wrong and the £15 right. I claim £60 as compensation for improvements. There is a three-roomed cottage on the ground, the whole of which is fenced with post-and-rail fence, and under cultivation. The cottage is let for 7s. 6d. a week. It is 20 feet by 10 feet, aud has a lean-to. It was built of good material, and is in good repair. The present value of the house is* not more than half the sum I have put down. It is worth about £35, but it could not be replaced for £70, neither could it be removed. By Mr. Mackay: I never held a business license for section 188, but the man I purchased from held one, and I produce it. It was taken out in the name of Marianne Hales, and extended to the 9th April, 1873. On the 3rd September I bought the place out for £40. I have not pa-id any rent upon the section myself. There is a lapse of close on eighteen months without any rent being paid on the section. The house has been papered and otherwise repaired since I bought it from Hales. There is a dividing fence between me and Mr. O'Conor: it is worth about 30s. a chain. My half would cost about 155., but that is not worth making a claim for; I only claim the £60 for the building, and I am willing to have it valued by Mr. Bull. [Case closed.] Section 148.—JOHN DERUNGS, Claimant. Mr. J. B. Fisher appeared to support the claim. ' Mr. Mackay stated that the section was required for railway purposes. John Deeungs, sworn: I bought this section from Andrew Josephson on 7th November, 1872, for £35, and paid rent on it until it was refused. Josephson held the section under business license,

A,—3

and after I bought it it cost me £6 or £7 to clear it and make approaches to it. Three years ago it was a swamp. The building was removed from Kennedy Street, but I cannot say what it cost to remove it, as I lost all my bills and business licenses. I value the house at £500, and the section at £40. There were eight or nine rooms in the building in Kennedy Street, but the present building contains about fifteen rooms. It has 33 feet frontage to Nelson Street, and one part runs back 51 feet 6 inches, and the other 20 feet, but then there is a kitchen and store-room at the rear of this portion. By Mr. Mackay : Josephson and Oxner were partners, and that is why I mentioned Oxner's name in the statement I sent in to you. I took out a business license for the section in 1872, but after that I forgot to take out a license. The fact is, Mr. Kiely used to come round to see that we had licenses, and when he ceased to come rouud I ceased to take out a license. I cannot prove that I took out any license for this particular section, or that I paid rent on it; but I have put in Josephson's license, which had force till December, 1872. The Commissionees : Are you making money ? —No, I cannot say that I am. You are not making £750 a year clear ?—No; I am out of the road, and cannot expect to do a large trade. By Mr. Mackay : I got a section in Palmerston Street for the section I was washed out of in Kennedy Street, and I hold possession of that section now. Waltee Bull, sworn: I have made an examination of Derungs's Hotel, and produce a rough sketch of the house, together with an estimate of the cost of a new building of similar dimensions. The estimate also shows the value of the structure as it stands at present. A new building would cost £503 ss. ; and allowing 30 per cent, for depreciation, the value of the present building would be £352 7s. By the Commissionees : The bedrooms are all papered, but they are only rough-lined breasthigh. The parlour is dadoed and papered, but above the dado there is nothing but scrim and paper. There is no lining to the ceiling ; the doors are lodged and panelled with mouldings; the floor is very good ; the boards are tongued and well matched; the ground floor is in a very good state of preservation, Some of the rooms have been papered recently, but they are only lined breast-high, with the exception of the dining-room, parlour, and bar, which are dadoed. The house is weather-boarded and painted outside, the roof being iron. The building will require to be repaired, more or less, every year: it may not require very great repairs for the next two or three years, but then it will require very considerable repairs. The house will last seven or eight years, ten at the outside. I value it as being worth £352 75., because I think it is worth that to the proprietor if it were allowed to remain where it is. If he were compelled to shift, it would be worth half that amount. I would pronounce the building to be a very indifferent one. It was painted twice before it was shifted from the beach, but it looks very seedy now, and it will go downhill rapidly, much faster than it has done. I would not give £350 for the building as a speculation. It is only of that value to a publican, and provided it were allowed to remain where it now stands. Did you value Roche's house upon the same principle ? —No. When I valued Roche's house I valued the structure pure and simple, but the estimate of Derungs's house is the value of it so long as he can get a license and remain there ; not if he has to move. Then what would be the value of the building if the Magistrates withdrew the license from the house ? —Half my estimate would be its full value. How long do you think iron buildings will last ? Has not iron a tendency to buckle up and deteriorate in value ? —Not if it is good iron. There are several iron buildings in the town which look rather dilapidated, but that is accounted for by the fact that much of the iron has been taken out of old buildings, and again a good deal of it passed through the fire that took place in the town. Good sound iron will not buckle up. I have known iron that has been fifteen years in use to be put on again and still remain good. Rain affects it more or less, but it won't affect it much if it is in thoroughly good condition when it is put on. [Case closed.] Section 56.—DONALD CAMPBELL, Claimant. Claimant, sworn : I purchased this section from Mr. Munro in February, 1874, for £26 10s. I never held a business license for the section. By Mr. Mackay : I bought the section from Mr. Munro, but it was afterwards sold to Mr. Pain because I had not sufficient money to pay for it; but I afterwards re-purchased it from Mr. Pain for £30. I valued the buildings and section at the amount which I sent in by claim to you, but I cannot say what they are worth now 7; they are of course a good deal the worse for wear since I bought them. I have paid no rent upon the section because I did not think it necessary I should do so. [Case closed.] Section 151.— J. MAUNSELL, Claimant. Claimant, sworn: I took up this section under business license in 1873 ; there is a two-roomed cottage and stable upon it which I value at £240. I claim £180 for the whole lot. By Mr. Mackay : I have paid no rent on the section because I was never asked for it. [Case closed.] Section 183.—5. RILEY, Claimant. Mr. J. B. Fisher appeared to support the claim. Mr. Mackay intimated that the section was required for railway purposes. S. Riley, sworn : I took up this section under business license about the end of 1871, and I have held it under business license until April, 1873. By mistake I paid rent on section 182 for four years ; it should have been paid on section 183. I claim £110 for the whole lot. The value of the section is

A.—3

£60. The only way I can get at the valuation is to estimate the value of the cottage, and the probable rental I wouldreceive for it. It used to let for 7s. a week; it is now let for ss. I consider the section valuable because it fronts the deep water, and is in a position which has always been regarded as the best for business purposes ; I took it up with that object. I and my late partner built a wharf iv front of this section on the faith of a promise made by the Government that they would put in three groins. They did not do so, however, and the wharf was swept out to sea, Originally the wharf cost £200, but it cost a good deal more afterwards trying to keep it together while the river was washing it away. I don't think the ground is likely to be washed away as long as the bar remains in its present condition. The building on the section would cost about £27. It was put up in June, 1873, and of course has depreciated to some extent, as evidenced by the fact that it is now let for ss. a week, 4 whereas formerly it was let for 7s. By Mr. Mackay : The section cost a good deal to clear it. Of course I estimate its value roughly. I and my late partner took up two sections upon which to place a coal depot; but, as I have already said, in consequence of the Government not making the groins, the wharf was swept away. lam positive the Government made a promise to make the groins. I should not have been foolish enough to build a wharf there, but for that promise. I consider the reduction in the rent of the house a fair criterion by which to gauge the relative depreciation in the value of the property as a whole —the house was built of old material. Mr. Mackay : You are owner of the steamer " Result," and have some experience of tho bar hero ; what do you think of it compared with the other bars?' —I think this is the best port on the West Coast. AVhat is the average depth of water on the bar? —I should never place it at over 16 feet. The depth at low water spring tides is about 5 feet 6 inches ;at high water neap tides, 10 to 12 feet; and at low water neap tides, 5 to 7 feet. Do you think the bar is likely to shift? —It will always shift a little, but it will never take a twist like the Greymouth and Hokitika bars. What do you think will be the effect of the protective works ?—As proposed to be carried out, I think the protective works are more likely to give it a twist, because, when the bank is protected on this side, it is likely to wash away on the other side, on the principle that when a current strikes one side it always takes a set-off to the other. The Commissioners : Do you think the channel will become, narrowed when the protective works are carried out ?—I don't think it will; but if it did, the channel would become deeper, so that that would be rather an advantage. If the protective works were carried out, do you think the sand would silt up ? —'No, I think not. It would more likely be washed aw 7ay ;I am speaking, of course, of the protective works being confined to the river, and not carried seaward. Then what would be the effect of the protective works upon the direction of the channel ?—I believe it would change the direction of the channel to what it was in 1872. The condition of the bar will be much improved; and if the protective works were carried out on both sides of the river, we should always have a good channel, because there is water enough to give sufficient scour to keep the bar clear at all times. It would give an average depth of 20 feet. What sized vessels would that admit ? —lt would admit ordinary sailing vessels of 600 tons. Not larger; would it not admit vessels that trade to India and China ? —I think not; vessels that trade to India and China are generally vessels of heavy draught, on account of their being built for fast sailing. Do you think vessels of 1,000 tons could come in here, if specially constructed for working bar harbours ?—Yes, steam colliers or other vessels of 1,000 to 1,500 tons, if specially constructed for the trade, could come in on a draught of 17 feet. What would be the largest vessel of ordinary draught, that would be able to cross the bar, load up, and go out again, if the river were protected ou both sides ? —I don't think owners of vessels drawing more than 14 feet would care to allow them to come here. Would it be necessary to employ steam tugs ?—Yes, tugs of the same capacity as those employed at Hokitika or Greymouth would serve the purpose. Mr. Mackay : Are you aware that the steamer " Easby " when loaded with 1,300 tons of coal and 400 tons of general cargo, draws only 18 or 19 feet of water ? —No, I was not aware of that; I never saw the vessel, and can form no idea of her capacity. Well, that is the cargo she carries on the draught stated.—l do not doubt it, probably she is specially constructed to carry a heavy cargo upon a light draught. [Case closed.] Section 134.— J. SHELLEY, Claimant. Mr. J. B. Fisher appeared to support the claim. Claimant, sworn : This section was bought by my wife from Messrs. Graves and Fleming, before our marriage. There is an hotel upon the section, which I value at £400. I produce certificate of transfer from Graves and Fleming to Charlotte Cook, my wife. I am willing to accept a lease of the section on the Superintendent's terms. [Case closed.] Section 101.—JULES KELPE, Claimant. Claimant, sworn : I own half of this section (16 ft. 6 in. by 66 ft.), on the south side next to the river. I held a business license for the section up to 1874, but I cannot produce any license now, as I have none with me. I have paid no rent on the section. There is a lease upon it which I value at £40 and the section £10, making a total claim of £50.

A.—3

By Mr. Mackay : A portion of section 137, Adderley Street, was allotted to me by the Borough Council iv lieu of part of section 101. [Case closed.] Sections 173, 192.— J. WESTON, Claimant. Claimant, sworn: I produce certificates of right to occupy these sections by purchase. I have built upon them and improved them to the extent of £200, and held business licenses for them until they were withdrawn from the gold fields. I paid rent to Ist July, 1874. [Case closed.] Sections 177, 178, 179.—D. McLEOD. Mr. J. B. Fisher appointed to support the claim. Mr. Mackay stated that these sections were required for railway purposes. W. McLeod, sworn, and examined by Mr. Fisher : I took up these sections under business license. I took up sections 177 and 178 about 1566, and 179 in 1872. I produce business licenses. I lost a lot at the time the Pakington Street Wharf was washed away. I have fenced the sections, and made a garden, and planted fruit trees. I have been improving the place since 1869 until the present time. There is a house with four rooms and outhouses on the property. Ido not know exactly what tho building cost me, but I value it at £300. The sections are all enclosed in one fence. I claim £100 for the corner section (177). I value the whole block at £560, buildings included. The sections are well adapted for business sites, provided the protective works are carried out, and I have no doubt these works will be carried out some time or other. I have never received any offers to purchase the sections. I aiways kept them for my garden and residence. The house cost me £200. Perhaps it cost between £200 and £300. I suppose £60 w7ould be a fair allowance for wear and tear. By Mr. Mackay : I took up sections 177 and 178 about 1866, and 179 in 1872. 179 was in my possession in 1866, but I did not fence it in until 1872. I cut timber off it, but I cannot say whether I had a business license for it at the time or not. I had one business license in 1867. I first took out a license for the corner section (177) in 1566 or 1867. I also held a business license for the adjoining section. I had no business license for section 179 until 1872. I had never more than one, although I occupied three sections. If any one had taken possession of it before 1872 I should not have put them off it; in fact, I asked a person to take it up. My house stands on 178. That is the only building on the sections. There is a small tool shop on part of section 179, which was erected about five years ago. I did not erect that to enable me to keep possession of the section. I value 177 at £200 —that is, with improvements. Without improvements I should value it at £100. I did not keep any account of what the improvements cost me. If I got a lease according to the Superintendent's promise I should value the ground at 10s. a foot per annum for the corner section. The lease would be worth £100 to auy man who wanted the ground for a business site. The protective works will enhance the value of the three sections, but it will not be a very good business site if the protective works are not carried out. By the Commissioners : I attach a value of £100 to the section, because I consider an ordinary site is worth that. I would give £100 for any corner site on the Colliery Reserve. I value section 179 at £60. There is no building on it. That sum represents the improvements. I drained it, cleared it, and fenced it. I know that if I had to do it now, it would cost more than that to clear it. I have occupied it since 1869 —that is, six years. I cannot say how many business licenses I took out for it. Ido not think I had more than one. It did not extend over a year. I have paid no rent. My valuation of £60 is contingent upon the protective works being carried out. I have cleared section 177, fenced it, and laid it out as a garden. I cannot say exactly what the clearing cost me, but it must have been upwards of £100. That lam prepared to swear to. The ground is 33 feet by 66 feet. That is the sixteenth of an acre, and of course the relative sum for clearing an acre at that rate would be £1,600. That may appear to be a big figure, but there is land about here that would cost £1,600 an acre to clear. It would cost £1,600 to put it in the same condition as this. I had to clear the land, and also to make a road. The draining cost £8, and then there was the clearing, cutting down trees, and making the road. I cannot say how much. The Commissionees : £1,600 an acre! It is marvellous. We had better give you half an hour to reflect. If you give me half an hour to reflect upon the matter, Ido not know that I shall be in,a better position to give the information as to how the £100 is made up than I am now. The case was ordered to stand over, in order to enable the witness to reflect upon his evidence, and furnish accurate details as to valuation. Upon the case being resumed, D. McLeod, examined by Mr. Fishee : I value the sections at the rate I have named, because they are planted with fruit trees, and considerably improved. lam willing to leave the matter to valuators, and abide by their decision. The CoMMissroNEES : We are the valuators. —Then I am content to accept your valuation. You say that there are fruit trees on the three sections ? —Yes, most of them on the corner section. You value section 169 at £60. What does that represent ?—lmprovements, draining, and fencing. Then the £60 is the value of the improvements. There is no misunderstanding about that ? —Yes, I will take £60 for the improvements and the section as it stands. AVhat have you done to the section? —It is fenced all round. You told us before the adjournment that the sections were all enclosed in one fence ?—There is a fence of palings aud boards all round this particular section. How many chains are there ?—A chain and a half, which I value at £5 a chain.

A.—3

100

That makes £15 ? —Then there is the clearing, cutting down trees, and stumping the section; but I cannot give details of the cost of this. If the Commissioners value it themselves, lam satisfied. How are we to value it except on the evidence before us ? We are not bushmen. You have claimed compensation, and you must give details of your expenditure. This is the sixteenth of an acre, remember ? —I am willing to let Mr. Bull value it. Mr. Bull is a carpenter. AYe want you to tell us what it cost you to clear it? —AVell I paid in cash, and it is not often I take a receipt. Well, you can give us an idea of the cost. You are a man of experience, and should know ? —The ouly experience I have is, that it would cost over £50. I judge of that because lam clearing a section in Palmerston Street now which will cost that sum. I cannot tell what it cost to clear section 179. When did you take up the section ?—ln 1873 or 1874. Did you do anything to it before that ?—I had not fenced it. Did you do anything to it before 1873 ?—I cut timber off it for firewood. Then would you not put the value of the wood against the cost of clearing it?— No. AVhat have you done to the section besides? —I have drained it, and made a garden of it. Now come to section 177. You told us you cleared that section; when did you do so?— Either in 1866 or 1867. lam not sure, because I lost the business license when the wharf was washed away. Have you had possession of it ever since ? —Certainly. AVhat did you pay for it? —I cannot say now. I paid for it in business licenses. I paid business licenses and borough rates. For how many years ? —About eight or nine years, off and on. How much have you paid for business licenses on account of this section ? —I don't know. Have you paid one year ?—Yes, more. I have put all my business licenses before the Commission. I don't think any having reference to this particular section are amongst them, because I lost them. The only way I could find out would be to look at the block of the book. AVell, what have you done to this section ? —I built a house upon it, cleared it, and grew cabbages upon it. These you have eaten. What did the clearing cost ?—I don't know. AVhat else have you done to it ?—I have fenced it in. Is there a special fence round this particular section also ?—No, there are two sections fenced together. Then what did that cost?—l don't know. Then if you have not taken account of what the clearing cost you, how can you tell us on your oath that the section cost you £60 for improvements ? —I said the corner section cost that. AYe have formed a very strong opinion in regard to your answers, and therefore we will ask you no more questions. Mr. Mackay : Did you pay the cost of fencing section 179 yourself ? Did not Mr. Hughes share it with you? —He did not. I put up the fence for my own convenience, and never asked him to share the cost. At what do you value the buildings on the section? —£200. Was the material used in the erection all new 7 ? —Yes. Is that all it cost you for the buildings on the three sections ?—I value section 178 at £300, with the buildings on it. I am dealing with the buildings ?—They cost £200. What is the size of the house ?—26 feet by 26 feet. There are two buildings, in fact; but that covers the whole lot. Explain how the £200 is made up ?—Men's wages were 20s. a day then, and timber, doors, and sashes were high in price. Then the houses were built in 1866 or 1867 ? —Yes ; eight or nine years ago. Then what do you value the house at now ?—I have given my valuation: £200. Do you make no allowance for wear and tear during eight or nine years' use of the house? Yes, there has been wear and tear, but the house is as good now as it was then. Upon your oath, is the house worth £100 to any man ?—Yes ; I could not put it up for that sum. I consider it worth £100, and more. The Commissioners : Then why did you put down £200 in your claim? —Because I considered it worth £200 at the time. Do you think it is honest to send in a claim to the Government for a larger sum than tho buildings are worth ? —• AVitness :Do you think it is honest to swindle the Government ? The word " swindle" was not used. You were ask whether it was honest to claim a sum much in excess of the value of the buildings ? —I consider I have put clown the value of the building. There is very little reliance to be placed on the word of a man who would act in this way ; and when we come to assess the value of the property, your remark will not be forgotten. Mr. J. B. Fisher : It is possible that Mr. McLeod may have in view the fact that the Government have made use of his wharf to land 2,000 tons of railway material, and have never given him sixpence or it. The Commissioners i We have nothing to do with that. He says it has cost him £1,000 an acre to clear this section, and he can give us no explanation whatever as to the items which make up that sum. The man's whole demeanour would lead one to suppose that the evidence is not reliable. Mr. Fisher : May I ask whether the Government, in taking rent from us at the rate of £5 a section, each section being one-sixteenth of an acre, are not valuing the land at £1,000 themselves ? The Commissioners : That is a different thing altogether. Mr. McLeod was asked to give us the details of his valuation. He said he valued one section at £100 and the other at £60, because he had spent those sums upon them, but he can give no explanation of the way in which the money has been expended,

101

A.—3

Mr. Fishee : But he has lived on the sections since 1866 or 1867, aud has been improving them during all that time. The Commissioners i He has had the ground during all these years almost rent free. Mr. Fishee : I cannot see howthat can be, when he has paid the Government £35 for business licenses. The Commissioners : There are a great many people here who say they have paid the Government a great deal for business licenses. It is impossible to believe half the man has told us. Mr. Fishee : I am sorry to hear the Commission say so; because I know Mr. McLeod to be a thoroughly trustworthy man. [Case closed.] Section 140.— J. H. DICKENSON, Claimant. Mr. Haselden appeared to support the claim. Mr. Mackay intimated that the section was required for railway purposes. J. 11. Dickenson, sworn: I bought this section at auction for £115. The sale note or transfer was originally made out for section 141, and I sent in my claim for section 141, Nelson Street, but that was a mistake. The cost of clearing the section and making approaches to it was £16. I not only had to lay fascines on the road but on the section itself, and I made additions to the cottage that was on it, and fenced the section with an iron fence; altogether it cost me about £75. That makes a total of £206. Then I received £41 10s. from the sale of the cottage, so that the section has actually cost me £164 10s. up to the present time. I do not include in that what I have paid for business licenses or rent. When I took out the business license, I asked Mr. Revell to mark it as being applicable to this particular section. At my request he put on the number 141, but I was at that time under a misapprehension as to the correct number of the section; I had no other section at the time for which I required a business license. Section 146, Palmerston Street, was allotted to me in lieu of section 140, but I was never told that I should have to give up the section in Nelson Street. I should not have done so had I. been informed, because the section in Nelson Street Was valuable, and the other was not. I was not in Westport when section 146 was allotted to me; but finding on my return that it had been allotted to me, I took possession of it. By Mr. Mackay: I bought section 140 at auction on the 29th June, 1872. I took out a business license for it immediately, which remained in force until the 30th June, 1873, when section 146 was allotted to me. I sold it to Mr. AVright for £20. I retained possession of section 140, because I sold the cottage on section 140 and section 146 together. The Government have suffered no loss, because they have already got a tenant for section 146 if they want to lease it. I have no premises on section 140, nor did I ever have any premises on section 141. The Commissioners : Having received this section in lieu of section 140, and having sold it, why do you still claim section 140 ?—lt does not stand to reason that I should give up a valuable section for one that had no value. What loss has the Government put you to ?—I consider that, if they take section 140, they would put me to a loss of £100 10s. If that property were yours to-morrow, what would you get for it? —I cannot say, but I would give them that sum as a bonus for a lease of twenty-one years on the Superintendent's terms. You say there is a cottage on the section? —There is nothing on the section now; there was a large cottage on it, but I sold that to Mr. AVright. This is one of the coolest transactions that has come under our notice. If you did not intend to take up the Palmerston Street section, why did you sell it ? You got the section for nothing. You say you did not care about it, yet you turned it to profitable account? —I do not consider it getting the section for nothing if the Government are paid rent for it. Mr. Haselden : That is what the Government do in other places. They give the sections for nothing, and they charge rent upon them. The Commissioners ; The Government gave sections to people who were in danger of being washed out. Mr. Dickenson accepted a section and sold it; and, because the Government want the section for which they have already compensated him, he deducts the money he has received for the other section from a value he chooses to place upon this, and claims the remainder from the Government. Witness : It is scarcely feasible that I should receive a section that is not worth £40, and not be allowed to charge the balance of the value of my own section. The Commissioners : But you kept the section although you had been awarded another, and now you charge a good round sum for it. Mr. Haselden: I hope the Commissioners will remember the words of the resolution of the Provincial Council, that the compensation sections were to be given in consideration of the danger, and not simply and solely for total loss. (Case closed.) Section 141—AVALTON PELL, Claimant. Parker, sworn: I am in partnership with Mr. Pell, who is at present in the North Island. I have a verbal authority from him to appear on his behalf. Pell paid £15 for the section, and £5 for clearing it. I value it now at £25 ; and the lease, if granted, is to be made out in Pell's name. By Mr. Mackay : Section 141 was originally allotted to Edwin Yardley, who sold it to a person who w ras making Palmerston Street, aud who used it for a gravel pit. Pell bought the section from that party, but I have no papers to prove his title. Mr. Mackay : This section was allotted to Yardley in lieu of section 120, Wharf Street; he sold to Tyrell; Tyrell sold to Ambrose ; and Ambrose sold to Pell. Vardley still claims the section in lieu of which section 141 was allotted; and as Mr. Parker seems to have no partnership in this trans-

A.—3

102

action, and as they have not lodged any title, I object to the evidence given as proving any valid claim to the section. Witness : Pell has paid taxes on this section, but I cannot say whether he has paid any rent. I intended to communicate with Pell about the matter, but could not do so on account of telegraphic communication being interrupted. . A document, tracing the conveyance to Pell, was subsequently handed in by Mr. Parker.

CLAIMS TO UNALLOTTED SECTIONS. Jane Cochrane, sworn: I claim section at the corner of Palmerston and Henley Streets, which I bought from James Olive for £17 10s. He owed me that amount of money, and I discharged the debt by taking the section. I can neither produce any transfer from Olive, nor business license for the section, but I twice got protection for it from Dr. Giles. I cleared it and built a cottage on it at a cost of £70 altogether. The cottage is let for 7s. a week. By Mr. Mackay : I got no title from Olive, and I am aware that the section was never allotted to him. He took it up before the street was made. Mr. Mackay : I desire to inform the Commission that this block of land lying between section 100 and Henley Street was taken up by squatters who had no right whatever to occupy it. It was set apart at tho time of Mr. Sharp's allotment as a site for bonded warehouses. The Commissioners : Will not these people stand in the same position as others who held business license sections ? Mr. Mackay : No. The Commissioners : AVill the numbering of the sections make any difference? Mr. Mackay : The business portion of the town did not extend beyond Henley Street. The Commissioners: AVas there a line drawn? Mr. Fishee : No. The only advautage was that by going above Henley Street tho people could get 99 feet instead of 66. Mr. Mackay : It has been sworn to that the business license sections did not extend beyond Henley Street. Mr. Fishee : I maintain that the people could go anywhere. The statement that there was no settlement beyond Henley Street is incorrect, because people were settled there, and had gardens and houses, before Mr. Commissioner Sharp came down. Mr. Sharp simply respected their position, by refusing to allot sections so soon as he began to encroach upon these people. Mr. Mackay : Did Mr. Sharp make any special reservation with regard to them ? Mr. FisnEE: No ; he simply found them there, and did not interfere with them. The Commissionees : Possibly, that formed part of the gold fields, and should have been included in the Proclamation. Mr. Mackay intimated that he would call evidence to show that the people who settled upon sections between section 100 aud Henley Street were simply squatters. [Case closed.] H. Pain, sworn : I occupy a section 33 feet by 99 feet, at the corner of Henley Street. I value the section at £50, and the house and improvements at £90. I took up the section at the latter end of 1862. I never took out any business license for the section, nor have I paid any rent upon it. By Mr. Mackay : Mr. Sharp's allotment took place in July, 1872, and I squatted ou the section, cleared it, and built a cottage on it. I had no authority whatever from auy AVarden or Commissioner to take up the ground. It was vacant, and I took possession of it. One of my employes is now living iv the house. 1 charge him no rent, but I calculate the cottage as being worth 6s. a week, because I should have to pay that sum for a cottage for my man if I wanted one. [Case closed.] Andreas Petersen, sworn : I occupy a section near the corner of Henley Street, which purports to be section 102. I bought it from Mr. Olive, on the 4th June, 1873. I have paid no rent upon it. I believe Olive tendered rent, but it was not accepted. Mr. Bowen I understand gave no reason for declining to receive it. I cannot tell whether Olive held a business license for that section or not. [Case closed.] WAKEFIELD STREET WHARF. Tho claim of Mr. D. MacLeod, of £1,200 for the Wakefield Street Wharf, was heard. Mr. J. B. Fisher appeared to support the claim. Claimant, sworn: 1 value the wharf at £1,200, and produce copy of the protection certificate granted to me for it by the Superintendent. I produce also telegram received from Mr. Greenfield, Provincial Secretary, dated 25th February, 1872, informing me that protection had been granted for the wharf frontage. AVhen I received that telegram I built the lower part of the present wharf; subsequently I built another pier in AVakefield Street, making two wharves ; aud finally 1 joined the two together. Up to within a short time ago that was the only wharf in AVestport, and the whole of the Government material was landed upon it. It is 4 chains long by 40 feet wide, and I think there are about 100 piles in it altogether, though I am not sure of the exact number. Mr. Fishee inquired whether the Government intended to take possession of the wharf. Mr. Mackay : There is no intention on the part of the Government to take it, far as I am awrare. Mr. MacLeod has put in the claim of his own accord : it may therefore go for nothing. If the wharf is required, the mode of assessing damages is very clearly laid down by a notice in the Provincial Government Gazette.

103

A.—3

Mr. Fishee : Then under these circumstances I see no necessity for going on with tho case. The Commissionees : We are prepared to proceed with the claim, if Mr. MacLeod desires to tender evidence. Mr. Fishee : We have no desire to tender evidence. Mr. MacLeod : If the Government want the wharf I am prepared to accept fair valuation for it. [The claim was not further proceeded with.] INSURANCE RATES. J. AY. Humphrey, sworn: I am agent in Westport of the Standard and Imperial Insurance Companies. There is a good deal of insurance business done here, principally relating to places of business along Palmerston Street. Besides the companies for which lam agent, the Victoria, South British, and New Zealand Companies have branches here. The Commissioners : Are the rates here high or low ?—They range from 2J to 6 per cent., according to locality. Six per cent, is a high rate, is it not ?—Yes; 6 per cent, is only charged when the buildings are very close together. Why is that high rate charged ?—On account of the inflammable nature of the buildings. Most of the buildings are of wood, and lined in many instances with paper and canvas only. Do you tell us, as a matter of fact, that nearly all the buildings on the Colliery Reserve are insured ?—No, I cannot say that; about two-thirds of the business places and hotels along Palmerston Street are. Will those risks be improved or deteriorated as time advances? —As the buildings increase, of course the risk will increase. Assuming that in Palmerston Street few if any more buildings arc erected, will those risks deteriorate or improve, regard being had to wear and tear ?—There will be very little difference. Only in amount, we presume ?—lt will be in the amount of the insurance the companies will take on them. And as those buildings age, you will not be disposed to refuse them, or to add to the premium ? —Yes, we will, and also deduct from the value. Are many buildings charged at a high rate ?—No, not to my knowledge; 3^ per cent, is the average. Mr. Lloyd : In the event of the town being closely built upon from Wakefield Street to Cobden Street, would you not feel inclined to charge a higher premium than is charged at present ? —Certainly we would. My object is to show that, as the town is built upon, the rates of insurance will increase, and in that way the sections will become liable to a heavier burden. In reference to the sections you hold in Palmerston Street, Mr. Humphrey, you stated that you had expended £450 in clearing ground and erecting a private house, and that you would be willing to pay £3 10s. a year rent. Did the Commissioners ask you if you would be willing to take a lease for fourteen years ? —Yes. And did you say that you would be willing to leave the buildings on the ground at the end of that time?— Yes, 1 did, and I think I made a mistake on that occasion. I think I was asked what would be a fair rent under a lease for twenty-one years, and I think I answered £3 10s. Then I was asked whether I would be willing to leave the buildings on the ground at the end of the term, and I said Yes, being under the impression that the lease would be renewed, and that in that way the occupier of the ground would be benefited. THE HENLEY STREET SECTIONS, AND FORMATION OF PALMERSTON STREET. Mr. Mackay : I have asked Mr. Dobson to attend to-day to give the Commission some information with regard to the piece of ground lying below section 100 and Henley Street. Mr. Dobson : To the best of my belief, the piece of ground at the corner of Henley Street was not allotted when Mr. Commissioner Sharp had the sections set out. The sections were set out to fill the number of allotments. There were no surveys made beyond section 100, and this piece of land was subsequently taken up by people without any title whatever. Several persons came to me and asked if I had any power to allot it, and I told them I had nothing whatever to do with the matter. A man named Olive built a cottage on one of the sections, and asked me if I was going to turn him off. . I simply told him that I knew nothing about it. I think the piece of land has a chain and a-half frontage, and, being part of the Colliery Reserve, was a portion of the gold fields originally. The Commissionees : Were these blocks cut up into sections before or after this piece of ground was proclaimed as part of the gold fields ? —That portion of the reserve was never cut up into sections until Mr. Sharp's allotment took place. Then it was surveyed into sections. That, of course, was after the land was proclaimed a gold field ?—Long after. There is a piece of ground between Kennedy Street and the sea-line marked on the map ? —I think it is a part of the ground originally held under a business license. Is there any probability of the sea encroaching on Kennedy Street, or any of the other streets ?—The water comes right up to Kennedy Street now ; in fact I think the sea-line is in Kennedy Street. Is it likely that it will encroach further ?—I think it is very probable. Even although the protective works may be started and completed ? —lt would be a good while before the protective works can have effect upon that end of the town: that is, if, as is intended, they are commenced at the upper end. Will the protective works have any effect in keeping back the sea from Kennedy Street? —I think so. 16—A. 3.

A.—3

104

Does the bar extend beyond Kennedy Street?— Yes, it is half a mile beyond, but I think the sand will fill up to it when the protective works are finished. Some one suggested that, if a wall were run out, it would protect Kennedy Street. AVould that be so ? —Yes ; I think the lower end of the bar would be lengthened again. What do you think of the value of the land in that neighbourhood at the present moment?—l think it is worth very little, because it is always in danger of being washed away. If the flood waters got behind the groin at Nelson Street, the ground at the lower end of the town might go at any moment. Mr. Mackay : Are you able to fix the date when Palmerston Street was constructed ? —Yes ; I have examined the books at the Survey Office, and I find that the last payment to the contractor for the work was made in October, 1872, so that the road must then have been completed from Henley Street to Rintoul Street, and ready for people to occupy sections on the Colliery Reserve side. The public buildings were removed in March, 1873. Were there any other streets formed at that time ? —-Rintoul, Wakefield, and Palmerston Streets were formed as they are now. Therefore Mr. Roche could have brought the materials for the erection of his hotel along Palmerston Street instead of taking them up by the river ?—He must have been able to do so in October, 1872, because the work was finished and the contract money paid. I make that statement upon the supposition that the Survey Office books are correct. Ido not think there is any possibility of doubt. Is not this the map that Mr. Trent made for the purpose of Mr. Commissioner Sharp's allotment? (Map handed to witness.) And this contains sections 1-100 between Rintoul and Henley Streets ?—Yes. Therefore the excuse that the streets were not made until six months after Mr. Commissoner Sharp's allotment, cannot hold good P-—No, I don't think it can. Can you tell me when the street was made from Rintoul Street northward ?—I cannot tell without the books. From Rintoul Street northward comprised your own and Dr. Giles's allotment, and also the allotment made on the recommendation of the Borough Council ?—Yes, we made our allotment in August, 1873. Was the road made before or after that ?—I cannot remember, but I think it must have been made after August. AVas it made before the Ist January, 1874 ?—I cannot recollect from memory, but I think it must have been made before January, 1874, because one of the contractors bought section 146 to make a gravel-pit of it. Subject to correction, I should say that it must have been somewhere about the end of 1873. Mr. Fishee : Were the sections above the corner of Rintoul and Palmerston Streets surveyed at the time Mr. Commissioner Sharp's survey was made ?—I don't know. Do you know whether Olive and the others were in occupation previous to Mr. Commissioner Sharp's survey being made ? —No, they were not; lam quite sure of that. Do you recollect that Olive had a tramway running up the road before the contract was let ? —Yes. And do you not recollect that he w7as living at the corner of Henley Street, and was bringing gravel down to the old township P—l do not recollect; I think I may say that he was not. I am under the impression that the ground was quite bare and unoccupied. Would you be surprised to hear that he took up the section in 1872 ? —I should. Is it not within your own knowledge that Mr. Commissioner Sharp respected the rights of those people who occupied sections beyond section 100 ? —No, I am under the impression that the land was quite open at the time the allotment was made. Do you know whether any conditions were made by Mr. Commissioner Sharp at all, at the time of the allotment ? —I do not know what he said to the allottees, but as far as the freeholders were concerned they had to go on their land, because there was a discussion at the AVaste Lands Board as to the form of the bond relating to the return of the ground to the Government. I have no idea what he said to the people, but there was an understanding in the office that they were to build within six months. Mr. Munson : Mr. Mackay will pardon me if I misunderstood him, but I think he stated, when Mr. Roche's claim was before the Commission, that no one else built on the allotted sections for six months except Roche. Mr. Mackay : I could never have made such a statement. Mr. Munson : Then I must have misunderstood you. What I wished to say was, that I cleared section 73, Palmerston Street, and built upon it within four months of the time of allotment. It was actually built upon on the 3rd September. The premises were not very valuable, certainly ; they were worth about ss. a week. But their erection at that time made me aware of the fact that the road was not completed, because I could not get the material along it. Mr. Munro also made a statement to the effect that no one had built on the allotted sections except from sheer necessity —that is, that they were forced to build for their own convenience, but that, unless they were compelled, they would not do so without having first secured a title. Now, I have built upon four different sections for no other purpose than to secure my title. I believed that it was necessary to build to do so. Mr. Mackay : You state that you built within four' months of Mr. Commissioner Sharp's allotment. Was Palmerston Street made then ?—lt was not; the road was partially formed, but it was impossible to get a dray up to the sections at that time. I can give you no idea of the date at which the cross roads were finished. You stated that you took up the sections and built upon them in the belief that it was necessary to do so to secure your title ? —I did. lam not prepared to tell you where I got the information, but I was informed that it was necessary to build on the sections within six months after the road being completed.

105

A.—3

Documents put in. Mr. J. B. Fisher handed to the Commissioners copy of a letter from the Superintendent of Nelson to the Colonial Secretary with reference to the withdrawal of the Colliery Reserve from the operation of the Gold Fields Act. Mr. Fisher also handed in a draft of the Immigration and Public Works Bill, 1875, to prove the correctness of an assertion made by him on a previous occasion, that the Government had endeavoured to pass a clause declaring the AVestport Colliery Reserve to be " free from all encumbrances." (Vide Appendix.) At this stage of the proceedings Messrs. Fisher and Haselden applied to the Commissioners for permission to inspect the report furnished to the Government by Mr. Commissioner Mackay, and received and read by the Commissioners, upon the grounds —" That, it being contrary to principle for Judges to be privately and secretly furnished with evidence in or information relating to a matter sub judice, the report referred to should have been laid before counsel for the claimants, not only for their information and guidance, but with a view to the contradiction of such erroneous statements as might be therein contained." Then ensued a long argument between the learned counsel and the Commissioners upon the points raised, during the progress of which some strictures were made upon the conduct of the Government and Mr. Mackay, and counsel having stated that, as in the absence of the report they could not address the Commissioners at such length as the importance of the case demanded, except at the cost of great labour, which their clients were unwilling to give for tho benefit of those claimants who from certain motives had abstained from employing counsel, they would retire from tho inquiry, feeling satisfied that the claimants would receive at the hands of the Commissioners full and complete justice. The Commissioners adjourned until next morning to enable the counsel to consult their clients. Commission adjourned at 5.30 p.m. Thuesday, 16th Decembee, 1875. Me. Mackay's Repoet. Upon the Commissioners taking their seats, Mr. Mackay proceeded to state: — I have hitherto refrained from taking any part iv the discussions which have arisen with reference to the production of my report to the General Government on the vexed questions now before the Commission, but the time has arrived when I am bound to take up a position regarding the point at issue. For my own part, I strongly object to the inspection of that document by the learned gentlemen who appear here on behalf of certain claimants, and I will give my reasons for so doing. It is a privileged document, which I was called upon to prepare for the Government of this colony. I have before now 7 had to make similar reports for the British Government, and was alw7ays treated with the greatest courtesy while so engaged. Tho practice at home is to uot even lay such reports before Parliament, or allow their perusal by the public, without the consent of the persons who had been employed in their preparation. I feel that I occupy at present an analogous position. I have also been treated with the same consideration by the Colonial Government. My report has been laid before the Government, but not yet before His Excellency the Governor; and until it is so, and His Excellency commands that it shall be presented to the General Assembly, it cannot be made public. I decline, therefore, to allow it to be inspected. It would be initiating an unwise precedent were I to consent to do so. If, however, either of the learned gentlemen choose to come to me as ono gentleman to another, I shall gladly give him ever} 7 information I cau, consistent with my duty to the Crown, concerning the legal and equitable positions of the claimants on the Colliery Reserve. But should they, after what I have just said, still decline to argue the cases of their clients, I cannot help it. I consider it due to the Crown, to this Royal Commission, and to myself, to assume the responsibility of the position I have now announced with regard to this matter. Both of the learned Counsel here rose and disclaimed intentional disrespect to Mr. Mackay. They felt astonishment and yet admiration at the ability displayed by him throughout the inquiry, and they begged to thank him for the courtesy displayed, and the assistance afforded to them. At the same time, they could but deprecate, in no measured terms, tho conduct of the Government in withholding the report, and, in so doing, they agaiu refused to argue the several points reserved during the inquiry. The Commissionees. —-AYe have already refused to lay the document before Counsel. There is nothing whatever in it beyond a narrative of the case, which it was necessary we should peruse in order to proceed with the business before us. We have read the document, and, as we have advised, our minds are not in the least degree prejudiced by it. Justice will be meted out to all parties alike. It is a matter of regret that Counsel should consider it their duty to abstain from arguing the points they themselves raised; but possibly we shall bo able to arrive at a conclusion which will be as satisfactory to all parties as if we had heard them at length. The Commissioners having announced that they would sit formally on Saturday, at 10 o'clock, and the usual compliments having been exchanged between the Bar, the Commissioners, and Mr. Commissioner Mackay, the proceedings were brought to a close.

OLD BUSINESS LICENSE SECTIONS.

Satueday, 18th Decembee, 1875. Sections 67 and 68.—WILLIAM EVANS, Claimant. Me. J. B. Fishee applied for permission to lodge a claim for these sections on behalf of Mr. Evans. He had instructions to lodge the claim some time ago ; but as Mr. Evans resided in Timaru, he (Mr. Fisher) was unable to furnish full particulars in reference to the sections. He would now

106

A.—3

put in a certificate showing the dates upon which Mr. Evans took out business licenses for the sections, and he could state, of his own knowledge, that Mr. Evans, bought the sections from persons who took them up under business license, and that he intended to settle here and build a store upon them. Mr. Mackay said the sections were so nearly washed away that they were not rated by the Borough Council. No rent had been paid on them; they were derelict sections, if he might call them so.

ALLOTTED SECTION. Section 137—JULES KELPE, Claimant. Claimant failed to appear when called upon. Mr. Mackay said that as the claimant did not appear, the claim would be treated as having lapsed. He supposed the section was of no use to Kelpe, and that he had no intention to take it up. The Commissioners asked whether Mr. Mackay had any objection to allow the claimant to make his choice between the original section aud the allotted one; to let him, in fact be the judge as to whether this section was of use or not ? Mr. Mackay said the claimant had already appeared and claimed part of section 101, Wallabi Street, in lieu of which he had been allotted section 137. [Case closed.] UNALLOTTED SECTION NEAR CORNER OF HENLEY STREET. Mr. J. B. Fisher appeared on behalf of John Corr to claim a section near the corner of Henley Street, at present occupied by Charles Crowell. Crowell had increased the difficulty by sending in an application for the section, although he had assigned all his interest in it to Corr. There was, however, no dispute as to the ownership ; and if Crowell did appear, it would only be to withdraw his claim. At present he was at the Lyell, but, although he had been telegraphed to, no answer had been received. The Commissioners informed Mr. Corr and Mr. Fisher, that if any telegram were received from Crowell, they would require to bo advised of its receipt and of the contents. A document signed by Charles Crowell, withdrawing all claim to the section, was put in subsequently. Mr. Mackay said he had no remark to make in reference to the matter. [Case closed.] UNCLAIMED SECTIONS. The following persons, believed to be owners of or interested in the sections undernoted, were called upon, but did not appear: — Old Business License Sections: —Section 100, William Sloan ; section 105, Annie Morris. Allotted Sections: —Section 129, F. Courtney ; section 137, P. F. Smyth; section ,160, Jane Johnston ; section 194, John Clarke. Documents put in. Mr. Mackay said that as all the claims had been disposed of, nothing now remained to be done but to put in the letters referred to by Dr. Giles in his evidence, and a copy of the letter of instructions furnished to Mr. Commissioner Sharp by the Provincial Government of Nelson, which was not to hand at present, but would be put in as soon as it arrived. Fiirther documents and plans in reference to the Buller coal field and harbour would also be put in. (See Appendix.) The Commission was then declared to be finally closed.

A.—3

107

APPENDIX.

CORRESPONDENCE. No. 1. His Honor Oswald Cuetis, Superintendent of Nelson, to John SnAEP, Esq. Siß, — • Superintendent's Office, Nelson, 27th June, 1872. I have the honor to request that you will proceed to Westport by the first steamer for the purpose of carrying into effect certain Resolutions of the Provincial Council, which I forward to you herewith, together with the Report of the Select Committee, upon which those Resolutions were founded. The Provincial Engineer will be instructed to remove the Government buildings now on the Camp Reserve to that portion of the Public Offices Reserve lying between Brougham Street and Wakefield Street. The Provincial Engineer will also be instructed to form Palmerston Street as far as Fonblanque Street, and also Fonblanque Street, from Palmerston Street to the river. You will be good enough to consider yourself authorized to carry out generally the wishes and intentions of the Provincial Council, as expressed in tho Resolution and Report referred to, to the best of your judgment. The settlement of the question is left entirely to your discretion, subject only to the following regulations agreed to by the Executive Council: — That those parts of Colliery Reserve between AVakefield Street and Rintoul Street, between Rintoul Street and Fonblanque Street, and on both sides of Fonblanque Street to the river, be laid off in sections with 33 feet frontage to Palmerston Street and Fonblanque Street respectively, and with a depth of 99 feet. That the persons referred to in the second Resolution of the Council shall be divided into classes, and each class shall separately draw lots as amongst the members of such class, for priority of choice of sites, the order in which each class shall select sites to be determined by the Commissioners ; such sites to be taken in that part of the Colliery Reserve agreed to be surveyed, and to be occupied subject to future arrangements as to lease of freehold, £5 a year to be paid for each site, unless holder takes out business license. The freeholders referred to in the Resolution to be divided into classes in the same way, and to select sites among the unsold sections, paying £1 each for them. The owner of a freehold who has lost or removed, or has to remove buildings, shall be allowed to choose a freehold section for his freehold, and to occupy a site on the Colliery Reserve for [copy defective] by buildings. [Copy defective] freehold has been leased or let for [copy defective] ; the freeholder shall have a freehold section in consideration of that lost or in danger, and the occupier shall be entitled to occupy a site on the Colliery Reserve in consideration of his loss by buildings. 1 have, &c, Oswald Cuetis, John Sharp, Esq., Nelson. Superintendent.

Enclosure in No. 1. Votes and Proceedings of the Nelson Provincial Council, Session XXIL, 1872. Extracts from Report of the Select Committee upon the Present Position and Condition of the Town of Westport. [Brought up June 12, 1872.] Youe Committee feel that, in dealing with the question of alleviating the inconvenience and loss sustained by numerous property-holders in Westport, and of encouraging their continued settlement in the district, they have to deal with a question of considerable delicacy and difficulty. They are however hopeful that, with the approval of the Council, some arrangement may be made by which the interests of the local population and of the Province generally may be promoted without involving any serious individual injustice. Your Committee agree with other Select Committees appointed during previous sessions, that the Council cannot be recommended to recognise on the part of any purchaser or possessor of sections at Westport, any right to compensation for losses incurred through the encroachments of the river or sea; and the Committee do not now deal with the question submitted to them as at all involving the recognition of any such rights. But, in view of all the circumstances, and of the duty and disposition of the Council to promote the settlement of the province generally, your Committee consider that they have good grounds for advising in the present instance considerate treatment of those whose interests, as a community and as individual settlers, have been so detrimentally affected. The circumstances, so far as your Committee need record them, are these: — That great part of that portion of AVestport which is now destroyed was not occupied indiscriminately or by the sole choice of the occupier, as were other town sites on the AVest Coast, but was surveyed and sold as freehold sections ; that, by extraordinary encroachments of the sea, and a simultaneous

A.—3

108

deviation of the river course, many of these sections, with other sites held under business license, have within a short time of their purchase or occupation been washed away or rendered valueless ; that measures have been taken by the Government at great cost to make secure the remnant of the populated part of the towu-site, but without such a result as would warrant their continuance ; and that it is now an urgent necessity, through the continued encroachments and tho inutility of any further expenditure on protective works, to select another portion of the surveyed site of the township, where the public buildings may be placed and new wharves constructed, and where it is therefore desirable that population should bo encouraged to resort. Considering these circumstances, and the strong probability that the ground proposed to be now occupied would not for a long series of years, if ever, acquire the ordinary value of suburban sections, except in consequence of the destruction of the originally occupied site of the town, your Committee feel that any Government would be acting with justice and propriety, when disposing of land which bad thus fortuitously acquired value, by giving a preference to those through whose losses that increase of value had directly arisen. Your Committee regret that, while they were convinced as to the propriety of such a course being taken in this case, there are several obstacles in the way of giving to any such proposal satisfactory practical effect. Your Committee are unable to devise any plan in this direction which shall befouudto be at once consistent with the AVaste Lands Act, equal to the exigency and urgency of the circumstances, and thoroughly fair in its application. But they cannot believe that the matter is one which is altogether incapable of adjustment; and as a possible means of dealing most equitably with those affected by past calamities and proposed changes, your Committee beg to submit, for the favourable consideration of the Couticil and his Honor the Superintendent, the following recommendations:— 1. That the owners of sections or building sites in AVestport which have been washed away, or from which, in consequence of river or sea encroachments, the owners are compelled or desirous to remove, should be conditionally offered sites on the upper part of the Colliery Reserve, where they may be enabled to erect buildings. 2. That the privilege to occupy such portion of the said reserve should be in virtue of the possession of business licenses under the Gold Fields Act, issued under such special regulations as his Honor the Superintendent, as the Governor's delegate, may proclaim. 3. That, prior to the reserve being proclaimed part of the gold fields, and prior to the issue of such business licenses, the sites should be classified into two or more classes according to probable value; that those persons held to be entitled to sites should also be classified according to the estimated value, for business purposes, of sites now held by them; and that the distribution of the sites among those so classified should be by lot. 4. That his Honor the Superintendent be respectfully requested to frame such special regulations under the Gold Fields Act as shall secure such occupants the possession of the land allotted to them, on conditions of their complying with such regulations, aud as shall prevent others from interfering with their right of occupancy. 5. That, in any such regulations, it should bo stipulated that the occupier should, within six months from the time of his entering into possession of the site, erect some substantial building thereon: and, failing that, that the occupation of the land should revert to the Crown. 6. That the owners of freehold sections occupied by substantial buildings when washed away, rendered untenable by encroachments, or materially reduced in value, should have equal privileges in these respects with the present holders of business licenses. 7. That owners of freehold sections which have been unoccupied, or may be estimated as having been of secondary value, but which have been destroyed by the sea, should on the transference of their present Crown grants be entitled to sections in the upper part of the surveyed town, on contributing a portion of the upset price, the Government purchasing them at that price, and pursuing, in respect to classification and allotment, the same course as in the case of business-license holders ; the other freeholders already referred to having alternative choice of receiving a business license or obtaining a freehold on the same terms. 8. That persons who do not at once avail themselves of these offers and conditions should be excluded from any consideration at a future period. 9. That, for the purpose of ascertaining the validity of applications, of classifying claimants and otherwise completing all necessary arrangements, it is desirable that a Commissioner, who should have the assistance of two assessors, should at once be appointed and forthwith proceed with the discharge of his duties. With the view to effect being given to these recommendations as far as they may be found practicable, your Committee submit for adoption by the Council the following Resolutions : — That his Honor the Superintendent be respectfully requested, to include in the items placed on the Appropriation Bill a sum sufficient for the cost of removing the Provincial Government Buildings at Westport to that portion of the public reserve fronting AVakefield Street, of extending the formation of Palmerston Street towards the upper end of the town, and of forming of streets from Palmerston Street to the river frontage. That his Honor the Superintendent be recommended to throw open for occupation under business licenses the landward portion of the reserve known as the Colliery Reserve, and, in the exercise of his powers under the Gold Fields Act, to frame such regulations as may secure preferential and actual occupation by freeholders and business-license holders in Westport who are desirous to remove to that portion of the reserve, and to erect buildings thereon. That a copy of the Report by your Committee be forwarded by tho Speaker to his Honor the Superintendent.

109

A.—3

13th June, 1872. 3. Encroachments of sea and river at Westport. Mr. Reid moved (amended by leave), That his Honor the Superintendent be recommended to throw open for occupation under business licenses the landward portion of the reserve at Westport, known as the Colliery Reserve; and, in the exercise of his power under the Gold Fields Act, to frame such regulations as may secure preferential and actual occupation by freeholders and business licenseholders in Westport, who are, in consequence of the encroachments of the sea or river, desirous to remove to that portion of the reserve, and to erect buildings thereon. Seconded by Mr. F. Kelling. The Provincial Secretary moved, as an amendment, That all the words after the first word " That " be struck out, and the following substituted:—" His Honor the Superintendent be recommended to allow the people of Westport, w7 ho have lost their buildings by the encroachment of the sea and river, as well as those who must from the same cause remove their buildings from the lower portion of the town, to occupy on lease, at a low rental, allotments on the upper portion of the Colliery Reserve ; and that the remainder of the reserve, or such portion of it as the Government may determine, should be declared open for occupation under business licenses as soon as possible after the blocks to be leased have been set apart." Seconded by Mr. Donne. Debate ensued. Provincial Secretary's amendment put and passed. Original motion as amended put and passed.

No. 2. Exteact from the Westport Times, July 2, 1872. Westpoet Land Question. To facilitate the adjustment of claims to be tendered by the inhabitants of Westport willing to avail themselves of the proposals now made by the Provincial Government in the allotment of sites on the new township of AVestport, Mr. Commissioner Sharp convened a meeting at the Court-house last evening, which was numerously attended. We are compelled to condense within the smallest possible space our report of tho proceedings. Mr. Sharp said that he should take upon himself to recommend the formation of Palmerston Street and Rintoul and Fonblanque Streets, instead of only to AVakefield Street, as at present proposed, the wharf to be between the two last-named streets, as affording the better site. He read the resolutions of the Government, as appearing in another column. He explained the object of his coming to Westport was to hear the claims-of all persons interested in the matter, aud suggested that they should come prepared with the necessary evidence to substantiate their claims. In the case of parties unable to prepare the necessary documents he would assist them, and would have documents and plans for reference in doubtful cases. The evidence would be confirmed by the statutory declarations of all applicants. He explained that the mode of distribution would be by lot, the applicants to be divided into classes, who would ballot for choice of allotments. The conditions upon which they would be permitted to hold these sections would be similar to those proposed by Mr. Dobson, referred to in our leading column. In answer to questions put by those present, Mr. Sharp said the size of the sections would be 33 feet by 99 feet, as a rule. Where persons held two or more adjoining sections covered by buildings, they would, at the ballot, be permitted to draw for two sections ; but of course the possibility would be that they might not get two contiguous ones in every case, but the wish of the Government would be to prevent any and every obstacle to the equitable adjustment of claims. Holders of derivative titles under Crown grants originally given to Maoris would be equally entitled to choice by ballot. As regards tho claim of freeholders, he had no power to deal with them, the Government not having yet contemplated any action therein, nor was it his business to suggest any course. The public works, to be commenced in AVestport, were mentioned in the reports of the proceedings in Council which he saw had appeared in the local newspaper. For the information of the meeting he read extracts therefrom. It was not explicitly stated when the work would commence, but the specifications were prepared, and no time would be lost. He would urge upon the Government the necessity of forming all the streets as early as possible. "Forming" he understood to mean, draining at sides, throwing up soil, and at least 14 feet of gravel in the centre. A liberal construction would be placed upon the restriction that building should be commenced within " six months of the time of entering upon occupation of sections." Probably it would reckon from the time approaches were finished to the sites. He would not recommend that people now in occupation of sites' should be permitted to at once occupy corresponding sections on the new township, inasmuch as that would be taking away priority of choice from those most entitled thereto. He had not yet decided as to what date he would go back to in acceptance of claims. In conclusion, he gave his favourable opinion as to the site selected, based on personal inspection, and also knowledge obtained some years ago. He thought the river would require an embankment somewhat similar to that at Greymouth, which, with the belt of timber to be left growing, would form a lasting and effectual barrier against further encroachment.

No. 3. Mr. J. Giles, Warden, to the Provincial Seceetaey. Sic,— Westport, 16th September, 1872. There seems to exist a difference of opinion as to the effect of the Proclamation of the Commissioner of Crown Lands making certain reserves on these gold fields.

A.—3

110

The question is, how far, if at all, this Proclamation withdraws the lands mentioned in it from the operation of the Gold Fields Act, and whether such lands canuot still be occupied under miners' rights and business licenses. The Proclamation purports to be made under section 9 of " The Nelson AVaste Lands Act, 1863 ; " but that section does not appear to give any power to make reserves of lands comprised within an existing gold field, and its provisions must, moreover, be read subject to, and considered as controlled by, the Gold Fields Act of 1866. The 48th section of the latter Act expressly limits the powers of the Board acting under the AVaste Lands Act; and it would appear from that section that it is necessary for the Governor to withdraw the lands before the Waste Lands Board can deal with them under their Act of 1863, as the Commissioner professes to deal with them in the Proclamation of February last. As this question may at any time come before me judicially, I should be glad to know whether the Government have been advised on the subject, and if so, to what purport. As a matter of fact, the ground is held under business license, and protection is frequently asked for and granted for sites. I have, &c, Joseph Giles, The Provincial Secretary, Nelson. Warden.

No. 4. The Crown Lands Commissioner to Warden. Sib, — Crown Lands Office, Nelson, 3rd October, 1872. The question raised in your letter to the Provincial Secretary of the 16th ultimo, as to the Eower of the Waste Lands Board to make reserves of land comprised within an existing gold field aving been referred to the Waste Lands Board, I have now the honor, at the request of the Board, to communicate their own views on the matter. The question as to their authority to make reserves of land within gold fields has already been before the Board once or twice, and now again at a sitting held on the 30th September, at which was present Mr. Henry Adams, in his capacity as Deputy Superintendent. As you state in your letter, the 48th section of " The Gold Fields Act, 1866," limits the power of the Board acting under the AVaste Lands Act to granting leases or licenses for cutting and felling timber, &c, or the occupation of land under any depasturing lease or license, &c, or "to any land heretofore or which hereafter may be reserved for any public use or purpose." From this the Board have concluded that the Act recognizes the existence of a sufficient provision or authority for making the reserves in question, and leaves such provision in operation—especially as no other express provision is made. The Board have therefore considered the power of making such reserves as within their limits, and have not sought other advice. I may, however, inform you that at the sitting of the 30th September referred to above, Mr. H. Adams concurred in the conclusion previously come to by the Board, and considered this conclusion as sustained by the wording of the provisions of " The Nelson Gold Fields Reserves Act, 1868." I may further inform you that the Board have now referred the question to the Superintendent (who is at Wellington) in order that, if he thinks fit, he may obtain the opinion of the AttorneyGeneral thereon. With respect to the particular reserves notified in the Gazette of February last, I may inform you that they were furnished by Mr. Dobson, who, at the request of the Superintendent, prepared a schedule and tracings of such sections or blocks of land in different localities, as he recommended to be reserved for various purposes of public utility, and these sections or blocks were reserved by the AVaste Lands Board accordingly ; though one or two of them had beeu previously intended for, aud treated as, reserves, but not duly published. Allow me, in conclusion, to correct the term " Proclamation " applied in your letter to the Gazette notice. The publication of reserves made by the Board are simply notifications, not Proclamations. I have, &c, H. C. Daniell, J. Giles, Esq., Warden, &c, AVestport. Commissioner.

No. 5. Mr. J. Giles, AVarden, to the Provincial Seceetaey. Sir,— Westport, 30th October, 1872. I beg to enclose copy of a letter from myself to the Commissioner of Crown Lands at Nelson, relative to the land in the town of AVestport reserved by the Waste Lands Board in February last, and to request your attention to the uncertainty in which the greater part of the people of AVestport are now left as to the tenure upon which they are to hold their ground. They would be glad to get some communication from the Government on the subject. I have, &c, Joseph Giles, The Provincial Secretary, Nelson. Warden.

111

A.—3

Enclosure in No. 5. Mr. J. Giles, Warden, to the Ceown Lands Commissioner, Nelson. Sib,— Westport, 30th October, 1872. I beg to acknowledge with thanks your letter of the 3rd instant, relative to the reserves declared by the Waste Lands Board in February last. The question of the power of the Board to make such reserves on gold fields still appears to me somewhat doubtful, but, the question having now been raised upon a summons brought before me in the Warden's Court, I have decided to assume that the action of the Board is legal and valid, and I have declined to exercise jurisdiction over land comprised within the reserve. Should any party move the Supreme Court for a mandamus for the Warden to proceed, I presume the Board will make it their business to show cause against the rule. In the meantime I hope that you or the Provincial Government will take some means of notifying to the people here how and by what tenure they are to hold the ground now occupied by them. I have informed several persons in conversation that I had no doubt that any cost they may have incurred in business licenses since the reserve was made, would be allowed as rent, if rent were to be demanded. But I have not been able to give any definite information as to the tenure of the ground, never having received any communication or instructions on the subject. Unless the reserve made by the Board should be set aside by the Supreme Court, there is no local tribunal for settling disputes as to ownership, and on this account it is highly desirable that the public should have some distinct information on the subject. I have, &c., Joseph Giles, H. C. Daniell, Esq., Warden. Commissioner, Crown Lands, Nelson.

No. 6. Mr. J. Giles, Warden, to the Crown Lands Commissioner, Nelson. Sib— Westport, 4th November, 1872. I beg to acknowledge the receipt of Mr. Catley's telegram, from which it appears that the Waste Lands Board are under the impression that the Westport Colliery Reserve was in existence at the time of the passing of " The Nelson Gold Fields Reserves Act, 1868," and consequently came under the operation of the sth section of that Act, which would render it liable to be held under business licenses. But by Proclamation of the Superintendent, dated Bth June, 1868, the Colliery Reserve was merged in the gold fields, being " excepted from the exception clause." This was before the Nelson Gold Fields Reserves Act was passed. It seems therefore to follow that a new reserve was made by the Board in February last, and, if legally made, then, under the provisions of " The Gold Fields Act, 1866," it is exempt from occupation under business licenses. The Provincial Government appears to have taken this view of the matter, having commissioned Mr. Sharp to allot land within this reserve. It is most important that the Provincial Government or the Board, or both, should inform the people here whether the ground can be occupied under business licenses or not. If advised that it can, parties might be found to apply to the Supreme Court for a mandamus to the Warden's Court to exercise jurisdiction; if not, then occupiers are entitled to know what their tenure is, and how they are to maintain it. The Government might authorize some one here to act in the matter, and to instruct the police to remove parties who occupy ground without authority. If this is not done, I fear confusion will arise, and those who are fairly entitled will be ousted, or much embarrassed in maintaining their rights; and definite allotments should be made as soon as possible, and plans of the same made. I have, <_c, Joseph Giles, H. C. Daniell, Esq., AVarden. Commissioner, Crown Lands, Nelson.

No. 7. Mr. H. C. Daniell, Crown Lands Commissioner, to Mr. J. Giles, Warden. Sib, — Crown Lands Office, Nelson, 16th November, 1872. I have the honor to enclose the Provincial Solicitor's opinion on the case submitted to him in the matter of the Colliery Reserve. I have, &c, H. C. Daniell, J. Giles, Esq., Warden, &c, Westport. Commissioner.

Enclosure in No. 7. Mr. Henry Adams, Provincial Solicitor, to the Crown Lands Commissioner, Nelson. Sir,— Nelson, 13th November, 1872. I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 6th instant, requesting my opinion as to whether a public reserve at AVestport, known as the Reserve for a Coal Depot, is under the operation of " The Gold Fields Act, 1866," and also enclosing a letter from Dr. Giles upon the same subject. 17—A. 3.

A.—3

112

In reply, I have to state that, from inquiries made at the Land Office, I find that the reserve in question was made about the month of July in the year 1863 ; at any rate previously to the sale of land in the town of Westport, which took place in the month of September in that year. This reserve was made under the Regulations in force in 1862, which do not require the notification in the Gazette of the making of reserves, and not under " The Nelson Waste Lands Act, 1863," which did not come into operation until 1864, and which does require such notification. There can, I think, be no doubt about the land having been properly reserved. The Proclamation of the Bth June, 1868, makes the reserve within the boundaries of the Nelson South-AVest Gold Fields, but does not bring it under the operation of " The Gold Fields Act, 1866 ; " the Superintendent having no power so to do, as the 9th section of that Act expressly exempts public reserves from its operation. Then comes " The Nelson Gold Fields Reserve Act, 1868," by the sth clause of which it is enacted that all such Crown lands as have been declared public reserves, or set apart or applied for, or to any public use or purpose situate within the Nelson South-AVest Gold Fields, shall be deemed to have formed part of the Crown lands within the said gold fields from the first Proclamation of gold fields known as the Nelson South-AVest Gold Fields under " The Gold Fields Act, 1862," and " The Gold Fields Act, 1866," respectively, and to have been open for occupation for mining purposes and for residence and business under miners' rights, mining leases, and business licenses, as the case may be, and to continue to form part of such Crown lands, and to be open for such occupation as aforesaid. There may perhaps be some doubt whether this section is not intended to apply only to such lands as shall have been proclaimed under the 3rd section, but it appears to me that it was intended by the Legislature that this clause should at once apply to the Nelson South-West Gold Fields, where reserves hacl already been occupied for such purposes. I think the Proclamation of the Waste Lands Board in February last, as to this reserve, to be mere waste paper, and of no effect whatever. I have, &c, The Commissioner, Crown Lands, Nelson. Heney Adams.

No. 8. Mr. J. Giles, Warden, to the Cbown Lands Commissioner, Nelson. Sib,— AVestport, 18th November, 1872. I beg to thank you for your letter of the 16th instant, enclosing the opinion of the Provincial Solicitor upon the question of the Colliery Reserve at Westport. lam sorry the opinion does not contain the reasons for the conclusion arrived at, that " the Proclamation of the Waste Lands Board in February last is mere waste paper," because I certainly do not see that this necessarily follows from the preceding facts, which are set out. The matters of fact stated by the Provincial Solicitor go, in his opinion, to show that the reserve was properly declared, and that by virtue of the sth section of " The Nelson Gold Fields Reserve Act, 1868 " (not by the proclamation of boundaries of Bth June, 1868, as I had supposed), the ground was liable to occupation under miners' rights and business licenses. The ground then being a reserve for a quay and coal depot, and occupied under business licenses, the Waste Lands Board in February, 1872, declared it a reserve for purposes of public utility. The question is, what is the effect of this declaration ? The general power of the Waste Lands Board to make reserves on gold fields, is claimed by the Board, and admitted by the Provincial Solicitor, but I understood him to be of opinion that the Board could not meddle with this proclamation of the gold fields, because it was already a reserve. Perhaps good reasons may exist for this view, but none are given, and 1 do not quite see why the power of the Waste Lands Board (if they have it at all) to make reserves on gold fields should not be exercised over this piece of ground in so far as it partakes of the character of gold fields ground, and not a reserve, and in so far as the purposes notified by the Board do not conflict with those for which the original reserve was made. Section IX. of " The Gold Fields Act, 1866," expressly enacts that any Crown lands " declared a public reserve" shall be " excepted from occupation" under any miner's right or business license. To exempt this ground from such occupation appears to have been the very object and intention of the Gazette notice of February, and that the Provincial Government took this view of the matter is evident from tho fact that when Mr. Sharp came here some months ago to allot the land in the new township, I suggested to him the doubt whether the land was exempt from occupation under business licenses, and upon his telegraphing to the Superintendent for information he was referred in reply to this very Gazette of February last. Matters stood thus when a case came before me as Warden in which the ground in question was disputed, and an objection was raised to the jurisdiction of the Court. My decision, as you are aware, was that I had no jurisdiction, although I considered it doubtful whether the Board had power at all to make such reserves. But I thought that a question suitable for the decision of the Supreme Court. I append a copy of my remarks for your information. Unless some parties concerned are advised to apply for a mandamus, or to take some steps for obtaining the judgment of the Supreme Court on the subject, the townspeople of Westport will be uncertain as to their tenure. Some of them will cease to take out business licenses, the revenue will suffer, and much confusion will probably arise. I have, &c, J. Giles, H. C. Daniell, Esq., Commissioner, Crown Lands, Nelson. Warden.

113

A.—3

No. 9. The Provincial Secbetaey, Nelson, to the Warden, Westport. Sib, — Superintendent's Office, Nelson, 16th January, 1873. I have the honor to call your attention to a Proclamation in the New Zealand Gazette No. 1 of this year, withdrawing the Colliery Reserve, AVestport, from the gold fields, and to inform you that the Government wish you to -carry out the following arrangement with regard to the occupation of allotments on the reserve, viz., — That the occupier of each allotment pay £5 per annum, unless the said occupier takes out an annual business license, in which case he will be allowed to occupy one allotment rent-free. The rent shall commence from the Ist of January instant, and the right to occupy shall be annual; provided that, if buildings shall not be erected thereon, no right will be granted after the 31st day of December next. I have, &c, Alfbed Geeenfield, Joseph Giles, Esq., R.M., Warden, &c, Westport. Provincial Secretary.

Enclosure in No. 9. Under date Nelson, 3rd December, 1872, the following telegram was forwarded: — TnE Provincial Council having recommended, to meet requirements of the inhabitants of AVestport whose properties are damaged by floods, certain portion of the block of laud known as the Colliery Reserve should be made available for occupation, I have to recommend that the block hereinafter described be immediately withdrawn from operation of the Gold Fields Act in accordance with proviso to clause 5, " Gold Fields (Nelson) Reserves Act, 1868." Please telegraph as soon as Proclamation issued. All that allotment of land containing 73 acres, more or less, bounded northward by Gladstone Street, eastward by Palmerston Street, southward by Bentham Street, and westward by the River Buller. Oswald Curtis, Colonial Secretary, Wellington. Superintendent.

Note.—The Nelson Provincial Government Gazette of the 20th January, 1873, contains the following copy of the Proclamation referred to in No. 10, which had before appeared in the New Zealand Gazette, No. 1, 2nd January, 1873, as follows : — COLLIEEY ReSEEYE AT WesTPOET NO LONGEE CeOWN LANDS. G. F. Bowen, Governor. A Proclamation. AVheeeas by " The Gold Fields Act, 1868," it is provided that all such Crown lands as have been declared public reserves, or set apart or applied for or to any public use or purpose, situate within the Nelson South-AVest Gold Fields, shall be deemed to have formed part of the Crown lands within the said gold fields from the first proclamation of gold fields known as the Nelson South-AVest Gold Fields under "The Gold Fields Act, 1862," and " The Gold Fields Act, 1866," respectively, and to have been open for occupation for mining purposes, and for residence and business under miners' rights, mining leases, and business licenses, as the case may be, and to continue to form part of such Crown lands, and to be open for such occupation as aforesaid : Provided that the Governor may at any time, and from time to time, by Proclamation published in the Neio Zealand Gazette, declare that the same or any part thereof shall cease to form part of such Crown lands, aud thereupon such laud or such part thereof shall cease to be deemed to be Crown lands open for such occupation as aforesaid: And whereas the piece or parcel of Crown land described in the Schedule hereto was, on or about the 15th day of June, 1863, declared to be a public reserve for the purposes of a public quay and colliery depot: And whereas it is expedient that a Proclamation should be made in manner and for the purposes hereinafter set forth : Now, therefore, I, Sir George Ferguson Bowen, Governor of New Zealand, in pursuance and exercise of the power and authority vested in me by the hereinbefore in part recited Act, do hereby declare that the said parcel of land described in the Schedule hereto shall, from and after the thirteenth day of December instant, cease to form part of such Crown land as aforesaid. Given under the hand of His Excellency Sir George Ferguson Bowen, Knight Grand Cross of the Most Distinguished Order of Saint Michael and Saint George, Governor and Commander-in-Chief in and over Her Majesty's Colony of New Zealand and its Dependencies, and A riee-Admiral of the same ; and issued under the Seal of the said colony, at Dunedin, this tw 7enty-sixth day of December, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and seventy-two. G. M. Wateehouse, (for Secretary of Crown Lands).

SCHEDULE. Peovince of Nelson. Town of Westport. All that parcel of land containing seventy-three (73) acres, more or less, being bounded towards the North by Gladstone Street; towards the East by Palmerston Street; towards the South by Bentham Street; and towards the AVest by the River Buller: Excepting one (1) acre, more or less, bounded towards the North by Gladstone Street, five hundred (500) links ; towards the East by Palmerston Street, two hundred (200) links ; towards the South by Kennedy Street, five hundred (500) links ; and towards the West by Molesworth Street, two hundred (200) links.

A.—3

114

No. 10. Mr. J. Giles, Warden, to the Peoyincial Seceetaey, Nelson. Sic,— Westport, 24th January, 1873. In reply to your letter of the 16th, relative to the occupation of ground on the Westport Coal Reserve, I should be glad with further information before making any public notification. It appears that the possession of annual business license is to be considered as equivalent to the payment of' £5 per annum as rent. Is this quite irrespective of the use made of the business license ? —because, as a business license is no tenure for ground on the reserve, the holder may make use of it for some other purpose, and thus gain an advantage over those who pay rent. I think, moreover, that the residents of Westport will be desirous to know what prospect they have of a permanent holding, as they will scarcely like to erect buildings if they are only to be tenants from year to year. It is desirable that some information on this point should be given when any public notification is made of the terms on which allotments may be held. I presume the proposed arrangement relates to those sections of ground which were allotted by Mr. Sharp, but if any others are intended I should be glad to be informed. I would suggest that the Government should frame an advertisement for insertion in the Westport Times. I take this opportunity of calling the attention of the Government to the absence of all precautions for the protection of the river bank, the bush upon which is being rapidly cleared, and huts and buildings erected. I have, &c, Joseph Giles, The Provincial Secretary, Nelson. Warden.

No. 11. The Peoyincial Secbetaby, Nelson, to the Waeden, Westport. Sic, — Superintendent's Office, Nelson, 29th January, 1873. Referring to your letter of the 24th instant, relative to occupation of the Colliery Reserve at Westport, I have now the honor to inform you that the Government desire to cancel the letter of the 16th instant, and propose to carry out the following arrangement, viz.:— To charge a rental of £5 per annum on each allotment, and to apply to the Provincial Council for power to grant, say, fourteen years' leases, such leases only to be granted to those persons who build on their sections before the 31st December next, occupation being allowed until that date on payment of £5. I have, &c, Alfeed Greenfield, Joseph Giles, Esq., R.M., Warden, Westport. Provincial Secretary.

No. 12. Mr. J. Giles, Warden, to the Provincial Seceetaey, Nelson. Sib, — Westport, 31st January, 1873. I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 29th instant, relating to the Colliery Reserve, and I have directed a notification of its purport to be inserted in the local newspaper. I presume the rent will be paid to Mr. Bowen on account of the Provincial Treasurer. In the case of the present holder of an annual business license having yet some months to run, I suppose it would be agreeable to the intention of the Government to charge the rent proportionately for the period from the expiration of the business license until the end of the year. In this case the business license could be returned or destroyed, as a guarantee that it should not be made available for any other purpose. I shall be glad to be informed also whether persons who may at any time during the current year take possession of their allotments are to be charged the full rent of £5. I presume that this would not be unfair in cases where no business license has been paid for during the year. I am not in possession of any information as to what ground is, or is to be, allotted in the manner proposed by the Government. I suppose any necessary instructions on this subject will be sent me. One question is whether leases will he granted to purchasers of sections allotted by Mr. Sharp. I have, &c, Joseph Giles, The Provincial Secretary, Nelson. Warden.

No. 13. Here follows an advertisement in accordance with above letter:— COLLIEEY ReSEEYE, WesTPOET. It is notified for general information that a rent of five pounds per annum will be charged for the occupation of each allotment on the Colliery Reserve. It is the intention of the Provincial Government to apply to the Council for power to grant leases for fourteen years to those persons who shall have built on their allotments before 31st December next, occupation until that date being allowed on payment of five pounds.

A.—3

115

P.S.—Parties holding Business Licenses, which expire during the current year, will be allowed to reckon the value of such licenses as part of the rent to be paid in proportion to the time they have to run. Joseph Giles, Westport, 31st January, 1873. Warden.

No. 14. The Peovincial Seceetaey, Nelson, to the Waeden, AVestport. Sib, — Superintendent's Office, Nelson, 7th February, 1873. Referring to your letter of the 31st January last, I have now the honor to enclose herewith a plan showing the allotments set apart for occupation by Mr. Sharp, and also a list of persons entitled to occupy them. I have also to inform you that the Government approve of your suggestion with regard to charging rent proportionately for the period from the expiration of existing business licenses until the end of the year, provided the license be not used for any other purpose. The license should be returned to the Warden's office, but not destroyed. The Government also consider that persons who may at any time take possession of allotments should be charged the full rent, unless they are holders of business licenses. The rent is to be collected by Mr. Bowen, and paid to the credit of the Provincial Treasurer's account. I have also to inform you that the police have been instructed to prevent persons from felling the bush or building on the portions of the reserve coloured pink on the plan enclosed herewith. I have, &c, Alfeed Gbeenfield, Joseph Giles, Esq., RM. and Warden, &c. Provincial Secretary.

No. 15. Mr. J. Giles, Warden, to the Provincial Seceetaey, Nelson. Sib,— Westport, 17th May, 1873. In compliance with your letter of 3rd' April, I have received applications from persons desirous of obtaining allotments of ground in lieu of those now held by them. I enclose herewith a list of applications from ow 7ners or occupiers of ground within the block mentioned in the memorial of December last, with botes and remarks. For anything I know to the contrary, the particulars are correctly stated. I have a good many other applications, but I have had no instructions whether the Government intends to allot ground to all who are owners of sections without reference to locality, or whether applications within certain areas only are to be recognized. The block represented by the list of applications enclosed is that bounded by Palmerston, Molesworth, Kennedy, and Wallabi Streets. The adjacent block lying between Wallabi and Bright Streets stands next in position and proximity to the sea. I have applications from this block, as well as from other parts of the town. I shall be obliged if you will inform me whether these are also to be forwarded. In the blocks A and B set apart for the award, there are 19 sections half a chain by two chains in dimensions. If applications are to be entertained from all parts, these would not be sufficient, even if divided into halves of one chain in length. I have, &c, Joseph Giles, The Provincial Secretary, Nelson. Warden.

No. 16. Mr. 0. Curtis, Superintendent of Nelson, to Messrs. J. Giles and A. D. Dobson, Westport. Gentlemen, — Superintendent's Office, Nelson, 9th June, 1873. I have the honor to appoint you a Commission for the purpose of carrying into effect the Resolutions of the Provincial Council (copy of which I enclose), relative to the occupation of the Colliery Reserve, and the distribution of freehold sections amongst those who have lost their land by the encroachment of the sea and river. Mr. Sharp was last year appointed a Commissioner for this purpose, and certain allotments were granted by that gentleman to the then applicants for occupation on the Colliery Reserve, particulars of which I enclose. It is also within your knowledge that application has been made since that time by persons who have suffered by the flood since the date of Mr. Sharp's award, and that the Government agreed to set apart blocks shown on the plan as blocks A and B. These blocks the Government are informed by the Provincial Engineer cannot safely be occupied, and the Government have therefore decided to set apart the remainder of the Colliery Reserve above Rintoul Street for occupation by the applicants for blocks A and B, and others who have suffered by the flood, reserving a width of three chains alongside the river. I enclose all the papers connected with Mr. Sharp's proceedings in this matter, and trust that you will be able to hold the inquiry and make your award without delay. - I have, &c, Oswald Cuetis, Messrs. Joseph Giles, R.M., and Superintendent, A. D. DobsoD, Provincial Engineer, Westport.

A—3

116

No. 17. Mr. J. Giles, Warden, to the Provincial Secretary, Nelson. Sir,— AVestport, 30th June, 1873. I have the honor to report, for the information of the Superintendent, what has been done up to the present time in respect of the allotment of sites to the residents of Westport who have suffered from sea and river encroachments. * Before Mr. Dobson and myself w 7ere appointed to act as Commissioners in this business, I informed the Superintendent that the variety of our other engagements would probably prevent our acting with as much promptitude as might be desirable. This has to some extent proved to be the case. Mr. Dobson, in particular, is under such a constant necessity of travelling about, that it is by no means easy for us to carry on jointly any duties which occupy much time for their performance. The only course possible to adopt was for me to carry out, at such times and opportunities as I could find, the plan of operations agreed upon by us from time to time when we could have a consultation upon the subject. I am happy to be able to report that, notwithstanding these difficulties, we were able to execute a part of our Commission without much delay. From the whole number of claims sent in, those were selected which appeared to be the most pressing, and, these having been inquired into and classified, a drawing of lots was held for order of choice, and, on the 23rd instant an allotment of forty sections was made, being one fortnight from the notification to us of our Commission. I enclose herewith a list showing the awards so made, with the names of the parties, and the premises in respect of which the new sites were allotted. I have now to request some further information as to the claims for freeholds. The first thing necessary appears to be a plan of the land to be awarded, showing the number and size of the sections. We also require, as an indispensable preliminary even to any further inquiry on our part into the applications, a plan of the Maori Reserve, of which we have as yet only the outside boundary. We shall be obliged if these can be forwarded to us without delay, together with any further information on the subject of the freeholds with which the Government can supply us. With respect to one of the sections laid out for allotment by us, upon which a person named Stewart has built a house or " whare," and concerning which some telegraphic correspondence has taken place, we did not think that we should be justified by our commission either in recognizing Stewart's title to the ground, or awarding it to him. We could not do the latter, because he could in no way be brought within the class of persons to whom we were authorized to award sections, and to withhold the section from allotment altogether would seem to be equivalent to a declaration on our part that Stewart had good title: a point upon which it appeared to us that we were not called upon to pronounce an opinion. . * The only proper course, therefore, appeared to be to throw the section open for allotment together with the others —unless the Government would instruct us to withhold it—but to warn selectors of the existing occupation, and to give them notice that they must take the section with any risk or difficulty that might arise out of Stewart's claim, and that no guarantee would be given by us that the Government would take any action in the matter. This was done, and the section has not yet been selected. In any further allotment we propose to follow precisely the same course, unless otherwise instructed by the Government. I have, &c., Joseph Giles, The Provincial Secretary, Nelson. (for self and A. Dudley Dobson).

No. 18. Mr. J. Giles, Commissioner, to the Peoyincial Seceetaey, Nelson. Sic,— • Westport, 2nd August, 1873. I beg to report that on the 28th July I made a further award of sites on the Colliery Reserve, of which the accompanying list contains the particulars. There are not now many sites remaining, and most of them will probably be required for such cases as were entitled to come into the previous allotments, but from some accidental cause have not done so. Those most immediately threatened by the river have received sites, but there are others who may suffer almost at any time, and for whom none will remain unallotted. I understand from Mr. Dobson that on his return he will be furnished with what is necessary to enable us to proceed with the freeholds. I have, &c, Joseph Giles, The Provincial Secretary, Nelson. Commissioner. •

No. 19. The Peoyincial Seceetaey, Nelson, to the Wabden, Westport. (Telegram.) Nelson, 28th August, 1873. Please give notice rent Colliery Reserve to be paid at once, original sections to date from Ist January, and others from Ist July last. I have, &c, Alfbed Geeenfield, Joseph Giles, Esq., R.M., Warden, Westport. Provincial Secretary.

117

A.-3

No. 20. Mr. J. Giles to the Provincial Secretary, Nelson. » Sir,— Westport, 22nd September, 1873. I have the honor to report the proceedings under the Westport Land Commission since the 30th June, the date of my former letter. Some further allotments have been made on the Coal Reserve, of which I enclose a list, beginning with No. 34, and being continuous with the list previously sent. This completes all that we think it right to do at present in respect of allotments on the Coal Reserve. There are yet many premises which are likely enough to be washed away, but no one can say when, and, if the proposed protective works are carried out, such premises may become permanently safe. For these reasons, and because we understand that the Coal Reserve is to be handed over to the municipal authorities of AVestport, we think that it would be better to leave that body to deal with any further claims that may arise from future damage or loss, and that this part of our Commission should be now considered to have closed. FEEEHOLD. I also enclose a list of allotments which have been awarded to freehold claimants. I presume that these parties will receive Crown grants on giving up to the Commissioner of Crown Lands their former title-deeds, and that some notification will be made to them to that effect. In the meantime I have notified in the Westport paper that applicants can learn either at this office, or at yours, what allotments have been awarded to them. I enclose a copy of this advertisement, and recommend its insertion in the Nelson newspapers. Of the freehold allotments there are two that require special notice. The old Maori block was subdivided amongst many owners in so intricate a manner that it was impossible to award all the claims severally by lot in the usual manner. The only course seemed to be to set aside a piece of land to be afterwards subdivided in a manner as near as may be corresponding to the original. We have therefore reserved for this purpose the block fronting Palmerston Street, and bounded on the other sides by Mill, Bentham, and Russell Streets. There is*another section (37) which w 7as subdivided in such a manner that we have been obliged to deal with it in a similar way. In order to get a section equivalent in situation to the old ones, we have altered the distribution of the sections in the block between Palmerston, Russell, Mill, and Fonblanque Streets, and set aside No. 469 on the block so altered, to correspond to section 37. No. 468 is unallotted, and, if the ground we have taken for the Maori block should prove slightly insufficient, 468 might be used to make up any such deficiency. I enclose a sketch to explain these alterations and reservations. There are one or two other sections held by a number of owners, and for which we have allotted equivalent sections, but without subdividing them. I presume that all these will be divided amongst those entitled, without any difficulty, when the title-deeds, with plans, are produced at the Crown Lands Office, so that the size and shape of the original holdings can be reproduced. I enclose a tracing, showing the area of freehold lands washed away, or rendered quite or nearly untenable. There are doubtless other holdings which may be hereafter destroyed; but on the other hand this may never happen, and we see no reason why our Commission should not be regarded as closed in respect to these also, as any future losses can be dealt with by the Government when they arise. I have only to mention in addition that applications have been made for sites for the English and Roman Catholic churches. With these we have been unable to deal, because the applications are grounded, not on the destruction or imminent danger of the old sites, but on the fact that the congregations are being drawn aw 7ay to a great distance by the progressive removal of the town. I have promised the applicants in these cases to lay their applications before Government for consideration, and shall be obliged by information whether anything can be done for them. I have, &c, The Provincial Secretary, Nelson. Joseph Giles. P.S. —Mr. Dobson being now in Nelson, will be able to give further information on any points that may require discussion.

No. 21. Mr. J. Giles, Warden, to the Peovincial Seceetaey, Nelson. Sic,— Westport, 6th October, 1873. I forward herewith a letter from the Mayor of Westport requesting information from me as to the rents now being demanded of occupiers of the Colliery Reserve, in pursuance of a resolution of the Borough Council, a copy of which is enclosed. The fourth question being the only one that I was able to answer, I promised to apply to you for the information desired by the Borough Council upon the other matters referred to. I have, &c, Joseph Giles, The Provincial Secretary, Nelson. Warden.

No. 22. Mr. J. Giles, Warden, to the Mayor of AVestport. Sib,— Westport, 20th October, 1873. I have the honor to inform you that I have received the following replies (in substance) from the Provincial Secretary to the question relating to the collection of rents upon the Colliery Reserve, upon which further information was desired by the Municipal Council.

A.—3

118

1. The reserve has not yet been made over to the General Government. The Superintendent requested that it should be granted to the Borough Council, but the Government has not yet sanctioned it. 2. The rents are payable in advance from the Ist January and Ist July, and this payment relieves the occupiers from the much larger payment formerly required for a business license. 3. The Provincial Government has no pow 7er to hand over any portion of the rents to the Borough Council without the sanction of the Provincial Council. 4. The payment of the rent secures the occupation for the period for which it is paid. I have, Ac, Joseph Giles, His Worship J. W. Humphrey, Esq., Mayor of AVestport. Warden.

No. 23. Mr. J. Giles, Warden, to the Provincial Secretary, Nelson. Sir,— Westport, 29th October, 1873. I recently sent you a telegram, to which I have yet received no answer, inquiring whether it was the wish of the Government that Mr. Dobson and myself should allot any more sections to holders of ground which has become threatened or unsafe since my letter of 22nd September. In further explanation I have now to say that a few more premises, being the remainder of those in Kennedy Street, appear now to be insecure from sea encroachment, and, an application having been made by the occupiers to the Borough Council, that body has requested us to rn^ke further allotments, inasmuch as the Coal Reserve has not been handed over to them as was anticipated. We shall therefore be glad to be informed whether the Government wishes us to consider and deal with any further applications of this sort. I shall also be obliged by an answer to my telegram of the 21st instant, inquiring how it is wished that occupiers on the Coal Reserve should be further notified to pay their rents. I have, &c, Joseph Giles, The Provincial Secretary, Nelson. Warden. P.S.—I have been asked by some holders of land on the Maori block, when they may expect some notification of their titles being defined and made out for them.

BULLER COAL FIELDS. Monday, December 13th, 1875. At the invitation of Mr. Mackay, Mr. W. M. Cooper, Topographical Surveyor, Public Works Department, attended before the Commission to give an explanation of the extent and principal characteristics of the Buller Coal Fields. A map showing the Waimangaroa and Ngakawau basins, and the seams on the slopes of Mount Frederick and Mount AVilliam, was exposed in the Court House to facilitate Mr. Cooper's explanation.* Mr. Cooper: I may explain that the Buller Coal Field extends over a larger area than is represented in this map, but, at the same time, it and the map attached to Mr. Cox's reportf embraces that part of the coal field which has been already subjected to minute exploration. There are other portions towards the Mokihinui and Orikaka where coal is to be found. They are not shown on this map ; but this part that has been explored is the most valuable and the most accessible, and is all that is likely to be developed for some time to come. Mr. Cox's report divides this portion of the coal field into two principal parts, the Waimangaroa and Ngakawau basins. The country extends from the level of the sea, inside the railway line there being a small portion of flat ground, and then rises more or less abruptly to Mount Frederick and Mount Rochfort. The valley of the Waimangaroa divides the two ranges, and the ridge of Mount Frederick doubles round the head of Waimangaroa, and thence to Mount Rochfort. The survey of the western slope gorge of Mount Rochfort is not yet completed. Thence the country falls inland and makes a long narrow trough the whole distance shown on this map. It is bounded on the east by Mount AVilliam, which is nearly as high as Mount Frederick, and towards the south it falls to the Cascade Creek, which Mr. Cox calls Cascade Break. The coal here is nearly all broken away ; and although patches of coal are found, it is of such a broken nature that its quality is inferior, though, in other respects, the quality of coal is good. I should remark that over a portion of the coal field two seams are supposed to extend, separated from each other by an interval of rock varying in thickness from 20 to 50 feet. One is thin and of little commercial value, and there is a difference of opinion as to whether the upper seam in the Ngakawau becomes the lower seam in tho Waimangaroa basin—the Waimangaroa basin includes Coalbrookdale, where good coal is found. It has been subjected to many tests. Some of it was sent Home to be tested at the Woolwich Arsenal, and was reported upon as being of a high character. The lower seam is 18 feet thick at the Cascade break, and, as Mr. Cox remarks, it gradually thickens until it reaches No. 4, where its thickness is 40 feet. I have put black figures on the map to indicate where Mr. Cox in his report has alluded to the various sections of coal, and these figures correspond to those on his lithographed map. The upper seam varies from a few inches to 6 feet. At sections 5 and 6, and on the other side of the Waimangaroa, where only the lower seam is found, it thins to 25 and 8 feet respectively. Eastward, in the hollow of the trough, the coal is 20 feet at No. 11, and it rises again towards the summit of Mount AVilliam Ridge, where at 8 the thickness is 6 feet, and at 9 there are two seams, one of them being 3 feet and the lower one 30 feet,

* See Appendix. t See Public Works Statement, 1875.

119

A.—3

so that the variation in a short distance is here very great, and at 10 the thickness is 40 feet. The coal here, however, lies at such a high elevation that it is less valuable than other portions of the coal field. Mr. Cox then goes on to speak of the Ngakawau basin to the north of the red dotted line. Starting from the most southern point, near Mount Frederick, and going down hill, Mr. Cox divides the coal field into three basins—the high level, the mid level, and the low level —and gives the quantity of coal in each. He states that going northwards the coal thickens, the outcrops showing 5 feet at 12, 25 feet at 13, 37 feet at 14, and 40 feet at 16, until, at 17, a point in the left branch of Granity Creek, we get a thickness of 53 feet, and even then the bottom is not seen. From that point the coal thins out in all directions, and at 19, which is at no great distance, rather a peculiar circumstance occurs, for here the coal is only 3 feet thick. At 14, there is a thin upper seam of 1 foot. There is some doubt as to the relative positions these two seams occupy, in the Waimangaroa and Ngakawau basins respectively. Of course Mr. Cox holds his own views on the subject, but I express none. The subject is one which requires further investigation before a positive opinion could, I think, be pronounced. The seam at 20 feet is also very thin, being but 3 feet thick. Going further north, to Crane's Cliff, which rises abruptly 600 feet from the Albion Mine, we find the coal at that point (21) 20 feet thick, and at 22 the thickness is 18 feet. Mr. Cox considers the portion worked by the Albion Mine to be a slip from Crane's Cliff, and consisting of granite, which appears to have broken up the coal seam there, and the coal has slipped off. Then Mr. Cox gives an analysis of the coal which I need not enlarge upon. Mr. Cox next gives an estimate of the quantity of coal in the field, and I may state that my estimate of the quantity differs very considerably from that of Mr. Cox; but the difference may be explained in this way, that probably Mr. Cox takes into his calculation the whole bod) 7 of the coal. I take only something like half the body, because a large amount must be allowed for waste or thinning out of seams, and other accidental causes that may arise. Mr. Cox, in his estimate of the quantity of coal in the field, separates the two basins, and divides the Ngakawau basin into three. Taking the Ngakawau first, Mr. Cox estimates the low levels as containing 16,000,000 tons; I estimate it at 8,700,000. The mid level, which is decidedly the best part of the coal fields, where the seam is thickest and steadiest, Mr. Cox estimates as containing 56,000,000 tons, I estimate it at 20,000,000 tons, rather less than half ; and the high level, which is more broken up, Mr. Cox estimates as containing 36,000,000 tons, I estimate it at 9,300,000 tons. That discrepancy is greater than can be accounted for in the way I have just described, but I can offer no further explanation of it. Mr. Cox estimates the quantity of coal in the Waimangaroa basin at 32,000,000 tons, I estimate it at 26,000,000 tons; but I have taken into account two blocks of coal which Mr. Cox did not. The nearest seam of coal to the Fairdown Quarry is two miles in a straight line ; but the country is too rough and steep to permit of a straight line being followed, therefore a circuitous course will have to be adopted. Mr. Cox's total of the yield of the field is 140,000,000 tons; my estimate is 70,000,000 tons, after making ample allowance for waste. Mr. Cox goes on to refer to the best method of working these seams, which are, of course, somewhat difficult to work; and various systems had been adopted in various countries where such thick seams have been discovered, which are not very common. Excepting where coal may be found along the low levels, the best part of the field is the north end, where the Albion Mine is situated. Then come the balance of the low levels, which can be worked without any great difficulty, by running down one or other of the ridges, and either down the steep incline of Crane's Cliff or down the side of Mine Creek. The coal can be got down to the railway either way without great difficulty. I would suggest the employment of a self-acting tramway, by which the full trucks pull up the empty ones. The greatest difficulty would be the work of connecting the upper works with the railway below. The communication is the principal point. Naturally, the higher you go up the hill the greater is the difficulty. AVhen we come to the mid levels, which are at an elevation of 2,000 feet, the body of the coal is so large, and of such good quality, that the original cost on the whole block would be a mere trifle. I need not remark further about the other parts of the coal field than to say that they are at a still higher level, and the communication would, of course, be enhanced iv cost. Going southwards, after passing the summit of Mount Frederick, the ground falls again, and the coal, if worked, could be got down in a manner similar to that from the mid level. The Commissioners : AVhat would be the distance of the railway to that point ?—lt would be three miles, not in a straight line. Would there be much tedious or difficult work in the construction of such a line ? —I think not. There would be a good deal of bush clearing and benching, but I think not a heavy amount of rock work. The back country within the trough and along the Mount Rochfort plateau is a country from which it would be more difficult to bring coal. On this account Ido not think it is probable that tho coal there will be worked for some time, because it will cost considerably more to bring it down ; but the coal is so good that it will be brought down some time. I have no doubt of that. What is being done by the proprietors of these mines to develop them ? —The Albion Company worked their mine for about twelve months. They ran in drives of about 300 feet, and got out a small quantity of coal, which was shipped in a little steamer. They found, however, that it would not pay to Bhip coal in such small quantities, and decided to suspend operations until the railway was made. I am informed that tenders are about to be invited for the completion of the railway, and that as soon as that is done the Albion Company intend to commence operations on a large scale. Going southward from the Albion Mine there have been no mining operations until we come to the Waimangaroa, where a mine is being worked by Rhodes and party, who have put in a drive, and another by Mulholland aud party. Both have found good coal, but it is too soft to render it suitable for exportation. Where do you think coal suitable for exportation will be found?— All that is coloured neutral tint on the map, except, possibly, the portion so coloured within Mulholland's area. Then, at the present moment, the Albion is the only mine likely to send coal to market?—As far as we know at present, but it is quite possible that some other company may be able to do so before very long. Cable, Drummond, and Company have a magnificent block of coal, and as soon as the railway starts they will, no doubt, begin operations. How long, ordinarily speaking, would it be before these people whose names you mentioned could 18—A. 3.

120

A.—3

send coal to market ? —Assuming that they commenced operations at once aud worked vigorously, they could be ready to put out coal as soon as the railway was opened. But is there a probability oi that being done ?—I cannot say. The shareholders are mostly absentees. Can you give us au idea of the amount of capital that would be required to put Cable and Drummond's ground in fair working order ?—£lo,ooo to £20,000, according to the scale of operations. If you had charge of this coal field and were requested to commence operations on a fair scale, where would you start ?—I would put in my first workings in Cable and Drummond's prospecting license area, because they have the largest block of coal of good quality, and accessible. Do you think it would require from £10,000 to £20,000 to develop that mine ?—Yes, to start it in anything like proper working order. And what quantity of coal do you think such an expenditure would enable them to send down ?— I cannot answer that question offhand—that is a matter for calculation. Could you tell us the quantity of coal the Albion Company will be likely to send down upon the opening up of the railroad ? —I should not like to answer without consideration, because the coal in their block is more irregular and not so easily opened up as Cable and Drummond's. Then you cannot form an estimate of the amount required to open up the higher workings of the Albion Mine ? —lt is the higher workings I refer to. The lower workings Ido not put dowii as worth consideration, because a very small amount of coal will be got from them, unless they drive to the dip. So that, before they will be able to furnish a large supply of coal, they must commence working the upper area, and lay down a tramway ? —I think so. AVith the exception of the Albion, then, these seams are practically untouched ?—As far as working goes. One or two parties have explored the ground to ascertain where the coal is, but they have not done any actual mining. The communication with the main line will be the most expensive work to be undertaken by the companies ? —At the outset it will, taking them all round. You cannot say whether any companies are in course of formation ?—I am not aware of any within my own knowledge. lam informed that an attempt is being made to get up a company to work the coal in this part (from Coalbrookdale to the head of the Waimangaroa). That block is licensed by three persons, who represent gentlemen in Dunedin, and they are endeavouring to form a company in London. That would be one of the more expensive mines to work, on account of its comparative inaccessibility. AVhat capital would be required to work it ? —That is a question which requires a large amount of consideration. They would have to come down the gorge of the Waimangaroa, which is frightfully rough, or cross the divide, and come down the sea face by a leading spur. And that, in your opinion, would increase the expenditure considerably ?—I think so. I doubt whether the coal in that back country will be opened up for a long time. London capitalists may take up shares in the company without knowing anything of these difficulties ; but it would cost so much to open up communication that it must be a very considerable time before they can do anything to pay — though it may pay well eventually. And what prospect is there of the railway being supported by the coal mines?— There is an immense quantity of coal in the block at the North Creek. The Albion and Cable and Drummond's alone are a good stand-by for the railway. There is such an immense quantity of coal there, that if they set to work properly they could in themselves turn out sufficient coal to keep the railway going. How long will it take to complete the railway ? —I assume that it will take from twelve to eighteen months. AVhat is the quality of the coal? —It is of excellent quality. Is there a probability of a steady market being found for it?—No doubt it will supply all New Zealand if the harbour were improved so that large vessels could come in. If 1,000-ton ships could come here, we should be able to compete with Newcastle, because .beyond doubt it is a much better coal. The expense of getting the coal would not be great, because the mode of working it is easy. Mr. Mackay : AVhat is the comparative value of this coal with coal from the Brunner Mine?— The Brunner Mine is cut off to the northward by a fault. What there is beyond that fault remains a matter of doubt; but assuming that there is no coal beyond the fault, the quantity of coal in Cable and Drummond's lease would be far greater than the quantity in the Brunner Mine. Mr. Haselden : Would it not be possible to come down to the bottom of the Gorge by a continuous tram ? —The nature of the soil is such, that if you were to put the point of a pick, or spade into the ground, you might bring down 1,000 tons of earth. Do you think the upper levels of the Albion Mine can be worked by a self-acting tramway? —Yes, I have no doubt of it; but it would probably be very expensive on account of the steepness. Mr. Munson, by leave of Commissioners : You stated that the Albion was the only company that had attempted to open up the coal seams ? —I said that the coal in Mulholland's and Roche's leases was soft, and that I did not count them as likely to provide much traffic for the railway. You also said that the Albion coal was not very good ? —I said it did not last long from their present workings. Are yon aware whether either of these companies has capital actually called up for the purpose of working tho coal field ? —I do not know what position they are in. They must have called up some capital, because they have made surveys; but lam not aw7are that they have called up any capital for working the mines. I cannot say that it is an actual fact that there is no capital called up. Do you not think that most of these mines are held merely for purposes of speculation, and that the Albion is the only exception ? —I really cannot say. The Dunedin people are getting up a company to work a very large block. Cable and Drummond's company are men who can find means to open up the mine ; but I do not know what their ideas are. Do you think there is a probability of any company being able to call up capital, and press the works forward within the next twelve months ?—Yes ; I have no doubt the two companies I have named will be able to do it.

121

A.—3

The Commissioners : Do you think those companies will do anything until the railway is opened up ? —No, I think not; and I regard that as a legitimate exercise of caution on their part. The position the Albion Company has taken up is that they will not begin operationsmmtil the railway contract is let. Then, when the third section is made, there will be no excuse for not opening up the mines ? They will be blamable if there is any delay on their part ? —I think so ; they should be called upon to proceed and have the coal ready as soon as ihe railway is finished. How many tons coal will the line be able to bring down a week ?—I do not know the power of the engines. Mr. Cooper subsequently handed to the Commissioners the following statement: — Memorandum re Buller Coal Fields. I have made the following rough estimate in respect to the matters on which I was requested to furnish additional information :— 1. Cost of a branch line of railway from mid-level portion of Ngakawau basin to main line of Mount Rochfort Railway — A. Via Mine Creek, £8,000. B. „ AVestern Spurs, £6,000. 2. Ditto from New Albion Mine, £3,000. 3. Amount of coal, which a capital of £20,000 would enable Cable, Drummond, and Co. to raise and convey to Westport, after paying for cost of line and plant—from 3,000 to 10,000 tons per week, according to the briskness or otherwise of the demand for it at port. 4. Ditto, Albion Company : I know much less of the coal in this ground, and could not therefore give a definite estimate; but I think it would be pretty safe to take their output at one-third of the above. 5. Amount of coal per week which could be conveyed along the railway to port: This would almost entirely depend on the amount of locomotive power employed; with the present small engines, I should put it down at about 20,000 tons, working iv daytime only. W. M. Coopeb, Topographical Surveyor. R. B. Denniston, coal-viewer, examined by Mr. Mackay : I am Mr. Cooper's assistant in the survey of this coal field. I have been eight years in the Staffordshire Mines as under-viewer. I have been employed for two years under a mining engineer; I have also had experience of mines in the Lanarkshire district. I have heard Mr. Cooper's description of the Buller Coal Field, and I agree with all he has stated ; but he omitted to make reference to the second seam of coal on the east side of Mount Frederick. I have traced tlfe coal from the lower seam at Coalbrookdale up to Webb's Creek, under summit of Mount Frederick, and a doubt exists as to whether the same seam continues past this point north towards and through the eastern portion of the Ngakawau basin. Mr. Cox is of opinion that there is a lower seam, and so am I; and I recommended in June last the advisibility of testing that by boring. If another seam does exist, it would increase the tonnage materially. If the railway were finished now, it would be quite possible to connect it with Cable and Drummond's and the Albion in three months, at a cost of £10,000 to £15,000. There is 1,000,000 tons of coal readily available on Crane's Cliff, which could be connected with the railway at the Albion Mine, Ngakawau, by a self-acting tram, at a cost of about £1,500. Mr. Mackay : Could these mines be worked at less expense than the English or Scotch mines?— About the same, but there would be more waste. Labour would be more expensive, but the facility of getting the coal out would more than compensate for that. Instead of sinking, all that requires to be done is to commence work on the many open sectional faces of coal. There is no draining or pumping to be done. Do you think the coal is equal to the English coal ?—Yes. It is a good household coal, and is good for steam purposes ; it throws out a strong heat, and is clean and cokes well. It is much stronger than the Grey coal, and will stand a free use of screens. North of Mount Frederick the upper seam is very friable, but in the lower seam it is of a harder description. The 55-feet seam is on Cable and Drummond's prospecting area ; but on reaching across this area south it thins out to 12 + 8 feet, and again thickens out to 48 feet on reaching into Munro's. There is plenty of available coal in Organ's area, western and eastern slopes, face of Mount Frederick, but the back part (the Trough) may require to be wrought by shafts and necessitate pumping, which area would not likely be touched for many years. Have the Albion workings been properly and systematically carried out ?—No, they have not. They have goue into it anyhow. They have weakened the support of their main drive, and have all but spoilt the safety of their workings. That has been done through ignorance and greed combined. Will they be able to get out coal from the high levels, or will they have to recommence operations at the high levels? —They will have to recommence operations by proving their mineral to dip by amain dip drive. Their present workings at the low levels are at present, as they now stand, useless for an immediate output. Provided the Albion Company opened up their mine properly, how many tons of coal would they be able to turn out when the railway is made up to them ?—They could not put out much during the first six months. After that time they ought to put out 1,000 tons a week. They ought to get at their coal in nine months from the present date. There is no doubt of it being there. Therefore, if the railway w0r1.3 were commenced on the Ist of January, and the mines were developed simultaneously with the completion of the railway, they ought to be in a position to deliver 1,000 tons a week by the Ist of September next ?—No; I do not think they would. It would take twenty-one months on the whole from the present time to strike the coal and supply 1,000 tons a week. What I meant to say was, that it would take six months to produce such a supply from the time the good coal was struck. Taking the same conditions into consideration, aud supposing the railway were commenced on the

A.—3

122

Ist January, how long would it take Cable and Drummond to supply 8,000 or 10,000 tons a week? —They could do it comfortably in six months. The moment the railway is completed, say in eight months, they would be in a position to put out a large amount of coal, but they would require a tram, which'would cost £8,000 to £10,000. They could, in fact, put out from 10,000 to 20,000 tons a week. In six months, Munro's party could turn out the same quantity weekly, and put everything in good order for working in six months, with a capital of £12,000, provided they used all due diligence. Organ and Co.'s prospecting area is not so favourably situated. It would take them nine months to turn out the quantity I have already mentioned. There is about 1,600,000 tons of coal available on the west side of the break in Organ's; but to get at any more coal they would have to work along eastward tothe main body of the coal. The total tonnage in this lease, including the east and west slopes, is about 3,600,000 tonsj the coal being of the best quality. Munro's ground would require about three miles of tramway. There is soft crushed coal got at Roche's and Sim's ; and as soon as the railway is completed between the Fairdown Junction and the Waimangaroa, these mines could supply coal for the use of AVestport. It is not, however, suitable for export. It is of a soft nature, but it might become more dense as the drives are carried in. It is a dry, free coal. By the Commissioners : Do you consider the Buller coal equal to Newcastle coal ?—The top seam is about the same in quality, but the lower seam is much better and stronger; resembles Scotch cannel coal. So that, as far as quality is concerned, AVestport could compete with Newcastle ?—lt ought to be able to do so, because the coal will be cheaper wrought in the first place. They require shafts at Newcastle, and more tunnelling than we will require here. Can you give us an idea of the cost of producing the coal, and placing it on the tramway at the pit's mouth ?—lt could be put out at the mouth of the pit at Is. 6d. a ton at the outside. There would have to be added the interest on the outlay, cost of transit, &c. What do you think would be the cost per ton put clown at the Westport wharf, when the companies are in full working order? —Assuming that the railway charge was 2d. a ton, it could be put out at the Westport wharf at 3s. a ton, or say ss. inclusive of every charge for keeping plant in order, and other expenses. If they were to sell at 10s. a ton, they would have ss. a ton clear profit. So that AVestport could undersell Newcastle ? —lt could. The difference in the sytem of working would enable them to do that. Mr. Mackay ; Have you seen the new coal-cutting machines ? —I have; but I do not think they are economical. They answ7er very well where large public works are being carried on in connection with the mines, such as ironworks, where the slack, &c, can be consumed or utilized into coke for their use, but they do not do for companies who have to sell the coal. Is there any development of iron on the field ? —There are clayband ironstone nodules in the clay marls in the seaside slopes, and also in some marls along and under the slopes of Mount AVilliam Ridge. Is it of such a nature as to lead to the idea that any extent of iron will be found ?—No; the quality is poor, and that is the only class that will be found, so that you may altogether shut out the idea of iron being found this side of Mount AVilliam Ridge. Have you seen the great hematite deposit at Collingwood ?—No. Have you observed any hematite on this coal field ? —No. Is the country likely to disclose hematite ? —No ; the lower or blue limestone is wanting, and therefore we could not reasonably expect to find hematite. There is limestone at Mokihinui?—Yes; but it is the upper or white limestone overlying the coal. The Commissioners : Can this mine be worked at less cost and at greater advantage than the Greymouth Mine ? —About the same as that of the Brunner Mime. They can produce coal as cheaply as we could here, if they liked. They are working at about if cost of 4s. 6d. now, put into the boats. Does that include the barge charges ?—No ; that would be 7s. more, making lis. 6d altogether. Mr. J. B. Fisher : Have you been in New South AVales ?—I have not. I know nothing of the cost of miners' wages at Newcastle, except from hearsay. They get so much a ton, and get the use of the company's machinery. The working at the Brunner Mine, under Mr. Dent's management, was paid at the rate of 4s. 6d. to ss. per ton for hewing; but the men were only working halftime, and they had to get a little extra for that. The coal was costing the Provincial Government of Nelson about Bs. per ton. I am not certain what it is costing now. I believe it is considerably less since the new company took up the mine. What quantity of coal could two men take out in a day, under fair circumstances, with a seam of coal 20 feet thick ? —Say in a fair heading of coal, seam 20 feet thick, with fair weight on roof, they could hew out six tons in from twelve to thirteen hours. The men get about £4 a week here, do they not ?—Yes; but the price will have to come down more than half if the mines are to be worked profitably, and compete with other places. Men will have to be brought in to do the work at that price?— Labour will come when it is wanted. What is the quality of the coal at Sims', Waimangaroa?—There is no bright, hard coal at Sims', the quality yet found being soft. The coal at Coalbrookdale is of a hard, clear, bright, and good quality. Do you know that the Melbourne Gas Company were anxious to get the Albion Company's soft coal?— They might purchase it at a very low price, but it is not a coal they would run after. There is dirt mixed with this soft coal on the lower slopes, and its value is consequently lessened. It would suit foundries, if they could get it cheap enough; but it will never be a first-class marketable coal either for steam or general purposes —would cause much waste in passing through between the furnace bars. John Munro sworn, and examined by Mr. Mackay : I have heard Mr. Denniston's evidence and his description of the lease I am likely to ask for. I can only hope the works will be half as successful as he anticipates. At any rate, we are prepared to carry out tho terms of our lease. A

123

A.—3

company is at present being formed for that purpose, and I believe all necessary arrangements will be made by January. The shares are being offered in Wellington, Dunedin, aud Melbourne. I have not a copy of the prospectus; but it sets forth that the company is to consist of twenty shareholders of £1,000 each, for the purpose of working the area held by me —namely, 1,600 acres. One license expires in February, and the other at the beginning of May, but before February the company will be formed. The plan proposed by our Surveyor is that the mine should be connected with a self-acting tramway, coming down to the slope described by Mr. Denniston. That has been estimated to cost £12,000 ;so that, with a capital of £20,000, we shall have ample capital to develop the mine. I have not the slightest doubt of the company being formed, as the matter has been placed in the hands of a thoroughly competent person, who has met with every success in floating the company. It is to my interest to see that the mine is in working order before the lease expires ; and I learn from my agent that there is little doubt of the arrangements being successfully carried out. The Commissioners : And do you not think that will help to enhance the value of this Coal Reserve ?—I believe it will, but it will take fully three or four years, because, even supposing the main line were completed and every facility offered by the Government, it will take a much longer time than that mentioned by Mr. Denniston to get the mine in thorough working order. Of course, I admit that he ought to be the best judge of such matters, but I cannot help thinking that he has misjudged the time. Ido not believe the Colliery Reserve sections will be much enhanced in value. On the contrary, I believe they will be reduced ; they will be iv a worse, instead of a better position. The improvement will take place in the interior of the town. The principal business people will move to Queen Street, leaving Palmerston Street and the other streets near the river to be occupied as shipping offices. The experience of other coal shipping towns proves that it will be so. It is only natural to suppose that the general traffic of a town should move away from the dirt and smoke of a coal trade. Therefore I think the Government would be wise to let the Colliery Reserve sections for fourteen years now, if they can. As the export of coal must be limited until protective works are completed, I presume you are of opinion that they should be proceeded with at once?— The supply can only be limited by the want of wharfage accommodation, because the supply of coal is unlimited. Will you be able to compete with Newcastle ?—lf the representations made to us are correct, we will be iv a position to do so. But do you think there will be any difficulty in overcoming the prejudices against the coal? —The quality of the coal will maintain its reputation. It makes little difference to people where it comes from if it is good. Do you think vessels bound to China would come here rather than go to Newcastle ?—That I do not know. Ships that make the voyage from England to New Zealand and home again by way of China would do it, but ships would not go out of their way to come here for coal. The principal trade of Westport will he found in New Zealand. I heard it stated that the supply from Roche's Mine would be sufficient to meet the demands in Westport. I have had an opportunity of knowing that Westport does not consume more than ten tons of coal a week. When you talk of supplying New Zealand with coal, have you considered the fact that the Bay of Islands coal mines are being developed ?—Yes; I have considered that. The quality of coal produced in Otago is shale, and the Bay of Islands coal may be sufficient to supply local requirements, but it is not such an article as this. If you have to rely upon the New Zealand trade, do you think, having regard to the existence of other mines, that the demand will equal the supply ? —I think the supply will more than equal the demand, because it is illimitable. The only difficulty in competing with Newcastle is the difficulty of getting large ships to come here. The difference in the price of the coal will not be sufficient to induce vessels trading to Australia to come over here to load. We will always be able to offer facilities to vessels trading past New Zealand. I do not think the Melbourne steamers will take cargoes of coal, because they can always find more profitable cargoes of produce. They might take coal for their own use. I have been reminded that the Colliery Reserve is held as collateral security for the construction of the railway ; but, besides that, the Government will have a royalty on the coal raised, which ought to be sufficient to pay interest and sinking fund on the works. That, I should think, would be a very good reason for relieving the liability of the tenants. What do you mean by that ?—lf the tenants desire to remove, the Government will permit them to do so. What I mean is that the Government might depend more upon the royalties than upon the rents from the reserve. But still the land is colonial property, and the Government, being trustees for the colony, would have to make the most of it ?—The Government have already made overtures to the Borough Council to take over the reserve ; and if we could get it, we should be in a position to carry on municipal affairs more creditably. We want the funds badly. You would like to have the reserve, and then make your own terms with teuants ?—No; we should abide by any terms that might be decided by the Commission. Mr. Mackay : AVhen did the Government make overtures to the Borough Council about the reserve ? —The telegram came from the Government, and asked the Borough Council whether they would consent to such an arrangement. I have not the telegram with me, nor do I remember the date of its receipt; but you were present at the deputation when it was produced. With regard to ships coming to Westport for coal. It is a well-known fact that ships go to Wellington and other ports, and load with ballast for the voyage to the Cbinchas or Callao. Do you not think that those vessels would come her? for cargoes which they could dispose of at the ports on the western side of the American continent?—l have already explained that I thought we should get the New Zealand ships bound to the Eastern or South American ports. You say that instead of Palmerston Street being the principal street, the effect of a large coal trade would be to force the retailers to Queen Street; in fact, that the front would be changed. Have you ever been in a coal shipping port? —I have; the largest in the world, I believe —Glasgow. There the lower part of the quay is devoted to the export of coal, and there are no houses within acres of it.

A.—3.

124

How long is it since you were there ?—Fifteen years. Do you set Glasgow up as a criterion by which Westport should be judged ? —No, certainly not. I am quite aware that the coal and iron commerce have vastly increased the trade of Glasgow, but still I say that the coal traffic is couducted in a locality apart from the other business of the city, and I think it will be so here. J. Cork, sworn, and examined by Mr. Mackay: lam interested in Mulholland's company and Overhagen's. AYe are going to open up the coal first, and see what it is like, and theu we are prepared to carry on the works systematically. It was thought the Government were going to construct the branch railway; but if they do not, we are quite prepared to do it ourselves. AYe can raise sufficient money for the purpose: £5,000 or £6,000, it is thought, will be sufficient to bring the coal into market from Mulholland's; but we are going to raise a capital of £40,000, so as to be prepared for all emergencies. J. B. Fisher, sworn: There are twenty-four shareholders in Cable and Drummond's Company, four in Westport, of whom lam one, and the rest in Dunedin, Napier, AVellington, and Nelson. Mr. James Rochfort, Provincial Engineer, Napier, is manager of the company. I wrote to him some time ago about the subject, aud he told me that the company were only waiting for the completion of the last section of the railway, when a company with a capital of £25,000 or £30,000 would be necessary to enable coal to be brought into market. A very large expenditure is necessary, and the company do not think it would be safe to enter upon it until the completion of the railway is assured. A proposal was made some time ago to amalgamate with Mulholland's company, and send home an agent to England to form a company with a capital of £1,000,000, but nothing came of it. The making of the railway will greatly stimulate operations ; but the companies could not possibly get into working order before the end of the year. They have not only to get the capital, but surveys have to be made and so on. AYe thought, when the surveys for the railway were begun, that it would be finished in nine months, but it will probably be in hand for three years yet. This concluded the evidence as to the nature and extent of the Buller Coal Field.

BULLER BAR AND HARBOUR. Tuesday, 7th December, 1875. Evidence of S. A. LEEcn, Harbour Master. By the Commissioners : Cau you give us any information as to the state of the bar and the nature of the harbour ? How long have you been here ?—I came here in 1867. The depth of water on the bar was about the same then as it is now, but the channel was not so wide by about a chain. It was not so good as it is now. This is the best bar we have ever had. Would the bar be improved by the construction of protective works ? —The concentration of the current, which would be effected by the protective works, would deepen the channel several feet. AVhat should be the nature of such works ? Should they be on this side of the river or the other ? —This side of the river must be protected, or it will be cut away. AVould that necessitate the construction of protective works on the other side of the river ?—I think it would eventually. But they would be of a very much less expensive character than those on this side ?—Yes, generally speaking ; but there are places where they would require to be equally strong. Assuming that these works were constructed, what class of vessels could come here for the purpose of carrying on the coal trade ? —I don't see why vessels of 1,000 tons should not come in. I mean vessels properly constructed for entering bar harbours. Supposing vessels of that class were trading here for coal, what accommodation would there be for them in the river ? How many thousand tons of coal would be shipped in a week ? —I cannot say at present, because I have not entered into any calculations upon the matter. Are you aware of the number of tons of coal exported from Newcastle in a week ?—I am not. It is about 26,000 tons. Is it likely that such an extensive export could ever be carried on here ?— Not unless the river were deepened. Dredging would have to be largely resorted to, to conduct a trade of that magnitude. It will be the work of years before we can do that. AVhat tonnage per week do you suppose this harbour would provide accommodation for?—At present it will only accommodate a limited number of vessels. Upon completion of protective works, how many tons of coal could be shipped in a week; I mean so far as the shipping facilities are concerned? —I do not see why 10,000 to 20,000 tons a week should not be shipped, but that would depend entirely upon the class of ships employed. If vessels of 700 or 800 tons could come here, more than that quantity conld be shipped weekly. Have you formed any opinion as to the extent of the coal trade of New Zealand?—l have not, but I know from reading statistics that it is very large. Can you state the depth of water to be found on the bar at spring aud neap tides respectively ?— I produce a rough sketch showing the course of the river, the bar, and the sountliugs, and I also produce a statement compiled from the signalman's notes, showing the approximate depth of water on the bar taken by a tide gauge set to bar level. AVhat is the greatest depth of water to be found at spring tides ? —Seventeen to eighteen feet, but you cannot depend upon that for commercial purposes. For commercial purposes it is fifteen to sixteen feet. Fifteen feet can be depended on. What is the depth at neap tides ? —About thirteen feet at high water. There are soundings on the plan which show thirteen feet six inches. Is this the best harbour on the coast ? —ft is the best harbour on the West Coast of the Middle Island, except AVanganui Inlet.

A.—3

125

Are there occasions wheu it would be impossible to enter the river ?—That very seldom happens. The heavy sea comes right aft of a vessel. Can this bar be entered when the Hokitika and Greymouth bars are closed ?—Yes. Having entered, could a vessel laden with coal leave without difficulty ?—Vessels would have to wait sometimes, but not often. Would there be a probability of detention being long or frequent ?—No. As a rule, properly constructed vessels can take a bar at all times ; but they require more power than ordinary colliers. Then does your evidence imply that steam colliers would have to be employed ? —I should employ steam colliers chiefly because sailing vessels would have to wait for a tug. There must be a tug immediately the coal trade is started. Do you think there would be any difficulty in using the ordinary vessels if there was a tug here ? —There would be no difficulty in using the ordinary bottoms up to 200 tons, but much would depend upon the construction of the ship. There is the case of the " Marion," of Boston, which came here with railway material. She carries a cargo of 500 tons on a draft of twelve feet. That is the sort of vessels we want. She could work the har at either neap or spring tides. If protective works were made, would there be any danger of the bar silting up ?—Not the slightest. The immense scour of the Buller would always keep it open. To get vessels of 1,000 tons in, you would have to protect both sides of the river, so as to compress or confine the water to a straight channel. That opinion is borne out by competent shipmasters. Would you have to resort to dredging to get ships of that size in ?—No ; the river will dredge itself when the concentration is completed. I have known the river to deepen nine feet in one flood. The bar might have to be dredged. Would a succession of dry seasons with very little flood have auy effect upon the bar ?—My opinion is that it would have a slight effect, but nothing hurtful. There might be a slight accumulation of silt, but the first flood would take it away. Of what material is the bar composed ? —Of soft sand. I may say that the channel on the bar has not altered half a point since February 1872. I may also mention that there is an extensive lagoon* at the mouth of the Buller which could be utilized for docks at very little expense. By Mr. Mackay : Have you ever been to Newcastle ?—I have not. Subsequently witness handed in the annexed Tide Tables and other information. Tide Table showing Approximately the Depth of AVater on the Buller Bar, at High Water of each Day as shown by a Tide Gauge set to Bar Level during fine weather. The soundings for adjusting tho Gauge are taken with a pole, which is much better thau a lead line, which does not usually give the vertical depth. High water at full and change 10b. 20m.

* With reference to the advantage of this lagoon to such a port as Westport is likely to be, it may be mentioned here that on the 18tli December, 1875, the Harbour Master, Captain Leech, brougbt the Royal Commissioners and myself in bis boat to inspect it. It comprises about 125 acres, with a fine sandy bottom. From soundings we took, any deeply laden vessel which can at present cross tbe Buller River bar at high water of springs can enter the lagoon, and in the deepest parts, of which there is a considerable area, swing to her moorings at low water without grounding. For its position, see map. —Thomas Mackay, Agent for the Crown. Westport, 10th January, 1876.

Date High Water. Depth. Date High Water. Depth. Phases or the Moon. .875 ... September ?irst quarter, neap tides S Tew Moon, springs .875 ... October 20 21 22 23 21 25 20 27 2S 29 80 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1.14 p.m. 1.55 „ 2.41 „ 3.42 „ 5.6 „ 6.0 am. 7-43 „ 8.49 „ 9.38 „ 10.17 „ 10.50 ,. 11.21 „ 12.8 p.m. 12.38 „ 1-7 „ 1-44 „ 2.30 „ 3.10 „ 4.1 „ 5.6 „ 6.10 „ 7.0 a.m. 7.54 „ 8.44 „ 9.30 „ Ft. in. 14 0 14 0 13 9 13 6 13 0 13 0 13 6 13 6 14 0 14 6 15 0 15 6 15 0 14 6 14 0 13 6 13 0 13 0 13 0 12 6 13 0 13 0 13 6 14 0 14 6 Phases of the Moon. Full Moon, springs Last Quarter, neap tides 1875 ... October 15 10 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 1 2 3 4 5 0 7 8 10.15 „ 11.0 „ 11.30 „ 12.0 noon 12.53 p.m. 1.28 „ 2.30 „ 4.0 „ 5.20 „ 6.45 „ 7.5 a.m. 7.50 a.m. 8.35 „ 9.20 „ 10.5 „ 10.45 „ 11.15 „ 11.53 „ 12.32 p.m. 1.14 „ 1.51 „ 2.35 „ 3.30 „ 4.49 „ 6.15 „ Ft. 15 15 16 15 15 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 13 14 15 15 14 14 14 14 14 13 12 12 13 in. 9 9 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 6 6 6 9 0 6 0 6 6 6 6 0 0 6 6 0 New Moon, springs *irst Quarter neap tides 1875 ... November First Quarter, neap tides

126

A.—3

Memorandum by Me. Leech foe Me. T. Mackay. Sic, — • Westport, Bth January, 1876. Referring to your memorandum of the 16th December, 1874, giving bearings of, and depth on the Buller bar, as per margin, I have now to inform you that I have verified the bearings of bar, and find them almost identical with those you gave me. This is very satisfactory, seeing that over a year has elapsed between the observations—mine (2) being taken on the 23rd and 24th December, 1875, yours on December 16, 1874. On fly-leaf please find table containing depth ou bar at high water for the month of December, 1875, which you will find agrees pretty well with the tidal tables of September, October, and November already handed in to the Commissioners. S. A. Leech, Harbour Master.

Beaeincm—Magnetic. Spire of English Church, 132°. Signal staff and beacon in one, 160°. Water on bar at 3.45 p.m., 15m. ebb, 16 feet. • —————^-^—

TIDAL MEMORANDUM showing Depth on the Buller Bar at High Water during month of December, 1875, as taken daily from a Tide-gauge set to Bar Level.

'ABL: :— continuet Date. High Water. Depth. Dale. High Water. Depth. PnASES OF THE MOOK. "irst Quarter, neap tides i) 10 11 12 V.I II 15 L6 17 18 19 6.53 a.m. 7.55 „ 8.43 „ 9.23 „ 10.5 „ 10.4 „ 11.33 „ 12.19 p.m. 1.0 „ 2.2 ■ „ 2.59 „ 13 13 13 14 15 15 15 15 15 14 14 0 6 8 9 0 G !) 6 0 9 3 Phases or the Moon. Last Quarter, neap tides 20 21 22 28 21 2,") 26 27 28 29 80 4.7 „ 5.22 „ 6.42 „ 7.15 a.m. 8.11 „ 8.55 „ 9.30 „ 10.0 „ 10.45 „ 11.18 „ 11.51 „ 14 13 14 14 14 13 15 15 14 14 13 6 9 0 8 0 0 8 0 6 6 6 'ull Moon, springs New Moon, springs The phases of the loon in the mai gin shov r the respective times whi 3n sp iring and ni sap tides iccur. S. A. Leech, Hj itport. "Westport, irbou: 7th I r Master, )ecember, l: To Commissioners eston and Beeti iam, Wei $75.

December. Time of High Water. Ft. in. December. Time of High Water. Ft. in. 1 2 3 4 5 0 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 10 12.25 p.m. 1.0 „ 137 „ 2.22 „ 3.10 „ 4.7 „ 5.12 „ 6.25 „ 7.15 a.m. 8.0 „ 9.15 „ 10.6 „ 10.50 „ 11.50 ,. 12 40 p.m. 1.30 „ 13 13 13 13 13 13 14 15 15 15 14 14 15 16 16 15 9 6 6 3 0 0 0 6 0 0 6 9 6 0 0 6 17 L8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 20 27 28 29 30 31 2.32 p.m. 3.12 „ 4.0 „ 5.0 „ 6.0 „ 6.45 „ 7.30 „ 7.50 a.m. 8.30 „ 9.15 „ 10.0 „ 10.45 „ 11.30 „ 12.10 p.m. 12.30 „ 14 14 13 13 13 12 12 12 13 13 13 13 14 14 14 6 0 9 0 0 6 6 9 0 6 10 10 0 0 0 S. A. iEECH, harbour Master. Westirt, 8th Januar ', 1 176.

127

A.—3

Sailing Dibections, Bullee Rivee. Latitude, 41° 046"; longitude, 171° 0' 45" E. Masters of sailing vessels arriving in the roadstead with southerly or S.W. winds, should not anchor south of a line drawn from the mouth of the Buller to the Northern Steeple ; but rather keep outside a little, in case of a shift of wind, which, as a rule, does not come suddenly, but begins about N.E., with a falling barometer, and dull weather, generally accompanied by rain, and goes round to north and N.W., mostly winding up with a westerly and S.W. breeze, with clear weather and a rising barometer. The roadstead is free from sunken rocks, except in the immediate vicinity of the Steeples. The rock reported by Captain Percival, of H.M.S.S. " Falcon," as lying midway between the mouth of the Buller and the Northern Steeple, with two or three feet on it at low water, has never been confirmed; although a great many vessels must have passed over the spot at dead low water, not even a break has ever been reported in the position assigned to this supposed danger. There is a passage between Cape Foulwind and the Steeples, which is sometimes used advantageously by small coasters and the local steamers ; but strangers or persons not well acquainted should not attempt it. Good anchorage will be found in the roadstead, which is well sheltered from the prevailing S.W. winds by Cape Foulwind and the Steeples. The best anchorage will be found for large sailing vessels, with the flagstaff bearing about S.E., in 10 or 11 fathoms. Sailing vessels should not hang on too long on the roads, nor allow tho wind to get west of north before getting under weigh, nor should they bring up with the wind between north and west, as a heavy N.W. sea tumbles home very often with little wind; consequently shipmasters are recommended to get under weigh in good time, so as to make sure of weathering the Steeples. Spring tides at low water, inside bar, run 1^ to 2 knots per hour. Neap tides, at low water, 1 to 1_ knots per hour. At high water, current almost nil. Floods generally run about 7 knots. Range of tides : —Spring : Maximum, 12 feet 6 inches; minimum, 8 feet. Neap : Maximum, 6 feet 6 inches ; minimum, 4 feet 6 inches.

Memoeanda re Newcastle, N.S.W. The following particulars, partly received from the Editor of the Westport Times, and partly extracted from the Newcastle Nautical Almanac, 1875, kindly lent me by Mr. Rowlands, of Westport, are of interest in reference to the future of Westport, already touched upon so much during the present inquiry:— "In 1873, 219,972 tons of coal were exported from Newcastle, coastwise, and 650,899 tons by intercolonial and foreign shipments. In 1874, from January Ist to September 30th, the corresponding figures show 204,180 tons and 547,702 tons respectively, a total of 751,882 tons. The tonnage dues, pilot fees, and harbour rates paid in 1874 amounted to £15,200, mainly derived from vessels in tho coal trade, of which, during the year, 1,259 were entered out from the port of Newcastle. As an instance of one item of beneficial influence the coal trade has on the business of the port, it may bo noted that 2,381 seamen were engaged during the year,. 1,486 discharged, £15,173 paid in wages, and £5,766 on advance notes. The coal supply is obtained from several collieries, in full work, and all within a radius of thirty miles —the Australian Agricultural Company producing 1,200 tons per day, the Newcastle AVallsend producing 1,000 tons per day, the Waratah producing 1,200 tons per day, the Anvil Creek producing 500 tons per day, the New South AVales producing 500 tons per day, the Burwood producing 500 tons per day, the Duckenfield producing 900 tons per day, the Piattsburgh Co-operative producing 700 tons per day, and the Lambton, New Lambton, Mmmi, Greta, and Australasian Collieries, all in full swing of work,, but of which no estimate of the daily output is given. In addition to coal mining operations, other companies are largely and profitably employed in bringing to the market the product of tin, copper, gold, lead, and silver ores; and altogether these industries, with the auxiliary helps of agriculture and kindred pursuits, give employment to a population which, according to the census of 1871, amounted to 18,667 souls—a total augmented at least one-third more during the intervening three years. Within a radius of eleven miles from the port of Newcastle are eleven communities, called into existence and flourishing on the trade in coals. Here is the list: —■ Burwood, with 1,000 inhabitants; Hamilton, with 1,000; Hexham, 143 ; Lambton, 2,000; Jesmond, 600; New Lambton, 1,000; Minmi,2s6; Stockton, 1,000; Wallsend,4,ooo ; Waratah,2,B39; AVickham,623. To instance the progressive expansion of the trade whereon these communities prosper, figures may be again briefly quoted. The coal raised at all the mines in 1873 amounted to 1,045,903 tons, valued at £599,462, which represents an excess on the returns for 1872 of value estimated at £254,565." All this trade is nevertheless carried on under considerable difficulties as regards the shipping facilities of the port. The same authority states, — " That for three months in the year, June, July, and August, violent easterly gales prevail. The barometer is not in any way affected by the approach or continuance of these gales, standing at from 30"12 to 30L8, without alteration throughout their duration.* " A mountainous sea is rolled on the coast, which is a dead lee shore, and after one of these gales numbers of coasting vessels are missed. There is nothing, however, to prevent well-found vessels of large tonnage, having a good offing, from keeping it." As a criterion by which the port of Westport, when improved, may be judged by that of Newcastle, the following information, for which I am indebted to Mr. Francis Fulton, managing owner of the screw collier " Easby," of Dunedin, is also of importance : —■

*Note. —It will be seen by the evidence of Captain Leech, Harbour Master, Westport (sec Appendix), the other particulars on same subject elicited during the inquiry, and the sailing directions for the port (see Appendix), that the harbour of Westport is a safe one at most seasons, and capable of great improvement as regards capacity of accommodation for large vessels, as well as depth of water on the bar and at the wharves. —T. M. 19—A. 3.

A Q X-L. L.

The depth of water on Newcastle bar at high water of spring tides is ... 21 feet „ „ at Newcastle wharf at high water of spring tides is ... 25 „ „ „ „ at low water of spring tides is ... 24 „ The " Easby," which trades between New Zealand, Newcastle, and Sydney, draws, when loaded with 2,100 tons dead weight, 21 feet 6 inches aft; consequently she only takes in 1,500 tons of coal at Newcastle, and loads up at Sydney with the remainder. AVhen loaded with 1,300 tons of coal and 400 tons of general cargo, she draws 18 to 19 feet. Thomas Mackay, Westport, 10th January, 1876. Agent for the Crown.

MEMORANDUM Re COAL REGIONS OF AMERICA. The following extract from MacFarlane's work on " The Coal Regions of America,"* being Appendix 111. to that book, is considered highly pertinent to the present inquiry, and also suggestive as to the judicious development of the Buller Coal Field. Thomas Mackay, Westport, 10th January, 1876. Agent for the Crown.

The Conditions of Success in the Coal Teade. TnE mere buying and selling of coal do not differ from the traffic in any other coarse commodity. Tho term coal trade, however, is hero used in its more extended sense, as including all the branches of business connected with the producing, the transportation, and the selling of coal. Many companies as well as individuals who have engaged in this business have been unsuccessful. It is therefore quite important to know how they might have succeeded. A correct knowledge of the true principles relating to any branch of business is indispensable, and in none is it more important than this. The requirements which constitute a valuable coal property and a successful coal trade, may be briefly summed up in a good quality of coal, in sufficient quantity, cheapness, regularity of production, cheapness and sufficiency of transportation, a good market, sufficient capital, and good management. Here are nine conditions which lie at the foundation of the coal trade; all of them are essential to success, but some of these terms should be understood relatively. Let us examine them in detail: 1. Coal may be of a good quality, commercially, in Missouri or Illinois, where there is none better to be had, or where its cheapness protects it from competition from better and more expensive coal, while it would not be worth mining in Pennsylvania. The good or valuable quality of coal, too, depends on the uses to which it is applicable. For example, one that answers only for domestic or household use, or for making gas, must be within a cheap distance of a considerable population which needs it; and a coal that is only useful for manufacturing purposes is only valuable in a manufacturing country, or within a cheap distance of it. In every point of view, a good quality of the coal is a fundamental condition, and nothing will fully compensate for the want of it. In America especially, people will buy the best fuel that can be had ; a low price weighs but little against poor quality, and no prudent man should attempt to work a mine of poor coal, to be placed in competition with a full supply of a good quality, without expecting to sell his commodity at even a lower rate than its relative value would seem to require. This is especially true of domestic coal, as shown in the universal use of anthracite wherever it can possibly be had, and of coals adapted to special uses, such as Cumberland and Blossburg, and the gas coals of Western Pennsylvania. The growth of the anthracite trade to 19,000,000 tons within fifty years —it having nearly doubled in amount for each of tho last few years —is chiefly owing to its excellent quality. It is true its vicinity to the seaboard market, affording abundant and cheap transportation, and the cheapness of its production, were great advantages, but back of all these was the intrinsic value of the fuel, which has created for it a market at every hearth, and made it the basis and creator of many of our great manufacturing interests. So, too, the growth of tho Cumberland coal-trade to nearly 2,000,000 tons, situated as the region is, so far inland, 206 miles by railroad from Baltimore, and 191 miles by canal from Alexandria, and all of it carried to tide-water, is a conspicuous example of what can be done with coal of a good quality. The Blossburg, Mclntyre, and Towanda coal-trade, which was 1,403,531 tons in 1872, sold wholly in the State of New York west of the Hudson River, and in the Western States, and some of it finding its way to the Rocky Mountains, but chiefly used in the interior for steam, for rolling-mills, and blacksmithing, is an instance of the value of particular qualities in coal, which, until the growth of manufacturing and the use of steam called for them, were of little or no value. It would be a very instructive lesson to those who are capable of being taught wisdom by the history of the past, to look over the reports of the multitude of coal companies which have at various times been formed, and to see the large fortunes which have been spent in most of our coal regions in opening mines, building canals and railroads, and other preparations for an extensive coal-trade which never was obtained. AVhile it is very easy to fail from the want of any of tho conditions above named, as well as from some other causes, yet it will be very often found that the waut of coal equal in quality to the best offered in the market has been a very fruitful cause of failure. 2. The sufficient quantity above mentioned depends on the expenditure of capital required to develop the coal and place it in the market, such as the cost of opening the mines, of building railroads, and similar circumstances, which will readily suggest themselves to every one. 3. Tho cheapness of mining (and the same remark applies to transportation) depends not on the actual or nominal sum paid, but on the price received for the coal as compared with its cost, and the capital invested, and the cost of living generally. Wages which would be very high now, would have been cheap during the late war, when coal brought a good price. In the production of coal from the

* The Coal Regions of America, by James MacFarlane, A.M. New York :D. Appleton and Co., 1873.

128

129

A.—3

mine there are, after the mine is opened, four important items of expense : the cutting or mining of the coal, getting it out of the mines, including breaking and cleaning it ready for use, keeping the mines secure aud free from water, and supplying them with fresh air. The first two are obvious to every one; but those who are unacquainted with mines have no proper idea of how much it costs to keep the miner's feet dry, and to supply him with air to breathe. 4. Irregularity of production has been so ruinous to those who have suffered from long strikes, as is very obvious, especially to all operators in anthracite coal, that it would be improper to dwell at length on so painful a subject. 5. Transportation. —Coal which, from its location, is without any market in its vicinity, and without any means of transportation to a distant market, is [of no present commercial value, and, for our purposes, may be allowed to pass as a part of the great stock of fuel laid aside for posterity. Our own share is that which can be brought within reach of the consumer. In regard to cheapness of transportation, it should be noticed that in trade, distances must be computed by dollars and not by miles. From Buffalo, New York, to Chicago, Illinois, the distance by the lakes is more than a thousand miles. But anthracite and Blossburg coal are there carried by tens of thousands of tons, for fifty cents per ton, sometimes for forty; and it has seldom cost over one dollar previous to the year 1872. On the other hand, coal was for many years re-shipped from canal boats into railroad cars at Cayuga Bridge, and sent to Auburn, New York, by rail, a distance of eleven miles, at a cost of eightyfive cents per ton. Therefore, commercially, these two places are further apart than Buffalo and Chicago, where, geographically, the distance is one hundred times as great. Similar instances may be seen in the case of cheap w 7ater transportation on the Erie, tho Raritau, and other large canals, and in coastwise freights by vessels, as compared with railroad charges. The longer the distance by the same mode of carriage, the cheaper is the cost per mile, as less time is lost at the end of the route in a given time in loading and discharging. Grades on rauways and locks on canals are also involved in , the question of time occupied and labour to be performed ; and another point is, whether or not the transporter has a return freight. The cost of the railroad or canal on which cost dividends must be paid, is involved in the question of the proper cost of transportation. Competition among transporters, in the absence of combinations, reduced prices; but a monopoly of transportation^ is not necessarily attended with high rates, if the transporter is governed by enlarged and comprehensive views of business, and aims at a large tonnage, which, at low rates, is better for him than a smaller tonnage at a higher rate. The multiplication of roads or avenues to market is not necessarily an advantage, as, by dividing among several the work which could have been done cheaper by one, the cost of doing it is actually increased by the employment of an unnecessary amount of labour, machinery, and capital, all of which must, in the end, be paid for in some way out of the proceeds of the coal. The regularity of the supply of freight for transportation throughout the year is an important consideration ; as otherwise the transporter must be compensated in his charges for the time his labour and the facilities he has provided are not employed. 6. A sufficiency of transportation is not the least of the many important requirements of this trade. Nothing is more common than for companies and individuals, embarking in this precarious business, to be ruined by the want of sufficient transportation alone, when all the other conditions are fulfilled. Our country is large, our customers are found at distances of hundreds, and sometimes thousands of miles, aud our coal must be taken to them. These excessive distances to where the coal is to be consumed is one of the most important elements in the business. However strong you may be in other respects, if you are weak in transportation you never can succeed. Scarcely any other article which is transported is so heavy according to its value ; the profits on each ton, at best, are but small; and you must therefore have ample means of transportation, to fill your orders whenever the demand may arise, or you will make no money. 7. The market for coal may be said to be good, when it absorbs at a good profit all that is produced ; or, in other words, there should be a demand for a sufficient quantity, at a remunerative price. Many a mine has heen opened, railroads and canals built, and the proprietors have only discovered, when they have carried their coal into the market, that it was not wanted. The first Lehigh coal sent to Philadelphia, in the year 1803, being considered worthless, was broken up, and used on the side-walks ; and when Charles Miner sent his first ark-load of the same coal to market in 1814, which cost him §14 per ton, the experiment was almost as unprofitable. This, in a less exaggerated form, has been the experience of almost every pioneer in the coal business. Sometimes, the selling agent of the first shipments has been obliged to tell the customers what the coal was, as well as to instruct them how to burn it. As a rule, the early coal-miners'were unfortunate, or were obliged to wait for years until a market was created, and a demand sprung up for their production. On the other hand, if a demand exists, the market may be supplied by others who consider that the trade which they have built up belongs to them, and, from an excessive production, a competition immediately arises which reduces the price below a paying rate. Competition for the market is another source of the ruin which has often attended the coal-trade. This is an exceedingly important branch of this subject. There are two points to it: what is now done to prevent competition, and what it is right to do, having a proper regard to the rights of the public. It is often said that prices should only be regulated by the law of supply and demand ; but experience shows that they are also influenced by other considerations ; for example, the weakness and folly of the seller. Against these he endeavours to guard himself, by combinations with those of the same trade, in one form or another. As human nature is everywhere the same, we find that in England, at a very early period, to prevent the ruinous competition among those engaged in selling coal, an association of the coal operators, called the " limitation of the vend," was formed in 1771, and continued till 1845, in order to regulate the quantity of coal produced, so that a remunerative price could be procured. Another part of the system was the buying up of coal-lands or the privilege of mining the coal, and paying an annual royalty, although no coal is mined, in order to prevent the market from being demoralized by new operators through their anxiety to sell their coal.

A.—3

130

In this country the same purpose is more effectually accomplished by tho consolidation of tho coal business in the hands of a few largo companies, incorporated by law, with power to hold lpge bodies of coal-land, to mine and sell, and in some cases to buy and deal in coal, to build railroads, and transport coal to market. While, in the districts where a large number of individuals are mining and selling coal, nothing is seen but a succession of failures, and frequent long suspensions of business, on the other hand, these large corporations are successful, and the districts where their operations are conducted are highly prosperous. Thousands of industrious persons find constant employment, in a thousand different vocations, all founded on the coal trade. The general results are obviously beneficial to the public interests. Individuals may complain that they are deprived of their natural rights, in being practically unable to mine their coal, send it to market, and sell it as they think proper, and that they areobliged to sell their coal to the large companies. But tho reply is, " You have the right to build a railroad to New York or elsewhere, and can procure the same corporate rights for yourself as these companies enjoy." These associations of individuals have a right to the exclusive enjoyment of the fruits of their own united capital, whether expended in a coal mine or a railroad. In this country, a sufficient sum of money cannot otherwise be obtained, to develop on a proper scale our great coal mines, transport the coal those long distances to market, and furnish the large amount of necessary working capital. In one of our finest coal-fields, that of Schuylkill County, the system of having the transportation in the hands of a company, and the coal all mined by individuals and firms, proved an utter failure, and appearances indicate that, before long, all the branches of the business will be conducted by a single company, which now owns 95,669 acres in the first and second coal fields. The preventing of injurious competition is not here stated as the object in view in the forming of the large coal companies referred to, but only as one of the incidents attending them. And now the question arises, How do they affect the public interests ? Are we building up dangerous and oppressive monopolies, which may use their power by exacting an extravagantly high price for their coal ? It would be useless to discuss this question: it is too late. These companies have become one of our established institutions ; the advantages they offered for tho development of the material interests of the country were believed to outweigh any danger from a monopoly in anthracite, especially as it is impossible that any such monopoly can also be obtained of our boundless field of bituminous coal. But what has been the practical working of the system ? As a general rule, there is nothing so useful, that is furnished so cheaply in America, as coal. Where the anthracite trade is in the hands of largo companies, as in New York City, Syracuse, Rochester, and Buffalo, coal is retailed at nearly the wholesale prices, and the fluctuations in prices are less than under the competition system, where the dealer must indemnify himself for severe losses, when coal is run down below a paying rate, by excessive prices when an opportunity offers. The man of means then buys his year's stock of coal at the lowest rate, and the poor, who must buy in smaller quantities, must pay for the coal of their wealthier neighbours. The large coal companies are confident in the strength of their position, their interests are identical with those of their customers, or, in a large consumption, they can make large expenditures to cheapen the production, transportation, and selling expenses, and can and do sell cheaper than if the business were more divided. 8. Capital. —The expenditure of capital required in the coal business is enormous ; and for the risks run and amount of bold enterprise exhibited in opening mines, building railroads, canals, docks, and a thousand other ways, this great trade has received less reward in this country than any otherbranch of business. Of course men have made money in buying and selling coal as they have in lumber, cotton, grain, or stocks. No reference is here made to coal as an article of traffic, but only to its sale by the producer. As a general rule, the first stock or the original capital expended by firms or coal companies has been totally lost, and only some fortunate successor, who has purchased the property at a fraction of its original cost, has made dividends. The history of the coal trade of Schuylkill County, Pennsylvania, with its numerous failures, during tho last forty years, would prove the above to be but a feeble and inadequate statement of facts. Even most of the large and now 7 wealthy corporations engaged in mining, transporting, or selling coal have gone through seasons of difficulty verging on bankruptcy, aud, while the companies have survived and retrieved their fortunes, many unfortunate stockholders have lost heavily in those investments. This has been chiefly owing to the want of sufficient capital. The building up of the present coal trade has been a work of time, and, besides, the business is of a very complicated and extensive character. From the first exploration of a tract of land in search of coal, down to the receiving of the money arising from its sale to the consumer, is a long account, containing numerous items, every one of them being a charge of money expanded in large sums. The credit side is but a single item, arrived at after a long time, through the successful working of a very complicated and extensive series of machines, each of which must act with the greatest precision, or a failure is the result. v 9. This brings us to consider the ninth and last division of this subject. Not only are many undertakings of this kind begun unwisely, prematurely, or without sufficient capital, but they are sometimes very badly managed. Persons engaged in other kinds of business are attracted by the idea of digging untold wealth out of the ground, and rashly invest their money without the slightest knowledge of a single branch of the coal business. Its management is perhaps confided to men equally ignorant of their duties, and incapable of learning, or who acquire their education at the expense of their employers, by costly experiments. The extensive mining operations of this country, tho great railroads involving the expenditure of millions, or even the mercantile branch of this important trade, cannot be properly conducted by men totally ignorant of every one of the arts, sciences, professions, and pursuits involved, or without calling to their aid those who are qualified. The mere physical prerequisites above enumerated are not more necessary than those of a moral and intellectual kind—good management, education, the necessary talents for business, knowledge of its details, experience and skill combined with industry, energy, and integrity.

131

A.—3

It has been often argued that individuals can manage the coal business better than corporations. No doubt an individual may be able to economize in a limited business within his own oversight better than officers working for salaries usually do. But it is seldom that individuals possessing the necessary capital have also the business qualifications and experience above described, and are willing to apply themselves closely to business. It would be saying too much to assert that corporations always succeed in getting the right man in the right place ; but when they do not it is their own fault, as they have the opportunity to select agents fitted for every duty; and the success of some of them is no doubt owing to their securing to their service the best abilities for each particular branch of their business. But unprofitable as it is sometimes to the producer, the public are always benefited by coal mining. Without following it out in its more remote bearings, its most immediate results are the distribution among the people, for labour and provision, of an amount of money equal to the cost of raising and transporting the coal to market, thus affecting the general prosperity of the country. The formation of a home market for all the produce of the country, the employment of numerous tradesmen, merchants, farmers, and all their families, and the general improvement of all the surrounding country in value and property, is the result. The anthracite coal alone mined in 1872 did not cost less than 70,000,000 dollars by the time it was delivered to the customers. All of this money is the result of productive industry, and that sum was added to the wealth of the people. But it would be impossible to describe the vast number of persons who, directly and indirectly, are indebted to this great interest, not only for the comforts, but the very necessaries of life, —food, fuel, raiment, and shelter. It is sometimes useful to put together, in a methodical form, obvious facts like the foregoing, which are intended to show how many and how minute are the circumstances requiring to be attended to, in order to secure success in the coal trade.

By Authority : George Didsbuby, Gorernment Printer, Wellington.—lB76. Price ss. 6d.] 20—A. 3.

MAPS, SECTIONS, AND ILLUSTRATIONS OF BULLER COAL FIELD AND WESTPORT HARBOUR.

This report text was automatically generated and may include errors. View the full page to see report in its original form.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/parliamentary/AJHR1876-I.2.1.2.9

Bibliographic details

REPORT OF WESTPORT COLLIERY RESERVE COMMISSION, TOGETHER WITH OTHER DOCUMENTS RELATING THERETO., Appendix to the Journals of the House of Representatives, 1876 Session I, A-03

Word Count

126,656

REPORT OF WESTPORT COLLIERY RESERVE COMMISSION, TOGETHER WITH OTHER DOCUMENTS RELATING THERETO. Appendix to the Journals of the House of Representatives, 1876 Session I, A-03

Using This Item

No known copyright (New Zealand)

To the best of the National Library of New Zealand’s knowledge, under New Zealand law, there is no copyright in this item in New Zealand.

You can copy this item, share it, and post it on a blog or website. It can be modified, remixed and built upon. It can be used commercially. If reproducing this item, it is helpful to include the source.

For further information please refer to the Copyright guide.

REPORT OF WESTPORT COLLIERY RESERVE COMMISSION, TOGETHER WITH OTHER DOCUMENTS RELATING THERETO. Appendix to the Journals of the House of Representatives, 1876 Session I, A-03

Using This Item

No known copyright (New Zealand)

To the best of the National Library of New Zealand’s knowledge, under New Zealand law, there is no copyright in this item in New Zealand.

Permanent link to this item

Bibliographic details

Word Count

REPORT OF WESTPORT COLLIERY RESERVE COMMISSION, TOGETHER WITH OTHER DOCUMENTS RELATING THERETO. Appendix to the Journals of the House of Representatives, 1876 Session I, A-03

Using This Item

No known copyright (New Zealand)

REPORT OF WESTPORT COLLIERY RESERVE COMMISSION, TOGETHER WITH OTHER DOCUMENTS RELATING THERETO. Appendix to the Journals of the House of Representatives, 1876 Session I, A-03

Using This Item

No known copyright (New Zealand)

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Log in with RealMe®

Log in again to continue your work

Log in again with RealMe®

Alert

Pages 1-20 of 143

Pages 1-20 of 143

Pages 1-20 of 143

Pages 1-20 of 143

Permanent link to this item

Bibliographic details

Word Count

REPORT OF WESTPORT COLLIERY RESERVE COMMISSION, TOGETHER WITH OTHER DOCUMENTS RELATING THERETO. Appendix to the Journals of the House of Representatives, 1876 Session I, A-03

Using This Item

No known copyright (New Zealand)

REPORT OF WESTPORT COLLIERY RESERVE COMMISSION, TOGETHER WITH OTHER DOCUMENTS RELATING THERETO. Appendix to the Journals of the House of Representatives, 1876 Session I, A-03

Using This Item

No known copyright (New Zealand)

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Log in with RealMe®

Log in again to continue your work

Log in again with RealMe®

Alert