BUILDING OF A SECOND GOODS-STATION IN WELLINGTON (CORRESPONDENCE RELATIVE TO).

Appendix to the Journals of the House of Representatives, 1892 Session I, D-08

D.—B.

1892. NEW ZEALAND

BUILDING OF A SECOND GOODS-STATION IN WELLINGTON (CORRESPONDENCE RELATIVE TO).

Return to an Order of the Souse, of Representatives, dated 22nd July, 1892. Ordered, " That a return be laid before the House of all correspondence between the Minister for Public Works and the Railway Commissioners relative to the building of a second goods-station in Wellington."—(Mr. Weight.)

No. 1

The Eailway Commissioners to the Hon. the Minister for Public Wokks. New Zealand Government Eailways (Head Office), Wellington, (Memorandum.) 11th January, 1892. Te Aro Extension, Station, <£c. In reply to a memorandum addressed to you on the 21st February last, in which the Commissioners had the honour to direct your attention to the 31st section of the Government Eailways Act, which provides for the Commissioners being the authority to decide upon the position, character, and suitableness of all stations, sidings, &c, you were good enough to inform us that you had directed the Acting Engineer-in-Chief to consult the Commissioners in future. This understanding has not been carried out in the case of the Te Aro extension, and, on examining the plans exposed for tender, it is found that the proposed arrangements at Te Aro are quite unsuited to the suburban traffic for which the line is solely needed, and, if carried out, they will require extensive alterations before the Commissioners take over and work the line. The Commissioners beg, therefore, to ask you to cause the present plans to be entirely cancelled, and to adopt a modified plan, suitable for the traffic, which they will furnish. While on the subject the Commissioners think it well to point out that the service between Thorndon and Te Aro can only be of the nature of a tram-service, and the natural course to follow in this case, as in other parts of the world, is to lay the line flush with the street, and to dispense with all fencing except around the passenger-station. The fencing and level-crossings elsewhere will merely prove expensive and embarrassing. Further, with reference to the Harbour Board's interview with the Premier, the Commissioners think a siding on Jervois Quay very objectionable from a traffic and public point of view, and they beg to point out that a recent decision in the New Zealand Court has shown that such a work, and such working as it entails, cannot legally be carried out on a public thoroughfare without special legislation. As the authority named in the Government Eailways Act to decide these matters, the Commissioners could not at present see their way to agree to such an arrangement. The Commissioners also beg to draw your attention to the desirability, on economical grounds, of considering the question of laying the line along Customhouse Quay, near the breastwork, but not so as to interfere with foot passengers or the boats, thus avoiding the destruction of the boat harbour and interference with the use of the breastwork by small craft. A few railway trains per day run along the roadway on a line laid flush with the street will not be much more inconvenient than a train-service, and there seems to be no need to execute such costly and elaborate works as are proposed. The Commissioners also desire to direct your attention to the maintenance clause in the specification. It was arranged many years ago with the late Engineer-in-Chief and with his predecessor to dispense with this arrangement, which has always proved a source of embarrassment and inconvenience. With some exceptions, which were the result of oversight, the arrangements made with the late Engineer-in-Chief and with his predecessor have been uniformly carried out, and it seems unnecessary to reintroduce a practice which has proved inconvenient. The Commissioners hope you will be able to see your way to direct the Acting Engineer-in-Chief to modify the specification to meet the convenience of the Commissioners, who are chiefly concerned. James McKebbow, The Hon. the Minister for Public Works. Chief Commissioner

D.—B

2

Enclosure 1 in No. 1 The Eailway Commissionees to the Hon. the Ministee for Public Works. New Zealand Government Eailways (Head Office), Wellington, (Memorandum.) 21st February, 1891. Section 31 of " The Government Eailways Act, 1887," provides that the location, &c, of stations shall be determined by the Eailway Commissioners. The Commissioners would respectfully suggest that you should issue such instructions to your officers as will insure this provision of the Act being effective. In the past construction of railways much dissatisfaction and expense has arisen after lines have been opened from the unsuitability of station location and arrangements, &c. In order that this section of the Act should take effect thoroughly, the Commissioners should have an opportunity of considering the matter and expressing their opinion before the final alignment and sections are settled for contract purposes. James McKerrow, The Hon. the Minister for Public Works. Chief Commissioner

Enclosure 2 in No. 1 The Hon. the Ministee for Public Woeks to the Eailway Commissionees. Public Works Department, Wellington, 26th February, 1891. (Memorandum.) Ec Location of Stations, &c. I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your memorandum of the 21st instant, requesting that suitable instructions should be issued to the officers of this department for the purpose of insuring that the provisions of section 31 of "The Government Eailways Act, 1887," are made effective, and in reply to state that the Acting Engineer-in Chief has been requested to consult the Commissioners in future before fixing the location of stations, &c, as requested. I should, however, be glad to be furnished with a list of the instances in which " dissatisfaction and expense have arisen after lines have been opened from the unsuitability of station location arrangements, &c," as stated in your memorandum. E. J Seddon, The Eailway Commissioners. Minister for Public Works.

Mo. 2. The Eailway Commissioners to the Hon. the Minister for Public Woeks. New Zealand Government Eailways (Head Office), Wellington, (Memorandum.) 24th February, 1892. With reference to the Commissioner's letter of the 11th January last on the subject of the proposed To Aro Station, sidings and buildings, I have now the honour to enclose you a plan of the arrangements which the Commissioners consider necessary for the convenience of the public passenger traffic, and they beg to ask if you would fulfil the request made in the letter above quoted, and cause the original proposals for the station siding accommodation to be cancelled, and the enclosed scheme substituted. James McKeeeow, The Hon. the Minister for Public Works. Chief Commissioner

No. 3. The Eailway Commissioners to the Hon. the Minister for Public Woeks. New Zealand Government Eailways (Head Office, Wellington, (Memorandum.) 14th March, 1892. Te Aro Bailway. Eeferring to the interview which took place to-day between the Eailway Commissioners and yourself on the subject of the Te Aro Eailway-station, and to the decided expression of their views then given, the Commissioners do not see that they could advise in any way regarding provision for a goods-station. As regards their proposals for a passenger-station, they consider that the plan submitted to you on the 24th ultimo (and herewith returned) provides for no more than is necessary for passenger traffic, and that whatever other additions may be needed in the future, this proposed accommodation should not be altered or curtailed. James McKeeeow. The Hon. the Minister for Public Works. Chief Commissioner

No. 4. The Railway Commissioners to the Hon. the Minister for Public Wobks. New Zealand Government Eailways (Head Office), Wellington, (Memorandum. 16th March, 1892. Proposed Goods-station at To Aro. Owing to the Chief Commissioner having to leave by steamer very shortly after the Commissioner's interview with the Minister on the 14th instant, there was only time for him to briefly record their objection to this work. The Commissioners, however, think it due to the Minister

3

D.—B

that their reasons should be more fully explained, and they now have the honour to submit them. The chief objection to a second goods-station, located between Taranaki Street and Clyde Quay is that such an establishment would, by dividing both the outward and inward Wellington traffic, cause great additional expense in working throughout every department of the WellingtonWoodville line, without bringing any new business. The proportion of paying load to nonpaying load hauled would be decreased the locomotive and rolling-stock maintenance and traffic expenses of the whole line would be increased, resulting in a diminution of the net earnings of the line. The w T orking of the divided traffic would be very inconvenient in a variety of ways. It is unjustifiable to incur a capital outlay (which will diminish the net earnings of the railway and embarrass the management) to provide a second goods-station for a town the size of Wellington, which has already been provided, at the expense of the colony, with very complete and efficient arrangements. The present station has, from first to last, cost not under £50,000 , its location was decided upon after a most mature consideration and discussion with the various Governments by whom it was carried out. It is arranged for extension, northwards, gradually on a large scale, if needed. As at present designed it is capable of dealing with the whole Government goods-traffic, and that of the Manawatu Company, should that company's business come into the Government station. There is not proper room to approach, extend, or work an efficient goods-station at the site of the passenger-station at Te Aro, and if a goods-station is established, there, its eventual abandonment can only be a matter of time. The public dissatisfaction is certain to be considerable when the results become apparent. The 31st section of "The Government Railways Act, 1887," makes the Commissioners the authority to decide on and approve the position, character, and suitableness of all station works, so as to prevent extravagance in working, as well as excessive outlay in construction. The Commissioners think that both these objections apply to the proposed goods-station and that both on technical and colonial grounds they should not approve of such a work. The Hon. the Minister for Public Works. J P Maxwell, Commissioner

No. 5. The Hon. the Minister for Public Woeks to the Bail way Commissioners. (Memorandum.) Public Works Department, Wellington, 28th March, 1892. Wellington-Woodville Railway. —Ec proposed Goods-station at Te Aro. I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your two memoranda on the above subject, dated the 14th and 16th instant respectively and in reply thereto to state that as the former of these memoranda gave no indication that the Commissioners intended to offer any further explanation of their views on the subject, but stated that they did not see their way to advise in any way regarding provision for a goods-station. I took that memorandum to be a final reply, and acted upon it accordingly ' . | As the memorandum referred to gave no reasons whatever for the Commissioners' objection to a goods-station at Te Aro, but simply stated (as already mentioned) that they declined to advise in any way regarding provision for such a station, I, as the authority intrusted by Parliament to give effect to its wishes with respect to the construction of the railway, took the only course then left open to me, and directed the Acting Engineer-in-Chief to prepare a plan providing the requisite accommodation for a suitable goods-station at Te Aro. The Commissioners then—on further reflection presumably —determined to state their objections to the proposal fully which they have done in the latter of the two memoranda above referred to. The Commissioners' objection to a goods-station at Te Ar.o seem to be based, however mainly on considerations of economy and railway convenience, but the Government considers that the public convenience is the first and principal matter for consideration, and there can be no question, I think, that a goods-station at Te Aro will be a very great convenience indeed to a very large proportion of the public of Wellington. The Commissioners assert that the chief objection to the proposal is the increase in the expenses consequent upon dividing the Wellington traffic between Thorndon and Te Aro, and that such a division would cause great additional expense in working throughout every department of the Wellingtou-Woodville line. What this great additional expense throughout the whole line may be they have not stated, neither have they submitted any details whatever in support of their statement. Now the marking of a truck for Thorndon or Te Aro, as the ease may be, and the necessary entries therefor, will not entail any extra expense, as the same number of employes will be required in either case. Or if the work at the Thorndon-station should slacken owing to any considerable proportion of the goods-traffic of the line being consigned to Te Aro, it will simply mean transferring some of the men at present employed at Thorndon to Te Aro. For the passenger-traffic there must be a Stationmaster and porters, pointsmen, shunters, &c, who could attend to both the goods- and passenger-traffic. Even admitting that there might be some slight additional expense, it would doubtless be covered by the additional railage-charges from Thorndon to Te Aro, for I do not presume for a moment that the Commissioners will charge the same rates for delivering goods at Te Aro as now charged for delivery at Thorndon. If such, however, is their intention, they have not indicated the same, and should they so decide, I can only say that those receiving their goods at Te Aro will doubtless greatly appreciate such liberality. The Commissioners are also, I think, clearly in error in stating that no new business will be brought by having a goods-station at Tβ Aro, as the Government is informed, and there seems to be

D.—B

4

every reason to believe, that there will be a considerable increase in the business by reason of the location of a goods-station in the industrial quarter of the city It is evident that the outlay of capital on the extension of the Wellington-Woodville Eailway, and the through connection with the Hawke's Bay district, when completed, must necessarily result in an increased goods-traffic, and consequently an increase in the earnings of the railway With an increased-goods traffic, however, it is imperative that additional station accommodation for goods should be provided, and with additional traffic there would be an additional revenue, which would cover the cost of construction, working-expenses, &c, and which would more than compensate for any loss sustained by the division of the Wellington traffic between Thorndon and Te Aro. Moreover, it is probable that ere long the Wellington-Manawatu Company's railway will become the property of the Government, and to the acquisition of this line by the Government the Commissioners are, I believe, favourably disposed. When this is accomplished, the increased traffic resulting therefrom will necessarily demand increased goods-station accommodation. The Commissioners must admit that at the present time the goods traffic is divided between the Wellington-Manawatu Eailway and the Government line, and yet, notwithstanding this division of traffic, the company have been enabled to pay for the past year a dividend of 5 per cent. In constructing a work of the nature of the Te Aro extension we must look ahead, and it is advisable that provision should be made for eventualities which are inevitable. This the Commissioners practically admit, as in their memorandum of 23rd June last, in reply to a question asked in the House during the last session of Parliament, they say that the " railway line would of course be available for goods- and passenger-traffic at any future time if need be," but that " at present it would be objectionable to make any special provision for goods at Te Aro." It is not, however, contemplated to have any " special provision " made, but to simply arrange for an ordinary goodsstation being erected at Te Aro. Even in respect to passenger traffic only at Te Aro, the Commissioners have seen fit to alter their views very considerably In your memorandum of the 11th January last, the future traffic to Te Aro was termed suburban traffic, and it was further pointed out that the service between Thorndon and Te Aro could only be of the nature of a tram service, but at the interview I had the honour to have with the Commissioners on the 14th instant you then admitted that two-thirds of the pas-senger-traffic would probably be from To Aro, and provision was also made in the plans submitted by you for a passenger platform of considerable size on each side of the line. The Commissioners say that to provide a second goods-station for a town the size of Wellington is unjustifiable. This statement was, no doubt, intended to apply to both a goods- and passengerstation, although the Commissioners do not say so in so many words. Parliament, however, which is the supreme authority in such matters, does not concur in this view, and having duly authorised the construction of the railway, and voted the funds required for the purpose, the Government, as the executive body, considers it necessary that the work should be so constructed, and the money expended as may best suit the requirements of the trade and residents of Te Aro, and so insure the best results being obtained therefrom. The Government feel satisfied that when this has been done, and provision made for goods as well as passenger-traffic, the net earnings of the railway will not be diminished. The Commissioners stated at our recent interview, and also in the memorandum of the 16th instant, that there is not proper room to approach, extend, or work an efficient goods-station at the site of the passenger-station at Te Aro. In order to learn what grounds existed for this sweeping assertion, I invited you to submit detailed plans, &c, showing what would have to be done in order to meet the requirements of the goods-traffic at Te Aro, so that I might be in a position to know what accommodation would be required and also be informed as to the Commissioners' gauge of the probable amount of the goods-traffic to be expected there. The impression left upon my mind at the interview with the Commissioners already referred to was, that you considered the goods-traffic would be of a very limited character. If such is the case, then the station accommodation required would be correspondingly small, and its subsequent extension very remote. The Commissioners, however, declined to submit any such plans or advise me in any way as regards a goods-station, and under these circumstances, and in order to give effect to the wishes of Parliament, I feel compelled to seek the assistance of other experts, and am now advised by such experts that there is sufficient room for a goods-station at Te Aro, and that one can be provided at a moderate cost. With regard to the contention of the Commissioners as to the power conferred upon them by section 31 of "The Government Railways Act, 1887," I can only say that the Commissioners have been consulted in the matter, but have refused to approve of the erection of a goods-station. What would be the result if the Commissioners took up the same view with regard to a passenger-station at Te Aro ? Although Parliament has said that there should be an extension of the railway to Te Aro, the Commissioners might say that as they would not locate the station, the railway-should not be extended. By the Eailways Authorisation Act of last session Parliament has declared that there shall be an extension of the railway, and as the extension of the railway is intended to meet the public convenience, provision must be made for both goods- and passenger-traffic, on the principle that the greater includes the less. Ido not consider that it would be wise to take legal action in order to compel the Commissioners to locate and approve of a goods- as well as a passenger-station at Te Aro, as that would seem to be frittering away money which might be better spent on the execution of the work itself, and I therefore intend to do the best I can in the direction of expending the whole of the funds voted for the railway in useful construction works. In this connection a somewhat parallel case occurs to me—namely, that of the Mount Eix Wharf, which was constructed under the authority of my predecessor, without the approval of the Commissioners. The Commissioners refused to take charge of the wharf, or work the same when completed, but last session

5

D.—B

Parliament, by special legislation, ordered it being vested in the Commissioners. Similarly in the present instance the public convenience requires provision to be made for goods- as well as passengertraffic at Te Aro, and such being the case provision will be made accordingly E. J Seddon The Eailway Commissioners. Minister for Public Works.

No 6. The Eailway Commissioners to the Hon. the Minister for Public Wobks. New Zealand Government Eailways (Head Office), Wellington, (Memorandum.) sth April, 1892. Proposed Goods-station at Te Aro. The Eailway Commissioners have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 28th March, intimating that the Government has decided to carry out the construction of a goodsstation between Taranaki Street and Clyde Quay They think this will tend to disadvantageous results financially, and, being inconvenient to work in many ways, they also think it will lead to public dissatisfaction. A division of the traffic will require further capital expenditure on rollingstock, for which the Government will also require to make provision. The Commissioners further beg to point out that when Parliament passed the Reclamation Act in 1887, the land at Te Aro then reserved was for a passenger-station only the Government, after discussion with its officers and others, having determined that another goods-station was undesirable. The station question closely affected the interests of the port, and while it was considered necessary to extend the wharfage accommodation north of the Queen s Wharf, and to provide for adequate railway connection with it, it was also considered necessary to provide for a dock-reserve at Te Aro, which still further restricted the situation. As regards your reference to the subject of compelling the Eailway Commissioners to fulfil their duties, the Commissioners, in forwarding their proposed plan of the station with their letter of the 24th February, believed that they had fulfilled the provisions of the 31st section of the Eailways Act in thus deciding the position, character and suitableness of the station. They beg to assure you that it is their desire to fulfil their duties thoroughly and to act cordially with the Government and, if any doubt exist as to what the proper functions of the Commissioners may be, they are quite willing, if the Government wishes it, to take the decision of the Solicitor-General to settle the matter, so that the Government may be at no expense or inconvenience. The Commissioners think you must have been misinformed about Mount Six Wharf they have at no time refused to take it over The Government at one time desired to vest the wharf in the Commissioners before it was a part of the railway but they found that they could not do so, nor could the Commissioners exercise control over it until a special Act was passed authorising it. When this was passed, the Commissioners took it over immediately on notification from the Government. The proposal that there should be a second goods-station at Mount Eix, in close vicinity to another erected at a cost of many thousands of pounds, tfha Commissioners objected to, and it has not been carried out. As to the wharf itself, the Commissioners see no reason to alter their original opinion that a somewhat cheaper structure would have been sufficient for all practical purposes. The Hon. the Minister for Public Works. J P Maxwell, Commissioner

No 7 The Hon. the Minister for Public Wobks to the Eailway Commissioners. (Memorandum.) Public Works Department, Wellington, 9bh April, 1892. Ec Proposed Goods-station at Te Aro. I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of Mr Maxwell's memorandum of the sth instant in further reference to the above-mentioned subject, and although there is very little contained therein that really requires attention, I deem it best to reply fully thereto, lest, through my not doing so, it should be assumed that I concur in the statements made therein. As regards the question of the probable financial results from, arid possible inconveniences in, working of the proposed station at Te Aro, I do not think I need say any more than I have said already, except perhaps that there is no doubt that both points were duly considered by Parliament before the extension of the railway was authorised. As to the public dissatisfaction which the Commissioners seem to anticipate, I really cannot see how anything of the kind can occur if only the Commissioners do their utmost to study the. public convenience, otherwise of course dissatisfaction can very easily arise. Some increased capital expenditure on rolling-stock was looked for, as with a goods-station at Te Aro an increase in the traffic is almost certain to to take place. I am particularly pleased to observe that the Commissioners now apparently concur in this view Your statement that when Parliament passed the Reclamation Act in 1887, the land at Te Aro then reserved, was reserved for a passenger-station only, must, I think, have been penned withouta reference to the Act in question, as after a careful perusal of the same I cannot find any reference therein to either a passenger- or goods-station, the w r ords used (see section 9 of the Act) being " railway station " only which, of course, may mean either a goods- or a passenger-station, or both. Even, however if the Act had expressly provided for land for a passenger-station and no more, I should not have considered that the establishment of a goods-station was thereby prohibited, as the

D.—B

6

object of the Act in question was not to regulate or control the construction or working of the railway in any way but simply to provide for the taking of certain land for railway purposes on certain fixed terms. It is possible, however, that the Commissioners may be referring to the intentions which may, or may not, have been in the minds of the framers of the Act in question. If this is the case it is sufficient for me to point out that Parliament speaks by enactment only, and that, as no limitation of the uses to which the land reserved for a "railway-station" is to be put appears in the Act, no account can be taken of anything that may have been in the minds of the framers of the Act at the time that it was drawn. The Act as it stands must speak for itself. If I have misread the Act or overlooked any provision contained therein which provides for a passenger-station only being erected, I shall be glad if the Commissioners will kindly point out my mistake and indicate the particular section of the Act which provides for the establishment of a " passenger-station " only The Commissioners go on to state that the Government (of that day), after discussing the matter with its officers and others, determined that a second goods-station for Wellington was undesirable, but it surely is not contended that, because a previous Government, took a somewhat narrow and short-sighted view of the case, the present Government is therefore debarred from granting to the people of Wellington a great public convenience which has since been authorised by Parliament. Or supposing that the condition of things at that time may have justified a previous Government in coming to the conclusion which it did (and this is quite possible) it cannot surely be contended that in the very different condition of things now existing that the present Government and Parliament is precluded from coming to a different conclusion. It is admitted that the station question closely affects the interests of the port, but the interests of the port are more especially vested in the local Harbour Board —a body fully competent to see that nothing is done that will militate against its interests. Moreover, the Board has been fully consulted as regards the work at present being carried out, and will also be consulted in the future before any material modifications or extensions of the same are determined upon. Reference to the Hai-bour Board's interests was entirely omitted from your previous memorandum, in which you declined to advise on the location and arrangements of the proposed goods-station, but I am somewhat pleased to find that the Commissioners are so fully alive to the interests of the Wellington Harbour. As regards the Commissioners fufilling their duties, it is very pleasing to me to have their assurance that they desire so to do, and that thoroughly and especially pleasing to learn that they wish to act cordially with the Government, and I beg to assure the Commissioners that I heartily reciprocate the latter sentiment, as I have every desire to work with them so that the best interests of the colony may be served. Ido not, however, think that the very wide question as to what the proper functions of the Commissioners may be would be a suitable one to ask the Solicitor-General to determine, nor is this general question raised that I am aware of. As regards the particular matter now under discussion, I may say that I have consulted the Solicitor-General fully thereon, and in taking up the position that I have taken I have followed his advice. Should the Commissioners think, therefore, that I have unduly trenched upon their functions, I must leave them to take such steps in the matter as they may think proper My remarks on the somewhat parallel case to the present one—namely, the case of Mount Eix Wharf on the Kaipara line—made in my memorandum of the 28th ultimo, and with respect to which the Commissioners think I have been misinformed, are fully borne out by a reference to the departmental records on the subject. In my previous memorandum I made three statements with regard to the wharf in question—namely, 1. That it was constructed under the authority of my predecessor without the approval of the Commissioners. 2. That the Commissioners refused to take charge of the wharf, or work the same when completed, and 3. That during last session Parliament by special legislation ordered the vesting of the wharf in the Commissioners. As regards No. 1, there seems to be no doubt that the wharf was constructed under the authority of the then Minister, without the approval of the Commissioners. The plans, I find, were referred to the Commissioners under cover of the late Mr Blair's memorandum of 15th April, 1889, and returned by the Commissioners on the following day with a memorandum stating that the proposed work was of an unduly expensive character, and that it would also prove embarrassing to the working of the railway Notwithstanding this expression of disapproval, however, tenders were invited for the work in December, 1889, and the lowest tender duly accepted in January 1890. My second statement seems to be equally well supported, for I find that on 6th February, 1891, the Commissioners were duly informed that the wharf was nearly completed, and that when finished it would presumably vest in the Commissioners as an appurtenance of the opened railway under section 16 of' The Government Eailways Act, 1887 " and inquiring whether the Commissioners would wish to have rails laid upon it or not, and a reply was received from the Commissioners on 12th of same month stating that, although the wharf had been " built by the Government adjacent to a railway previously vested in the Commissioners," the Commissioners held that it was " not a part of the railway," and that no railway vote can have been legally expended on it," and contending that there was no "power to vest, the wharf in them in the manner proposed," and that it ' would be undesirable to expend any money in laying rails on to it," and concluding by drawing attention to the Commissioners' " objections " to the wharf made in April, 1889. The Commissioners having raised the technical ground of the power of the Government to vest the wharf in them, the matter was referred to the Law Officers for opinion, when the Government was advised that there was no legal power, hence the necessity for the special clause in the Act of 1891. My third statement of course does not need any argument to support, as section 6 of the Railways Authorisation and Management Act of 1891 fully bears this out. The above seems to show that I was not materially misinformed in reference to the matter, but, apart from the actual details of the case, the broad principles involved therein were 1. That the

7

D.—B

Commissioners did not endorse the Public Works Department's plans. 2. That they refused to recognise or take over the wharf when completed and 3. That Parliament by special Act supported my predecessor in office and the action of the late Government in erecting the wharf, and vested the same in the Commissioners, thereby giving the public the convenience that they might have enjoyed months before but for the refusal of the Commissioners to take the wharf over Tour remarks in reference to the establishment of a goods-station at Mount Eix I am unable to understand, as no such station was ever proposed by this department, so far as I can ascertain. It is true that the late Mr Blair in his memorandum of 15th April, 1889, already referred to, stated that it was a question whether provisions should be made for goods traffic in connection with the wharf or not, but the then Minister (the Hon. Mr Mitchelson) in a memorandum sent to the Commissioners on the 29th of the same month, entirely discouraged the idea, and no further proposals in the direction of establishing a goods-station there were ever made so far as I can learn. E. J Seddon, The Eailway Commissioners. Minister for Public Works.

No. 8. The Eailway Commissioners to the Hon. Minister for Public Works. New Zealand Government Eailways (Head Office), Wellington, (Memorandum.) 14th April, 1892. Proposed Goods-station, Te Aro. The Commissioners beg to acknowledge receipt of your letter expressing your opinion upon the subject of a second goods-station at Te Aro. With regard to Mount Eix Wharf, to which you have referred, the Commissioners think it is somewhat foreign to the subject, they have, however again referred to the documents in connection with that matter, and find that, as previously stated —Ist, they at no time have refused to take over that work, 2nd, the Government had no power to vest it in the Commissioners, nor had the Commissioners any power to take or control it until an Act was passed giving these powers, and when that was done the Commissioners took it over, 3rd, the Commissioners objected to proposals for a second goods-station at Mount Eix. You appear to be mistaken regarding the inconvenience suffered by the public. The public made use of the wharf in connection with train services when it was in your hands, before it was vested in the Commissioners. James McKerrow, The Hon. Minister for Public Works. Chief Commissioner

No. 9 The Hon. the Minister for Public Works to the Eailway Commissionees. (Memorandum.) Public Works Department, Wellington, Ist July, 1892. Ec Extension Wellingion-Woodville Bailway to Te Aro. — Proposed Goods-station. Eepekring to my memorandum of 28th March last, in which I stated that, as the Commissioners declined to advise in any way regarding provision for a goods-station at Te Aro, I had directed the Engineer-in-Chief to prepare a plan showing how the requisite accommodation could be provided, I have now the honour to forward herewith, for the information of the Commissioners, a tracing of the plan prepared by the Engineer-in-Chief giving this information accordingly E. J Seddon, The Eailway Commissioners. Minister for Public Works.

No. 10. The Bail way Commissioners to the Hon. Minister for Public Works. New Zealand Government Railways (Head Office), Wellington, (Memorandum.) 2nd July, 1892. Proposed Station at Te Aro. In reply to your letter of the Ist instant, containing a plan for a railway-station at Te Aro, and in continuation of the Commissioners' letter of April 14th on the same subject, the Commissioners beg to respectfully express their strong disapproval of the proposals shown on said plan, they being both inconvenient and unsuitable for the conduct of the passenger- and goods-traffic of the railway The Commissioners again beg to urge upon you the execution of the plans which they forwarded to you on the 24th February last. James MoKerrow, The Hon. Minister for Public Works, Wellington. Chief Commissioner Approximate Cost of Paper.— Preparation, nil; printing (1,350 copies), £4 I6s»

By Authority: Geobgb Didsbuby, Government Printer, Wellington.—lB92, Price, 6d.]

Lil%ogroughed;a,t the, Head, Office,, of Zands and, SvbTvery.Welltn.ytoTv.N'.Z. Sept&7n,ber 189^

JMhoc/T-nphed. cUthtHtad. Office, Z>t.pa.Timtn.Z ef Zd,nds and Sarvp. WtU*nfton.X Z September 28S2