1.—6

14

Mr. W.A. Murray 6tli Oct., 1575.

ment in asking the House for a vote to improve the land to make it marketable ?—I think it was the duty of the Government to have expended money in this way. 193. If in your opinion it was so speculative an undertaking, or so doubtful in its results, would the Government have been justified in asking the House for a vote for operations the results of which would have been so doubtful ? —I think the Government should have instituted inquiries and had the land thoroughly surveyed before they sold it to the gentlemen who bought it. I believe the Government would have been justified on going into it on public grounds, in improving it by means of roads or railway, and then opening it up for sale in blocks of 640 acres. 194. Although the return of the money was, in your opinion, so doubtful ? —I do not think there was a great deal of doubt about it. I think" it was bound to have turned out of some value. The aim of the Government should be to settle a large number of people in the country, whereas the capitalist would only look at the grazing capabilities of the land; but I should say I have heard that it is the intention of the Company, so soon as they have completed a certain portion of these drainage works, to cut up this property into blocks, and to sell them upon deferred payments. 195. "What I wish to know is whether, with the information then existing, in your opinion the Government would have been justified in proposing an expenditure on such works ? —1 have already stated that the Government were much to blame in entering into such a large transaction as that, with the limited knowledge at their disposal. They should have had the ground surveyed and properly reported upon before selling it. 196. You consider it was the duty of the Government to undertake these drainage works ? —Yes. 197. Mr. Macandrew.] Is there any railway contemplated under the Public Works scheme which affects this land ?—The Thames-Waikato railway, which will be one of the most important railways in the North Island, must necessarily pass through this block of land. 198. Was that railway decided upon before the sale or subsequently ? —I understand before the sale. At all events it was surveyed through this property by Mr. Simpson, who was acting for the Government. 199. Mr. Ormond.~\ Is this part of the land for which some company offered to build a railway ncross it ?—I think that was in a different locality. 200. Mr. Macandrew.] I understand a line of railway has been surveyed by the General Government through this land ? —I understand so. 201. Do you know the date when this line was surveyed ? Was it before or after the sale ?—I think it was before the sale. 202. The Chairman.] Is it one of the lines of railways authorized to be made ?—When the other lines were authorized to be made, this line was authorized to be surveyed. 203. Mr. Macandrew.] If you had had any certainty that a railway was going to be made through the land at a given time, would that have affected your opinions and dealings with reference to it ?— Certainly. 204. You would then have bought it ? —Most certainly, if my means had allowed me. 205. The Chairman.] If thp block had been a smaller one, you would have bought it ?—Yes. 206. Could you not have taken up a part of it ? —Not very well. 207. Was it not available ? —Were the regulations such that you must take the whole 80,000 acres ? —You could have taken more or less, as you liked, but you required to carry on operations of that sort in a comprehensive way to make them successful. 208. There is another little point I wish cleared up. You state that there are about 7,000 acres of comparatively dry land, and that that land was worth £1 per acre. Was it worth that in 1873 ?— Yes. 209. Can you give the Committee any reason why the land was not taken up at ss. ?—I cannot understand it. 210. Although this land was worth £1 per acre, and open for selection at 55., you cannot give any reason why it was not taken up at ss. ?—None ; unless that the parties who knew the land were not in a position to buy it. 211. Does not that imply it was not worth £1 ? —I fancy there must have been some difficulties put in the way by the Government; for instance, the surveys not completed. Otherwise, I cannot conceive why the land was not taken up. 212. You fancy obstructions were put in the way by the Government. What is your fancy built upon ?—I saw no reason, except perhaps the Government had not offered facilities for taking it up. 213. I will ask you whether you know of any instance in New Zealand where a large swamp was drained at great expense by the Government, and afterwards successfully opened up to small settlers ? —1 am not aware of any such case, but I understand that Douglas and Walker's swamp, which was sold by the Government, upon land scrip equal to 3s. 6d. cash, to Mr. Farmer, and bought from him afterwards by Douglas and Walker for ss. per acre, was drained by the Government road made through it afterwards. 214. If the Government had done in this ease what you suppose it to be their duty to have done, viz. to have taken and drained this swamp, and afterwards to have sold it, would it, commercially speaking, have been a successful operation ?—I question very much whether it would have done anything more than pay the actual cost. 215. Would it have done that ?—I believe it would, if properly conducted. Of course, Governments are not the best institutions for carrying on these works. If properly carried out, I believe it would pay expenses. 216. How is this land at present held ;by a Company ?—I understand so. 217. Would shares in the Company be a profitable transaction, now, in your opinion ?—I should not by any means object to buying into the Company at cost price. 218. Including any expenses incurred ? —Yes ; although I understand, about a year ago, one of the partners, Mr. Whitaker, would have been glad to have sold out at a small loss. 219. If we have it in evidence that shares are almost valueless at present, you would not a°ree with that ?—Not at all.