I.—4b.

10

219. It has been represented to the Committee that the interference of the Government was very much against the duties of the Commissioners. Will you state in what way that came it ?—I would not say exactly that it prevented the Commissioners from offering the lands for It was the old story of taking the horse to water. It prevented the people from buying. 220. Do you, as Commissioners, consider you exceeded the Act, or that the Minister of Lands ii 9 luch right to have a say in the matter as you? The original Act enabled you to lease for twentyone years, but gave you no power to sell. The power to sell was given to the Governor by Proclamation, or the Minister of Lands ? —ln 1880 the Commissioners came to the conclusion that it was advisable to sell the lands from time to time, and they asked the Government to bring in a Bill to effect that object. The Government declined to entertain the application. For two succeeding sessions the Commissioners tried to obtain that power, and eventually the Minister of Lands (Mr. Bolleston) in 1882 brought in a series of clauses, including in the amended Bill certain clauses which he conceived would give effect to the Commissioners' views. In this Bill power was given to the Commissioners to recommend land for sale. The Government might agree to the recommendations, and in the event of its doing so the land could be dealt with in accordance with the recommendations ; and it appears to me that the Legislature, in providing that the lands should be so dealt with, relied on the judgment of the Commissioners. The power of recommendation was clearly and absolutely vested, in the Commissioners. 221. Mr. Smith.] Do you consider that regulations could be made under the perpetual-leasing system to protect the lands equally as well as regulations could be made to protect them under the twenty-one years' lease system? —Well, I suppose regulations could be made quite as effectual; but it appears to me that, whatever regulations you make, the system would be an objectionable one. 222. You think regulations could be made?—No doubt. 223. Mr. Macandrew.] I understand that when these endowments were set aside it was the intention at the time not to part with the freehold, but to keep them as permanent endowments for these institutions. I should like to know what induced the Commissioners to depart from that intention ? —Well, I suppose the Commissioners thought they were absolute in the matter, and that they were bound to act in a way that would be conducive to the interests of the colony. 224. But do you not think it would be better to hold them in the interest of the trust than to part with the freehold and invest the money ?—No, I do not think so. 225. Then, in regard to separate management, do you not think it would be better to have the management and control of all lands available for settlement under one board of management ?— It might be if the land laws of the colony were uniform. But the land laws of the colony are so mosaic that I do not see that any difficulties could arise from having the management in different bodies. 226. Has there been any conflict between the management of the Waste Lands Board—that is, of Crown lands—and the management of the Commission ? That is, as far as regards the system of settlement ? —The only possible difference would be on account of the perpetual-leasing system. The Land Boards have accepted that system—in fact, they had no alternative. But, except in one instance, the Otago Board of School Commissioners never agreed to open reserves under that system. 227. There may be a little more economy if the work is done under one Board?—The clerks' salaries might be dispensed with; but I think that is all. And it is quite possible that if these additional extents of property are vested in the Waste Land Boards their expenses may be increased. 228. Do you think it would be in the interest of the colony that the whole of the lands should be administered from one centre—from Wellington, for example ? —Well, I think if the administration was the wisest and best possible it might be advantageous. 229. The Chairman.] Do the Commissioners consider themselves entitled to make use of the amounts invested in mortgages as current revenue, or is it invested in permanent mortgage ?—I think, as a rule, it is invested in permanent mortgage. Without speaking positively, my present impression is that all the money received from sales is invested in mortgages. That is the capital. But expenses are paid out of current revenue. 230. What I wanted to know is, whether you feel bound to keep that money as a permanent sum, or whether you would feel justified in spending it ?—I think it should be kept as a capital sum. 231. Have you used any of it in current expenditure ?—I do not think so. If any has been used it has been used for buildings. But my present impression is that none of it has been used. 232. I find that the total amount of expenses incurred with the management of the reserves is £1,227 6s. 9d. That is 3J per cent, on your total revenue. Do you consider that that amount might be saved if the reserves were managed by the Waste Lands Board ?—ls that for the whole of the colony ? 233. No; for Otago. It includes salaries to secretary and clerks, commission to the Southland agent, travelling allowances, office-rent, cleaning, &c, printing and stationery, expenses of leasing, auctioneers' commission and advertising, incidentals, expenditure on reserves, interest on current account, legal expenses, &c. It also includes expenses on land sales, Crown grant fees, &c. ?—I do not think any of these expenses could be avoided, beyond those I have mentioned— the clerks' salaries and the office-rent. 234. You said, in answer to Mr. Bolleston, that you had no audit ?—I am not aware of any. 235. I find by the report sent in that there is a Mr. Livingston mentioned as auditing?—i Mr. Livingston is the Government Provincial Auditor. — 236. Well, that is an audit. I understood you to say there was none ?—I made a mistake. 237. Hon. Mr. Bolleston.] My question was particularly as to the nature and goodness of these transactions—the nature and worth of the mortgages. Perhaps you could ask him, Sir, if the audit refers to that ?—My reply to Mr, Bolleston was correct. I am not aware of any audit in that direction.