I.—B.

since the expiration of the notice received from the Railway Commissioners, and that is about two months ago. Since the Ist July, 1889, it has been unoccupied. 63. Is it required? Is there any demand for storage?—Yes. 64. Have Government given you access to the shed ? Can you let it ? —We can utilise it. At the present season I could not say whether we could let it or not. 65. Can you get a tenant for it?—Yes, I think so. 66. What do you think you could get for it? —I do not know. As much as £1,500 per annum was offered by a gentleman at one time for it. 67. Mr. Perceval.] That is, assuming you had ordinary access to it?—Yes, exactly. 68. Mr. Barron.] You have said Government have agreed to refund to the Board the cost of re-erecting the three Gladstone Sheds. There is no other agreement than that which we find in the precis of correspondence submitted to us ? —None other than that—the Premier's letters dated the Bth December, 1886, and the 15th June, 1887. * 69. In the former letter the Premier expresses an opinion that it was expedient to settle the question on a certain basis, and the Harbour Board say they cannot accept this ?—Precisely. 70. That is to say, the Harbour. Board have refused the offer of Government to refund the cost of erecting the sheds ? —Upon the condition named in the Premier's letter of the Bth December, 1886, the lowering of the rent for the sheds, which the Harbour Board say is a distinct question. 71. Dr. Neivman.] The Chairman of the Harbour Board said just now that the Board built these sheds on an understanding: I want to know what he means by "understanding," and with whom the understanding was come to ?—As to this No. 5 shed ? 72. You said just now there was an understanding, but we have nothing before us to know what that understanding is ?—The understanding is, I think, very clearly set out in letter No. 6a in the correspondence. The understanding was —the Government were not in a position at the time to purchase this site from the Board, and therefore agreed to pay £2,000 a year in the meantime, until they were in a position to purchase. 73. With whom was the understanding come to?—With the Hon. Mr. Oliver, the theiuMinister for Public Works. 74. Have you got the promise in writing?—l have got the promise in a memorandum in writing, taken at the time. 75. That is merely an account of an interview with the Hon. Mr. Oliver. Surely, in a grave arrangement, embracing £30,000, the Harbour Board must have something more than that ?—lt was subsequently embodied in a letter, dated the Ist April, 1881, to the Hon. the Minister for Public Works. This letter was sent, embodying this promise. 76. Have you got it in writing that the Crown agrees to pay the Harbour Board £30,000? — Inferentially or impliedly only. 77. You have no direct writing to that effect?—No; I think it is very clearly laid down in. that minute, No. 6a. 78. That is merely conversation ?—The understanding was that some time or other the Harbour Board would be paid £32,000, or, rather, £28,000. In the meantime the Government agreed to pay this £2,000 a year. They were anxious to buy the site at the time, but had not the funds to do so, and the Harbour Board was in the meantime to hold it. 79. Hon. Mr. Larnach.] Until it was convenient for the Government to take it over ?— Exactly. 80. Dr. Neivman.] What agreement was made at the time for payment ?—That it was to be paid at the rate of £2,000 a year. There was no term fixed. 81. Then it could be given notice of—six months' notice or a year's notice?—ln looking at the understanding when the Board took the shed 82. Your solicitor says that at a certain time it might be ended ? —Possibly legally, but not in equity. He advised on the question from a purely legal point of view. 83. The Board, then, has no legal claim at all, only an appeal to Parliament?—As far as our solicitor advises us, they must give us six months' notice before the date that the lease commences. They must give us six months' notice before April in any year. That was the legal advice we got. That was without considering the question of equity. 84. Mr. Turnbull] What is the storage - capacity of No. 5 shed ?—From 7,000 to 8,000 tons. 85. What is the usual charge made for storage per ton ?—The Government charge is 2s. 6d. per ton for the first week, 2d. for the next week, and Id. per ton for every subsequent week. 86. Did you ever estimate the revenue Government would derive from that shed, supposing it was fairly filled? —No, I did not. 87. You could not tell whether it would be near £2,000 per year? —No. The railway storage rates were higher than any other rates in Lyttelton, and consequently the raihvay did not get the same amount of storage business as others. 88. Do you consider the shed fairly managed by the department in making best use of the storage available ?—No ; I do not think so, on the ground of the storage-charges alone. 89. The charges are one ground: would bad storage be another reason ? —Possibly; I could not say from my own knowledge. 90. Are there any other grain-stores on the wharf ? —Yes. 91. Are they fully occupied?—We have two stores that are fully occupied: at the present moment they are practically filled. 92. Did you estimate the cost of working these sheds?—Yes. 93. What is the cost ? —Sixpence per ton receiving and stacking, and 6d. per ton delivering. 94. Hon. Mr. Larnach.] After paying the railway ?—Purely receiving, delivery, and storage charges and stacking—equal to Is, a ton.

5