I.—B

20

assignment of the lease, notwithstanding any feeling there may have been, had not the lawyers expressed the opinion that it could not be done. 270. The Chairman.] Is there any difficulty about adopting Mr. FitzGerald's suggestion as to cancelling the old lease and making a new one, with the conditions altered so ,as to suit both parties ?—There is, perhaps, no difficulty in that that lam aware of. If the proposal which lias just been made that the Harbour Board should act as agents for the Railway Department is given effect to that would get over the difficulties; but I must consider this point. 271. Hon. Sir J. Hall.] Have the Harbour Board received any goods on which the Railway Department has not been secured its freight ?—I think they must have. I fancy you will find that, in the case of the transhipment of goods—goods sent from the bays—they paid freights on these. 272. Mr. Williams, through the Chairman.] You have the earlier correspondence in reference to the Gladstone Sheds?—Yes. 273. Have you a letter dated the 14th November, 1878, from Mr. Conyers ?—No ; I have nothing between October, 1877, and July, 1879. I think I mentioned I was somewhat in the dark as to what had gone on during this period. Mr. Williams : It is a very important letter. If I may be allowed, I will read it. It is as follows: "Commissioner of Railways' Office, Christchurch, 14th November, 1878. —Secretary, Lyttelton Harbour Board. —Sir, —l have the honour to forward herewith two tracings of Gladstone Pier Shed, the removal of which is contemplated. Plan A shows the existing portion of the shed, and plan B the position to which it is proposed to remove it. The reason which led to this idea of the shed being shifted will be found sot forth in the following extract from our Resident Engineer's report :' In its present position the shed can only be used as a railway-store. All material must be put into it and removed from it by railway-wagons ; and, consequently, it is of no more service on the wharf than if it stood in Christchurch, or any other place remote from the ships. What appears to be required is a shed into which railway-wagons could discharge, and thence be delivered direct to the ships, or ships discharged and thence to wagons. This would immensely relieve the demand for wagons, and facilitate loading and discharging of ships.' To meet this object, I recommend that the shed be removed nearer the side of the wharf, and laying the siding at back of the shed, as indicated on tracing herewith (plan B). But another manifest and great advantage would be attained by shifting the shed nearer to the wharf. Goods in British ships might be discharged direct into the shed, and the Customs examination, sorting, fa?,., he performed there, so that all goods intended for the interior might be loaded at once for destination, instead of being, as now, transhipped at Christchurch. I enclose also a plan (C) showing the arrangement proposed for the traversers. —I have, &c, W. Conyers, Commissioner of Railways." Mr. Maxwell: I may say I have never seen that letter. I can quite gather from Mr. Conyers's other letters that he was perfectly at one with the Board about it. I can quite understand that. 274. Mr. Williams.] Are you aware that clause 3 of " The Lyttelton Harbour Board Land Act, 1877," vests the fee-simple of all the land described in the First Schedule, including the breakwaters, in the Lyttelton Harbour Board?—Yes; I think that is so. 275. Did the Government erect and maintain the three Gladstone Sheds on the new sites on the Gladstone Wharf in conformity with clause 10 of "The Lyttelton Harbour Board Land Act, 1877 '' ? — By means of the Harbour Board ; yes. I have given the, Crown Law Officer's opinion on this, which answers that question. I put it in this way : The shed was taken off the original site and cut into three pieces, and increased in size, and put on the Harbour Board land by the Harbour Board. That is the statement to the Crown Law Officer. 276. The Board, of course, erected these three sheds?—Yes. 277. With the full consent and authority of the Government ? —Yes. 278. The sheds were partly on the old site, and partly on the Board's wharf?—Partly on the old site, and partly on the new site. 279. Under the correspondence Government pledged itself to vest these three new sheds in the Board ?—I do not think the Minister did so. Ido not know what Mr. Conyers may have written to the Board; but lam not aware this pledge was ever made. [Mr. Williams here handed in the following documents : (1.) " Lyttelton Harbour Board Office, Christchurch, 27th August, 1879.—W. Conyers, Esq., Commissioner of Railways.— Sir, —With reference to your letter of the 14th instant, and to the interview which took place this morning between yourself and Mr. P. Cunningham and the Chairman of the Harbour Board, on. the subject of shed on the Officers' Point Breakwater, I am directed by the Chairman to state that, if the Government are prepared to hand over the shed in question to the Board, together with the flooring-material which has already been provided for it, the Board are prepared to remove and re-erect the shed upon, their property, in accordance with the plan enclosed in your letter of the 14th November last. The regulations for working the shed should be made by Railways and Customs Departments, having solely in view ' the facilitating the discharge and loading of ships, and the Customs operations.' The control of the shed to remain under the Government, they taking the necessary steps to vest the shed in the Lyttelton Harbour Board. (See section 11 of ' The Lyttelton Harbour Board Land Act, 1877.') As it is of the utmost importance that the shed should be moved on to the wharf (Gladstone Pier) before the ensuing wool and grain season, I am to ask you for an early reply.-*I have, &c, C. H. Williams, Secretary, Lyttelton Harbour Board." (2.) Telegram, dated the 21st October, 1879, from Mr. N. W. Werry to Mr. C. H. Williams, as follows : " Government have sanctioned transfer of Gladstone Shed to Harbour Board, and Conyers instructed to take immediate action matter." (3.) Letter, dated the 22nd October, 1879, from Mr. W. Conyers, Commissioner of Railways, to Secretary, Harbour Board, Lyttelton, as follows: " I have the honour to inform you that I am this day in receipt of a telegram from the UnderSecretary for Railways, intimating that the Hon. Minister for Public Works has sanctioned my