I.—B.

proposal to hand over the Gladstone Shed to the Harbour Board, on the terms arranged, for re-erection on their own property, but reserving the question of the flooring-materials for further consideration, and conveying Hon. Minister's wish that early action may be taken. I have accordingly instructed the Resident Engineer, with a view to facilitate operations, to put the preliminary work of lifting the rails in hand at once." (4.) Telegram, dated the 25th October, 1879, from Mr. N. W. Werry to Secretary, Lyttelton Harbour Board, as follows: "Government approves flooring-material for Gladstone Shed being handed over to Board, and Conyers instructed accordingly."] 280. Mr. Williams.] You have seen the telegram from Mr. Werry to the Harbour Board, by direction of the Minister, agreeing to the terms of the Board's letter of the 27th August, 1879 ?— No ; but I have it on record that the Minister ordered the shed to be handed over for re-erection, and, of course, I conclude on the terms that Mr. Conyers wrote to him. 281. Looking to the fact that the Harbour Board removed and re-erected these sheds on their own wharf, and at a. cost of some £3,300, on the distinct pledge that the Government would vest them in the Harbour Board, do you not think it a breach of faith that this pledge was not carried out? —I am not in possession of all the circumstances of the case, as has been shown. If the Board were invited to do it by the Railway Department, and called on to carry it out, and the department instigated it, then I should say yes, the Board would be entitled to be recouped ; not otherwise. 282. You are aware that vessels lying at the Gladstone Wharf could not discharge their cargoes direct into the old Gladstone Shed?—That is so. 283. The goods had to go into wagons, and thence into the shed ?—Yes. 284. Vessels, in the present case, can discharge direct into the Gladstone Sheds?—No ; they never do so. The goods are all put into the trucks, and sorted there from the slings. It is not three months since I put the question to the local officer, and he said, " All the goods go into the trucks; we cannot put them from the slings into the sheds at all." Mr. Williams: I would suggest that this question be left open, in order that Mr. Maxw 7ell may make further inquiry about it. The Chairman: The reply to that question may be postponed, in order that Mr. Maxwell may make inquiry upon the subject. 285. Mr. Williams.] Did tho Board's letter of the 27th May, 1886, in which the Chairman of the Board replies to the Minister for Public Works's letter of the 11th May, 1886, come before you as head of the Railway Department ?■ —I have seen that letter ; yes. 286. The Chairman concludes that letter in these words : " Under these circumstances, I am bound to assert the Board's proprietorship to the Gladstone Sheds." I think you have admitted that a reply was never sent to the Harbour Board ?—Well, I do not think there was a reply sent. 287. Is it usual to allow a letter of so important a character to remain unanswered?—Well, the letter went before the Ministers in Cabinet, and was retained by the Ministers. Ido not know why. 288. Might it not be implied that the receiver accepted the views of the writer ?—I do not think so. 289. Now, as to No. 2 shed and the non-assignment of lease : on the 23rd July, 1887, the Minister for Public Works forwarded you from Ohristehurch a letter from the Harbour Board, dated the 22nd July, 1887, in which tho Chairman to the Board fully replied to the objections raised by the Crown Law Officers to the assignment of the lease being assented to by the Minister. You received that letter?—l happened to be leaving New Zealand just at that particular time, and Ido not think I ever saw that letter. The matter remained quiescent until a few weeks ago, when the Hon. Mr. Richardson asked some questions about it. 290. There never was a reply to that letter? —I see by the correspondence before me it went to the Minister, and was referred to the Marine Department; and why it did not get any further I cannot tell you. 291. As to No. 5 shed : I think you stated to the Committee you had recommended the takingover of No. 5 shed by the Government at your own estimate of its value—namely, £10,000 ?—I have always expressed my opinion that the shed should be taken, over by the Government. As to the value, that was what I had thought it was worth approximately. 292. Were you aware that the timber-breastwork had been specially strengthened at a large additional cost to take that shed upon it ?—Yes ; I know it was somewhat strengthened. 293. The full length of the shed ?—Yes ; 500ft. 294. Did you inform Mr. Richardson, the Minister for Public Works, at the time his letter of the 14th August, 1885, was written to the Board requesting a reduction of the rent of No. 5 shed to £1,000 a year, that the Board were entitled to £10,000 for the shed and site ?—I do not recollect. The papers were before Mr. Richardson. 295. When you first wrote to the Board on the matter of No. 5 shed, on the 19th January, 1881, you then held that the Government could, under clauses 9 and 10 of " The Lyttelton Harbour Board Land Act, 1877," enter upon and use the property of the Board for railway purposes without paying compensation for so doing ?—Yes. 296. You evidently altered your opinion upon this point when you recommended the Government to pay the Board £10,000 for No. 5 shed and site?—No ; the department could pay compensation for the buildings, but it had the free use of land. 297. Have you any plan showing that it was ever intended to devote the reclamation at the back of No. 5 shed, which the Board did for the Government, to any other purpose than for railaccommodation in connection with the port-traffic?—Have I any evidence ? 298. No ; any plan ?—No; I merely said Government might have used the land itself. 299. By the plans side lines were laid upon it ?—Yes. 300. Would there not be less siding lines to lay by the abandonment by the Board of the second row of sheds, as shown on Mr. Carruthers's plan ?—I doubt very much whether we could have served a second row of sheds.

21