I.—B

22

301. It was in Mr. Carruthers's design approved by the Board?—Yes. 302. Has the Bailway lost money in consequence of renting No. 5 shed from the Board? —I should say decidedly. One year it stood quite empty. 303. Can you say how much a year? —No. 304. Approximately?—No ; I could not. 305. Can you obtain that information ?—lt would be somewhat difficult, I imagine. It will have to be got out locally, and will take some time.

Wednesday, 28th August, 1889. J. P. Maxwell's examination continued. Mr. Maxieell : Sir John Hall has asked a question with regard to the figures I gave as to*the revenue the Board was endowed with. He asked what year I referred to. On looking at the papers I find the revenue I was referring to was for the financial year 1880-Kl. Ido not know what the revenue was in 1877-78. 306. Hon. Sir J. Hall.] That is when the Board was constituted ?—Yes, 1877-78. I said that the Board was endowed with £28,000 a year, and you held that that could not refer to 1877, when the Board was constituted. I find that that is correct, that the revenue of £28,935 was for the financial year of 1880-81. Then, Sir, I was asked to state how I arrived at the valuation of the shed site, and I have requested the Railway Engineer to make his estimate now, as I could not find the figures showing how I arrived at my estimate before. He gave mo his view of it, and his estimate is £4,210, taking the reclamation at the Harbour Board's contract price, and the strengthening of the wharf at the proper figure. That is an independent estimate. 307. Mr. Perceval.] What is that ?—The cost of relaiming the shed site, and the cost to the Board of strenthening the breastwork. I have stated that at one time I valued it at between £4,000 and £5,000 approximately. I requested the Railway Engineer to value it, and he puts it at £4,210. 308. Hon. Sir J. Hall.] That is the value of the exact site on which the shed stands ? —Yes; with the cost of strengthening the breastwork. Mr. Wilson: Do you mean the shed as it stands on Government land or on the Board's land ? 309. The Chairman.} Mr. Maxwell is referring to No. 5 shed. You are referring to No. 5 shed?—Yes; No. 5 shed. Then I was asked to give some information as to what No. 5 shed had brought the Government in in the way of storage and so on. Well, I cannot at the present moment give accurate information on that point. I have been communicating with the department at Lyttelton, but there has been some inaccuracy in the figures. In 1884 and 1885, approximately, the Government made £1,000 each year out of the shed. In 1886 and 1887 practically nothing was made out of it—only a hundred or two. I will give the figures more precisely as soon as I obtain further information. 310. Mr. Williams.] Have you got the figures for 1888 ?—Approximate value of receipts from No. 5 store from 1883 to 1888, inclusive (financial years), £350, £1,000, £1,000, £150, nil, £700. Then, as to the question of locating the Gladstone Sheds : on looking into that matter I find that the letter which Mr. Williams read, dated November, 1878, from Mr. Conyers, I think referred not to the scheme which was finally carried, but to the scheme of removing the shed bodily. I find also from the papers that there seems to have been an interview between the Minister for Public Works and Mr. Conyers and the Chairman of the Board later on ; and finally, towards the end of 1879, the scheme that was carried out developed. I do not know how that developed, but it seems to have been discussed on both sides, and I suppose the Minister and Mr. Conyers and the Chairman of the Board settled how it should be done. 311. Mr. Lowe devised the scheme of the three sheds ?—Well, I. have asked Mr. Lowe about it. He drew the plan out, but he does not seem to have originated it, and he cannot tell me who did it; but, at any rate, the matter was generally discussed by both parties. Then, regarding the discharging from ships, no steamers with inward cargoes are dealt with at the Gladstone Pier. Most of the sailing-ships with inward cargoes go up to the Gladstone Pier, if there is room and their draught will allow of it. If there is'not room and not enough water, they discharge elsewhere, and they then discharge into trucks. If they lie at the sheds they also discharge into trucks, where the goods are sorted—that is to say, the goods are sorted in the trucks. Only very heavily-sparred ships could sling goods into the sheds if required, and then only when the hatches are in proper position; they do not attempt in practice to sling goods into the sheds at all. 312. I have seen them sling goods into the sheds. —Well, I have wired down for explicit information; and that is the reply I get. I have understood at one time—l think lam right in saying —that the Board expected to discharge their ships at the Gladstone Sheds, and then move them to the No. 5 grain-shed to load. I think I have heard that was projected some years ago, wdien the change was made, but it was not found practicable to move the empty ships; and there was another objection, and that was that the ships, while putting out cargo at one hatch, are often taking in grain at another hatch from trucks. That is all I have to state as to the questions raised at my previous examination. I think it also right to state that Government has a counter-claim against the Board on account of land reclaimed at Sticking Point, which amounts to £3,753. lam not personally acquainted with that claim, but I understand that information concerning it can be obtained from the Under-Secretary for Public Works. This work, I believe, has been done partly by prison-labour and partly out of the public-works funds, and it was commenced in 1881. Hon. Mr. Peacock : There is a distinct agreement concerning that, quite apart from the questions under consideration. 313. Hon. Sir J. Hall.] Was not that agreement made by the Hon. Mr. Bolleston? —I could not say