I.—B.

365. And the increased charge on the part of the railway is on the following weeks ?—Yes. 36.6 Do you attribute the fact of the railway stores not filling to the higher charge of the railway ?—I scarcely think that now it can be so. We put clown our charges. 367. Did you, while you were General Manager of Railways, recognise the distinction between the lines destined for public purposes and for the Harbour Board's wharves from those intended for serving private sidings to be let by the Board? —Yes. 368. In the former case the practice was for the Government to bear the cost, and in the latter case the cost is borne by the tenant ?—I do not know whether the Board's tenant bears it or not. It is borne by the Board I know. 369. I have simply quoted a letter of your own, dated 25th June, 1884, which laid that rule down ?—That is the case with our own private sidings. 370. It referred to the Board's tenants as well? —I suppose the Board would charge them as well. 371. The lines which serve the Board's sheds were laid by the Government free of cost ?— Yes. 372. If the Board were to take over No. 5 shed, would the railway afford the same facilities for working the traffic with it as are given to the Board with their other two stores at Lytteltou, which they work themselves ?—Well, lam not prepared to answer that question. I cannot answer that without consulting my colleagues. 373. It would be following thj usual practice hitherto followed if you did so? —I do not know of any instance where we have such a case as that to deal with. 374. As a matter of fact you are doing it at the present moment. The stores you are working, have they lines laid to them at the cost of the Government ?—The cases are not identical. The stores you mention have different access to that of No. 5 shed. 375. Government paid the cost of laying rails in that case? —That maybe. 376. I have got a copy of a letter here if there is any question about it. Is there not a special haulage-charge of Is. 6d. per ton upon goods waggoned from the Board's shed, or from private sidings at Lyttelton ?—From all private stores or sheds. 377. Have you not had repeated representations made to you by the Canterbury Chamber of Commerce, the Harbour Board, and others, pointing out that this was an excessive charge, and asking to have it reduced ?—I think it is very likely every charge we have ever made on the railway has been said to be an excessive charge some time or other. 378. Has this been a particular bone of contention ?—Yes. 379. Is not there a lower charge for haulage upon goods from the Government sheds at Lyttelton to the vessels at the wharves ?—No ; there is a second charge, which is the same to the Government as to the private stores. The charge is Is. 6d. if the goods are hauled and handled at the ship's sides, and Is. per ton if hauled only, and not handled. The charge is the same from all the sheds. 380. The Harbour Board have been charged Is. 6d. per ton by the railway on all goods sent from their sheds to the wharves ?—That is right; it is a universal charge. 381. In fact they have been treated as private siding-owners in this respect, notwithstanding the fact that they were treated otherwise by the Government in paying cost of laying the sidinglines to the Harbour Board's sheds?—The Board has been charged just the same as people who store with the Government. The charges are just the same as if we shipped the goods from our own sheds. Mr. Williams : The Chairman, who was here, desired me to make some remarks in reference to certain points in the evidence, and I have here a written statement which I wish to place before the Committee. It is as follows : [Vide Appendix.] 382. Mr. Rhodes.] You said, Mr. Maxw Tell, the cost of reclamation was between £4,000 and £5,000, as estimated ? —Yes. 383. Do you allow anything for working the lines to it—this would require some reclamation ■which you would necessarily use with the store ? —-That is simply for the land on which the store stands. 384. The shed would not be of any use unless you had the extra reclamation, which is merely used by yourselves ?—On the extra reclamation the Government spend £4,000 to £5,000. 385. Did the Board spend anything on it? —Yes ; I suppose so—on its own extra reclamation, but not on the Government part. 386. The expenditure was necessary to work the shed?—Yes. 387. Have you any idea of the present value of that shed?—l think it is worth £500 or £600 a year. I think that is a fair value, although for two years we have got nothing out of it: that, I imagine, is very largely due to the fact that the grain was not going out of the country, but since the grain business picked up again we are getting more revenue. 388. Are your storage charges the same in Lyttelton as up-country ? — They are lower in Lyttelton. It is not the department that stores up-country, but private storers —people who own private sheds. Mr. Williams : If I may be permitted, I would like to make a remark. The question was raised as to the amount of storage in Lyttelton during this year. I may say the Board's sheds were blocked on the 7th May last, and an advertisement was put in the paper to that effect —in fact, it has not been withdrawn ; we are still full. 389. Hon. Sir J. Hall.] There is one question I would like to ask you, Mr. Williams. You say the £2,000 a year was bi^ed on the cost of the whole work in connection with the shed— £28,000 : how much of that do you consider fairly applicable to the.shed and not to the wharf?—l made an estimate for Mr. Peacock, and I put the amount down at £20,400. 390. As the cost of the shed, cost of the reclamation for lines immediately serving the shed, and strengthening the breastwork ?—Yes. 391. £20,400?—Yes.

26