to.—4

24

that, with the development of the mining industry, and the large development of our timber, it would pay. 446. Taking the two together, and assuming the company had not been interfered with, would the two together still have returned a profit on expenditure ?—Assuming the land-grant could be realised at anything like a price that was anticipated, Yes. 447. The price you had reason to expect, if the Government had acted fairly, as you think?— Yes ; if we had been free to select from all but bond fide working mining reserves. 448. Now, is it not a fact that experience has abundantly proved that through traffic on lines with few stations is better paying than on those lines where there are a number ?—That is an axiom. 449. Hon. E. Blake.] But you would not be sorry to see settlement along the line?—No; but if you start from two points with the railway, and you have an assured traffic, you have an assured return. The other is auxiliary traffic. 450. Mγ. Hutchison.] Now, with reference to the consent to the incline : I notice that in your petition you put it that the company completed its survey and plans of the incline on the 18th August, 1891; the Government referred the question in February, 1892 ; and that on the 21st April of that year the Government received the report of the engineers; but that at the time of the petition being presented, in July, you had not got a reply?—No; we had not got the reply from the Government. 451. Consequently, was not the assent in respect of the incline line delayed till after the petition was presented?— Yes. 452. But at the time of the petition you had not even got your answer?— No. In fact, we received the first intimation of consent having been given by the Minister for Public Works in the Committee. Even then I had not received an intimation of it. 453. When did you receive an intimation ?—I did not receive it till I got a letter, which is in the correspondence. 454. Can you give us about the date. It is subsequent, at any rate, to the inquiry before the Committee ?—lt is the 25th August, 1892. 455. Hon. E. Blake.] That was after the explanation was given at the Committee. The complaint was, I think, fairly and reasonably abandoned, and what I was surprised to see was an attempt to revive it ?—lt was merely on the question of the scope of the inquiry. Mr. Hutchison : My friend read two questions on page 9, Nos. 116 and 117, as to finance ; well, I should like you to supplement that by reading Nos. 118 and 119. No. 118 says, " Was not that before the Government financial proposals were submitted at all ? " The answer is, " Yes ; I was alluding to the second trial. Your financial proposals were known in London in March last." No. 119 says, " That is 1892. I was referring to March, 1891? " The answer is, "We were then suffering from the reports as to the value of our land-grant, and the general value of the stock in the market." Witness: Yes, the Government stock and our own stock. «' Mr. Hutchison : That is all I wish to ask the witness. Henby Alan Scott sworn and examined. 456. Mr. Cooper.] I believe you are a member of the English Bar ?—Yes. 457. And I think you have been in New Zealand since 1879? —Yes. 458. You are acquainted with the circumstances connected with the New Zealand Midland Railway Company from the commencement ?—Yes ; until eighteen months ago. 459. You, I think, had something to do with what is called the " Chrystall contract"?— Yes ; I, as agent with Messrs. Dobson and Fell, was sent Home to negotiate the construction of the railway through some company or syndicate, taking, as a basis, the concessions which were to be granted. 460. When was it you went Home? —As nearly as possible the 17th or 18th January, 1885. 461. Had you letters from members of the New Zealand Government ?—Yes ; I had a special letter from the Colonial Treasurer of the day. 462. Who was he?— Sir Julius Vogel. 463. To whom ?—To the Agent-General and Sir Penrose Julyan, and I think to Mr. Carruthers, as the then Consulting Engineer of the New Zealand Government. Hon. E. Blake : I suppose they were just letters of introduction. Mr. Cooper : We have asked for copies of them. 464. You might just shortly state the purport of them ? They were letters of introduction, requesting the officers of the New Zealand Government to give every assistance to the delegates that were sent Home. 465. Well, I believe on your arrival in England you had to take steps to obtain the construction of this railway?— Yes. 466. And those steps eventuated in the assignment of the Chrystall contract to the Midland Eailway Company. 467. Were you personally familiar with the negotiations which took place resulting in the assignment of that contract ?—Yes; they were, I might say, entirely in my hands from the commencement to the end—up to the very day the contract was assigned to the Midland Eailway Company. 468. In the schedule to " The East and West Coast (Middle Island) and Nelson Eailway and Eailways Construction Act, 1886," there is certain correspondence set out as part of the Act ? —Yes. 469. You are familiar with that correspondence ?—Yes. 470. Your negotiations resulted in the assignment of that contract to the Midland Eailway Company?-—Yes.