D.—4a.

8

Sir B. Stout : As to the first four, I submit that we must have further particulars ; and, as to the other claims made here, I wish to show that the arbitrators ought at once to strike them out, as they are not subjects to be arbitrated upon at all, and cannot be contended to be subjects to be arbitrated upon. They- are Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8, and lastly 9, which is a consequential one really. Down to 4 inclusive we ask for further details. The first is as follows : " That the undertaking of the company being work to be remunerated in part by land, as provided by clause 16 of the contract, the Queen, contrary to the provisions of the said contract, refused and prevented the exercise by the company of its rights of selection over large areas of land within the authorised area." Now, surely we have a right to know what areas they were refused selection over. We ask to get details of the reserves made, which may be classified under three heads, as will appear by-and-by. There are reserves made in what may be called the Grey district, and. in what may be called the Hokitika district. lam only giving the names just to separate them. We want to know whether they complain about the reserves in all the districts; because, to put it in this way: Supposing it turned out, in the course of arbitration, we called fifty or sixty witnesses in connection with the Buller reserves, and it then turned out that the Buller reserves properly made were miles and miles away from this railway: we are entitled, at all events, to get our expenses in dealing with this if the arbitrators decide that the reserves were properly made. Under the contract we are entitled to reserve 750,000 acres, and we have not reserved 500,000 acres. We have surely the right to get the details of the lands they were prevented from selecting over. It has all been gazetted, and the least we can ask is to get the details of what they complain of. That is as to the first clause. Then, as to the second —" That, if any lands were properly reserved under subclause (c) of clause 16, then the company was hindered and prevented in the exercise of its rights under clause 18 by being refused the right to the timber on such lands " —we want to know where and how. We have surely the right to know when the refusal was made and how it was made. We have the right to get these details and particulars. Suppose this had been an action in a Court of law, particulars would have been at once ordered. This would not be held to be sufficient even in the lowest Court of the colony. Then, No. 3 is, " That the Queen has, in contravention of the contract, permitted and authorised the destruction and the removal of timber on lands available for selection, and thereby depreciated the value of such lands." Well, we want also to know where such lands were situated, and how permission or authority was given to destroy timber, and when it was given. Surely we have the right to get that. The arbitrators will see that we are groping in the dark. Clause 18, which they refer to here, says this: " Provided also such option shall not be exercisable over lands the timber on which shall, in the opinion of the Governor, be or be likely to be required for sawmilling industries in existence at the date " —and so on. Then, there is also the right of the miners to take timber for their own mining uses. We have the right to give them that timber. Do they complain of the gold-miners having used timber so as to destroy or injure their line ? Until we know exactly what it is they complain of it is impossible for us to cross-examine their witnesses properly. We have no details, and Ido not know what we have to meet. Then, the fourth claim is, " That the Queen, in contravention of the contract, refused to give effect to the requests of the company under clause 33 to sell or let lands within the authorised area in the Nelson and Westland Land Districts on the western side of the main range of mountains." Does that western side of the range of mountains include all Westland and Nelson? If it does it includes two or three hundred miles. We have surely the right to know something about it. This " west of the mountains "isof no value to us at all. Sir B. Burnside : You want the boundaries specified. Sir B. Stout: If they could tell us the blocks or sections, or specify the reserves or surveys in some way, we might manage. I have pointed out that the reserves may be divided into three classes. There are what may be termed those near the Grey Valley, and the southern reserves due south of the Arahura. Section 33 provides this: "So far as respects any lands within the authorised area in the Nelson and Westland Land Districts, on the western side of the main range of mountains, and being available for selection by the company under clause 16 hereof, the Queen shall, from time to time, on the request of the company, sell any such lands for cash, or on deferred payments in such manner as may be agreed upon between the Queen and the company, or may let the same on lease," &c. That is the section 33 referred to in clause 4. Sir B. Burnside : They make no reference to it themselves ? Sir B. Stout: They do not say where the lands are situated except that they are on the western side of the mountain-range ; but that is not the locality at all, for, as I have said, it is two or three hundred miles long. We want to know the date of the requests, and what the requests are, and where the land is situated, because we cannot meet the claim otherwise. Then, as to clause sof the claim, this we submit should be struck out, as it is ridiculous to take up the time of the arbitration considering this at all. Clause 5 says, " That the remuneration of the company being to the extent of £1,250,000 'B 1 value' in land (as the work of construction should proceed), the Queen, by and through the Parliament of the colony, by greatly increased and graduated taxation on land, imposed subsequent to the date of the contract, and without any exception in favour of the lands over which the company had the right of selection, materially reduced the consideration of the contract and destroyed confidence in the undertaking of the company as a commercial enterprise." Well, there might be something in it if Parliament had put on a special tax in dealing with this company; but surely it cannot be suggested for one moment that the Government or Parliament made a contract with the company that was to limit them in varying, for example, their Customs duties or methods of taxation. It is not suggested that they put any exceptional taxation on this company. It would be a most extraordinary thing to say, for example, that the Customs duties should not be varied because of this contract. It amounts to exactly the same thing. Ido not suppose there is any country in the world that has not entered into contracts for the construction of railways ; and would it be suggested that the making of such a contract would prevent Parliament from putting on any taxation it pleased? It is not like putting special taxation on this company, as