31

|- 7

92. As I understood you, he was paid a salary as manager, and, by profession, he was an engineer ?—Yes. 93. He was paid also as a financier perhaps ? —Possibly. [Questions put through the Chairman.] 94. Mr. Chapman.] You have, Mr. Chairman, asked whether 10 per cent, was a high rate, would you be good enough to ask the witness what would be a fair rate ? 95. The Chairman.] What, in your opinion, would be a fair rate of commission if the salary was not sufficient? If he was paid partly by salary and partly by commission, what would be a fair commission ?—lt would be impossible to say. Circumstances vary so much; it would depend upon his total emoluments and the nature of the work. 96. His emoluments on account of salary ? —You would have to add the two together to get the gross emolument. 97. You have no official knowledge that he was paid a commission?—No official knowledge. 98. Mr. Hogg.] You say that out of this salary and commission, which appear before us, he had to maintain his staff? —Yes. 99. Could you form any approximate estimate of the cost of his staff? —I really could not, for, although the allocations came through my hands, I simply allocated the accounts or vouchers and passed them on to the accountant. I never took any note or made any statement of the general results, and, if I attempted to give an approximate idea, I might only mislead the Committee. 100. Do you think it may be stated at more than £5,000 a year ?—No; the staff varied at different times. Sometimes a good many men were employed, including the inspectors, and sometimes very few—never more than absolutely necessary. 101. The reason I ask that question is that he drew, in the form of salary and commission, as nearly as possible £10,000 a year. The Chairman : That was in the colony. He had similar advantages in London. 102. Mr. Hogg.] In six years he drew £57,957 ? —lt was not my business to know what the ledger said. 103. The Chairman.] Did it ever come within your knowledge that commission was paid by any of the contractors ?—No, not at all. The Chairman: Mr. Blow, as representing the Government, is, I think, entitled to ask the witness some questions. 104. Mr. Blow.] In reference to what you term Mr. Napier Bell's apportionment of the cost of the line, you have seen a statement containing what you call an " apportionment." It is published in 1.-7 aof 1892, page 33, of the Appendix. There is a column in the statement headed " Estimated cost " ?—Yes. 105. Do you think that an engineer of standing, such as Mr. Napier Bell is, would affix his signature to a document purporting to be the estimated cost unless it was an estimate of cost ? —■ That means Government "estimated cost"; but I have here the documents Mr. Bell had with him, which is practically his estimate, and differs from the Government preliminary estimate. 106. This was an estimate signed by Mr. Bell and Mr. Blair. If there was a difference of figures between them, I presume there would be some adjustment ? —Not necessarily so, for he might have said to Mr. Blair, " Yours is lower or higher than mine, but it is near enough to serve as a basis for apportioning the statutory nominal estimate to the various sections." 107. As to the proportion of cost, we have that in a column by itself. Ido not know that the estimated cost was necessary to this paper, but as it is there, we may assume that two eminent engineers would not sign it if it were grossly inaccurate. Here is the paper ; you may perhaps know the handwriting?— Yes. 108. You have the paper in Mr. Bell's handwriting showing the estimated and statutory cost, and the proportion which one bears to the other ?—Yes. 109. What reason have you for thinking that the estimate is not true?—l take it as the Government estimate of cost at the time ; it was not Mr. Bell's estimate, but Mr. Blair's. 110. Then will you tell the Committee what Mr. Bell's estimate of cost was ? —For the Nelson line, £1,496,500; for the other line, £1,500,000. 111. Consequently there was no great disparity?—No; there was £166,000 of disparity. 112. As regards the East and West Coast line the estimates agreed ?—Yes, at that time. 113. As regards the Nelson line, you say there was a disparity of £166,000? —Yes. 114. I should like a little information as to the contract let to the English firm, McKeone, Robinson, and Company ? Can you tell us the contract sum ? The Chairman :] We have it here. Mr. Blow :] Then, if you take this statement it will bring it into the evidence : This is what was the contract sum —£167,000? Witness :] £163,000 for No. 1 ; that was between Stillwater and Teremakau. 115. The Chairman.] Right up to Jackson's?—No; it was to a point called " Dobson's First Peg." 116. From Teremakau to Jackson's ?—No ; it is two or three miles from Jackson's. 117. Was there another contract?— There was a contract for the completion and extension of the line from Brunnerton to Stillwater, which was taken over from the Government. 118. Can you say what the estimate was in both those contracts ?—The Teremakau (No. 1) contract was only completed to Kaimata; the remainder being cancelled. There was some arrangement by which the company paid the contractors a sum of money as compensation for the cancellation of their contract. 119. Do you know any reason why they were desirous to cancel those contracts? —One reason was that Mr. Wilson, when he was in the colony for the first time and went through the different