I— lα.

14

to make this proposal to settle all disputed matters. But these disputes have now been settled in another way. The incentive that existed in 1894 to make a liberal dealing with the company does not exist now. Hon. the Chairman : That is the legal contention. Mr. Blow : Mr. Dalston says the proposal is to float a new company in London with a capital of £2,200,000. He says, "We have every confidence of success," but he does not give any grounds on which he has based his opinion. I should be sorry to say a word to prejudice the position of the company in the event of an arrangement being made under which they would have to go to the London market to float a new company; but the Committee will doubtless form its own opinion of the prospects of the company being able to raise £2,200,000, to take up the debentures of the old company to the amount of £745,000, and to complete a section of the railway that is to cost something under a million, making the gross total amount required £1,745,000, and on account of which they are to receive assistance to the amount of £618,000, leaving the net amount required at £1,127,000, so that the new company is to have a capital of double the amount of its prospective outlay, which seems again to allow a very liberal margin for substantial engineering, commissions, and directors' fees. Hon. the Chairman (to Mr. Dalston).] You are aware that the amount on which commission was paid to Mr. Wilson was £461,764 ; from the 11th November, 1889, to the 30th June, 1895. Mr. Dalston : Is that the statement of Mr. Labatt ? Hon. the Chairman : Yes. Mr. Dalston : I will take that as correct. Hon. the Chairman: £461,764, on which commission was paid £43,748 : the statement you made yesterday was rather different. Mr. Dalston : That was a later date. Hon. the Chairman: You will find that is nearly equal to 9-J- per cent. ? Mr. Dalston : Yes. Hon. the Chairman: The amount expended for construction up to the 25th April, 1896, is £763,958 ; a small part of which, I take it, has been expended by the Government ; then the difference between the amount shown on which Mr. Wilson got equal to per cent, leaves a balance of £302,194, about which I want to ask you, whether you have any knowledge of commission having been paid on that balance or any part of it ? lam aware that all kinds of charges are therein included. Mr. Dalston : That would account for the difference. Hon. the Chairman : Not for the whole of it; for, you will see, the contract is over half a million, I take it that Mr. Wilson's arrangement, by which he got commission, covered all contracts. Mr. Dalston : On some of these items he would only get 7|--per-cent. commission. Hon. the Chairman: Those cases are very few and far between where he gets less. Mr. Dalston : He received no commission on any other sums than those stated by Mr. Labatt. Hon. the Chairman: This statement furnished by Mr. Labatt is from 11th November, 1889; we have it that he was in the service of the company very much on the same terms long before that time. From the period when he first joined the company in 1886, the large amount of £302,000 had been expended, on which he may or may not have been paid commission ? Mr. Dalston: I might say that, practically, the whole of this £763,000 is debenture-holders' money, none of which was expended prior to 1889. Hon. the Chairman : Had commission been paid on that balance at the same rate it would have amounted to £28,000 ? Mr. Dalston : He has not received that. Hon. the Chairman : You think so ? Mr. Dalston : I am sure of it. Hon. the Chairman: You have only recently been connected with the company; you therefore do not know what happened before 1889 ? Mr. Dalston : My opinion is that he was paid a nominal retaining-fee. Mr. Harris in reply. Mr. Harris : I thought I had explained in my opening address that I took it as a matter of course that the members of the Committee were seized of all the facts which were preserved in the Government papers. For that reason I have not adduced evidence other than by reference to documents which are obtainable by the members of the Committee. If I go shortly through the remarks made by Mr. Blow, I think I can show you that every statement put before you by me is founded on evidence supplied from time to time by the company. Whether you believe it or not is another matter. I can show you conclusively, from the company's point of view, that the facts are what I have stated them to be. The main object of my address was to establish a connection between the Government and the company ; to impress upon the Committee the consideration that, whether the failure of finance was due to the company or to the force of outside circumstances, there was no doubt that the time had arrived for an equitable compromise between the Government and the company. With regard to the statement that the company's prospectus was not approved by the Agent-General, I will refer you to the evidence of Mr. Salt before the Arbitration Court, 1896, D.-4, page 177 :— 555. This is a copy of the prospectus. [Exhibit No. 121 —prospectus dated the 13th April, 1886, put in and handed to witness. Witness identified it.] Was this prospectus submitted to the Agent-General I —Yes. 556. Was it approved by him as you see it printed ?—Yes. With regard to the serious question of the mining reserves, Mr. Blow has taken objection to my reference to the action of the Government in 1887 in issuing the Larnach Proclamation. I think the Committee will remember my statement was that the Larnach Proclamation had had some effect