J. K. WARBURTON.]

5

I.—lla.

6. But you see you get the value in the postage-stamp ?—I do not think so. The officer who delivers the stamp without getting the money for it first would be answerable for the money. But it is not a question of expediency of administration ; it is simply a question of what the law requires. 7. Mr. Flatman.] Do you think that, according to the law, an hour's or a day's water should be paid for prior to being used ?—You might pay for it in the same way as Customs duty may be paid, through a deposit of money. For railway services a deposit is paid. These deposits bear whatever the charge may be for the service rendered by the Department. 8. In your opinion these deposits ought to be made daily or weekly ?—I do not say " ought to be." I say the law requires—that is to say, there is no authority for the credit. I have gone, perhaps, a little beyond my function in one letter here. In my letter to the Minister of Mines, No. 6, I say, " The course which appears to me to be on the whole the least open to objection is for the Government to be authorised to give credit provided that any arrears which the Manager reports to be irrecoverable, and which the Department is prepared to allow to be so, should be voted. The Manager of the races would for his own credit do all he could to keep down the amount to be voted, and so would exercise discretion in granting credit. . . . Those to whom the water must be supplied on credit, if supplied at all, have neither the means of paying for it in advance, nor any security to give for payment. Their work is extremely speculative. If it turns out profitably they pay for the water; if unprofitably, they are no more, probably less, able to pay for the water than before they obtained it." That is simply a suggestion, outside of the position I take up, which is that the water is not authorised by law to be supplied on credit. If the amount irrecoverable had been voted off every year, the matter of the granting of credit would have come before Parliament. 9. Mr. W. Fraser.] I understand from you, Mr. Warburton, that you are not propounding a question of policy as to whether water should be supplied on credit, but a question as to the legality of giving credit ?—That is so. 10. You are expressing no opinion as to policy ?—I am expressing no opinion as to policy. 11. You are expressing an opinion purely on the legality of giving credit?— Quite so. The giving of credit has gone on from year to year since or before 1898, until about a month or two ago, when I pointed out to the Minister that the amount had risen to £2,127 16s. 4d. 12. This has been going on since 1899 ?—Since 1898, or before that. 13. Before that even ?—I think so. 14. What you suggest should be done, is that each year a vote should be taken for the amounts unpaid?—l say that if that course had been taken, the question would have come before Parliament. If they had been written off year by year as irrecoverable, these amonnts would have appeared in the Appropriation Act. 15. There is an analogy drawn in one of these letters, between the credit given by the Bailway Department, and the credit given for water in these races. Is there any similarity in the cases ? —No. I understand that in the Eailway Department the merchants to whom credit is given deposit moneys against those credits. 16. Are you conversant with the procedure in the Eailway Department ?—I am not now conversant with it, but when 1 wrote what I say somewhere in these papers 17. It was in 1898 that that was referred to?—I wrote something then, and I recollect satisfying myself by inquiring at the time. 18. The reference is in a minute signed " E..1.5." and dated 21/3/98, " If necessary get law altered. Credit is given by Eailways and other Departments of State, and in this case cannot be dispensed with, for no estimate can be formed until after use of water has taken place." That is in No. 5. Then you reply in No. 6 that " the credits allowed by the Eailways and other Departments are so secured that there is little or no risk of loss or deficiency" ? —That is so; that is my present answer. 19. Can you give any reason why this matter has not been dealt with during the last seven years ?—No, Sir. 20. You deemed that things had come to a head, and it was necessary to take some decisive step ?—Yes. I considered that I could not take the responsibility of allowing the matter to remain any longer as it was without reporting it to Parliament. 21. Hon. Sir J. Q. Ward.] I understood you to say, in reply to a previous question, that prepayment for the water was necessary under the law ? —Yes, I think it is. 22. How would you suggest that water could be sold to a number of miners from the one water-race if payment had to be made beforehand—at 5 o'clock in the morning, for instance?— When they applied for the water they would pay for the number of hours they required it in advance. 23. But some of these amounts that are overdue are under £1 ? —Yes, but they are very few. 24. Supposing there is only one person, how would you suggest it could be done without a knowledge of the person who is going to use the water? —Well, if that person were required to pay for the water he used he would apply for so many hours' supply, and he would pay for it—that is, if no credit were given. 25.' Yes, but that would involve a man being practically the possessor of information beforehand that nobody else could have, as to how long he was going to use the water? —He would apply for so much water as he expected to use. If he paid for more water than he used there would be a balance to be returned to him out of the amount that he paid. 26. Do you suggest that in actual practice that would be possible ?—Well, it is done in the case of the Mount Ida Water-race. We have put the same position to the Manager there. Three hundred and fifty-five pounds was written off, and he has since ceased to give credit.