A. D. BAYFEILD.]

7

I.—4a.

60. And how does it come in here—it is referred to in the evidence?—l bring it in as showing the treatment meted out to the Mokihinui Company and the Westport-Cardiff Company. 61. You were manager for that company?— No. 62. Did you manage it as a co-operative affair?— Simply as salesman. I conducted the sales for a time, and, as one of the party, lost £140 in cash over it. 63. Were you aware of the work these people were carrying on?— Yes. 64. And of the fact that they were hiring out rails lent to them by the Government, to a sawmill ?—No. 65. Now we come to your suggestion that the Government is not treating all these companies the same : Where was the difference between the treatment of the Point Elizabeth Company and the Westport-Cardiff Company?— Well, you could simply have taken the Point Elizabeth company's property for nothing. 66. Did you know that the Point Elizabeth Company spent a very large sum of money on the railway?— Yes; but we also spent large sums in other directions. 67. Did you spend anything on the railway?—No; but, notwithstanding the Point Elizabeth Company's railway, the Government, I am informed, was in a position to confiscate the whole property if it liked. 68. Mr. Golvin,] You admit the legal right of the Government to take possession of the mine? —Yes. 69. Do you admit the moral right? —No. We appeal to the Government, and particularly to the Minister of Mines, who is also the Minister of Justice, and I hope that our appeal will not be in vain. [Approximate Cost of Paper: Preparation, not given; printing (1,500 oopies), £3 7s. By Authority : John Mackay, Government Printer, Wellington.—l9oB. Priet 6<J.]