6

[a. d. bayfeild.

L—4a.

96. Have you got any replies?— They have not sent any replies. 9.7. For instance, you have not got my authority as a shareholder? —1 sent you a notice. You have never raised the question till now. All got notices. 98. Coming to your petition, in it you say, " being given to understand that the Government desire that the consideration to be paid shall be fixed by a Committee of your honourable House." On whose authority are you making that statement ?—1 repeat what 1 hnvo stated, as the result of an interview with the Prime Minister and Mr. Colvin. 99. You have no direct evidence to give the Committee; it is mere assertion? —It is no empty assertion. 100. You have nothing to show to warrant it?—lf I have certain statements made to me and 1 interview the Prime Minister of the country, from whom 1 gather what 1 have already stated, 1 take it that is warranty. 101. You never wrote to the Prime Minister on this point, did you? —Yes. 102. Have you got the replies?—l telegraphed him as to when 1 could see him. 103. Let us have his reply?—l telegraphed to ask for an interview, and he replied in reference to my request. The reply is somewhere here among my papers. 104. You said that the company applied for a reduction in the haulage-rate for coal? —We did. 105. Were the charges to you more in proportion than to other companies? —No. 166. Do you know what the rates were before your company started the mine? —No. 107. Did you inquire?—We had to pay 3s. 2d., which is an exorbitant rate. 108. It is a mileage rate?—A mileage rate after a certain distance. 109. With a terminal charge?— Yes. 110. That mileage rate applies to that class of coal all through the Dominion?— Yes. 111. You were not placed in any worse position than any one else working bituminous coal? —We are all in a bad position. 112. As a matter of fact, you were working under a similar rate to that of any other coal company for a similar class of coal throughout New Zealand. li:s. Did your company ever make a claim for this .£6",427 that you are claiming now before the company went into liquidation? —There is considerable correspondence between Mr. Hargi.eaves, chairman of directors, and the Government. 114. You do not know whether the company made any claim before the liquidation? —1 cannot say. . 115. You say the Railway accounts are not sufficiently clear to show where this .£2,107 went to?—On application to the Secretary of the Westport Harbour Board, he told me that the returns rendered by the Railway Department made it impossible to say whether the amount was paid. 116. You know that the Secretary of the Westport Harbour Board is an expert accountant? — I should s.ay he was a qualified accountant. 117. Are you aware that the Railway Department, the Receiver of Land Revenue, and the Receiver of Gold Revenue have to render accounts for all moneys received? You are not in a position to say? —Only so far as my inquiry goes; the Secretary could not say. 118. Do you know there was a clause in the Act in connection with the Cardiff Coal Company giving the Government the right to claim possession in certain cases? —I have never questioned the legality in connection with this matter. 119. You stated that preferential treatment was given to the Point Elizabeth Coal Company as against the Cardiff Company?—l did not say as against the Cardiff Company. 120. Your statement was that the shareholders got better terms with the Government than the Cardiff Company? —In the sense that the Government gave them consideration whan legally they need not have done so. In our case they gave nothing. 121. Was that company in liquidation? —It would not alter my aspect of the case. 122. You are not aware of your knowledge whether the company was in liquidation or not? r-I do not like to trust to memory too much. There is the fact that public documents show that they did receive that consideration. 123. Do you know of your own knowledge whether the Point Elizabeth Company owed anything to the Crown or not?—l do not know. 124. Do you know whether the Point Elizabeth Company was on private property while the Cardiff property was on Crown land? —I cannot answer that. It is hardly fair to separate the railway from the private property. If we go into the matter we might find that consideration was given for the railway only. 125. Your company owed something for the haulage of coal as well as for the deficiency on the railway?— Yes, but our deficiency on the railway we do not admit. 12G. How much do you owe for royalties? —£2,363. 127. If this £2,107 you are looking after were given to the payment of royalties it would be a fair position for the Crown to take up?— But you have taken our plant. 128. We had the right to do so according to the conditions of the lease. Assuming that the Point Elizabeth Company's property was on freehold land and yours on Crown land, the Government could not enter into possession of their mine through default. The railways in both cases were made in connection with the Act?— The Government not only gave them £21,000, but also gave £1,500. 129. Who did they give £1,500 to ?—The promoter. 130. He was the proprietor of the freehold land?— Yes. 131. Did they give him that £1,500 in connection with the mine? —I do not know. Ido not rest my case upon that; I only state the fact. 132. When you make such a statement you ought to find out what the £1,500 was paid for before you make it?— That is some years ago.