I.—4a.

310. What was the acreage of these ? —22,076 acres ; and lid. an acre was the amount paid. He found that he paid a great deal too much, and the Government allowed him to throw up. 811. Mr. McKenzie.] What was his name ?—Eobert Stewart. It has since been re-leased at a rental of £455. The piece on the river bank, next to the freehold, was bought by Mr. Fraser, of Fraser, Howden, and Fraser, for £380. They could not work it. They were allowed to throw it up, and now it is re-leased for £100. 312. Hon. Mr. Rolleston.] Who allowed them to throw it up ?—I do not know. 313. Mr. Brown.] In what year was it thrown up ?—About eighteen months ago. They threw it up because they could not pay the rent. 314. Who were the lessees ?—Fraser, Howden, and Fraser. 315. The Chairman.] Continue what you have to say, and afterwards answer questions. —I do not know that I can say very much more except that, as lessees of the country for some years past, we have, I think, fulfilled the conditions of the law in every respect. There was no dummyism about this land. It was all bought bond tide in 1882. The loss is so serious now that I really do not know how to face it. We were run up at the auction, whether by bond fide people or not I cannot tell. In some instances, men have acknowledged that they gave bids without any intention of buying. There was wild excitement at the time. People were bidding an increase of £50 at a time. 316. Mr. McKenzie.] What capital did Dalgety and Co. invest in the runs at Morven Hills ?—The valuation was about £83,000. I may explain that, previously to these runs being put up, the old partnership expired when the leases did and a new partnership was formed. The runs were valued by experts in Dunedin at £83,000. 317. How much did the old Company give for the runs—those who bought from Mr. McLean ? —£135,000, as near as I can remember. 318. You must have written off a lot of the original price ? —Yes ; we had to provide a sinking fund. 319. What is the total area ?—I think it is 300,000 acres, roughly speaking. 820. You stated that at the time of the sale nothing was said about the improvements ; you are aware that, under the Act, if you bought the land, you were to value them up to three years' rent ? — Yes. 321. Was there not a general statement made by Mr. Martin to that effect?—He said it could not exceed that. 322. Would not each party bidding for the land satisfy themselves as to the extent of the improvements ?—Perhaps they did. 323. Any bona fide man going into it would do so ? —Yes. 324. Your Company—Dalgety and Co. (Limited) —acted as agents for Dalgety and Co. ?—Yes. 325. Do you charge for making advances, or do you charge them interest on expenditure ? —No ;we render them a monthly account, and they provide the money in London ;itis a matter of account between us. 326. You do not in any way lend them money ?—No. 327. What commission do you charge them for doing their business here ?—We charge them nothing except what we can make out of it. We charge them something for selling sheep, but we only make a nominal charge for shipping the wool. 328. Hon. Mr. Rolleston.] Do you consider this block of land exceptionally situated with regard to subdivisons ; that is, do you think it a block of land which, from a grazier's point of view, can be profitably subdivided and held by a number of small people ?—No, Ido not think it would be. There is not enough of winter country in a good many of the runs. 329. Could you subdivide the whole of the runs into such areas as would make the subdivisions profitable to different holders ? —I can hardly answer that question. I may explain that what was known as the Ardgour Eun was all good winter country. The back and the higher part of the run is purely summer country. To the east of the Lindis Eiver and south of the Timburn is good winter country; to the north of that is summer country. The northern part of the faces of the Dunstan Mountains is our ewe ground. All the dry sheep and hoggets were in the intermediate places, between the high and low country. I cannot tell you whether, from a sheep-farmer's point of view, the subdivisions could be held profitably by a number of holders. 330. Do you consider that this is a block of country that can, in your opinion, be worked best as a whole ?—Yes. 331. Because the summer and winter and intermediate country are sc placed as to render it inadvisable to cut the block up : is that your opinion ? —Yes. 332. To cut it up so that it should be let to different graziers ?—-Yes. 333. You are aware that the law provided that the run could only be put up in subdivisions ?— I suppose that was the law. It was all cut up and subdivided. 334. That being the case, and the country having to be cut up into so many subdivisions, do you think the Department could have done it in a less objectionable way than it did—from your point of view ?—No ; I think not. They drew the lines anywhere. There was no aim that they had except the wish to subdivide. They followed out no natural boundaries. 335. But surely the summer country is a good many miles from the winter country ? —About forty miles. 336. Then it would be scarcely possible to offer the summer and winter country together in subdivisions ? —No. 337. In reference to a paragraph in the petition with regard to these subdivisions, do you think that the high prices obtained were the consequence of injudicious subdivisions ? What I mean is : as you had to have twenty-six subdivisions, could it be otherwise than it was in respect of prices ?—I dare say that, if there had been other lines drawn, we might have had equal competition.

15