1.—9.

occasions ever since 1876, and the records in the office show that Mr. Conyers sometimes.did this when he was in charge ; but he does not appear to have ever tried low fares on a large scale. He thinks (845, 846) that such fares as Mr. Vaile proposes on general holidays would lead to much increase both in numbers and revenue. We have tried cheap excursions during the past four years largely. The fares charged were as low or, in some cases, lower than Mr. Vaile's. I give the results of a trial on an extensive scale during last Queen's Birthday in Canterbury. The year before this the ordinary Saturday return-fares were used. We got but a moderate increase in passengers, and less revenue, with the lower fares :— , Number of Amount. Bookings. £ 1886 ... ... ... ... 4,610 ... ... 650 1885 ... ... ... ... 3,810 ... ... 664 Mr. Vaile's witnesses disagree among themselves and with him in some material points. They do not look for much increase under ten miles (847, 1026). Mr. Vaile looks for it all over. They only expect an increase of about three to one for the longer distances. Mr. Vaile talks of five to one and ten to one. Mr. Vaile says, "On Thursday and Saturday half-holidays what crowds of people would travel-who never travel now" (35). Mr. Edmonds thinks there will not be many travellers on such holidays (1064). Mr. Conyers considered that the suburban traffic on the Hurunui-Bluff extended to only five miles from the cities. Mr. Edmonds, who is acquainted with Dunedin and Christchurch, considers (1057) it to extend to Lyttelton, and to Port Chalmers and Mosgiel, which are the limits of the suburban train-services, —the fact being that it does extend to Lyttelton, Port Chalmers, and Mosgiel; and that the principal traffic is to the suburban places beyond five miles, as Onehunga, Petone, Hutt, Lyttelton, Port Chalmers, Mosgiel. The witnesses called by Mr. Vaile are unanimous on one point—that they had no data upon which to base their opinions, and that they formed them upon speculations as to what the average would be if passengers travelled in sufficient numbers over a sufficient number of stages (836, 829, 927, 1001, 1105). From Mr. Moody's evidence it is clear that he has never occupied any position on the railways he was on which would qualify him to speak with authority on the subject of general management, and he adpiits that his knowledge of the New Zealand railways is most limited. The fallacy of Mr. Vaile's system lies in his taking average fares and totals to deal with. The return of the Auckland traffic is of little value when the totals are regarded. It is only when the return is analyzed that we can see how fallacious the general average is. It is on the general average that the opinion of Mr. Vaile and his witnesses is based. Their evidence discloses that they have never intimately studied the subject with the proper information before them. It remains for me to remark on Mr. Vaile's comments preceding. I do not concur that the testimony of his witnesses is at all conclusive in favour of his scheme. At the best they have only expressed opinions in favour of a portion of his scheme, and the opinions are based on assumptions and not on facts. Mr. Grant's practical knowledge, long experience, and daily dealing with an extensive traffic is such as to make his evidence of much greater value than the speculations of the witnesses called by Mr. Vaile ; and the same may be said of Mr. Hudson's evidence. With regard to Mr. Hannay's evidence, he is intimately acquainted with every part of the railway system, and has personally engaged in conducting the traffic locally in different districts of the Hurunui-Bluff; as a traffic officer he has had a much more intimate and extensive knowledge of the business than either of Mr. Vaile's witnesses, as well as of the general business of management. His evidence is therefore of greater value. The remarks about population in relation to miles of railway seem to lead to an erroneous conclusion. There are a hundred thousand inhabitants to every fifty-two miles of railway in Great Britain. There are only about eighteen thousand to every fifty-two miles in New Zealand. We cannot, therefore, expect to get equal results. The questions I have asked with regard to the objectionable operations of the stage system on the various markets and ports are such as are necessary to expose those evils in Mr. Vaile's system which he seems to have overlooked, and which his witnesses prudently decline to discuss. Mr. Hannay's statements are correct (page 49), and the stages are correctly placed, according to the exposition given by Mr. Vaile on the 9th of June. If that exposition is worthless and insufficient further discussion is idle. Mr. Vaile has quoted from Mr. Hannay's evidence that, "if seven miles is fixed as the stage, Onehunga, Port Chalmers, and Hutt will pay as now, and number of passengers cannot be increased " (491 a). He then proceeds to show what existing fares are, and what they would be as proposed by him; but he quotes only a portion of Mr. Hannay's evidence, and hence creates an entirely erroneous impression. I dissent entirely from the statement that the departmental witnesses are personally deeply interested in maintaining the existing system. They are, as servants of the colony, interested only in faithfully carrying out the intentions of the colony conveyed to them through the proper channels. If it is determined that great reductions in rates and fares should be made, the officers have merely to obey their orders and carry out their instructions. It is, however, their duty to expose to the utmost the fallacies and errors in Mr. Vaile's system if they are conscientiously of opinion that he is wrong. Eegarding the transference of passengers from second- to first-class, which Mr. Vaile anticipates, I would point out that, if so many of the short-distance passengers are going to travel first- instead of second-class, it will have the effect of making Mr. Vaile's fares approximate more nearly to the present fares; and, I think it would show that he is fixing his fares too low. Another point is, that the first-class traffic is more expensive to carry than the second, owing to the extra cost of maintenance of the first-class accommodation. And a third point is, supposing such a change did occur, which is most unlikely, it would entail a complete modification of the present rolling-stock.

84