23

I.—sb

ask, got to do with the matter. If the Government did enter into an engagement with us to give us this land, what has it to do with the Committee, or the country, or anybody else, whether we have got too much or too little? But it is not true. It is assumed that this Company is a wealthy body of men, who are claiming some extra compensation. Why, Sir, we have not had sixpence in dividends, and our money has been invested for five years. I know it myself to my own cost. Our money lies there, and will probably lie there for years. We shall never get any adequate return for it, for the moment that the Company shows a profit, that moment will the Government take over the concern. The money we have laid out will then have doubled itself by loss of interest. But that the Government will take over the line as soon as it shows a profit is a certainty. The Company and their creditors —people who have lent them money —have not more than sufficient security for the return of the money that has been invested. Sir, it is not a body of Wellington shareholders alone. More than one-half of the shareholders are residents in England, and, moreover, engagements have been entered into under which money has been borrowed on the understanding that there would be full value given as security. Are we to tell them that the whole thing is a delusion and a snare, that the statement that this land was to be handed over never meant anything, and that the Government never was under any obligation to give us the land, whether within the five years or after? Ido not believe the Parliament of New Zealand would take that view, nor Mr. Ballance, nor the Government of which he was a member, now that the matter has been explained to them, as it has been explained in the evidence before this Committee. The view of the defenders of the public estate is taken generally on the advice of the Law Advisers of the Crown, who have to deal with nothing but the language of the contract, and have had nothing to do with engagements not therein expressed, with good faith, as distinct from the obligation. The business of the Government involves the conduct of a very large number of matters, and they have no time to go through files and ascertain whether there has been or not some engagement which is not properly expressed in language of which they have the meaning given to them by the Law Officers. The result sometimes is, as in this case, that the technical meaning rather than the spirit of the engagement has governed the construction of the contract. Ido not believe there is a business-man in the colony who wrould not recognise the obligation lying upon him if this w Tere a contract entered into between tw ro business-men. And if the true nature of the engagement is recognised by the Premiers of two Administrations, not only of the day when the contract was made, but of this day ; anil if the then and the present guardian of the public purse concur in. their view, and that view accords with ours; and if we find that there is no evidence to the contrary, then surely I may confidently submit that we have made out our case, and that this Committee cannot report otherwise than favourably to us. I refer to Sir John Hall's evidence in answer to Mr. Whyte's question, No. 121, " Do you consider that, if the land had been acquired within a month or so after the live years, the Company would have an equitable claim to the fulfilment of the contract ?—I think they would have a very strong moral claim. Perhaps I may be allowed to give my reason. 1 think the Company expected, from the negotiations and conversations they had with the representatives of the Government, that the land would be acquired, and upon that expectation they conducted their proceedings. Nothing occurred between myself and them to lead them to any other conclusion." And then I refer to Sir Harry Atkinson's evidence, in answer to Question 160; " I think that the Company has an equitable claim on the Government myself." Mr. Eolleston's evidence is equally favourable, but Ido not quote it, as it has been so recently given, and must be fresh in the minds of the Committee. There is one matter, in conclusion, which requires explanation. Mr. Ballance referred to a statement made on one occasion that the sum of £10,000 would be sufficient to complete this engagement. This was explained by Mr. Wallace. The sum of £10,000 expended in the purchase of the Horowhenua would, by the increase in the valuation through the completion of the line, have amounted to a valuation of £29,000, but we have never agreed that we are entitled to less than the implement of our contract —namely, land to be valued by the valuers to the extent of £29,000 —nor do I think it is a case for compromise. Either the Government did enter into an engagement or did not ; and I submit to the Committee that this is a view which the Committee should take, and I think every member of the Committee would, if he had a claim of this kind, wish it to be so dealt with : Either we are right and have a claim, or we have none ; and if we have no claim let the Committee say so. I do not think we ought to be here as beggars. If we have no right—no equitable, just, fair claim— then there is nothing to compromise. What 1 submit is that the Committee ought to report that they think the engagement of the contract ought to be fulfilled, and recommend the Government to do so. lam very much indebted, Sir, to the Committee for the indulgence aud consideration which have been accorded to me.

APPENDIX. Letter peom Mr. McKekkow relative to his Evidence given Session 11., 1887. Blß,— General Survey Office, Wellington, 29th November, 1887. I herewith forward the " Eeturn of Crown lands within fifteen miles of the West Coast Railway," which Mr. Travers handed to me on Friday, the 25th instant, when I was before you. I find that Mr. Stevens, Chief Clerk in the Land Office, made up the return, to the best of his recollection, from rough notes furnished by Mr. Marchant, the Chief Surveyor of Wellington District. The return was prepared some time between the 10th November and the sth December, 1881, the press-copy shows this: that is, about a month before Mr. Linton and I valued the land. I have also seen Mr. Marchant on the subject, and shown him the return ; his recollection is that he gave an approximate valuation and return at my request for the information of the Government; and that agrees with my own recollection, for, as I told the Committee, I carefully refrained from committing myself to any statement of values until I had visited the ground. In the above return the total area is given, 247,962 acres. There is an error in addition—it should be 244,962. The