a—3

170

complaint was quite unfounded. The daily output per man fell from nine and three-quarter boxes to nine and a quarter boxes after this restriction was imposed. These negotiations were still going on when, on the 28th August, I received notice of the strike, on the ground of instructions from the Maritime Council. [Letter put in.] The notice was to cease work on the next day at 2 o'clock. The object of this half-day's notice was not for the company's benefit, but to get up by the return trucks a supply of goods for themselves, and over 20 tons of provisions were brought up that day. The strikers forbade the supplying of coal to the Union Steamship Company, and that was the alleged cause of the strike. I will now put in the correspondence from the 15th June to the Ist September. [Correspondence put in, and, with other letters handed in by witness, marked " Exhibit No. 45."] Stores are obtained by the men themselves, who have a co-operative society, at which they chiefly deal. There were other stores at which they could obtain supplies till the co-operative society w 7 as started. I think supplies are as cheap in Denniston as at Westport. The company charges for the carriage as per scale put in, but it is a low scale, and does not affect thexost much. Up till the strike the men obtained their coals free, but had to hew them; and the hewers charged the wages-men for what they got. The company charged nothing. Powder, fuse, and tools would, I think, cost the hewers Is. per day on a full estimate. The company sharpens the men'sHools free of charge. I was at Wallsend for four years, but that was ten years ago. I know the place well, and Ido not think the conditions of life there are inferior to those here. Imfact, there is not much to choose between life there and here. Mr. John Lomas examined. Witness : lam a coal-miner at Denniston, and I have been so for eight years. lam president of the Amalgamated Miners' and Labourers' Association. I was one of the delegates who went to Wellington to represent the Association in Conference with the Government. The Greymouth branch was satisfied, from an examination of the company's books, that the company was losing money, and we considered that, as the hewers had made concessions on the pillar-price of coal, the hewing-price was below the district rate. We include Westport in the district. When in March, 1890, the request for a change in the payment for hewing was made at Greymouth it was based upon the scale per ton in Denniston. I do not know 7 how the coal there and the coal here would compare, as I never worked there, but some of the men have worked at both places. I could not say what they experienced, but we offered to submit the matter to arbitration, based on a practical comparative test. This, however, was declined, the manager replying that the coals did not sell at the same price. We w 7 oulcl have had men sent to Denniston to test the matter. There bad been no district rate established. I do not know what the men found the average wage at Denniston to be. Here we weigh every tub, but there one tub is weighed for the day's output. I went to Wellington as president of the Association, to make a representation of matters, and to endeavour to arrive at some settlement, and I interviewed the Premier on the subject. We thought that, as the mine was not paying the company, and the men had consented to work at a price under the district rate, in order to save the district the Government should meet us by making some concession for a time. The Association at Greymouth first suggested the reduction of the royalty or railage, as they pleased, and at Wellington w 7 e represented this to the Premier. He then promised a Commission of inquiry. We made personal application for the reduction, and our reasons for so doing are embraced in what I have already said. I know of no other reasons that I can speak of with safety, as they are not within my own knowledge. I reside here, and am not acquainted with Greymouth matters so intimately as to speak of their reasons.

Thursday, 13th November, 1890. Mr. Charles Yelverton O'Connor examined. 3578. The Chairman.] You are a civil engineer, Mr. O'Connor, are you not ?—Yes, I am a civil engineer. 3579. And your position in the Government service is Marine Engineer for the colony ?—Yes. 3580. I understand that you w 7 ere connected for a long time with the West Coast, and particularly with the Greymouth Harbour-works ?—Yes. 3581. Was that the time you were in the position of District Engineer?— Yes; part of the time, and part of the time as Inspecting Engineer for the Middle Island. 3582. What were the dates during which you had charge of the Greymouth Harbour-works? —I had immediate charge of them from 1870 to 1872, and from 1875 to 1879 as District Engineer, and to some extent from 1872 to 1883 as Inspecting Engineer of the Middle Island. 3583. You wrote a memorandum to the Minister on the 27th September on the subject of this Commission ?—Yes. 3584. Is that it [producing memorandum] ? —Yes. 3585. Will you read it ?—To save reading at all, I think it might be summarised in this way : " The scope of the inquiry into the question of the coal-working at Brunnerton must necessarily be very wide, in order to cover the whole ground. The Commissioners must apparently either accept evidence of the company's losses (presuming that such is forthcoming) as proof positive that such losses are unavoidable, or else the inquiry will have to go into the whole question of working and administration from a commercial and expert point of view, in order to satisfactorily determine as to whether or not a large sacrifice of revenue by the colony or the Harbour Board is really the only means by which the working of the mines can be continued with profit." 3586. And the Commission was drafted on those lines ?—Yes. 3587. You raised, in your instructions to Mr. Martin, the District Engineer in Greymouth, the uestion of extra storage as the only means of keeping the miners in continuous work ? —Yes ; I