180

C.—3

wagons were used as stores. There are certain limits of time allowed within which wagons must be discharged, and after that there is a certain charge for demurrage. 3706. But if these appliances continued to be occupied by the coal in consequence of the defective bar, is that a matter for which the coal-shippers should be held responsible, as that would not be a case of demurrage where the detention is caused by the coal-owner ?—Under certain circumstances, such as you mention, the department takes a discretionary view of the matter. We are very careful before we impose a demurrage charge. Mr. Brown.] Is there any demurrage charge imposed now at Greymouth?—Very rarely. It is more in terrorem. All over the railway system there is a great tendency to use wagons as stores, and we have this demurrage charge in terrorem, which we levy to check the evil. 3708. The Chairman.] How, in your opinion, should the prime cost of supply—say, these extra wagons, or or staiths —be met?—l may state that it has been suggested that it might be met in the same way and on the same terms as private sidings are provided. 3709. What are those terms ?—The terms are these : The cost of building the private siding is borne by the party who wishes it, and he gets it for a term of years, at the end of which the siding becomes public property. 3710. Mr. Moody.] Has he to pay anything further during that time ? —Not on coal or other produce generally ; but if he is a merchant dealing he would be rented on a main station £50 a year, and on a little country station £25 a year. 3711. Beside the cost of construction?— Yes; we have to shunt wagons in, breakup trains, and so forth. 3712. What is the opinion of the Eailway Commissioners as to the efficiency of the rollingstock on the Greymouth Section ?—Our opinion is that w r e have more than is required for the proper working of the line. We have 257 wagons, and we consider, under the extreme fluctuation that has taken place of late, less would do—lso wagons well handled w 7 ould be quite enough if there was storage. It has been proposed several times to have bins up at the mines. That is where they should be really. 3713. Your opinion is that the coal-owners should provide bins at the mine?— Yes. 3714. In whichever place the bins were put, who do you think should bear the expense of them?—l should think certainly the coal-owners. It is for their benefit and service. If they are erected at Greymouth no doubt the Harbour Board will be at the expense of them, and then there will be a charge put on against the outlay. 3715. The Chairman.] We have it in evidence that there has been some reduction made in the haulage charges at Westport ?—A little. It amounts to Id. in the ton ;it is now 2s. 3d. a ton from the foot of the incline. Formerly it was 2s. sd. ; but there was a refund of I4d. a ton given to the company for the use of their line. It is their line from the foot of the incline to Waimangaroa, and in recasting this tariff a short time ago we decided to simply charge 2s. 3d., and not give any refund. 3716. What distance is that ? —Twelve miles from the foot of the incline to W T estport; and I may just mention that our great heavy w : agons are dragged up the incline and pulled and mauled about and get rapidly into disrepair, so that we charge as a wagon-rent lid. a ton on all coal that comes down. 3717. Mr. Moody.] Then that makes 2s. 4-§d. ?—Yes ; but it is not a haulage charge. The wagons are not on our line at all when on the incline. 3718. It is really 2s. 4-i-d. a ton cost over tho line ?—Yes; that is so. 3719. The Chairman.] And there has been no other concession made?— None. 3720. Mr. Moody.] Of course, when an accident occurs at the incline the Westport Company are at the expense of repairs to your wagons?— Yes. 3721. And the railway beyond Waimangaroa belongs to the company ?—Yes.

Monday, 17th November, 1890. Mr. Eobeet Wilson, C.E., examined. 3722. The Chairman.] What is your official position, Mr. Wilson ?—Eiigineer-in-Cihef and General Manager for the New 7 Zealand Midland Eailway Company. 3723. You are, perhaps, aware that one of the points which have been referred to this Commission is whether it is advisable for the Government to forego royalties, in certain cases, that are paid by lessees of coal-mines ?—Yes. 3724. I understand you, acting for your company, have already let some coal-mine leases which have been taken over ; perhaps you will explain the matter ? —The position is this : Outside the coalreserve area of Greymouth we have certain known coal properties which come to us, one particularly being the Blackball Coalfield, which is specially mentioned in our contract, and we shall take it over. It is not taken over by us yet, but reserved for us to take over as soon as we choose to do so. In view of the fact that another coal is underlying the lease handed over to us under the last grant, I have protested—whether rightly or wrongly, or whether I have any legal status, I do not know —against the royalty being withdrawn or abandoned, as it will entirely reduce the values of our property ; because, if the Government were to allow people to mine on Government land free of royalty entirely we should not be able to get people to mine on our land and pay us a royalty. I argue, therefore, that it becomes a question really under the contract—and probably one which would have to be decided in the Courts —whether the Government, in the face of their having given us a land-grant that carries coal, and having hitherto charged a royalty, should either not continue to charge that royalty or give us additional land to make up for the loss they would cause us by removing the royalty. I entered this protest in the form of a letter to the Government, and so far the matter rests there.