I.—7a.

60

required, would this question have been raised at all ?—The regulations as to timber-licenses was a subject which formed a set of correspondence by itself. That concerned one proposition. It will speak for itself, if read. But the communications as to that have no bearing on the question of the mining reserves. 77. That is a matter of opinion. I only ask whether as a fact it is so? —If you will kindly refer to the regulations you are alluding to it will save time. 78. The timber you are alluding to as being very valuable is black-birch and silver-pine? Isthat silver-pine near Kumara ?—Other kinds of timber are valuable too. lam afraid there is not much silver-pine near Kumara. It is nearly all cut down, as far as I can ascertain, except a small area in Morris's application. 79. You would not say whether the silver-pine is near the gold-workings ?—Sometimes it is, sometimes it is not. It is scattered throughout the country. 80. At all events, you would not take the silver-pine on land as the full value of the land ?— Perhaps you might, because it grows sometimes on very bad land—that is, in rings round the edgesof small lagoons. 81. Is land where the silver-pine is fit for settlement?— Scarcely, I think, as it is simply peaty lagoons, or "pakihis," as called there. 82. Is it not known as swamp-pine, and that the land is not fit for settlement? —It has never been proved to my knowledge whether these pakihis will become of use after draining, but at present they are simply swamp-land. The area of any one patch of silver-pine is generally very small. 83. In reference to the mining reserves, you remember the interview with myself and Mr. Wilson, at Warner's hotel, on the question of making these reserves?— Yes, I do. 84. You asked to be supplied with maps as we made them from time to time ? —Yes. 85: Have you been so supplied? —We have been supplied with maps. 86. Can you point out any particular block the company has objected to, as of an unreasonable area or as not being required ?—You will see by the correspondence that there has been a general objection to all of them, as containing more land than is required, and stating that the company hereafter will require proof to be given. 87. Do you say that such a letter has been sent regarding these blocks, or any particular block, or was it a general letter ? —lt is a general letter written after many of them had been made ; and, I think, immediately after your making the block at Jackson's, as particular attention was drawn in it to that as being greatly, in the company's opinion, beyond requirements of gold-mining. [For telegram, 24th September, 1891, and letter, 13th October, 1891, see Appendix, pages 21, 22.] 88. Up to the time of making the block at Jackson's ? Has not Mr. Wilson stated in his evidence that he has no objection to reserves being made near gold workings ? —I heard him say the company never objected to reasonable reserves at gold workings. 89. Then, up to the time of making the reserve at Jackson's there was no protest; I mean prior to the proclamation of that block ? Your letter was written after that. Eemember the others were made prior to that ?—Too short time elapsed between the notice being given to the company of the intention to make any reserve and its proclamation to allow full inquiry into each case separately. For instance, notice was received of one block in Ghristchurch on the 27th of the month and it was gazetted in Wellingtoia on the 29th of the same month. The company could not possibly object in detail to each of these blocks as made, as it would have entailed more loss of time and cost in making inquiries than the company would be justified in incurring. 90. This letter was based upon the general ground that the mining reserves were made improperly, and that they w T ere never contemplated when No. 2 contract was made ?—That they were not in accord with the spirit of the contract. 91. This was a condition at the time the concessions were made which you have admitted were an advantage to the company ?—The company's objection is that the mining reserves made are far too liberal, and are not made in accordance with the spirit or letter of the contract. 92. If there is anything on record showing that Sir Harry Atkinson's impression was that the colony got the right to the 750,000 acres as a quid pro quo for the concessions to the company, you will consider it worth the consideration of the Committee as a contradiction to your evidence ?— Naturally. 93. I would like to refer to Hansard, Volume 58, page 190, 1887, which says : " Then, there is another very important point—that is, the question of mining within the district. That is a very complicated and very difficult question ; and the Government, after careful inquiry, have come to the conclusion that, if they take authority to proclaim 750,000 acres, that will leave the question open as it was under the contract. That will cover all the possible mining area which is likely tobe required for mining purposes. Therefore we propose to take authority to proclaim a definite amount of 750,000 acres, and, in doing that, we propose to give to the company the advantage of selecting other land all over the district without taking alternate blocks." What is your reply to that ? Is it a contradiction to what you say ?—lf I am to take it to be a correct parliamentary report, I should say it is clear that you cannot so closely criticize the exact wording of every line of a Minister's speech, as reported to be made before the House, in the same way as you would the wording of a legal document. If Sir Harry Atkinson had put it as you read it there—that is, that the Government had got to take the whole 750,000 acres—l say it is a matter for the law courts to decide whether he was right in reading the contract, or whether the company is right. It is evident to my mind that is a loose report of what was said. The addition of only the words " up to " would give the meaning I contend to be right. 94. You admit that his impression was different from your's ?—I do not admit that for a moment. 95. Then the Premier, when asking the House to agree to modify the contract, made a speech which he permitted to be loosely reported ?—I think the report in Hansard cannot be closely relied upon, or taken as overriding the strict meaning of a legal document.