23

L—6c

193. At the sweet will of the company, ten years hence, at all events, there is a loan of £2,000,000 ?—You can hardly put it that way. It would not be unless the company were driven into selling. The company will never sell to the Government for £2,000,000 if it can carry on without. It would be a loss of £500,000 to do this. 194. Hon. Sir J. Hall.] Is that clause a sine qua non ?—No, it is not. It is important to facilitate the raising of the money but it is not a sine qua non. 195. Hon. Mr. Seddon.] We shall have to meet the objection. It is there as a condition and I am trying to meet it ? —lt is not a sine qua non. It may probably cost us considerably more to raise our money if we do not have the clause in. That is the whole point: the cost of raising the money; it may be raised without this clause but it will be more costly to do so. 196. Mr. G. Hutchison.] Would you have any objection to substituting capital value, less what the company had received in land-grants over the £2,000,000, in clause 20a ?—I do not see anything gained by this. 197. And off that, capital value will have to be deducted what you have got already in land?— You mean for interest purposes ? Less what we have received for land ? That might be. Ido not see any advantage. 198. As a credit ?—Yes. Mr. Wright: The point, no doubt, is a most important one from the company's point of view. Mr. G. Hutchison : They want something to reassure their debenture-holders. 199. Mr. Wright.] It would be absolute security for the debenture-holders ?—For our deben-ture-holders alone. They would be secured, and the others unsecured. We had to meet the difficulty of this evidence, of which I had spoken, when I got home. I thought it had not reached England, but I was mistaken. There it was known generally that the Government had proved by their officials that this line could not pay. 200. Did you not point out that their premises were all wrong ? —Yes ; but if I made a statement after that evidence had been published half the people would not believe the contradiction. . 20.1. When Mr. Fox was examined, did Mr. Wilson say anything as to revised figures to support his calculation ?—There was only a clerical error to the disadvantage of the company's own contention. 202. You accept Mr. Fox's calculations ?—Yes ; they only showed we were about £5,000 out, and this was adverse to the company. 203. Hon. Sir John Hall.] The Committee asked Mr. Wilson at the last meeting to put in a summary of the proposals. He has brought it, and I would suggest it be put in and printed ?—Yes, I put it in. Mr. Wright: I would like a return of a few figures, of what will be the annual cash charge upon the colony to meet the interest upon the debentures for £850,000 payable in twenty halfyearly instalments, which the Midland Kailway Company propose to accept in exchange for landgrant. It is a very small calculation, and I think we should have it. The Committee then adjourned.

Wednesday, 30th August, 1893. Mr. Eobeet Wilson further examined. 204. Mr. Wilson : A suggestion was made yesterday, that clause 12 in the proposals might be modified to protect the Government in the event of the company not carrying on the works. Clause No. 12 in the proposed new contract, page 24, reads : " In consideration of the surrender by the company of such rights the Queen shall pay to the company the sum of £850,000 sterling, by twenty equal half-yearly instalments of £42,500 each, payable at the head office of the company in London, free from all deductions or taxation of any sort or kind whatsoever, the first of such instalments being paid on the execution hereof." After the word "execution" I suggest should be added "of works under this contract for the amount of £42,500. If at any six-monthly period when payment is due the capital expended on the works does not amount to the sum of the half-yearly payment made on that date, such payment due may be withheld by the Government until such time as the expenditure on works exceeds the total amount of the half-yearly payment then due." That would, I think, be a protective clause to guard against the company asking for payment if the works were not going on. As I explained yesterday, our expenditure would be something like £30,000 a month; so that there is very little possibility of such a contingency arising. Still it would be a precaution if that were inserted. It was also suggested yesterday that clause 20a might be altered. 205. Mr. Wright, i Before Mr. Wilson goes to the next clause, I would suggest the insertion of the clause he has read would rather tend to complicate matters ?—The proposal suggested is only to meet the question raised, that the Government were not guarded ; that they might be called upon to pay a six-monthly instalment when the works were not progressing. This was simply proposed to meet the point raised. lam open to any other suggestion to meet the objection. 206. You said yesterday you would be satisfied if the first payment were not made until the end of twelve months?— Yes. There was also another suggestion made, as to clause 20, at page 25, with regard to the selling price in the event of the company asking the Government to purchase. It was suggested that the amount of £2,000,000 should not be inserted, but the words, "at the capital cost to the company "be substituted. If that is the wish of the Committee, I have no objection to the alteration being made. The price would then be ascertained at the capital cost to the company, instead of being fixed at the sum named. 207. That would rather place the colony in a worse position? —-Possibly; but the following words will obviate this, namely, " at the capital cost, which shall not exceed £2,000,000."