17

D.—4a

few as possible. lamby no means going to read all the correspondence or all the records bearing on the subject. Sir B. Buenside : What is the object of reading them ? Mr. Hutchison : To show the value of the railway which we have been prevented from completing. Sir B. Buenside : Would a speech show the value ? Mr. Hutchison : This one would. Sir C. Lilley : All that may have turned out to be wrong. I suppose the result was legisla tion? Mr. Hutchison : Negotiations first. Sir C. Lilley : And legislation afterwards? Mr. Hutchison : Yes. There were many negotiations with the Agent-General. The contract with Messrs. Chrystall and others was with a syndicate who had no intention themselves of constructing the railway ; they entered into a preliminary contract with the Government for the purpose of arranging with a company expected to be formed in England for the purpose of constructing the railway; and, before the present contract was formally completed, long negotiations between the Agent-General of the colony and the future chairman of the Midland Bailway Company took place on the subject of the assignment of the original contract, subject to modifications to be ratified by Act of Parliament. Sir C. Lilley : I confess I cannot myself see the relevancy of any of it, unless in claiming damages you put in this gentleman to swear that the actual value at that time was so-and-so. But what about the value when the contract was broken ? Mr. Hutchison : We say it was the same. This is from the Minister for Public Works of the day, in Parliament. Sir B. Stout: What date do you rely on ? Mr. Hutchison : 1885, after the contract with Chrystall and others. Sir B. Stout: I know that some Ministers said that they were not worth anything. Sir C- Lilley :We must limit this inquiry to something. This only appears to be a representation, not as to. what the parties did in pursuance of the contract on one side or the other. Mr. Hutchison : I am quoting this as a representation, not as a misrepresentation. Sir C. Lilley : Then, why trouble about it ? Mr. Hutchison : In this connection. For instance, a portion of the East and West Coast Sir C. Lilley : I wish to compress this inquiry as much as possible. Mr. Hutchison : So should we all. Sir C. Lilley : I take it that this much may be conceded by both sides : that both parties to the contract believed they were making a good bargain. Mr. Hutchison : But we will be told that it was worthless and that consequently no damages are recoverable. Sir C. Lilley ; I think the question will be what the damages were at the time there was a breach. When you were deprived, as you say, of your right to the railway it might be worth fifty millions. That was in 1885. In 1895 it might not be worth fifty farthings. Mr. Hutchison : Quite so. Sir C. Lilley : Then, fifty farthings would be your damages. Mr. Hutchison : Exactly. Sir C. Lilley : This is after all a practical business inquiry. Mr. Hutchison : But you want to know the circumstances of the contract under which damages are claimed. Sir C. Lilley :I do not know that we want to know anything about the contract. I take it that each party conceived they were doing well. Mr. Hutchison : There is a good deal, I apprehend, so to be proved. Sir C. Lilley : You have legislation, of course, which is public record. Mr. Hutchison : We have negotiations also. Sir C. Lilley : The negotiations would not affect the contract. Mr. Hutchison : Yes, in this connection : that it was recognised as a material element of the contract that the company should have power to finance. Sir C. Lilley : Does the contract bind the Government in that respect? Mr. Hutchison : It binds the Government not to interfere injuriously with the right of the company to finance. Sir C. Lilley : I cannot see what it has to do with this inquiry. Mr. Hutchison : It affects the question of damages. Sir B. Stout: Of course, it is not usual for counsel to open with evidence that may even be doubtful. It is usual to hold over such evidence so as not to allow it to interfere with the speech. This is a statement made by a Minister who was not a Minister at the time the contract was signed, and how can such a speech by a Minister be relevant to this inquiry ? We might have the whole of Hansard brought in if this was allowed. Mr. Hutchison : This is a statement of circumstances. I might, for instance, leaving out all reference to a Minister, state, as matter of fact, what in effect I find here stated, that the population to be affected by the railway was so-and-so Sir B. Buenside : You might say you received an assurance of that kind. Sir C. Lilley : We do not know how much of Hansard is coming upon our heads. Mr. Hutchison : The contemporaneous declaration of a Minister gives certain facts. Sir B. Buenside : While you might assert it as a positive existing fact at the time, I question whether a statement by a Minister at that time would indicate what happened. Mr. Hutchison : He would probably be prepared to repeat the same now. 5—D. 4a.