D.—4a

30

Sir B. Buenside : Was that previous to this last law ? Mr. Hutchison : Yes. I mentioned that the interview was after the dates of the letters I have just quoted on the subject of mining reserves. There was an interview, at which the company was again promised to be duly informed of the steps to be taken by the Minister. Sir B. Buenside : Who is Mr. Alan Scott ? Mr. Hutchison : The first representative of the company in the colony. He was succeeded by Mr. Wilson as general manager, but Mr. Scott continued to act as land agent. The first letter actually referring to a Proclamation is a letter of the 10th July, 1891, from the Minister of Public Works to the general manager of the Midland Bailway Company, and is as follows : — " Sir, —In accordance with the promise I made at the recent interview with you in Christchurch, I now forward description of two blocks of land which it is intended to immediately set apart and define by Proclamation, as provided by clause 16 of the Midland Bailway contract, as required for bond fide mining and the several purposes connected therewith. It is proposed to first proclaim the block of 5,250 acres at Kumara Flat, to be followed by a further proclamation of the block of 9,900 acres at Piper's Flat, Kelly's Terrace, Stafford, and Waimea. Proclamations defining further blocks will follow from time to time in areas not exceeding 10,000 acres at any one time, as provided by the contract." On the 20th July there was another interview between the Minister and the manager, when a letter containing certain proposals of the Kumara Miners' Association on the subject of the proclaiming of mining reserves was discussed, together with Mr. Wilson's reply to the association, which reply had concluded as follows : " Should the whole 750,000 acres be so required to be used for bond fide gold-mining it would mean such an increased population and corresponding traffic in the districts that the company need then feel but little anxiety as to the exact lands to be so reserved; but in the meantime it must take precautions against lands being reserved which are not really required for gold-mining, as such reserves would impede instead of increase the population in the district." This point I conceive to be important in view of the effect of those Proclamations, which was not to protect bona fide gold-mining, but to debar settlement, leaving the company's railway through the midst of these reserves comparatively useless. Sir C. Lilley : Do you suggest that these Proclamations were made in bad faith ? Mr. Hutchison: It must be so —the contention of the company must come to that. These Proclamations practically amounted to a repetition of the Larnach Proclamation made a couple of years before, but withdrawn after a month or two, and that these repeated Proclamations contravened the provisions of the contract Sir C. Lilley : You think they were not bond fide, in fact ? Mr. Hutchison : They were not bona fide. Sir B. Burnside : They were made for the purpose of excluding the company from keeping the lands ? Mr. Hutchison : Yes. Then, we have a reply, on the 29th July, 1891, from the Minister to Mr. Wilson's last letter :— " Midland Bailway Mining Beserves. " Sic, —I am directed by the Minister for Public Works to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 20th instant, in reference to the above-mentioned subject. In reply thereto, and particularly in reference to your statement that the meaning of the clause of the Midland Bailway contract in reference to reservation of land for mining purposes is that ' only such lands as may be bond fide required for gold-mining purposes are to be reserved by the Government, and that in any ease the total of such reserves shall not exceed 750,000 acres '; also that 'it is not intended by the contract that the amount of these reserves should necessarily reach that area, unless required for actual gold-mining purposes,' I am to state that the interpretation which the company places on the clause in question is not concurred in by the Government, and, indeed, is considered to be entirely contrary to the provisions of the contract and of the law bearing on the subject." So we see that as early as July, 1891, a distinct variance had arisen between the parties as to the meaning of this particular clause of the contract. Mr. Wilson replied to the. Minister on the Ist August, 1891; and, as defining the position of the company, this letter seems to be important:— " Mining Beserves. " Sir, —I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of 29th ultimo, and am astonished at the views expressed therein, as the contract is so clear on the points in question that there seems to me no doubt whatever as to the meaning of the clause, as stated in my previous letter, and which you now say is not concurred in by the Government. Must still maintain the same views." Not to deal with unnecessary correspondence, I come to a telegram from Mr. Wilson to the Minister, as follows:— " (Telegram.) " 24th September, 1891. " Company protests most strongly against the mining reserves which are being made, and the method of making them, those recently proposed being far in excess of lands bond fide required for goldmining, and the time before notification to company (agreed to be given) of proposed reserve and gazetting being so short as to make any inquiry by company impossible. It will therefore be necessary for the company to formally object to each reserve, unless some time is given for examination. "Bobert Wilson, Greymouth." That is replied to by a telegram, the date of which is not given, but it must have been almost immediately after the one just read, and is from the Minister to the manager. It is as follows : —