I.—sa.

62

[f. t. o'neill.

50. That is in June last?— Either June or before. 51. That would be thirteen months afterwards. Do you think you can recollect any other conversation Mr. Kensington had with you that day? —No. 52. About any other person being in his office that day?— No. 53. Can you tell me any conversation or statement made by Mr. Kensington, say, two months ago as to anybody being in his office? —I think I could do that. 54. Can you give me one? Can you tell me of any statement which Mr. Kensington made to you during the same month of April, 1907, with regard to any other matter?— Not just at present. 55. Did he ever make any statement to you with regard to Crawford's matter? —I do not know xvhether he made a statement, but xve discussed the matter. 56. Did lie ever make a statement of this nature to you : that " Mr. Hislop and Mr. Macdonald had called on an important matter dealing with the cable," and he had agreed to do so-and-so?—I do not know xvhether lie made the statement: we discussed it. I mean, I do not know whether he broached the subject or I did, but he conferred xvith me. 57. When? —The particular day I cannot say. 58. Was I there at the time? —In the office? 59. Yes?— No. 60. Had I been there? —Yes. 61. How long before?— That I cannot say. 62. A xveek? —Less than that, I think. 63. Did you discuss it xvith him on account of the memo, from Mr. Strauchon?—No, from an interview I think he had with you. 64. Was it not on account of a memo, from Mr. Strauchon?—No, not what I am thinking of. 65. What xvas it he told you?—He informed me that the question had been asked as to xvhether the grant should be amended —or, rather, that the land should have the restriction removed from it in reference to the reservation of the cable or telegraph-line. 66. Did I not see you on the subject?— Yes, twice. 67. The very first time I came —before I saw Mr. Kensington? —I think that xvas afterwards. I think I had discussed it xvith Mr. Kensington before that. When you came to see me the papers had been dealt xvith by us and sent to the Postmaster-General. 68. Had they not been sent back to the Postmaster-General?—Not at that time. 69. You have no memo, of this particular thing in your diary?- —No. 70. Can you tell me anything else that Mr. Kensington has told you lately?— No. 71. Mr. Fraser.] The letter of the 29th April signed by Mr. Kensington—did you see that letter ?—Yes. 72. You understood from Mr. Kensington, then, that Mr. Hislop xvas present, and intimated that the Council desired to purchase that land for the purpose of an exchange?— That is so. That both Mr. Hislop and Mi-. Macdonald xx'ere present. 73. If Mr. Macdonald alone had been there, xxould that letter have been sent in those terms?— That I could not say. 74. Assuming that he represented himself as acting for the Council?—lt may have been sent, but perhaps further inquiries would have been made. But I did not xvrite the letter. 75. You say you have seen the letter: I suppose you are pretty confident the letter would not have been sent unless either the Mayor or some one acting for the Mayor asked for this ?— That is so. 76. I understand you to say you keep a record of xvhat occurs in your office —not of those who appear there: is it customary to do so?— No. 77. Would that be the ansxver to the question put by Mr. Hislop: that there xvas no entry in your diary because it is not the practice?—l do not keep a diary in the ordinary sense —I only keep notes of important things ; and I have not this entry in it. . 78. Can you tell me xvhether it is the practice of any of the officers of the Department to keep a record of those who interview Mr. Kensington ?—I am not aware of any note or diary. It has never been the practice, as far as I know, in our Department. 79. Would it be possible to keep such a diary or such a record?—lt might be. I think it could be done. Do you mean the people xvho arrive and call on us, or do you mean the substance of what they say? 80. I mean those xvho arrive and call, and the substance of their conversation? —I do not think xve could keep that. We might keep a note of the callers or interviewers. 81. This business of any record is no evidence one way or the other of any one having called? —No. 82. Mr. Symes.] In your opinion, is it possible for such a letter as this of the 29th April to have been sent by Mr. Kensington unless some one had interviewed him on the subject?—l do not think so. It could have been done by instructions from some one —the Minister, for instance; otherwise he would not do it without some spur. 83. Mr. Remington.] Do you fix the date of the Under-Secretary's conversation xvith you of the 29th April by reason of the date of that letter you perused?— Yes. 84. That is hoxv you fix the date? —Yes. 85. You are quite sure that the detailed conversation Mr. Kensington said occurred with Mr. Hislop and Mr. Macdonald you fix by that letter?— Yes, by reason of that letter. 86. Mr. Macpherson.] Did you yourself see Mr. Hislop or Mr. Macdonald on that particular date?— No. 87. Mr. Fisher.] Mi-. Hislop and Mr. Macdonald xvere alongside you in June last when they saxv the plan ?—Yes.