A. D. BAYFEILD.]

7

I.—4a,

133. Your transaction occurred some years ago. Having made that statement, you ought to be able to give evidence on it? —What was the statement? 134. You said that the promoter of the Point Elizabeth Coal Company was, paid £1,500, and I ask you if you were aware that he was the freeholder of all that land where the mine is? You are aware that he is the private owner of that property?— Yes. 135. You know as well that all your plant and mine was on Crown land?— Yes. 136. So that there is no comparison whatever between the two companies? —There is in the sense that the Government need not have paid them anything. They did not take possession. 137. They could not take possession, because the Point Elizabeth Mine was on private property. There is a question in connection with the Westport-Ngakawau Railway Act: you stated that your company was in existence when that Act was passed?—We were, as private people. 138. But jwi conveyed the impression that the company was?—l did not mean that. 139. Mr. Colviv.] What year did your company take up the lease?—l cannot tell without referring to the papers. 140. Was it not owing to the extra amount you had to pay the Mokihinui Company, and the Government after them, that put you into liquidation?—My answer is this: that it was the total haulage that we protested against. 141. Was that not the particular haulage that was so expensive? —The Government bought the Mokihinui line for some .£II,OOO, and I forget what the date of the purchase was. 142. Hon. Mr. B. McKenzie.] It was in 1895 or 1896? —I am sorry to say that I cannot fix the date. 143. Mr. Oolvin.~\ I understood it was £11,000-odd, and that this £2,107 is charged to you on the deficiency?— Yes, that is shown in the statement. 144. Had it not been for the fire in the mine taking place, would not your company have been able to go on successfully?— Yes. I wish the Government had let us alone. A short time after, there was a great rise in the price of coal, and we should have made thousands of pounds. 145. You believe the company have a fair moral claim on the Government?—l am very strongly imbued witli that idea, and I sincerely hope the matter will be adjusted.

Thursday, 2nd December, 1909. Arthur DOyly Baypeild further examined. (No. 2.) The Glt,airm,an: I understand you desire to supplement the evidence you have already given to the Committee? Witness: Yes. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I wish in the first place to reply to those points raised by the Hon. the Minister of Mines and by Mr, Thomson. I beg also to read a communication from Mr. Hargreaves, who was chairman of directors and liquidator of the company. In his letter he says, " I do not remember being called upon to give evidence on Mr. Hughes's petition. (2.) No guarantee was given jointly or severally by the Mokihinui Company and the Cardiff Company for Ngawakau Railway deficiency. It was a condition of the lease, and was in operation under the Act of 1890 before we began work. You will obtain valuable information from the printed report of my evidence before the Coal Commission on the sth September, 1899, pages 4 to 8, especially page 8, re conditions of Government lease of Mokihinui Mine and plant. I would also lay stress upon the fact that, as Seddonville was the originating point of traffic, we should have been credited with Jth per ton for the first ten miles, whereas we believe we have only been credited with fd. per ton per mile for haulage from the mine to or from Ngakawau. Then, again, the net interest earned by the whole line in 1897 was £10 2s. 6d. per centum; in 1898, £12 3s. 6d.; and in 1899, £13 3s. 6d. Should Ibe required to give any further evidence I must have timely notice, as lam still far from my ordinary state of health." I have further to supplement my evidence by reference to the Appendices to the Journals of the Fouse, C.-8, Vol i, 1899, bearing upon the question of the purchase by the Government of the Mokihinui Company's mine. The liquidator reported to the Government, recommending them to buy the mine, in a communication dated April, 1899. "Application to the Government to buy Mokihinui Company's mine: Result of public meeting, hetter, 2/9/98, signed by C. Stewart, secretary, and F. Corby, chairman. Instructions of liquidator to Macdonald,"Wilson, and Co. for sale of property. Report from the liquidator, apparently to the Government, recommending them to buy mine, dated Wellington, April, 1899. On 13/5/99 liquidator to Surveyor-General, stating that when winding-up finished he expected to have balance to hand over to the Government." Then there is the liquidator's report dated 31st December, 1898, and on page 8, which is the most essential part, it states, " The company owed the Government £3,633 for rents, royalties, and interest under the Westport-Ngakawau Extension Act." The liquidator then recommended (a) sale at a reserve price of £4,000 to £4,500; (b) the Government, to protect themselves, should buy the property at the reserve price. This they did by buying at auction. I will now, sir, having briefly replied to the points which cropped up when I was last before the Committee, briefly summarise the position in terms of my petition. I most respectfully ask the Committee to deal with my petition as far as they possibly can in the direction in which I have asked —namely, that, if you aTe satisfied we have an equitable claim, as I think we have, the Committee will make a recommendation as to what we should get. If the Committee cannot see its way to state any distinct sum, I hope an expression of opinion will be given as to whether or not we have an equitable claim against the Government in this matter. I think, sir, those are all the additional remarks I desire to make, and I will now leave the matter in your hands.