1.-1(3.

40

[m. myehs.

164. They are prepared to definitely covenant to supply those articles?— The whole Bill contemplates the establishment of iron and steel works, not merely works for producing pig iron. 165. Supposing that the clause providing for the Government taking over the works at the end of the forty years was eliminated, would the company then surrender its claim for a subsidy? Suppose we say that we do not want your works at the end of forty years? —I cannot answer that. You must understand that but for that provision in the Bill the term of the company's operations would be very much longer, and as to part of the property it might be perpetual, and in that case you could never nationalize the industry except upon payment of full compensation. 166. But you have told us rather fully of the terrors that follow upon nationalization. Supposing you have deterred us and we say, " You keep the control of the work in perpetuity " : would you not then surrender your application for a subsidy? —Nationalization under existing conditions, I endeavoured to explain, is a very- different thing from acquisition by the Government of this property at a particular point of time, without paying anything at all, after the industry is established. As to whether the company would be prepared to establish the industry without subsidy if that provision for taking over is eliminated, I am not able to answer that; but I think they would not, because you cannot find £650,000 for any industry, particularly in this part of the world, without some inducement. 167. Mr. Skerrett.] I understand that you do not, on behalf of the company, suggest the insertion in the Bill of any compulsory pre-emption clauses over the Onakaka lease in favour of the proposed company? —We have not suggested that. 168. And you do not suggest it?—No, I do not suggest it. 169. Hon. Mr. McKenzie.] Is it not a fact that the whole proposals contained in that draft Bill are tentative, and are to be used merely as a basis for negotiations?— Yes. I have no doubt that if the principle which we are seeking for is affirmed, then we shall be prepared to negotiate; but these are the terms which we suggest. 170. The terms in the Bill are the basis on which you are prepared to negotiate?— Yes. 171. Before anything could be finally 7 and definitely fixed, Parliament would have to pass a Bill?— Yes. 172. Approving of the terms that the Government Would accept?— Not necessarily. Parliament would have to pass an empowering Bill such as this, or in some terms. That would be one way of doing it. If that were done, then the terms of the contract would have to be settled between the Government and the company. There is another way of doing it, and that is this : that the Government should first of all agree upon a draft contract, and that that draft contract should be embodied in an Act of Parliament. 173. In getting a Bill to authorize the Government to enter into a contract, without any details at all except what would appear on the face of the contract itself, do you not think Parliament would scrutinize that Bill very carefully before it adopted proposals such as these?— Certainly; but I should think that Parliament would pay a good deal of attention to the report of a Committee which had inquired into the matter. 174. Any Bill of that kind would be referred to a Special Committee such as this to examine carefully and report on?-'—Yes, unless this Committee were able to say they agree with the main principles of the Bill, and in that, case it would not be necessary to refer the Bill again to a Committee. 175. It is quite competent for this Committee to make a report of the terms that they consider fair for the country to accept ? —Yes.

Wednesday, 30th October, 1912. Joseph Howard Witheford examined. (No. 9.) 1. Mr. Myers.] You live in Auckland? —Yes. 2. But for some years past, until early in this year, you lived in London?— Yes, seven years. 3. During that time you were engaged in endeavouring to attract the attention of financiers in London to the iron industry in New Zealand? —Yes, the whole time. 4. Whom were you representing in London at the outset?—At the outset, at the request of the then Premier of New Zealand, the late Mr. Seddon, I undertook to try to get capital in order to assist the Cadman Syndicate. 5. And I think you represented the Cadman Syndicate as it existed at that time?— Yes. 6. Did you, during the time you were in London, continue in your endeavours to attract capital? —Yes. 7. Both before and after Sir Alfred Cadman's death? —Yes. 8. Did you also become attorney for Mr. Turnbull, the gentleman in whose name the Onakaka title stood? —Yes, that is so. 9. About what time did you become his representative in London?—l think it was in 1909 that Mr, R. D. D. McLean wrote and asked me if I would undertake that business.