M. MYERS.]

173

D.— 4.

The Chairman : They have not asked that. M-f. Myers: That is one of the questions in the Commission. The Chairman : The whole contest turns upon this : how far should the Government restrict advancement in local carriage ? Mr. Myers : One of the questions : s as to whether it is in the public interest that the tramway should be purchased by the Government and be connected with the Main Trunk: line. Well, Ido not desire to add anything to the evidence which has been given on that point. The other question is, " Whether, in the alternative;, it is desirable in the public interest that the County Council having control of the Sandon Tramway should be permitted to connect that tramway with the Main Trunk Railway at Marton or Greatford." Tf that means, as I submit it does, a physical connection, then the Commission has heard in the evidence— supplemented to such an extent as I have been able to supplement it with my remarks —the objections against that proposal. If the question includes, which I submit it does not, any reference to a dead-end or terminal siding, that question has also been dealt with in the evidence as fully as it could be, and the Railway Department submits that it is certainly not desirable in the pubic interests that either o{ those things should be done as suggested in questions 2 and 3.

Statement by Mr. T. S. Wbston. (No. 55.) Mr. Weston : May is please your Honour and members of the Commission, I submit that the cardinal defect in my learned friend's argument is its technical nature and the na.rrowness of the view that it presents to the Commission. In does, however, assist the case of the Harbour Board very materially, because on the first question as to whether in the public interest it is desirable that the Hoard should have control of the wharves, it does show quite clearly how antagonisticly the Department views the development of trade at Foxton. The one bogey which the Department seems to fear right through on the question of whether the wharves are to be handed over to the Board, and also on this question of the Foxton Tramway, is how are we to prevent the growth of the Foxton trade ? They are always frightened throughout all their dealings ; they seem always frightened that that trade is going to seriously affect their revenue, and therefore it must be checked at all costs. It is quite clear, as pointed out by the Commission, that our Harbours Act clearly establishes the principle that the harbours of this Dominion are to be controlled by a local authority wherever possible. We actually find that a small river like the Mokau River, with a small revenue and supplying quite a small district compared with Foxton, lias its own Harbour Board. Moreover, the Legislature gave us the harbour, although it is true they knocked out the word " wharfages " ; but all I can say is that Mr. Millar was a member of the Government when that Bill went through, and the attitude taken up by Mr. Millar towards Foxton is shown not only by his evidence given before the parliamentary Committee, and not only by his statement with regard to the Sanson Tramway and the possibilities of its assisting the Foxton Harbour, but also by his remarks in Hansard. lam emoting Volume 151, Session 1910, page 396. There he was good enough to say, "He wished to be perfectly candid over the matter, and might tell them as Minister he would just wait and see how things went, and the moment he saw the revenue was being affected —supposing they got their request— he should take steps to protect the revenue of the Railway Department, even if it caused the Foxton Harbour Board to 'go bung.' " That has been the attitude of the Railway Department and of its Ministerial chiefs right through with regard to Foxton, and we have only to listen to the address of Mr. Myers and the evidence given by the heads *"*of the Railway Department to realize that in leaving the control of the wharves in the hands of the Railway Department we are simply putting a flock of sheep in the custody of a wolf clothed, it may be, in sheep's clothing. Moreover, there is the attitude of the Department, in coming here and daring to justify the price they ask in face of the knowledge which their General Manager has obtained from his English practice and the practice which English railway companies have to adopt towards docks. Yesterday Mr. Hiley said that in Hull the London and North-eastern Railway had docks which were erected as separate undertakings, of which a separate account was kept of the expenditure, and when asked on what basis the dock charges were made he said that Parliament always adopted the principle that charges were to cover working-expenses, allowance for depreciation and repairs, and a fair interest on the cost of construction. That was the principle on which Parliament acted when they fixed the limit of wharfages which could be charged by a private railway company when building docks, and I submit that simply because the Railways Act cited by my friend does not contain that limitation which it is necessary should be imposed by Parliament when giving a franchise like that to a private company, why should a different principle apply to a Department which is given an unlimited discretion, which, if exercised by a Government Department, is supposed always to be exercised fairly and with justice ? There can be no question on the first point that the objections raised by the Railway Department and the Ministers to the acquisition by the Foxton Harbour Board of these wharves are not based on principle —they are based on pelf. That is all. Give my friends their price, and they are quite prepared to sink everything and be satisfied. Mr. Myers : No, that is not so. Mr. Weston : Right through the negotiations, " Pay us our price." Mr. Myers : My friend is quite wrong. We do not want to sell, and the Department has made that plain. Mr. Weston : Why, here again comes in pelf, because although they' thought they had fixed a fair limit—a pretty big limit' —in 1910, they asked £28,000; and it appears now from the letter of Mr. Herries that they should have asked £55,000 on the earnings ; and I suppose as the district goes ahead the price will go up, and unless this anomalous position is put a stop to we will have the Department asking £100,000 eight years ahead. Some reference was made to the previous Board and to the