D.—4

176

[T. S. WESTON.

Mr. Myers : You do not take into consideration the question of haulage and handling. Mr. Weston : I have taken your own figures on which you base your claim for its value as a going concern. That point was never raised by the Department when they estimated what the goodwill of this building or wharf was. They have never, until they came into Court the other day, mentioned anything about haulage or handling ; and seeing they were asking us to pay a goodwill worked out on exactly the same basis as I have worked out these figures'—namely, taking the difference between the expenditure they have shown and the revenue, and showing that as a profit—l do not think it lies in their mouths now to add in something mythical of which they have given us no details. The Chairman: You make out that they have standing to the credit of this wharf account, how much ? Mr. Weston : £12,401 ; .and that is only from 1900. They had the wharf for many years prior to that, and in some years the revenue was pretty big. It is a large sum of money. The Chairman : Then it is the only public work that has been constructed in the Dominion of which you can say that. Mr. Weston : There is no flaw to pick in it. The Chairman : What I suppose this will mean is that you will want the wharf and some of this money as well ? Mr. Weston : No, I always try to be fair. What I say is that in the past my clients have paid for this one and a half times over. In addition, they have had all the worry ; and look at the efforts they have made to get justice ! If we get justice now, and if the Department will meet us fairly in the future, we will not say anything about it in the future, but will cry quits. After all, Sir, it is only logical. It works out like that, but the Department say they want £28,000 in addition. When the district has been exploited and taxed for the last twenty years by the Railway Department, surely when they come to Court and say they have paid for the wharf, valuing the wharf at £8,000, which it never cost them, I think we are fair in asking for it for nothing. My friend has spoken about the work to be done by the Board, and he has addressed one of many curiously illogical arguments in this matter to the Commission. He says, " Let us still continue to demand and receive this excessive charge, because if we give you the right to impose that charge you will throw the money into the sea." Well, I can understand a somewhat illogical despot making a similar reply to his people who came to him and complained of excessive taxation, and he would say, "My dear fellows, don't growl. It is true lam taking a lot more out of your pockets than I ought to take, but you would only waste it." Also the thief saying, " I have taken money out of your pocket, my dear fellow, but you would only have spent it in drink." Once the local authority takes control it rests with the people who elect the members of the Harbour Board to decide one of two things : they will either decide they cannot improve the harbour, and in that case we will reduce the wharfage rates, or, if they decide to improve the harbour, what safeguards are there against their making any mistake and wasting the money ? There are many. In the first place, I think it is quite clear that if the harbour is to be improved there must be a rating-area. That is the first step, and directly the Foxton Harbour Board can say "We have got the wharves at a fair price having regard to what we have contributed in the past," and directly they can say that any revenue from the harbour will not go to the railway, but will go towards improving the harbour, then they can go and say "We must help ourselves." Before they can go and raise a loan they must satisfy the ratepayers that they will get a fair return for their money, and that it is advisable in the interests of the port that the money should be provided. Those of us who have watched the work of getting rating-areas in New Zealand know the difficulty. There is the instance of Waitara and Opunake about fifteen years ago, and before any district will submit to a rating-area they have to get a very strong case put before them. Then it will be necessary to approach Parliament and get a local Bill. When they get the Bill through they have to get a poll of the ratepayers before the loan can be raised, and before they can spend that loan in harbour-improvement they must get the approval of the Marine Department. My friend's and the Railway Department's solicitude as to whether the money is going to be wasted we appreciate ; but my friend need have no fear on that question. Now, with regard to the work to be done, and the present state of the harbour, my friend says the harbour is very much in the same state as it was in days gone by ; but I think if your Honour will look at the statistics of arrivals and departures your Honour will see how in the last two years, at all events, there has been a strong tendency in the vessels to decline. If your Honour will also compare the details for the four months of 1916 with the four months of 1910, you will see that in 1916 there were practically only four vessels trading to the port, the " Queen of the South," " Kennedy," " Awahou," and " Wakatu " ; whereas if you look at 1910 you will notice there was quite a large number of vessels coming in from time to time. Moreover, looking carefully at the dates of departure of one vessel, the " Queen of the South," which is the only regular trader to the port, you will notice that at certain periods in each month there is a delay of five to six and seven days at one period in her arrival and departure. That is due to the neap tides. My friend endeavours to put down this difference in the number of vessels to the quantity of coal brought in ; but I would ask your Honour to look at the list prepared by Mr. Kellow and put in, which is really a complete statement of the statistics of the port made up to the 31st March in each year ; so that all we have to do is to put against Mr. Kellow's list the list produced by Mr. McVilly of the Government imported coal for each year ending at the same date. Doing that I find this : he said the Government ceased to import at the end of 1908, and I find that for the period ending 31st March, 1908, the Railway Department imported through Foxton 11,763 tons, the total imported being 15,321 tons ; so that, roughly speaking, the amount for customers outside the Government was only about 3,600 tons. The n'ext year there were 16,063 tons, of which the Government only imported 8,307 ; so that that year the amount for private consumption was nearly doubled. Similarly, in the year 1910 there were 18,250 tons imported, of which the Government received 4,364. In the next year, 1911, there was a drop, 13,019 tons being imported, of