A.—4 b.

Was this figure worked out by you ?—Yes, it was worked out by me. + believe in the estimates of Western Samoa the two sums are lumped together, and in order to get at the amount paid fc to d jSamoans in salaries by the Administration we calculated that amount and arrived at the figure A £19,388. These 4 are j4 the payments to the Samoans—indirect payments to Samoans ?—Yes, indirect to Samoans after we ascertained what was paid to the employees of the various Departments. What is the item " direct to Samoans " ? —Salaries paid to Samoans employed in offices under the Administration as clerks or Native officials in the out-districts, pulenu'us and others. " Salaries and public works, £81,387 17s. 4d." In regard to the term " public works," what do you mean by that —the work being done by the Public Works ? —I understand figures were taken from the estimates and from the report on the Mandated Territory. If you look under that table you will find that the figures of the revenue and expenditure were obtained from the New Zealand report on the Mandated Territory and from the estimates for 1926-27. This New Zealand subsidy includes the Crown Estates' profits ? —I cannot tell you this. What is this item " deficit " ? —-I presume the deficit referred to is the surplus on the expenditure side. Add the two together and they come to £25,000, more or less, which is, I understand, the amount advanced by New Zealand. Now we come to revenue per head and expenditure per head. There is no question raised in the Minister's reply as regards expenditure, but the revenue per head, £3 4s. for Samoa, the Minister questions as being too high. How did you work out that £3 4s. ? —I took the gross revenue as stated in the table of revenue and expenditure —namely, £150,038 —and deducted from that sum the New Zealand subsidy as stated in the revenue of £21,400. I then took the total population as stated in the Government report on the Mandated Territory of Western Samoa — namely, 40,231. The net revenue was found to be £128,638, and that divided by the population of 40,231 made £3 3s. lid. and a fraction, and to put in even figures we placed it as £3 4s. How did you work out the revenue and expenditure for Fiji and Tonga : did you work it out on the same lines ? —I took the same lines with Fiji and Tonga. All those figures of revenue and expenditure for the three places were worked out on the same scheme ? —Yes. The Minister refers in his letter, Mr. Gurr, to your not having taken into consideration, the system of taxation, in that Fiji has an income-tax and here there is a different form of taxation, and also that reserves are carried in Tonga in case of hurricanes ? —I would not say that it would effect the calculations. These were made on the amount of the gross taxation in this country and in Fiji. Coming back to the headings of revenue and expenditure of the three Governments : In the note there under that heading you have, under " Public works, £52,952," payments of the salaries and emoluments of European officials employed in the Administration. What do you refer to there under " Public works " ? Does that mean all the work of the Government or the Public Works Department only ? —I would say, all the improvements made by the Government, as this is a lump sum —salaries of the Public Works. There is no other item for public works or other improvements. When you refer to " Salaries and Public Works, £81,387 17s. 4d.," do you intend that to mean public works, or do you mean it in the sense of the general work of the Government, including the Agricultural Department ?—-No ; I would take it to mean public improvements under the Public Works Department. The Agricultural Department would be, of course, under " Salaries." Now, Mr. Gurr, in drawing up your figures —you and Mr. Smyth—you make a comparison with Tonga and Fiji. Why do you follow this policy in making up your figures. What was your idea ?■— Our reason for making the comparison was because the other Governments of Fiji and Tonga were situated similarly to Samoa and were adjacent in the South Seas. Am I right in presuming that you intend to convey that the comparison is really made with the idea of showing that the expenditure is too high here for this form of Government ?■ —That was the object. You say that the excess of expenditure per head is not justifiable ; that it is not visible in the substantial development of the country, such as roads and other means of communications to remote parts. Do you intend to convey there that there were no roads or other works being done V —No. And what is your intention, then ?—The intention was to show that in the improvements to roads that have been laid down before 1921, and other roads that have since been formed, it does not appear to us to be equivalent to the outlay. Then you refer to the excess of assets over liabilities and show a reducing scale : where did you get that from ? —From the records referred to —from the estimates. Those figures were taken from one of the Government records, official records, which were produced. Then you come down and say that a surplus of £14,957 for 1926 includes advances to the extent of £6,523. Do you know what those advances are ?—Only as stated here—plant, buildings, and machinery, £6,215. Have you any idea what that £6,523 is for ?■ —I cannot tell you at this time. Now, coming down to the heading " Vailima " : how long have you been in the country, Mr. Gurr ?— Forty-two years. Did you know " Vailima " in Stevenson's time ? —Yes. Did you ever have anything to do with the control of " Vailima " ? —Yes, I did after the death of Stevenson. Is the property or the building in any way like what it was when Stevenson had it ?—Only onepart of it. It has been changed considerably.

38