WESTPORT HARBOUR AFFAIRS.

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 1874, 7 October 1913, Page 5

WESTPORT HARBOUR AFFAIRS.

- — <h——• ROYAL COMMISSION. EVIDENCE OF MR. COLVIN, M.P. THE BOARD'S ADMINISTRATION. SOME STRIKING STATEMENTS. Yesterday's sitting of the Westport f Harbour Board Commission was devoted to the hearing of the evidenco of Mr. J. Colvin, M.P., who was for many years a member of the board. Mr. Colvin replied to several oharges which had been made against himself in connection. with his acquiring a pastoral license of certain lands belonging to the board. He was also closely examined by the chairman with regard to allegations made at earlier sittings of the commission in connection with tho Loard's administration generally. This was the third day of the Commission's Wellington sitting. Members of tho Commission present were: Messrs. J. S. Evans, S.M. (ohairman), ,W. .Ferguson, and Gerald Fitzgerald. Mr. A. Maginnity appeared for the Government, and Mr. W. G. M'Donald for the secretary of the board (Mr. C. N. Greenland) and for Mr. J. Colyin, M.P. (a former chairman of the board). Mr. A. A. Wilson appeared for the board. The first_ witness examined was Mr. James Colvin, M.P. for Buller, who was called by Mr. M'Donald. He said he had resided in thei district since 1867. • Mr. M'Donald: Your name has been mentioned in connection with your acquisition of a pastoral license on the south side of the Buller River. Have you anything to say about thatP The witness said that when he first applied for it in 1898 tho land mentioned in his application was from Gibson's, at Cape Foulwiiid, to the western wall. This application was objected to by several settlers, on the ground that it was a commonage right. He rmognised. the fight of settlers to sign a petition of objection, but ho was not 60 satisfied with the objective of townspeople, who had very little interest in the land. His application was refused. "No Undue Influence." He got another piece of land in 1904, and tnen Carter (one of the principal objeotors to the granting of a license to witness) applied for the land which the witness had previously applied for. Cartor's application was refused, but the witness had 'ts ken no part in petitioning against Irs acquiring the land, as ho had lin reason for doing so. It had been staged tl'at he had used undue influence to prevent Carter from getting the land. His wished the' commission' to understand that this was quite untrue. He had not moved in the matter at all. In reply to fufther questions by Mr. M'Donald, the witness said that /the land which he eventually obtained on the South Spit was on an occupation license from year to year. Mr. M'Donald: It is stated that tho land you hold was made up by the Harbour Board works. The witness: That is not so. He went on to say that the land was there when he first went to Westport. The works carried out by the Union Company after the stranding of the Taviuni had added about twenty acres of sand, but it could not be asserted that the land had been made up by the Harbour Board's works. There had never been any objection by the Harbour Board, of which he was a member at the time,-or by anyone else, to his acquiring the land. It was only when political feeling began to run high that allegations were made. that he had been granted .the land as the result of influences which no. one but himself could bring to bear. The chairman: That is hardly the question. W 7 hat we have to inquire into is whether the land was made up by the Harbour Board, and whether the Harbour Board should not have retained it. Coif Club's Application. The witness said that Hone of the engineers who had visited the port—Sir John Coode, Mr. Napier Bell, Mr. C. V. O'Connor, Mr. Leslie Reynolds, and others—had mentioned in their reports that the land would ever be required for Harbour Board purposes. When ho obtained his license over the South Spit land in 1909, he spent from £250 to £300 in improvements—cutting of gorse and lupins, fencing, and grassing. Previous to his getting the land, there had been a stock sale yard there, and the Harbour Board had never made a move. In 1909 the golf club took a three months' option over his right to the land, and applied for a pastoral license in its own namo. The club intended to establish iinks on the land, but its application was refused. Tho witness then applied for a lioense, which was granted. So far as he knew, the Harbour Board had not made any objection to the granting of tho license to the golf . club. The Minutes Produced. The chairman produced the minutes iof a board meeting in September, 1909, at which Mr. Colvin was present. At • this meeting a letter was read. which had been sent by tho board to the Crown Lands Ranger regarding the application. The letter stated that the board i •had no objection to. the license, provided that the lease was on easy terms, so that the board could resume the . land at short notice; and provided also that the land was laid out with the approval of the. board's engineer. The chairman remarked that it seemed to be a point at issue whether this constituted an objection or not. The witness, continuing, said that he had received a letter while he was ' in Wellington from a member of the Land Board, stating that the- Golf Club's application had beon refused. He . turned down tho corner of the letter, . and wrote on it instructions to his agent in Westport (Mr. Wilson) to apply for the license in tho witness's name. The chairman: Where is the letter? . The witness: I have never seen it ■ since. Mr. M'Donald: Tho letter has been ' .'destroyed. In 1910 Mr. Colvin had a business difference with Mr. Wilson and | appointed an agent to take over all his ■ papers from Mr. Wilson. The letter was then thought to be of no value and was destroyed. ] The chairman: Have you not a copy? Air. M'Donald: A copy was made by [ #Jr. Wilson of all tho documents before iie handed them over. Tho chairman: Then you had better produce the copy. Mr. M'Donald: That is impossible at present. It is in Westport. The chairman: We adjourned to Wellington to take the evidenco of Mr. • Colvin, and now you have left an im- ' portant document behind. Tho best cvidnnco on this question is the letter , itself. You ought to have had it here. We can only get fragmentary evidence in this way. i Mr. M.'DonlMd: Wo aro only giving evidence which '.\ r o think bears on the question. Wo do not object to producing tho letter if here is any charge to . be mado against us. (To the witness): Havo you ever i.-iked Mr. Wilson or ■ nnyono else to ap; 1 roach the officers of ■ the Harbour Boarc. with regard to your application? Tho witness: I -,ve never asked a favour of a public body on 'my own behalf in my lifo, or requested anyone to uso his influence in my favour. If I w«r« to mako such a request of the

secretary (Mr. Greenland) he would resent it, as a gentleman. The chairman: Tho host evidence of what instructions were given to Mr. Wilson is the letter. It should /' be here. Tho witness further said that ho. had subsequently sold his right. Ho had made not one penny out of his holding tho pastoral license. The Floating Basin. Replying to questions by tho chairman, Sir. Colvin said that ho was familiar with the history of the harbour. Ho know that Sir John Coodo's report had recommendfed the provision of a floating basin on tho south side of tho river. If the.basin were constructed' there, tho adjacent lands would, of course, bo needed foT its working. The schema outlined by Sir John Coode had been abandoned. The chairman: Can you give us 'any idea of the causes which led up to its abandonment? , The, witness said- that it was the result of Mr. Napier Bell's recommendations, so far as ho could remember. It was chiefly on the grounds of expense in worlring. • The south side had been definitely abandoned 1 as a site for the floating basin. He was a member of the board when he made his first application' for land in 1898. When several other questions had been asked, the witness protested that he had made his name in public life not only as a member of the Harbour Board, but politically and otherwise. He bad lived In the Buller for 47 years, and l he was not going to do a mean and contemptible actioa to get a personal advantage. Harbour Board Works. In answer to further questions, the witness said that at the time his application was granted, another application by Carter fir a neighbouring piece of land) was refused, because there was on it a Harbour Board 1 ditch outfall. Ho had heard for the first time on Saturday last that on the land which had been granted to him there were oortain bench marks. The chairman: Is it nob the most important work of the Harbour Board to maintain deep water on the bar ? The witness: Certainly. The chairman: i Then it is important to know how the water shoals and varies? —"That is so." The chairman: Then it is essential that the board should' have fixed; markß for checking tho work from time to time?—" Yes." The chairman': Well, I put it to you as a level-headed business man and a public man, is it not more important for tho board to reserve the land on which tlieso works are .placed than the simple outfall of a drain?—"l didn't know the works' were there, and. if tho board wanted the land I should say 'Take it.' It is not worth 2d. an acre. What I wanted was a big area for a sheep and cattle run." 1 The ohairman: We are to inquire whether the board should not have reserved the lands on which its_ works are situated, both sides of the river? — "If the Government likes to have the land I am accused l of taking, they can havo it, by paying compensation." The chairman; Under the Public Works Act? That is the question. It is contended that the board should not have "left go" of the land on whioh its works wore situated. —"The land was never vested in the board." The ohairman: As a business man, do you not think that the board was unwise in parting with such land?—" The board con havo it back again." The chairman: Yes, by resuming it. But it is contended that the board should havo reserved the land from the first. An Increase of Area. Qucstinned further by the chairman with regard to the licenso, tho witness said that it had been the practice of tho Land Board, before granting any application with regard to Harbour Board Endowment lands, to consult the Harbour Board. When he applied for land in 1904, he had asked for about 150 acres, and got an area of 170 acres (there or thereabouts). When the land was surveyed for the first time some years later, the area was found to bo 232 acres. The chairman: How do you account for the difference in area?—" Well, the land had never been surveyed beforo. There is a clause in the Land Act, I believe, which says that when a man applies for laud between cortain pegs, ho must take it up, no matter how much more or less in area than the original estimate a survey may ' show it to be. After the Taviuni went ashore, and the Union Company commenced the work of refloating ner, land was mado very fast—sand and gravel." The chairman: That is exactly the point. Is it not reasonable to assume that such a great difference in area during the years you were in - occupation might have been the result of accretions due to the Harbour Board's works?— ' 'If there was any accretion, I had nothing to do with it. I got the land I applied for,' and I made no attempt to add to it. Mr. Ferguson: I don't think it is any use asking Mr. Colvin any further questions on that point. He will.not admit that there havo been any accretions except that due. to tho Taviuni works. Mr. M'Donald: Twenty-three acres. The Board's Reservation. The chairman: Coming to the question of tho Harbour Board's reservation—it was originally 64 acres, but it was subsequently cut down to 7} acres. Can you account for this? —"I can't. I applied for it, as I had a right to get it." v The qhairm&n: You had a right over Paterson (another applicant), but had you a right over the Harbour Board? The suggestion is, Mr. Colvin, that you, who were a member of the board at the time, interviewed the officials of the board on the matter. That is the plain English of it.—"l never approached the officers of the board, nor have\l ever asked them to do me a favour. I can hold out my hands and they are clean. The party who makes such a suggestion must think very littlo of the board's officers,and less of me — tn go to such trouble over land that is not worth half-a-crown." The chairman: Woll, the fact is that the board's officers set aside a reservation of 64 acres, which was subsequently cut down to 7} acres without the matter coming officially bofore tho board. Can you throw any light on their action?—" No. But it was through no influence of -mine." Mr. M'Donald: This is the first I have ever heard that there was anything Wrong with Mr. Colvin's action with regard to this reservation. It was never mentioned in all the 'correspondence at Westport, and is quite new to me. The chairman: Wo have had evidenco on tho matter. A witness has stated that the noto Mr. Colvin wrote to Wilson (previously mentioned in Mr. Colvin's evidence) was: "See Greenland and got reservation removed." Mr. M'Donald: That does not refer ts the Harbour Board's reservation.. Tho chairman: There is no other reservation than the one I have described. Mr. M'Donald: You have' not quoted Mr. Colvin's exact words. Mr. Ferguson: Well, you do not produco tho letter. You withhold it, and leave us to mnko our own inferences. The chairman: Now, Mr. Colvin, can you tell us how the board's officers came to reduco that reservation? Tho witness: I know nothing about it. After some further discussion on thematter, the chairman remarked that it was established that the reservation referred to could only bo tho board's reservation of 64 acres. "It amounts I to this, Mr. Colvin," he said. "This reservation has been removed, and it lies between you and your solicitor (Mr. Wilson) aml_ two of the Harbour | Board's officials. Nobody elso comes | into the matter." I The witness; If tho Harbour Board

- officials were guilty of conspiring with my solicifcu' without my knowledge, f thoy aro' not worthy of their positions. Tho chairman: Well, you know tho 3 facts wo havo beforo us, and we must draw our inferences. Tho position sim--1 ply is this —tho reservation has been 1 reduced, and we wish to givo tho- op- , portunity to anyone who knows any- * thing about it Jo tell us. Now, Mr. Colvin, how did the reduction come to bo made ? —"I was not consulted about it at all." Tho chairman: I think that Mr: " Greenland said> in evidence that you } had had an interview with him?—"l ' don't remember it." V/as a Distinction Drawn? The chairman There is another matter ' of which you may know something—in ' fact, as a member of tho Harbour \ Board, you onght to know. ,Wheu the golf club applied for its license, it was referred by the Land Board to the ' Harbour; Boards which imposed certain conditions. You made a similar application when the golf club's application was refused. You wero there in ' tho dual position of applicant for the ' land and a member of tho Harbour ' Board. Can you tell U3 how it is that ' the same conditions wero not imposed in your case? The witness: Tho golf club was going to make big improvements, whichl, as a stock-raiser would not require. These | improvements would havo made tho mat- ! tor very complicated if a termination were sought. Mr. M'Donald: Mr. Colvin was not going to lay out links. Tho conditions could not refer to him. The ohairman: Oh, nonsense. (To the witness): You were present at the meeting of tho board where it was decided to impose conditions on the golf club. Do you not think that your own application should have come before the Harbour Board in tho same way?—"l did not understand the position with regard to any 'objection to tho golf club's application." Mr. Ferguson: Do you mean to Bay that as a publio man, and a member of public bodies,, you agree to resolutions Which you do not understand? — " I did not pay much attention to tho matter. I did not think it of much importance, and it might have slipped through without my noticing it." Mr. McDonald: I don't think tho commission is putting tho matter quite fairly. There was no detailed resolution before the board. It was decided simply to instruct the secretary to write to the Crown Lands Ranger giving the board's attitude on the matter. Mr. Ferguson: So Mr. Colvin agreed to such a proposal without knowing what that attitude was? " Left to tho Officials." The chairman (to the witness): How was it that tho matter of your application did not como before the board r — " It did not go beyond the officials." • Mr. Ferguson: As a late member of the board, can you say whether it is the' custom for important matters like this to be left to tho officials —"Some things are. I did not think that this land had anything to do with the board. If the - board thought it had a right to.the land, it should have written to the Land Board and objected." The chairman: It didn't get a chance to object.—" My application was advertised in the usual way—fully advertised. Mr. Fitzgerald:' Why didn't the board take notice then? —" Oh, I don't know anything about that." The chairman road a letter addressed by Wilson to tho Land Board on January 24, 1911. In this letter he said that he had interviewed tho secretary and engineer of the Harbour Board, and they had said tliat t'hey knew no- x thing about the reservation. The engineer wished to retain soven and ahalf acres as a signal station, and the letter stated that Mr. Collins did not objcct to this area being included in the pastoral lease. The chairman asked whether Mr. Wilson had acted on the witness's instructions. The witness: I daTo say he consulted mo, but I do not remembor. Tho ohairman: Well, here is an interview between the board's officers and u man purporting to be your solicitor.—"l dare say ho did." The chairman: We havo the evidence of the secretary arid others that the question of the reduction of the reservation never came officially bofore tho board, and that the reduction must have been made unofficially. Can you not tell us how it came about?—"l had nothing to do with it myself." The Rubi Seddon. ' The chairman said that one of the duties of the Commission was to inquire into tho general administration of tho board in the past, and to determine whether it was satisfactory. As a member of tho board for years Sir. Colyin ought to be able to tell them something of this. For instance there was tho matter of tho dredge Rubi Seddon. Tho witness said that the board wanted a dredgo and was short of money at the time. Sir Joseph Ward happened to bo down at the time, and ho was asked by the board members if he would financo them. They showed that thoy could pay before tho end of tho next March —the witness could not remember the year—so Sir Joseph Ward allowed them to order tho dredgo through the Railway Department. When tho dredgo Rubi Seddon came out, it was found that sho had several defects. She was a failure. The chairman: Can you say why the board took her over and paid for her without making a claim for damages?— "So far as. I can remember tho payments were mado to tho Railway Department as they came due." Tho chairman: Yes; but that is not tho point. Why did tho board not claim for damages when the dredge did not comply for specifications?—" Tile dredge was passed by the engineers at Home—Messrs. Carruthers and Elliott— and. wo understood they had taken her over." The chairman: Did you take a legal opinion?—"l don't think so. I am not suro whether we or the Railway Department contracted for her." The chairman: You had to pay for her. As a consequence of her failure you had to have extensive alterations mado?—"Yes; to tho pumps." Referring to tho shifting of the site of tho floating basin, tho witness said that he knew nothing about it. Tho matter had been left iu the hands of tho engineers. The £200,000 Loan. Questioned about the floating of the board's_ £200,000 loan in 1908, the witness said that ho had come to Wellington, along with Mr. Suisted (chairman) and another momber to ask the Government to stand security for the loan, as it has done on previous occasions. Sir Joseph Ward declined, and recommended them to go to tho bankers. Thoy visited every manager in Wellington, coins finally to the Bank of New Zealand. The chairman: But what consideration did the board givo to the question of the necessity for tho loan, and with regard to what works was it raised?— "There was a schedule of works prepared. For one thing we proposed to get two more dredges. Ono of them was tho Eileen Ward, while the other has never been constructed." Tho chairman: You proposed to enlargev your walls seaward, and the estimated cost was £60 per foot. Your last cost for similar work was £119 per foot, also double the estimato. How do you account for that?—"Wo intended to spend something out of rovonuo. Wo wore to spond £72,000 of loan money, and pay the rest out of our earnings." The chairman: Then your prospectus for tho loan is wrong when it says you woro going to extend your walls at a cost of £60 per foot? —"Tho prospectus stated how much of the loan money we intended to spend on the work; not what tho work would actually cost." The ohairman: You )Tvo praotically .

exhausted your £200,000, but you have not carried out tho works sot out in. your prospectus. You entered into an undertaking of which the cost was greatly snider-estimated. —"The members of the board did not know anything about that. Wo trusted tho engineer implicitly, and depended upon" him to give us correct estimates." Tho chairman; Then, your answer is that in putting out that estimate the board relied entirely oil the estimates of its officers? —"That is so." Tho chairman: And you called for no past data?—" No." The chairman: You have expended the money estimated to pay for the wall, and you' have constructed only 250 ft. out of a proposed 1200 ft.— "There is still some money in hand." The chairman: Yes; thero is £58,000 —practically the cost of the second dredge. You have spent tho £101,500 which was estimated to cover tho whole cost, and you havo maile less than 300 ft. Can you account for this?— "No." The chairman: Tho work was obviously under-estimated. Can you think of any special circumstance which might account for it?—" The engineer might have overlooked that the water got deopor and deepor as tho wall went out. Then ho allowed smaller stone to be used in one section, and it was washed away. The chairman: But that was only SOffc. If that section had been coinploted, you would still havo been a long way short of your scheme. Tho Floating Basin Again. Referring to the proposed floating basin, tho chairman said that the board had not made adequate provision for railway traffic. Tho witness: Yes, it did. Tho chairman: The is that it did not. This matter again raises tho question of land. Why did tho board not retain its land, so that when tho basin is constructed, Bidings, etc., could be put down without tbo necessity for compensation? Tho land adjoining the site has been allowed to pass away, and streets havo been laid out on it. The position now is that tho board has undertaken a big work .without having sufficient ground to work it. The question is one of the 1 administration. Why, did the ■board undertake such a gigantio Work without laying its plans properly? An Expenslvo Work. The chairman wont on to refer to tho esplanade. Tho board, he said, had done much more work than was necessary for the protection of the river bank. The work had been really street formation and beautifying work. The" work had cost £6243. He asked the witness if the board had had an estimate of the cost of tho work. The witness: No; but I thought it was going to cost only a small sum. The oost was considerably increased by tho collapse of the foundations in" ono place. The ohairman: It is after the event, and all that sort of thing, but do you think noir that the cost of that work was Justified from tho Harbour Board's point of view? —"Well, I don't think the planting was justified, but the wall from Karamoa Wharf to the Gridiron was justified." The chairman produced a return showing that the board had spent money on this work for four years. He asked: "Can you justify this as a harbour work?" The witness: No; except the wall to protect the gridiron. Cape Foulwlnd Reservo, v The chairman referred to the railway reserve at Cape Foulwind. Ho said that the board had spent nearly £3000 out of revenue to lay out what was practically a pleasure resort, with cricket, f6otball, and hockey grounds, and bathing sheds. Could this be justified as a harbour work ? The witness said that it was a recreation ground for the board's employees and their families who lived in. that part. It also brought somo revenue to the board's railway, through tho people who. went to visit it on holidays. Mr. Ferguson: Was there any authority'' in any of the Harbour Acts for the carrying out of this work?—"l don't think so." The chairman: So we have tho board spending somo £10,000 on two works which are not harbour works at all. Other Matters. The chairman It is suggested that men have been sent along practically with instructions that they were to' be taken on to work?—"l* know nothing about that. I stake what littlo character I have left since you- gentlemen started ,that I personally never did such a thing in my life." The chairman: Very well, Mr. Colvin. Wo accept your assurance. Tho witness said that, ho did not trouble his head about this matter. How he stood with the board's workers . was shown by the fact that when he ran an election ho was in a minority in the two portions of tho district where thoy worked and lived. Tho witness said that ho had never hoard of the board putting in a railway siding for a private firm for nothing. It may have been done, but Tie knew nothing about it. Ho had heard of the' case of a' firm winch now refuses to pay the board somo £100 odd for a siding, on tho grounds that other firms have had tho sidings for nothing, and that tho board practically agreed to do the work free of charge. Dealing with tlio question of economy into which inquiry is also being made, the chairman stated that they had had evidonee that the hoard had sold hardwood to a Westport firm practically for cost price, with the cost of handling at tho wharf added. Tho firm v had thon sold the hardwood to' small contractors at a profit. The witness said that ho knew nothing about this, but there had been a good deal of opposition to the firm in Westport, and all kinds of statements wore made. The commission ought to take what thoy lieard in Westport with a grain of salt. 'The chairman: That may bo so; but we are going by the board's books. Thero was a running account in tho board's books amounting to almost £200. ' The witness: Was it never paid? The chairman: Yes; but nothing had been paid for two years, and tho balance was paid just before the commission went down. You see, when material- liko this is sold all along for one man, the board lays it-self 1 open to comment. Tho Board's Railway. The chairman then referred to the lack of system with regard to tho collection of fares on the board's line to Cape Foulwind. It was stated that there was 110 check on tlio tickets, which wero issued by the guard. They had even had ovidence that the guards had not adhered to tlio board's scale of charges for at least soventeen 3'ears. Tho witness: Who told you that?Tho chairman: Tho board's inspector. The witness: Well, I don't believo it; and if lie were, hero I should tell him so. Tho chairman explained that there was a uniform charge of is. single for any section of tho line. For soventeen years the guards had been in tho habit of cutting tickots in two, and selling halves at 6d. each to - people who mado only half tho journey; and yot neither the board nor its officials had ever heard of it. Tlio witness: Well, I am very much astonished. Tlio chairman: So were wo. The guards may havo been . perfectly honest, and may not liavo pockcted a penny, but tho fact remains that there was a leakago in tho board's revenues. Wo aro not hero to make trouble for .the euarda, but to inquire into the

i economy or otherwise of tho board's . administration. Harbour Dues. Questioned about the third paragraph in the Commission's order of reference, dealing with harbour dues and charges, tile witness said that tho original intention had been to make the port as free as possible, so as to enable ships to come in and load coal at the lowest possible cost. The chairman said- that the estimate of Sir John Coode for the harbour works was £500,000. Tho Act of 1881 was intended to provide a harbour at this cost. Since that time the board had handled £2,194,000 in revenue from various sources (including loans). The .port was in the happy position of being very liberally endowed. -It had been suggested that the port should be made freo to vessels calling for soft coal. The witness agreed with this. Half the coal produced was soft coal, and if small vessels could come in free and take it away it might make a diffcrenco in the prico of coal. Tho chairman: Hut would the consumer got tho benefit of the reduction in price?—"Yos, I think so. Competition in the trado would ensuro that." The witness stated, in reply to further questions, that ho thought they could have waited for a few years for tlio floating basin, which ho did not think was- necessitated by the present trade of the port. They always received notice from up-country of approaching goods. Tho great danger lay in the liability of big timber to bo carried down tho river if bush-falling were going on in tho hills. Ho thought that they could do without a shipway. to cost £27,000, although ho understood that in this opinion he was opposed to tho ideas of the experts. Constitution of the Board. To Mr. Ferguson: He did not think that the Mayor of a borough was necessarily a harbour expert. He thought tho affairs of the harbour should bo in tho hands of oxpert<s, but Westport was a democratic town, and tho people would not liko to give up their election. Tho chairman: If thero was a nominated board what interests do you think should bo represented? Tho witness: Tho coal companies, the Railway Department, the shipping companies, the exporters and importers, tho liuller and Quaugahua counties, .and Westport Borough. Mr. Ferguson: There is no Government representative. The witness: The Railway Department represents tho Government. The chairman: Now, Mr, Colvin, after hearing tho evidence which, has been called before the Commission, and as an old resident of the district, and a member of the board, do you think that the board has done the best it could to make a good harbour with tho money at its disposal ? Do you think they havo spent that £2,000,000 .to the best advantage?—"l believe that the majority of the members had tho interests of the port at heart, and wero true to the trust- to which they were elected. .'Some of the members may have mado mistakes, but they were quite honest." Mr. Ferguson: There has always been a preponderance of Westport men and Westport intorest on the board? —"That is so." Mr. Ferguson: And the' natural tendency had therefore been •to spend money on Westport instead of on works which would bo of more general benefit. -—"Tho money was spent for the benefit of the' district as a whole." Mr. Ferguson: Well, there is tho park and the esplanade we have been considering to-day. They are not works for the benefit of tho whole district. Tho chairman: Or of the Dominion. Tlio Commission adjourned until 10 a.m. to-day.