1.—7

8

82. And none of this has been spent on construction, or anything besides interest and Sinking Fund ?—No. 83. Can you give the amounts you have in each year placed to Sinking Fund and the amounts paid in interest ?—The total amount for Sinking Fund for seven years has been £2,000 per annum, and with accumulations of interest now amounts to £9,500 in the Board's hands, and £7,318 lis. lOd. at credit with the Bank of New Zealand. But this £93,000 is not the sole amount we have received from land revenue because the interest on Sinking Fund has, of course, been added, so that the amount is much larger. 84. Have you ever in the past made a calculation as to what would be the probable results if a rate were to be' levied? —No, never. I thought it was so extremely remote that it never entered into my head to do so. 85. Mr. Larnach.] When did you commence to levy rates? —In June of the present year, because as long as the Land Fund lasted we did not require to do so. The rate in June was levied as from the Ist June to June next year. 86. Mr. Samuel.] To what do you attribute the necessity to levy a rate ? —To the altered mode of disposal of the land, and also the fact of £23,401 6s. 4d. being taken by the judgment of the Supreme Court from myself and the other Sinking Fund Commissioners, on an action of the Harbour Board. 87. Mr. Larnach.] What was the rate ?—Three-farthings in the pound on the capital value. 88. Mr. Samuel.] Will you explain to the Committee why the change in the disposition of the land has had this effect ?—Because we had a quarter of the gross proceeds of the Land Fund as arising from sales; and when the change was made to sales on deferred payment and to perpetual lease, in the one case we now receive only one-tenth, and in the other only one-hundredth part. 89. The Chairman.] But the rest is to come ?—Yes; but that does not satisfy our requirements at present. It is just the difference between capital and interest. We want all the capital we can get to pay our coupons from day to day. 90. Mr. Samuel.] Is there any other cause besides those you have mentioned —in connection with reserves for instance ?—I know that very large reserves have been made ; but I know nothing about that subject. That is a question for the bondholders to raise, who relied principally on the land-revenue. It was reliance on the land-revenue almost entirely that induced the New Plymouth people to raise a loan at all, because if a rate had been imposed at the time the loan was raised it would not have realised £2,000 a year. 91. If a rate was to be one of the conditions under which money was to be borrowed, the promoters of the harbour scheme would have abandoned it ? —Yes, most certainly. With regard to the sum that has been mentioned as having been taken from the Sinking Fund Commissioners by the Board, the facts are these : When I became a member of the Board I represented to the others that things were not going on so satisfactorily as they might be, and I recommended the establishment of a Sinking Fund Commissioners Account No. 1, and they agreed to pay into this account all moneys derived from the sale of land, and interest accruing on the unexpended balance of the loan, together with rents, port charges, &c. But the Harbour Board brought an action against the Commissioners, of whom I was one, and the judgment of the Court was given against us, and we had to hand all moneys not derived from the Land Fund to the Board ; whereas if we had not had to refund it it would have paid up interest for another two or three years. 92. The Chairman.] The money had been really erroneously placed to the Sinking Fund ?— Yes. 93. Can you give us the total cost of the harbour-works to date ? —ln round numbers it has been about £213,000. 94. This sum, then, has been provided out of the proceeds of the loan and other moneys accruing to the Board ? —Yes : interest and unexpended balances from time to time. 95. When was the loan floated?—ln 1879. . 96. What was the currency of the debentures ?—Thirty years : they fall due in 1910. 97. What was the price at which they were sold ?—£9s. 98. At what rate of interest ? —Six per cent. 99. Mr. Jones.] Where are the bonds payable? —In London. 100. The Chawman.] There is some revenue derived now, I suppose, in the shape of harbourdues?—Yes. 101. That is to say, wharfage charges, pilotage, and other things?— Yes: shipping charges. 102. But that revenue is entirely swallowed up by expenditure in connection with the harbour? ■ —Yes ; and probably will be. 103. When did revenue from harbour-dues first become valuable?— About three years ago. 104. Has it been increasing in amount, or decreasing, or at a standstill ?—lt has not been increasing much, as from the first we were obliged to provide accommodation with improved appliances, and have been anxious to establish trade as quickly as possible. 105. Can you give, in round numbers, the amounts you have received?— The annual balancesheets show in 1884 a net balance of £390 from that class of revenue ; in 1885, £467 ; and in 1886, £1,013. 106. What was the cost of management of the port during those years?— The gross wharfage and other receipts for the first ten months of this year were £1,640, and. the payments £889. 107. These are current charges ?—Yes. 108. That would show apparently that there is a net revenue of about £490 ?—About that. But that is also deducting general charges which have not been charged against harbour-dues previously; and why in previous years the amount was higher was, that we had to reduce our charges afterwards by 6d. per ton. 109. I wish to find out whether or not there was any probability rjf there being an increasing balance in aid of interest on loan arising from this class of revenue. If you could give us the gross