I.—7a,

16

245. By that you infer that Messrs. Higginson and Maxwell have been obstructive ?—• Obstructive so far that I think they had the information before them that would enable them to report upon the matters at issue. They raised the question of the Abt and Fell systems. The Abt line had been worked in Europe, and I say there was already evidence that it could be worked at a satisfactory cost. 246. Would not the whole question be involved in these words : "If the Governor is satisfied that the incline line, when made, will be suitable for mineral and other traffic, and, in his opinion, worked at a satisfactory cost "■■? If engineers have to report whether a work can be made at a satisfactory cost they must consider the things that must be done. Is it not part and parcel of this question that these must be inquired into before it comes to the Governor?— Certainly not. You have before you evidence of the actual working of the Fell and Abt systems in Europe. You applied to us to give curves and other information. The Abt system is a proved thing, and not a question for local engineers to consider right or wrong. '247. The incline when made was to be suitable for mineral and other heavy traffic. Is it not fair that under the Abt system you should produce evidence as to the capacity of the engines required ? —I said I would undertake to use an engine that would take 104 tons, exclusive of its own weight, up a line of 1 in 15. 248. Did you have the proof ?—I say it was beyond the scope of their inquiry. They knew as well as I did that the system was capable of doing a certain amount of work, and asked me to bring out plans and drawings of the system here. This is not mentioned in the contract. I said I could not give them the design. I said I would give information, but not on the smaller details. 249. This was the question between the engineers and the company ; they could not prove the existence of engine-capacity ? —I say you can prove it by the Transactions of the Institute of Civil Engineers in London, and detailed drawings which I could not produce ; and I say they had no right to have them. 250. The correspondence has been going on as between the engineers and the company since the end of 1891 ? —Yes, and the reason I gave way was because you had tried experiments on the Eimutaka,- and had satisfied yourselves that it would work. I said, if you have got a system as good as the Abt I will adopt it. The system is nothing to me—l will adopt any system you like if it will give equally good results. 251. And on Saturday last you sent the final reply to the engineers, enabling them to report to the Government ?—I gave way rather than delay the matter any further. 252. You complain of the loss occasioned by the delay arising out of the request for further information ; but was not this a question which, under the terms of the contract and the Act, could be arbitrated upon ?—Yes, but probably arbitration would take a great deal longer than discussing it here. I think arbitration is to be avoided rather than resorted to on every question in the contract. 253. You have power under the contract to arbitrate?— Yes, certainly. 254. And you did not wish for arbitration ?—I thought you would come to a more reasonable view. 255. Was it not to the advantage of the company—and I may say to meet the company to some extent—that, instead of appointing engineers at Home, engineers in the colony were selected ? —-I think it was done to facilitate the matter; but I would just as soon have had it referred to engineers of eminence in London, because there would have been no loss of time in getting detailed information, as they would have had full knowledge of the subject. 256. You admit then that, as far as the company were concerned, they were agreeable, and to some extent suggested that it was advisable to appoint engineers in the colony ?—Yes. 257.-The present Government has not been obstructive?— Not obstructive except in this sense : that the question was submitted in August, and they did not submit it to the engineers until February. 258. If the information first supplied by the company had been sent Home to England, and this further information had been required which has from time to time been demanded ?— Which I deny would have been required in England. That is the point. 259. You simply rely upon the point that Messrs. Higginson and Maxwell, as the engineers appointed, went beyond the powers given by the contract ?—I certainly say so. 260. That you say is the cause of the time lost ? —No; six months is not accounted for. Why was the question delayed six months before it was submitted at all ? 261. You are asking me a question. We will show that your six months is simply a myth. If you will say it was six months before that you sent the proposition, and supplied the information that was demanded, I will allow the evidence ?—I sent a letter in August with the information. You did not appoint the engineers until February, and that time w T as lost. 262. From the time you made the application to the time of the appointment of the engineers, were you not interviewing me and the Engineer-in Chief, and supplying information that would enable us to put you in a position to go on ? —I had already supplied plans. I made suggestions and asked you to put things forward, but it took you a long time before you moved in the matter. 263. You supplied the information?-—We gave you the original information, which I say was quite sufficient. 264. After the engineers were appointed they required further information ?—They asked for it. 265. And which you have had to supply ?—Which I maintain is beyond their powers to demand, and outside the terms of the contract. 266. Why not force it to arbitration ?—Would you try to force on arbitration on such a thing ? 267. You have ultimately given the information they demanded?—l gave way rather than delay further, for it is an important matter to my Directors. That is why I have done it.