61

D.—4

630. And from your inspection you say there is no evidence in the right-hand branch?—lt consists of a wide spur, and I must have seen it from the branches; but I did not cross over it to the other side. 631. Did you say it should not have been reserved ?—I say it should not have been reserved. 632. Why is it not hatched the same as the rest ?—lt should have been hatched —it is hatched. I may explain that the hatching was the result of consultation; there was a difference of opinion. Some of the parties differed from the others, and they thought a small piece of ground was not worth hatching. I concend there are certainly no mining portions on that piece of land. 633. Then, I see it was the result of a conference with some of the members of the contract that it should not be ?—My opinion is that it is not required for mining purposes. 634. What about the 800 acres?— There are no mining operations. It is high level land. Even the portion on the north ; there are no workings there, or water-rights, or dams. 635. And the other corner, 520 acres ?—The same remark applies there. In the piece shown they are unhatched. Of course, there are a number of men working—about forty altogether—but all their working is confined to the east of the creek-beds and to the creek. In fact, if the creeks were reserved with a chain or two on each side, it would include all the operations and take in the races; but, of course, that means a lengthy examination and a survey into 100 or 50 acres. 636. Do you know Sunday Creek ?—Yes. 637. There was a rush there ?—Yes. There are twelve men working there now. 638. Any probability of that rush developing to any extent ?—No ; all the ground capable of being taken up has been taken up on Sunday Creek, east and west; the run is parallel to Sunday Creek in the terrace. The formation of the country, of course, shows that it is an old bed of Sunday Creek. 639. Not a large extent of country ? —No ; all the payable ground has been taken up. I may say that portion between the right-hand branch and left-hand branch should not have been, in our opinion, reserved by the Government. 640. And should, in your opinion, have not been reserved by the Government?—lt is not required for mining purposes. 641. Or. purposes conducive thereto ?—No ; it is not required for mining purposes, except it be for timber purposes. 642. Then, do you contend that this high ground would pay if water was brought on to it; and, from your knowledge of the country, do you know whether they could bring water there?—lt is purely a question of expense —of £100,000 or £200,000. They might bring it from the Hochstetter. 643. You say it is a matter of expense. Look at the map and say how you could possibly bring it on to this ground. Commence from the starting-point; now where would it extend to ? Mr. Gully: You need not suggest that we are going to suggest that water can be brought to there from Lake Hochstetter. Mr. Jones : We have seen it in the report of Gordon, anyway. 644. Do you know of any other supply ?-—I do not. 645. We come to 74, the end of the Nelson Creek district: did you make an inspection of that block ?—Yes ; a thorough inspection. Of course, lam familiar with Nelson Creek for many years past. 646. You say you have here on the south-eastern corner a strip of 370 acres? —Yes; that could readily be increased, to 500 acres. Prom Larkin's race to the railway-line there are no workings of any kind. 647. So that hatched portion could be extended to Larkin's race. Do you know the upper part of German Gully ?—Yes. 648. Where are they working there at Larkin's ? —They are all above Larkin's race. 649. Would that strip marked be required for the deposit of tailings ? —No; for they are all considerably above Nelson Creek. Prom Brian Boru and German Gully they could go to Nelson Creek, lower down. 651. Are there any mining privileges or rights on that portion of the block? —None whatever. Nearly all that ground has been sold. It is freehold land. It is all flat country. 652. Travelling further north, and coming to the reserves on the north side of Callaghan's Creek ?—Yes. 653. Did you traverse that ?—Yes. 654. Has there been any mining there, or are there any evidences of there having been any ?—On the hatched portion there is no mining whatever. The only mining in the block was at a small place called Fenian Gully [indicating position on map]. It is not marked on this map, but one man worked there for three months, and abandoned his claim. 655. That is the southern portion of the block ? —Yes, near to Callaghan's. On the hatched portion of the block—that is the only working which has ever taken place there. In Miriins' Creek the ground has been thoroughly prospected. 656. Falling into the Ahaura Eiver?—Yes. 657. And going along the course of the Ahaura Eiver you come to the portion to be reserved? —Yes. Here, of course, excessive reservation is made. On the flat land there are 800 or 1,000 acres of land which has been farmed for many years past. In one creek ten men were working, and lam sorry to say only one of them was making wages. In German Gully nobody at all is working. In the whole of that portion of the block there are ten men engaged. The same remarks which applied to the other portion of the block apply to this. The gold is wholly confined to the terraces and bed of the creek. If a reservation of 2 chains were made on each side of the river, that would reserve all the gold country. 658. On that portion of the block the same remark applies —there are no mining privileges held ? —There are no mining privileges of any sort. 659. There is the other corner of Block 75 ? —I was five days making a thorough examination of that block. I traversed it in all directions. Almost every creek has been thoroughly well tried, but not a single claim has ever been taken up as a claim. It is above the gold country.