H.—26

37

that makes me think it was 1896 was that at this time I have some recollection of the papers referred to having gone astray, and it was in 1896 that my secretary was asked by Captain Jones about this envelope and papers; as shown in this memorandum it was at the end of 1896. It appears strange if I saw and minuted that envelope in 1895 that it was not until the end of 1896 that any inquiry was made about it. But if I was told that it was in 1895 I was seen about it, 1 should not dispute it. I have seen several deputations in respect to this matter. 178. You stated there were two deputations waited upon you, can you tell us who were on the deputations?— Well, I have got it in my mind that there were some foundry men of "Wellington. 179. Were there any ladies?— Not on that occasion. But I have got it in my mind that some of the foundry-masters or engineers of this town either waited on me as a deputation or spoke to me privately. 180. Can you tell us whether there were any ladies, forming part of the Nelson or Wellington Liberal Associations, who waited upon you. Ido not want the names? —As far as Nelson is concerned, there is no such association. No deputation from any organization has waited upon me in Wellington. Ladies have spoken to me on behalf of Captain Jones, but not as representatives of any organization. Probably Captain Jones has told some of the ladies of his difficulty, and they may have brought the matter before me. 181. Now, I suppose, from the fact of this matter being before you from the middle of 1895 to the middle of 1897, you regarded it as one of those things which could be finally settled in one way, and that was by granting the certificate?—Oh, no. 182. Could a case of this kind be finally settled in any way except one ?—Yes ; by proof being given of the service. It was not impossible; it is not impossible now. 183. Are they ever settled except by granting a certificate? —Yes, by putting your foot down and saying, No, they will have to comply with the regulations. 184. Is that reservation for further proof contained in any communication ?—No ; none except a verbal one given by myself as a Minister of the Crown. 185. To the deputation?— Yes; and not only to the deputation, but to other people. 186. When was the last letter sent to Captain Jones on the subject ? —The last letter, as shown by the file, is as follows : — 187. I only want the date ? —The letter to myself was dated the 21st February, 1896 : — Hon. Premier. I have had a further examination made of the service set forth by Captain Jones, of the " Mana" and "Duco." Up to June, 1890, there are no records in the Customhouse to enable the service to be checked. Subsequently, the trips are marked in red ink, with the result that it is found that if Jones took the " Mana" outside in many of the cases given in bis list, he did so without any authority or permit from this department. A permit to act as master outside the harbour was only given to him once, in the case of the " Mana " going to the " Weathersfield " at Waikanae. On other occasions he was not in charge as master. Permits were given only on condition that a certificated master was in command. The names of these masters are inserted in red ink on the document attached. In some cases the time is much exaggerated, as will be seen by the red ink corrections. I have no hesitation in saying that the required service has not been proved, and I could not recommend the issue of a certificate. W. T. Glasgow, Secretary. Marine Department, Wellington, 21st February, 1896. Reply accordingly.—R. J. S. 26/2/96. Captain J. Jones, No. 754/85. 27/2/96. And I say, " Eeply accordingly." The last communication that was sent was one in which it was stated that the certificates had not been granted. This is as far as the file shows. But I know that it was reopened after that; I know that I saw my colleague, the Minister of Marine, about it, Mr. Hall-Jones. 188. The application, had been made again verbally, I suppose ?—Yes; they were dissatisfied with the decision arrived at. 189. Was that verbal application ever accompanied by further proof of service ?—There is nothing to show that it was. 190. And, so far as you know, until you left for Auckland nothing had been done in the way of further proof ?—No ; I had been told before I left for Auckland that Mr. Hall-Jones had been seen about it. 191. Who told you ?—I cannot tell you at this moment —some of these people asked me about it. 192. They told you they had obtained further proof of service?—No, simply that they had been to see my colleague about it. If I had had the information I should have told him to get the thing settled, either in the affirmative or in the negative. 193. Did you see Captain Jones prior to your going on board the steamer " Tutanekai" ?—I saw him before I went away. 194. Just immediately before?—l could not tell whether it was just immediately before or not. 195. Did he not come down to the wharf? —He may have done so. 196. Did he not, as you were going away, ask you to leave instructions to do something for him ?—lf I saw Captain Jones it would be the same as if I saw you. He was a man with a grievance—a man who deemed himself wrongfully dealt with—and I might have told him that I would look into the matter. 197. And you told him that you would communicate by telegram before you left New Zealand ?—I do not think so. 198. You will not say you did not ?—No, I could not say so. 199. You will neither say one thing nor the other?—l dare say, if Captain Jones said that to me, I would not say that I did not say so. If he asked me to speak to Mr. Hall-Jones, I might have said so. He may have spoken to Captain Pairchild, asking him to help him to get it settled.