L—ll

103

irrespective of the debenture-holders, if you had determined this contract in 1892? Everybody would have lost less. Then, as regards the debenture-holders and their position in 1895 after the Crown had seized the railway, Mr. Bell suggests that the slow rate of construction was out of consideration for the debenture-holders, because the demands upon them for greater sums could not have been met. Why, this was the cruelest wrong of all. Mr. Blow, in answer to Mr. Eraser, candidly admitted that the Crown, from the very time of seizure, never expected the railway to return to the company or debenture-holders—that they never expected we could find all the demands necessary for complete construction. Confiscation, then, we must suppose the Crown knew from the time of seizure was inevitable. But it was a kindness, we are told now, to construct slowly and demand only so much money as we could pay, for if the Crown had constructed promptly and greatly increased the demand we could not have paid. And what has been the net result of this kindness : this charitably slow construction ? The Crown got over £38,000 in hard cash out of our pockets, which would have been there yet if your demands had been as great as a vigorous carrying-on of the works would have made them. Plainly, then, from no point of view has this delay been a kindness to us. We and everybody else are the worse off for it. And the Crown is responsible for it. I pass now from that subject and come to some analysis of the details of the counter-claim. First, as to the evidence by which it was supported. A number of worthy gentlemen have come here and talked of thousands, of hundreds of thousands, of millions. Most of them had made no calculations; could give no details. I confess it struck me very much like a guessing competition, in which the bigger your guess the better your chance of the prize of the Crown's approval. It was to their credit that while they answered readily enough to the rein in Mr. Bell's hands, they did not like the hurdle of an estimate in money. To name a figure seemed, even to themselves, too much like a solemn farce. I could not help recalling, while Mr. Michel, Mr. Staines, and Mr. Roper, and some other witnesses, as to damage, were giving evidence, and were hopelessly groping among hundreds of thousands and millions, a learned Judge's comment upon some one in a similar position, as " A blind man looking for a black hat in a dark room, the hat in question not being there." Let us glance at the figures. Here are the estimates of the loss to the colony given by the Government witnesses:— Thomas Humphries, Chief Surveyor, &c, Nelson ... ... ... ... 540,000 Charles Louisson, Merchant, Christchurch ... ... ... ... ... 450,000 E. W. Eoper, Merchant, Christchurch... ... ... ... ... 5,000,000 W. Acton-Adams, Sheep-farmer, Canterbury ... ... .. ... ... 250,000 A. D. Bayfield, Land Agent, Westport (something under) ... ... ... 1,000,000 G. Mueller, Commissioner of Crown Lands, Auckland (Westland alone) ... ... 569,650 H. L. Michel, Merchant, Hokitika (about) ... ... ... ... .. 1,000,000 J. F. Byrne, Chairman, County of Westland: " Agrees with Mr. Michel's estimate of loss, but thinks Mr. Michel has underestimated it." D. J. Evans, Clerk, Westland County Council: " Thinks Mr. Michel's estimate a low one, but has not gone into any calculation." T. H. Bannehr, Editor, Nelson Colonist ... ... ... ... ... 437,000 John Staines, Chairman, Westland County Council: Has made no calculation of what the loss amounts to, but estimates it at "hundreds of thousands of pounds." Colony's estimate —"Moderate." ... ... ... ... ... ... 3,000,000 It is difficult to take this evidence really seriously. In the hands of men who, like Mr. ActonAdams, have gone into figures and attempted to work out by some kind of calculation their results it is little better than pure speculation. But in the hands of men.who have not put down a figure or attempted a computation it is sheer waste of time. It requires no West Coast " Daniels come to judgment " to tell us that the construction of this railway would have been a gain to the colony. Is there anywhere in the world where the existence of a railway would not be a gain ? I agree, then, with the Crown where they say this line constructed would have benefited the colony. But one has only to glance at Mr. Bell's estimate to see how misconceived and misleading it is as a counter-claim against us. There are three broad heads. First, the land has been locked up for settlement for fifteen years—that is, irrespective of railway-construction. The answers to that are these : (1.) The land was not reserved until 1885. Why was not that land settled earlier? For twenty years and more before 1885 there was a larger population on the West Coast than there has been ever since. Why, then, was there such small settlement ? The East Coast was settled long before 1885. The fair inference is either that the land was not fit for settlement or was not greatly wanted. My second answer is clause 33 of the contract. It is claimed that owing to the contract the land has been locked up, and that as the Government was powerless to prevent that locking-up it can claim damages for this. I say (1) that a ready means was provided of settling the reserved area in Nelson and the West Coast; (2) that the Crown never tried to avail itself of that means; (3) that, in fact, it prevented that means being used. I refer to the contract, section 16, which provides that, subject to certain exceptions, the company may select over the authorised area. If now you will refer to section 33, and read its seven subclauses, you will see what its general object is. Section 33 is as follows : — 33. So far as respects any lands within the authorised area in the Nelson and Westland Land Districts, on the western side of the main range of mountains, and being available for selection by the company under clause 16 hereof, the Queen shall, from time to time, on the request of the company, sell any suoh lands for cash, or on deferred payments in such manner as may be agreed upon between the Queen and the company, or may let the same on lease, to any person or persons desirous of purchasing or leasing the same, subject to the following provisions:— (1.) The company shall, in writing, authorise suoh person or persons to make ohoice of the land required, and choioe shall be made in oonformity with the Survey Regulations for the time being in force both as to the shape and frontage, and as to all other particulars.