I.—ll

114

the Midland Eailway scheme at any time between 1885 and 1900? You will recollect that it is charged against us that the colony has lost £300,000 a year through the non-completion of the line. Mr Boper's figures were bigger ; but we will put it at that rate, as it is so put by Mr. Bell. If that is a right and proper claim to make against us the question arises, Why did not the Government make the railway long ago? I put it to you, as gentlemen who are well acquainted with politics and the influences which affect these things, to say whether, if such was the result— if £300,000 a year was being lost by the non-completion of the line—why it was that the Government did not undertake and complete this line itself, without going to the trouble of tempting English capitalists to do it. I submit to you that it is a fair illustration of what the Crown would have done if there had been no Midland Eailway contract to take the case of the North Island Main Trunk Railway. The money raised for the construction of that railway was ear-marked as early as 1882. "What kind of claim could Mr. Bell raise if he were asked now to say what has been the loss to the colony from the non-construction of that line ? The construction of that line, we would be told, would have vastly increased settlement; it would have opened up immense fine timber forests, and it would have brought with it almost incalculable advantages to the colony. If such a loss has occurred to the colony from non-construction of the Midland Eailway, as we are now asked to believe from the figures which have been given to us by the Crown, surely we are entitled to say that the delay caused by the Government in non-construction of the North Island Trunk line cannot be too strongly condemned. I say we are entitled to contend that, through the action of the Government, the colony has lost from non-construction of the North Island line three or four times more than it would have cost to construct the railway. That is, of course, assuming the figures of this counter-claim are reliable. What is the result of considering those figures ? Is it not that if the colony had completed the construction of that line it would have paid for itself and returned a profit in ten years. The million pounds is, we are told, the damage to the colony through the nonconstruction of the railway for a period of ten years ; so that the plain inference is that the railway would have more than paid for itself in the ten years. Mr. Eoper's figures give it as paying for itself in five years. Just fancy this colony in 1885 funking the risk of constructing a line which would pay the colony for its construction in five years. And yet since 1882 the North Island Main Trunk Eailway has remained very much in the condition in which we now see it. Why, if this counter-claim is reliable, the conduct of the Government both in respect of the Midland line and the North Island line is positively wicked. Ido not pretend to be a prophet, but I desire to put on record this prediction: that now the Government is free to carry on this line as it pleases it will not make the line provided for by the Midland Eailway contract. We asked you in 1892 to let us off the construction of a portion of this line that would not pay. You refused. I venture to predict that the Government itself will not construct that portion, and I venture further to think that, notwithstanding all this fuss about the loss to the colony through the delay in the construction of the line, it will be many, many years before a completely constructed line runs through from Springfield to Jackson's, and before you have a completely constructed line connecting the Bast and West Coasts, and connecting Westland with Nelson, and I make this prediction the more confidently when I consider the rate at which the Government has gone on with the construction since it has had possession of the railway. When it is remembered that they have only constructed twenty-two miles in five years, any one can see that they cannot possibly believe in this enormous claim for damages which they raise against the company for delay in the completion of the line. If my prediction is justified, it largely discounts the bona fides of this counter-claim, for if a net loss is resulting to the colony of above £300,000 a year from the non-construction of the line the least delay now by the Crown would be absolutely wicked and disgraceful. An Examination of Details of Counter-claim shows hoiv misleading and fallacious it is. But the closer you examine the details of Mr. Bell's bill of loss the less reliable appear its materials. Mr. Bell relied very much on Mr. Humphries's figures. Mr. Humphries gives these figures : Unimproved value of 200,000 acres, £90,000; improvements on 150,000 acres at £3 an acre, £450,000 : making the total improved value of 200,000 acres £540,000. Then he calculated 88,000 acres in Westland on the same basis, and argues that it would have been increased in value from £80,000 to £250,000, showing a total estate worth to the colony of £850,000. But you, sir, put a question to Mr. Humphries, and so did Mr. Seddon, as to what the net loss to the colony was, and he could not say what it was. He had not and could not reckon that out. You will recollect that it was pointed out to him that in order to improve the colonial estate as claimed large sums were spent in capital and in labour, and that it would be unfair to charge the whole amount of improvement as a clear gain to the colony. "You will find that he was asked to give the net gain to the colony from the settlement of these lands, and he said he could not give it. He could only give the gross value. But what guide is that to us in calculating the net loss or gain ? Every man knows that you can spend more in the improvement of land than the land is worth. Indeed, it is stated by economists in England that there is not an acre of rural land there which has not cost more than it is worth to improve it. I say that this is the fallacy which underlies the whole of Mr. Bell's estimates. He charges against us all that the application of capital and labour to the land would have done, overlooking the fact that that labour and capital was not loss but otherwise employed. Mr. Mueller, the Westland witness, gave no such figures, but said that there were 20,000 acres of unimproved land, the value of which he puts at £10,000, and in respect to which the loss to the colony was £10,500. Here, again, Mr. Bell's calculations do not appear to be sound, according to the evidence which his witnesses give. You are told by Mr. Bell that you have lost in settlement, that you have lost in Customs duties, that you have lost in many other ways through this land being locked up. But surely it is unfair to argue that, in the first place, the improvements would have been made, and in the next place assume that the money which would have gone to make those improvements would uot have been, and has not been, employed in other directions for the benefit of the colony. Before you can make such a charge as that against