I.—4a.

66

[SMITH LAUGHTON PATRICK* FREE.

118. Do you get the ore by piecework or day-work ?—Practically all day-work. The main work is done by shift, not by contract. 119. Mr. Colvin.] How many men have you working in the mines—l do not mean those at the battery, but those getting quartz? —I cannot give you the exact number, but it would be between three and four hundred. 120. How many altogether, including the battery-hands ?—Between four and five hundred. 121. You say that your firm are agents for an insurance company, and that you would take a miner's life as being as good as that of anyone working outside a mine?—Yes; we insure them at the same rates. We have no firedamp at all in quartz-mines, and there is no danger of explosion in that way. That is a distinction between quartz and coal mines. 122. Mr. W. Fraser.] I only wish to ask the witness a question in order to elucidate a point which did not seem clear. You said that the Arbitration Court was bound down in its decisions by legislation ?—That is so. 123. Is there any legislation which fixes the minimum hours that men shall work in mines ? —None that I am aware of. 124. Is it competent, then, for the Arbitration Court, on appeal being made to it to reduce the hours in a mine, to do so ? —lt is competent for the Court to do so, and it has done so. 125. Mr. R. McKenzie.] Does that apply to all the men working in a mine, or those in one particular place ? —lt applies to all the men working underground. 126. You say that it has been done : will you give us the special case ? — The case was where the men were working in wet or deficient places. At all events, I know, from reading the award of the Arbitration Court in the Waihi dispute, that there was a reduction of hours in two instances. 127. To the men working in special places?—Yes, specially dangerous, unhealthy, or unwholesome places; where the circumstances warranted a reduction it was made. 128. I suppose that the Arbitration Court could close a mine altogether if it liked, could it not ?—I do not think the Court could do a thing like that, unless a mine was specially dangerous. I suppose it could then, until the conditions were improved. But that would be the duty of the Mining Inspectors. I would like to mention the case of the Inkerman Mines, at Reefton, whose manager, Mr. Dudgeon, asked me to represent his case before the Mines Committee. It is a case in which all the rich ore had been taken out of the mines by a former company. The mines were then sold to an English company, and that company have been working now for some fix or six years, during which time they have expended some £56,000 without getting any return at all. They have opened up a large quantity of ore, but it has been all of an exceedingly low grade, and for some time past the company have been considering how they can make this low-grade ore pay. The probabilities are that if their costs are increased, by even a fraction, they will have to abandon the mines altogether. It is even now doubtful whether they will be able to secure a margin of profit at all; but any increase in the cost will certainly shut down the mines altogether, and the £56,000 will be entirely lost. 129. The Chairman.] How many men do they employ ?—Twenty-five at present; they have employed a larger number. 130. How many acres have they got ? —Some 300 or 400 acres of land. They have expended the money in driving a long tunnel, several thousand feet long. 131. Though they have 300 or 400 acres, they employ only twenty-five men ?—That is all they can employ at present. They have not yet been able to get the mine sufficiently far advanced to enable them to work it at a profit. Before they took up the land it did not employ any men at all. The former company went into liquidation, the leases were cancelled, and the land thrown open. The property lay idle for a long time, till the leases were taken up by a speculator, who sold them to the English company. 132. You said just now that the capitalists in your district had not combined with the capitalists up north in regard to labour matters ?—That is so. 133. Are you aware that the capitalists up north, under Mr. Rhodes, held a meeting n reference to this Bill of Mr. Guinness's?—l do know that. 134. And that it was agreed that you were one of the witnesses to be called ?—I did not know that. 135. It was arranged that there were to be three from Reefton ?—I did not know it; but Ido know this : I telegraphed to Mr. Rhodes, and asked him what was being done in the matter, and whether I would meet him in Wellington. He said, No; he was sending his objections to the proposal in writing to the Committee. 136. Three witnesses were to come from Reefton ? —As a matter of fact, three have not come; there are only two. 137. Who was the third to have been ? —There was a suggestion that three should come. We stated that myself and two others were coming here to give evidence, and asked whether any were coming from Auckland. The reply we received was, " No, we are not coming down. We are going to write to the members of the Committee, putting our reasons for objecting to the proposal on paper." That is the only communication which has passed between us. Personally, I have never met Mr. Rhodes. 138. You say that the conditions down the West Coast, where you come from, are very favourable for mining?—Exceedingly so. 139. Is not the climate very bad?—No, it is not. 140. Then, a miner at Reefton has as good a life as a miner anywhere else?—Better, in many instances. 141. You have no gas to contend with down there, like they have at the Thames? —No, no gas at all. I have never heard of any at Reefton.