a. J. MUELLEK.]

19

I.—4a.

7. What was the deposit paid for? —For the lease of the 100 acres. 8. Under the Coal-mines Act? —Yes; 3s. an acre. 9. Had you any power to grant a prospecting license under the Coal-mines Act? —No; there is no provision for it at all. In addition to this I wrote to headquarters specially in connection with this matter. I pointed out that it was absolutely necessary there should be special legislation, if the Coal-mines Act was to be amended, in that direction, so as to make it possible for people to prospect for coal and to secure to themselves, at all events, the right to select a certain area if they were successful in finding coal —as is the case under the Mines Act. My letter to that effect must be on the file, because a similar difficulty had occurred at Ngunguru, and it was after that difficulty occurred that I wrote to the Department pointing out that it was desirable there should be a provision in the Coal-mines Act which would give people an opportunity of prospecting in the same way as under the Mining Act. 10. What connection have you with the Receiver of Land Revenue on these matters —do you advise him when he is to receive a deposit, or anything of that kind!—Ouly in this way : that when money is to be paid I tell the parties to go over to the Receiver's room and pay it to him. 11. Do'you not advise the Receiver that he is to receive money on account of a certain thing? —I would send for him and tell him that So-and-so would pay him a deposit. 12. In this case did you see the Receiver of Land Revenue? —No. 1 told Mr. Meldrum, or whoever it was, to go over to the Receiver of Land Revenue and pay the 3s. per acre. 13. Did you advise the Receiver of Land Revenue about that!—l think I called him in and told him. 14. That the money was for a coal lease? —Yes. 15. Then, how can you account for the Receiver of Land Revenue giving a receipt to Mr. Rossenbeck for ,£l5 for a coal-prospecting license over 100 acres? —I have heard of that. I cannot account for it, except in this way, that Mr. Meldrum, or one of his confreres in this matter, would go over to the Receiver in accordance with my instructions and tell him, " I have to pay 3s. an acre for 100 acres on a coal-mining lease," or he might have said for a prospecting lease. 16. Did you not send over a note with this Mr. Rossenbeck-when he went to pay his deposit fee? —No, I did not. As a rule, I called the Receiver in. 17. Did you call him in in this case? —I think I did. 18. Did you tell him what he had to receive the money for? —I must have told him it was for a lease. 19. Will you tell the Committee whether this receipt is for a coal-prospecting license or not [Receipt handed to witness]? —It is not signed by the Receiver. Evidently that accounts for it. 20. Who is the receipt signed by? —I do not know whose the initials are. It is signed "T. M. Taylor, Receiver of Land Revenue, per A. S." I think those are the initials, which would be those of one of the clerks in the Receiver's office. But I would point this out to the Committee, that it would be perfectly impossible for even Mr. Meldrum to have taken it as a prospecting license, because £15 paid for a 100-acre prospecting license would be the height of absurdity. Under the Mines Act a prospecting license costs from ss. to .£1 at the very utmost. To pay £15 for a prospecting license would be ridiculous. No such thing has ever been known. 21. Then this receipt is absurd? —The words "mining lease" should have been substituted for " prospecting license." 22. How do you account for a mistake like this occurring? —I cannot account for it. It just happened. I did not know anything about it until months and months after. 23. But is that not liable to deceive a person who gets such a receipt? —It could not in this case, after all the transactions that had taken place between Mr. Meldrum and the Board. He was before it several times, and could not possibly have been under the impression that he had a prospecting license. The application to have consideration postponed shows that he never looked upon this as a prospecting license. Why should there be postponement in the case of a prospecting license? 24. Then, this receipt ought to read. I suppose, "A coal-mining lease in prospect"? —No. 25. How long was it proposed to delay the issue of the lease? Only a month. 26. Not longer?— No. 27. What happened in the month? —This application, I believe, was made by the Taupiri Coal Company. 28. And the lease was completed after the month, was it? —No, it was never completed, because the prospecting company would not hear of it. They always insisted upon getting the whole of the lake. 29. You say the lease was not completed. This receipt is dated "August 4, 1902." Was this money refunded after the month? —I do not think so. It was kept pending the final arrangement with the prospecting company. 30. The Chairman.] Did these other companies that took up this other land for coal-mining — did they take it up on the same conditions?— Yes, they paid 3s. an acre. 31. Mr. J. Allen.] What I want to get at is, what happened to this £15, which is accounted for in this receipt, after the month expired? —That £15 is still in the hands of the Receiver —lying there as a deposit undealt-with. 32. Then, the issuing of this lease has been postponed until how long? —Until the matter is settled. 33. Can you tell me when the matter was settled? —No; I believe it is still pending. 34. Then, this lease has been postponed from 1902 until now?-It has not been postponed; no action has been taken. 35. What is the difference between taking no action and postponement? —Postponement may be by a resolution of the Board. 4—l. 4a.