J. FINDLAY.]

3

i.—io.

would like to deal with this matter from five points of view, based on five different sets of interest —the aspect from the company's interest; secondly, the Crown's interest; thirdly, the Native interest; fourthly, Kotorua's interest; and fifthly, the City of Auckland's interest. I shall begin with the aspect of it which appeals to the company, and I would say that it makes here no ad misericordiam appeal. The question has been asked, " what is the motive of this company in seeking to get rid of its railway-line to the Government 1 It must have some secret up its sleeve it is not disclosing; it must have some hidden reason for seeking to get the Government to take over the line; it has some idea that it can profit itself in some unseen way at the expense of the people of New Zealand." I would like to dispel that impression at once. Firstly, we want to get rid of our line because it is a dwindling asset. We have spent £130,000 in constructing and equipping that railway, and we have only from fifteen to twenty years' cutting of the forest before us. The railway will be as good in fifteen years' as it is to-day, but our forest will have disappeared. We shall then have a railway to our mills, it is true, but leading to mills that will then be unsupplied with raw material. I would therefore frankly admit that our hope is that the Government will see a profitable investment in this line now. I wish to impress with as much force as 1 can this admission, that we want to sell our railway because in fifteen years or so it will have become a dwindling, disappearing asset, and we shall have to take up our rails —as we have a right to do —and it will be a much more disastrous thing to us than its present sale. It may be said, why not let us wait for fifteen years, when the Government can take advantage of the company's necessity and buy the line for what the company must then take? But this is an unworthy suggestion. This company has put its money into the railway and deserves better treatment. I submit, therefore, that to take the course suggested —that is, to wait until the company has cut out its forest —would be unfair and unworthy of the Government. It would be not only unfair but wholly and entirely unprofitable to take such a course; but before coming to that point may I also expose another thing which has been said freely about the present company. It is alleged that there is some alleged unholy alliance between the Taupo Totara Timber Company and the Tongariro Timber Company with a view to completing the junction from Putaruru to Taupo, thence by the Lake to Tokaanu, and thence by the Tongariro line to be constructed to the north trunk line, and in some such way as that create a monopoly and do irreparable injury to Kotorua. What I want to say is that there is no alliance even suggested between the two companies. In point of fact, the companies are in opposition to each other, and will be mutually inimical in interests in the production of timber and operations generally. I am entitled to give you an assurance that there will be no alliance between the two companies. The statement is wholly without foundation, and wholly unfair to the petitioners in this case. The statement has been insidiously circulated in the hope of creating a prejudice in the mind of Parliament, if not of this Committee. Another statement made, and made freely by the Kotorua people, is that the Taupo Company has purchased, or has a right of purchase over, all the hotels which will be served, by this line if completed. Now, 1 want to make the very clearest and unequivocal statement with regard to this matter. It is true that an option was held over the hotels in the thermal resorts, including Tokaanu, the Terraces, and Wairakei. These have all been abandoned except on the Taupo property, which consists of the Spa and Taupo Hotels— two hotels. What the company was concerned in was to get a considerable area of land to form the terminus of the proposed line to Taupo; and that was the reason why they took this option. An option therefore still exists over the Taupo Hotel and surrounding property. But the company will hand the option over to the Government if the purchase goes through. It is an option over both these hotels. The company seeks to hold no hotels, and if the company is not going to retain the line and the Government do not want the hotels, the option will be dropped. That, I hope, will dispose of the suggestion that this proposal is to help us to develop an hotel monopoly in the thermal regions. We have no hotels, and desire to hold no hotels. Now, I come shortly to the question which you are here considering—Here is a line actually constructed. We are not coming, you will observe, to ask for authority to commence a new railway. Much has been said about the impolicy of the State allowing a company to hold a railway-line. But here is an existing railway at present held by a private company. The question of the propriety of that is a thing of the past. Here is the line in existence; is it to end, as it were, in a cul de sac? Is it to remain running into the bushes, or is it to be a completed means of communication between Auckland and Taupo? There are only two courses open. This line will remain a bush tramway so long as we have timber to put over it and running in the way it is to-day, achieving only one small fraction of its possible usefulness. Another course is to extend it to Taupo and make it a useful via there, carrying passengers, goods, tourists, and promoting settlement. This is the basis of my argument. May I contrast the respective loss and gain in these two courses? If we are to wait fifteen or twenty years for the completion of the line, what will the loss be to the settlers and to this country generally? Suppose I take the area as 1,500,000 acres which is now absolutely unoccupied, and I put the value down at ss. per acre. That gives an annual loss of £18,750 a year, and ss. is the very lowest you can put it at. But if you give access to the land it would be worth something like £1 an acre, and then you have a loss approximating £100,000 per annum. But these are estimates upon the land undeveloped. May I ask you to contemplate what the loss to New Zealand is by this 1,500,000 acres lying continuously undeveloped for from fifteen to twenty years, as I believe it will be unless the completion we are proposing is adopted? The other course is to complete the line. We are prepared to hand over to the Government our line equipped with rolling-stock fit for the purposes I have mentioned —the whole line —for £180,000. Sixty-five miles of railway equipped with rolling-stock for £180,000! Ido not think any line in New Zealand has been completed—to use a phrase very, common in the Governor's Speech—with such a due regard to economy and efEcienc) , as the line you are now dealing with. You will get exceedingly good value for your money if you take the line over at £180,000, but