D.—4.

12

[E. W. MCVILLY.

4. What expenditure was that—was it anything to do with the river or the embankment ?—lt was in connection with the Foxton Tramway, which included the wharf. 5. Where did that tramway run to?—lt ran down to the river-bank and into Foxton through the main street. It started at Foxton and ran to Palinerston —part, of the first section oil the Foxton-Palmerston Tramway. 6. What was the expenditure on that first?—l cannot divide the expenditure as between the wharf and the train, but I can state definitely that (lie wharf was completed in September, 1873, It was about 176 ft. long. The whole expenditure was incurred by the Public Works Department, and before the Foxton Tramway was merged or converted into what is now the present Foxton Railway the expenditure was ,£30,888. 7. That includes the tramway and anything done to the embankment? —Yes, that is the whole undertaking. 8. What do you call the wharf? —The breastworks on the bank of the river at which the vessels are now moored. 9. Mr. Western.] Does that wharf stand now?— The original wharf is embodied in the present structure. I had probably better give the history. About 1874 the Government saw that the tramway would be unable to deal with, the business, and they then decided to convert the tramway into what was to be the Foxton - New Plymouth Railway Section. A contract was let to a man named Andressan for a wharf extension of, I think, approximately 160 ft,. It was finished by Andressan, and cost £8821 That was in 1878, and the contract was finished in 1879. In 1881 the Government built what is now the present, wharf, and the present, Foxton Station was let by contract, and built by a man named Saunders. The cost of that was something over £15,000. it included rebuilding a length of the then existing wharf, and when completed it left a face of 500 ft. of wharf. That, of course, included the old original wharf and Andressan s and Saunders's contracts. 10. The Chairman.\ 1 suppose you cannot separate the cost of the wharf from the station and other buildings? —No, 1 cannot. I have looked through the papers, and although the works are specified there is only a lump stun given. I have not been able to discover what was the actual cost of that contract, but it appeared from the papers as considerably over .£1.5,000. There is no doubt whatever that the wharf was included in that £15,000, and that the whole of that expenditure has been charged to the Railway Department Capital Account. 11. Have you added any other charge to the Railway Capital Account, but that £15,000? — Not to the Capital Account, no. 12. I mean the original tramway and previous expenditure on the wharves?— The cost of Ihe original tramway and wharf is xn the Capital Account, and Andressan's contract price of £852 is in the Capital Account plus the £15,000. 13. Those are the only items in the Capital Acount? —Yes, the three items. The first two are included in the £30,888. 14. What was the cost of the railway to Palmerston ?—Over £80,000 was the estimated cosl. The section of the line was known as the " Foxton-Waitara Hue," and as the sections were linked up the cost became merged into one big system, so that you cannot separate or tell at this time exactly what was the cost of the railway front here to Palmerston. 15. Can you tell the cost of the railway till it touches the main lino—that is, to Longburn '! --No, we cannot; but I can tell you that the Minister of Public Works of that day estimated thai the cost would be .£BO,OOO. That was the railway from Foxton to Palmerston. I'd, Mr. Williams.] Have you any knowledge as to whether it was carried out at the estimated cos! I —l could hardly express an opinion upon that, but from our experience I should say it was not. 1 should say the estimated cost would be exceeded. 17. The Chairman.] How many miles is it? —lt is twenty-four miles to Palmerston, and twenty miles to Longburn Junction. 18. Then, has there been any expenditure on the wharf separate from the railway since that? —Yes; there has been the upkeep and maintenance of the wharf. Altogether we have spent £4,127 on improvements : that is from 1896 to date, but I cannot tell prior to that. It is impossible to tell what the upkeep was. We cannot go further back, but there is no doubt that there was an expenditure every year on the wharf and on the upkeep of the wharf out of workingexpenses from the time the Railway Department took the wharf over until the present date. 19. Then you cannot give us any other items of expenditure touching or concerning the wharf? —No, your Honour. 20. Mr. Williams.] Can you tell, me the width of the wharf?—No, I cannot (ell. you at the present time. 21. r fhe Chairman.] 1 suppose in the case of the wharves you include that large coal-bin? —■ No; that is a lease. The cost includes the breastwork only, the wharf proper, and the reclamation on which the railway-station stands. 22. What was the annual expenditure that made that £4,127 up in the twenty years?—l will have a copy typed out and supplied to the Commission. 23. The next point is in regard to income: do you keep a separate account of income from the wharf ?—Yes. 24. What does it show? —The income 1 can give accurately from 1908. I can give you some figures from 1885, but f. cannot guarantee their being accurate. 25. Give us the accurate figures first?— They are as follow: 1908, £2,11:!; 1909, £2,206; 19T6, £2,820; 1911, £2,881; 1912, ,£2,865; " 1913. £3.757; 1914, £3,359; 1915, £3,185; 1916, £3,612. [See Exhibit A.] 26. That only includes I lie wharfage that has been paid by others than the Government?— That is so. 27. The Government goods are not included?— No.