I.—4b.

6

JA. D. BAYFEILD.

to press for a settlement of the case, but to bring it up early next session. It is for you, as the representative of the shareholders, to consider what is the best course to adopt in their interest. 45. Hon. J. McGowan.] There was a petition presented previously on behalf of the WestportCardiff Company signed by Mr. E. R. Hughes : are you dealing with this matter on behalf of the the shareholders in the same way as this other petition ?—Yes. 46. Is there any signature besides yours ? —No. I have been authorised by the meetings held in Christchurch and Westport. 47. Do you remember the meeting at Christchurch when this petition was agreed upon ? — Yes, my petition ; I was there. Mr. Hargreaves was also there. 48. Did he take any action in regard to this petition or not ?—He did not vote. He was the only one in the room who abstained from doing so. 49. Did they appoint you to deal with the matter on behalf of the shareholders ?—Yes. 50. The company went into liquidation at a certain period ?—Yes. 51. What was the cause of their doing so? —I suppose it was their failure to negotiate with the Government and to secure any consideration. 52. Did the Government make any proposal to assist them ?—Yes. 53. Did the company accept that proposal ?—I think they accepted it, and it was not carried out. 54. Do you state that as a fact or a question of memory ?—I think they accepted the proposal, and no effect was given to it. I will ask leave to read a communication dated February this year. It is as follows : " You are aware, of course, that Messrs. Seddon and Cadman agreed to relieve us of all liability for deficiency and royalty, and promised a pound for pound to each one of us to develop the Cave area at a cost of about £12,000, we having previously thoroughly prospected and bored the area at considerable cost, and forwarded plans and particulars of proposed works to the Government to have appropriated, and are now using them to carry out original scheme." 55. Hon. J. McGowan.] You said that in regard to this case you had a precedent, and you instanced the Midland Railway ; but there is no analogy as between the Coal Company and the Midland Railway ?—My contention is briefly this : The colony took possession of the railway, and expended a large amount of money out of general revenue on it. The legal position was that they need not have given the shareholders or debentureholders any consideration, but by action of Parliament they agreed to pay £150,000. I submit that the case of this Coal Company is a very similar one. 56. Do you know how the railway was constructed to connect with the Mokihinui-Cardiff line?—lt was constructed by funds provided by the Westport Harbour Board, and it was built by the Government. 57. Was it from funds belonging to the Harbour Board or from funds derived from harbour reserves ?—Yes, out of the funds of the Board. 58. Built by the Government out of Harbour Board funds ? —Yes. 59. What was the object of this expenditure?—To develop the coalfield. 60. What companies were interested?— The Mokihinui and Cardiff Coal Companies. These were the only two companies when the railway was made. 61. Do you know what was the cost of that railway ?—I cannot say. 62. What is the distance of this extension ?—About seven miles. 63. Do you remember the time when the mine took fire ?—Yes. 64. Who was then in occupation ?—The company. 65. Are you sure it was not the liquidator ?—No, it was not the liquidator. 66. The information I have is it took fire while the mine was in charge of the liquidator ?— I would ask you to give me an opportunity of inquiring into this matter. 67. Was any action taken by the company to put out the fire ?—We spent some hundreds of pounds. 68. But you did not extinguish the fire ?—No, and it is still burning. The best plan is to let it burn itself out. 69. At the time the company was in liquidation, why did the Government not allow the company to sell the property and make the best of it they could ?—That is a matter for the liquidator ; I cannot say. 70. Were any appeals made to the Government in regard to this fire ? —Not that I am aware of. 71. Did the Government make any effort to put out the fire ?—So far as my memory serves me the Government took the matter into their own hands. I took action as agent for the company. 72. What was the nature of your action? —I was agent at Westport for the company, and the fact of the fire was made known to me about 7 o'clock one Sunday evening, and I at once went into town and took steps to deal with the matter. I saw Mr. Hay Mackenzie, of the Railway Department, and 1 went to the Fire Brigade and asked their assistance. The Westport Company generously gave every assistance, and all was done that was possible with the means at our disposal to meet the disaster. I went out on Monday morning, accompanied by Mr. Dixon, and asked him practically to bear the responsibility in dealing with the fire, which the directors had given their permission to act upon. 73. This occurred before the mine was in liquidation?— Yes; but the efforts we made were not effectual in putting out the fire, and latterly the Government has done nothing towards putting it out. 74. What would have been the position of the shareholders if the Government had not reentered on its lease ?—I wish you had not done so. I wish you had left us to our own resources. 75. At one period the Government might have stepped in and taken possession: what would have been the position in that case ?—-Our financial position was sound, and we owed no debt except to the Government.