When this report came before the Provincial Council and was made public, Messrs. Holmes and Co. addressed to the Superintendent a letter, which they asked should be made public, stating their explanation of the matters criticised in the report. They pointed out that when Mr. Paterson was appointed a Commissioner they offered to place at his disposal their records and documents, or alternatively to appoint an engineer of standing to confer with Mr. Paterson during his enquiry. Neither of these proposals was accepted by the Government, though it was apparent that the contractors were intimately concerned with the result of the enquiry. They pointed out that with regard to the buildings they were subject to the supervision of the Railway Engineer, and their prices had to meet with his concurrence. In many cases they were called upon to undertake works which were urgently required and for which materials were obtainable only with great difficulty and expense. With regard to the rolling stock, they were not furnished with drawings and specifications, and had consequently to have these completed in England from such particulars of the requirements as they could furnish. Owing to the distance from the source of supply and the infrequency of communication, they were obliged to obtain the services of some local firm to deal with the calling of tenders in England, and in every case the most favourable tender had been accepted. Further, they had to accept the entire responsibility of lighterage, insurance, and the risks of conveyance over the Sumner bar, which the shippers absolutely declined to undertake, and usually three months' interest on account of the lapse of time between the receipt of the documents and the landing, erection, and acceptance of the goods. Further, much of the work had been undertaken at a period when wages and other charges were very much higher than at the date of the report of the Commission, so that any estimate based on the latter prices was entirely misleading. They claimed that taking all the circumstances into consideration the Government had received good and substantial value for its outlay.