The Dominion WEDNESDAY, MARCH 10, 1909 THE ADDINGTON WORKSHOPS INQUIRY.

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 452, 10 March 1909, Page 6

The Dominion WEDNESDAY, MARCH 10, 1909 THE ADDINGTON WORKSHOPS INQUIRY.

1 - When tho Minister for Railways announced that a public inquiry would be held into the' conduct of tho Addington Workshops, there was widespread satisfaction at what appeared to bo the first decisive stop of the new Minister towards cleaning up the whole wasteful system of railways administration. To-day, however, the public can have little confidence that any largo benefits will result from the work of the Commission. For some time past thoro has been proceeding an exchange of telegrams between the Minister and various representatives of the workshops employees respecting the representation of the' men before the Commission. There appears to have been . a good deal of misunderstanding on both sides—which, we may observe, points strongly to carelessness on the part of the Minister, who should have made himself thoroughly acquainted with the wishes of the men before coming to a decision—but the one clear fact that emerges from'the correspondence is that the men desired that Mit. T. E. Taylor, M.P., should appear on their behalf, a desire that the Minister (latly refused to listen to. The men held a meeting yesterday and decided to adhere to their position, with the result that the inquiry will go forward with the men unrepresented. That this is a highly undesirable position will be universally admitted. The public has been expecting that the inquiry would result in tho settlement of certain questions affecting tho whole system of railway administration. They know that nothing but gross mismanagement is responsible

for the large annual loss 011 the railways, and they are anxious that reform should be brought about. They have reason to suspect that the vices which must bo eradicated have been rampant at Addington, and they want to know the whole truth of the matter.; They want to know whether the Addington shops arc suffcr--1 ing from incompetence, laziness, and ' laxity of discipline : amongst the men, or j from bungling amongst the higher offi--1 cials, or from both. In a large measure, we have all been lccl to understand, the inquiry would be a trial with the De- > partment and the men as contending partics. It is apparent, therefore, that unless the men are' represented by an advocate of some kind the evidenco called will be imperfect, and will therefore lead to An imperfect finding by the Commission. In other words, tho public will probably make up its mind that the inquiry, which was to get to the bottom of a questionable state of affairs, may be of little value. 1 Had Mr. Millar consented to the appearance of Mr. Taylor as the men's advocate, the public could feel some confidence in the thoroughness of the investigation. Why, then, did Mr. Millar oppose the men on this point? The reasons which he advances for his refusal to permit any person outside the servicc to appear on behalf of the men are utterly unconvincing. They are thus stated by Mr. Millar : "It is an inquiry of practical men into certain statements, and can only be dealt with by practical men. In other words, it is an inquiry set up by myself consisting of, experts outside of the railway service to advise me in regard to certain allegations which have been made." Nothing can be more absurd than the suggestion that only a "practical man" is competent to appear as an advocate before the Commission. Such a theory, if generally adopted, would wreck all our courts of law and vitiate the findings of every Royal Commission that has ever been appointed in this ,or any other country. If Mr. Millar really desired that the truth should be made known, that nothing should be obscured or hushed up, ho would have gone more than half way to assist the men in securing competent advocacy. But the Minister probably relics more upon : his second contention, and wo are bound to admit that if tho inquiry were only set up to advise him on certain matters connected with the Department under his care there would be no placo in the scheme for Me. Taylor or any other outsider. But how can the Minister say that the inquiry is one of that kind? The fact that it is a public investigation makes it anything but a departmental arrangement. Tho purpose of the inquiry is not simply to advise the Minister on certain points, but to satisfy the public on certain matters gravely affecting the public's pocket. • The truth of the matter, we have little doubt, is that the Minister was unwilling that Mr. Taylor should, by appearing before the Commission, equip himself for action in Parliament as a peculiarly destructive critic of the railways administration. Tho conclusion to be drawn from the Minister's attitude is, therefore, that he is not so courageous as we all were ready to believe. The scopc of the inquiry rather strengthens the correctness of this conclusion. The order of reference comprises six clauses: (1) The efficiency of the plant and appliances; (2) the system of work adopted; (3) the discipline maintained; (4) the cost of production as compared with the cost in other establishments, whether Government or. private; (0) the. output, whether it is reasonable in quantity and quality, having regard to all the circumstances; (6) generally any matter calling for alteration or improvement in the interests of ellicicncy or discipline. Tho second, third, and fifth of these points cannot be properly investigated in the absence of an advocate of the men. The first live points leave untouched the question of how far official bungling in its various .forms, as, for example, in the preparation of faulty plans, is responsible for whatever want of efficiency is established. The general terms of the sixth clause arc wide enough to include every detail of management, from Ministerial instructions to boiler rivets, but it is very unlikely that with five definite points set down for inquiry the Commission will take full advantage, or even any advantage worth mentioning, of the latitude afforded by a vague, general instruction. No doubt the inquiry will track down some of the abuses that have grown up, but the public has a right to ask that no abuse ,of any kind shall be left undiscovered. Even our evening contemporary, which was angry with us the other day for doubting the strength and sincerity of the Minister's promises of reform, is beginning to realise that it was a little hasty. It suspects the Minister of an anxiety to hush matters up as far as possible. One thing is quite ccrtain: that the public will require a good deal of convincing that the inquiry will do what is expected of it.