The Dominion. FRIDAY, MARCH 10, 1911. PUBLIC APPOINTMENTS.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1072, 10 March 1911, Page 4

The Dominion. FRIDAY, MARCH 10, 1911. PUBLIC APPOINTMENTS.

The correspondent of the Railway Officers' Advocate who first disclosed to the public the circumstances surrounding the appointment of the son of the Minister for Railways to the office of assistant electrician and draughtsman in the railway service has returned to the attack. In the current issue of the journal named he replies to the explanations made by the Minister for Railways and the PrtniE Minister and claim? with justice that his contentions have not been answered. These contentions he enumerates as follow: (1.) That his (the Minister's) son has an insufficient knowledge of electrical engineering to warrant the appointment. (2.) That there arc fully qualified men already in the Department available to fill any new position (presumably such as that recently created and filled by the appointment of Mr. Millar's son). (3.) That Mr. Millar's son was promoted into tho position in spite of the protest of the head of the branch.

Ifc is not necessary to repeat in detail the reasons put forward in support of these contentions. It is sufficient to say that regarding Mr. Millar jun's qualifications it is submitted that his period of study was insufficient to enable it to be said that he had obtained a thorough working knowledge of electrical engineering and draughting such as is required to enable one to fill tho important position embracing the varied work controlled by the _ signal and electrical engineer. This may, perhaps, be a matter of opinionmuch depends on the duties attached to the position. But it docs not in the least affect the contention that the appointment was an improper one if the other allegations are substantiated. These other allegations are that fully competent officers were improperly passed over; and that, contrary to the regulations, the appointment was made without the approval of the head of the Department concerned. This last-named assertion leaves no room for quibbling on either side. Either the chief engineer of working railways did? or did not approve the appointment, and Mis. Millar can make a public announcement on the subject to-morrow if he chooses. Indeed, if the appointment was favoured by the chief engineer, tho Minister's position must necessarily be considerably strengthened for the Advocate's correspondent is prepared to apologise if Mr. Millar can show that he was supported by the head of the Department concerned. To quote his own words:

My knowledge of the chief engineer of working railways is considerable. He is a man Of honour to whom we can look for o.vcn-hnnded justice—a man who would scorn, to give an untrue certificate to Mr. Millar or nnyons else. If Mr. Millar proves me wrong in my third charge, and shows that previous to the appointment his son_ had been certified to by the chief engineer as fit, lo assume the duties he is supposed to fill, I will make a suitable apology through your paper.

This is plain enough. It has to be borne in mind that the usual and proper procedure would require that ■the chief engineer.should endorse the appointment. While on this subject of railway appointments wc would direct the Minister's attention to a letter, signed "Fair Play," published in our columns this morning. Several questions arc 'put forward which suggest discrimination in the service of a nature which, if true, is calculated to causa discontent and seriously shake the. confidence of railway employees in their prospects of receiving fair play at headquarters. Wc know that the discontent in the service is very widespread at tho present time, and the charges' that arc so often made arc so seldom satisfactorily answered that the dissatisfaction which exists is not surprising. It is about time that_ the Minister gave a little attention to the subject and made some endeavour to remove the very unpleasant and very dangerous impression which is gaining ground.