THE CIVIL SERVICE & PARTY POLITICS.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1755, 21 May 1913, Page 6

THE CIVIL SERVICE & PARTY POLITICS.

Electoral reform, with spccial reference to the Civil Service, was discussed at a meeting held at Petone on Monday' night, a resolution being carried protesting against "the rcstrictibns now placed on railway and civil servants in local and political matters," and demanding "that the Government introduce legislation to grant all Government employees full civil and political rights.'' This is not a new demand, and it is one which has a plausible enough sound, but the objections to it cannot be so lightly set aside. It would have a bad efteefc from the point of view of the Government, of the. general public, and of the Civil Service itself. A Civil Servant who throws himself into the turmoil of a general election must cross swords with all sorts of people, and make many enemies; and when subsequently he comes to deal with these people in his official capacity, he can hardly expect to have their full confidence. He would be constantly accused of doing more than justice to his own political partisans, and less than justice to. those whose political views differed from his own. It would also breed suspicion and distrust between heads of Departments and those employees who should feel called upon to adversely criticise Government policy and administration. A still stronger reason why Civil Servants should not have unrestricted liberty in political matters is the confidential character of much of the business they are callcd upon to transact. In the heat of an election contest they would be liable, unconsciously perhaps in most eases, to make use, directly or indirectly, of some items of Departmental information that might serve their political purpose for the moment at the expense of the public interest. As a matter of fact, it is often difficult to distinguish between what one knows . officially and confidentially and knowledge gained in other ways. These two sorts of information may at _ times overlap. An excellent illustration of this is provided by an episode in the life of the late Sir William Russell, the well-known correspondent ol Thc Times, which is related in the Spectutor. Russell was in the United States during what is known as the "Trent" affair, and received confidential information from Mr. Mon« sos, of the British Legation at Washington, that there would be no war. Russell, who was quite above meanness or dishonesty, kept the matter to himself until ,thc 11CWS became the subject of street rumour, and then he felt himself free to telegraph to a business friend in New York, who had financial interests at stake, a vague but reassuring message. This message leaked out, and causcd much annoyance at the Legation by giving rise to disagreeaulo rumours. The ethical aspect of Russell's action is a matter for the casuist to decide. Would ho have telegraphed to New York unless his official knowledge had given backbone and colour to street rumours? If a man like Russell in a generous attempt to help a friend laid himself open to suspicion, how natch greater would be the danger of a Civil Servant, who was alsp a vigorous political partisan, making a slip of a similar kind; and- it would not require many such mistakes to undermine public confidence in our State Departments. Dealing with another phase of the question at the Petone meeting, a speaker objected to the rule which forbids Civil Servants from undertaking private work which would bring them remuneration. Most people will have very little sympathy with this objection. Every Government employee should receive an adequate salary, and if so, why should lie be permitted to compete for outside work with the general public who have to _find the money to pay him ? The Civil Servants' have the vote,- and no one wishes to take it from th?m; and the only restrictions, imposed upon tlicm arc such as are necessary to keep the service free-, from friction, and to prevent party politics from undermining public confidence in the State Departments.