GARLICK INQUIRY.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1841, 29 August 1913, Page 4

GARLICK INQUIRY.

OPPOSITION CHARGES. FRIENDSHIP ALLEGED AND ' DENIED. SEFENCE OPENED. Tlio Committee set up by the House ; of Representatives to inquire into the , appointment of Mr. Royd Garlick as Director of Physical Education sat again i yesterday afternoon. In addition to the members of tlio committee. present, Messrs. T. M. Wilford, G. Laurenson, and G. Forbes, who made the original charges in tlio House of Representatives, attended to substantiate their respective cases. Sir. Wilford had called tlie last of his witnesses tlio previous day, and yesterday Jlessrs. Laurenson and Forbes were given tlio opportunity of calling ovidenco in support of their charges. , Mr. Laurenson's Evidence. Mr. G. Laurenson, 31.1'. for Lyttel- ' ton, was called to substantiate his statement, mado in the House, that j Mr. Allen had appointed a personal friend, without knowing his qualifications. Ho was asked by the chairman if ho liad any evidence to call in support of this charge. Mr. Laurenson said that the position was fhis: Ail import-ant post had been created, to which a salary was attached which mado it 0110 of tho most important in tho State. It was a new position, but there had been 110 public advertisement in tho newspapers that it was "going." It had been filled by the appointment of a man —and ho was speaking mildly in the matter —who had no' qualifications for .the position over and above those possessed by other men in the country. It was an open question whether his qualifications wero as good. The position had been filled by a man whom Mr. Allen said ho knew personally. It was public rumour throughout tho AVellington district that tho Minister and Mr. Garlick wero personal friends. For instance, The Dominion, of November 26, 1912, had found it necessary to quote tho statement of Mr. Alleiv that "it is pure nonsenso that there has beon a particle of private influence or any other influence." This was in reply to a criticism which appeared in a local paper from a Christchurch correspond- i ent, which stated ■ that an impression was abroad • that tho appointment had , been made through private influence. It was also current opinion .in Canterbury. Under tho heading of "An American Precedent," the "Lyttelton Times" had said: "For all wo know, Mr. Garlick may bo . . . admirably qualified for the position. It may be a mere coincidence that lie is on terms of social intimacy with several members of tho Cabinet. . . Tho fact that one of the 'good men' enjoys tho personal friendship of tho Minister for Education . . . should not entitle him to preference over tlio other good men." When this statement appeared some months ago there was no denial or comment on it from the Minister. The matter was certainly one of public comment. • He know that Mr. Allen was not a fool, that ho was a man of brains. He therefore concluded that thcro was no other reason for the appointment than that Garlick was a friend of his, aiid that what had appeared in the public press was correct. 1 He would like to ask Mr. Allon whether it was truo that he was on terms of personal acquaintance with Garlick. The chairman: Mr.> Allen is not now under cross-examination. Mr. Laurenson : l But ho might like to ! answer. Mr. Allen said nothing. "A Sense of Responsibility.!' Hon. A. L. Herdman: Your justification for your statement is, therefore, that tho "Lyttelton Times" said so? Mr. Laurenson:' Not only that. I was looking at all the surrounding circumstances. Mr. Herdman: You spoke in the House with a sense of your responsibilities as a member? Sir. Laurenson: I hopo so. Mr. Herdman: Don't you think that as a responsible member of Parliament, practically charging Mr. Allen with dishonesty, you should have mado suro you wore correct? Mr. Laurenson: Havo you never imputed motives yourself? Mr. Herdman: You are not answering my question. Mr. Laurenson: I answer by asking you another question. Mr. Herdman: You refuse to answer? Mr. Laurenson: I refuse to answer except in my own way. Mr. Herdman: You are hero to answer questions, ndt to ask questions of mo. Can you show that you wero justified in any way in charging Mr. Allen with grossly improper conduct? Mr. Laurenson: I never 'harged him with grossly improper conduct. When I looked at all tho circumstances of tho case, I think I was justified in speaking as I did. .Mr. Herdman: ' Because you read it in tho "Lyttelton Times"? Mr. Laurenson: No. Mr. Herdman: Would you , be surprised to hear that Mr. Allen did not know Garlick? Mr. Laurenson: Ho said so himself in on interview. Mr. here handed a piece of paper to Mr. Laurenson, and Mr. Herdman immediately objected. Mr. Wilford's charges, he said, had been dealt with, and his case had been closed. Ho had no right to interfere now. Ho was not a member of the committee. Mr. Laurenson pointed out that tho paper was merely a press-cutting which he had previously masked Mr. "Wilford i to bring down for him. Tho chairman said there could be no objection, ; to Mr. Wilford's action, but lie had > no right to go further and take any ' part in conducting Mr. Laurenson's i case. , i 'i "Innuendoes." Mr. Herdman: As an old member of the House, and incidentally an exMinister of the Crown, do you not think it necessary to investigate such a chargo before you make it? Mr. Laurenson: I objcct to the wav the question is put. Both yourself and Mr. Allen have mado innuendoes '' without the slightest scrap of investigation. , " Mr. Herdman: What ground. had " you for saying that Garlick was an r incompetent person? : Mr. Laurenson: I never said so. I 1 know that kind of question is a recos- ? nised legal trick. You are putting words into inv mouth which I never 1 said. What 'I say is that his qualifications are no better than those of 1 other men in this country. That has been shown by the evidence before thi9 2 committee. " Mr. Herdman: You made the state- ' ment before tho committee sat. r Mr. Laurenson: A man who gave " evidence before the committee told me J previously that Garlick did not possess 5 qualifications equal to those of other men. ~ , „ 3 Mr. Hordman: AVho was that? K Mr. Laurenson: 1 refuse to answer. B Advertising of Appointments. Mr. Herdman: Would you say it was a common thing to make appoint ments without advertising? ' Mr. Laurenson: It might be done in " the case of minor appointments —mes. I sengers and temporary clerks. Mr: Herdman: By the Government

ol' which you were yourself a member, for instance? Mr. Laurenson: The only important appointment in my term of office was that of lady medical inspectors. Tho positions wero advertised. Mr. Herdman: Assuming that Garlick was a fit and proper person to organise a system of physical training, and to appoint men to carry out the scheme, you will admit that the post was a very important one indeed? Mr. Laurenson: I admit that. Mr. Herdman: How many school children altogether will como under the Director? Mr. Laurenson: There are from 140,000 to 150,0110 children in our publie schools. I don't know how many of theso will come under tho Director. But I contend that when headmasters of largo schools, with many years ol service, can receive only some £100 a year, a salary of £000 is too much. Mr. Herdman: It is no argument that because headmasters' salaries are too small, Garliek's is too high? Mr. Laurenson: No. Mr. Herdman: You have no further evidenco that Mr. Allen appointed a. personal friend? Mr. Laurenson: No. Party Amenities. In answer t-o Mr. Guthrie, the witness said that if ho wero making a speech in the Houso he would be wilting, in the light of evidence given at the inquiry, to repeat his statement. If Mr. Allen assured him that ho was not a friend of Garlick. he would, of course, accopt it. Mr. Guthrie: Your chargo against the Minister was a. most serious one —it was really an enormity. Mr. Laurenson: My dear Mr. Guthrie, have you beeii four Years in Parliament and do not know that Mr. Allen has ma<le such statements many a timo from his side of tlio Houso about liis political opponents ? Mr. Gutlirio: That has nothing to do with it. Mr. Laurenson: Am I to bo mado the scapegoat of ail attack oil the Government? Mr. Guthrie: You stick to your statement? Mr. Laurenson: Until Mr. Allen denies it. I should then withdraw tho word "personal." I believe that Mr. Allen really did not know the standing of this man's qualifications. Mr. Poland: Do you think that Mr. Allen w r as justified in appointing a man at this salary while the country could not afford to pay higher salaries to such men as headmasters ? .Mr. Laurenson: That is exactly what made me warm. In reply to the chairman, Mr. Allen said that ho had no questions to ask at , this stage, but lie was willing to answer i any question which Mr. Laurenson might ' like to put to him. Mr. Laurenson: I shall como in when Mr. Allen gives his ovidenco beforo the committee. Mr. Wilford: If Mr. Laurenson is tc havo tho right to cross-oxamino now, 1 should like to havo the same right. Hif case is closed, as mine is. Mr. Laurenson: I shall wait until Mr: Allen enters upon his dofence. Mr. Forbes's Evidence. Mr. G. Forbes, M.P. for Hurunui, wa: then called. The charge mado by Mr Forbes was thus reported by Hansard :— He regretted to think there should be tho slightest suspicion that appointments wero made to tho Education Department for political purposes. Ho did not say this appointment was a political one. He did not know Mr. Royd Garlick, . but he knew tho member for Hutt • had made out a strong caso for inquiry into tho way m which this appointment was made. It had been freely stated the, appointment was : made for the political'purposes. 'the Hon. Mr. Allen: Who lias, said so? Mr. Forbes said tlio honoiirablo . gentleman know it had been freely stated. In an interview tlio honoiirablo gentleman gave to a reporter of tho "Lyttelton Times" ho stated that ho had followed tho leadof tho American University system: when they saw a good man they appointed him. That was published, and tlio "Lyttelton Times" camo out with a leading article in which , it was pointed out that tho peculiar method in which tho appointment was made gave strength to tho assertion there- was this political colour in tho appointment. Appointment Not Political. Asked by tlio Chairman what ho hac to say, Mr. Forbes said that ho die not think .that ho had much to add ti his statement mado in the Houso. Hi; statement had been ono of fact. Mr Allen had known that much common was being mado oil his action. Ho dii not know that ho could bring ovidenci that this was common talk except b; calling the "man in the street." H would bo in an absurd position if hi had to call half tho population. He ha< said at the timo that he did not thinl the appointment was political. It hai been commented on by several papers and it was common talk that Garlic! had been put into a now position fo which applications had not been called The inference was that the appointmen had some political colour, as application had not been invited, although ther were other men qualified for tho posi tion.. A member of tho Canterbur Land Board had been replaced by man whoso only apparent qualificatio was that he was a prominent Reformei Tho same tiling had been done in th case of the West-port Harbour Board. Mr. Guthrie objected. These matter were now before the Houso, aud ha nothing to do with the presen question. The Chairman: I think Mr. Forbe can bo allowed to mention theso cases They give colour to his statements, a they happened at the same time. 0 courso he cannot be permitted to con tinue on them. A Suspicious Public. Mr. Forbes, continuing, said tlia public opinion was suspicious of appoini ments made by the Massey Goverr ment. Political colour was shown be cause every day men wero appointe to various bodies for no apparent r.easo other than their politics. Ho was ver careful what ho said,in his speech. H said that the member for Hutt ha mado a strong case, and that the mal ter was ono for inquiry. He would b pleased to hear that Royd Garlick coul show himself qualified, and that tlio D( partment had not been unwise, an could justify tho appointment. He sti said what he said in the House, tha tho genera! opinion was that the aj pointment showed political colour. Anxious for the Department. In answer to Mr. Guthrie, Mr. Forlx said that what lie had said in the Hons was that "he regretted to think tliei should be the slightrs 1 , suspicion thr appointments wore made to tho Ethic: : tion Department for political purposes • —not that ho regretted that thiis'part cular appointment had actually bee : made for this.purpose. It was the exis' i enco of the suspicion in the public min i which 'he bad regretted, and still r< gretted. He did not personally kno anv of the circumstances of the casi He had only stated the opinions •li , heard outside. Mr. Guthrie: Mado by whom? Mr. Forbes: By tho general public. Mr. Guthrie: Who are the gener: public? Mr. Forbes: The great- body of tli electors of New Zealand. Mr. Guthrie: How many spoke to yo about it? Mr. Forbes: 'Dozens. Several papei had leading articles about it. I onl wanted to think that the action of th Department was to its credit. 1 Mr. Guthrie: You wid in your spe«c that the appointment was politisal. Mr. Forbes; I did not. Just rea ■ my speech.

I Mr. Guthrie: I have read your Bpeech several times. Mr. Forbes: Well, I think it is a very fair statement of the position, don't you ? Throughout m.v speech I can only seo an. anxious wish that the Education Department should come out without discredit. Mr. Guthrie: There was no innuendo? Mr. Forbes: None whatever. Mr. G. M. Thomson: Do you know anything about Mr. Garliek's political views ? Mr. Forbes: Nothing. I nover saw him until I came into this room. Mr. Thomson: You were justified in making your statement? Mr. Forbes: Yes. I said I didn't know Garliek's political views. Mr. Thomson: What if tho majority of tho House says your speech contained innuendo? Mr. Forbes: Who are the majority of the House? I certainly should not take the Government's opinion on my speech. (Laughter.) This concluded the hearing of the charges. DEFENCE OPENED. DENIAL'BY MR, ALLEN. The Hon. J. Allen said that he would like to rnako a statement with regard to Mr. Laurenson's charge. Tho allegation was a most serious one, and ho thought it .should bo refuted as soon as possible. Mr. Wilford contended that Mr. Herdman should open 'his case before evidence was called for tho defence. This was tlio usual procedure. The chairman said that Mr. Herdman was simply a member of tho committee. The two statements should go out sido by side. It. was a pretty gross charge, and Mr. Allen should ho allowed tlio earliest possible opportunity of refuting it. Mr. Allen said that the chargo mado against him by Mr. Laurenson was that ho had appointed a personal friend. Mr. Laurenson, so far as ho could gather, had produced no cvidenco in support, except the talk of tlio street and newspaper reports. Ho did not know Royd Garlick, and had never seen or heard of him until September 14 last. Ho had determined to ask the advice of some experts with regard to the establishment of tho scheme. Amongst those lie decided on were tlio Inspector-General of Schools, and Drs. Makgill and Hardwick Smith, with whom ho had been in touch, and who were both enthusiasts. Ho determined to set up a committeo of advice, on which would bo tlio Inspector-General, two doctors —a man and a lady—and two expert physical culturists —also a man and a lady. Both Drs. Makgill and Hardwiok Smith had recommended in writing that Royd Garlick and Mrs. Heap, of Auckland, should bo tho physical culturists selected. He had therefore sent for Mr. Garlick, and asked him if lie would sit on tho committee. This was tho first time he had seen Mr. Gariick. Ho ! had nover had any communication with Mr. Garlick except official. He had never been in Mr. Garliek's house, nor had Mr. Garlick ever been in his. Tlioy wero not personal friends. Ho therefore denied Mr. Laurenson's charge. Mr. Royd Garlick gave corroborative ' evidence. Ho 6aid ho could add lio--1 tiling to Mr. Allen's statement, which was perfectly truo. He had never seen Mr. Allen until ho called on him at his request, and had had 110 communication with him in any way. Mr. Laurenson had no questions to ask. Mr. Wilford: I tako it that this reply.is only to Mr. Laurenson's charge. The "chairman: That is so. The charge was so grave that it was only fair that it should bo refuted as soon as possible. Mr. ."Wilford: I presume I will liaye a chance to cross-examine Garlick? Tho chairman: Yes. Mr. Wilford: I can promise him a wliolo day. , • Mr. Allen intimated that his witnesses 'would ho Mr. Hogben, Major Ilumo, Dr. Hardwick Smith, Mr. Just, Dr. Mason, and Mr. Garlick. One of his most important witnesses—Dr. Makgill—was unfortunately now on his way to England. It was decided to' adjourn until 3 p.m. to-day, when the defence of the Department will bo proceeded with.