The Dominion. FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 1913, THE ROYD GARLICK INQUIRY.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1865, 26 September 1913, Page 6

The Dominion. FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 1913, THE ROYD GARLICK INQUIRY.

The rash and unfounded nature of the accusations made by the member for Hutt in the House of Representatives some weeks ago in connection with the appointment of Mr. Royd Garlick as Director of Physical Instruction is fully exposed by the report of-the Select Committee which investigated the charges made. Mr. Wilford was given every opportunity to prove his charges; the Committee afforded him every facility, and even permitted him to waste a great deal of time with irrelevancies and that form of cheap humour which always appears to afford him such immense satisfaction. His failure, and that of tho other members who had been indiscrcet enough to follow his lead, is emphasised by the fact that the Committee, though composed of members from both sides of the Houso, was unanimous in its findings. It was, of course, only to be expected that Mr. Wilford would claim that he had scored a victory. His disposition is very like that of the gentleman who went bear hunting, and who came rushing back to camp for safety with an angry bear tearing after him. "Here he is, boys," he panted, "I've brought him home alive." Mr. Wilford came back from tho Committee of Inquiry defeated on every serious accusation he had made; and, like his hunting prototype, endeavoured to cover his discomfiture by empty shouts of victory. There is no room for doubt on this point, and the member for Hutt is just as likely to convince the public that he succeeded in proving his charges as was the gentleman who was chased into camp by the bear able to convince his companions that he had captured the animal and brought it home with him. Tho charges made and the inferences to be drawn therefrom can bs classified as follows:—(1) That_ the Minister of Education appointed Mr. Garlick for political reasons; (2) that he appointed him for personal reasons; (3) that he appointed a person unqualified for the work; (4) that ho knew that person was unqualified; (5) that tho position was not worth £600 a year; and (6) that applications for the position should have been invited by advertisement before making any appointment. It will be seen from the report of the Committee that Mr. Wilford failed to substantiate any of the charges, and the only contention with which the Committee was in agreement was that_ it would have been advisable to have invited applications for the position both within and without the Dominion. Even in this last-mentioned finding the Committee was careful to explain that in making the suggestion it did not in any way reflect upon tho qualifications of the gentleman who had been appointed. The position then amounts to this: that the Committee unanimously found on the evidence that the allegation that the appointment was made for political purposes was disproved by the evidence. They were unanimously of opinion that the allegation that tho appointment was made on personal grounds was disproved by the evidence. They were unanimously of opinion that tho allegations that Mr. Garlick was unfit for the position and that the Minister had appointed him knowing him to be unfit were unsupported by _ tho evidence. They were unanimously of opinion that tho position was of such a highly responsible character as to warrant tho payment of a salary of £600 a year. The whole _ of the charges and insinuations with which the Opposition have wasted so much time and over which they have raised such a hue and cry in an endeavour to injure the Government failed to materialise when subjected to examination and inquiry. The one point on which the Committee found itself in agreement with Mr. Wilford was, unfortunately for that gentleman, one which can profit him little, for he cannot make use of it without recalling to mind that for many years past similar appointments have been made by the Continuous Ministry which he so consistently supported, without competition of any kind. The report of the Committee is so complete in its survey of tho chargcs ma do and of the failure to prove them that it might bo left to speak for itself but for the fact that the Opposition in their endeavour to extricate Mr. Wilford from his difficulties have attempted to obscure

the issues raised. They have throughout the discussion of tho question of Me. Garliqr/s appointment behaved in a mo,jc ungenerous and most unjust Manner to that gentleman. In or for to prejudice the Government they have descended to attacks on Mr. Garlick in his professional capacity, for which they havo not beenable to show tho slightest justification. The member for'Hutt endeavoured to bolster up his charges by calling a number of gentlemen, professional rivals of Mr. Gahlick before ho secured bis present appointment, to show how much more they knew about their business than Mr. Gahlick did. Most of those witnesses know nothing of Mr. Garlick's work or capacity, and all were led by Mr. \Vileokd to discourse on Swedish drill, as though tho question at issue was tho extent of Mr. Garlick's knowledge of Swedish drill. The whole of the case against Mr. Garlick's appointment was based on the evidence of these gentlemen, and a great part of that evidence had not the least relevance because it dealt with matters outside tho syllabus which it is Mr. Garlick's duty to see given effect to. On the other hand the evidence in support of Mr. Garlick's qualifications for the position comprised not only that of experts in physical culture, but that of medical gentlemen well acquainted with Mr. Garlick's work, and recognised as men capable of speaking with authority as to its value. A very grave injustice has been done to Mr. Garlick by the unjustified attacks made on him, and it is possible also that some injury has been done to Mrs. Garlick in connection with the physical culture school which she now conducts. It is a very poor and a very mean method of political warfare, and is th© more reprehensible because the Opposition must know thait their attacks on the professional knowledge and capacity of Mr. Garlick are wholly unsupported by evidence and quite unwarranted. The Minister of Education naturally must feel gratified over the Committee's unanimous report and Mr. Wilford's failure to substantiate bis charges. But we cannot help thinking that he was in error in taking the member for Hutt seriously. It was really not worth while.