The Gisborne Times PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 30, 1907.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXV, Issue 1992, 30 January 1907, Page 2

The Gisborne Times PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 30, 1907.

Fkom the Evening Post we learn that our last article on the awful muddling of the Stock Department has been brought under the notice of the lion. Mr. McNab, who selects one item of the many facts therein, detailed, and gives that one an emphatic denial in these words: “There is not a scintilla of truth in it.” Now that seems a crusher, and if the hou gentleman had stopped there he might have gained some credence for his statement; but he went on to explain wliat! the actual position is, and in doing so he, while denying the truth of our assertion in one breath, admitted its full accuracy in the next. The statement that Mr. McNab says there is not a scintilla of truth in is that “he lias re-organised the whole system of stock inspection, and that lie has taken the control absolutely out of the hands of Mr. Gilruth and his twenty qualified assistants, and placed it in the hands of unqualified men.” That was what we said in our issue of Bth inst., and we are not going to retract' it now simply because it is true notwithstanding the Minister's denial, and because also that the Minister himself has admitted the truth of the statement that the control is not in he hands of Mr. Gilruth. Hear what he has to say upon the matter himself and then judge who is telling the truth. “This statement, says the Post’, was brought under the notice of the Minister this morning, ’There is not a scintilla of truth in the story,’ Mr. McNab replied in answer to a question. Mr. Gilruth is responsible to me for the whole of the meat inspection of the cclony, and reports to me through the agricultural inspector, as he has always done in the past.’ ” Exactly so. That' is just what we have .been saying, viz., that Mr. Gilruth is under the control of the newly-ap-pointed Chief Inspector, and now let us ask which statement of the Minister is the correct one, for if our statement is untrue, Mr. Gilruth has complete control and is responsible

■to the Minister only; and conversely, if that is not so Mr. Gilrutli Ims not control and is under Hie direction S’f somoono olso hosiilo tho Minister. Mr. McNub may try as lie will to wrigglo out of his awkward dilommu but facts will remain facts whatever lie may say. Now what aro tho fuel's P In October last Mr. McNab, in reply to a deputation which had urged tho establishment of a Veterinary College, stated that lio was arranging for tlio systematic education of the .Stock Inspectors now in tlio omploy of the Department by Mr. Gilrutli, and that statement was made to satisfy the strong representations made at, various times in favor of professional efficiency and control in matters of meat and stock inspection as against itispoction by men who wero not qualified veterinarians; hut instead of doing what ho thou promised tlio Minister lias, wo repent, “reorganised the whole system of moat and stock inspection, and taken tlio control out of t'lio hands of Mr. Gilrutli and placed it in the hands of an unqualified Inspector whom lie has appointed at LSOO a year, who under tho reorganisation scheme, is vested with full control of Mr. Gilruth’s work in the matter of inspection.” Is not this statomont admitted by tlio Minister when lie says “Mr. Gilrutli is responsible to mo,” “and reports to mo through tho Agricultural Inspector.” Mr. Gilrutli may have the responsibility, wo never said lie hud not; hut ho has not the control which wo have assorted, and the Minister admits, lie has not. Our statement is therefore in no way shaken by the Minister’s denial which we challenge him to substantiate. In further explanation lie is reported to have said: —“The recent changes made in the Department have not affected Mr. Gilruth’s work or reduced his control or prejudiced him in any way whatever. As proof of this, I might mention that it is only within tlio last two or three days that I refused an appointment as meat inspector because it was not approved by Mr. C. ,1. Reakes, who is acting as chief of the Department during Mr. Gilruth’s absence,” and the statement is only partly correct while it is wholly misleading. It is true that the changes have not “affected Mr. Gilruth’s work or reduced his control” of the laboratory, for it is obvious that nothing short 1 of removal from office could affect that; hut as regards inspection it is not so, and while it may he true that the Minister refused to make an unqualified appointment “two or three days” ago, after the Secretary had seen our exposure of other similar appointments, it is equally true that appointments have actually been made of individuals as Inspectors of Stock who have failed to pass the examinations prescribed by law for Inspectors under tho Slaughtering and Inspection Act, 1900. If- Mr! Gilrutli had the control which the Minister ascribes to him, this would never have occurred, and if the Minister has the hardihood to deny that it has occurred let him at once accept our challenge to prove our statement before a Committee of the House of Representatives, lie to nominate half the members of that Committee and wo will nominate the other half. Why lias lie not done anything to train the Stock Inspectors as promised ? Why lias ho not denied any of the other serious charges that we have levelled against the Department,? If ho does denyitliem wo aro prepared to prove our words beforo any proper tribunal. Not only that, but we have a great deal more to say on the subject' of the Department’s muddling and unfairness which we shall not hesitate to say when wo , have, as we have always done, thoroughly authenticated our facts so that we may be prepared for both Ministerial and Departmental denials. It is not the first time that wo have had denial from Ministers upon facts which wc knew of our own knowledge to be true, not because Ministers are wilful perverters of tho truth, perhaps, but because they are satisfied i‘o deny anything that is unfavorable to their administration at tho instigation, and upon the information, of the men who lead them into the muddles and who could not be induced to admit- their ererrors. But mere dotails aro not sufficient iii matters of this kind where the public service of the country is being ruined by the most abominable muddling that it is possible to conceive. Something more than that is wanted, and if the Minister desires to maintain his veracity he has the chance offered to him of doing so or admitting his error, for we are not going to shirk our responsibilities in the matter, which we would be doing were we to keep silence while the country’s interests are being most deplorably abused by incompetence and mismanagement of a State Department.