The Globe. SATURDAY, MARCH 4, 1876.

Globe, Volume V, Issue 534, 4 March 1876, Page 2

The Globe. SATURDAY, MARCH 4, 1876.

“We have refrained hitherto from commenting on the very remarkable state of things existing in the Railway Department, for the reason that rumour was the only foundation for the exceedingly , meagre information which was alforded to the public. Now, however, things have assumed a different character, and what has transpired at the enquiry recently held seems to us to call imperatively for a full, searching, and open enquiry. Charges affecting the character of officers in the public service have been freely made, and have been circulated widely, and it is only due to those gentlemen that they should have an opportunity of refuting them as publicly. Besides this, the people are entitled to know the real state of an important public department which, if we are to believe all we hear, is in a state of demoralisation, or at least as nearly approaching official tyranny as it is possible to be. If all we can learn is true, there is wanted a thorough clearance, not of the minor officials, wbo bays on thi» occasion been made

the scapegoat for the blunders of their superiors, but of those high in office, who now seek to perpetuate the tale of mismanagement which has made the Canterbury Railway Department under the system of Executive interference a bye-word and a reproach. We need only point to many well-known instances of official blundering, which have cost the province hundreds—nay thousands of pounds—to support this assertion. Red tape and circumlocution run rampant in the department, and the public interest suffers accordingly. The present enquiry, as conducted, is a mere farce, and worse than that, a great injustice to those who have been called upon to defend themselves from charges made against them; and only tends to raise still more in the minds of the public the suspicion that there is something very rotten indeed in the administration of this department —one •of the most important in the public service. The Government, if their administration be the wonderfully faultless and economical one they wish us to believe, have nothing to fear from a public inquiry. If, as the rumour goes, the officers under suspension have been guilty of gross breaches of regulations, it is they, and not their superiors, who have taken the course of suspending them, who have cause to fear the light of day being let in on the inquiry. But such is not the case. The presumed delinquents themselves court a public inquiry ; thej r demand it, but who are those who set their faces against it? Why, the very persons who, if their action be taken in the interests of the public, and for the well-being of the department, would receive from the public a recognition of their services and an endorsement of their action. This, to our mind, at once raises a supicion that all is not right even with these public spirited individuals, these rigid disciplinarians. It seems as if they, and not the accused persons, were the people who are afraid to allow the proceedings to go forth to the public. Of course we are quite prepared to hear the usual official formula —“ The Government do “not consider it prudent to make “ public what is a mere matter of “ departmental administration.” This is a very convenient way of shelving a disagreeable matter ; of effectually concealing from the public the true state of affairs. But this will not do ; the matter has got beyond mere departmental administration; it is to all intents and purposes a public question, and one too of considerable importance. It raises the question whether or not the present conduct of the Railway Department, by the Government and heads of departments, is such as to conduce to the public interest. Surely in such a large matter as this; where the management or mismanagement of so important a public property is concerned, the proprietors ( i.e ,, the people) have a right to know if those entrusted by them with the work are discharging their duty properly. This can only be done by the fullest publicity being given to enquiries such as the one now proceeding—an enquiry which, we maintain, involves far more than the question of whether the officers accused have violated the regulations or not. As we have said, the Government and heads of departments, if their administration has been what it should be, ought not to fear but rather to court the fullest and most public enquiry. Those accused request it, and as an act of common justice to them, as well as a duty they owe to the people, the Government should at once accede to the request.