MR LAWSON IN REPLY.

Globe, Volume XXII, Issue 1990, 10 July 1880, Page 3

MR LAWSON IN REPLY.

| WELLINGTON, July 9. > A long letter from the Commissioner of 1 North Island railways, in reply to the charge i against him in the Civil Service Commiei sioners’ report, was laid upon the table of the i House this afternoon. Mr Lawson commences by stating that Mr Conyers has nothing to do with the Eaipara section, as the report implies. Eeferring to what the report says upon the management of that section, Mr Lawson says that shortly after his appointment to the North Island he found on the Eaipara railway an inspector of permanent ways as well as a sub-manager. He pointed out to Mr McDomld, the general manager of the Auckland district, thatjjthe line was over-officered, and proposed to dispense with the sub-manager, Mr Hankey, and place the joint management of the traffic and station-master’s department under the supervision of one man. Mr McDonald took exception to this arrangement, arguing that the line suffered from faulty construction, and that its maintenance was a source of difficulty and anxiety. Ultimately it was agreed that the inspector of permanent ways should go, and Mr Hankey, who was a civil engineer, should fill his post. Mr Lawson says—“ The management at Helensville at present consists of a submanager, at £3OO ; station master, at £125 ; total, £425 per annum. If sub-manager Hankey were sent away the hno would require an inspector of permanent way, £260 ; station master, £l5O ; and a junior clerk, £7O. Total, £420.” With regard to the paragraph in the report which says, “ in the North formalities and safeguards have been adhered to with great strictness, and sometimes carried a little too far, but in neither Island could we find any evidence of able, searching economy, supervision, or any vigilant protection of the [public interest,” Mr Lawson says that this portion seemed to him so contradictory that he merely drew the attention of the Public Works Minister to its inconsistency. He takes exception to the next sentence —“ We found the Commissioner of the North Island insufficiently informed upon many important points of his own department, without a knowledge of which it was impossible that he could efficiently protect the public interest.” The letter says he would not yield to any man regarding knowledge in what he deemed the leading feature of railway management, viz., thorough acquaintance with traffic matters. He had admitted to the Commissioner that he had no professional training in actual civil or mechanical engineering. His knowledge was confined to what many years’ observation in connection with railways taught him. He points out that it is to be inferred from the extracts given that the Commissioners make it a sine qua non. that a thorough knowledge was absolutely necessary, and yet, in another place, they recommend tho appointment of a man to take the supervision and responsibilty of the whole department, and that such an officer “ should be rather a man of business than simply an engineer, or even a railway expert.” Regarding the accusation that the district officers were evidently guided and restrained with a very loose hand, Mr Lawson says that appeared to be inconsistent with the Commissioners’ conviction that safeguards have been adhered to with great strictness. He, however, denies the charge Jof laxity and challenges proof of it. Mr Lawson then quotes the percentages for the last six years. In 1874-5 the percentage of expenses to receipts was 91.12 ; in 1875 6, 84.16 ; next year, 85.54; nextyear, 81.81; next year, 74.53 ; and in 1879 80 the percentage was 72.87. “These results,” continues Mr Lawson, “could only have been accomplished by ‘ vigilant and economic supervision.’ ” The last two years were under his supervision, and the results should call forth commendation rather, than censure. The nature of the variance between the General Manager and Traffic Manager was known to the Public Works Minister, and left no alternative to recommending the acceptance of the latter’s resignation. The Commissioners were placed in possession of all the facts of the case, and, notwithstanding this, and his (Mr Lawson’s) explanation of the actual part tho trafiio manager took in accomplishing the reductions of the working expenses from 94 to 68 per cent, on receipts, the report led to the inference that this resulted entirely from the traffic manager's exertions. The real fact was that it was due to his (Mr Lawson’s) own action determined upon before tho traffic manager’s appointment, viz., reducing the train mileage by 90,000 miles per annum, and the permanent way staff by 20 per cent. These changes coming into operation simultaneously with the traffic manager’s services had apparently , been taken advantage of by the traffic manager whilst airing his grievances before ( the Commissioners. In a previous letter to the Minister for Public Works, Mr Lawson had given credit to the traffic manager for a thorough knowledge of traffic management and for contributing his fair share to the general success. For the purpose of rebutting the Commissioners’ charges of various shortcomings incompatible with good management, Mr Lawson submitted tho results of his Canterbury experience of railway management. Mr Lawson concluded by stating that the report contained unmerited disparagement, but not having seen the evidence upon which the Commissioners have based their statements, he was not in a position to deal more fully with the imputations. He was, however, conscious of having loyally and faithfully used his best efforts in the direction so much to be desired, viz., making the railways useful and profitable. He was satisfied that these results would be accomplished if the public were leas exacting in their demands upon tho department. The curtailment of many luxuries in the direction indicated had for some months been practised, and this would be far more to the purpose than any undue reductions in the pay of many deserving men who have onerous duties to perform. The letter, which is addressed to the Minister for Public Works, is sent as a protest to the report. Ho expresses himself satisfied to leave any other action in the hands of the Public Works Minister.