SENSUAL ASSEMBLY.

Globe, Volume XXII, Issue 1992, 13 July 1880, Page 3

SENSUAL ASSEMBLY.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. Monday, July 12. The House met at 2.30 p.m. PETITION. The Hon. T. Dick presented a petition from Olago, praying that the bottle licensing system be not continued. NOTICES OF MOTION. Mr McDonald gave notice that, in Committee of Supply, he would move that one shilling per bushel bo imposed on all maize imported into the colony. Mr Jones gave notice that he would ask if the Government had any objection to call for tenders within the colony for printing telegraphic forms for a period of five years. HOUR OP BITTING. The Hon. J. Hall moved that the sessional order requiring the House to rise at 12,30 be rescinded. Ho said the result of the order had not been satisfactory. When new business was brought on, say at 12 o’clock, the House had been found unwilling to take it up seeing that it could not be continued for mere than half an hour. The result of this was that the half hour had been lost. Looking at work on the order paper, there was a number of most important measures, and they had come to a determination either that they must be abandoned, the session prolonged to a very late date, or else the sittings themselves must be beyond the hours specified. If they had a long session, say four or five months, they would shut out a very desirable class of men who could not possibly remain longer than two or three months. Government wished to have as short a session as possible, to go earnestly to work during the time they sat. They had given the 12 30 experiment a fair trial, and he submitted that it had not been a success.

Messrs Macandrbw, Wallis and Montgomery warmly supported the retention of the 12.30 adjournment. Sir G. Grey said the effect of closing at 12 30 was to make the session shorter than it could otherwise be. He moved as an amendment—“ That the following words be added to the motion : ‘ In the opinion of this House it is undesirable that any public money should bo voted later on any sitting day than 12 30.’ ”

Mr Stbwabt seconded the addition proposed by the last speaker, Mr Lundon condemned the practice of allowing work to be kept on to three and four o’clock in the morning. Mr Thomson opposed the motion. The Hon. Major Atkinson said that unless the order was rescinded the length of the ses sion would be increased at least one-fourth. They could not disguise the fact that there were members in the House who would speak as long as they wore fresh. The addition proposed by the member for the Thames was a most extraordinary one. What it meant was this, that after 12.30 they were not fit to deal with money matters, but they were fit to deal with most important questions of legislation. That was a doctrine he hoped the House would not countenance. Mr Moss, Mr Speight, and Mr Geobgk disapproved of the motion. Mr Readbb Wcod contended that if they sat after 12 30 the business of the following morning must suffer. It was quite as easy for members to obstruct after that hour as before. Ho moved as an amendment on the whole question—“ That Wednesdays, at present devoted to private business, be given up to the Government.” The amendment by Sir G. Grey was then put, and the House divided—Ayes, 29 ; noes, 35. The amendment by Mr Reader Wood was then put, and lost on a division by 36 to 28. Mr Moss moved as a further amendment—- “ That no words be added to the motion, and that any member absent without leave at the rising of the House will be considered as not having bean present that day.” This was lost on the voices, and the original motion was then put and carried. CIVIL BEBVICE BBPOET. Several members expressed their opinion that the discussion on the Civil Service Commissioners’ report should not be gone on with, as the papers had not been distributed amongst members. Mr McLean said that if the motion for the production of these papers wore not allowed to be put and carried the papers could not be produced and discussed. Mr Bcnny complained that the evidence taken by the Civil Service Commissioners and laid on the table had been removed clandestinely. It had been removed from the table since Saturday, in breach of parliamentary privileges. Mr Saundbbs said he had had the evidence for perusal, but it was wrong to say that it had been removed from the building. He also mentioned that the evidence of one of the witnesses named White had been taken away, and no one knew anything about it. The circumstance was suspicious, considering that the evidence of that witness had been under the special notice of the House. The Speaker said ho was informed that the evidence was in custody of tho clerk of Parliament, and open for the inspection of members. When the evidence was taken charge of by tho clerk it was discovered that that by White was wanting. The motion for the postponement of tho discussion on the Civil Service Commissioners’ report was put and negatived. The House rose at 5 30.

EVENING SITTING. The House resumed at 7.30. CIVII. SBBVXCE BEPOET.

Mr Saundebs moved —“ That a copy of the report of Mr W. N. Blair, Bngineer-in-Oharge for the Middle Island, which was read in the House on the 30th of last month by the Minister for Public Works, denying the accuracy of statements made in the report of the Civil Service Commissioners as to the condition of certain railwoy waggons built in Dunedin, and staling that there is not the slightest ground for thinking them defective, and that they have in every instance been well made with proper materials, be laid before this House ; also copies of all correspondence that has passed during the last two years between the Commissioner of South Island Bailways and Mr A. D. Smith, Locomotive Engineer at Christchurch, re condition of rolling stock built at Dunedin ; also letters of February 27th and May Ist, 1879, from the Locomotive Engineer to the Acting Commissioner of Bailways, Christchurch, ‘forwarding sample of tenoning taken from waggon No. 1402 recently built in Dunedin,’ and complaining that that and other waggons had to be ‘ taken off the road as they were literally tumbling to pieces, and no alternative was loft but to rebuild them,* stating also that ‘ The majority of Otago waggons that have come North since the opening of the through line have been in a similar disgraceful condition; ’ also a copy of the report from foreman Anderson, dated Juno 30th, 1879, stating that on taking the waggon s built at Dunedin and Invercargill to pieces he found ‘ that several of the timbers wore without tenons, and the different parts so badly framed as to necessitate rebuilding, and that stringy bark bad been used instead of iron bark,’ also, actual specimens of the stringy bark frames shrunk away from the ironwork, joints without tenons, held up only by the nails in the flooring boards, and samples of slipshod workmanship; cut-off head stocks of waggons numbered in Dunedin 1315, 1595, and 1670, but now rebuilt and numbered s'>l, 66 and 172 ; also specifications for timber and workmanship under which such wagons were built, by whom they were built and by whom they were passed and allowed to run on the New Zealand railway lines ; also the conditions of the tenders called for the supply of timber for wagons at Dunedin in 1879 ; also a list of articles and stores for which tenders have been called within the last two years at Dunedin and Christchurch, the conditions attached to the tender, the number and names of tenderers who have

competed, and the names of officers employed to ascertain which was the lowest tender; also the conditions of the tenders for the supply of castings at Dunedin under which Messrs Davidson and 00. supplied the spoke rolls that were ‘ ordered, paid for and found useless ’; also the amount paid to Messrs Davidson and 00. for patterns, the terms or authority on which such payments were made, and the name of the person with which such patterns are now left.” He said that to remove a misapprehension which might arise from what had been said before the adjournment, he might state that before the Commission broke up it oamo to a resolution that they would not have laid on the table the evidence of James White, and it was not given up with the remainder. The secretary to the Commission since the adjournment had produced that evidence, and it was now before the House. He thought that to gentlemen having been appointed as this Commission had been something more was due than had been conceded to them. The decisions embodied in the report had boon unanimous on their part, and he considered that their verdict was entitled to more respect from the Government and Opposition than it had yet received. He read a loiter from Mr Pharazyn, one of the Commissioners, who we* not a member of the House, The letter stated that Mr Conyers was not, as his reply would infer, held responsible for the mismanagement referred to in the report. He had not displayed (the high qualities necessary for the efficient discharge of the duty he had undertaken, and that was the principal ground of complaint they had to make against him; but ho was not held responsible for all the irregularities disclosed. Referring to the motion, Mr Saunders read the reply made in the report furnished by the South Island engineer. That document was false in every particular. What the report said was that wagg ms Dunedin portions of which were table, and members could judge for themselves as to the character of the workmanship. If these waggons had really been used for ordinary traffic purposes the wonder was how they could possibly have hold together. The member for Tuapoka had asked for the production of all telegrams and correspondence which had passed between him and Mr Allison Smith. No correspondence had passed between him and Mr Smith until after ho ceased to he chairman of the Commission. He read for the information of the House that correspondence, which stated inter alia that there were no fewer than twenty-six waggons in Christchurch waiting to be rebuilt, and making other allegations of irregularity, into the truth of which he asked for an inquiry. With these facts before them, he asked what they thought of the letter placed on the table from one of the highest Civil Servants in tne colony.’ It was simply an attempt to mislead Parliament. He was there to defend the truth, and not as had been alleged to make an all-round attack on any one, either Mr Conyers, Mr Blair, or anyone else. The Commissioners felt they must make a full investigation, and having done so, to give the country the result without regard to whom it might affect. They made the effort with a full sense of the responsibility they were undertaking. The report had been challenged by one of the highest officers in the colony, but it would still stand the fullest test and enquiry. The report had been attacked by the Press, and both by the Government and Opposition. Still in the face of these facts ho was prepared to stand by its authenticity. It was framed and indeed the whole facts were investigated without the slightest party feeling. They went to work with a full determination to get at the truth, and having got at it to make it public, no matter who it might affect. The Civil Service was a standing army banded together for their own interest, and he ooffid tell them that they were well posted up in everything relating to the Government of the country. He had no doubt but that the member for Port Chalmers could as he stated have written a fuller report than the Commissioners had done. He had no doubt of that, considering ho had been to such a large extent mixed up with the affairs of Otago and the colony for so many years. Such a report, however, would have, he was afraid, militated against him (Mr Macandrew), and he had little hope of such a report ever seeing the light of day unless it did so in the shape of a death bed confession. In tho doings of a Commission like this tho public had a guarantee of good faith, and he took it that they were not bound to state every reason brought under their notice for the removal of an officer. In no case had they held back anything that would toll in favor of an officer. If they held back anything it was whore it told more against them than in their favor. Ha reviewed the reply made by Mr Conyers. He might premise for general information that the Commissioners knew nothing about Mr Conyers before they were brought into contact with him on this occasion, nor did he think Mr Conyers sufficiently well acquainted with the Commissioners to venture an opinion that they had proceeded on foregone conclusions. Mr Conyers had taken to himself a great deal more of the report than, was meant for him personally. Much of the complaints in the report might apply to other persons altogether different from Mr Conyers. The speed of trains was referred to, while, as a matter of fact, the report made not the slightest allusion to the matter. Then they had six paragraphs about the telegraph wires. Now that had been since abolished, thereby effecting a saving of £SOOO to tho colony. That itself spoke volumes in favor of the report. At the bottom of tho fourth page of Mr Conyers’ letter there was a paragraph in which allusion was made to the services of servants being retained who had suffered in tho service of the country. Now the fact was that those servants had been ordered to be dismissed by Mr Conyers, and wore only retained at tho instigation of Mr Back, of Christchurch. He apprehended that the proper course would have been to have called upon the head of tho railway department to disprove the allogagallons in the report rather than ask the Commissioners to substantiate it, as had been done. Mr Conyers had stated in evidence that he considered the service well and ably conducted, and when he was asked if he thought any reductions of expenditure possible ho said “No, unless it was 12£ per cent, on tho salaries of officers, from stationmasters downwards.” The House would see the meaning of that recommendation. It would not effect Mr Conyers himself. Then again in his reply Mr Conyers told them that he was endeavoring to use every possible economy ho could, despite his evidence that no further reductions could be made. Mr Conyers took credit to himself for having put the traffic caused by the grain season on an improved footing. The fact was that Mr Conyers had now three times the amount of rolling stock at his disposal than was the case some two years ago. Mr Conyers complained that they had examined a witness who had been discharged for drunkenness. He was not aware of the fact, but still he held that drunkenness did not disqualify a man from being a witness of the truth. Then again, they were more likely to get an insight into tho true workings of the department from a dismissed servant than from one in the employ. He next referred to the reference made in the report to Mr Armstrong, a locomotive engineer, and quoted from his own evidence to show that he was trained as a carpenter, and that he had no knowledge of locomotives till he was appointed to that post. They had further ascertained that Mr Armstrong was largely engaged doing work of no value whatever. Then they were accused of having kept back part of the facts as regarded an officer in Nelson. It was stated that that officer was partly engaged in Blenheim. Now the fact was that in Nelson they ascertained that that man was of no use, and in Blenheim they found he was actually worse than useless, ho was mischievous. He quoted from the evidence given in support of these assertions. Mr Conyers, in his reply, denied that there was a clerk and storekeeper at £l6O per annum in Nelson. He quoted from the evidence of tho storekeeper himself in support of the statement as made in the report, which wont on to say that stores wore got from the storekeepers in Nelson without any tender. He (Mr launders) would only add that the man appeared to bo the most industrious of the lot in Nelson. If he had to choose between them, he would select this man in preference to any of the others. Ho next referred to that part of the report respecting Mr Conyers’ connection with a a mercantile firm contracting with the department. They were charged wilh keeping back part of tho facts regarding this. They did so because it would have compromised Mr Macandrew without doing Mr Conyers tho slightest good. In that case they might have been charged with party feeling. He read the telegrams sent to Mr Conyers putting questions to him on the subject. After several days Mr Conyers replied, asking them

who gave tho Commission information. Subsequently a communication was received from Mr Conyers explaining his connection with tho firm of Davidson and Co., and stating that he had not received interest on his money from that firm. Despite the alleged arrangement that he had left his money in tho firm at interest, it was known to every one in the department that there was a connection between Mr Davidson and Mr Conyers, and it was that fact which caused tho greater portion of the evil. He (Mr Saunders) had that morning received a letter from Dunedin stating that the writer was aware of further transactions between Mr Conyers and Mr Davidson. It alleged that chicanery and irregularities were practised down to the meanest servant in the service. He quoted from the evidence of Jas. White to show that Mr Armstrong had paid 35s and 40s per ton for coal, while the contract price was only 28s lid. He read a letter from Messrs Mason and Struthers, Christchurch, which stated they had so little faith in tho arrangements made by the department that they had given up tendering, and stating their opinion that other firms had been driven to adopt a similar course. The communication also complained of partiality practised by the Department towards contractors. The Commissioners were particularly struck by tho information afforded by certain contractors. The specifications were drawn in such a way as to mislead contractors, and ono man who was seemingly the lowest might in reality be the highest. In that way a friend of tho department was enabled to secure an enormous advantage ; in fact, the Commissioner had things so arranged that ho could ruin some contractors and secure enormous profits for others. That was a dangerous power, but still it nevertheless existed. He quoted prices showing tho discrepancy that existed between the prices paid by the Department for the same articles in Dunedin and Christchurch, He next alluded to the Commissioner for the North Island. He felt in approaching the defence of that gentleman he was approaching the defence made by a thoroughly honest man and a gentleman. They felt that they were dealing with a thoroughly honest man, and all they wished to say was that he was not up to all the duties with the discharge of which he was entrusted. They were convinced that he was a thoroughly trustworthy man ; all they complained of was that he was too much of an office man, and knew too little of what was occurring outside. He was admirably well informed about what was occurring in his own office, but on matters occurring outside they found ho was not so well informed. They found that in Napier sleepers could be got for la 6d, whereas the department was paying 4j OJd. They felt that Mr Lawson was a very worthy man ; at tho same time they felt he had been in some matters outside his own office not properly informed. Mr Lawson was mistaken in thinking they considered him disqualified because he was not an engineer. Ho hoped, in conclusion, that the discussion on this point would bo fairly conducted, and that they would sink personalities and merely contend for principles. The Hon. W. Gisboene quoted from a ruling to tho effect that letters containing charges against any one must be laid on the table of the House, and tho name of the auther of such communication must be given up. Mr Saunders had read a letter, and the name of the writer was kept back. He submitted that the member for Cheviot was bound to give up both letter and the name of the writer. In reply to the Speaker, Mr Sahndees said that the communication referred to was a private letter. The Hon. Major Atkinson contended that the rule did not apply to the case before the House. Mr Moss said if Mr Saunders would assume the responsibility of the letter in his own person that would relieve them from all further difficulty. The Acting Spbakbe ruled that the letter or name of the writer should be given up. Mr Maoandbbw said that so far as ho could judge from tho accusations made in the speech and the report, the Commissioners wished to administer Jedburgh justice—that was, first to hang a man and then to try him. He wished to say that he bad no interest in behalf of any officer, either in the Railway or any other department, but he felt he must protest against any public officer being maligned on the mere ipse dixit of a so-called Royal Commission. Ono of the objects of that report, in fact its chief object, was to oast odium on the Government of which he was a member. They could not expect anything else from Commissioners who were violent political partisans. But he must protest against such charges being made against servants not here to (defend themselves. He for one would like to see better grounds for acting ‘upon the report than had yet been produced. Mr Saunders had associated Mr Conyers’ name with his; all he knew about Mr Conyers’ business was that ho preferred leaving the department and joining with Mr Davidson, but he was induced to give up the idea and remain in the service. Subsequently, when he (Mr Macandrew) became Minister for Public Works some of Mr Conyers’ friends made an anonymous representation to him about his connection with Messrs Davidson and 00. He called on Mr Conyers to explain that connection, and Mr Conyers had done so to his satisfaction. It was a singular fact that the chairman of the Commission which had devoted so much attention to the Railway Department was connected with a firm which was at daggers drawn with that department. Mr Saunders said that ho had been accused of having some business transactions with Mr Conyers. That was a gross misrepresentation. He scouted the idea that ho would use his position as a Royal Commissioner to vent his spleen on anyone. As to his sons, only one of them ever had anything to do with Mr Conyers, and that only of the most friendly nature. Sir W. Fox followed Mr Macandrew, contending that the utmost credence should be placed in the report of the truth of which the pieces of tho waggon on the table offered the strongest evidence. He felt confident that if the report were acted upon, thousands of pounds would be saved to the colony. The Hon. W. Gisboene criticised the report at some length. Tho Hon. R. Oliver said that the Government had not yet had time to read the evidence carefully, consequently any opinion on their part would be premature. Mr Shbimski and Mr Thomson spoke against the report. Mr Reader Wood approved of tho action taken by Mr Saunders, and contended that the report showed the utmost want of good management. Mr Kelly supported the report, saying that he was satisfied that £30,000 or £40,000 could be saved on stores alone. Mr Johnston said the value of the report was simply to guide tho House to a conclusion as to the conduct of the Government. After some remarks from Major Harris, Mr Seddon proposed to add to the motion an amendment, asking for some further return a. The amendment was agreed to, and the motion as amended adopted. The House rose at 1 a. in.