MR. CONYERS' REPLY TO THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION.

Oamaru Mail, Volume IV, Issue 1319, 5 July 1880, Page 2

MR. CONYERS' REPLY TO THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION.

(FROM OUR OWN CORRESPONDENT.) • Wellington July 2. The reply of Mr. Conyers to the charges contained in the report of the Civil Service Commission was laid upon the table of the House to-day. Mr. Conyers deals clearly, and forcibly with' the accusations made against his conduct of the railways of the Middle Island, and proves beyond doubt what has all along been generally believed, that the Commissioners arrived too hastily at a conclusion, and that they committed the almost unpardonable mistake of forming opinions upon evidence of an unreliable nature. The letter is a very long one, and I shall therefore, in order to bring it within limits suitable to your columns, endeavor to summarise it as briefly as possible. Mr. Conyers opens by pointing out that while the Commissioners admit that they had gone exhaustively into none of the subjects upon which they, while their report was in some respects superficial, the conclusions arrived at and the opinions expressed are very different; they are largely directed against himself, the report containing a direct impeachment of his administration of the Railway Department of the Middle Island. It will be, he says, for the Government, the House, and the public to decide whether the report is not only confessedly superficial to such an extent as to render it untrustworthy, but whether it is not inaccurate and misleading. He declares the opinions expressed to, be either the result of foregone conclusions, or hastily-formed derived from a superficial insight into matters with which the Commissioners were insufficiently acquainted. Ho alleges that there are in their statements so much inconsistency and misapprehension that it requires some amount of patience to separate wliat ia correct from what is erroneous. He gives an elaborate explanation of the system of managing railways in England and America., and says that the system in force under his direction is precisely similar. After explaining the positions occupied by himself and the chier officers of the department, he proceeds to deal with the complaint of the Commissioners that traffic managers are precluded from giving orders to the engine-drivers except through the locomotive engineer, arid says the Commissioners confound the functions of the traffic manager with those of the general manager. He says : One of the most prominent duties of the traffic manager is that of ordering movements of trains. The rule is that the traffic manager only shall have power to alter the appointed orossing-nlacs of two trains. This is the regular practice oil other railways. . . . . ' . During my examination the Commissioners particularly pressed me ctn this puint, alleging that when trains were behind time this rule was productive of further d?lay. They strongly insisted that every stati'oninaster should be empowered to arrange the crossing-places of trains, and alter them to suit emergencies that may occur. I entirely disagreed with them, because I know that any sucli arrangement on single lines of railway, such as these principally are, would inevitably result in collision of trains, and, in consequence, logs of life. I still adhere to my rule that £q sucft discretionary power 'is to be allowed to any but the traffic manager upon the division allotted to his control. This officer has quite enough on his hands to properly arrange for the safe running of trains, together with the discharge of the rest of his duties connected with the traffic. If, as supposed by the Commissioners, his time should be occupied in looking after matters connected with rolling-stock or permanent way, the confusion into which train arrangements would be thrown, and the disaster consequent, may be readily foreseen.

Mr. Oonyers then scores a strong point against the Commissioners by stating that the instance given by them of an enginedriver stopping at certain points under orders from the Locomotive Engineer occurred on the ISTorth Canterbury line while he was stationed in Dunedin, and under an old rule with which he had nothing to do. The rule was at once amended, and he aslvs (< What right haye the sioners to advance this as an instance of my mismanagement ? It seems to me it rather goes to show that they have been seeking far and wide to make out a case against me." He then refers to' the allusion made by the Commissioners to an order made by him, which had been so literally interpreted as to cause loss of time to the public, and the incurrence of; danger. He proceeds : I have no difficulty in recognising ill this a reference tq a special order' issued by 'nje directed against the dangerous practice of running trains at excessive speed to make up lost time by delay. The lines 114 jfew Zealand were nob constructed in a manner to admit of anything like the speed commonly attained on many first-class railways at Home. To exceed the rate of speed for which a railway is adapted by its construction is not only highly dangerous, but is productive of enormous waste and Iciss excessive wear and tear:, , . . ' T The

tendency to run at an' excessive speed is a growing one, unless kept duly in olieek. There is no discretionary line that can be drawn to define at what speed trains half an hour behind time may be run, therefore it is necessary to impose an authoritative limit. As I do not desire that in railways rradey my charge the rtltijriatq limit should be reached—that is, that trains should run off the rails through excessive speed—l have imposed other limits. It is no doubt provoking to passengers when a train is delayed, perhaps in the early part of a journey, to find they are kept behind 'time' for a cansiderable' pari of the day; but they will doubtless agree with me'that it is better that it should be so than run the risk of accident through running at a reckless speed to make up a little time. It behoves a careful manager to put into force all proper and necessary restraint. To withdraw it, as the Commission would have it, would bp to. court confusion ami danger. ' - Mr. Conyers denies that the railway telegraph system was initiated by him, thougii he admits that he has strongly advocated its maintenance, and says that under the able superintendence of an officer appointed by his desire the efficiency of the service was largely improved. He points out that the introduction of the telegraph into railway stations has resulted in a direct saving of time, labor, and jnoney, hesidos adding largely security of the traffic. To this lie had e'xtended'the advantage of'railway officers beipg instructed in telegraphy, Stationmasters, signalnqenj railway and office boys were trained in telegraphy, and telegraph clerks were trained to railway duties. No additional hands were introduced as the report would lead the reader to suppose, to swell the ranks of a fostpred department, but the adoption of telegraphy to serye the requirements of the'lntended railway systerjv was sole aim in view. The system had already been abolished, and the railway telegraph amalgamated with the general public telegraph service. Adverting to the reference made by theG'omirjissiqrigrs to the non ; requireme'nt of locopiotiye engines, Mr. Conyers says :

It is not to be supposed that a witness in an hour's interview will be able to foiir personp new to the subject acquainted with : the various and intyiqate clutigS of a locomotive engineer or superintendent. To entrust the care and working of 53 locomotive engines, valued at L 90,000, to a shop foreman, however long experienced, would neither be prudent nor practical. If the service is to improve and keep pace with the advancements of the age, a number of matters of detail muStfas attended to tvith tlje minutest attention and care, Over and above the actual repairing of machinery! which the Commissioners suppose to be the sum total of the Engineer's duties. .

Referring to the Nelson manager, Mr. Conyers says that that officer is a re-; gularly trajnecl and in addition to the ordinary duties of a manager, is entrusted with the main-

tenance of the way and the superintenj dence of locomotives, not only in Nelson, but on the Picton and Blenheim line. In regard to the storekeeper alleged to receive Ll6O a year, he points out that this officer receives and issues and keeps accounts of stores, and that the total cost of the work, salary and all told, was under L3O for the nine months ending 011 the 31st March. He points out that included in the indictment is a reference to the assistant manager at Kaipara, and that as this officer is located in the North Island he (Mr. Conyers) has no connection with the matter. Dealing with the remark of the Commissioners with reference to the number of gate and crossing keepers, Mr. Conyers states that he had greatly reduced the number that he found installed on taking charge of the Canterbury railways in 1877.; that by this means he had effected a considerable saving ; that it is necessary where a largo number of vehicles cross the lines to have watchmen to ensure public safety ; that the men engaged as watchmen are men who have grown too old to earn a living by ordinary work, and men who in the discharge of dangerous duties have accidentally been maimed and crippled for life ; that while he had urged that the railways should not be saddled with the support of men who could not do remunerative work, he could not turn adrift to starve persons who have faithfully served and suffered in the service.of the department. On this subject he adds : "Every railway company of standing makes provision for its servants under such conditions. Means should be devised for placing the support of disabled servants of good character on a legitimate footing. There is no great saving to bo effected by turning off the few persons who remain in such capacities, and they are at the same time safeguards of the public at particularly dangerous • roadcrossings. " With reference to the great variety of engines on the railways, Mr. Conyers points out that of the 16 classes he was responsible for the importation of two only—one some years since for the Otago Provincial Government, and the other recently. He says further that in his evidence before the Commissioners he stated that five classes of engines would , have sufficed for all varieties of work, and that considering the evidence the Com- ! missioners actually had in their possession it was unjust on their part to endeavor to saddle upon him the blame of introducing a multiplicity of classes o? locomotives. Dealing with the Commissioners' reference to the. large staff employed by the department as contractors for collection and delivery of goods, and the statements that the system throws additional work on the Government for the public, and that the Urge scaf£ might be reduced and the public QonveniencQ better served ; without increase of eost, Mr. Conyers 'writes ■-=

Nothing could have been penned that could more" completely display the utter want of ordinary business knowledge in connection with railway working than the a,bove. The delivery service is the mosft important part of the goods department. Without it we should be in utter- confusion. Before its introduction the goods sheds were blocked. Consignees were allowed to cart their own goods, and they did whatever suited their own convenience. The department at per ton, and charges consignee:} in the same way. If one-quarter pf a ton is delivered at Dunedin ox- Christ church, onequarter of a tor-, ia cKarged for at Is 3d per ton. instead of throwing additional work on the Government, it has a directly contrary effect, as the contractors not only oleai; the sheds, but collect the money. With regard ta the damage done to railway carriages through being exposed ;to the weather and to exposure of valuable j engines to the weather and spray of the ! sea,"Mr. Conyers'rejoinders are short but forcible. In the first case the carriages were exposed to the weather because they were placed on an unfinished section of a line before housing accommodation was provided; and in the second case he had made numerous recommendations to the Government t$ .provide suitable sheds for the, protection *of the engines, After dealing with the absurdity of maintaining two distinct staffs qf engineers, and showing that he is not responsible for this, Mr. Conyers proceeds to answer the charge made by the Commission that in the management of railway stores' there is a want of system, supervision, and precaution so great that it can hardly fail to lead to most objectionably practices and to serious pubU<? loss. 9e. complains of the want of expneitness on the payfc of tlie Commission, and says that, they fail to establish a single instance of " objectionable practices" 1 or serious loss," of which the Commissioners speak so confidently. He says it is to be regretted that their report, when stating that public officers have had most tempting facilities offered them to gratify contractors by passing inferior and that they did not alwajs resist the temptation, did not al£jQ state wliat the facilities referred to are, in order that steps might be taken to do away with such facilities. He condemns the latter portion, of the statement as casting a slur up,on a body of honorable men who, have no opportunity of defending themselves. If the Commissioners have obtained evidence implicating one or more individuals, the suspected persons should be accused frankly and boldly, and placed upon their defence. A stigma should not thusi be placed upon a whole department. In dealing with Oom- : missioners'- remarks about tenders having i been accepted for- "largely consumed articles at prices that should never have been entertained," Mr. Conyers says this remark is another illustration of the very limited knowledge which the Commissioners possessed of the subject to which they devoted their and that they should liava known, that the working railways'department has nothing whatever to do with the construction of railways or with providing material for construction, and that in using allegation as a stone to sing at him they were making a charge against him out of a matter with which he had not the remotest connection.

After dealing briefly with one or two other small matters, Mr. Conjfei'Q refers to his connection an engineering firm o<s follows . — ; As regards the charge tha.t I have my capital invested in a firm largely contracting with the department, and that my receipts from. thjit capital depend upon the success <}f the firm, I heg to state that I placed all the circumstances of the case before the Commission, that they know that my money remains in that firm against my will and under circumstances entirely beyond my control. Whether, while stating, as the Commissioners have done, that which was calculated to placei me in an unfavorable light, to state the facts which are my justification, and which were equally within the knowledge of the Commissioners, I leave for others to decide. The facts of my connection with the firm referred .to. are as follow :—When wa3 in the service of the Provincial Government, I resigned my position to enter into partnership with Mr. Davidson, and I put such capital as j possessed into the business. Before any great lapse of time, the Government solicited me to' resume my old position in the service, and, an their offering mci a large increase gf salary, I consented. I would gladly have withdrawn my capital, but it was by this time so completely absorbed into the business that Mr. Davidson found it impossible to pay me out, and at his earnest solicitation, and because I could not help myself, I allowed it to remain in the business as an investment, at a promised interest of 8 per cent. This was done with the full knowledge and acquiescence of the Government, My partnership with Mr. Davidson was at once dissolved by a formal and, and one of my first actaosresuming my official functipiis was to issue an order to the eQjetqt th^t'vn^er, no 'circumstances ,we?e any aepartmehtar<jrders^tobegiventothis firm of Davidson and Co*, and I have never mad,a use of any influence I may possess on Mv.

Davidson's behalf, either directly or indirectly. Having no control over Mr. Davidson, I had no means of preventing him from competing when contracts were publicly advertised, nor in the strength of conscious integrity would I have authorised such control had I possessed it. As a fact he has on several occasions competed for contracts, and he lias, I believe, twice obtained them, but, as the contracts are always given under Minister's authority to the lowest tenderer, it will be for unprejudiced persons to consider whether any reasonable grounds exist for seeking to fasten an imputation upon mo in this connection.

[We are compelled to hold over until to-morrow the concluding portion of Mr. Conyers' letter.]