PARLIAMENT.

Oamaru Mail, Volume IV, Issue 1319, 13 July 1880, Page 2

PARLIAMENT.

.. ••• J ' f i v ' ■'i'i -- I _ WEIjUDfGTONj July 12. i In the -House of Representatives' today, ' - - Air. .M.'Di>n:tld gave notice that in Com- • c he would move that Is i br> nel 1)« nnposed on all maize lm..Mrcea 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 telegraph forms for a.period of, five years. Mr; H&ll moved that the sessional order requiring the House to rise at 12. .30 be, rescinded. Thereupon a long debate. ; . Sir George Grey moved as an amendejment that the following words be added to the motion :—" In the opinion of this House it is undesirable that any public money should be voted later on any sitting day than 12.30. After some further discussion, Mr. Reader Wood moved as an amendment on the whole question that Wednesdays, at pres.ent devoted-to private business, be given up to the Government. Ther amendment by Sir G. ;,Grey was then put. 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 an amendment that the words be added—"And that any member absent without leave at the rising of the Housed will be considered as not having been present that day." Lost on the voices. The original motion was then put and carried. Several - members expressed their opinions that the discussion , of the Civil Service Commissioners' report should not be gone on with, as the papers had not been distributed amongst members. Mr. M'Lean said that if the motion for the production of these papers were not -allowed to be put and carried the papers could not be produced and. discussed. \ , Mr, Bunny complained that the evi* dence' taken' by the Civil Service Commissioners, and. laid on the table, had 'often removed clandestinely. They had been removed from the table since Saturday. This was a breach of parliamentary privilege. Mr. Saunders said he had had the evidence for perusal, but it was wrong to, say it had been removed from build-, ing. He also mentioned th&t the evidence of one of the-witnesses named- White had been taken away, and no one knewanything j about it. The circumstance was suspicious, considering, the evidence of that witness had been under the special notice of the. House.' The Speaker said he was informed the; evidence was in the custody, of the- Clerk; of Parliament, and open for the inspection; of members, When the evidence was taken charge of by the Clerk, it was dis-1 covered that that; of White was wanting, \ The motion for the postponement of ; the discussion on the Civil Service -00111-! missioners report was put and negatived, j Mr. Saunders moved that a copy of the; report of Mr. W. N. Blair, Engineer-in-; Charge for the Middle Island, which wasj read in' the House' on the 30th of last j month by the" Minister for Public Works,'denying the aocuracy qf statements-made; in the report of the Civil Service Commis-j sioners as to the condition of certain rail-; way waggons built in Dunedin, statingthat 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, for copies of all correspondence' that has passed, during the last two years between the Commissioner for the Soutli Island and Mr. W, D. Smith, Locomotive Engineer at Christchurch, re condition of rolling stock built at Dunedin. Also for' letters of 27th February and Ist May, 1879, from.. Locomotive Engineer to _4cting?oommissianer of Railways, Ghristchurch,." forwarding sample of tenoning taken from waggon No. 1402, recently built in Dunedin," and complaining that it and other waggons had to be taken off the road, as they were literally tumbling to pieces, and no alternative left but to rebuild them ; stating also that the majority of the Otago waggons that have come north since the opening of the through line have been in a similar disgraceful condition. Also for a copy of the report from Mr. Foreman Anderson, : dated 30th June, 1879, stating on taking the waggons built at Dunedin and Inveroargill to pieces he found "that several of the ; timbers were without tenons, and that the different parts were so badly framed as to necessitate rebuild-; ing," and that' stringy bark had been used instead of iron bark; also that actually specimens of the stringy bark frames shrunk away from the iron- work without tenons " and were held up only by the flooring boards," and samples of slipshod workmanship were cut off the head stocks of waggons numbered in Dunedin 1515, 1595, and 1670, but, are now re-built and numbered 561, 66, and 172. Also specifij cations for timber and workmanship under which such waggons were built, by whom they were buiH, and by whom they were passed and allowed to run on the New Zealand railway lines.' Also conditions of tenders called for supply of timber for waggons in Dunedin in 1879,. Also for .list of articles and stores for which tenders have been called within the last two years at Dunedin and Christchuroh, the conditions attached ■ to the tender, the numbers and names of the tenderers who have competed, and the names of officers employed, to ascertain which was the lowest tender; also, the condition of tenders for supply of castings at Dunedin under which Davidson and Co. supplied the spoke rolls that were " ordered, paid for, and found useless." Also, the amount' paid to, Davidson and Co. for patterns, the terms or authority o,n which such paymentg were made, ana the name of the' person with whom such patterns are now left.- - He said that, to. remove a misapprehension which might arise from what had been said before the adjourniment, he might state that before the Com: mission broke up, it came.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 tho Commission, since the adjournment, had produced that evidence, and it was riow before • the ; House. . The decision, embodied in the .report had been unanimous on their part, and he considered their verdict was Entitled to more respect from..the Government and the Opposition than it. had yet received. He tead'a letter from Mr. Pharazyn, one of the Commissioners', who was not a member of the House.; '..The-letter stated -that -Mr. Conyers~ was not,- as -his -reply would infer, held- responsible for the mis;management referred to in the report; -He-'had s not displayed the high'qualities necessary for the-efficient discharge 6f. the duty he had undertaken, and that was the principal grourid of r cdmplaiht : they had t6 make agkinSt him ; buthewas not-'held responsible • |or all the irregularities disjplosed/ j^eferring,; to the Saunters,read;t|ie reply, fqrnished s3?'Vtn& South Island' Engineer. v That document was falseiin-every particular. ; ; The report stated that waggons of a certain character. were built in Dunedin. 'Portions of these -were' now laid on the 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 ponder was how they could 'possibly-hive held together. - The member for Tuapeka had asked for the ■production of v a.ll;, telegrams; and corres- ■ pondeiice whichJiad _passed between Hiin and, Mr.; Smith until after he ceased to bp Chaiymanj ,of t the fof tlie JpErax^tTon,-of^that

correspondence, which stated inter alia that there were no fewer than 26 waggons in Christchurch waiting to be rebuilt, and making other allegations of irregularity, into the truth of which he asked for an enquiry. 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 the Colony. It was simply an attempt to mislead Parliament. The Commissioners felt that 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 .they . were undertaking. The report had been challenged, and by one of the! highest officers in the Colony, but it-would still stand the fullest test of an enquiry. The report had been attacked by the press, and both by the Government and the Opposition; still, in the face of these facts, he was prepared ito stand by its authenticity. They 'went to work with a full determination to get at the truth, and having got it, to make it' public, no matter whom it might affect. The Civil Service was an army, banded together for their own interest, and he could tell them that they Nvere well posted in everything relating to the' Government and the country. In the ; doings of' a Commission like this the 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 removal of an officer. In no case had they held back anything that would tell in favor of an officer. If they held back anything, it was where it told more against them than in their favor. 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. The document as a whole showed how a very successful and audacious man may first set up a statement, and then imputing it to another, rebut these false accusations. Mr. Conyers had taken to himself a great deal more of the report than was meant for him personally. Many of the complaints in the report might apply to other persons altogether different ' from Mr. Conyers. Then they had six paragraphs about the telegraph wires. : f'Now that had since been abolished, thereby effecting a saving of LSQOG to the Colony. That itself spoke volumes in favor of the report. At the ! bottom of the fourth page of Mr._ Conyers' , letter there' was a paragraph in which allusion was made to the services of I servants being retained who had suffered in the service of the country. Now, the fact was that these servants had been . ordered to be dismissed by Mr. Conyers, and were only retained at the instigation 5 of Mr. Baok, of Christchurch. Mr. : Qonyers 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, he said, " No, unless it was : per cent, on salaries of officers from station-masters downwards. The House would ;see the meaning of that re- ! commendation. It would not affect Mr. ; Conyers himself. Mr. Conyers took credit j to himself for having put the traffic caused by.the grain.season on an improved footing. The faot was. that Mr. Conyers : had now three times.the amount, of roll- | ins stock at his disposal than was the case I some two years" ago. Mr. Conyers com- ■ plained that they had .examined a witness , who had been discharged for drunkenness. ■ ! He was not aware of the fact, but still he i;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 the 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. 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—he was mischievous. He quoted from the evidence given in support of these assertions. Mr. Conyers, in his reply, denied that there was a olerk and storekeeper at Ll6O per annum in Nelson. He quoted from the evidence of the storekeeper himself in support of the, statement as made in the report, which went on to say—Stores were got from the storekeeper in Nelson without .any tender. He (Mr. Saunders) would only add that the man appeared to be the most, industrious of the lot in Nelson. As reported, Mr. v Conyers, connection with a mercantile firm contracting with the department, they were charged with keeping back from Parliament the facts regarding this. They did so because it would have compromised .Mr, Maoandrew, without doing Mr. Conyers the slightest good. He read telegrams sent to Mr. on the subject, putting questions to him on the subject. After several 'days Mr. Conyers replied, asking them who gave the Commission the information. Subsequently a communication was received from Mr. Conyers explaining his connection with.the firm of Davidson and Co., and stating that he had not received interest from that firm, despite the alleged arrangement that he left his money in the firm at interest. It was known to everyone in the Department that there was a connection between Mr. Davidson and Mr. Conyers, and it waq that fact which caused the trouble, He (Mr. Saunders) had that morning reoeived a letter from Dunedin, stating that the writer was aware of further transactions between. Mr. Conyers and Mr. Davidson, and alleged that chicanery and irregularities were practised down to the meanest servant in the service. He quoted from the evidence of James White to show that Mr. Armstrong paid 35s to 40s. per ton for coal, while the contract price : was only 28s lid. A letter was read from' Mason and gtruthers, Christchurch, which stated that they had so little faith in the arrangements made by the department towards qontraotorsi The Commissioners were' particularly struck by the informa- ■ tion afforded by certain contractors.- Specifications were drawn in such a way as to* ■mislead contractors, and one man who: was seemingly lovvest might in reality behighest; -In that, way, a friend of the department was enabled to secure the most enormous advantages ; in fact, the Com-; missioner had things so arranged that he' could ruin -some contractors -and seoure: enormous advantages j in fact, the Com-.; missioner things sq arranged that. he : could' ruin" some contractors arid secure! enormous profits for others, That was a' dangerous power, - but still it nevertheless; existed. He quoted prices showing the; discrepancy that existed between prioes l paid by the department for some articles, in 1 'Dunedin and Christchurch. He next alluded to the Commissioner for the Northj Island. .He felt, in approaching the; defence of that gentleman, that he wasj approaching- the defence made by ai thoroughly honest, man and gentleman,| j and all they wished to say was that he was; j not up to all the duties with the discharge; of which he was entrusted. They were convinced he was a thoroughly trusts worthy man j air they complained of was that he was too muoh of an office man, and knew so little about what was occur-; ring outside. He was admirably well infortned about what was .occurring in hia own office, but on matters occurring outside they' found he was not so weU infbWfiedi'A They-found 5 that in ' Napier sleepers could Is 6d, whereas I Ha.atO; id to skibt 11-' i j

I the department was paying 4a and 3s 4d. They felt that 1 Mr. Lawson was a very worthy man ; at the same time they felt that in some matters outside his own office he was not properly informed. Mr. Gisborne quoted from a ruling to the effect that letters containing charges against anyone must be laid on the table of the House, and the name of the author 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 the letter and the name of the writer. In reply to the Speaker, Mr. 1 Saunders said the communication referred to was a private letter. Major Atkinson contended that the case did not apply to the matter before the House. ; Mr. Moss said if Mr. Saunders would assume the responsibility of the letter in his own person, that would relievo them from all further difficulty. The Acting-Speaker ruled that the letter or the name of the writer should bo given up. Mr. Macandrew said, so far as he could judge from the accusations made in the' speech and report, the Commissioners i wished to administer justico that was first, to hang a man and then bag him. Ho wished to say he had no relations with any officer either in the railway or any other department, but he must protest, against any .public officer being maligned on the mere ipse dixit of a so-called Royal Commissioner. One of the objects of that report—in fact, its chief object—was to cast odium on the Government of which he was a member. They could not expect anything else from the Commissioners, who were violent political partisans ; but lie might protest against such charges being (made agaipst, 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. Oonyors' l;name with his. All he knew about Mr. Conyers' business was that he proposed leaving, the department and joining Mr. Davidson, but he was induced to give up the idea and remain in the service. Subsequently, when he (Mr. Macandrew) became Minister for Publio Works, some of Mr. Conyers' friends made anonymous, representations to him about, that connection,.and Mr. Conyers had explained it to. his satisfaction. It was a singular fact the* Chairman of the Commission, which had devoted so much attention to the Railway Department, was connected with a firm which was at daggars drawn with that department. Mr. Saunders said that he had been accused of having some business transactions, with Mr. Conyers. That was a gross misrepresentation. He. scouted the idea, that he would use his position as a. Royal Commissioner to vent his spleen on> anyone. As to his sons, only one ,of thomi ever had anything to do with Mr. Conyers,. and that was only of the most friendlynature. .

Sir William Fox said the Commissioners! were appointed to inquire into the weak points of the service. In doing so thojr were bound to make such statements and representations as those before the House. That was not making charges against these officers ; it was simply pointing out. to the Government how reforms were to be rhade. They had evidence before them of the truth of the Commissioners' : report. There it was, lying on the table before them, and yet they had a.'letter from the Chief Engineer denying that there were any such waggons. Now these were parts of the waggons before them. What more did they want 1 They had the evidenoa .of their own eyes to go by. The Commissioners did not say who were reponsiblo "for these waggons, but the servants shemr selves had fixed that responsibility. Mr.. Blair came there, and at once fixed the* responsibility on himself. If this report were acted on, he felt confident that, thousands of pounds would be saved tothe Colony. He trusted no further attempt would be made to draw the red herring across the scent. Mr, Gisborne said he had heard it stated that the Commissioners had invited parties to give evidence under a promise that it would be treated as secret and confidential. If that was true, it was enough to discredit the whole proceedings. The Hon. Mr. Oliver said in replying to questions about the report he had been careful to guard himself from any expression of opinion till Government had an opportunity of considering the evidence. Some of it certainly seemed to support the report, but the Government had not yet had time to read the whole evidence carefully, and consequently any expression of opinion from them would be premature. It would be their duty to, consider the evidence and take what; actiou they dedmed necessary on thei report. Mr. Shrimski said they had no. proof that the waggons of which the samples were produced were constructed in Dunedin. Mr. Smith's testimony on the> point should not be relied on, inasmuch as that did not disclose the fact previously. He was now told that he had done so. Then the Government was to blame in not adopting any steps on his complaints. Mr. Thomson thought the appointment of the Commission had been a great mistake. The Government ought to havo done the work itself. The Commission had been altogether one-sided. Then the report had not been carefully framed. Ho believed the Railway Department was nut what it should be. Still, he, thought tha report was overdrawn. The proper way was for the Government to weigh aH tlw documents and evidence, and coone to. a decision on the matter themselves. Mr. Reader Wood said the member for Cheviot had done a disagreeable duty* and had done it remarkably well. Mr. Saunders had also cleared away a vftsi amount of mist that previously surrounded the report. The report showed the utmost want of good management. The Minister for Public Works had one day read a report from one officer, and the next day a report diametrically opposite from another officer. Now, was that; not conclusive evidence that the report was right in stating that there w<yv tea many officers. What the Hous§ should do was to insist that this state of matter should be put an end to, ftn,d that the Minister for Public Works should in hw Statement bring down ft scheme lor its reform. Mr. Kelly said that it appeared to him that so long as they dealt with the Civil Service in the abstraot, and said it was too expensive, it was all right; but as soon as they attempted to deal with it in the way of effecting a reform, then the House was up in arms. The Civil Service had grown within the last 10 years enormously. In it cost L 239,000; in 1875, L 759,000; and now it was L 1,000,000. It was very plain there were far too many officers oon* nected with the railways, and it beoarae » struggle for existence between the®* That explained to his mind the causeto? the disorganisation whioh existed, felt satisfied that a sum of LBO,OOO or L 40,000 alone could be saved in stores » tendered for properly. Mr. Johnston said the value of the re* port was simply to guide the House to » conclusion as to the conduct of Govern' ment, After some remarks from Mr. Harris, Mr. Seddoa proposed to add to tne motion an amendment, asking for som further returns. , The amendment was agreed to, ana motion amended adopted. .The House-rose at 1 a.ra.