THE ADDINGTON ENQUIRY.

Rangitikei Advocate and Manawatu Argus, Volume XXXIV, Issue 9393, 13 March 1909, Page 2

THE ADDINGTON ENQUIRY.

MR RONAYNE CLIMBS DOWN

In hia evidence before the Oommisgiou, Mr T. Ronayne, General Manager of Railways, said -mat when he first lieaid of the allegations knowing the officers to be zealous in their duties, he had concluded that this had not been correct. Prior to receiving the information he had had the utinost confidence in the men of/the boiler shop* and the smiths shop. There had been no falling away in the quality of the work. His informant had told him afterwards that the smiths* shop was not oohcarned in the complaint. His letter had been given to the press by some unscrupulous persons, and he had afterwards urged that a public inquiry be held. In reply to a question, Mr Ronayne said that the letter was only for the use of the engineer. The letter was not the result of his own investigations.* Whenever he had gone through the shops he had found Qverything|satisfaotory. In reply to Mr Roberts, witness said he" placed full reliance on Mr Henderson’s and Mr Bull’s information. The Chairman said he would like copies of these reports. THE “GOVERNMENT STROKE.’’ Continuing, witness said the reference to “Government stroke” was a hint to the engineer to the work in the various shops. Witness said he had reason to believe that, as the result of an adverse ruling of the Arbitration Court, Price Bros, stood to lose ja good deal on their contract. He thought that a com - parisou would show that the engines were produced at practically the same price at Addington as by Price Bros. In reply to Mr Hampton, witness said the statements in the letter were practically the same as the information given by the expert. The interview had lasted about half an hour. He was satisfied that the gentleman, was qualified to rank as ah expert engineer in as far as boiler making was concerned. Witness could not, as a matter of honour, divulge the name of the gentleman, as he had not got his permission. He did not propose to call him to give evidence. There was no intention on his part that the sfcttfements should be madb public. If they had not been made public it was probable the men would never have known anything about it. Mr Hampton: Do you think it was a fair thing to go behind the men’s b&oks? Witness : It is the usual thing for the foreman to make reports. v NO GROUND FOR COMPLAINT. Continuing, he said he had no psrsonal knowledge of the “Government stroke.” It was no slander of his, but it was the views of the informant which had been forwarded on to the chief mechanical engineer. He was now satisfied that there was no ground for complaint, and that from information he h ad received such a State of things did not now exist. HON J. E, JBNKINSON’S EVIDENCE. The Hon, J. E, Jenkinson, who Was the next witness, said Mr Ronkyne’s evidence, as far as the interview was concerned, was not quite correct. Witness had gone to Mr Ronayne to consult him on the question of the payment of certain highclass workmen, and the matter of Addington had cropped up. He bad told Mr Ronayne that work was not being turned out economically. The appliances were not placed in a position which enabled the work to be .turned out economically. Witness had specified certain instances in which the machinery was inconveniently placed. He bad pointed out the out-of-date appliances .that worked the rivbtting machine, and he thought that his estimate of one rivet per- five minutes was well within the mark. He was 'only desirens that the appliances should be brought up-to-date so that the men would be able to turn the work out cheaply. He did not think the word “loafing” was mentioned in the interview. He repudiated the suggeaion that he had called the men “loafers.” He had certainly not suggested that systematic loafing was carried on. He did not know if he were the expert referred to by Mr Ronayne. Witness thought that perhaps Mr Ronayne had in mind pertain statements made by him, but he did not know whether it was be (witness) whom Mr Ronayne had called an “expert engineer.” He did not blame the men. The drawbacks of the appliances caused the' men to take too long over their work. It was-some twenty years ago since witness had % worked as a boilermaker, and he did not claim to be an expert engianeer. In regard to the statement’about being “astonished at the slow method and leisurely work generally, ’ ’ a wrong meaning had been taken out of the words, as what be meant to infer was that the out-of-date machinery caused ' the delay. He never found the men resented being chatted to while they were working. He 'had never said the men in the smiths* gallop were doing “Government stroke.” Witness would not say that he was the expert referred to in the letter. There was a certain amout of loafing at Addington as in other places. Witness had not stated' that the men were allowed to do an “indifferent day’s Work.” It was absurd to say that the men generally at Addington were confirmed idlers and loafers. Witness nad seen men taking things remarkably easy, but did not feel called upon to specify the dates. He did not know whether he made any complaints to Mr Rdnayne against the men, but he did not think so. Mr Ronayne bad put a wrong interpretation on his remarks. He had Appeared before the commis«on to “put himself right. ” To .Mr Niven: Tse made certain remarks to-the interests of Addington and the Dominion at large.