South Canterbury Times. MONDAY, JUNE 21, 1880.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2265, 21 June 1880, Page 2

South Canterbury Times. MONDAY, JUNE 21, 1880.

Tiik report of the Civil Service Commission lias just found publicity', and although its contents were tolerably well forestalled by' public rumor, its revelations, inferences, and suggestions arc sufficiently startling to produce general consternation within (ho charmed circle of the service, and a good deal of amazement without. The document bears evidence of hasty preparation, and we loam that it was finished rather hurriedly, for it was only signed and forwarded to 11 is Excellency on Friday afternoon. Like most thing’s, when: they are done in a hurry, it is more blunt than ’polished, and it seems ail most a pity, for the credit of the Koval Commissioners, that some of its start!iing proposals, were not materially toned down before they were cmaided to see the light. At the first glance it is decidedly interesting, and to many wo have no doubt it will present the fascinations of the latest novel. But when the pleasant excitement of surprise has departed, and the facts, deductions, and propositions, are calmly’’ weighed, the report, we believe, will lose many of its present attractions and much of its weight. The Commissioners preface their report by remarking that the limited time at their disposal has prevented them performing their task so well as might he desired, and it is undoubtedly to he regretted that they’ were not appointed at an earlier period of the recess, for in that ease we presume their investigations ■would have gone hey'ond the superficial scandals and malevolent gossip of the departments, their reflections would have been judicial, and their propositions would have been entitled to the fullest respect. We are told that they’ extended the “ Civil Service ” to everyone in the pay’ of the Government, and the fact that this includes 10,853 individuals shows that their labors have been more comprehensive than nice. Where they drew the lino, whether at the railway’ porter or the navvy—the gaol turnkey or the long-sentence man—we are not told; but even ff Government contractors, pick-and-shovel men, and the consumers of canary uniform and hominy' are included, the figures, it must be admitted, arc appalling. The railway department appears to have hit the taste of the Commissioners, and its machinery—intellectual and mechanical —has monopolised the greater share of their attention. That the investigations of the Commissioners will ultimately have a wholesome dfeet on this branch of the public service is more than probable, hut their suggestions and opinions must lose much of their point from the fact that they seem, by their report, to have thrown discretion overboard, and in their determination to plough up long standing abuses, to have gone for the department in a rash, inconsiderate, and fault-finding spirit. The management of the South Island llailways under]the present Commissioner is condemned, as extravagant and inefficient. The system of having two distinct bodies of engineers looking

after the public railways, one under the Public Works department, and the other under the Railway department, is described as a source of needless expense, delay, and confusion. The railway telegraph system, which employs a large staff of operators, is recommended to he abolished, although the advantage of railwa} r officers being instructed in telegraphy is recognised. So far the conclusions and suggestions of the Commissioners appear to he fair and reasonable. It is when they leave gencralitics'and enter into details that the report appears to ho one-sided and weak. It is stated, for instance, “At Dunedin they found an officer receiving £O9O a year, called locomotive engineer, who informed the Commissioners that his business was to inspect the working engines and discover whether they required repair, for which duty an officer was employed. This engineer who admits he had no practical experience of locomotives previous to his appointment, is paid £OOO a year to go into the locomotive shop when an engine is found to need repair and instruct the long experienced locomotive foreman what to do with it.”

What impression docs this portion of the report convey ? Does it not force the reader to arrive at the damaging conclusion that the condemnation of the lightly esteemed “locomotive engineer” is based upon the cx parlc statements of the “ long experienced locomotive foreman ?” The locomotive engineer may be incompetent—though the Commissioners to avoid such an insinuation—or he may be a snperllnons square peg in a round hole, hut it is perfectly evident that be lias not been tried and found wanting in a fair straightforward manner, and that in his case, at all events, the Commissioners, after the manner of scandalmongers generally—have allowed their two obedient ears too warp their better judgment. It is stated further on that in Nelson, with only twenty miles of railway opened, two interesting sinecures were discovered—a manager of railways receiving •CdOO a year, although apparently in the position of the men from Manchester, who “ had no work to do,” and a railway storekeeper receiving £1(50, although he lias neither stores nor office. These small barnacles, however, are inseparable from Government departments, and they arc usually due, not to any want of discrimination or good management on the part of the departmental bead, but to the pernicious and corrupt inllnencc of political patronage. That they need occasional rubbing off we admit, but the difficulty in the way of Hie management is that the painful operation frequently stimulates a dangerous degree of sympathy in influential quarters.

13y way of by-play we presume the Commissioners extended the range of their observations in order to have a passing lling at native industry. This is how they attack the colonial manufacturer

Waggons built by contract in Dunedin were delivered at Christchurch last year in a state thus described by a witness : “ Some of them were disgracefully bad workmanship ; there was had timber—unseasoned stringy-bark put in instead of ironbark, joints not properly’ made, some had bottoms, frames held up only by nails in the floorin'' hoards. Home had almost to he rebuilt within six weeks.”

What the waggons and engines referred (o in the report have to do with the special duties of the Commission. we are a loss to understand. It would have been well, seeing (hat, despite the limited time at their disposal the Commissioners were able to examine, the i; unseasoned stringy bark ” as well as the " long-experienced locomotive foreman” of the department, if they bad pursued their enquiries a little further and taken the evidence of .something more authoritative than ,l a witness” with the view of ascertaining by .what peculiar process these faulty waggons were transferred to the department. At all events a regard for decency might have induced the Commissioners to have consulted the contractors who arc referred to, before embodying in the report of a lioyal Commission the extremely damaging testimony of an obscure and apparently spiteful “ witness.” By ingenious rather than graceful stages the Commissioners descend from “ long-experienced locomotive foremen ’’ and “ stringy-bark waggons ” to the management of railway stores, and hero again native manufactures receive a vigorous stab, for \vc arc told that

This system of obtaining railway stores from contractors in the colony should be at once discontinued, and all articles of large ordinary consumption imported.

The series of not very honorable thrusts that arc made at local industries, however, culminate apparently on the devoted head of Mr Conyers, who has committed the unpardonable offence of investing his spare cash in “ a Jinn contracting with the department of which he is the head.” The Commissioners comment on this indiscretion in no tender strains : Such a jfact can hardly fail to influence the action of officers serving under the Commissioner, and destroy the confidence of the firms tendering for railway supplies. It is impossible to estimate the loss the colony may have suffered from the obviously false position held by the working head of the principal railways, a position which should not be permitted under amy circumstances. Loose, irregular, and. suspicions transactions of the kind mention ed appear confined to the South railways.

“Loose, irregular, and suspicious transactions!” The Commissioners have evidently gone fur Mr Conyers like a hull at a rod Hag, still they not have lost their tempers. “Loose, irregulur, and suspicions.” AVliat a depth of ill-natured feeling is here betrayed ! Tins is the lalignagc of a scold —a gurnlons fishwife —albeit slightly refined- It detracts greatly from the value of tho report, lint what is the Commissioner’s unfortunate offence. In what has he unvested ? If lie lias taken shares in the ICew Zealand Hardware Company (late Oliver

<tnd Ulph. of Dunedin), tlicji the uoinraissioners have been animated by an evidently unkindly feeling towards the present .Minister of Railways. But (he .Hardware Company arc simply importers, not manufacturers, and the references to Colonial industries in a former part of tiio report, discourages the supposition that the Hoy a I Commissioners would travel out of their way to scold Mr Conyers for being connected with an important house. Possibly Mr Conyers has invested in the Ilailwa}’’ Waggon Manufacturing Co., which was promoted some time ago. If so, he ought, no doubt, to be guillotined. Mr Conyers, in that ease, lias acted under (he impression that a Government servant can dispose of his private capital as he thinks proper, and ho must be taught differently. It is said that the professional stall of our universities divides its attention between the cultivation of classical lore and the purchase of waste lands, and it is equally true Unit certain influential members of parliament practically direct the stream of wealth from the Colonial Treasury into their own pockets, by investing in the Union Steam Slapping Co. and the Bank of New Zealand, but these are privileges which arc not supposed (o he extended to the Civil Service. Had Mr Conyers consulted his superiors before applying bis capital as be did, be would have been warned against having anything to do with inanufactnmg concerns in New Zealand, and lie would have been strongly advised to leave native industry alone, and to assist with bis spare cash the pet monopolies that are allowed to grow and llourish under the sunshine of political corruption. Mr Conyers has evidently settled his fate in the eyes of the I toy al Commissioners, for referring to Ids .statement in evidence il>, at he saw no way of making the service more economical than it is, they

observe : This leads us to no other conclusion than that someone else should take in hand a service of such vital importance to the prosperity of the colony, and susceptible of very large reductions on the present expenditure. We are convinced that the New Zealand railways are not managed so ably or economically as they might be, or as the welfare and credit of the colony demand they should. It naturally follows that efforts should be made to place the control under a more able head.

The Commissioner stands in the position of having - been tried and condemned by a Loyal Commission, but we very much question whether the latter have not travelled just a little too far. The grounds for their condemnation when sifted arc somewhat frivolous, in condemning - the extravagance and nonprodmetivencfS of our railways the Commissioners appeal - to have taken a most restricted and extra- judicial view of the surrounding - circumstances. Before adjusting the saddle they should have made certain that, they had .secured the right horse. There are other things besides useless stores, stringy-hark waggons, locomotive engineers, and - ‘ long experienced locomotive foremen” that have contributed materially to the non-payablouess of our railways, such as political lines, injudicious tariffs, and the undue pressure of political influence in connection with the appointments that are periodically made. We arc no admirers of the present railway management, and we think that the-Commissionerof Hallways made a mistake at the railway banquet when he paraded his “success” in the midst of his admiring and applauding employees. but we believe in the Fnglishmau's ideal of an honest battle, “ fair p!ay,”and wo certainly think .dir Conyers has received very foul play at the hands of this Loyal Commission.