MR. GILRUTH’S CLAIM.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 2691, 22 December 1909, Page 6

MR. GILRUTH’S CLAIM.

DISCUSSION IN PARLIAMENT

ri’mi Pitisss Association. l WELLINGTON, Dec. 21

The Agricultural and Stock Committee reported to the House of Representatives this morning on the petition of Mr. J. A. Gilruth, late Chief Government Veterinarian, for compensation for loss of an appointment in South Africa, that it had no recommendation to make.

Mr. Herdman gave the facts of the case, .as already reported. The position offered to Mr. Gilruth wa s one with a salary of £IOOO or £I2OO, while the Government position held by him had a salar v of £6OO or £650. Mr. Herdman read correspondence on the subject, including a letter from Mr. R. Mc-Nab, late Minister of Agriculture, which stated that the -late Mr. Seddon had told him (Mr. McNab) that the former had refused to transmit the offer from the Transvaal to Mr. Gilruth out of regard for the interests of New Zealand. This letter was considered by the Cabinet on November 27, 1907, and the Government wa* of opinion that Mr. Seddoii was justified in declining to agree to the withdrawal of a capable officer from - the service of the country. Mr. Herdman strongly condemned the Government’s attitude in the matter, and moved that the report be referred back to the committee for reconsideration. Mr. T. E. Taylor had little sympathy with Mr. Gilruth, whose work and methods he criticised. The Hon. R. McKenzie said it would be useless to refer the report back to the committee, as no further evidence was available. The offer of the Transvaal Government to Mr. Gilruth could not be found in the files,. and there was no evidence that such a document was e-ver received. The Government had assisted Mr. Gilruth by allowing him to travel at a cost of £I3OO, thus establishing a moral, claim to his services, and Mr. Gilruth’s present position in Australia was equal to that offered him by the Transvaal. The offer must have gone to Mr. Seddon personally, if it had been received at all. , Sir Joseph Ward said that it was the rule that no Government should offer an appointment to an official of another' Government, without its being subject to the approval of the Ministry concerned in the first instance. It was within the rights of any Government not to give its. consent,-and this had been done in many cases. The amendment was not pushed to a division, and the report was adopted.