I.—6a.

80

r .T. G. MCPHEKSON.

67. In the Invercargill District ?— Yes. 68. You cannot give us any reason why the allowance for expenses should be increased?—I did iidi say so. My replies are in the other direction. 69. Can you give the Committee any indication us to the expenses paid to relieving officers in Australia?—I do not know anything about Australia, and I do not wish to discuss it. 70. I saw you yesterday with a book containing the Australian regulations? —I object to this question. Mr Mr] ill,,; \ want the witness to read (j\it the allowance paid to relieving officers in Australia and Victoria Thf Chairman: 1 do not know that you can ask him to do that —in fact. 1 do not know that it ought to be admitted at all.

Friday, 29th September, 1911. Robert Carhampton Morgan further examined. (No. 18.) 1. The Chairman.] What are you?— Secretary to the New Zealand Railway Officers' Institute. 2. You wish to make a statement in support of clause 11?— Yes, sir. In reference to the evidence given by Mr. McPherson yesterday as to hotel expenses, of course he dealt xvith only one or two places that he knew of himself. lie quoted principally, I think, Woodlands, where the hotel rate was £1 2s. 6d. per week. Well, I made some inquiries from a member of the Commercial Travellers' Association this morning as to hotel expenses at some places in this Island where Railway men have to go to relieve. The following an- commercial travellers' rates, per day: Carterton, 75.; Foxton, 75.; Woodville, 75.; Waipawa, Bs.; Marton, Bs.; Palmerston North, Bs.; Eltham, Bs, ; Stratford, Bs. ; Hawera, Bs. ; Gisborne, its. I should like to make it clear that these rates are commercial travellers' rates. He could not tell me the ordinary rates except at Gisborne, and he said that there the ordinary tariff was 12s. 6d. per day. I understand that, as a rule, a reduction of 20 per cent, is given to commercial so that most of those hotels xvould charge 10s. per day. 3. Mr. Ramsay.] It xvould be 25 per cent, so far as Gisborne is concerned? —Yes, in that particular instance; but I understand that the usual reduction to commercial travellers is about 20 per cent. I know it is so in Dunedin. 4. So that to all those hotels a certain percentage would have to be added xvhich is taken off in favour of commercial travellers?— That is so. 5. And the Railway man would have to pay that rate plus the percentage?— Yes. 6. Mr. McVilly.] In connection with the rates you have quoted, Mr. Morgan, you have given the rate of one hotel in each place?—At the hotel usually frequented by commercial travellers. 7. That is the daily rate?— Yes. 8. Well, do you knoxv of .any eases in which commercial travellers go to those towns and stay a fortnight on end? —Tt is very rare. 9. You have quoted Gisborne at 9s. ?—Yes. 10. Does the Department send the ordinary relieving officer to Gisborne? —I do not know how the Department manages so far as Gisborne is concerned. 11. You cannot tell us what the weekly rate at those hotels is?—-No. 12. Hax'e yon examined the Railway Guide with a viexv to acquainting yourself xvith the hotel tariffs? —I hax'e looked up the Guide. 13. Can you give the Committee any idea of the ranee of tariffs as advertised in the Guide by hotelkeepers in the various parts of the Dominion? —Well, I xvent to the Commercial Travellers' Association for this information, because in the majority of cases the tariff is not given in the Guide. Those I noticed ranged from 12s. 6d. to 6s. 6d. 14. What is the weekly rate? —I did not notice particularly, but xvhere the rate is Bs. per day the weekly rate is £2 10s. 15. Did you notice any ca/«e in xvhich the daily rate xvas Bs. and the weekly rate £1 10s.? — No, I did not. 16. Mr. Ross.] Those houses that you have quoted, I understand, are ordinary commercial houses, and not necessarily first-class hotels? —No. The gentleman gave me to understand they were the hotels usually frequented by commercial travellers; neither the best nor the xx-orst, hotels. 17. What has been your experience xvhile living in hotels: assuming thnt you pay Bs. per day, what amount xvould you be asked to pay per xx-eek in the same house? —Well, at the hotel I am stopping in at present the tariff is Bs. per day, and T am being charged £2 10s. per xveek. 18. So that your experience causes you to recognize that xvhere the daily tariff is Bs. the weekly tariff is £2 10s. ?—Yes. that seems to be the rule. Richard William McVilly further examined. (No. 19.) 1. The Chairman.] Does the Department xvish to bring forxvard evidence in regard to clause 11? —On behalf of the Department I xvish to submit to the Committee that the question for consideration in respect, of travelling-allowances is not xvhether the amount is sufficient to provide for luxuries in addition to the cost of living, but whether it is sufficient, having regard to the general circumstances, to cover the reasonable expenses of the men sent to the various localities. Mr. McPherson yesterday quoted the case of Southland, and his evidence xvas in the direction of shoxving that, so far as his experience xvent, fis. per day xvas reasonably sufficient to meet the ordinary living-expenses, and leave a margin, at the hotels in Southland of which he had had experience. He pointed out that he bad to pay 10s. per xveek for rent to retain his room, and still bis allowance was sufficient to enable him to pay his board and do that. Next be sheltered himself tinder the regis of the married man, and he then said that a married man had other expenses, such as up to £1 10s. per xveek for rent. Very well. Whether a married man is a relieving officer or an ordinary clerk, I submit to the Committee that the charge for rent is the same. Therefore it is not. I submit, fair to saddle the Department, so far as relieving officers' allowances