I.—6a.

114

! A. GBAHAM.

3. Mr. McVilly.] Mr. Graham, will you tell the Committee exactly xvhat the institute wants in the matter of hours—xvhat is to be the length of your day?—We base the petition on the conditions in the Post and Telegraph Department. 4. You have made certain statements in regard to officers working nine, nine and a half, ten, eleven, and txvelve hours, and then you spoke in a general way about the length of the day. Now, 1 want to knoxv, on behalf of the Department, from the institute exactly xvhat length of day you are contending for? —We are not contending for any special length of day. We contend that the Department should endeavour to meet us and fix a day, and then xvhen they have fixed it we are prepared to say whether those hours are suitable or otherxvise. 5. But you have based all your argument on the Postal hours of 9 to s?—Yes, the comparison. 6. Well, is that xvhat you want?—if xx-e could get it xx-e should be only too pleased to have it. 7. We xvill come down to the 9-to-5 basis : have you ever taken into consideration what the cost of this alteration would be that you are asking for?—No, sir, and I simply say that the Post and Telegraph Department has not evidently been a bugbear to Parliament, and T think we may safely leave the question of cost in the hands of the House. 8. Well, that is all right, but there must be some relation betxveen the cost of xx'orking the Department and the revenue of the Department, must there not? —No, sir, I do not think it always folloxvs—not in the Railxvay Department. 9. Then is your contention this : that the xx'hole of the receipts of the Department should be eaten up in xvorking-expenses ! —l have never contended that at all, sir. 10. then, if you are going to consider a question of this kind irrespective of the cost, on xxdiat basis are you going to consider it?—l have already said that xx-e leave that in the hands of the Department to consider, and then they xvill advise us later xvhat they consider should be the proper hours and the cost. 11. Well, is it not xvithin your knoxvledge that the working-cost of the Department has been extremely heavy for many years —practically the maximum? —I am not prepared to go into the question about the cost, because T have not got statistics or anything else to show me that the cost has been heavy. You might as xvell ask me, is it not a fact that the Railway Department had to supply immense quantities of coal in the Dominion at an abnormal expenditure, and also to import an extraordinary large quantity of plant. Those are questions that our institute has nothing to do xvith, and xvhich 1 think are rather policy matters. 12. lam not talking about that, but the cost of xx-orking the Department. You say you have no information. Is it not a fact that for many years past every Stationmaster has been regularly furnished xvith a copy of the Railway Statement?—l believe that is correct. 13. Then, the percentage of cost is shoxvn there from 1883, I think, up to date? —Yes. 14. If you hax'o read that Statement, are you not axvare that the Statement shoxvs that the ratio of expenses to earnings has been an ever-increasing one? —Well, I think xx - e cannot shoxv a comparison with the xx-hole of the costs of the Railxvay Department as against our contention on this head. 15. But the Railxvay Statement shows what the costs are of the Traffic Department, for instance? —Not the officers alone. 16. The cost of xx-orking the Traffic Department?— Yes, but you are including the outdoor division as well. 17. I am asking you, are you not awa'-e that the ratio of cost has gone up considerably?—l am not prepared to give reasons for that. Possibly it is knoxvn to the Department. 18. Well, xvhat is going to be the effect of giving compliance to your request—what increase of staff do you consider the Department xvould require to employ?— Well, having no statistics at mv finger-ends I am not in a position to say what increased staff xvould be required. 19. Well, it conies doxvn to this: that you have put forward this proposition without considering at all the financial effect?—No, sir, I do not think it is the duty of the Railway Officers' Institute to consider the financial effect. That is for our betters to do. 20. You do not think that is part of your duty?— No. 21. Then the duty of the Officers' Institute begins and ends with making requests that are going to involve the country in the expenditure of a large amount of money without consideration of the effect of the request?—We are not making a request in the true sense of the word —we are making a comparison. 22. But you a y e asking for something—you are making a demand?—We are asking as an alternative. We xvish to make our position as plain as we can that xve are xx-orking under certain disabilities, and we xvant, if possible, disabilities removed, and we are making a comparison xvith the Post and Telegraph scales. We are not demanding anything like that at all; xx-e are leaving it to Parliament and the Department to fix any scales of that sort themselves. 23. Well, then, do you xvish the Department to understand that all you have got in view in putting this request forward is for the Department to take the matter into consideration and see xvhat can be done toxvards meeting the request, and that you are going to be satisfied?— Well, after xx-e understand to xvhat extent the Department is prepared to go in meeting our request I should be better able to answer you, but at the present time I do not know what the Department contemplate doing, nor xvhat they may do. 24. You made a statement just noxv that you were putting the request forxvard, and the institute xvruld be content to leave the matter to the Department,: xx-ell, I xvant to know I —Not the Department. I said xx r e xx-ould be content to leave our case in the hands of Parliament and the Department. 25. Not the Department?— No. We have approached the Department previously, Mr. McVilly, and got no satisfaction, and xve have now got to appeal to Parliament, hence the petition, Our present appeal is to Parliament.