I—6a.

140

jD. RAMSAY.

thought the measure should be passed, then they xvould pass it. Ido not mean that if the Government took up one stand and the officers another, that the stand taken up by the officers should be accepted. If no satisfactory arrangement could be come to, then let the Government go on with the matter. 9. Is it within your knowledge that the Department has ever declined to confer with the Officers' Institute about anything? —That is a question I would sooner leave to the secretary of the institute to answer. 10. Mr. Ross.] I understand your contention is that the officers should be recognized as officers, and be taken into the confidence of the management in regard to legislation that xx-ould affect the officers ?—Yes. I do not say the individual officers, but I say that the Officers' Institute should be taken into their confidence. 11. And you are of opinion that if this recognition were extended to the officers the result would be more satisfactory for the Department? —Yes, I think it xvould be beneficial to both parties. If the officers suggested some measure and it happened that for financial reasons the Government could not carry it out, I am sure the officers as reasonable men xxould say, " Well, xve recognize this cannot be carried out, and we will not ask for it." 12. Mr Arnold.] I suppose you know, Mr. Ramsay, that when the Bill of last year was brought doxvn it xvas not even possible to give it consideration ?—Yes, I understand it xvas brought down at the last moment. 13. The Chairman.] 1 suppose you make this suggestion, Mr. Ramsay : that copies of Bills should be sent to the institute and the opinion of the institute asked more as a matter of courtesy than anything else ?—No, sir, I make it because I think the institute is a reasonable body of men, and if the Government met them fairly and squarely and discussed xvith them any proposed measure, a satisfactory conclusion would be come to. 14. I suppose you are not in a position to say whether the same course should be followed xvith regard to the Second Division? —No, sir, because I have not the confidence of the Second Division, and do not care to express an opinion. 15. But you would expect the Second Division xvould demand the same consideration?—l am not prepared to say. It would not be an unreasonable demand if they did make it. 16. I am not asking whether it is reasonable or unreasonable, but hoxv far you would suggest such a proposition should go? Robert Carhampton Mokgan examined. (No. 33.) 1. Mr. McVilly.] Can you say whether the Department has ever declined to confer xvith the Officers' Institute about anything? —Some years ago I understand the Minister in charge of the Department submitted proposed legislation to the Officers' Institute, but it has not been done in recent years. The Act of 1907 and the Bill that xvas brought down last year were not submitted to the institute, but some previous Bills xvere, I think. 2. When the Department or Government conferred with the officers, hoxv did the officers meet the Government? —I could not say. The officers generally were not consulted. 3. But the institute was consulted? —The executive of the institute xvas consulted. I do not know how much further the matter xvent. The executive of the institute did not consult the officers of the institute so far as I am aware, and I xvas a member of the institute at the time. Richard William McVilly further examined. (No. 34.) 1. The Chairman.] The Committee xvill now hear the Department's case in regard to clause 18? —Well, sir, the opposition manifested by the institute to the proposal of the Department to get this clause inserted in the Act is, to my mind, one of the most extraordinary things that has happened since the institute became the institute. Notwithstanding anything said by Mr. Ramsay, the fact remains that the experience of the Department shows that a clause of this kind is absolutely necessary not only in the interests of the Department, but in the interests of the staff. So far as the Department is concerned, it does not xvant to do anything that is unfair to the members of either the outdoor or indoor staff. This clause is not a clause which was introduced for the purpose of monkeying with some of the privileges or the rates of pay provided by the schedule to the Act, as has been suggested by the institute. It was introduced for a good and sufficient reason, xvhich xvas fully explained to the Minister of Railways at the time. Now, we have heard a great deal, sir, from the Officers' Institute about the Postal Department. I am not going to discuss the question of the policy of the Postal Department, but I say tKis, sir : that if a clause of that kind is found to be necessary in the only other classified Department in the Government service it is equally as necessary in the Railway, and as a result of fourteen years' experience of classification the Railxvay Department is of opinion that a clause of this kind xvould be a very good thing for the Railway Department to have in the interests of efficiency. The Department fails to see the grounds on xvhich exception can be taken to the clause. The insertion of that clause in the Act would not take axvay any of the rights that the present members of the service have or future members xvill have. The clause in the Act concerning the appeal is quite specific as to what a man may do; he can appeal against the decision of the Department if he xvants to. There is no intention to take away a man's right of appeal in that clause. The contention seems to be that if the Department were to fix the maximum pay for any position it xxould be so stiff-necked or obstinate that no matter hoxv efficient an officer xvho had been stopped at the maximum may subsequently become the Department would never give reconsideration to that officer. Well, that idea is absolutely disproved by the actions of the Department every day. Mr. Graham has admitted that he knoxvs of cases xvhere the Department has subsequently promoted men who have been reduced. If the Department were to take the narrow-minded view of its powers that it has been suggested it xx-ould do, then once a man is reduced the Department could put him on top of a