t>. BAMSAY.j

147

J. —6a.

on all parties and eiiforcable in anj Court of competent jurisdiction.'' In many cases the proprietors of tramways are corporations xvhich, in addition to controlling tramways, control other very large undertakings. We submit that if the proprietors of tramways are to be bound by a decision of the Appeal Board why should the Railxvay Department not be bound in like manner. We do not suggest that an appeal should lie in all eases, but only in those cases provided in the Act which are as follows : " (1.) The head of the Department is bound to annually certify respecting each member to whose pay an increase is attached. If such member is dissatisfied with the certificate given he may appeal. (2.) A superior officer has power under certain circumstances to suspend, fine, or reduce, and from that decision a member may appeal. (3.) There is also a general clause giving a member who is aggrieved with any decision of his superior officer the right to appeal. You will therefore see that if the decisions tire made final it will not be such a deadly matter so far as the Railway Department is concerned, and it xvill not mean taking the control of the railways out of the hands of the Department. In regard to those two cases to which 1 referred, I am quite unfamiliar xvith the facts, and I should like if you, sir, xvould ask Mr. McVilly whether those files can be produced so that xve may inspect them. 3. The Chairman.] I cannot see myself why you require the files. Ido not want to prevent you getting access to any papers you require? —The Committee may want to refer to them. 4. Do you suggest that there is anything to indicate that those men xvere improperly treated or that the files xvould prove a different state of things to what xve understand exist? —I am not able to say. I think the files will disclose what I have already stated. 5. We are right on to clause 19, and you have asked for the files at the last moment. I think you should have asked before. I have no objection to asking for them, but perhaps they could be here xvhen Mr. McVilly is replying and you are replying/—Mr. Me\ illy may be able to explain the position satisfactorily. That is all we propose to say in regard to that clause 19. 6. Mr. Witty.] How many eases do you knoxv of xvhere tiie Minister has vetoed the decision of the Appeal Board? —The only case that I knoxv of is the decision in Harrington's case. 7. The Chairman . j Do you knoxv of any Second Division cases?—l believe there have been live cases where the decisions have been vetoed. Ido not know anything about the cases myself. 8. Mr. McVilly.] You stated, Mr. Ramsay, that the officers ask that a Judge of the Supreme Court should be chairman of the Board? —That is so. 9. Do you wish the Committee to understand that the institute would be satisfied with a decision id' a Judge of the Supreme Court? —We would be satisfied with a decision of a Judge of the Supreme Court provided the Officers' Institute is represented on the Board. 10. Well, xvill you tell me why in that case the institute is now referring to Mr. McKenzie's ctise seeing that at that time the Chairman of the South Island Board xvhich dealt with that matter whs a Judge of the Supreme Court —that is, District Judge Ward?— You know that District Judge Ward is not a Judge of the Supreme Court. 11. That may be, but District Judge Ward is a man competent to give a fair decision?— Yes, fie may be. 12. He was a man of very wide experience?—l believe he was. I believe as a matter of fact he was temporarily Judge of the Supreme Court during Judge Williams's absence. 13. I think he was acting as Judge of the Supreme Court at the time that decision xvas given in McKenzie's case? —That may be. 14. Well, is it not a fact that if you have a Judge of the Supreme Court on the Board you practically constitute the Board a Court, and ipso facto the decision is final? —Yes, that is so. 15. Then that is why you want a Judge of the Supreme Court: you knoxv if a Judge of the Supreme Court was put on the Board that the decision would he final irrespective of any provisions here? —That is so. Richard William McVilly further examined. (No. 38.) 1. The Chairman.] Will you now state the Department's case in regard to clause 19? —Well, sir, in dealing with this question of the Appeal Board, I desire first of all to direct the attention of the Committee to the fact that this is a matter that has been placed before successive Ministers of Railways, I think, by members of Parliament, by representatives of the Railxvay Officers' Institute, and also by the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants. Every Minister, xvithout exception. lias definitely declined to admit a principle xvhich, they contended, would place the administration of the Railway Department in the hands of irresponsible people. The Right Hon. Sir Joseph Ward, in dealing xvith the case in 1901 (Hansard, Vol. 119, p. 1025) said, "One of the matters brought before me was this: Honourable members knoxv that in connection xvith the Railway service we have an Appeal Board, and the proposal xvas made that the poxver and authority of the Appeal Board should supersede the responsible Minister of the day—that is, that the decision of the Appeal Board should be final. Well, that is a matter I did not agree to, and I explained why, as I shall explain to honourable members. There must be a responsible head, and there must be some one responsible to the people of the country; and if the responsibility in conducting the Railway service xvas taken away from those who control the affairs of the colony and handed over to ,'tnv one xvho was not responsible to the colony, you xvould require to supersede the Minister himself. That xvill shoxv hoxv impossible it would be to give effect to such a proposal. It has been my experience that, in connection with the running of the trains in some portions of the colony, accidents have happened in which drivers, firemen, and others have been involved, and, as a result of appeals to the Appeal Board, the recommendation in one instance, at any rate, came before me that the engine-driver should be reinstated in his former position. . . . The responsibility in that case, as in all cases of the lives of the people who travel, and xvho form a very large section of the community and contribute a x'ery large amount of revenue to the railways of the colony, is not upon the members of the Appeal Board: it is upon the responsible head of the Department.