K. W. MCVILLY.j

151

I.—6a.

28. The Board then made no recommendation ?—The Board made no recommendation, but left it in the hands of the Minister of Railways to deal with, and the Minister of Railways dealt with it. The effect of that was that if the Minister considered that the Department had done an injustice to the man, then the Board left it to the Minister to adjust, but the Board evidently was not of the opinion that an injustice had been done, otherwise they would have said so. 29. And did you communicate that to McKenzie?—McKenzie was told definitely, by direction of the Hon. Mr. Pitt, who was then Minister of Railways. 30. When was that? —Almost immediately—within a short time of the decision being given, and he was told many times subsequently 31. But did not McKenzie lodge an appeal against the Department's action in not giving effect to the decision? —Not that I am aware of, but in tiny case the position had been settled by the Minister. The Minister in effect said the Department was right and he was not going to make tiny alteration; and as the case had been settled, whether a second appeal came in or not, what whs the good of it. Ido not know that an appeal was lodged—l am not admitting that. 32. Now, in regard to Harrington's case, I understood you to say that this man had not obtained the usual recommendation every year? —I said that Harrington had not been recommended for an increase for some years past, and that is a fact. 33. And was the reason stated "by the head of the branch of the Department at Wellington?— We got every year, " Harrington not recommended," ami we got that for many years. 34. And was no reason furnished,? —The Department took the recommendation of the District Officer and the head of the branch, the same as it takes a recommendation in cases xvhere the recommendation is favourable to a man. In Harrington's ease we knew years ago from inquiries then made that Harrington and another man tit Lyttelton who was in the same box were not satisfactory—that is, they were not worth more money than they were getting. 35. When this man was not recommended, then you would inquire into the reason, would you not?— When a man is not recommended year after year for a period of years and you know at tin.- outset the reason, then you do not make any subsequent inquiries. If a man had been recommended and subsequently not recommended, then we would make inquiries to see in what way the man had fallen away from grace. 36. You said you knew at the outset the reason'?—l said we knew years ago that a man was not regarded as being altogether satisfactory—that is, he xvas not worth more money than he was getting. 3/. Was that the only reason? —-As far as 1 know, it was. 38. But when that reason was given that he was not capable of earning or not worth more money, did you not inquire into it?— You tire asking me to go back about twenty-four years, and I cannot do that. 39. You stated that the reason the man was dismissed was on account of drunkenness?— The man was dismissed because he whs under the influence of liquor—he was drunk on duty. 111. Had he been drinking for years past I—l do not know about years past, but evidently the Stationmaster was not satisfied with him for some time past, and he cautioned the men in the shed that unless they reported the next ease that came under their notice he xvould take the matter up against them. 11. Do you mean the lirst case of drunkenness? -I have already stated quite clearly what the position xvas. 42. I xvant to know whether the Department knew the man was drinking or not prior to this? —As far as the Head Office was concerned, we had nothing on record, although we knexv the man xvas not worth more money than he was getting. 43. In this particular case, xvhen it was found out by the Department that he had been drinking, and it xvas for that reason he xvas dismissed, xvas he actually dismissed from the service or suspended?—l think ho xvas suspended and an inquiry held, and then he was dismissed, or he xvas suspended and admitted the offence, and was then dismissed. 44. Do you mean dismissed by the Punishment Board? —Dismissed by the Department, with approval of the Minister, in* terms of the Act. 45. Is that after the-decision was given by the Appeal Board?— The decision of the Appeal Board is not given until after the Department has taken action. A man has no ground for appeal until the Department has taken action, and that gives him the ground for appeal. 46. What is the exact point of time at which he xvas actually dismissed?—l cannot tell you to a minute when he was dismissed, but the fact remains that he was dismissed, and I think that is quite sufficient. 47. I want to know whether he xvas absolutely dismissed or only suspended. If he whs suspended only, then section 64, subsection (b), does not apply; if he is dismissed, then it might apply? —Well, Mr. Ramsay, you are a solicitor and I am a layman, but if it comes to a question of reading this clause I will back my opinion against yours, and I say that until such time as the Department took action and dismissed that man. and he xvas dismissed, he could not have appealed. 48. Mr. Boss.] I should like to knoxv, Mr. McVilly, if every man who desires to has a right to appeal? —In certain cases. Do you mean in trivial cases? 49. Assuming that a person feels he has a right to appeal, has he a right to do so?— Yes, the Department has never contended otherwise. At times men have said they xvould like to appeal because of so-and-so, and it has been pointed out to them from time to time that no appeal could lie, because they had no ground. 50. So that the Department takes upon itself to say xvhether a man has a right or not?— No. If a man thinks he has a right xve invariably give him the right. Ihere have only been one or two cases in which a man has been told that there is no good of his going on xvith an appeal. 51. So, in other words, the Department can prevent any man from appealing?— Well, the Department does not do it xvhere a good and sufficient reason can be shown. The Department has