I.—6a.

158

[b. w. mcvilly.

48. You made a reference, when dealing xvith the institute's figures, about automatic promotion?— Yes. "This proposal does not provide for members automatically reaching a salary of £260 per annum." 49. That was the suggestion, that the Department would not be called upon to automatically promote a man whether he merited promotion or not?— But the institute has worked this out on the number of men in the grade, and they are in the same position as we are. 50. Therefore they have taken automatic promotion ? —Yes, and so have xve, and you cannot do anything else. I take it they think that if a man is not efficient xve xvould leave him out. 51. Ihe suggestion is that you would save by non-automatic promotions?— You might save a small amount; but in connection with that I have pointed out that where scale increases are concerned, as they xvould be if the proposals xvere given effect to, you would find very few instances in which the men xvere not recommended for increases. 52. You do not provide for automatic promotion noxv? —No, we do not, and I think that is one of the complaints. Members of Institute: No, no. Witness: It is easy to deny that, but the correspondence shows otherwise. 53. The Chairman.] If you did promote automatically it would be entirely apart from merit? —Yes. 54. Have you any reason to believe that the Officers' Institute figures are inaccurate according to the proposals they submit ?—Of course, the figures are inaccurate to the extent I have stated — that is, that their statement does not represent the actual yearly increase, but only amounts, year by year, and the total increases at the end of four years as shown by them is inaccurate, it is not the total, but only the annual increase at the end of four years. They have practically taken the men to the maximums, and have given them in some cases up £30. 55. If you had done exactly the same, would not your figures have been the same?— The annual cost may have come to £30,260 —my figures might have come to that. There is a difference of £300 between us, but we should not have agreed as to the aggregate cost of one year over another. 56. But you would have agreed if you had done what they did, added one year to another? — I do not agree we would not have agreed. 57. Although you have not adopted their method you are only £300 out?— That is the annual cost of one year at the end of four years, but in the aggregate cost to the Department in four years there is a difference of £57,000 between their figures and mine. 58. What I want to get at is this : has the institute simply taken the four years separately and added those four years together ? —Yes.

Wednesday, 11th October, 1911 The Chairman: When xve adjourned yesterday, Mr. McVilly xvas about to hand in various statements that he xvould have supplied earlier if he had had the information. He has since looked up the information and is noxv prepared to hand in the statements. .1//-. Ross objected to any other statements being put in except those which had been promised by Mr. McVilly to members of the Committee during the course of the evidence. It xvas agreed that the statements should go in, but that the Chairman and Clerk of the Committee should go through the evidence and see what statements had been promised should be put in, and that those statements should then be included in that portion of the evidence xvhere they are referred to. Mr. McVilly: Might I ask whether the Department is going to have an opportunity of replying to Mr. Ramsay's final address? The Chairman: Not according to the decision we arrived at as to the proceedure. Mr. McVilly: Was not the decision at the outset that the representative of the institute should address the Committee at the finish, and the Department should have the right to reply? The Chairman: No. Mr. McVilly: Well, sir, had I anticipated for a moment that that xvould have been the case, I should have put in the xvhole of my statements and dealt with them in extenso xvhen giving my evidence yesterday —in which case the evidence would not have been as far advanced as it has Deen —but I did not xvish to take up the time of the Committee in talking on matters dealt with in these statements because a short explanation which I proposed to make in closing the Departrr nts case xvould have enabled the Committee to see for themselves the position just as well as i. I had taken up a lot of tina in giving evidence for the purpose of placing the statements before the Committee and then being examined on them. The Department is certainly being placed in a most invidious position if it is to be debarred from the right to put in the statements ■"*; desires and to explain them. Mr. Ramsay: There would be no difficulty in putting the papers in before the final address, but if the tables are to be gone into and xve have to cross-examine Mr. McVilly on them xve xvill be here for another fortnight. Mr. McVilly: I wish to make a fexv remarks in connection xvith Mr. Ramsay's last statement. I take it that the object of the institute in petitioning Parliament was to get certain things properly gone into. The Railway Department at very considerable inconvenience has arranged to relieve these officers. Now, those gentlemen have been here prosecuting this business for several xveeks; they have had nothing else to do all day, and in the course of their evidence they have referred to all sorts of things xvhich the Department's representative has had to meet. In other words, the Department's representative has required to know, in order to meet the statements made by these gentlemen, everything that has gone on in the Railxvay Department during the last