MR. GILRUTH'S POSITION.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 770, 19 March 1910, Page 14

MR. GILRUTH'S POSITION.

_ THE MINISTER'S SIDE OF THE STORV. LTo the Editor.] * Sir,—My attention has just been called to the fact that Mr. Gilruth has replied, in a letter appearing in your columns, to my remarks made in the House when his caso was before Parliament. In order that the public'may have■ the. full text of the matter dealt with, I will be indebted to you if you will publish the enclosed ' extract of my speech from Hansard.—l am, etc., ■ '• THOS. MACKENZIE. March 16. [Enclosure.] The Hon. Mr. T.. Mackenzie (Minister of Agriculture) said they had heard a yery long speech from tJie member for Wellington North, in which , the honourable gentleman had stated the case very fully from Mr. Gilruth's. point of and moved that this report be referred back to the Stock Committee. Ho would ask that honourable gentleman, from his experience as a'member of that committee and from the absence of evidence before that committee, wlmt earthly good it could possibly be to refer that petition back for reconsideration. The honourable gentleman knew perfectly well that there was, not' any evidence' to enable that committee to come to any other conclusion at all. It had been moved on tho committee that .the matter should stand over in order that Dr. Gilruth might have an opportunity to come down to give evidence if ho so chose. But in the very letter that Dr. Gilruth had sent with this petition he stated that if he was present himself he could not add a single word beyond what was submitted. The honourable member for Wellington North knew that, and yet he made this long harangue in the House, and made a pleading speech in which he'pictured a ruined career and blackened future for tho petitioner, and in which he said thaimen entering the Civil Service of this country were the slaves, the oxen, and the asses; of Ministers in the Cabinet. The honourable gentleman, he was sure, was smiling to himself when he knew how many were breaking their necks_ at the present. moment to enter • the Service, and that when once in the' Service they were never likely to want; to leave it, because they were so very comfortable. They had many holidays, they had no broken time, they had the prospect of a steady increase of salary, and at the end they had the prospect of the comfort of an ample; superannuation.. '; An hon. member: What about retrenchment? ■ ' -/■ " •••'

'.- The/ Hon. Mr. T. Mackenzie-eaid that retrenchment had to be carried out for various reasons, and there was no one who knew better than the honourable gentleman who had interjected the reasons that necessitated that painful course being taken by the Government. This matter regarding Mr. Gilruth, however, did not occur during the time of the present Government; it took nlace previously, and before his day in office. Speaking as Minister, he might say they had no evidence on the file that such a communication mu ever received aa alleged, and the ■ honourable; gentleman, being a lawyer, had seen as clearly aa any one could see. that even what «ras submitted before, the committee was not ■ direct .evidence. If it had been direct evidence, : did. the honourable gentleman mean to say'that the members of that committee; if. there had been, justice to be doue or an injustice to.be removed, would not have done, that, justice or re: moved the injustice? It. ..was ;, a> mere beating pf the' wind. for the.,honourable gentleman to,';' move .',!tnat ; .. this reportbe returned;"'.' after . they ;' had,, investigated all 'that had .been pliced'.' before them, and upon which, as tho honourable gentleman knew, they could not alter the decision arrived at by the committee. The honourable gentleman might put £he Leader, of• the Opposition up to points,' but he would find he could not get : away' 1 from , that position—that with the evidence before that, committee they could 'not ''possibly 'itiake 'another' report.; ;Now,'the'honourable ; gentleman had said that Mr. Gilruth's career.. was blighted, if not ruined." The'honourable gentleman, forgot that .'Mr. Gilruth'was now holding' a splendid appointment and receiving. £1000' a-year. He ventured to say that Mr. Gilruth, by his known ability would rise in Australia '• as quickly and as speedily ne he' would • if he had taken the appointment that was eaid to have been offered to him. Mr.. Gilruth was a man who could battle along remarkably well. ' Let him 6ay a word in connection with those who joined our Civil Service/ It seemed to; be .the belief, strongly' Held by .thje. member for. Welling-; ton' Northi" that any into our Service and have,money spent!to improve his knowledge,', as' was t in i part" the case, with Mr: ; Gilruth, and then leave. That officer—Pw>fessor. . Gilruth—visited Great Britain on three occasions, and he went twice at least to France. The honourable gentleman knew- that this Government, contributed siderable'., sums of inoney, to add.: to what he believed to be the very valuable knowledge possessed by that:officer. The cost of the .various trips .extended to Mr. Gilruth came to over >81300, although he would not say; that all of that sum w.as expended in improving his• scientific knowledge, but,-a great deal of it waa'expended in .that direction. The honourable gemtlemaa asked what would be thought of. .the' Government if they had am able Crown Law Draftsman ■ who had received a better offer from the British Government of perhaps double the salary if they stood in his way of accepting it. When a business man spent money on his employees by sendin" them abroad to gain up-to-date knowledge, he would certatnlj' consider that Jie had some moral. claim' on the continuation of, their services, and why should a Government be , different ? Surely, when a Government spent, sums of money in adding to the. scientific knowledge of an expert they had at least some moral claim on his services. Mr. Herdman: Three months. • The Hon. Mr. T. Mackenzie replied that the honourable'gentleman knew perfectly well that Mr. Gilruth himself, within a v<ary short period, resigned hie position in this Dominion. Mr. Massey thought it was four or five years after. The Hon. Mr. T. Mackenzie eaid it was not four or five years after. The offer was said to has-e been made in 1904, and: ho w.as sure, the Leader of the Opposition wold not say it was four or five years after that. . ; , ; Mi. Massey said it was in. 1808. The Hon. Mr. T. Mackenzie eaid ,he had the date there. It wae in September, 1905,.that Mr. Gilruth resigned. , Mr. Massey: When Mr. Gilruth. '.. resigned ?, He was speaking of hie resignation last year. .. ■ , . - ' The/ Hon. Mr. T. Mackenzie said he was speaking of .more than one resignation. The fact was that their civil servants— and quite rightly, they got an opportunity of. improving their positions did not hesitate to accept such chances. It was only necessary for him to , , refer to the money the Government had spent on their dairy instructors. In many cases, no sooner were they trained than other, countries or individual firms came along and outbid what they as a. Government thought they were able ■ to. pay,

and took the benefit of all the outlay. Tho information which he had given the House had been placed before him departmentally, and that information did not reveal that this offer was ever made to Mr. Gilruth either through the Government of the country or to the Government of the country. If the offer was ever made at all, it would have been a communication to the late Prime Minister, the late Mr. Seddon; but of that they had not official information. He was not taking up the position that the offer was not made, but that they had no copy or document to establish-it. The honourable member for Wellington North had declared that no reason was given for not transmitting that offer to Mr. Gilruth; he thought he heard the honourable gentleman make that statement. .

Mr. Herdinau said that lie had stated that, no satisfactory reason was. given. The Hon. Mr. T. Mackenzie replied that the honourable gentleman did not includo the word "satisfactory." He simply said that "no reason was given." The honourable gentleman in his own words admitted that a reason was given by the Cabinet, nnd he should remember that. The reason given was that they,did not think it was right that they should be deprived of a high officer of Stale by handing Him over to another country. If the country was.to lose all its best officers in that manner, and that was to be encouraged, he would say unhesitatingly that if the process on they would have all the weeds left in tho Service and all the best men taken away. Would the honourable gentleman say that if a business man received a communication from another business firm for one of his ofScers ho would rush to. hand that officer over when perhaps he had helped to train him generally into the running of his business? A business man would not do so. It would be, found that, generally, Governments would say, "We Jiaye a good Service, we have helped' to train that Service, arid we are not goins to'.lose our best officers because another Government had seen that one or more of our men would s suit them." As ho had said, the matter was really not one that, concerned this Government, nor did it concern him in his Department; but the evidence placed before them in the committee dia not justify them in coming to any other conclusion than that which had been arrived at. To send the report back would be merely .beating the air, because Mr.' Gilruth had stated that if he had come before thecommittee he could give no more evidence than had been transmitted to them. '