FRICTION IN THE MINES DEPARTMENT.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 964, 3 November 1910, Page 7

FRICTION IN THE MINES DEPARTMENT.

AN INSPECTOR'S RESIGNATION. WAS HE FAIRLY TREATED ? There was an interesting discussion in the Houso of Representatives yesterday with reference to tho circumstances which led to tho resignation of Mr. Macintosh, an inspector of mines in the Otago district. The debate arose as a result of a question by Mr. Scott, M.P. for Tuapeka, who inquired of tho Hon. R. Sl'lveiizio whether Mr. Macintosh asked for an inquiry, and if so. had his request been refused. ;

Mr. M'Kenzie replied that Mr. Macintosh did ask for an inquiry, but as thero was no dispute as to the facts of the case thero seemed to bo no necessity for holding an inquiry. . Mr. Scott (Tuapeka) said that the circumstances were somewhat peculiar. The- district engineer, on behalf of the King, applied for 100 heads of water from a tributary of the Taieri. Tho warden asked Mr. Macintosh to make a report on the application. In the course of correspondence with the district engineer, the fact that .the water might be needed for mining purposes was emphasised by Mr. Macintosh.' Replying, tho, district engineer had suggested that Mr.. Macintosh should not go into the matter from a mining point of view but from a broader aspect. ..It had to bo borne in mind (he added) that tho water was wanted by the Crown in connection with an irrigation scheme, and that so far it had not been required for mining purposes. Mr. Allon (Brueo) said ho believed that a great injustice had been done to Mr. Macintosh. Resignation had been forced upon that official. Under the law he was bound to supply a. report on the request of the magistrate. As the Minister demanded it,-. Mr. Macintosh had to withdraw the report. In forwarding his resignation, Mr. Macintosh said that this courso was necessary through tho undeserved strictures by tho Minister on his action in carrying out his clear duty, and he regretted that he had been chosen to carry tho penalty of someone else's ignorance. Mr. Allen went on to say that Mr. Macintosh's application for an inquiry had been refused. Mr. Macintosh was one of our own students, and ho had held the position for some years. 'Throughout Mr. Macintosh had fearlessly and honestly dono his duty. It was all nonsense to say that no mining was going on in the district. He hoped that Mr. Macintosh would petition the House in the matter.

Mr. Massey said that it was a sorry stato of affairs if a man in the public service could bo punished for doing his duty. That sort of thing was very poor encouragement to other people employed by the Government. The Hon. R. M'Kenzie said that one might imagine that Mr. Macintosh had been treated badly. The fact was that the Government had for some years spent a good deal of money in surveys in connection with a reservoir for waterpower and irrigation purposes. An application was made by the Government for 100 heads of water from this reservoir. Mr. Macintosh coolly and quietly lodged an objection without letting the Department know. Mr. Allen: He was asked to report by the warden.

Mr. M'Kenzie. continuing, said that Mr. Macintosh had no right to lodge an objection against an application by the Government without letting his Department know." ■, •

Mr. Allen: Tho district engineer at Dunedin knew.

Mr. M'Kenzie said that ho was not going to allow any inspector to interfere with the policy of. the Government. Mr. Macintosh evidently thought that lie oould run the whole show. Ho had asked him to withdraw his report. Apparently Mr. Macintosh took exception to him stating in the House that lie thought, that he had exceeded his duty He thought 'the same now.. There was some dispiito between Mr. Macintosh and tho district engineer, and no good service would be served by holding an inquiry. As regards the resignation, he did not control Mr. Macintosh, who, he was told, was going to something better. He had been an inspector for only a couple of years. If tho Government's application had been refused, it would havo meant that the Government would have lost from £3000 to £4000.