THE PUBLIC SERVICE

Evening Post, Volume LXXXVII, Issue 76, 31 March 1914, Page 4

THE PUBLIC SERVICE

TO Tfll IDITOtt. Sir,—" Civ.'! Servant's letter of the 25th inst. merits littlo serious consideration. I did not ask him to discuss the word " merit,'' but to tell /is what Its meant by_ it. I understand now that ho used it in its common sense, and not as including seniority in grade or duration rtf service, as provided in the Act. it would.be no reflection on anyone to say that the Hunt Commissioneia were men of high standing; no one said they were not, but it is not obvious what this, or their opinions, have to do with the matter. Their report was made bpfore the Act was passed, and such grave charges as those formulated by " Civn Bervtint " must be dealt with and substantiated according to law, and not according to anyone's contrary opinion, especially as Parliament, with the report before it, did not choose to avail itself of the then existing opportunity of embodying such opinion'in the Act. " Civil Servant's " charge against the Commissioner appears to be based on a contravy ioundation. Surely, if the Commissioner expressed opinions opposed to the law, viz., that seniority was not to be considered at all, he should be charged with making appointments on that basis. A littlo reflection, however, will show that it is practically impossible for length of service and seniority to be eliminated from being the governing factor in the great bulk of promotions in the Public Service, as in most cases the officers in the running are mostly practically equally well qualified to fill the positions. I note that "Civil Servant has taken prompt advantage of your footnote as an excuse to shield himself from giving any proof whatever ii> substantiation of his bare and absolutely unsupported statements. '.This does not give enp confidence in h'B genuineness, and make"? it hardly Worth while taking him seriouy-. ly, except, perhaps, to correct any misleading impressions given by his_ prrviouS ( statements. I did not ask him to mention names, but, surely, when anyone deliberately sets out to indict, and practically asks us to condemn, our fallows, we naturally expect him (and he should be ready) to givo something more ,

stable than his mere statement, which may or may not be true. This is only bare justice and commonsense. To my own knowledge, his statement is absolutely disproved by at least one recent appointment in the professional branch, where seniority in grade was altogether subordinated by ''special qualifications and aptitude," and there are others 1 know of which I think a little investigation would show to be in the same category. When "Civil Servant" in his first letter bound himself dosvn so tightly to that part of the Hunt report that "length of service must not be taken into account," he apparently was unaware that the Act did not support this view until 1 drew his attention to it. This, and the extraordinary suggestion with which he winds up his last letter, throws doubt on his capability to deal with such important subjects. 1 do not think, therefore, that theie is any need to worry further over "Civil Servant's" ideas and statements. His obvious lack of knowledge of the law, and the subject under discussion, his failure to produce any convincing facts, and his apparent lack of conception of the fitness of things governing matter of great magnitude and seriousness such as this, all show that it would not be warranted.— l am, etc., SUKUTATOR. 30th March