The Lyttelton Times. TUESDAY, JUNE 20, 1865.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XXIII, Issue 1415, 20 June 1865, Page 4

The Lyttelton Times. TUESDAY, JUNE 20, 1865.

The trial of the action brought by Mr. Aickin against the Provincial Government for improperly dismissing him from his office was the subject of our comment on Sat urday so far as related to the apparent inconsistency in the verdict. There is much in the case, when considered upon its general merits, which throws light upon the difficulty experienced by the jury in reconciling their own conclusions with the judge's ruling. And as the position of every Government officer on the one side, and the proper administration of public affairs on the other, are both affected by the decision come to in the present case, it cannot be uninteresting for the public if we look at the matter in dispute a little more closely. Mr. Aickin came from England under an agreement with the Government to act as Provincial Engineer. He received his instructions, on arrival, from the Secretary for Public Works. Shortly after, the Provincial Secretary called for some plans. Mr. Aickin believed that the demand was an improper one, and he refused to obey it. The Executive Council then ordered Mr. Aickin's dismissal forthwith. This is an outline of the case; and the principal documents not before published will be found printed in another column.

The service undertaken by Mr. Aickin in his written agreement was "to take upon himself all the duties of and to act as Provincial Engineer, in all matters in which his services shall be required as Engineer by the said Provincial Government, and to give his whole time and attention to the faithful disI charge of such duties." And Mr. Secretary Hall's definition of the duties contains the following as the only general clause:—" These (duties) will be better gathered from the instructions which you may from time to time receive from this office and from experience in the working of your department." It is obvious that Mr. Aickin, a new comer from England, could have no knowledge of the nature of his relations with the Provincial Government other than he could gather from these two documents. He had contracted to fill a certain office whose main duties he was competent to perform, but of whose routine he knew nothing. The material part of his contract was the performance of engineering work; the routine of the office was left to be acquired by experience. Mr. Aickin was not supposed to bring that knowledge with him.

We are not discussing now what the relations between the contracting parties in matters of routine ought to be ; we are only concerned in understanding what Mr. Aickin was bound to know. For instance, it is no doubt quite right that one member of the Government should act for another in the absence of the latter. But how was Mr. Aickin to know, when he had been told to take instructions from Mr. Hall, that it meant he was to obey every order of Mr. Rolleston F There is not a word ■in the contract or the instructions about general obedience to the commands of any one. Some obedience is implied as a matter of course; but it is special, not general, and is obviously limited to the scope of the contract. The performance of the service contracted for was Mr. Aickin's duty; he expected to have orders given him as to this; but he had never engaged to render implicit obedience to all commands of the Government conveyed through any of its members. In other words, Mr. Aickin was not a servant, he was a contractor; he was bound by no general law of master and servant, but by the law of contracts. And if it be urged that general obedience to a Government on the part of all its officers is necessary to the welfare of the state, all we have to say is that, for that very reason, when the Government chooses to make a contract with an officer, it should put in that as one of the conditions. If the Government, on the other hand, chooses to have a special engagement with a scientific man for the performance of a certain work, it cannot call upon him to go beyond the terms of that engagement. The law of master and servant is ridiculously inapplicable in such a case.

For this reason we believe the real question to be tried between the parties was not, Did Mr. Aickin wilfully disobey a reasonable command; but, Did he refuse to perform what he had contracted to perform. An important consideration would then have been whether compliance with an order like that given by Mr. Rolleston was a material part of the contract. For we believe it to be sound law that a breach of an agreement of this kind must "go to the whole consideration of the contract," or the other side are not justified in putting an end to it. At any rate, this is reason and common sense. To suppose an extreme case, yet one almost identical in character with that of Mr. Aickin. if a carter had contracted with Mr. Rolleston to deliver so many loads of gravel, and. refused to obey a call of that gentleman [to come across the street for ail order, Mr. Rolleston would not be justified in his anger in ordering the carter to take his gravel elsewhere and refusing to pay for it.

We now return to M.r. Aickin's view of his own relations towards the Government. He was not a servant but a contractor. He had accepted the task, conveyed in Mr. Hall's instructions, of gathering liia duties as Provincial Engineer fro in experience in the working of his department. We tnny think him mistaken, but it is quite intelligible and consistent with Mr. Aickin's position, that he should take every means to avoid being imposed upon while still inexperienced, and so raising up unhappy precedents for the future conduct of the office. It is probable even that, coming direct from England, he did not quite understand the constitution of a Provincial Government, and underrated its honour and dignity. The Provincial (Secretary, then, in the absence of his colleague, has an order to give to this new officer. The Government is under contract with him, has brought him out from England in reliance on that contract, and has undertaken to give him time lor acquiring the routiue of his office by

experience. There arises a question of the custody of certain plans, as to which Mr. Aickin's opinion differs from that of the Government. The Government does not argue with Mr. Aickin, does not point out how his act is a breach of contract, does not treat him as a contractor at all, buttons back on its assumed right to be implicitly obeyed under all circumstances, and dismisses Mr. Aickin as if he were a menial servant under the statute. We may go on to sav that the manner of dismissal was as harsh »nd rude as if Mr. Aickin had been guilty !of gross misconduct. There was no time given for explanation, no locus penitantw. But obviously there was an anxiety to be rid of an expensive bargain, and the first plausible excuse was seized hold of. We have never heard of such an act being performed before; and we can scarcely believe that, if the head of the Public Works Department had himself been present, such an act would have been performed at all. Whatever may become of the action at law, the obvious moral of the whole case is, that a Government is not justified in treating its officers in a rude and harsh manner, because it is not for the public interest that the service of the Government should appear hateful to its officers. And, further, if the Government find it necessary to make a special engagement in England, it is due to the officer that he should be held bound bv the terms of the engagement itself, not by any uncertain or unknown rules, to be constructed at the pleasure of the other contracting party. And we will go further, and say that such treatment of an officer engaged in England will render very difficult the duty of the agent who makes the engagement, for he will be unable to give an assurance of stability in any similar case for the future.

The Press is good enough to declare that we have used this case for factious purposes, and given such opinions as we have given only for the sake of condemning the conduct of the Government. The Press will, perhaps, see how easy it would be for us to retort so mean an accusation. But we confess there is something in the assumed connection between our views concerning the late trial and our opinion of the Government. For if the Government were not so narrowminded and short-sighted as we believe them to be, they would never have behaved as they did in the case before us.