PROFESSOR GILRUTH AND THE GOVERNMENT

Otago Daily Times, Issue 14784, 17 March 1910, Page 4

PROFESSOR GILRUTH AND THE GOVERNMENT

MR THOMAS MACKENZIE'S - DEFENCE. ' At' the request of the Minister of A»riculture, we reproduce from Hansard "the material portions of-the speech he- made " tho House last session, when the ea=« Son-- th ' Was " unt,er " consi 'lera-' Tho Hon. T.< Mackenzie (Minister of Asr.cultureJ said the'-member for Wellington.North had made a pleading speech in which ho pictured-a ruined'career and a blackened future for tho petitioner, and m .which ,ho said that men entering tho civil service of this country were the slavey tho oxen, and tho asses 0 f Ministers in tho 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 ones m the service they were liover likely to want to leave it, because- they were so ; ' very comfortable. They had many holidajs, they had no broken time, they -had the prospect of a steady increase ot salary, and at the end they had tho prospect of tho comfort of an amnio sun°rannuatibn.

An Hon. Member: What about retrenchment?

Iho Hon. T. Mackenzie said that retrenchment had to bo carried out for various reasons, and there- was no ona who knew better thair tlio honourable l gopliomair who had interjected the reasons i that necessitated that painful course by the tiovernmoiit. This matter regarding Mr I Gilruth, however, did not occur during the tune of the present Government; ft took place previously, and More his 'day m office. Speaking as Minister, ho might say thoy had no evidence on the file that such a communication was ever received as alleged, and the-.-honourable- gentleman, being a laywyer, had seen as clearly as anyone could see that even what was "submitted before that committee- was not direct evidence. If it had i>een direct evidence, did. the honourable gcnllenmn mean to say that the -members cf that committee, if there had been justice to bo done or an injustice to be removed, would not have done that justice or removed the injustice? Now, the honourable gentleman had <=aid that Mr Gilruth's career was blighted, if not ruined. Tho honourable gentleman forgot that -Mr Gilruth was now holding a splendid appointment and receiving £1000 a year. Ho ventured to say that Mr Gilruth, by his known ability, would rise in Australia as quickly and as speedily as he would if he had taken tho appointment that was said to havo been ottered to him. Mr Gilruth was a man who could battle along rwnarkablv well. Let him say a word in connection with these who joined our civil service. It seemed to be tho belief, strongly held by the member for Wolling*ton North, that any man could como into our service and havo money spent to improve his knowledge, as was in part the caso with Mr Gilruth, and then leave. That officer—Professor Gilruth — visited Great Britain on three occasions, and ho went twice at least to Franco.. Tlio honourable gentleman knew that this Government contributed considerable sums of .noney (o add to what he believed to be tho very' Valuable kno'wlodgo possessed by that officer. The cost of tho various trips 'extended to Mr Gilruth canie to over £1300, although he would not say that all of that sum was expended in improving his 'scientific knowledge, but a'great deal of it'was expended in that direction. The honourable gentleman asked what would bo thought of the Government ..if it had an able . Crown Law Draftsman who had received a better offer from the British Government oi perhaps'double the salary >if they stood in his way of accepting it. When a -business mall spent money on his employees by-sending them abroad to gain up-to-date knowledge, he would certainly consider tiiat ho had some moral claim oir tho continuation of'their services, - and why shook! a Government be different?' Surely, wlion a Government spent sums of, money in adding to tho scientific knowledge of 'ah export they had at least somo moral claim on his services. Mr ilerdinan: Three mouths. ' The Hon. T. Mackenzie replieclthat the. honourable gentleman,-know perfectly well that Mr Gilruth 1 himself,' within .a. very short period, resigned his position in' this Dominion. Mr'.Masscy thought it was four or five years after. . Tho Hon. T. Mackenzie said it' Was not four or. five years after. The offer was said to have- been made in 1904, and lie was sure the leader of the Opposition would, not say it was four or live years after that. .

Mr Massey said it was in 1908. , Tho Hon. T. Mackenzie said ho had tho. date here. It was in September, 1905, that Mr Gilruth resigned.

Mr Masscy.: .When Mr Gilruth resigned? He was speaking of his resignation last •yoaiv '■"■''.

TII3 Hon.;T. Mackenzie said ho was speaking of jnore < than one resignation. . The fact was that their civil servants—and quite. rightly, too—when 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 its dairy instructors. .In many cases no sooner were they.trained than other countries or individual linns came along and outbid what they, as a Government, tiionght (hey were able to pay, and look the benefit of all the-out-lay. The information which he had given lira House had been placed before him dcpartmcntally, and that information did not reveal that this offer was over 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 Keddon; but of that they had not official information. Ho was not taking up the position that the oiler 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 mako that statement. Mr llcrdman said thatlie had stated that no satisfactory reason-was given. The 1-Kn. T. Mackenzie replied that, the honourable gentleman did not ; include tho word "satisfactory." He simply said that >'no reason was given." Tho honourable gentleman in his own words admitted that a reason was given by the Cabinet, and he should remember that. Tho reason given was that they did not think it was right that they should bo deprived of a high officer' of State by handing him over to another country. If the country was to loso all its best ofKccrs in that manner, and that was to bo encouraged, ho would say unhesitating]); that if the process went on they would have all the weeds left in tho service and all the be.;t..men taken away. Would tho honourable gentleman say that, if a business man received a communication from another business firm for one of his officers, ho would rush to hand that officer over when perhaps he had helped to train him generally info the running of his business? A business man would not' do so, It would, be found that, generally, Governments would say: "We have a good service, we have helped to train that service, and we arc not going to lose our best officers because another Government, had seen that one or more of our men would suit it." 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 did not justify them in coming to any other conclusion than that which had boon arrived at.' To send tho report back would be merely beating the air, because Mr Gilruth had stated that it Ivj had coma before the committee he could give no more evidence than had been transmitted to it.