THE RAILWAYS.

Sun (Christchurch), Volume IV, Issue 963, 13 March 1917, Page 3

THE RAILWAYS.

COMMISSION OF INQUIRY.! MR WILFORD'S CHARGES. | DENIED BY "INFORMANT." j The Railway Rolling Stock Com-; mission, which was set up to inquireinto charges made in Parliament that! the railway rolling stock had deteri- J orated in condition, concluded its sit-1 tings yesterday, when the final wit-j ness was heard. The commission consisted of Prof. R. J. Scott (chairman) and Messrs M. J. Marchbanks and J. P. Maxwell. Mr M. Myers up-1 peared for the Railway Department.! MR WILFORD'S INFORMANT, i John Valintine, car and wagon in- 1 spector, Wanganui, who had given | evidence before the commission in i that town, said he was recalled at his own request. I Mr Mvers: You are acquainted! wilh Mr Wiiford?—Yes. ! Mr Myers: For about what length, l of time?— About 24 years. Mr Myers: Do you remember | being in Wellington on July 10, lOHi? Did you see Mr Wiiford on' that day?— Yes; I saw him on the; morning of the 10th in his office. What did you call for?—l called! on private business in connection j with one of mv sons who was leav- >, in;.' with the tilth Reinforcement. ' j Did you go to see him regarding railway matters?—No; purely on! private business. During the interview did you have any conversation regarding railway matters? —Yes; T did. First, tell me who introduced the conversation —Mr Wiiford or yourself?—Mr Wiiford. I will get you directly lo give me the whole conversation, but first I want lo ask you a few specific questions. Did you, in that interview, say anything condemnatory of the condition of the rolling stock?— Nothing whatever. You were concerned with the rolling stock, of course?— Yes. Dili you make any representation to Mi- Wiiford with the request thai he should pass it along?—No, sir: none whatever. Did you say that you declined to carry the responsibility on your shoulders, and that you made the representation to Mr Wiiford for that reason, and did you ask him to pass if along?— No. Did you discuss wilh him the ouestion of your giving evidence before an inquiry?—No, I did not. Did you make any such statement as this: "Even if I have to go before a Committee of Parliament and give my evidence. I am prepared lo do so. You can call upon me if you want to, and if you set a statement from the Minister you can call me, because I have only a few more years to go as regards superannuation, and am prepared to take all the risk there js"?—l never made that statement at ,all. When you went to Mr Wdford's room, was it in your mind to have finv conversation with him about lolling stock? —None whatever. It was as far from my mind as the poles. THE CONVERSATION. Mi-.Myers: Would you mind telling the commission just how the conversation started, and give the conversation as near as you can remember it?— When I went into the office of Mr Wiiford, after we had had a little chat, he said he was going to ask thai a Board of Inquiry be set uu, and to name Mr Marchbanks as a gentleman who would probably be upon that inquiry. He then turned to me and said: "Is il a fact that they aic using broken springs?" and I said "Yes, it is inevitable, owing ■-J' Jin- war and the shortage of sWnus." 11;' then said: "Weil, any'fo would be privileged to come ah ng and give evidence in regard to that mailer." I said, "Unfortunately, I have been blamed for putting these springs in, and certain members of the service have been along to the General Manager and have passed remarks about me not very complimentary, and I feel rather sore upon the mailer, and T do not think it is rigid of them lo do so." As soon as he mentioned the sorings 1 thought the same members had been asking again. You know you had issued a circular in September, 1014. in regard to the use of nieced snrings, and did you know that Mr Whisker had referred lo that matter in an interview thai -the executive of the A.S.R.S. had wilh Mr McVilly?—Yes. What else hannened between you and Mr Wiiford?—Nothing else.

Was the word responsibility mentioned, do you remember?— Yes. I said I do not feel inclined to lake the whole responsibility, and I have been wrongly blamed over it. Did you tell Mr Wiiford how it was that you issued your circular to the train examiners?— Yes. I said 1 had only acted in accordance with instructions I had received. Was there any discussion between Mr Wiiford and yourself as regards Uie safety of the public being involved in the use of these springs?— No. It was not introduced in any shape or form. Did he make the remark to you, or j you to him, regarding the use of j pieced springs bearing upon the safety of the public?— Safety of the public was not introduced or dis- j cussed at all between me and Mr; Wiiford. | Have you given us, as far as you j can remember, all the conversation?! -Yes. That is it ali, as far as I can • remember. I had no idea whatever! when I went into his office that such | was to be asked me. I When you said that you thought | you should not have placed on youi all the responsibility, what did you j mean?—l was of opinion that as (his had happened I would be blamed wholly for il. I could see no other course for il at that lime. I You mean the inquiry?— Yes. j Have you ever suggested lhal i nieced draw bar springs on wagons in any wav affect the safetv of the i public or the trains?— No. 1 do not think it does. The trouble* I took to! instruct my staff to get the best re-1 suits shows I could not possibly have ! thought so. Are you satisfied thai it has no effect upon (he safety of the public? —I am certain. SPEECHFS IN THE HOUSE. Mr Mvers: You saw how Mr Wiiford put it in the House? I will repeat his words: "Now I have had it stated to me by a man who was himself concerned with the rolling stock that he declined to carry the burden of responsibility on hisj shoulders, and that he made his representation to me for that reason and asked me to pass it along"?—I nevvr did anything of the sort. The] only responsibility that I said I would not carry was the issuing of the circular in regard to the pieced springs. Then he said: "I went to the Minister of Railways and told him privately that I had been informed of the condition of some of the railway lolling stock in this country." Did you have any conversation with Mr Wiiford regarding the condition of ! the rolling stock other than the conversation you have already referred lo?—I never discussed it for one moment with Mr Wiiford. That was on July 10. Mr Wdford's j question without notice was asked j on the night of the tenth. Was there j any talk between you and Mr Wiiford on the question of superannuation?— None whatever; he never mentioned it. i Would il be correct lo say thai during that interview you were j worried about the condition of the rolling stock?—No, I do not think so, considering that such a time had elapsed. - Had you any reason to be worried abouj the condition of the rolling stock?—No, none whatever. Was there any reason for your saying or suggesting that the condition of the roiling stock was so serious thai as a matter of public safely you could not take the responsibility?—l could not possibly say that.' You have said that you did not say at that interview that they were dangerous. Did you suggest such a thing?— The question of whether, they were dangerous or not was never introduced. Then if it were said that you stated that pieces of draw-bar springs were being put together instead of a new spring and lhal (hat was a danger lo the public, what do you say?—l give it a total denial. Have you seen Mr Wiiford, or have yo<u had any discussion wilh him at all in regard to springs and rolling slock since that dale?—l saw him at Wanganui when he delivered a patriotic lecture, but had no conversation with him. We have been told that no personal communication was sent to you in connection with this matter. Were these two telegrams dispatched on February 5 received bv your wife?— Yes. I put them in. One is tuned 0.30 am. February f>, and is as follows: "Mrs J. Valintine, Ilutt Road, Petone. Can you wire me Jack's address today please. Thos. Wiiford." The other is timed 11.25 on the same date and reads: —"Can you wire me Jack's address to-day please. Thos. Wiiford." Was a reply sent to that?— Yes, I replied myself.

MAN ON A TRAIN. Mr Myers: Did you have any communication from Mr Wiiford? — None, whatever. Did any envoy or agent of Mr Wilford's discuss this matter with you? —I do not think so. If you can give me the date probably I can tell you. Mr Myers said that Mr Wiiford had stated that he had sent a friend to Valintine, unknown to him, and he jumped into a train and chatted with Valintine without the latter knowing who he was. He expressed the hope that Mr Wiiford would produce the man who had given him the information and Valintine replied: "I hope he won't." The date was about February (!. Mr Myers asked witness if he had travelled in any train between February (i and February 16. Witness: No further than Aramoho. I usually travel in the guard's van. Mr Myers: It is suggested that somebody got into the train and disi cussed this matter with you and said: "I suppose Mr Wiiford will produce the man who told him," and you said, "I hope he won't." —Well, you see how utterly impossible it was for that to have taken place. I 'ravel in the guard's van. It is not often I go back again by train. I invariably take the train in. It is metre convenient. You say such a conversation did i not take place?—lt did not take | place at all. | Mil MYERS'S ADDRESS. ! Addressing the Commission, Mr Myers said that in the speeches I which were made in Parliament by Mr Wiiford and Mr Veitch a number of allegations were made. "It may be," said Mr Myers, "that they were not all made in express terms, but my observation upon that is this: that if they were not made—some of (hem—in express terms they were at least made by necessary implication. The charges are these:— "1. That broken springs had been nieced togqlher for use in carriages. That is necessarily implied from the question which Mr Wiiford put in the House on the evening of July 10. "2. That the use of pieced springs increased (lie wear ami tear on tiiej under-carriages of vehicles. That is involved in the speech made bv Mr Veitch. "3. That the use of pieced springs prejudices the safely of; the travelling public. "4. That there was a shortage of (he necessary equipment for renewals in the stores department, and (hat this shortage was quite irrespective of conditions created by the war. This is to he cleaned from the speeches, because it was suggested to (he Minister during the discussion that there may be some shortage owing io (he war. and Mr Wiiford said I that of course he was not complaining of thai, and therefore it follows that the shortage of which he complained was a shortage not in any way due to the war conditions. The department do not admit that there I had been a shortage due to war conditions or anything else. "5. That the painting of vehicles was neglected and that there was a consequent deterioration that would involve an enormous expense, in the future. That was part of Mr Vcitch's complaint. "C. That the present general manager was not maintaining the rolling stock in the high slate of efficiency in which if was handed over Io him and that the policy (presumably of the department) was not to maintain rolling stock in as high a state of efficiency as previously. "7. That generally rolling slock had been neglected and its condition allowed to deteriorate. As io this point it seems Io me that if ordinary English conveys anything at all thai is the meaning lo be extracted from the speeches which were (made in (he house. It surely was implied by Mr Veitch, and it seems J to me thai ii was put just as strongly, if not more strongly by Mr Wilj ford. ' '. i "8. Thai the reports of the respective officers on these mailers are prejudiced, unreliable, and untrue, and that (hey are not to be believed as against the word of an anonymous officer whom Mr Wiiford alleged he had in readiness lo prove his charges. A GRAVE REFLECTION. "These were the eight charges," said Mr Myers, "which I suggest are conveyed by the speeches made in the House." These charges convey a very grave reflection upon a number of men. They reflect upon the Chief Mechanical Engineer, upon the Locomotive Engineer, upon the car and wagon inspectors, and upon the train inspectors, and, incidentally, I suppose, upon Hie General Manager and those associated with him. If they are true many changes would be required in the railways adminis-

trillion of this country and the personnel of the start". If the charges are untrue, then the minds of the travelling public should he reassured on a matter which affects their safety. I want to emphasise this: That it is the member for Hutt who is responsible for this Commission. He is responsible in the first place because he asked for some commission or inquiry similar to that that has been set up. He was responsible in the last place because the officers concerned made their reports, and Mr Wilford nevertheless continued to doubt their veracity and he continued to ask for an inquiry. Now, members of the public service can stand a good deal of criticism —they are there to be criticised. But when their honour and veracity are impugned il is time the public looked into the charges made and saw whether they are right. IRRESPONSIBLE STATEMENTS. "We N hear a good deal from men in public positions," said Mr Myers, "as to what their duties are, and it is felt by officers of the Railway Department that men who delight to parade as what they call public men must be taught that they cannot make irresponsible statements, especially when those statements are of an alarmist nature, respecting the public safety. No one suggests that any member is wrong in asking a fair 1 question, but to ask a fair question! is one thing—to add to that question! rash and alarmist statements to reflect inferentially on a body of mem unable to defend themselves is some-! thing of quite a different nature. I What has happened since the inquiry has been set up? The members who spoke in the House attended before this Commission and have given evidence. Mr Veitch, member for Wanganui, certainly gave his evidence in a frank and manly way, but the evidence, I submit, shows that there is nothing whatever in the charges. It is plain (hat his main contention, being based on a misapprehension, necessarily falls to the ground. . . . I certainly think that Mr Veitch, after the demonstration with the model, might have been a little more gene.rous than he was and gone the length of saying that he was completed wrong. LACK OF EVIDENCE. "Mr Wilford took an entirely different attitude before the Commission. He had told the House he had evidence which he was prepared to call. Mr Wilford's attitude before this Commission justifies the suggestion that ai the time he never expected that his request would be complied with and the Commission set up. Mr Wilford said in the Mouse that he had evidence which justified his charges, which he was in a position to call and by which lie could prove his charges, and what has happened? He dill not call a single witness. Now that we have heard Mr Vaiiniine perhaps the reason why he called no witnesses is pretty plain. If Mr Wilford in his speech in the House had been referring only to draw bar springs there was absolutely no reason why he should have taken up the altitude of refusing to call Mr Valinfine. He knew that Mr Yalinliue had said exactly what he said in the box to-day. He knew that Mr Valintine said that pieced springs were used in wagons. If Mr Wilford is correct in saying now that all lie had in mind was springs then there was no reason whatever why he should not have called Mr Valintine. MR WILFORD'S MEANING. "I suggest that the inference to be drawn is that Mr Wilford, when lie made his speech, had a great deal more in his mind than draw bar springs. Instead of calling witnesses he comes before the Commission and poses as having asked the question as a public man, and says that he made the charges in the performance of a public duty. He does not withdraw a word of what he said in the House. And then he tries to justify himself —I was almost using a harsher term —by relying upon the question of springs and springs only. Iksays, forsooth, that his case is proved by the reports of the officers that pieced draw-bar springs have been used. In the House Mr Wilford necessarily implied that pieced springs were used under the carriages. And j he also implied, and has said over! and over again before this Commission, that the use of these pieced springs was prejudicial lo the safety of the travelling public. Both these statements are devoid of foundation. If all that Mi- Wilford had in mind when he made his spech was pieced draw-bar springs, then his question of July 10 was unnecessary and unwarranted, and his speech condemning the rolling stock and the officers might be characterised by much stronger language, and I say that because the matter of the draw-bar

springs had been fully gone into a year before in the House, Mr Wilfor.d asked, somewhat dramatically, I that Mr McVilly or I should be call-! Ed upon to produce the notes of an interview the A.S.R.S. had had with Mr McVilly in July, 1915. . . . It was apparently suggested that the file relating to that interview was being hidden from the Commission. As a matter of fact we had not j thought of it, and I am very much obliged to Mr Wilford that he should have made the request that he did,) because it shows that his question j and speech in the House were not, addressed bona fide to springs au-1 j springs alone. The interview with Mr McVillv took place in Julv, 1915. On September 14. 1915, Mr Hiley replied to the A.S.R.S. stating that instructions to use pieced draw-bar springs were issued by the Chief Locomotive Engineer. ... A fortnight later Mr Veitch asked the Min-j ister of Railways whether an instruction had been issued that broken draw-bar springs were to be used, and the Minister replied that instructions on these lines had been issued. CHILDISH. "Now Mr Wilford comes forward and says that he has proved his case because something has been admitted which has been proved to have been the recognised railway practice for at least 36 years, and I which was fully and publicly stated I in Parliament a year before he askied his question, and was freely admitted in DC) (the Departmental rejuort) which followed the asking of jMr Wilford's question. Here we have something which has been going on for the last 36 years ..... and then Mr Wilford comes before the Commission and says: 'Here is my case proved.' Mr Wilford says that at the time he made his speech in the House he had not had/an opportunity of reading DO. Assuming that to be s i there is still the fact that this practice is at least 3(i years old in the New Zealand Railways. I suggest that really it is childish to come forward now and say: ' Here is my case proved because the officers admit they use pieced draw-bar springs on wagons.' ... All I can say is that if Mr Wilford can say that anything that has come out before this Commission can gratify him, he is very easily gratified and pleased. It may seem that 1 am speaking strongly, but I am onlv speaking strongly as representing the officers of the Railway Department who have had these charges made against them, and I speak strongly because they feel strongly. They wish to show their resentment of this method of attack. When a man conies forward under the circumstances under which Mr Wilford has come forward, and tells the Commission, and through the Commission the public, that he is Satisfied thai all he lias said has been proved, my submission is that such an attitude is only an effort to save the face of the man speaking; and 1 say without hesitation that file member for Hutt would have been entitled to much greater respect if he had admitted he had made a mistake and had expressed regret for making charges for which he finds there is no foundation. Bui perhaps there is a charitable way of regarding Mr Wilford's attitude and that is to accept unreservedly Mr Wilford's statement when he says: '1 profess absolute ignorance on the subject' After dealing briefly with the evidence regarding painting, lifting, hot boxes, etc., Mr Myers said there was no! a tittle of evidence to show that j there was any foundation whatever i for any such charges as made. The | whole of the evidence uot'only nega-1 lived the charges, but showed that j the rolling stock was at the present ' time in a better condition than ever j it was previously. I MR WILFORD PROTESTS. fSpecial to The Sun.| WELLINGTON, March VI. Mi- T. M. Wilford, the member lor 1 Hull, strongly resents the statement] made by Mr E. 11. Hiley before the j Holling-Stock Commission in Christchurch, to the effect that he is responsible for the appointment of the commission. He accepted the assurance of the responsible ollicers that! the rolling-stock was being properly! I maintained and made no further j allusion to the subject after this! assurance was given. He presumes! thai Mr Hiley was not aware of the; fact that lie had not seen the official report when he spoke in the House,! and had had no opportunity to see it as the debate, such as it was, took place before the document was laid on the table. Ik- regards the ap- '. pointment of the commission as a waste of public money, and objects to being associated with its proceed-! ings in any way. [