THE LONDON OFFICE

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXXVII, Issue 19682, 27 December 1933, Page 14

THE LONDON OFFICE

RELUCTANCE TO ACCEPT IT. The reluctance of public men who are eligible to asume the position of High Commissioner creates the suspicion that there is something W’rong about that dignity (says the “Southland N 3ws.”) It was convenient for Sir James Parr to resume authority in London for a year, but it was not convenient for the present incumbent to remain. It is a pity, we think, that our representation at the heart of the Empire should be regarded as a rolling office, because, though we have hud particularly good luck recently, the position is liable to fall into the hands of men without any capacity for the special type of work required. While we depend entirely on the markets of Great Britain for our revenue it is imperative that some one with commercial knowledge, a pleasing address and the gift of diplomacy should be appointed, and, more than this, energy and ambition must be included in his business accomplishments. Sir Thomas Wilford has proved himself almost ideal, and it is probable that his services could be retained if economy was not considered so essential in all things. It should be the purpose of our Government to get the right man in the job, and to see: that he was satisfied. What are a thousand pounds or even two thousand pounds compared with what an efficient High Commissioner can do for us in the direction of capturing new trade? Sir Thomas has undoubtedly more than earned his salary a hundred times over in this why during the term of his office, and he has achieved this handicapped by the foolish official parsimony which assumes that money saved is always money gained. These proverbs are not to be taken too literally. There are always reservations which are subordinated to piquancy in the popular maxims and it is unfortunate that these do not suggest themselves to Ministers. Our special correspondent in Wellington regards it as certain that, in the ordinary course of events, the High Commissionership will go to Mr Forbes, Mr Coates, or Mr Masters. The idea is that the salary will be increased so that entertaining will not have to be done at the expense of the official's private purse. But that should not be considered of so much importance as getting the right man. We would place the amount of the honorarium at £3,000 to £4,000. The ideal representative would be cheap at the money, but neither Mr Forbes nor Mr Coates would be worth half the present salary because they are not cut out for the work which requires a specialist, ./e realise that Mr Coates appears to be capable of doing anything, but he assumes a responsibility that no one now considers him capable of shouldering and he has at his beck and call competent departmental officers whose duty it is to keep themselves conversant with all that is happening in their own spheres of activity. In London the High Commissioner must depend entirely on his own initiative for he is expected to continue opening up new ground. It is advisable that a man such as Sir Thomas Wilford should be requested to carry out the duties of the office so long as he could do so with satisfaction to himself and the Government. Where he would be underpaid at £3OOO a year, many of those whose names are mentioned would be dear at £SOO. If Sir Thomas cannot be induced to continue in the position the mantle should fall on Mr Masters, who certainly is endowed with most of the attributes of the ideal High Commissioner. What he may lack in experience of actual administration he probably may soon acquire with the aid of the wide knowledge of men and affairs gained during his tour of England after the Imperial Conference had concluded its sittings.