DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.68025#0022
16
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE :
The Hon.
Mr. E. A.
Gait.
27 Dec., 1907.
14572. What would be the use of a rule then,
saying that a recurring honorarium should be treated
as a part of salary? Could not the Local Govern-
ment evade this rule if it had power to say whether
honoraria are recurring or not ? — Of course, if it
comes to a question of evasion, it would not be safe
to delegate anything to the Local Governments. You
must give Local Governments credit for common
honesty.
14573. Would it not be far better to relax the
general rule, than to give discretionary dispensing
powers to Local Governments ?—We are not asking
for discretionary dispensing powers to Local Govern-
ments ; we are asking that the Local Government’s
statement should be accepted on what is really a
question of fact.
14574. Would you maintain that in the case of an
action on a point of law the Local Government should
interpret it ?—There is a great difference between the
two things, because the certainty of the law is the
essential thing. If there is no great expenditure
involved in the interpretation of a financial rule. I do
not see any harm in leaving its application to Local
Governments. If a large sum of money is involved,
then the matter ought to go up to the Government of
India ; if it is a small thing, a large amount of
time and trouble would be saved by the Local Govern-
ment dealing with it.
14575. Do you say that the Accountant-General is
to be overruled by the Local Government ?—Yes, if it
is the case like the one of recurring honoraria with
which the Local Government can deal best as being
mainly a question of fact.
14576. Are you aware, as a general principle, that an
officer of the Government is supposed to do work for
municipalities and District Boards ?—Yes.
14577. Are there not claims now and then on the
part of officers for allowances for doing municipal
work ?—I cannot recall them at the moment.
14578. Might not that principle be evaded in general
practice by the granting of liberal honoraria ?—If a
Local Government is to be looked upon as likely to
evade the rules, why delegate any power at all.
14579< There are many rules under which the
sanction of the Secretary of State is required, and you
are probably aware that the Audit Officer can chal-
lenge the Government of India ; would you similarly
allow the Government of India to interpret those
rules ?•—It seems to me quite reasonable that the same
thing should be held to apply,
14580. You spoke of the desirability of giving the
Local Governments larger powers in matters of detail
as apart from principle ; do you include appointments
and pensions, and matters relating to the Civil Service
Regulations generally, in detail ?—The detailed
powers which we think should be delegated are
mentioned in the schedule appended to my letter.
14581. I was speaking of your answer in which you
say : “ The Government of India should avoid inter-
ference in matters of detail.” When a scheme goes up
it includes a number of appointments ; do you con-
sider the creation of an appointment a mere matter of
detail ?—No, I do not.
14582. By “ detail,” do you mean such instances as
you gave with regard to Road Cess ?—Yes or to take
another : we recently applied to the Government of
India for funds to alter the beat system in Calcutta.
We sent up a scheme to the Government of India
which had been carefully worked out with the Com-
missioner of Police, and in reply they said they did
not approve of it, and suggested a different scheme. I
think that was interference in matters of detail.
14583. Is it not sometimes an advantage that you
should have an opportunity of thinking over a scheme
and testing it ?—It is sometimes, but the result is, as a
rule, that the thing is delayed so long that everyone
gets tired of it. In this particular case the alteration
in the beat system, which we suggested, was recom-
mended by the Police Commission and had been men-
tioned at the time with approval by the Government
of India, and we had sent it up with an intimation
that we found it would be peculiarly suitable for
Calcutta.
14584. With regard to the Road Cess, which you
mentioned, was not the original provision set aside by
actual law ?—-It was not set aside exactly, but the
section was repealed.
14585. Was that not setting it aside ?—To a certain
extent, of course it was ; but for a long time past
it had been recognised that it was wrong to set it
aside.
14586. It is not the case that four or five
Lieutenant-Governors took one view of the matter and
the present Lieutenant-Governor took another view ?
—It may be so.
14587. And the Government of India said : “ We
agree with you, but you had better not put it into a
stereotyped form of law,” because it was thought that
other Lieutenant-Governors might differ again. Do
you not think that reasonable ?—I do not think you
should veto things because you think the opinions of
the Local Governments may change.
14588. Let me take another case. There was an
educational matter in which a Lieutenant-Governor
wanted a wholesale transfer of educational institutions
and the Government of India objected, rightly or
wrongly. Do you consider that a matter of detail ?—
No, I do not think the whole scheme was a matter of
detail. It included the transfer of the Engineering
College to Ranchi, and it was a big scheme.
14589. You put forward the view that in matters of
detail Local Governments ought not to be overruled
except by the Council of the Governor-General as a
whole ; are you aware that under present conditions
Local Governments cannot be overruled without
reference to the Viceroy?—But the Viceroy has no
local knowledge in these matters.
14590. And that the Viceroy may direct any matter
to go to Council ?—Yes.
14591. But you desire that the question of referring
matters to the Council should be transferred from the
Viceroy to the Lieutenant-Governor or the Head of a
province ?—I think if a Local Government wants to
have a matter reconsidered, it ought to be considered
by the Council.
14592. Are you aware of any authority in England
subordinate to the Government which could require
the Prime Minister to submit a case to the Cabinet ?—
No, but I do not think the cases are at all parallel.
We are not asking that the Local Government should
have power to insist on a reference to Council, but
that the Government of India should themselves
extend the principle which you have just referred to.
14593. Is not the Government of the Lieutenant-
Governor a single-man Government ?—It is a single-
man Government, but the Lieutenant-Governor does
not pass orders until he has the opinions of all his
advisers.
14594. A Lieutenant-Governor might be a man of
impulsive character, and he might go contrary to the
advice of his advisers ?—Of course, all things are
possible.
14595. There would be nothing to indicate to the
Government of India that that was so, and conceivably
there might be a Member, or a Secretary in the
Government of India, who knew more about the
province than a Lieutenant-Governor ?—Yes.
14596. Would you still propose that the Lieutenant-
Governor, under such conditions, should not be over-
ruled except by Council on matters of detail ?—What
I mean is that I do not think in matters of detail the
Lieutenant-Governor ought to be overruled, and that,
if detailed criticism is made, it should be made in the
form of criticism, and left to the Local Government
to adopt, or not, as it may think fit. I am not
objecting to the control of the Government of India
on matters of principle at all; -it is only that
tremendous delay is caused by having details thrashed
out in the course of correspondence.
14597. With regard to Imperial Inspectors-General,
you resent the Government of India overruling you
and your advisers, but at the same time you are not
prepared to seek their advice ?—That is not quite as I
put it. I think the business of an Inspector-General
is to furnish information or (kive advice to local
departments; if the local departments think it
necessary to obtain that advice regarding any scheme,
I would not object, but I would not make it a rule
that they should be obliged to seek it.
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE :
The Hon.
Mr. E. A.
Gait.
27 Dec., 1907.
14572. What would be the use of a rule then,
saying that a recurring honorarium should be treated
as a part of salary? Could not the Local Govern-
ment evade this rule if it had power to say whether
honoraria are recurring or not ? — Of course, if it
comes to a question of evasion, it would not be safe
to delegate anything to the Local Governments. You
must give Local Governments credit for common
honesty.
14573. Would it not be far better to relax the
general rule, than to give discretionary dispensing
powers to Local Governments ?—We are not asking
for discretionary dispensing powers to Local Govern-
ments ; we are asking that the Local Government’s
statement should be accepted on what is really a
question of fact.
14574. Would you maintain that in the case of an
action on a point of law the Local Government should
interpret it ?—There is a great difference between the
two things, because the certainty of the law is the
essential thing. If there is no great expenditure
involved in the interpretation of a financial rule. I do
not see any harm in leaving its application to Local
Governments. If a large sum of money is involved,
then the matter ought to go up to the Government of
India ; if it is a small thing, a large amount of
time and trouble would be saved by the Local Govern-
ment dealing with it.
14575. Do you say that the Accountant-General is
to be overruled by the Local Government ?—Yes, if it
is the case like the one of recurring honoraria with
which the Local Government can deal best as being
mainly a question of fact.
14576. Are you aware, as a general principle, that an
officer of the Government is supposed to do work for
municipalities and District Boards ?—Yes.
14577. Are there not claims now and then on the
part of officers for allowances for doing municipal
work ?—I cannot recall them at the moment.
14578. Might not that principle be evaded in general
practice by the granting of liberal honoraria ?—If a
Local Government is to be looked upon as likely to
evade the rules, why delegate any power at all.
14579< There are many rules under which the
sanction of the Secretary of State is required, and you
are probably aware that the Audit Officer can chal-
lenge the Government of India ; would you similarly
allow the Government of India to interpret those
rules ?•—It seems to me quite reasonable that the same
thing should be held to apply,
14580. You spoke of the desirability of giving the
Local Governments larger powers in matters of detail
as apart from principle ; do you include appointments
and pensions, and matters relating to the Civil Service
Regulations generally, in detail ?—The detailed
powers which we think should be delegated are
mentioned in the schedule appended to my letter.
14581. I was speaking of your answer in which you
say : “ The Government of India should avoid inter-
ference in matters of detail.” When a scheme goes up
it includes a number of appointments ; do you con-
sider the creation of an appointment a mere matter of
detail ?—No, I do not.
14582. By “ detail,” do you mean such instances as
you gave with regard to Road Cess ?—Yes or to take
another : we recently applied to the Government of
India for funds to alter the beat system in Calcutta.
We sent up a scheme to the Government of India
which had been carefully worked out with the Com-
missioner of Police, and in reply they said they did
not approve of it, and suggested a different scheme. I
think that was interference in matters of detail.
14583. Is it not sometimes an advantage that you
should have an opportunity of thinking over a scheme
and testing it ?—It is sometimes, but the result is, as a
rule, that the thing is delayed so long that everyone
gets tired of it. In this particular case the alteration
in the beat system, which we suggested, was recom-
mended by the Police Commission and had been men-
tioned at the time with approval by the Government
of India, and we had sent it up with an intimation
that we found it would be peculiarly suitable for
Calcutta.
14584. With regard to the Road Cess, which you
mentioned, was not the original provision set aside by
actual law ?—-It was not set aside exactly, but the
section was repealed.
14585. Was that not setting it aside ?—To a certain
extent, of course it was ; but for a long time past
it had been recognised that it was wrong to set it
aside.
14586. It is not the case that four or five
Lieutenant-Governors took one view of the matter and
the present Lieutenant-Governor took another view ?
—It may be so.
14587. And the Government of India said : “ We
agree with you, but you had better not put it into a
stereotyped form of law,” because it was thought that
other Lieutenant-Governors might differ again. Do
you not think that reasonable ?—I do not think you
should veto things because you think the opinions of
the Local Governments may change.
14588. Let me take another case. There was an
educational matter in which a Lieutenant-Governor
wanted a wholesale transfer of educational institutions
and the Government of India objected, rightly or
wrongly. Do you consider that a matter of detail ?—
No, I do not think the whole scheme was a matter of
detail. It included the transfer of the Engineering
College to Ranchi, and it was a big scheme.
14589. You put forward the view that in matters of
detail Local Governments ought not to be overruled
except by the Council of the Governor-General as a
whole ; are you aware that under present conditions
Local Governments cannot be overruled without
reference to the Viceroy?—But the Viceroy has no
local knowledge in these matters.
14590. And that the Viceroy may direct any matter
to go to Council ?—Yes.
14591. But you desire that the question of referring
matters to the Council should be transferred from the
Viceroy to the Lieutenant-Governor or the Head of a
province ?—I think if a Local Government wants to
have a matter reconsidered, it ought to be considered
by the Council.
14592. Are you aware of any authority in England
subordinate to the Government which could require
the Prime Minister to submit a case to the Cabinet ?—
No, but I do not think the cases are at all parallel.
We are not asking that the Local Government should
have power to insist on a reference to Council, but
that the Government of India should themselves
extend the principle which you have just referred to.
14593. Is not the Government of the Lieutenant-
Governor a single-man Government ?—It is a single-
man Government, but the Lieutenant-Governor does
not pass orders until he has the opinions of all his
advisers.
14594. A Lieutenant-Governor might be a man of
impulsive character, and he might go contrary to the
advice of his advisers ?—Of course, all things are
possible.
14595. There would be nothing to indicate to the
Government of India that that was so, and conceivably
there might be a Member, or a Secretary in the
Government of India, who knew more about the
province than a Lieutenant-Governor ?—Yes.
14596. Would you still propose that the Lieutenant-
Governor, under such conditions, should not be over-
ruled except by Council on matters of detail ?—What
I mean is that I do not think in matters of detail the
Lieutenant-Governor ought to be overruled, and that,
if detailed criticism is made, it should be made in the
form of criticism, and left to the Local Government
to adopt, or not, as it may think fit. I am not
objecting to the control of the Government of India
on matters of principle at all; -it is only that
tremendous delay is caused by having details thrashed
out in the course of correspondence.
14597. With regard to Imperial Inspectors-General,
you resent the Government of India overruling you
and your advisers, but at the same time you are not
prepared to seek their advice ?—That is not quite as I
put it. I think the business of an Inspector-General
is to furnish information or (kive advice to local
departments; if the local departments think it
necessary to obtain that advice regarding any scheme,
I would not object, but I would not make it a rule
that they should be obliged to seek it.