DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.68025#0130
124
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE:
Mr. H. J.
McIntosh.
3 Jan., 1908.
17476. Have you seen any of these suggested re-
organization schemes coming through lately ?—Yes.
17477. In those matters did you consider the Govern-
ment of India were going far too much into detail ?—
I have had no re-organization scheme of my own, but
it has seemed to me that perhaps a number of small
points were taken up unnecessarily.
17478. Do you attribute that to the influence of the
Inspector-General ?—It is scarcely for mo to say.
Possibly those things would have been cleared up more
quickly if, for instance, the Inspector-General had dis-
cussed them with the Local Government at a personal
interview.
17479. Supposing the first Appellate Authority,
when he heard an appeal, considered that the facts
were quite clear and that there was no question of
principle involved, or that the facts were clear, but
that there was a question of principle involved, do
you think a certificate of that sort by the first Apel-
late Authority ought to regulate the admissibility of
further appeals ?—I do not object to that. My feeling
is that you cannot dissociate the Local Government
—they must be the final authority.
17480. Would they not be less likely to take cases
up if they found the first Appellate Authority had
issued a certificate of that sort ?—Possibly.
17481. Would you put any limit upon the Provincial
Service in the way of appeal ?—I should think not on
the whole. I would let them go to the Government of
India.
17482. What would you say with regard to the Sub-
ordinate Executive Service ?—I should think an appeal
to the Lieutenant-Governor would be sufficient. It
probably would be dealt with by the Head of a Depart-
ment or, say, the Board of Revenue, and then there
would be one appeal to the Local Government.
17483. Have you any experience of touring under
the conditions of permanent travelling allowance ?—
As a Commissioner I have a permanent travelling
allowance now.
17484. Have the officers subordinate to you a
daily allowance?—They get their mileage or halting
allowance.
17485. Does a permanent allowance allow more
easily of long-distance prolonged travelling than a
daily allowance ?•—I do not think that to an officer of
the rank of a District Officer it makes any difference
at all; I believe in this province people are generally
satisfied with the travelling allowance rules.
17486. Do the daily allowance rules give much
more trouble and labour than the permanent allowance
rules ?—I think not. A Collector sends up his
travelling allowance bill, the Commissioner has to
countersign it ; he is not interested in the details of
the bill, but in the diary which accompanies it. I read
the diary, the bill is checked, and I merely sign it.
17487. Is there much more trouble in the Collector’s
office in preparing or checking a daily bill as compared
with checking a monthly bill ?—There would be no
trouble if there was a monthly allowance ; the money
would be simply drawn and paid.
17488. Therefore the labour is very much less?—
Of course. The fixed monthly system saves all the bills,
and it would save work in the Accountant-General’s
Office, where they are checked again.
17489. Then if we are told that it would not save
work, would you say that that is inaccurate ?—I
should think it was inaccurate.
17490. Are the experiments which have been made
as to the system of chaukidari panchayats likely to
turn out well ?—Yes ; I have no personal knowledge,
but I gather that they are doing well.
17491. Is it the right place on which to concentrate
attention as regards local self-government at present?—
I do not know that. I am speaking of the chaukidari
panchayats. We have submitted proposals to the
Government of India to improve the village union
committee system, but that is different from the
chaukidari panchayats system.
17492. The village union committee system is
connected with the District Boards?—Yes.
17493. And that is where you would begin?—I
think so, with regard to a village or a number of
villages.
17494. Would you rather begin there than with
Advisory Councils in the way of educating the
people ?—Yes, I should prefer to do so.
17495. Under your scheme of large Commissioner-
ships, could you administer the whole province with
four Commissioners?—That is a thing that would
have to be worked out in full detail.
17496. Do you only refer to the question of
language with regard to divisions, and might you have
two Commissioners in one linguistic division?—Yes.
17497. In Chota Nagpur have you a homogeneous
population under you ?—Yes, I think so.
174981 Is there none of the same population outside
your borders ?—We mix with Orissa a bit, but
generally speaking I should say no.
17499. Do you march with the Central Provinces?—
Yes ; some Native States have been transferred from
Bengal to the Central Provinces.
17500. If you had this system of large Com-
missionerships with great powers, would there still be
room for the Board of Revenue ?—That is a point
which would have to be worked out: possibly there
might not; possibly the Board might be done away
with, but then we should have to make some arrange-
ment for the Customs and the Imperial Departments,
which would require a great deal of thinking out; but
possibly the Board might disappear.
17501. {Mr. Meyer.') You held the position of
Deputy Secretary in the Finance Department for three
years ?—Yes.
17502. Roughly, what were your duties in that
position ?—I had charge of the Expenditure and
Excise Branches. When a proposal for new expendi-
ture came up to the department immediately concerned,
after that department had expressed its opinion upon
it, it came to the Financial Department for concurrence
or for an expression of the opinion of the Financial
Department; I gave that opinion and submitted it, in
most cases, to the Member of Council.
17503. Was your work, apart from excise, principally
concerned with financial criticism of administrative
schemes coming from other departments ?—Yes.
17504. That being so, would it not be rather an
advantage to have as Deputy Secretary a man who
had considerable administrative experience himself ?—
Certainly.
17505. Therefore there is no special disadvantage
in his having served, say, in the Home Department,
or in his own Local Government, or having otherwise
got some experience outside mere finance ?—Yes, I
quite agree.
17506. You say it is desirable that there should be
more frequent change in the personnel of the Govern-
ment of India Secretariat—do you mean that you
think the three-year rule too long ?—No, 1 do not
think it is too long.
17507. An officer appointed, say, to an Under-
Secretaryship or Deputy Secretaryship to the Govern-
ment of India, and whose training has been in a
particular province, is at first not altogether familiar
with his work ? His full lisefulness to the Government
of India is not attained, until he has been at least
some months in his Secretarial appointment ?—I
think so.
17508. Therefore whatever advantage it may be to
the provinces to have a rapid flow, of officers passing
through the Secretariat, might it not be a disadvantage
to the Government of India?—I was thinking of a
three years’ tenure ; I did not mean a few months.
17509. You say it would be of advantage to have
officers pushed through the Secretariat as rapidly as
possible ?—That was not my meaning; I should think
three years should be the time.
17510. Is there any time rule in the Bengal
Secretariat as to the period of Secretariat appoint-
ments ?—I think not.
17511. Would it be advisable to have a time rule
there ?—It is probably hardly necessary, because an
officer is promoted from the Secretariat to a Com-
missionership. There is a time rule, I believe, for
Under-Secretaries. It is either two or three years.
17512. If a man were appointed as Secretary at a
quite junior stage of his career, he might still put in
a great many years as Secretary before his turn came
for a Commissionership ?—Yes.
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE:
Mr. H. J.
McIntosh.
3 Jan., 1908.
17476. Have you seen any of these suggested re-
organization schemes coming through lately ?—Yes.
17477. In those matters did you consider the Govern-
ment of India were going far too much into detail ?—
I have had no re-organization scheme of my own, but
it has seemed to me that perhaps a number of small
points were taken up unnecessarily.
17478. Do you attribute that to the influence of the
Inspector-General ?—It is scarcely for mo to say.
Possibly those things would have been cleared up more
quickly if, for instance, the Inspector-General had dis-
cussed them with the Local Government at a personal
interview.
17479. Supposing the first Appellate Authority,
when he heard an appeal, considered that the facts
were quite clear and that there was no question of
principle involved, or that the facts were clear, but
that there was a question of principle involved, do
you think a certificate of that sort by the first Apel-
late Authority ought to regulate the admissibility of
further appeals ?—I do not object to that. My feeling
is that you cannot dissociate the Local Government
—they must be the final authority.
17480. Would they not be less likely to take cases
up if they found the first Appellate Authority had
issued a certificate of that sort ?—Possibly.
17481. Would you put any limit upon the Provincial
Service in the way of appeal ?—I should think not on
the whole. I would let them go to the Government of
India.
17482. What would you say with regard to the Sub-
ordinate Executive Service ?—I should think an appeal
to the Lieutenant-Governor would be sufficient. It
probably would be dealt with by the Head of a Depart-
ment or, say, the Board of Revenue, and then there
would be one appeal to the Local Government.
17483. Have you any experience of touring under
the conditions of permanent travelling allowance ?—
As a Commissioner I have a permanent travelling
allowance now.
17484. Have the officers subordinate to you a
daily allowance?—They get their mileage or halting
allowance.
17485. Does a permanent allowance allow more
easily of long-distance prolonged travelling than a
daily allowance ?•—I do not think that to an officer of
the rank of a District Officer it makes any difference
at all; I believe in this province people are generally
satisfied with the travelling allowance rules.
17486. Do the daily allowance rules give much
more trouble and labour than the permanent allowance
rules ?—I think not. A Collector sends up his
travelling allowance bill, the Commissioner has to
countersign it ; he is not interested in the details of
the bill, but in the diary which accompanies it. I read
the diary, the bill is checked, and I merely sign it.
17487. Is there much more trouble in the Collector’s
office in preparing or checking a daily bill as compared
with checking a monthly bill ?—There would be no
trouble if there was a monthly allowance ; the money
would be simply drawn and paid.
17488. Therefore the labour is very much less?—
Of course. The fixed monthly system saves all the bills,
and it would save work in the Accountant-General’s
Office, where they are checked again.
17489. Then if we are told that it would not save
work, would you say that that is inaccurate ?—I
should think it was inaccurate.
17490. Are the experiments which have been made
as to the system of chaukidari panchayats likely to
turn out well ?—Yes ; I have no personal knowledge,
but I gather that they are doing well.
17491. Is it the right place on which to concentrate
attention as regards local self-government at present?—
I do not know that. I am speaking of the chaukidari
panchayats. We have submitted proposals to the
Government of India to improve the village union
committee system, but that is different from the
chaukidari panchayats system.
17492. The village union committee system is
connected with the District Boards?—Yes.
17493. And that is where you would begin?—I
think so, with regard to a village or a number of
villages.
17494. Would you rather begin there than with
Advisory Councils in the way of educating the
people ?—Yes, I should prefer to do so.
17495. Under your scheme of large Commissioner-
ships, could you administer the whole province with
four Commissioners?—That is a thing that would
have to be worked out in full detail.
17496. Do you only refer to the question of
language with regard to divisions, and might you have
two Commissioners in one linguistic division?—Yes.
17497. In Chota Nagpur have you a homogeneous
population under you ?—Yes, I think so.
174981 Is there none of the same population outside
your borders ?—We mix with Orissa a bit, but
generally speaking I should say no.
17499. Do you march with the Central Provinces?—
Yes ; some Native States have been transferred from
Bengal to the Central Provinces.
17500. If you had this system of large Com-
missionerships with great powers, would there still be
room for the Board of Revenue ?—That is a point
which would have to be worked out: possibly there
might not; possibly the Board might be done away
with, but then we should have to make some arrange-
ment for the Customs and the Imperial Departments,
which would require a great deal of thinking out; but
possibly the Board might disappear.
17501. {Mr. Meyer.') You held the position of
Deputy Secretary in the Finance Department for three
years ?—Yes.
17502. Roughly, what were your duties in that
position ?—I had charge of the Expenditure and
Excise Branches. When a proposal for new expendi-
ture came up to the department immediately concerned,
after that department had expressed its opinion upon
it, it came to the Financial Department for concurrence
or for an expression of the opinion of the Financial
Department; I gave that opinion and submitted it, in
most cases, to the Member of Council.
17503. Was your work, apart from excise, principally
concerned with financial criticism of administrative
schemes coming from other departments ?—Yes.
17504. That being so, would it not be rather an
advantage to have as Deputy Secretary a man who
had considerable administrative experience himself ?—
Certainly.
17505. Therefore there is no special disadvantage
in his having served, say, in the Home Department,
or in his own Local Government, or having otherwise
got some experience outside mere finance ?—Yes, I
quite agree.
17506. You say it is desirable that there should be
more frequent change in the personnel of the Govern-
ment of India Secretariat—do you mean that you
think the three-year rule too long ?—No, 1 do not
think it is too long.
17507. An officer appointed, say, to an Under-
Secretaryship or Deputy Secretaryship to the Govern-
ment of India, and whose training has been in a
particular province, is at first not altogether familiar
with his work ? His full lisefulness to the Government
of India is not attained, until he has been at least
some months in his Secretarial appointment ?—I
think so.
17508. Therefore whatever advantage it may be to
the provinces to have a rapid flow, of officers passing
through the Secretariat, might it not be a disadvantage
to the Government of India?—I was thinking of a
three years’ tenure ; I did not mean a few months.
17509. You say it would be of advantage to have
officers pushed through the Secretariat as rapidly as
possible ?—That was not my meaning; I should think
three years should be the time.
17510. Is there any time rule in the Bengal
Secretariat as to the period of Secretariat appoint-
ments ?—I think not.
17511. Would it be advisable to have a time rule
there ?—It is probably hardly necessary, because an
officer is promoted from the Secretariat to a Com-
missionership. There is a time rule, I believe, for
Under-Secretaries. It is either two or three years.
17512. If a man were appointed as Secretary at a
quite junior stage of his career, he might still put in
a great many years as Secretary before his turn came
for a Commissionership ?—Yes.