20
2
!
3*
In this despatch I will deal first with the
conclusions of the Commissioners regarding Mr. Forrest's
conduct of his office and subsequently with their
reflections upon the local administration.
4.
Mr. Forrest was found by the Commission to have
been at fault on two major matters, the first being that
(Paras.12-18 he knowingly and irresponsibly neglected the accounting side
of Report).
of his department. That conclusion is, I think, inevitable:
(Para.37).
(Paras.20-
23 and 38-39).
(Page 15 of evidence)
but the Commissioners then proceed to lay the real blame
for this neglect on the shoulders of Government for having
selected an unsuitable officer as head of the new department.
With this issue I deal below.
5.
The second count is that he deliberately disobeyed the ruling of the Governor-in-Council by giving to Mr. Kobza what amounted to a monopolistic agency; that he took pains to conceal that he had done so; and that when he thought that his action was coming to light he tried to entrench Mr. Kobza in his agency by converting an agreement which was subject to three months' notice to one good for five years.
The
Commissioners convict him of deliberate disobedience and
calculated surreptitious defiance of Government's instructions
and they recommend his removal from the Service.
6.
Mr. Forrest contends that his agreement with Mr. Kobza was not a monopoly, so that the charge of disobedience falls to the ground, and that he had no intention of concealing what he had done. The disingenuousness of this defence is
obvious and in my view the verdict of the Commissioners is indisputable.
At the same time I cannot avoid the impression that Mr. Forrest, overdriven as he was by circumstances, was so much blinded by his determination to defeat the pseudo-agents,
Page 20Page 21