CO885-(11-12) — Page 488

4111 L

RECORD OFFICE

Reference -

C.O.882/12

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE. LONDON

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE | 81 · REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC-

COB FRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO

14286/1/33 [No. 2].

38

No. 24.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE to THE GOVERNOR.

(Sent 12.30 p.m., 5th May, 1933.).

TELEGRAM.

* If you are satisfied that the No. 81. CONFIDENTIAL. Your telegram No. 63.* efficient execution of the essential work of the Irrigation Department cannot be assured if your proposals are rejected, I approve of use of powers under Article 22 of Order in Council. You should explain to Ministers that I cannot allow such drastic reductions in the experienced staff of the department as would render impossible the efficient execution of essential duties of the department --CUNLIFFE-LIster.

14286:33 [No. 3].

No. 25.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE to THE GOVERNOR.

(Sent 4.35 p.m., 20th July, 1933.),

TELEGRAM.

No. 116. CONFIDENTIAL. Your despatch 29th May, No. 324.† Your telegram No. 107, 21st June.‡ I accept your view as re-affirmed in your despatch that the efficient execution of the essential work of the Irrigation Department cannot be assured without the appointment of the two officers concerned to the permanent staff, and I approve the use of powers under Article 22 of Order in Council if the necessary financial provision is rejected. In view of delay which has already occurred and of the fact that you have submitted to me full correspondence which has taken place with Board of Ministers. I see no advantage in deferring decision in this matter and should be glad if appropriate communications to this effect could be sent to Acting Minister. Kitching is being offered permanent employment forthwith on terms set out in will notify you later by telegraph if he your Confidential despatch of 29th May§ accepts and will also communicate as regards Robertson.

14286/33 [No. 4].

(No. 464.)

SIR,

No. 26.

THE GOVERNOR to THE SECRETARY OF STATE.

(Received 21st August, 1933.)

[Answered by Nos. 27 and 30.]

Ceylon, 2nd August, 1933.

I HAVE the honour to transmit a letter addressed to you by the Acting Minister of Agriculture and Lands, lealing with the question of the cadre of Engineers in. the Irrigation Department which I have discussed at length in my despatch No. 324

; 14286/33 [No. 2]: not printed.

* No. 23.

† 14280/33 [No. 1]: not printed.

§ 14268/1/33 [No. 4]; not printed.

39

of the 29th May, 1933.* I am, of course, aware that the correct procedure would have been for the Minister to make his representations on this question to me, with the request that I should lay his views before you (as I did in my previous despatch). Had he made that request I would have complied with it very willingly, but since he has preferred to address you direct, I think the course which I am now adopting is probably the most appropriate and convenient. I would not, however, consider suit- able for regular adoption a practice by which a Minister would address the Secretary of State direct in the event of a difference of opinion between the Governor and himself.

2. In his first paragraph the Minister complains of my refusal to grant him access to my correspondence with you on this subject and to that which passed between the Financial Secretary and myself. But you will observe that he has had access to my despatch No. 324 of the 29th May, 1933, which deals fully with the whole of the question at issue, and he is of course familiar with all the annexures to that despatch. The Minister's complaint that information has been withheld from him arises out of the fact that, in response to a request for access to certain documents, I informed him that I was not at liberty to divulge the contents of confidential com- munications from the Secretary of State, and that I could not admit any obligation on the part of the Governor to disclose the terms of any oral communications or con- fidential minutes that might have passed between the Governor and an Officer of State. I have withheld from the Minister no information the lack of which could possibly embarrass him in the stating of his case.

3. In paragraph 5 of his letter the Minister enlarges upon the fact that the Irrigation Department has hitherto employed no Ceylonese officers above the rank of Assistant Irrigation Engineer. Although undeniably correct, this fact is scarcely relevant to the question now at issue, and I do not propose to comment on it further than to say that the reasons for the exclusion of Ceylonese from the upper ranks of the Irrigation Department are not those which the Minister assigns. Nor do I propose I am content to leave it to you to comment on paragraph 6 of the Minister's letter.

to judge whether the decision to place two Temporary Irrigation Engineers on the permanent establishment, in the circumstances described in my despatch No. 324, in any way contravenes your general instructions on the subject of retrenchment in establishments.

made

4. The Minister's observations in paragraphis to 12 of his letter purport to be As I in amplification' "of my despatch No. 324 of the 29th May, 1933. have already explained in that despatch, the Minister and I are agreed that two of the Temporary Engineers of the Irrigation Department should be retained in service in order to bring the number of Engineers up to 14, and the only question still at issue between us is whether they should be placed on the permanent establishment or retained on further agreements for five years. My reasons for holding that they should be placed on the permanent establishment have already been given in my letter of the 13th May, 1933, to the Minister, which forms Annexure V to my despatch No. 324. The Minister quotes in extenso the portion of my letter giving those reasons and pro- ceeds to examine and criticise them. I find nothing in his examination to shake my conviction that my decision was the correct one, although I have carefully considered every argument which he puts forward. The whole question has already been dis- cussed at great length in my despatch No. 324 and its annexures, and I feel that no useful purpose would he served by my re-stating or amplifying a case which has already been stated in full. I will confine myself, therefore, in dealing with para- graphs 7 to 12 of the Minister's letter, to commenting as briefly as possible on the salient points in his criticism of the views which I advanced in previous correspondence.

5. In the ninth paragraph of his letter the Minister attributes to me the view that 14 Engineers of the Irrigation Department "should bear the label Europeans for the next five years at least." It is curious that he should have so completely The view which I actually misinterpreted a statement which he quotes in extenso. expressed in paragraph 12 of my letter to the Minister was that there was no certainty nor, in my opinion, any great probability that it would be possible within a period of five years to carry out the irrigation work of the Island with fewer than 14 European Irrigation Engineers, and it is clear from the beginning of the passage which the

14286/33 [No. 1]: not printed.

408

1