CO129-590-11 Commission of Enquiry into irregularities in Immigration Departments 22-4-1941 - 19-12-1941 — Page 20

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