Anderson, Robert Murray McCheyne

Description

Unique IDPE-000054Pre-nominal honorificsBrigadier General; SirSurnameAndersonGiven namesRobert Murray McCheynePost-nominal honorificsKCMGAlternative nameMcAndersonBirth date6th August 1865Death date30th December 1940Biographical noteFamily Background

Anderson was a member of a remarkable much admired Sydney family, all of whom exhibited outstanding abilities and achievements in their public careers and their philanthropic enterprises together with exemplary standards of probity and all of whom gave remarkable service to the community.

His father, Robert Anderson, upon emigration to Australia in 1853, found employment in the police force of Sydney, rising to become Inspector. Throughout his career, he received praise and admiration for his honesty and commitment to the eradication of criminal groups in Sydney and the protection of the citizens of Sydney. His resignation in 1889 from the Force was precipitated by his refusal to accept future directions from his superiors to take actions that violated his moral principles. Sydney newspapers at the time of his resignation and at the time of his death had nothing but praise for the man. The Sydney ‘Sun’ subtitled his obituary “Man who cleansed the City”.

The brothers of Robert Murray McCheyne Anderson were Henry Charles Lennox Anderson, William Addison Smyth Anderson and Dr Hugh Miller Anderson.

Henry Charles Lennox Anderson (1853-1924) played a prominent role in agriculture and scholarship in NSW. He won University of Sydney medals in classics, mathematics, natural science and literature. He was a member of the 1st Regiment, Volunteer Infantry. He began his career as a master at The Grammar School, Sydney. He entered the Public Service in the Department of Public Instruction developing curricula and examinations. He was the first director of the Department of Agriculture in NSW. He helped create the Hawkesbury Agricultural College. He became the librarian and secretary of the Free Public Library in Sydney and advocated and oversaw its transition to the Public Library of NSW. It was principally his efforts that saw the library gaining the Mitchell collection. He formed the NSW Government’s Intelligence Department and became Government Statistician. He was the Under-secretary for Agriculture in the re-created NSW Department of Agriculture. He published many agricultural papers. He was very active in the NSW Highland Society and in the New Settlers’ League.

Dr Hugh Miller Anderson (1867-1924), a graduate of Sydney University, began his career as a school teacher but then qualified as a doctor of medicine. He practised for 20 years at Cootamundra NSW where he involved himself in all organisations promoting education and served as medical officer to various benevolent societies. His funeral was attended by virtually all residents of the town and district including its school children who formed a guard of honour.

William Addison Smyth Anderson (1869-1940) was a Presbyterian minister serving in the parishes of Cooma, Bowenfels, Liverpool, Palmer Street (Sydney) and Arncliffe. During his career he was deputy financial secretary to the Presbyterian Church in NSW and the General Secretary of the Church.

Jean Cairns Amos (1868 - 1928) who married Robert Murray McCheyne Anderson in 1892 was one of the first women graduates of Sydney University (BA 1890). She became prominent in groups promoting the interests of women and children. She was involved in the creation and establishment of the Rachel Foster Hospital for Women and Children of which she was the first president. She held office in the Women’s Club in Sydney and the National Council of Women (NSW). Obituaries at her death in 1928 were published in newspapers nationwide.

Early life and Career of Robert Murray McCheyne Anderson

Robert Murray McCheyne Anderson was born on 6 August 1865 in Sydney. He was the second son born to Robert Anderson and his wife Margaret. Their only surviving children were their four sons.

Anderson’s early schooling was at the William Street Model School in Sydney. For his senior years, Anderson attended Sydney Grammar School achieving high academic standards and participating in its Cadets’ unit. Finishing school at the age of 15, he joined the Bank of New Zealand in February 1881 as a junior clerk. His career progressed so well that by 1892 he was the manager of the Bank’s principal branch in NSW at George St, Sydney. On his 27th birthday in that year, he married Jeannie Cairns Amos, daughter of Robert Amos, and a Bachelor of Arts from Sydney University. Between 1885 and 1894, he served in the 2nd NSW Regiment, Volunteer Infantry, resigning as Lieutenant but being accorded the rank of Captain in the Reserves in 1894. His superiors in the Bank of New Zealand clearly saw him as a man of great promise. In October 1896, he was promoted to the rank of Assistant Inspector of the Bank. The position required him to be based in Wellington, New Zealand. Unfortunately for the bank, residence in New Zealand did not find favour with Anderson. He stated a desire to be in Sydney where all of his and his wife’s relatives were resident. His first son, Robert Cairns Amos Anderson, had been born in 1893 and his first daughter, Jean, was born in 1896. It may also be that at this stage of his life, in his early thirties, he was seeking greater or different challenges in his career.

So it was, that while he was visiting Sydney on bank business in March 1897, it was brought to his notice that the City of Sydney was advertising the position of City Treasurer. The position paid less than his current position – £500 per annum whereas he was earning at least £600 per annum with the bank – a very substantial difference. Nevertheless, the position was in Sydney and in the light of recent events was clearly going to pose a challenge to the new incumbent.

The former City Treasurer, Arthur Speer, had in February 1897 been found guilty of embezzling over £3000 and was sentenced to six years in gaol. He had pleaded guilty to the charge but in the course of appealing for clemency of sentence, he had admitted that the amount taken since 1893 was more than £5000 but argued that the laxity of the accounting system in place at the Council should be taken into account to mitigate the severity of his sentence. The City was clearly in need of a capable man of integrity.

Anderson’s referees in his application for the position gave powerful praise both as to his ability and honesty.

Colonel John Goodlet, Commander of the 2nd NSW Regiment Volunteer Infantry, successful Sydney businessman and active in Presbyterian and charitable organisations, bore testimony to his “gentlemanly bearing and his business capacity which I consider of no ordinary degree” and thought him “eminently fit for any position of trust and responsibility”.

Alexander Kethel, timber merchant, ship owner, commission agent, Lessee of the City’s Market Wharf and other wharfs, Member of the Legislative Council, prominent in Presbyterian concerns, a grandmaster of the IOOF, active in multiple organisations for the improvement and education of working men, having known Anderson since his boyhood, wrote of his “singular aptitude for dealing with matters of finance” and his “high moral character”.

George Wilson, former manager of the Bank of New Zealand, and at this time with the NSW Public Service Board, wrote of his “great tact, abundant energy and great resource” noting that he was “strictly honourable”.

Norman Frederick Giblin, a former superior in the Bank of New Zealand and at this time an Official Assignee with the NSW Bankruptcy Court, deemed him to be “capable, intelligent and diligent”, with “tact and discretion”; he had the “utmost confidence in his integrity.”

There were 68 applicants for the position of City Treasurer and Anderson was the leading candidate throughout a succession of ballots to reduce the field. In the last ballot Anderson secured 17 votes to the 5 given to the other candidate.

The newspapers gave favourable accounts. They noted his successful career with the Bank of New Zealand; they reported that he was taking a drop in salary; some believed the Bank had tried to keep his services by offering him a raise; they reminded readers that his father was the much admired former Inspector of Police and his brother was the Public Librarian. The ‘Australian Star’ (3 April 1897) published a pen and ink sketch of Anderson describing him in the accompanying item as “a young man who has had rather a brilliant career”. The ‘Sunday Times’ said his appointment was “the City’s gain and the Bank of New Zealand’s loss”. The ‘Daily Commercial News’ said “it is believed he will prove himself the right man in the right place” and the Sydney ‘Freeman’s Journal’ described him as “a worthy son of a worthy sire” and said “[he] takes over his new duties at a time when his financial abilities will have full scope for action.”

A few days later, the ‘Sydney Morning Herald’ reported that Anderson hosted a party of 30 guests at Quong Tart’s King Street rooms where “an excellently provided banquet was followed till a late hour by vocal and instrumental music”. His guests no doubt celebrated his appointment and his return to Sydney.

City Treasurer, 1 April 1897 to 31 October 1899

Anderson took up his duties on 1 April 1897 and set about the task of improving the City’s financial methods and making its financial reports more accessible and informative. All the properties attributed to him by his referees – tact, discretion, ability, energy, resource – were to be called on in his efforts to bring about the changes. In an interview four years later with the ‘Daily Telegraph’ (26 January 1901), given after he had resigned the City service, he said "I came from the Bank of New Zealand to the corporation service in 1897, on April Fool's Day, and I had not been in the new position a week before I realised how exceedingly appropriate a day I had chosen for the new occupation.”

Anderson took over a Treasury that had been headed by an embezzler who had worked his swindles unchecked for a number of years. He found what he described as “bad systems”, lax practices and very few checking procedures. He proceeded to improve matters and did this despite his inability to change the specific duties of officers in the Treasury Department from those set down at their hiring and his lack of power to dismiss staff he considered inefficient or unneeded. He said in the’ Daily Telegraph’ interview in 1901: “I was solemnly warned not to report them officially, or make complaint to the council, because they had splendid aldermanic influence, and not only to shift them was impossible, but it would mean serious inconvenience to me personally.”

One of Anderson’s first discoveries was that he had in the Treasurer’s safe over £30,000 worth of debentures in the form of negotiable bearer bonds. He said in his 1901’ Daily Telegraph’ interview, that he was told the safe had been usually left unlocked. He went on: “It will hardly be credited that, although I brought this under the attention and notice of higher authority and urged that I be allowed to place them with our bankers for safety, or, at least, in the town clerk’s safe, who is charged by the corporation with the custody of all securities, I was not allowed to do so until eight or nine months afterwards, at the end of the year, when frantic efforts were made to get matters of the kind in ship-shape order, in view of the approaching inquiry”. He transferred them to the safer keeping of the City’s bank and placed them in the joint names of the Mayor of the time, the City’s Examiner of Accounts and the City Treasurer.

He found 40 or 50 unopened envelopes containing weekly reports from the Inspector of the Sheep and Cattle Sale Yards at Homebush which were intended to provide a check on receipts from that City property. He instituted a book in which to record these statements and he used them, as intended, to check on Sale Yard receipts. He checked with the banks for undisclosed City bank accounts as Speer had used some little known City accounts whose balances were not reported to Council to facilitate his embezzlements. He found that some of the sinking funds were lodged at the Bank in current accounts which earned no interest instead of being, as required by Acts of Parliament, invested in Government stocks. He stopped the practice of allowing staff members having advances on their salaries.

He immediately tackled the problem of outstanding rates. In the past only full payment had been permitted. He swiftly allowed ratepayers to enter into agreements to pay arrears in instalments. When he took over, there was more than £10,000 owing. He said later “I fired ahead and wrote a couple of hundred letters, and I brought an awful storm about me.” He found that the names of the owners or ratepayers in the City’s Assessment Books were frequently wrong despite the assurances of the City Assessor that they were correct. With the permission of the Mayor (Ives), he had got details of ownership of properties from the NSW Land and Income Tax Office and with that information, rate gathering had proceeded apace. On 9 March 1898, he reported at the Council’s quarterly meeting that there was only £1750 in arrears still owing, of which £450 was owed by the Government, £400 was lodged with the City Solicitor leaving £900 outstanding, mostly due on vacant lands whose owners had not been traced.

Anderson found the current systems in place for receiving payments in most departments of Council were poor and lacking checks. He found frequent instances where officers in his department who processed or recorded payments also handled money thus making it difficult to put checks in place to prevent defalcations or frauds.

Anderson had to present statements satisfying the statutory requirements under the City Corporation Act. He had for the time to continue providing the bi-annual statements in the “old” form that the Aldermen were used to but he soon introduced new processes and new types of record-keeping. He drew up an alternate form of statement demonstrating that he could not only produce on demand up-to-date information on City finances but he could supply much more detail regarding the sources and nature of receipts and expenditure and their apportionment to the individual departments of Council.

Anderson produced a “new” statement of accounts up to 1 July 1897 and on 5 August presented it, with an accompanying letter of explanation addressed to the Mayor, to the Town Clerk, H. J. Daniels, for transmission to the Mayor for his consideration; this was the regular procedure within the Council organisation for the transmission of reports from officers to the Mayor and Aldermen. Daniels made it clear to Anderson that he did not support such changes, and in fact later stated that the new statements included too much information. The Mayor, Alderman Ives, received Anderson’s letter of explanation and the new statement but took no further action. Neither letter nor the new statement was presented by either Mayor Ives or the Town Clerk at any Council or Council Committee meeting in 1897.

Meanwhile, the Aldermen were becoming dissatisfied with the City’s financial arrangements. Many of the Aldermen wanted to know just how Speer had embezzled funds and what swindles had occurred and what loopholes still existed. After RC Robertson, assistant City Treasurer, had reported discrepancies in the accounts to the Mayor, Ives had asked one of the auditors, James Robertson, to investigate and his report to the Mayor had caused him to have Speer arrested in November 1896. As Speer had pleaded guilty at his trial in February 1897, very little detail had come out in the Court hearing. No formal report had been presented to Council.

Aldermen with experience in business were coming to believe that they had not been kept fully informed about Council’s financial standing. Alderman Jessep, in particular, began to push for improved account keeping methods and sought to find out more about events during Speer’s tenure and those surrounding his exposure and prosecution. Putting a negative view, Alderman Dean said the treasury department was “going on well now, and it would be unwise to rake up old troubles”. On 11 August 1897, Jessep moved a motion “That a committee of inquiry be elected by ballot to inquire into the working of the city treasurer's department, from the 1st January, 1890 to 31 December, 1896, with a view of providing for a better system of management of that department in future.” (Speer had been acting City Treasurer and City Treasurer during that time.) Alderman Matthew Harris moved an amendment that the inquiry be into all the departments and Alderman John Harris moved that the inquiry be made by a Committee of the Whole Council. Both amendments were passed.

Jessep pushed for a date for the Inquiry to start but matters meandered on for a time allowing Jessep to become aware that one of the auditors, George Christie, had in past years expressed concerns on a number of occasions about the validity of the accounts and yet those accounts had been presented to Council without any qualifications. Christie had written more recently letters that had been received by the Town Clerk and the Mayor but not presented to Council. Jessep brought up the matter in the 21 December council meeting and moved a motion “That all letters received by the Mayor and Town Clerk from the city auditor, together with replies sent thereto, from 1st November 1896 to 1st November, 1897, also the city account ledger, be laid upon the table for the consideration of the council." Alderman John Harris moved a successful amendment that the matters in the motion be referred to the Committee of Inquiry and that the Committee commence hearings in the first week of January 1898.

Jessep then moved a further motion “That the statement of the council's receipts and disbursements as at present placed before the aldermen is unsatisfactory, and that the city treasurer be instructed to amend the system of keeping the accounts, in order that clearer and more detailed information may be afforded of the council's revenue and expenditure and to prepare a statement showing the assets and liabilities of the City Council, arranged under their separate departmental headings, to December 31, 1897".

Jessep had clearly become aware that letters presented to the Town Clerk often did not proceed further and that the auditor, George Christie, had written observations doubting the accuracy of the records in the ledgers. He also was aware that the half-yearly statutory statements were only a record of receipts and expenditure and did not include a balance sheet showing assets and liabilities He further was completely sure that their new treasurer, Anderson, was capable of using or already had devised better methods of presenting the accounts.

The ‘Sydney Morning Herald’ (22 December 1897) reported the debate:
“What was wanted, he [Jessep] said, was a balance-sheet showing the amount of revenue and expenditure, together with the assets and liabilities. He was sure that the city treasurer would be only too glad to prepare a full statement. Alderman Fowler said that the city treasurer ought to furnish this report independently of the passing of a resolution. Aldermen, unfortunately, knew nothing of what was going on. Alderman John Harris said that every half-year there should be a report furnished and laid upon the table. He agreed with Alderman Fowler that aldermen did not know enough of what was going on. The Mayor (Ives) said that a balance-sheet was accustomed to be made out every six months up to June 30, however, the audit had not been completed The balance sheet was not quite ready yet. It was decided after further discussion that the matter should be referred to the special committee to meet in the first week in January 1898.”

The scene was set for revelation after revelation of the general laxity of system and practice prevailing in nearly all departments of Council and the lack of over-all financial control. It became clear that the term “balance-sheet” as used in relation to the City’s statutory presentation of accounts did not have the same meaning as that used in banking and business circles. As both auditor George Christie and Treasurer Anderson were to make clear during the Inquiry, the City had never had a true balance sheet showing assets and liabilities.

The new Mayor for 1898 was Matthew Harris M.L.A. who had the drive and energy to ensure that some reforms would take place. One of his first actions as Mayor was to speak to Anderson about the financial system. The Inquiry cleared the way for Anderson to totally reframe Council’s financial methods with the support of the Mayor and Aldermen.

The Inquiry, which the newspapers soon called the “Town Hall Inquiry” finally got under way on 6 January 1898 and continued on with many sessions, several each week, until April 1898. The structure was cumbersome: It was a ‘Committee of the Whole’ so that all 24 Aldermen were members and it was not bound by strict formalities; no one was on oath; no-one was compelled to appear; all Aldermen were free to question the witnesses called and frequently did; not all Aldermen were present each session; Aldermen repeated questions others had already asked; some Aldermen repeated their own earlier questions. Mayor Harris allowed free rein to all, probably in the hope that many truths would out. The inquiry was at first held ‘in camera’ but opposition to this gathered. It had been decided to print transcripts of evidence for circulation among the Alderman but finally by mid-February, the decision was made to open the hearings to the public and to allow press access to the transcripts of the meetings already held. The Sydney newspapers, particularly the ‘Evening News’, took full advantage of this and very detailed reports were published of the sessions in progress while the transcripts of the closed sessions were published in instalments.

A major early casualty of the Committee of Inquiry was Henry J Daniels, the Town Clerk, who resigned on 31 January. His letter of resignation was published in the newspapers in which he stated he was “impelled to this course by the unfounded imputations of incompetency, and the deeply insulting insinuations as to my ability and behaviour in the important office”. He felt that the questioning he had been subjected to throughout four sessions of the Inquiry had been intended “to embarrass and browbeat me into a confession of almost utter imbecility in the carrying out of my work.” Daniels when queried about the letters both Anderson and Christie had addressed at several times to “Mayor and Alderman” was pushed to state that he was “not responsible for the actions of the late Mayor or any Mayor”. He believed that he had no further responsibility once he had given the letters to the Mayor. Many of the Aldermen appeared to believe that the Town Clerk had or should have greater responsibilities and powers than Daniels believed he held and in the face of Daniels’ statements of his agreed duties when he first took office, the Aldermen were faced with the knowledge that the Town Clerk’s role in a modern city needed reformulation.

The Committee of Inquiry gave Anderson a platform to inform the Aldermen of the current shortcomings of the financial system of recording and operation and to describe his proposed system. He said that he had for a time given up pushing for his reforms once he realised that the Committee of Inquiry would pursue the matter and he also commented somewhat wryly “it is not wise, perhaps, to be always fighting”.

Anderson was quizzed in depth at several sessions and gave strong and forceful answers on the system while declining to answer questions he considered out of his area of responsibility or first-hand knowledge. He declined to answer questions that sought opinions that might have caused him to denigrate his staff or other officers. He would say “I hardly think that is a fair question – if you do not mind my not answering it” or “That is not my business”.

He stated firmly his dissatisfaction with the “old system” of presenting the City’s accounts saying bluntly that it was “bad”. He had stated this “semi-officially” to Daniels and had written to the Mayor (Ives) and designed a new system. He agreed with Alderman John Harris that “the town clerk seemed dead against it mainly for the reason that it gave too much information’. He said “What the views of his worship the Mayor (Ives) were I do not know”. He said his new system was “an ordinary commercial system – there is nothing new about it”. When Alderman Fowler asked him “Do you adopt that system now?” Anderson replied “No. I have not the power. I submit that for your approval or otherwise now”. Anderson gave very full answers to the questions asked about the proposed system and made every effort to secure the understanding of the Aldermen. The auditor, James Robertson, when examined agreed that Anderson’s system was better than the old.

To questions about a City Balance Sheet, Anderson and the Auditors were adamant in stating that a Balance Sheet showing assets and liabilities had never been produced. Anderson stated that there were no records in his office or sent to him of assets such as stores and equipment.

When Alderman Booth asked him about his power to reorganise the office and duties of his staff he replied “No; I have absolutely no power in that direction … [the Town Clerk] told me that I had no power to interfere with these things.” The result of this he said was his office was over-staffed, that he had two men doing the work of half a man and the man doing what he considered to be the most important work in the office was Shuttleworth who was paid the least. With regard to Robert Clement (“Clem”) Robertson, the Assistant Treasurer, who had discovered Speer’s defalcations and who had been acting Treasurer for five months before Anderson was appointed, he had plenty of praise of his capabilities but said he could not use him to the best effect – particularly in a capacity to detect any irregularities or act as a check on transactions – since his specified duties included being Paymaster handling cash directly. He said more checks were needed but could not be done by staff who handled receipts.

With his evidence to the Inquiry finished on 25th January and now with the tacit accord of the Council, Anderson proceeded with his proposed changes in the Treasurer’s Department. He lost no time in presenting clear and precise information to the Aldermen and the papers also lost no time in publishing Anderson’s reports. The Sydney ‘Daily Telegraph’ (11 February 1898) published the “Statement of Financial Position for week ending 1st February 1898” which gave the current balances of each of the City accounts at the Union Bank of Australia. All of the current cash holdings of Council and of all its loans were listed. Anderson was demonstrating that he could produce detailed and up-to-date statements at short notice and that Aldermen need no longer feel that the financial position of the Council was being kept from them. At the Council’s Quarterly Meeting on 9 March, Anderson’s report on the current position concerning rates was read and published; he could report success in gathering arrears but he also gave figures showing that there would be a decline in revenue from the rates in future because the Court of Appeals had reduced the value of many assessments. He advised that a rise in rates be considered.

The findings of the Committee of Inquiry were presented eventually in July in a report by a Special Committee; the report included recommendations for changes in structure and for retrenchments and other economies; it was not adopted by the Council. Extraordinarily, it was negatived on division although no Alderman spoke in debate against the report. The Daily Telegraph used the headline “The Municipal Muddle” and referred scathingly to the “twelve silent men”. The Mayor took as much action as he could using his executive powers to bring about improvements in the Council’s operations generally acting in line with the Committee’s report but once again the Council had shown its inability or unwillingness as a body to take any reform actions. The newspapers increasingly criticised the Council and the Citizens’ Reform Committee gathered more adherents.

In retrospect in his 1901 interview with the ‘Daily Telegraph’, Anderson said “The inquiry into the whole service, which look place early in 1898, did an immense amount of good. It was abortive in its actual results, the influence of many of the officers concerned preventing the recommendations being carried into effect, but the general result was good.”

The City had been without a permanent Town Clerk since the resignation of Daniels at the end of January 1898 and John R Palmer had been acting Town Clerk since then. The Mayor pushed for a permanent appointment to be made. There were several motions on notice for the meeting of 19 July: one by Alderman Burdekin to appoint Palmer at £500 pa; another by Alderman Jessep to invite applicants to the position of Town Clerk at £800 pa; and the third by Alderman Landers proposing to appoint Anderson as Town Clerk at £500 pa and Palmer as City Treasurer also at £500 pa. A number of Aldermen including the very vocal John Norton had doubts about Palmer’s ability to fill the position of Town Clerk. He had been the Assistant Town Clerk since 1887 and on various other occasions had been Acting Town Clerk. Burdekin’s motion was put and was passed by 14 to 8. Anderson continued in his role as City Treasurer.

By November, the Mayor had implemented a number of retrenchments and economies. He now turned his efforts to better management of the City’s overall financial position. The City was carrying very large debts mostly because of the amounts borrowed for the building of the Town Hall, the building of the Queen Victoria Markets and for the Moore Street improvement project which had involved considerable outlay on land. The City Fund account was operating with an overdraft of about £120,000. There was general agreement that the overdraft must be reduced.

The ‘Australian Star’ (18 November 1898 p6) wrote “The City Treasurer has prepared an exhaustive and comprehensive report respecting the state of the city finances and the proposal to borrow £100,000 to liquidate the indebtedness of the council in respect to the bank overdraft. The interesting document was submitted at today’s meeting of the City Council.”

The newspaper published the Treasurer’s report in full. Anderson described in detail the existing position with regard to each of the Council’s current loans and analysed their present state and their future operation; he gave particulars of the sinking funds for each, the terms of the loans and the interest rates and repayment schedules and how any changes might play out. He analysed two proposed schemes for raising money to liquidate the overdraft and evaluated the financial benefits of each. The Aldermen were given a wealth of information with which to determine the best course of action for the Council. The ‘Australian Star’ concluded its report by noting that “several aldermen declared it to be the most complete treatment of the financial position that had ever come before the Council”. The ‘Sydney Morning Herald’ reported that “The report as presented by Mr Anderson was eulogised by several of the aldermen, and the Mayor said he thought it was only just to the city treasurer that he should explain that the report had been prepared very expeditiously. He though Mr Anderson deserved their thanks for his labours.” The Council authorised the Mayor to negotiate a loan subject to legal opinion regarding the necessity or not of going to Parliament for authority.

The Mayor and Aldermen had never before been in possession of so much financial information and had never had a clearer idea of the overall state of the City’s finances. The ‘Australian Star’ (31 December 1898) summed up Anderson’s performance asserting he had “gradually straightened his department into a plain, business-like concern, so that now the council may know at a glance its financial position.”

In the first week in January 1899, the newspapers published further statements produced by Anderson of the receipts and disbursements for 1898 showing that the deficit had been only £4,300 as against £32,225 in the previous year. The Mayor published Anderson’s accompanying letter (‘Evening News’ 3 January) in which Anderson expressed his “warm congratulations” on the result. He also added his “warm thanks” for the Mayor’s courtesy and kindness. He continued “My deep anxiety has been to focus my experience (gained in a wider field) to the benefit of the council, but my efforts would have proved as abortive (as in the past), had you not supported me, and often, I am sure, in the teeth of strong opposition.” He happily reported he had kept the Treasury office open during the last week of December (for years it had closed between Christmas and New Year) and more than £2500 had been taken over the counter in that time.

Anderson continued through 1899 producing further statements and vigorously pursuing the treasurer’s duties. In March, he produced a Balance Sheet which the ‘Sydney Morning Herald’ described in these terms:

“The City Treasurer, Mr Anderson, has completed the work of preparing a balance sheet showing exactly the financial position of the City Council. Not only does the document contain the receipts and disbursements for the year, but it also contains a synopsis of the values of the various properties owned by the corporation and the debts incurred on account of those properties.”

In May, he presented a quarterly statement which according to the ‘Evening News’ “was in a new and greatly improved form, showing in full detail the financial operations of each department of the council. … [he] was complimented by several aldermen upon the lucidity and clearness of the statement.”

At this point, Anderson applied for a week’s leave. Perhaps he went fishing for in January he had been elected a member of the Amateur Fishermen’s Association of New South Wales.

Anderson produced more statements published in newspapers in September. Sydney’s ‘Daily Telegraph’ published on 12 September 1899, the half yearly statement of receipts and disbursements together with cash balances. On 23 September, the paper published a return showing premises vacant in the City in 1897, 1898 and 1899. The return showed a gradual decrease in vacancies. On 30 September, there was a comparative statement of the arrears of rates in January 1898 and at 26 September 1899. The Daily Telegraph noted “The return reveals a most satisfactory state of affairs and shows that under Mr Anderson’s vigorous administration of the City Treasury the prompt payment of rates has been secured.”

Anderson in two and a half years had set in place sensible businesslike procedures for managing the City’s financial affairs and had opened those affairs to the full scrutiny and appraisal of Aldermen, the public and ratepayers. His talents had been pushed to the utmost and perhaps he himself had reached a higher awareness of his own administrative abilities in cutting through nineteenth century protocols and subservient dated modes of operation. His later career was to demonstrate great abilities in analysing systems and devising new ones to better match the requirements of the service or business concerned. He may have now begun to see his career as a facilitator of administrative changes to better match an enterprise to its purpose.

There had already been the premature minority attempt in July 1898 to move Anderson to the Town Clerk’s position where he would be expected to transform the role and make it ready for the new century. Behind the scenes matters were moving again to tackle the problem of the perceived inadequacy of the current role of the Town Clerk as illustrated in the evidence heard at the 1898 Inquiry, and to try to push once again for reforms. There was much respect and admiration for John Palmer, the Town Clerk, for his personal qualities and his long service to Council but his appointment had been made against a background of discussion to raise the responsibilities of the position, to increase the salary and to advertise hoping to find a candidate with English municipal experience. In the meantime, it was now clearly evident that Anderson had administrative talents, acuity and the capacity to form complex analyses in a short time. Whether he would continue to serve Council with a salary of only £500 pa was however a valid question. It should not be forgotten that he had taken a substantial salary drop from his bank salary and salary expectations when he had taken the position of City Treasurer. The position of Town Clerk of Sydney also paid £500 pa, a much lower salary than that accorded the Town Clerk of Melbourne and many English Municipal Town Clerks.

The Mayor, Matthew Harris, had attempted some action designed to remove Palmer in March 1899 but the matter of the Town Clerkship was sent to the Finance Committee and deferred for six months. More manoeuvers continued and other discussions out of the public arena clearly took place. The six months was up in September and following a Council Meeting, the Mayor invited the Aldermen to designate a group of six Aldermen to discuss the matter with him and Palmer ‘in camera’ in his office (or according to Alderman Norton - the man of colourful language and bellicose style – “in the Mayor’s parlour”).

Events were precipitated by Palmer, himself. He wrote to the Mayor and Aldermen in a letter dated 21 September which was read at the Council meeting on 26 September and further debated at the resumed meeting on 29 September. He stated that he had found that the duties of his office had increased greatly, he was over-worked, he had no private time anymore and, as he believed Council intended to create a new office, a type of “City Steward”, at the same remuneration as he presently received, he would be willing to be transferred to it. He asked additionally for leave for three months and presented a medical certificate stating he suffered from neurasthenia and supporting his need for leave. Uproar prevailed as, of course, Palmer, intent on securing his future position, was revealing some of what had occurred ‘in camera’. Even those Aldermen who may have wished to remove Palmer baulked at having an employee dictate his future office. The newspapers called his letter a “conditional resignation”. The Mayor, under pressure, read into the record his minute from the ‘in camera’ proceedings during which he had told the Aldermen how much time he had spent in performing or supervising administrative detail and how “inadequate” he had found the “advice and support” of Palmer. He said “I am convinced that it is beyond his scope to carry out the duties pertaining to the position of town clerk of this city”. Further, the Mayor pointed to expected increased responsibilities of Council for health and sanitary reforms, for electric lighting and garbage destruction. He said “All these facts point to the necessity of having a more suitable man at the head of our affairs, and thus equipped we can set about a reorganisation of the whole scheme of city administration.” The motion for the adoption of the Mayor’s minute was tied 11/11 and the Mayor used his casting vote to pass it. Harris after this used his executive powers and suspended Palmer.

His action came to the meeting of 3 October for confirmation. Motions and amended motions were proposed to confirm or not confirm the suspension. Alderman Hughes, one of the Civic Reform Aldermen said, according to the ’Sydney Morning Herald’, “The suspension was … absolutely illegal. … The whole thing was ill-considered and hasty … a well-intended attempt to bolster up an imprudent thing. By their conduct they were making a laughing-stock of themselves.” Eventually Alderman Lees moved an amended motion that the Mayor’s suspension of Palmer be removed but that the town clerk’s resignation as in his letter be accepted; that three months’ leave of absence be granted on full pay, that he be then appointed to another office with the same remuneration. The motion passed by 12 votes to 10.

The matter of filling the Town Clerkship was referred to the General Purposes Committee (a Committee of the whole Council) meeting on 10 October. The newspapers had yet another week to speculate on the matter. The ‘Sydney Morning Herald’ said “Sir Matthew Harris forecasts the necessity of bringing into the service of the city a man of executive power, with corresponding status and salary under the Corporation. With that view there will be a general disposition to agree.” The ‘Herald’ believed that the Council could afford to pay “a substantial salary”. “The question,” it continued, “really is whether the aldermen are prepared to put a strong and capable man in charge at the Town Hall, to give him a definite status and retain him on a good behaviour tenure, and to support him in acts not only of administration but of policy.” Definitely a “capable and experienced administrator” was needed. The ‘Herald’ wondered how such a man might be secured: “Is there an officer in view, or will the Council proceed to receive applications in Australia and in England for such a man as is required?”

The General Purposes Committee met and once again Harris maintained his point of view that they needed someone “to reorganise the whole establishment”. Alderman Jessep moved a motion to advertise widely, to offer a salary of £1000 and to appoint a committee of ‘experts’ to make the choice. Some aldermen wanted an overseas candidate, some a local. Varying amounts were suggested for salary. Different qualifications for office were touted. Alderman Norton said they ought to stop shilly-shallying and, after an exchange with Mayor Harris, he said “the Mayor ought to prepare a minute recommending the appointment of Mr Anderson for a period of, say, six months”. More discussion continued until Alderman Henry Chapman moved a further amendment to Jessep’s original motion to the effect that Anderson be appointed for six months after which the Mayor was to report on his performance. On division, the motion passed 10 to 6 votes. (A number of aldermen were not present.)

This recommendation had then to go to the full Council Meeting on 24 October. Another two weeks of newspaper comment ensued and much lobbying continued for a variety of candidates and a variety of conditions. On the day of the meeting, the ‘Australian Star’ under the banner of “The Town Hall Muddle” could write of “the utter incompetency of the aldermen to handle any large affairs in a satisfactory manner. The appointment of a Town Clerk is beyond them”. It wondered why Anderson would want to change his job. It believed that a man of “common sense, good business capacity and legal training” would never be appointed by the current Aldermen and that such a man would not long work for them. The ‘Sydney Morning Herald’ thought the proposed appointment of Anderson would deprive the City of “a capable Treasurer to offer it an experimental Town Clerk”. The ‘Herald’ did not think he could bring about changes as it appeared he would have the same restrictions as previous Town Clerks.

The ’Evening News’ on 25 October used the headline “The Town Clerkship: A Disorderly Meeting” to introduce its report on proceedings. There were present all 24 Aldermen including the Mayor. Alderman Henry Chapman put the motion to appoint Anderson. The Aldermen proceeded to reiterate all their already stated opinions and argued with each other. Alderman Jessep referred to the newspaper articles critical of the Council’s Aldermen. Alderman Michael Chapman moved an amendment removing the clause regarding the Mayor’s report after six months. More disorder broke out with the Mayor at one stage threatening to leave if order was not restored. A division was called and at this point, Alderman Jessep decided to depart and not take part in the vote. No doubt he could count the numbers. He had argued previously for wide advertisement for the position and an external selection panel and, while admiring Anderson’s work as treasurer, he was not prepared to vote for the motion but would not put his vote against it. The vote was tied, 11/11, and consequently the Mayor’s casting vote was called into operation once again and he voted for Anderson’s appointment.

The newspapers condemned Council’s performance. The rural newspapers, in syndicated columns, gleefully proclaimed “The city aldermen seem to be a superfluity. Nearly all the important business of the Council is now transacted by the casting vote of the Mayor. The rest of the aldermen obligingly cancel themselves.” The ‘Evening News’ wrote “If Sir Matthew Harris is always to settle things his own way, by casting vote, it does not appear that a City Council is of any use at all. In fact, the use of the City Council is not very apparent anyhow, though it might have some use could it control a Mayor of doubtful discretion.” The conservative ‘Freeman’s Journal’ of Sydney wrote under the headline “Our Autocratic Mayor” and referred to Harris’s “wires pulling” and his “bossism”. It like the ‘Sydney Morning Herald’ feared that an “excellent Treasurer” had been traded for an “experimental Town Clerk”.

On Anderson himself, the papers were agreed that he had been an outstanding treasurer. Anderson revealed nothing of his thoughts to the press but he surely was willing to make the transfer. Certainly he had established a good working relationship with the Mayor and knew that their long term visions for the administration of the City were aligned. He was probably happy to hand over the Treasury to another; he had established the new systems and given financial guidance to Council. He was not inclined to continue in what he had turned into a routine job. He was ready for a new challenge and the chaos of the Town Clerk’s office was just that. Once again, he would be settling for a salary less than that he could have gained in the business or banking worlds but salary was not his main motivation. More important was challenge and his desire to perform a public service to the city of his birth. He had expressed this last wish quite clearly in his application to serve as Treasurer. He had written that he wished employment in Sydney “because all my, and my wife’s people are here, but principally because I have unbounded confidence in the future of Sydney, and in the development of its municipal functions.” The same motivations were at work again in his acceptance of the role of Town Clerk.

Town Clerk of Sydney, 1 November 1899 to 21 February 1901

Anderson took office on 1 November and was given immediate instructions by the Mayor. The ‘Evening News’ reported:

“Mr. R. M. Anderson, late City Treasurer, entered upon his duties as Town Clerk yesterday, and upon doing so he received the following instructions from the Mayor (Sir Matthew Harris): The Town Clerk will, with as little delay as possible, inquire into and report upon the whole service. If, in his opinion, the present condition of affairs can be improved, he will make recommendations to that end; such recommendations to especially aim at the achievement of (1) efficiency and (2) economy. The Mayor added that he would like this report, if possible, by the time of the next council meeting on November 20; but if the Town Clerk found that he could not have it ready upon that date, he could submit a progress report at the meeting.”

To produce a report on the “whole service” in three weeks was certainly no small task. The ‘Newcastle Morning Herald’ (3 November 1899) gave its opinion that Anderson could not have had “a more unpleasant duty” and one “so clearly beyond his scope and province”. The writer believed that the Mayor or Aldermen should be the ones to produce such a report – certainly wishful thinking in view of the Aldermen’s continual disagreements and rowdy meetings in the past two years, and particularly their failure to adopt their own report recommending reforms in the wake of the 1898 Inquiry.

A Council election was to take place on 1 December 1899. The Council consisted of 24 Aldermen of whom 8 were elected each year (one for each ward) for a three year term. This particular mode of election made it impossible for the electors to bring about much change in the composition of the Council and probably contributed to an apathetic electorate. A Bill to amend the City Corporation Act had been presented during the year to the NSW Legislature and had failed to be passed but it was expected that further efforts would be made to formulate a new Bill agreeable to the members of the Parliament. Aldermen Sir Matthew Harris, Dr James Graham, John Norton, Henry Chapman, Thomas Jessep, Samuel Lees and Robert Fowler were all members of Parliament.

In preparation for the elections, Anderson provided the public with statistics for each ward giving the number of electors, the number of votes (multiple votes were a feature of the electoral system), the assessed property values and the amount of rates receivable.

The Council meeting on 20 November 1899 was the final one for the year prior to the elections. The Mayor’s report for the year was read and in it he expressed his frustration at not having achieved the reforms he had hoped for. The ‘Evening News’ wrote that Harris “proceeded to show that in his opinion it was in no wise his fault that municipal matters in Sydney are in their present condition, and that but for the work he has done as Mayor they would be in a much worse condition. Whether the ratepayers will agree with him in this is another question altogether. In his own words, he accepted an invitation to become Mayor two years ago, determined to reform the whole establishment at any cost to himself. The result we may safely say is that the whole establishment is still in the utmost need of reformation”.

Next Anderson’s “progress report” to the Mayor was read and the ’Evening News’ described it as “the more important of the two” reports. Anderson noted that he needed probably another two months to produce a “full report”. All Sydney papers carried articles reproducing most of the report. The ‘Evening News’ described his report as “very lengthy” and noted that it “dealt in detail with the reorganisation of the staff” which was designed to produce a total savings of £8000. The paper wrote “If this can be done, and the City Council should give the question immediate attention, there would be a distinct reform effected of a very valuable kind. What has got to be seen is whether it can be done.” It was sceptical of any reforms being actually made.

Anderson recommended amalgamating the City Surveyor’s and the Building Surveyor’s Departments. Economies and efficiencies would be created by having the gangs of carpenters and plumbers and others working for one department instead of having to be swapped between the departments.

In his own department, Anderson recommended that the Sussex Street stock yards be placed under the control of the Inspector of the Homebush Stock Yards. New regulations for the Fish Markets were currently with the Executive Council awaiting approval and he expected that once these were in operation the Fish Markets would at last become profitable. He expected to make economies in the wages paid at the Belmore Market and the Queen Victoria Markets.

He recommended the Sanitary branch become a department under the control of the City Health Officer and its operations be urgently extended to inspect commercial lodging houses as well as private dwellings. The report he had received from the acting-superintendent of the City Cleansing Department showed the service “to be as extravagant as it is known to be inefficient”. He gave details of poor operations such as performing services that were not fully or not at all charged for (closet cleaning, removal of rubbish from non-rateable properties, removal of trade waste etc) and allowing known abuses to continue such as the employment of “widows’ carts” which very often were not operated by widows of former council carters at all. He recommended also that the superintendent be given powers to engage or dismiss the men under his command. He said “With regard to the savings to be effected in this branch, I have before me so large a sum that I do not care to submit it; but I can readily undertake, straightaway, if you will give me a moderately free hand, to save the council £7300 a year.”

Anderson introduced the concluding section of his report by asserting first of all his own competence. He said “Many things in a service such as this appear curious to a man who has been raised in a strict business establishment where the profit and loss account is of primary importance.” He then dealt with general issues affecting the whole operation of Council. These were the detrimental effects of a patronage system of employment and the quality and qualifications of employees and the duties of Town Clerk as Anderson saw them.

Addressing himself formally to the Mayor, he said of patronage: “This is the source of most of your troubles and must be a constant vexation to yourself and the aldermen. Naturally, while people know that with yourself rests the power of appointing persons to positions here, they will worry the aldermen, and the aldermen will worry you.” He urged that Council pass a resolution with the following provisos: that no appointments be made unless the head of a department requested such; that all appointments be on probation for a period and only become permanent if the performance was satisfactory. “In short,” said Anderson, “run the whole concern on purely business lines”. Further, if retrenchment was needed in a department, that the opinion of the head of department be consulted. He said that such a policy would “place the responsibility for efficiency on departmental officers who now (naturally enough) evade all responsibility. You will not have a proper state of things here until you establish a direct chain of responsibility from the highest officer to the humblest.”

On Council personnel he began by saying bluntly that from the reports he had received, the outdoor staff “would seem, as a body, to be decidedly under par.” Of the clerical staff, he said some were “weaklings” and some were “high-class men”. Then he observed that there was no system of grading or classification of the positions. There was no consistency in wages for men doing the same work but in different departments and some workers were being paid more than their bosses. He proposed all the positions be classed into three divisions: professional, clerical and general. Wages should be determined on general principles and not be “haphazard” as at present and, he said, “on a vacancy occurring, the man next in seniority will have the chance of filling it, no matter in what department he may be, and men will not be grooved in one corner of the establishment, as at present.” He believed that when a vacancy occurred in clerical staff, it should be open for all of sound education, “whether sons of rich or poor”, to apply and if of good character, then the appointment should be then decided by “a competitive examination”.

He rounded up his report by setting out the role and duties, as he perceived them, of the Town Clerk, and asserting his proposed method of operation. Here he was defining the role of Town Clerk for the future and laying down a challenge not just to those who did not support reforms but also to those who claimed to want reforms. The role he defined was in accord with one of the expressed aims of the Citizens’ Reform Committee: “Management of the affairs of the corporation to be in the hands of one competent, well-paid, permanent officer”. Anderson wrote as follows:

“I shall conclude by expressing my views of the duties of town clerk, and indicate the lines on which I intend to act. During my sojourn among you (two and a half years) the position has been that of a sort of superior clerk, a recorder and medium of communication between the executive officers and the Mayor. I cannot think that is the status ascribed by the council to this important position; at any rate, I decline to recognise it as such. I claim to be the chief executive officer of the corporation, the superior officer of every council employee, with the right to direct every such, taking, of course, full responsibility for all such acts.

“You [the Mayor] and the aldermen will dictate the policy to be pursued, and I, as your general manager, will be primarily responsible for the carrying of it into effect. In taking up this attitude, I am aware of the responsibility I am assuming in view of the present state of affairs; but it is the only position possible for me to assume if the desire for reform which the council has expressed (and which I take to be genuine) is to be realised.

“In short, I shall take up the attitude towards the whole service which, as city treasurer, I assumed towards the one department; and if I am as successful in the larger as I was in the smaller command, you will have no cause for complaint.

“Most of the recommendations herein made I have urged before, as my reports show, and I rejoice that I have now the power, with your cooperation, to give effect to them, for with wise and consistent management this service will in the future be as pleasant and desirable as it is now painful and disagreeable.”

The ‘Evening News’ approved Anderson’s remarks on patronage and the employment of staff. It wrote “Where Mr. Anderson is on very safe ground, however, and where he will find general acquiescence, is in his plea against the system of municipal patronage in making appointments, from the lowest to the highest, under the Council. ……….. Alderman after alderman has been returned to the City Council as a reformer, root and branch, and no sooner has he been elected than he has begun to supplement the ranks of, or fill any vacancies which might occur among the municipal employees, by persons out of his own ward. This has been a practice so general that it is not necessary to go into particulars. It is to-day one of the apparently indelible blots on our municipal administration. ….. The present Mayor does not seem to have managed to reform it, and the present City Council seems to practise it, or otherwise the temporary Town Clerk would hardly have written so strongly about it.”

The ‘Sunday Times’, a paper of news and entertainment, focussed its attention on Anderson’s tone and self-assurance. Noting first that life might be too short to bother reading all the small type of the report, it decided that the public should not miss some of its “literary gems of purest ray serene”. It continued “One of the first things which necessarily strike the careful reader is the superior tone which pervades the composition, as who should say aldermen must now be aware they have a master mind at the helm, and recognise the fact that, though nominally they are the masters, actually it is I, the great panjandrum of the Council, who must be obeyed.” The paper made, however, no comments on the substance of Anderson’s recommendations and concluded merely that “On the whole, Mr. Anderson's essay is certainly not less amusing than it is instructive.”

The election of the eight Aldermen took place on 1 December, but there were no great changes as 6 of the retiring Aldermen were re-elected. GJ Waterhouse endorsed by the Citizens’ Reform Committee ousted Alderman Hart and independent Arthur McElhone ousted Alderman Beare. Alderman Jessep endorsed by the Citizens’ Reform Committee was re-elected. Alderman James Graham endorsed by the Committee and Alderman Robert Fowler were re-elected unopposed; the others re-elected were Aldermen Manning, Michael Chapman, and Buckle. The ‘Sydney Morning Herald’ commended Anderson who as town clerk had organised (for the first time) refreshments for all the Polling officials. The new Council proceeded to elect the Mayor; the two contenders were Sir Matthew Harris and Dr James Graham. Harris was elected by 13 votes to 10.

At the Meeting of Council on 21 December, Sir Matthew Harris presented a minute with his views on reform and his proposed mode of proceeding for the coming year. Firstly, he acknowledged the desire for Reform, both from ‘within’ and ‘without’ Council. He stated that he wished to see reform achieved from ‘without’ by a new Bill to amend the Corporation Act which, he hoped, would enact a wider franchise, a division into 24 wards with more equal voting numbers, each represented by one Alderman, and a three year term for Aldermen all of whom would retire at the same time. These views were in line with those of the Citizens’ Reform Committee. (See ‘Australian Star’ 28 November 1899, p4 for a brief statement of its objects.) He alluded obliquely to his new efficient Town Clerk saying “As his [Harris’s] attention was not now so much taken up with details, he was more at liberty to deal with matters of reform.” As for reform from ‘within’, he noted, Council would soon deal with the Town Clerk’s scheme for reorganisation. The Town Clerk had been instructed to draw up a “syllabus” for the year setting out a time-table for the Aldermen reducing the demands on their time. He also informed the meeting, making particular reference to Alderman Norton, that he had sought a legal opinion regarding his power to remove any Alderman from council for disorderly conduct and the opinion was that he possessed that right. Norton, undaunted and unrepentant, immediately retorted that another legal opinion might be found to contradict this one. To a question regarding the wages paid to workmen during the Christmas holidays, Harris said he had transferred the management of the employment of labourers to the Town Clerk. Anderson reported that whereas in the past a workman who worked one quarter of a day during the holidays had received 1½ day’s pay and a workman who did not work received 1 day’s pay, he had changed the arrangement so that in the first case only 1 day’s pay would be paid and in the second only ½ day’s pay. This resulted in a saving of £90. Several aldermen according to the ‘Sydney Morning Herald’ “took exception to these matters being controlled by the town clerk” but no action was taken to alter Anderson’s decision.

Both Anderson and Harris proceeded to make reforms and economies as far as their powers and the tolerance of Aldermen would allow while Council itself made no formal motions to implement the recommendations. Anderson made administrative changes in his department which are evident on examination of the extant Council records held in the City of Sydney Archives. From 1 January 1900, Anderson changed the mode of dealing with correspondence. Letters received by Council were no longer assigned to paste-in letter books or transferred to committees to be kept with committee papers but were placed in what are now known as “Town Clerk’s Correspondence Folders” (Series 28). Each folder contains not only the letter received but a copy of the letter sent in answer. These had previously been kept in separate locations. The Registers and Indexes of Letters Received (Series 2 & 3) were altered by the addition of an extra column headed ‘Class’ which signified a new classification system with standardised descriptions such as streets, health, stores, staff, parks and miscellaneous. The ‘how disposed of’ column no longer noted the location of the letter received but gave the name of the department or officer assigned to deal with the matter. The system set up by Anderson was maintained until 1913.

It is very probable that the development of individual Staff Record Cards (Series 81) was also initiated by Anderson. There were no staff records of this type during the 19th Century. Only twice had there ever been created a list purported to include all employees. The most recent list had been compiled in 1898 and was presented in the negatived Committee Report of findings and recommendations from the 1898 Committee of Inquiry. The list was itself probably compiled by collaboration between the Mayor (Harris), the acting Town Clerk (Palmer) and the City Treasurer (Anderson). Anderson consistently advocated the classification and grading of employees and the standardisation of wages. In order to be able to classify and grade employees across departments as Anderson intended, the development of personnel records would have been necessary. Some of the earlier cards contain little information but at least recorded the surname, position and department of the employee. There are over 300 cards containing information prior to 1900 but all relate to personnel who were in employment in 1900/1901. Eventually the cards included rate of pay, age, marital status and other matters. The system continued until 1922 when a new format of cards was created.

The Mayor made use of his executive powers to hire and fire Council’s wage-earners (as opposed to the salary-earners) and tackled some of the problems in the sanitary service in the scavenging (garbage collecting) branch which was mostly in the control of the City Surveyor’s department. Harris informed the Aldermen at the 18 January meeting:

“I shall invite you to consider a reorganisation and grading scheme for the whole service, but meantime changes are so clearly necessary and capable of adjustment by myself that I feel it would be unfair to call upon the council to accept the responsibility where I have intimate knowledge of the workings and thus know how to remedy the existing evils. We have all known for years past that the scavenging of the city was expensively and inefficiently performed but it is only recently that I have been able to get a grip of the reasons underlying the trouble.”

Harris asserted there were so many carters and men employed that it was “impossible for them to find sufficient actual garbage and house refuse to fill their carts”. This had come about because of “lax supervision”. He had dismissed 20 carters, 26 labourers and two block sweepers. He had transferred 6 gangers to other positions. He claimed his actions would save £5000 per year. He said ““I may say that in regard to the £5000 shown above as economy I know that there are some thousands of pounds that can yet be saved from this source, but I prefer to go carefully, and the system now coming into operation will show in a month or two that I can still further save.” He warned the Aldermen: “I anticipate you will be approached by those on the retired list with a view to your having them restored, but I rely on your supporting me in this matter and it will be soon seen whether my alterations are effective for good.”

Other events demanded the Mayor and Town Clerk’s time. Bubonic plague came to Sydney and the response to this was fragmented with some responsibilities lying with Council, some with other local Councils, some with the Board of Health and some with the NSW Government. There was much friction between the various bodies and laying of blame with the others until better liaison helped co-operation in tackling the plague. The Mayor appointed Louis Buckland Blackwell as the Special Officer for the Plague and he was Council’s representative in consultations and in co-ordinating the large number of men who were appointed to catch rats, apply disinfectants, clear drains and inspect houses for unsanitary conditions. The appointment of a qualified Civil Engineer with experience in sanitary matters, as Blackwell was, was a necessity for a number of reasons. Not the least was the apparent collapse of the Council’s Sanitary Department. The Inspector of Nuisances Department as well as the City Surveyor’s department had overlapping responsibilities in cleansing operations. The health of George Baker, the Inspector of Nuisances, had deteriorated badly and his department had become ineffective. Council confirmed the Mayor’s action in creating and filling the position of Special Officer for the Plague. Baker was sent on sick-leave and Blackwell took over his duties eventually being formally appointed as Inspector of Nuisances later in the year when the re-organisation of the service actually came about.

There was much interest also at this time in the concept of a Greater Sydney Council. The City Council and suburban Municipal Councils all appointed representatives to attend a “Conference” to explore the concept of “devising a scheme for local government for the metropolitan district of Sydney”. The Conference first met in February 1900 and Sir Matthew Harris was elected the Chairman and Anderson was elected the honorary secretary with further meetings to be held.

Spurred on by the shortcomings revealed in its response to the plague, Council had set up yet another Committee of Inquiry, this time just into the City Surveyor’s Department. The ‘Daily Telegraph’ (27 March 1900) reported that they found it in a disorganised state, and that one-third of the 108 men employed were totally incapable of earning their wages through old age or infirmity. Drastic changes were recommended. The ‘Sydney Morning Herald’ further reported: “The committee recommended, among other things, £50 reduction in the salary of the city surveyor, the abolition of the position of assistant surveyor (the officer now carrying out the duties of that position to be reduced in rank and salary), the appointment of an overseer of works, grading the men in the matter of wages, and the surveyor and department to be placed directly under the control of the town clerk.” The report was adopted, and set aside for later consideration.

Anderson’s promised full report on the re-organisation of Council, dated 20 April 1900, was presented to Council at its meeting on 26 April and Council debated the matter throughout May. Meanwhile Anderson’s six month term expired on 30 April. At the next meeting of Council, scheduled as a General Purposes Committee on 2 May, Anderson attended, read the previous minutes and then left. There was no agenda and the Mayor Harris was not in attendance as he was ill. The Aldermen talked away and Alderman Jessep tried to move a motion to re-appoint Anderson. It was decided this had to go to the next meeting of Council. The next meeting was on 9 May and Alderman Henry Chapman moved the succinct motion ''That Mr. Robert Murray McCheyne Anderson, be, and is hereby, appointed town clerk of the city of Sydney".

A rowdy meeting (fully reported in the ‘Daily Telegraph’ 10 May 1900) ensued in the course of which Alderman Norton tried to move amendments to limit the term to 6 months and to seek applications from overseas. He asked of Anderson “What has this officer done to show that he is the municipal magnate that we are looking for? What has he done to show that he is qualified for the post? You might as well put a little pigmy to do the work of Hercules as appoint him" while later saying “personally, Mr. Anderson has been very kind and courteous to me”. Norton prosed on with the Mayor despairing that he was unable to keep Norton to the time-limit as he was continually interrupted by the interjections and heckling of the other Aldermen and Norton’s responses to them. Norton in turn interrupted everyone else with his own heckles.

Alderman Hughes said that “Mr Anderson had amply demonstrated his fitness for the position”. Alderman Dr Graham said that “six months ago they had taken Mr Anderson from an office he had filled with distinction, and he had shown considerable ability in his present office. Why if they had the Angel Gabriel In the position, under the present circumstances, the position would be just as untenable. That was why he felt that, considering how Mr. Anderson's hands had been tied, he had done his duty well. He was firmly convinced that he was a man who would not look many days for a billet, and for his services he could obtain double the salary they were giving him.” Alderman Dean spoke in support of Anderson’s appointment. Aldermen Dymock asked “What had Mr Anderson done during the last six months?” and believed the position should be advertised. To cheers and laughter Alderman Penny asked what all the argument was about. Alderman Jessep argued that Mr. Anderson “had shown every fitness for the position, although he did not quite come up to the Ideal of the man he had had in his eye. The general method in which he had submitted the business was a distinct improvement.” The Mayor said Mr. Anderson “had worked night and day, and he had found him a most efficient officer”.

When the motion was eventually put, it was passed 18 votes to 2, the two dissenters being Norton and Dymock. As Alderman Penny said – what was that all about? Anderson’s salary was increased to £800 pa at the next Council meeting.

Anderson’s report was debated in half a dozen meetings in May of the General Purposes Committee which was composed of all of the Aldermen. Meetings were rowdy, often undirected, frequently failing to achieve much. The general tenor of the press was that nothing much would be achieved. The ‘Australian Star’ on 27 April wrote “If there is one feature more than another specially characteristic of civic administration in Sydney it is the facility with which the City Council prepares schemes of reform, and the thoroughness with which they are shelved.” The ‘Sydney Morning Herald’ editorial of 2 May ponderously intoned “It does not seem likely that any report will lead to a direct remedial effect, which will sooner or later have to be sought by other means, but such a document as that just presented by the Town Clerk has always a value as offering the results of investigation, and consequent suggestions made by those who have a practical knowledge of our attempts at municipal administration.” It did, however, believe that “Mr. Anderson's suggestions are deserving of attention, whatever may be thought of the general merits of his scheme”.

Anderson’s report re-iterated most of the earlier recommendations in his “progress report” but covered more ground and gave more detail.

He repeated his recommendation that the City Surveyor’s and City Building Surveyor’s Departments should be amalgamated. Anderson recommended that the draftsmen and articled pupil in the City Surveyor’s Department should qualify for and pass the examination for licensed surveyors. He recommended various cuts in staff and transfers of personnel and that all storekeeping should come under the control of one storekeeper instead of several.

On internal audit procedures, he stated that the duties of the General Accounts Auditor (Solomons) were being extended. He noted “The duties of the general auditor are of great importance and he is consequently allowed a very free hand.” Anderson had always made clear that he believed the City’s financial system had insufficient checks to guard against fraudulent activities.

In relation to the Corporation assets, he fully endorsed the creation of the position of Superintendent of Assets to which John Palmer had been appointed to control all the income producing assets of the Council. The ‘Daily Telegraph’ in sarcastic vein said it was gratified “to learn that the apparently unnecessary position, created to find a place for an official, is actually invested with some duties”. The ‘Telegraph’ did, however, publish a rebuttal by Alderman Watkins in which he contended “there could be no question with regard to the necessity for the appointment of some officer whose duty it would be to obtain the greatest possible revenue from the large and valuable assets which the corporation possesses”. Anderson further recommended the appointment of a Chief Mechanical Engineer who would operate under the Superintendent of Assets and oversee all plant and machinery such as the pumping plant at the Fish Market, machinery at the Queen Victoria Markets and the Town Hall electric light plant.

In connection with his own department, Anderson reported he had made changes to the system of correspondence and record creation and noted the increased stream of correspondence to Council. He reported the installation of a hydraulic engine for the Town Hall organ to replace the gas operation which needed repair. A comparison of costs of the two systems would ensue.

On the streets cleansing problems, he reported improvements brought about by using contracts for cleansing and garbage destruction and an increase in revenues amounting to £2400. He commended the Superintendent of Streets Cleansing, WM Gordon, “a gentleman of capacity and possessing the rare gift of organisation”.

He recommended the complete restructure of the Sanitary Department. A new department should be created and headed by a City Health Officer, a full-time appointment of a medical officer made under the already existing provisions of the Public Health Act by the NSW Government, probably with salary of £700-800 pa paid by the Government, but to operate entirely in the service of the Council with offices at the Town Hall. (The current position of City Health Officer was only part-time with limited duties and paid for by Council.) Under the City Health Officer should be the Inspector of Nuisances who was to be a competent sanitary engineer carrying out the work of the department as directed by the Health Officer. The sanitary inspectors were to have certificates of proficiency in sanitary work and to have attended a course of health lectures. There was need for an Inspector of dairies and butchers’ shops and Anderson recommended that George Baker (the current Inspector of Nuisances) fill the position. The supervision of the streets cleansing contract should be transferred from the City Surveyor’s department to the new department.

Anderson’s report finished with detailed general recommendations governing the conditions of employment of Council employees and a schedule of recommended salaries for all positions envisaged in the new structure of Council departments.

Many conditions, now taken for granted as rights, were for the first time to be applied to all Council employees. The changes brought about the shift from an employment system operating under the aegis of patronage to one with externally verifiable criteria. Employees above the rank of labourer were to be classified into special, professional, clerical or general sections. They were to be graded in order of seniority determined first by salary and then length of service. All employees receiving weekly payment of £3 or more were to become salaried officers (ie rate of payment and tenure of employment expressed in annual terms). This was to enable aldermanic yearly review of their salaries instead of determination by the Mayor alone. Minimum and maximum salary was to be set in each position in the professional and clerical sections with annual increments provided. Promotion was to be by seniority across the departments not just within a department. Employees with salaries over £100 pa were to insure their lives. Every employee was to have annual holidays on full pay for set periods. For vacancies on clerical staff, advertisements were to be placed setting out certain necessary qualifications acquired by having passed examinations such as University Matriculation, Senior or Junior, Public Service, Institute of Bankers or Chamber of Commerce. All employees (other than labourers) were to be medically examined and passed fit.

The recommended schedule of all salaried employees appended to the report set out not only salaries but the proposed structure of the departments. In summary, the schedule specified the following [note only highest salaries mentioned here]:

The Town Clerk’s Department with Town Clerk on £800 pa had included under it: the City Solicitor; the City Organist; a chief clerk £300; a clerk; the Mayor’s orderly; the General Auditor £300; the City Assessor and his clerk; and the external auditors.

The City Treasurers Department had: the Treasurer on £500; rate ledger keeper; cashier; 3 rate notice servers; paymaster & timekeeper; and a clerk.

The City Surveyor’s Department had the City Surveyor on £600; a clerk of works £400; two surveyors and draughtsmen; the City Architect & Building Surveyor £350; an architect and draughtsman; 2 clerks; 2 Inspectors for hoardings, awnings, repairs; foreman carpenter; foreman plumber; foreman painter; Moore Park ranger; foreman streets repairs; foreman stonemason; foreman city reserves; general storekeeper; an assistant; and an Inspector of supplies.

The Sanitary Department had the Medical Superintendent (paid by the Government); Inspector of Nuisances (a sanitary engineer) to be appointed and salary to be decided; Inspector of dairies and butchers; 2 clerks; warrant officer; 2 gangers; Sanitary inspectors; City Cleansing Superintendent £500.

The Superintendent of Assets department had proposed staff: Superintendent £400; a clerk; Inspector of Cattle Saleyards; Sub-inspector of Cattle Yards; Clerk of Belmore Markets; Inspector of Fish Market; 3 Fish Market engineers; Inspector of Sussex St Sale Yards; Clerk of Queen Victoria Markets; Chief Corporation Engineer; Electric Lighting Engineer; 2 Hawkers’ Inspectors.

In the end, virtually all the recommendations in Anderson’s report were adopted by the General Purposes Committee and referred to Council at its meeting on 30 May 1900. The meeting was even more rowdy than usual. Preliminary matters saw the usual capers by Norton and the Mayor’s ineffective attempts to control the meeting with insults flying about the room. Then, despite the fact that the General Purposes Committee was a Committee of the Whole which had recommended the adoption of Anderson’s report with the few changes made by that Committee, Norton moved a motion to consider each item in the report separately while the Mayor contended that it could only be considered in whole and either accepted or rejected. A vote on the validity of this ruling was tied and the Mayor left the chair and attempted to leave the room. A confused melee resulted with the Mayor not being allowed to leave and more insults flying. Eventually the Mayor resumed his seat and allowed a motion by Alderman Jessep to hear the report ‘in seriatim’; the motion passed and then with very little further debate each section of the report was passed.

Anderson’s reorganisation was able to proceed and it seems undoubted that the style of administration and principles of employment of the Council were changed forever and most of its 19th Century ways were superseded. Further, Anderson had established the role of Town Clerk as Chief Executive Officer or General Manager as he believed it should be. The importance of many of the changes was overlooked by the press and probably by many of the Aldermen as the spotlight shone even more brightly on the need to reform Council itself. The meeting of 30 May brought more opprobrium on the Council as the press published verbatim vocal sallies and descriptive accounts of the behaviour of the Aldermen.

The ‘Evening News’ next day wrote:

“It is not good for the City Council that its meetings should now be regarded purely as proceedings which will enable the newspapers to publish a certain amount of 'funny' reading. Ridicule and contempt are too nearly allied to make this state of things pleasant for aldermen. An institution which the citizens, when, they do not contemplate it with disgust, merely look upon as a kind of broad farce, is not likely to have its permanence maintained. … Can aldermen be surprised if there is a unanimous feeling that Parliament, when it meets, will have to deal with them very radically and very expeditiously? … Anything like an accurate report of such part of yesterday's proceedings in the Town Hall as would admit of publication would read like one of those travesties upon municipal meetings which we occasionally meet with in works of fiction, but which are really not so ridiculous as the real thing when presented in Sydney. We used the words 'as would admit of publication' in connection with yesterday's meeting advisedly, because some of the language used was of the character which in police courts is met by fine or the alternative. And this is the kind of thing which the citizens of Sydney are expected to put up with uncomplainingly.”

The ‘Daily Telegraph’ in more sombre tone than its usual wrote under the headline “The City Council Scandal”: "I'd like aldermen not be calling one another names, and let us get on with the business. Thus the Mayor of Sydney at Wednesday's meeting of the City Corporation mildly, not to say feebly, attempted to stay the outflow of washerwoman repartee which for hours drowned all chance of getting on with business. It is well within the truth to say that no more disgusting exhibition of ill-temper, spite, and silly abusiveness has ever taken place in the smallest and least responsible or controllable of borough councils than that of which the Town Hall was made the theatre at the latest meeting of so-called representatives of the city ratepayers. More than half the report of the proceedings is a mere record of personal spleen and rancour, expressed mostly in coarse terms, and sometimes in language that cannot be printed.”

Administrative changes went ahead. The City Surveyor’s and City Building Surveyor’s Departments were amalgamated but the change did not last long being undone in 1901. It failed to work lacking support from the staff involved. Professional staff in future were required to have professional qualifications. A Chief Mechanical Engineer was appointed to oversee all Council plant and machinery at markets and Town Hall. The restructure of the Sanitary Department under a City Health Officer came gradually and piece-meal into existence. Blackwell, the Inspector of Nuisances appointed in July 1900, was an accredited sanitary engineer (assoc M.I.C.E.). A full-time Health Officer paid by the NSW Government was appointed to oversee the new Sanitary Department which set about organised inspections throughout the City.

The new procedures for classification and appointment of employees were achieved and Anderson and Harris worked further to apply a better system of appointment of the labourers so that by the end of his term as Town Clerk, new appointments instead of being the sole province of the Mayor were made by the Works Committee using a system of selection by ballot. A method of appealing against wrongful dismissal was also instituted.

During his time with the City Council, Anderson continued his involvement in public voluntary charitable concerns. When a meeting was held in June 1900 to form a Committee to raise funds for the Indian Famine Relief, Mayor Matthew Harris was elected Chairman and Anderson was elected honorary secretary. The Committee held its final meeting in October when it was able to report that it had transmitted £15,000 to India. The Governor of NSW, Earl Beauchamp, was reported in the ‘Daily Telegraph’ 3 October saying that he was “gratified at the success of the movement”. He further noted "What struck him most, in reading the report, was the exceedingly small sum of money absorbed in ‘expenses’. It would, he thought, be difficult to find any case in which so large a sum had been collected at such little cost, and this result, he believed, was chiefly due to the honorary secretaries — ("hear, hear") — and particularly, he was told, to Mr. Anderson, the town clerk.”

Since its inception several years earlier in the 1890s, he had been involved with the Civil Ambulance and Transport Corps which was a voluntary body providing an ambulance service to transport sick or injured persons to Sydney hospitals (see article, ‘Sydney Mail’ 19 May 1900).

When the NSW Parliament resumed, a Sydney Corporation Act Amendment Bill was once again brought on and eventually passed in October. A full Council election in December 1900 took place under the new Act. The Act made significant changes. Twelve wards with two Aldermen each were created with roughly equal numbers of voters; lessees, occupiers and lodgers (including women) all received the vote if their dwelling had a specified annual property value; cumulative voting by owners of property was abolished although they could exercise one vote in each ward in which they held a property qualification; the twenty four Aldermen were elected for a term of two years with all retiring simultaneously. Thirteen candidates endorsed by the Citizens’ Reform Committee were elected. Of the sixteen sitting Aldermen who had stood for re-election, seven were defeated including the Mayor Sir Matthew Harris who was beaten by the two Citizens’ Reform Committee candidates in his ward. At the last moment, Alderman John Norton did not nominate. Alderman James Graham became the Mayor of Sydney for 1901.

The new Council was committed to reforms and continued to implement Anderson’s recommendations. Anderson presented an Annual Report for 1900 to the new Council on 21 January 1901 and also presented his resignation to become effective on 21 February 1901. Anderson took the opportunity of his imminent retirement to widen the scope of his report by commending the outgoing Council’s attempts to reform and defending its actions during the plague emergency from criticisms levelled by Government and press. He wrote:

“This election should have an important bearing on the future conduct of the city's business, and although to all interested in municipal matters the bill introduced into Parliament was most disappointing, inasmuch as it bestowed none of the powers urgently desired for the good government of the city, still it is recognised that with a new body of men, all presumably fired with enthusiasm to make a name for themselves, powers requested by them later on must receive careful attention from any Parliament The new council came in, as the result of public upheaval, charged with the great work of bringing Sydney into line with other cities of the same magnitude in other parts of the world, and although there is before it an enormous amount of work to successfully accomplish all that is required, the members are to be congratulated on coming in at a time when there is a much better prospect of the realisation of their desires than ever before in the history of the council, for whatever may have been the failings of the city council in years past, during the last year or two there has been an earnest desire towards better things, and an immense amount of work has been done of an arduous and unpleasant nature, laying a good foundation on which a proper superstructure may be raised.”

Anderson was pleased to report that what he called the “pernicious patronage system” was well on the way to an end. He had classified all the staff and graded them into order of seniority which would guide further promotions. Entry into clerical staff was now “invariably by competitive examination.” The appointment of a Mechanical Engineer had led to a complete overhaul and servicing of all equipment including the road roller which had been declared previously in proper working order when it was not.

On cleansing operations, he was led to make the startling appraisal that “The greatest blessing that ever came to Sydney, viewed from the standpoint of the future welfare of our city, was the bubonic plague, which broke out in February. It must be admitted, of course, that Sydney was in a complete state of unpreparedness to cope with such a matter, for sanitary supervision, both Government and municipal, was extremely faulty. The Government very cleverly placed the whole blame upon the shoulders of the City Council, and, more cleverly still, obtained great kudos from the general public (unaware of the facts) for what they did— which was mainly in the direction of covering up their own shortcomings.” He reported that the Superintendent of City Cleansing had, despite the difficulties of the plague time, been able to reduce normal expenditure. He referred to the still existing problems of the employment of “inferior and unsatisfactory men” and the abused custom of the so-called “widows’ carts” and once again recommended that council purchase its own up-to-date carts. He concluded “The whole system of employment of labour requires drastic solution.”

On the question of the City’s finances, Anderson stressed yet again the need to balance the City’s expenditure with its receipts. On the vexed question of increase to rates, he pointed out that Sydney did not have the sources of revenue that were available to Melbourne which drew income from licenses or fees for publicans, lodging houses, vehicles, noxious trades and places of amusement; in addition, Sydney had recently lost a source of revenue when the Government resumed the City Wharfs. On the question of better managing the City’s bank overdraft, he pointed out that a Bill prepared 18 months ago to enable Council to raise debentures to liquidate the overdraft had not yet been put before the Parliament and in the meanwhile the City continued to pay high interest rates on the overdraft.

He was pleased with the changes being made to the Sanitary Department. He wrote:
“Closely related to the city cleansing is the Sanitary Department, practically a new creation. The plague outbreak clearly demonstrated our shortcomings in this respect, and outside men were gathered in to bring city health affairs into touch with modern methods. The Public Health Act, passed in 1896, and under which the City Council was the ‘local authority’ for the city of Sydney, had never in any way been acted upon.” He continued: “The Sanitary Department is, of course at an experimental stage, but much valuable work has been done during the last six months. The city is divided into districts, and inspectors are detailed to each, and it is pleasing to note that the medical officer of health, who has just taken charge speaks well of the system in operation and the way in which it has been carried out.”

In his simultaneously presented formal letter of resignation, Anderson wrote to the Mayor, Dr James Graham:
“Dear Mr Mayor, I have to inform you that it is my intention to resign the office of town clerk. I have come to this conclusion after anxious deliberation. During the past year tempting offers were made me to leave the service, but under the circumstances of plague and schemes of reorganisation which I was piloting through, I declined to entertain them, but now with an entirely new council in office I feel the circumstances are different. I would have liked to have stayed on, say a year longer, to see the effects of the alterations of management, but the outside world offers such superior attractions, that the 'enlightened selfishness' commended us for our guidance by eminent authority has prevailed. I have been in the service nearly four years, and am leaving it poorer in health and in pocket than when I entered, but satisfied in the feeling that I have rendered service to my native city in the two positions I have occupied. Please accept my warm thanks for your valuable counsel and kindly consideration at all times, and my hearty good wishes for your future, both official and personal.”

Anderson’s phrase “enlightened selfishness” refers to an ethical stance and has the meaning that an individual promoting the interests of others would, by so doing, ultimately enhance his own self-interest or put in another way an individual did well for himself by doing well for others. The phrase was a topical one having been used in debates on such national issues as participation in the South African war and the proposed immigration restriction Bill. It appeared by itself as a catchphrase and space filler in newspapers in the form “Working for the good of all to secure good for self is enlightened selfishness”. In the matter of the financial reward his work had given him, it must be remembered that he took a salary drop to enter the service of the City and he continued to have that lower salary until mid-1900 and even then his salary of £800 pa did not compare well with that paid to the Town Clerk of Melbourne, £1200, or the Town Clerks of important English cities who were reported to earn from £1200 to £1500 pa. Anderson, once again, put on public record the satisfaction he had gained from working in the service of his native city, Sydney.

In another letter accompanying his resignation, he expressed his “grateful appreciation” toward Mayors Harris and Graham and the “majority of the old council”. He concluded in saying “My brief intercourse with the new council has been entirely happy and satisfactory, and I wish them success in the important schemes for the better government of our city which are about to engage their attention. My sole reason for leaving you is that an offer has been made to me to return to business life, and, of so satisfactory a nature, that I cannot see my way clear to decline it.*

The Sydney newspapers seemed at first unimpressed by Anderson’s resignation, perhaps taking offence that he should resign to take a “better” position, perhaps themselves adhering to the 19th Century concept of taking a job for life. The ‘Sydney Morning Herald’ gave lukewarm praise: “[He] has discharged his duties during the somewhat brief term of his office to the best of his abilities, and in quitting that office he only exercises the unquestionable right of every man to be the best judge of his own affairs.” The important thing was “He has now given the City Council an opportunity to procure the best available person to fill the position of town clerk.” The ‘Australian Star’ echoed the sentiments: “He, at all events, would seem to have been a very zealous one [Town Clerk], and in many respects, no doubt, his capacity was equal to that sense of responsibility which, as certified to by himself, caused him to spend, and be spent, during the past four years. But it is of much greater public interest now to say something on the subject of Mr. Anderson's successor. To say that there are more reasons than ever that the Town Clerk of Sydney should he a first-class man is to state a fact which few persons will be inclined to dispute.”

The Aldermen, however, were unstinting in praise of Anderson and his role in the City’s Service for the past four years. Aldermen who had voted ‘on principle’ against his appointment now spoke in glowing terms of the man. Aldermen paid tribute, both at the meeting on 22 January which received Anderson’s resignation and at the special meeting of the General Purposes Committee to consider his successor. The Mayor, Dr James Graham said “that Mr Anderson had been four years in the service of the council. He joined it as city treasurer, and at a time when there was considerable uneasiness both in the council and the public mind regarding the treasury department. Mr. Anderson soon established confidence (Hear, hear), For two years he had held the position of town clerk, and showed business capacity, energy, loyalty, and fidelity.” The newly elected Alderman JD Fitzgerald, a prominent figure in the Citizens’ Reform Committee, said that Anderson “had maintained his independence, and had proved himself an efficient officer” and that he had been “a faithful servant of the council”. Alderman Thomas Hughes, also endorsed by the Reform Committee, and at the time opposed to Anderson’s appointment, said that “he had filled his position with honour”. Alderman Barlow, who had also opposed Anderson’s appointment, now praised him for his work. Alderman Lees, an Alderman for 20 years, also praised him for his work as Treasurer and said it was for that excellence that he had opposed appointing him as Town Clerk. Alderman Waine, Alderman for 8 years, regretted that Anderson was resigning. (Reports in ‘Sydney Morning Herald’ 26 January 1901 and ‘Evening News’ 28 January 1901)

The Aldermen discussed their requirements for a new Town Clerk including the desirability of finding someone with English municipal experience and the salary they should pay him with many advocating a salary of £1200. Alderman TJ West (newly elected but previously Alderman and Mayor of Paddington) declared such a salary ‘ridiculous’ adding “Who could say that their Town Clerk, that had been so eulogised, would not have continued to occupy his position, and with credit to himself and for the benefit of the city, if he got that increased salary? He was opposed to going to the old country for a town clerk. They found Mr. Anderson a young man without experience, yet he brought about a complete change for the better in their council.” (‘Evening News’, 6 February 1901).

Anderson in an interview with the ‘Sydney Morning Herald’ (26 January 1901) paid tribute to the previous Mayor, Sir Matthew Harris, saying that “From the day Sir Matthew Harris took office a marked improvement in the service took place.” He was equally gracious about the new Mayor, Dr James Graham saying “The well-deserved public reputation of the present Mayor is a guarantee that good work will be done, especially as he has the good fortune to have a council of aldermen pledged to reform, and who are desirous of supporting him. I have nothing but kindly things to say of the present council, while the courtesy and consideration of the Mayor are beyond description.”

He repeated those sentiments in an interview with the ‘Daily Telegraph’ (26 January, 1901): “He [Dr Graham] has the great force of public opinion behind him, and whatever the private feelings of any member of the council may be he must perforce follow the reform movement if he hopes for political salvation. Last year things were widely different, and Sir Matthew Harris had to handle a team divided into two factions, and it appeared to each that it was absolutely necessary to oppose any scheme put forward by the other. To those in the "know", Sir Matthew Harris did splendid work, but in an unostentatious manner, and he laid a deep and thorough foundation for the superstructure that is now, I am confident, to be erected.”

Anderson expressed his feelings and motivations at resigning the Town Clerkship:
"I have been overwhelmed with generous letters and messages from all sorts and conditions of men, and I wish it to be clearly understood that my sole reason for leaving is that I feel, by past training and experience, the scope open to a business man is wider and more remunerative than to one in any other walk of life. This position, although honourable and likely to improve, is necessarily harassing and expensive, and although my age is 35 I sometimes feel about 135. I am now going into partnership with Mr. Allen Taylor, shipowner and wholesale timber merchant, who was well known in municipal life as Mayor of Annandale for some years - a position he recently relinquished because of pressing business engagements."

The ‘Freeman’s Journal’ (2 February) having no doubt listened to the praise of old and new Aldermen, wrote of Anderson:

“When, two years ago, it was proposed that Mr. Anderson should be appointed probationary Town Clerk for six months, considerable doubt was expressed as to the wisdom of the move — not because Mr. Anderson's fitness for the position was denied, but because his two years' service as City Treasurer had resulted in such sweeping reforms in the financial department of city government that his removal from one office for which he had proved such thorough fitness to another which was hemmed in by all sorts of restrictions was something very like a blunder. But to the new position Mr Anderson brought a business acumen which would have been of considerable service to any Council which was not staggering to its fall and to the Treasury he left evidence of the true reformer in an improved system of financial government He has left the City Hall to enter into a lucrative business partnership with Mr. Allen Taylor, shipowner and timber merchant. He had already declined the offer of appointment as manager to an insurance company at a salary of £1100 a year”. A week later the paper declared: “His financial skill and organizing power should make him a powerful factor in the future success of the firm.”

Before handing over his office on 21 February 1901 to John Palmer, who was appointed (once again) the acting Town Clerk while Council embarked on its search for a model Town Clerk, Anderson accompanied the Mayor, Dr Graham, and the young Alderman Arthur McElhone (aged 32 and in his second year as Alderman), on a visit to Melbourne where they investigated Municipal matters. (‘Evening News’ 16 February 1901)

On the 20 February, the Mayor and Council staff and employees made a presentation to Anderson. The ‘Sydney Morning Herald’ reported next day: “The gathering, which was of a social character, was the spontaneous act of the whole of the employees, with whom Mr McC. Anderson had become most popular.” The ‘Australian Star’ wrote: "The Mayor (Dr Graham) made the presentation, and in doing so referred to Mr Anderson's connection with the City Council. That gentleman, after having placed the city treasury on a sound footing, had been called to the higher position of town clerk, and in that position had done a lot to consolidate the service, and make the position of the average employee safer and more comfortable. In Mr. Anderson, the Mayor always had a sound adviser, and he hoped their guest would soon re-enter the service, either as an alderman or in some other capacity. Mr. Anderson briefly replied. He left the service with some regret, but he felt his work was done, and a change was required.”

Partner, Managing Director of Allen Taylor & Co, February 1901 - January 1915;
Advisor to Commonwealth, NSW and Queensland Governments, 1911 – 1915

Anderson had written that his sole reason for resigning was that he had an offer to return to business life which was “so satisfactory” that he could not decline it. In interviews he said that business life had wider scope and better pay than any other career and, when accepting his City colleagues’ farewell presentation to him, he stated that he felt his work was done and change was needed – change for himself as well as for the City.

The position was offered to him by Allen Taylor. Taylor was the same age as Anderson and like him was born in NSW. He had built a business in timber supply and in coastal shipping along the North Coast of NSW. He was a contractor for works using timber. He traded in hardwoods suitable for girders, railway sleepers, bridgeworks, construction of wharfs and tramways, and woodblock paving for roads. His coastal steamers carried timber, general goods and passengers and he tendered for coal delivery contracts to the North Coast. By 1896 he had begun to export north coast hardwoods.

Taylor had also developed an interest in municipal service. He had been an alderman on Annandale Council since 1896 and had become Mayor of the Borough in 1897, a role which had gained him considerable popularity and respect. He had resigned from the Mayorship in August 1900 because of the “strain” of performing his civic role as well as pursuing his business affairs although he remained as an Alderman. When in February 1901 he secured Anderson’s services as a partner, Taylor once again felt able to take up the role of Mayor of Annandale. By the end of the following year, obviously happy with his partner’s ability in co-managing the company’s affairs, Taylor decided to seek election to the Sydney City Council on which he then served from 1902 to 1912, being Lord Mayor in 1905-6 and 1909-12; he lost the election in 1912 but later served again from 1915-1924. He continued his role in public affairs by becoming a Member of the Legislative Council of the NSW Parliament in 1912 serving there until his death in 1940.

In about 1905, Allen Taylor & Co became a limited liability company with shares traded on the Sydney Stock Exchange. Anderson became the managing director and Taylor became the Chairman of the Board. The Company was profitable, its paid-up capital and reserves increased and for many years, it paid its shareholders an annual 10% dividend.

Allen Taylor & Co traded in timbers in large quantities. It supplied hardwood timbers to the NSW Government for railways, bridges, wharfs and other uses during the years 1901 to 1914 when Anderson was with the company. In 1904 it successfully tendered for the supply of tallow wood cross-arms for telegraph poles for the Commonwealth Government and in 1913 it successfully tendered for work strengthening the wharf at Port Augusta in connection with the Kalgoorlie to Port Augusta Railway.

Both Anderson and Taylor made trips overseas looking for further export opportunities, Taylor in 1902 and 1908, Anderson in 1904 and 1914. Their trips were copiously described in newspaper interviews by Sydney press, copied by NSW country press and on occasion by interstate papers. The company for years regularly supplied timber to long-term clients in London and to the west coast of North America - to San Francisco, to Vancouver and Victoria in British Columbia. In 1903, the Company supplied hardwood sleepers for the South British Railway Company. In the same year it entered into a contract to supply 470,000 railway sleepers of New South Wales hardwoods including blackbutt, box, and mahogany to South Africa and through 1905 and 1906 sent large consignments of sleepers and wheel components such as felloes, naves, spokes and shafts. In 1906 they sent some 50,000 sleepers to Karachi in India and in 1910 sleepers were sent to Calcutta. In 1907 and 1908 the Company despatched over forty thousand sleepers to Iloilo and Manila in the Philippines and thousands of sleepers were delivered to Hong Kong. In 1908 railways in New Zealand took delivery of sleepers sent by the Company. Timbers were sent over the years to Pacific destinations such as Fiji, Nauru and Kiribati.

The Company mostly bought from timber-getters or from the saw-millers but at times directly employed sleeper-getters. In May 1901 it advertised to purchase direct from saw-millers or act as their agents. In February 1906, it advertised jobs for 50 sleeper-getters for the Coffs Harbour district: “WANTED Immediately, 50 Sleeper-Getters, long job, good timber”.

From about 1907, the Company began to source additional timber from the South Coast of NSW. The local paper, ‘South Coast Times and Wollongong Argus’, reported in November 1907 the Allen Taylor and Co representative, JH Rothwell, had “put through a big timber order last week. At Bateman's [Bay] and Moruya, … he approved of 2,535 sleepers for export to Manila, and 185 ironbark girders for the N.S.W. Government, and paid to the cutters £600.” Additional Allen Taylor and Co steamers began to operate on the South Coast run.

Anderson participated as his Company’s representative in the NSW Timber Industries’ Association. Both Anderson and Taylor expressed concerns about the long-term viability of the timber industry. In 1902 much of the industry was in conflict with the Government after the introduction of new regulations. In the course of the public controversy, Anderson was reported as saying the members of the Timber Industries’ Association “did not object to the payment of royalties so long as the money was used in carrying out nurseries to continue the forestry of the State”. (‘Freeman’s Journal’, Sydney, 12 July 1902). In a long interview with the ‘Evening News’, 11 September 1902, Anderson described the lack of Government consultation with members of the timber industry and the imposition of regulations deemed impractical or uneconomic. He cited also the Government’s attempts to employ timber-getters directly by-passing the recognised timber trading businesses and apparently being duped into contracting with a dubious unknown company not actually composed of timber-getters and not complying with tender specifications; the president of this company Anderson said was actually the secretary of the Williams River Steam Ship Company whom Anderson described as “a curious specimen of a timber-getter”. Anderson also pointed to the past failure of the Forest Department to care for the thousands of young cedars planted in the Dorrigo Brush of which only 20 had survived. He said “The old administration in the Forest Department has brought much discredit, and the future does not seem to promise anything better.” Allen Taylor spoke on the topic of forest conservation at the annual meeting of the Timber Industries Association in 1903 saying that “the State was in danger of losing a magnificent asset, which, by the exercise of a little common prudence, could not only be conserved but developed” and he went on to say that “under present circumstances a large export would mean the killing of the goose that lays the golden eggs.”

The Company had its own fleet of coastal steamers to bring timber to Sydney and in Sydney, the company had the use of Taylor’s Wharf at Pyrmont. It developed resources for timber handling at the wharfs of the river ports and leased land from the Government for the erection of wharfs and storage depots. The earlier steamers could carry about 100 tons while some of their later successors were capable of 200 tons. They all had shallow draughts as they needed to be able to cross the treacherous bars found at most of the north coast river mouths. Grounding of ships on the bars was a not infrequent hazard; usually they could be floated off but occasionally a ship was wrecked or badly damaged. In 1896, Taylor lost the schooner ‘Tottie’ on Camden Haven Bar. The value of the ship and cargo was listed in the NSW Government Register of Wrecks as £950. The Company’s worst loss however, was the steamer ‘Croki’, wrecked off Seal Rocks in 1903 after only having been in service a short time. Taylor had organised her building while in Scotland in 1902 and she had successfully made the trip to Australia through the Suez Canal under her own power. The newspapers reported the hull was insured for £5,000. The Register of Wrecks put her value at £12,000 and the cargo £1,000. The schooner ‘Australia’ was badly damaged in 1905 when it was stranded in a heavy gale on the Manning Bar breakwater and the Register of Wrecks put the value of the damage at £700.

At first the Company’s steamers carried only timber but a move was made into transporting general goods and passengers to or from the North Coast. The Company steamers operated on the Bellinger, the Nambucca, the Manning, the Hastings and Wilson rivers. The biggest rival shipping company was the North Coast Steam Navigation Company. Competition between the two companies on the Rivers increased with the North Coast SN Co cutting prices for cargo while having a natural advantage for the passenger trade because of its larger, more comfortable ships. At the beginning of 1904, Allen Taylor & Co decided to get out of the general shipping and passenger trade on the Bellinger, Manning and Wilson Rivers, selling some of their ships and wharf fixtures and negotiating the transfer of their contracts with suppliers to the North Coast SN Co. They continued to use their ships only for their own timber trade operating out of Cape Hawke (Forster/Tuncurry) and Camden Haven (Laurieton). The ‘Raleigh Sun’, lamented “the retirement once more of the opposition in the trade of those rivers”.

Anderson was appointed by the NSW Government to the Shipping (Masters and Officers’) Board formed in 1908 under the new Industrial Disputes Act as one of the employers’ representatives. In December 1908, the Board produced a new award which was to apply to a number of the coastal shipping companies in response to an application by the Merchant Services Guild of Australia against Allen Taylor & Co in relation to wages and conditions. Anderson and Taylor also participated until 1912 in the NSW Coastal Steam Ship Owners’ Association which was formed in 1908 and joined by most NSW Coastal shippers. Anderson was elected treasurer in 1909. Agreements were negotiated between maritime unions and the NSW Coastal Steam Ship Owners’ Association but from 1912 Allen Taylor & Co seem to have directly negotiated their own agreements. The company was exempted from an award made in May 1913 while its agreement with the Merchant Service Guild was in operation and it seems that the Company was paying higher than award rates to Masters and Mates of its ships.

Anderson continued during his time with Allen Taylor & Co to involve himself in voluntary community affairs. He was an active member of the Civil Ambulance and Transport Corps serving for many years on the Committee. The Corps was set up as a charity to provide first aid and ambulance transport free of charge; it trained members in first aid principles on the lines promulgated by the St John’s Order. The NSW government provided premises and a small grant and members of the public made contributions. Its President for many years was Professor TP Anderson Stuart, Professor of Anatomy and Physiology at the University of Sydney. Prominent Sydney medical men, such as Dr James Graham, Dr RH Todd and Dr George Armstrong, were active members.

Anderson and his family had long been involved in the Highland Society of NSW. In 1901-2 Anderson was honorary secretary, having previously been a councillor and treasurer, but in the following years he seems to have left committee participation to his brother HCL Anderson and his father Robert Anderson.

Anderson’s prominence and confidence in business had been noted by politicians as well as newspapers and the business world. In October 1911, Anderson was appointed by the Federal Government to be a member of a Royal Commission into the sugar industry in Australia. Its terms were “To inquire into and report upon the sugar industry in Australia, more principally in relation to (a) growers of sugar cane and beet, (b) manufacturers of raw and refined sugar, (c) workers employed in the sugar industry, and (d) purchasers and consumers of sugar.”

A number of issues brought the Royal Commission into being. WM Hughes had been very vocal in criticising the Colonial Sugar Refining Company and alleging in Parliament the possibility of rapacious business methods. The company was the biggest industrial concern in Australia with large refineries in the capital cities. It was huge and successful. By a process of purchase and amalgamation, it had almost a monopoly in the refining of sugar and hence virtual control of domestic sugar prices. This advantage was off-set by the fact that there was no bar to the importation of sugar from overseas; CSR’s domestic price accordingly was set to be always below the overseas price. The growers had the benefit of a guaranteed purchase by CSR. There were national concerns regarding the use of Kanaka labour on some sugar plantations which did not align with Australia’s immigration policy (the White Australia policy). Further national concerns related to the sparse population of northern Australia and fears that it made the country more vulnerable to invasion by another.

The chairman of the Royal Commission was Sir John Gordon Judge of the South Australian Supreme Court who retired for reasons of ill-health in September 1912 and was replaced by Jethro Brown Professor of Law in the University of Adelaide. The other commissioners were Albert Hinchcliffe MLC and General Secretary of the Australian Labor Federation, JN Shannon barrister and cane-grower, Thomas William Crawford President of the Australian Producers’ Association. Anderson was clearly appointed for his business and financial acumen.

The Commission held hearings between October 1911 and October 1912. It took evidence from 447 persons and visited all the sugar producing centres in Australia as well as Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane. The Colonial Sugar Refining Co gave very reluctant and limited co-operation to the Commissioners. The Company at the first requested permission for representation before the Commission but this was refused. The Commissioners set about hearing all the other interested groups and inspecting growing areas. Eventually when summonses were served on CSR directors, the Company took the route of challenging in the High Court the validity of the Act governing the Commission asserting it to be beyond the power of the Federal Government. It also sought an injunction, as the ‘Sydney Morning Herald’ explained, “to restrain the Sugar Commission from putting certain questions to the general manager of the company, Mr. Knox, on the ground that answers to such questions would disclose to the business rivals of the company matter upon which the company relies for the profitable conduct of its business”. The legal battle delayed the final production of a report as did the illness of Sir John Gordon and the decision of Thomas William Crawford to write a minority report.

The Royal Commission’s long and complex majority report said of CSR: “We do not hesitate to express our admiration of the economic efficiency which characterizes every branch of its business which has come under our notice”. It noted the company’s high profits and impenetrable account keeping but stated of its refining business that the “monopolistic control is the result, less of the pursuit of ‘predatory’ methods of certain American Trusts, than of large scale industry and a high efficiency of organisation”. It saw no need to nationalise the industry. The Commissioners made recommendations for changes to the system of bounty and excise and changes to import duties. They recommended Constitutional changes that could allow price control of sugar. They also recommended a minimum wage of 8/- per day of eight hours for employees and changes to employment conditions.

The Royal Commission Report emphasised the national concerns prominent at the time, stating

“The Commonwealth today is brought face to face with one of the gravest problems which has ever taxed the ingenuity of statesmanship – that of the settlement of tropical and semi-tropical areas by a white population living under standard conditions of life. And intimately associated with this problem is the question of national defence. If the ideal of a White Australia is to become an enduring actuality, some means must be discovered of establishing industries within the tropical regions. ….. Granted so much, it follows that the supreme justification for the protection of the Sugar Industry is the part that the industry has contributed, and will, as we hope, continue to contribute to the problems of the settlement and defence of the norther portion of the Australian continent. The recognition of the nature of this supreme justification is the first condition of a sound public policy in relation to the Sugar Industry. Relatively to it, all other issues are of minor importance.”

Anderson’s participation as a Royal Commissioner further enhanced his public profile and his professional reputation. In January 1912, he was reported as a guest of the Minister for External Affairs at a luncheon for Henniker Heaton, Australian born, former journalist, who had on going to England become a Member of the House of Commons. There he campaigned tirelessly and successfully for cheaper postage and telegraph rates including those from Britain to the Empire, an achievement that benefitted Australians by making overseas news and communications more accessible. Others present at the luncheon were the President of the Chamber of Commerce and the Deputy Post-Master General. Also in January, Anderson denied the rumour that he might become the manager of the Federal Bank. He said had no intention of leaving Allen Taylor Co Ltd. The Company continued to make profits and pay a 10% dividend to shareholders. It successfully managed its relationship with the Maritime Services Guild; its export markets continued to flourish and it won more Government tenders to supply timber.

In December 1912, Anderson registered a company called Pindimar Port Stephens Ltd with the stated purpose of “carrying on the business of farmers, graziers, &c;” the two directors were Anderson and Frederick Phillips. Pindimar adjoins the deep-water North Arm Cove of Port Stephens. In May 1913, Phillips applied for a special lease of land for a wharf below high water mark at Duck Holes Bay. In July 1913, Anderson acquired a land holding of nearly 8,000 acres (part of an original grant to the Australian Agricultural Company) including the Pindimar Estate and planned Pindimar Township. Allen Taylor and Co gained a Government lease in March 1914 of land below the high water mark of Fame Cove for a wharf. The Company also acquired about 1,000 acres adjoining Anderson’s holding. In the past the area had been harvested for hardwood timbers. Port Stephens was considered to have great potential and it was hoped that it would become an international port. Pindimar Estate land was advertised for sale in March 1914 with Phillips as agent. Agistment was advertised in 1915. Formal town plans were drawn up in 1918 but the town was not built and the area remained rural. Pindimar Port Stephens Ltd advertised land for sale in April 1920 when noted financial analyst, Alexander Jobson, was Company Secretary. Both Anderson and Taylor continued to take interest in Port Stephens and advocated its development through the 1920s. Phillips continued to be the managing director or estate manager through to at least 1936.

In April 1914 Anderson departed from Sydney for a business trip to the United Kingdom. He was in London at the outbreak of war in August 1914. ‘The Sydney Stock and Station Journal’ published a light-hearted report on the inaugural “New South Wales Dinner” held in London with many distinguished attendees, including Sir George Reid (former Premier of NSW and former Prime Minister of Australia and the current High Commissioner for Australia in London), English politicians and prominent ex-patriates. “Everybody was in good trim”, it reported, noting “R. M. McAnderson [sic] was smiling all over the shop”. The event was “a great success”.

In the following week, Australians in London set about forming “a war contingent association for the welfare of Australians on active service.” Sir George Reid presided over the meeting. Lady Reid had already collected more than £2000. Lord Chelmsford, former Governor of Queensland and former Governor of NSW, was elected President. The vice-presidents were the Agents-General for the States and the honorary secretary was R. M. McC. Anderson. The objects of the Australian War Contingent Association were to “watch over the requirements of each contingent, caring for the wounded, and to provide comforts for them in the field and hospital” while a Ladies Committee would be formed to “look after the correspondence of the troops, and in this way, keep families at home in touch with their dear ones who are fighting at the front.”

Anderson must have soon transferred the task of Secretary to another, no doubt after having set-up systems and having contacted potential donors and suppliers. He arrived back in Sydney on 20 November 1914 on RMS ‘Niagara’ from Vancouver. He presumably checked on Allen Taylor Company’s business there in his brief stop-over. On arrival in Sydney, several journalists interviewed him on the situation in London and England. He commented on the financial actions taken by the English government, the readiness of the navy and of the huge initial casualties suffered by the army. He made some observations on US attitudes to the war and also on US road-makers use of tar to bind road-metal. He commented adversely on some of the Australian officials in England saying “Australians were doing well In England, but the Australian representation in the country was not what it should be. The High Commissioner, (Sir George Reid), was certainly popular, and was doing his best, but he had poor backing in his office. Some of those who should be assisting him seemed to be attempting to affect the London style. They did not appear to be proud of the fact that they were Australians, and did not endeavour to push the Australian ideas before the British public.” (Sydney’s ‘Daily Telegraph’ and ‘Sydney Morning Herald’, 21 November 1914) As well as talking to the press, Anderson no doubt had conversations with various persons in the Australian Government establishment. His career was about to take a change of direction.

Anderson decided to retire as managing director of Allen Taylor Co Ltd to take effect on 13 January 1915. In the half-yearly report, the directors recorded their appreciation of the valuable services he had rendered to the company and Anderson in turn paid tribute to the board and the condition of the company. Allen Taylor reported that “the contracts already secured for the next twelve months exceeded £100,000. The company was in a very happy position and, unless something unforeseen occurred in the war, it could face the future with confidence.” The Company once again declared a 10% dividend.

Special Advisor to Governments, 1915

On 13 February 1915, the Commonwealth Government announced that Anderson had been appointed by the Defence Department to advise on the system of expenditure and on the general conduct of financial matters. In particular, a sum of £11,000,000 was to be spent on special war expenditure by the end of June on equipment, payment and organisation of the Expeditionary Forces. The Minister for Defence, Senator George Pearce, said: “this Government advisory post is not a permanent position. The investigations will probably keep Mr McAnderson [sic] a month or so, and his advice will relieve me personally of a good deal of strain I have felt. Owing to our having to spend such an enormous amount of money, the Government decided that now was the time to see how things are going, instead of waiting until after the war.” While the details of his report were not made public, Anderson in examining the war contracts was able to state he had found virtually no evidence of malpractices. He reorganised the operation of the paymaster’s branch of the department.

The Government then asked Anderson to report on the working of several other departments. By July he had recommended radical changes to the Post and Telegraph Department concentrating on finding efficiencies by cutting out ‘red tape methods’ and improving communication between officials in all locations. The proposals, with changes by Cabinet, went to Parliament. Anderson had recommended stream-lining the chain of command by appointing a General Manager but the Government decided to appoint an Inspector-general who was to report to a special Council, who would be charged with the reorganisation of the postal service along the lines suggested by Anderson. In Parliament in September, the former Postmaster-General, Austin Chapman, asked questions on the implementation of Anderson’s report, saying “The Minister proposed to put in charge of the department the officers who had been responsible for this mismanagement. He said he was not going to do anything of the kind, but did he know that three of the principal officers of the department, who with others were responsible for the trouble, were now being appointed to inquire into what had happened in their own department? Did the Postmaster General know that, or was he a political know-nothing?”

In August, Anderson was asked to assess a scheme prepared by the Director-general of Works to amalgamate the purchasing and control of stores for all Federal departments. His report was completed in September.

From the last half of 1915 and for the years following, the Anderson family experienced the anxieties of a family with a son at war. In May, Anderson’s eldest child, Robert Cairns Amos Anderson (known as Cairns), having completed his Bachelor of Science degree at Sydney University, enlisted. At the end of June he left Australia with the rank of 2nd lieutenant, and was sent to Gallipoli where he was wounded on 31 August. He recovered and went back to the front at Gallipoli where his unit was engaged until its transfer to France in March 1916.

Meanwhile in Australia, on the completion of his Commonwealth advisory positions, Anderson was appointed by the Queensland Government to inquire into the whole of their public service departments. By December 1915, he had produced a detailed report on the State’s railways finding that they were operating more economically than those of other states. He made recommendations regarding accounting, securing of supplies and insurance. He recommended a superannuation scheme and changes to the structure of salaries. He was unable to complete further reviews as he was now called upon to fulfil a major role in the service of his country.

Colonel, Brigadier-General, Australian Imperial Forces 1915-1917

On 8 December 1915, the Minister of Defence announced the creation of the position of Deputy Quartermaster-General of the AIF to control all the army business administration in Egypt and the appointment of R M McC Anderson to that position. Anderson was given the commission of Colonel and was to leave by the end of the month for Cairo. He was to have charge of all aspects relating to food, forage, clothing, equipment, supplies and stores of the Australian forces. Once in Egypt, at the beginning of 1916, he set about remedying abuses in contracts, establishing a supply system and setting up a canteen organisation. He set up financial systems for accounting for ordnance and fodder; he set up controls for stores and audit procedures. He set in train the acquisition of a building in Cairo for use as a hostel for troops on leave to be administered by the YMCA but paid for by the military – it became known as the Anzac Hostel.

By May 1916, most Australian troops were fighting in France and Anderson was transferred to London where he was to head the AIF administration in England. Upon transfer he was accorded the rank of Brigadier-General and given the further role of representative of the Australian Department of Defence with the British administration. He immediately took practical measures to clear the administration in London of all men who were fit for active service. He also reduced the number needed by half to about 3,000 persons. Those to be employed were men who were not fit for front-line service but could work in administration and, to fill the remaining 1,500 positions, he employed women. He, as expected, improved financial management and liaised with the War Office. His no-nonsense approach disturbed some but his effectiveness impressed his superiors. In a post-war note in ‘Smith’s Weekly’ (31 May 1919), the columnist attributed to Anderson the war-time version of an old passing the buck gag – “Where’s the Sergeant?”. He wrote “Australia’s representative in the ancient home of circumlocution was a successful business man of direct method. When a bobbery arose, he would say appealingly to the Board: ‘Don’t waste time over Colonel Biffins. Where’s the Sergeant? We will come to him in the end, so let’s get him now.’”

When interviewed by the ‘Sydney Morning Herald’ on his return to Australia in July 1917, Anderson said “Our relations with the War Office were excellent. We had to fight at first, and make ourselves unpleasant in sounding an Australian note; but ultimately they saw our point of view and were very cordial with us. The Canadians and New Zealanders, as well as the British, inspected our system, and copied various things connected with it.”

In his year at army headquarters in London, he also established an Anzac Hostel on the same lines as that he had established in Cairo. He visited the front in France on several occasions to gain first-hand information. His work was so successful and so important that the British Lieutenant-General Commanding the AIF, Sir William Birdwood, wrote an official commendation on 10 December 1916:

“Brigadier-General Anderson was sent out by the Australian Government especially to take up the appointment of DQMG at the AIF Headquarters in Egypt at the beginning of this year. When the AIF was transferred to France, and its base to England, Brigadier-General Anderson was appointed to the command of the Australian administrative Headquarters in London where he has done some extraordinarily useful work, which is I believe well known to the War Office. He is practically in command of a very large administration, which he has handled with conspicuous success, and I trust his good services may be recognised.”

Anderson’s efforts were recognised and in January 1917 he was made a Companion of the Order of St Michael and St George and in May he was further honoured by being made Knight Commander of the Order of St Michael and St George and was personally knighted by King George V.

The changes he made in systems no doubt helped to improve the supply of gear to the front-line soldiers and helped to reduce the financial burden on the government but he also succeeded in getting agreement to a workable method for apportioning war costs between Britain and Australia. The method enabled costs to be calculated on a quarterly basis and settled promptly in contrast to the situation that had developed in apportioning Australian and British costs for the South African Wars where matters had taken more than a decade for settlement.

In the words of Senator George Pearce in September 1917 reported in Australian newspapers:

“Sir Robert had carried out most valuable work in Egypt in putting the arrangements in regard to contracts and supplies on a proper basis. The most important work, however, that he was commissioned to do was the adjustment of accounts between the Imperial and Commonwealth Governments in regard to the respective charges to be made for services performed and for supplies provided. … A great advantage of the present arrangement was that adjustment follows quickly on the expenditure and records are readily available. The Canadian and New Zealand Governments have adopted our basis of adjustment. … I have conveyed to Sir Robert the appreciation of the Government of the services rendered by him. He will assume the honorary rank of Brigadier-General.”

Anderson accompanied by his wife left London in May 1917 and they passed through the Mediterranean to Cairo where he checked on army matters. Anderson adventurously flew by plane from Cairo to Gaza to visit troops fighting on the Sinai front. As a result of this inspection, Anderson cabled the Department of Defence to suggest the immediate provision of coastal rest camps to be used for leave for the troops and this was put into operation.

Resuming their trip home, the Andersons joined the civilian RMS ‘Mongolia’ bound for Bombay (Mumbai) and carrying about 400 people and cargo. The ship struck a double-mine about mid-day on 23 June in the Arabian Sea about 60 miles south of Mumbai. Eleven lifeboats were launched taking all who had survived the blasts. The ship sank and the lifeboats set course eastward to the Indian coast. Some made it to Mumbai and some were picked up by shipping. Five boats, including that containing Sir Robert and Lady Anderson, came to an island by nightfall only to face a difficult landing. One boat carrying the NSW Member of Parliament Frederick Winchcombe, founder of the well-known firm of wool brokers Winchcombe Carson & Co, capsized on landing and Winchcombe died a few days later of pneumonia. Anderson was chosen as leader of the survivors on the island. Nearby was only a small village so a group was sent to find a larger settlement. Once they reached the town of Murud, comprehensive and generous help was sent by the Nawab of Janjira. Lady Anderson described the trek of the survivors from their camp:

“We stayed in our encampment until Monday and then we set out, in company with the stretcher-bearers for an eight-mile walk along a cart track winding through the hills. All the way we passed small native villages or encampments, and the view into the valleys was gorgeous - something perhaps like our own Blue Mountains but more tropical. There was plenty of cultivation everywhere. At 12 o'clock we reached a little river wharf, where we were taken on to dhows and down to a mine-sweeper, which had come to meet us Everyone showed us overwhelming kindness. We reached Bombay at 12 o’clock exactly three days after our disaster. We stayed at the Taj Mahal Hotel where we outfitted ourselves for our journey home. This we reached by three stages. Yes, it has been a wonderful experience but it is nice to be home again. I am quite confident in my own mind that Australia is indeed a very good country to live in." (‘Sydney Morning Herald’ 31 July 1917)

The fatality list for the ‘Mongolia’ amounted to some 50 persons. The Andersons, in company with 40 other survivors and also a group of French marines and sailors who had been torpedoed, eventually arrived back in Australia on the Dutch packet steamer ‘Houtman’ reaching Darwin on 20 July. Anderson was interviewed at Darwin and was reported by Sydney’s ‘Daily Telegraph’ (21 July 1917).

“Brigadier-General Sir Robert Anderson expressed the pleasure of the party on setting foot at last on Australian soil. They had been through anxious times, and appreciated the warm welcome extended to them. ... [They] praised the captain and officers of the ‘Mongolia’. One thing which struck Sir Robert was that in the Board of Trade regulations there was not provision for a medical chest or first-aid equipment in lifeboats. Had such been available in this case much suffering could have been avoided. There were sick and injured in the boats, men dreadfully scalded, several with fingers torn off and limbs broken, and nothing wherewith to bandage them. The women divested themselves of most of their underclothing, and for two days and nights, under heavy tropical rains many of the women were clad in only a blouse and skirt. The voyage from Bombay, via Colombo, Singapore and Batavia had been pleasant. No Australian military officer was permitted, however, to land in Dutch territory …”

Anderson was again interviewed by newspapers when the ‘Houtman’ reached Brisbane and then again in Sydney and many reports were published and copied to regional and interstate papers. He spoke of his role in the Army Administrative Headquarters saying that there were now capable men in charge. On the major financial issue between the governments, he said "The finance committee was very proud of having settled up to the penny with the War Office to December 31 last, and in future, each quarter, a settlement would be arrived at automatically.” He could reassure the families of the soldiers that he had established a better system of issuing kit to the men “We started a novelty in the way of a kit store," said the General, "in which the whole of the kits of soldiers in France or at Salisbury Plains and other training camps, are kept together in commodious buildings, and this has overcome the trouble previously found in Egypt and in France of looking after these things divisionally. Whereas the old system occupied the attention of 300 fighting men, the new system is worked by 75 B-class men; men who are recovering from wounds or illness.” He complimented the various charities saying “The outside services, such as Australian Red Cross, Comforts Funds, and Y.M.C.A are especially well run.” He spoke of his visit to the Australian troops in Sinai and earlier visits to France. He praised the Australian soldiers and sailors and reported their excellent reputation. As for the ‘flying men’, he said they are “simply famous” and of the Australian nurses he said that they “stand out splendidly for their initiative and capacity for work. The hospitals all want them.”

He was perturbed by what he perceived as an Australian lack of knowledge of the serious position in the war and the newspapers widely reported him.

"One thing that struck me especially on returning," General Anderson went on gravely, "was the fact that Australia, still seems scarcely to realise what the war means. In Britain all the people seem to realise that this is a life and death struggle, and that the position is serious. They know that they are fighting for existence. They know, too, that Australia and New Zealand are being bitterly fought for on the plains of Flanders. I can say to you that there is no doubt at all about that.” Anderson went on to criticise the censorship laws. “I am afraid the true facts of the war don't reach the Australian public,” he remarked: “I ascribe that to the censor system, which is wise enough in the individual case but is apt to be bad in the aggregate result. Certain items are cut out for fear that they may be useful to the enemy, and the result is that only reassuring views are published, and the bad news is cloaked.”

While the Andersons were in London, their son Robert Cairns Amos Anderson, received promotion to the rank of captain. He fought at Fleurbaix, Pozières, Ypres and Flers. He was wounded in November 1916. Cairns Anderson recuperated in England and then completed a staff training course at Cambridge in February 1917 and was assigned to the Anzac headquarters with the rank of Staff Captain. During the post-war demobilisation process he was temporarily appointed Major and served under the Deputy Quartermaster General. In the course of his service, he was mentioned in despatches and was made a Member of the Order of the British Empire (MBE) and later an Officer of the Order of the British Empire (OBE). On demobilisation he commenced study at Birmingham University from which he graduated in 1921 with first-class honours in mechanical engineering and the Bowen scholarship for engineering research.

The Andersons no doubt spent some time on their return to Australia in 1917 in re-establishing some family life with their other children. Local newspapers reported in January 1918 that their sons, Graeme and Allen, were attending the Agricultural College at Bathurst. Lady Anderson is also recorded at that time giving a talk at Bundanoon to the Red Cross Society members there. The other children in their family at this time were Jean Cairns aged 21, Margery aged 19, Helen Frances aged 10 and Sheila aged 5.

Advisor to Governments, 1918-1920

In January 1918, the New Zealand Government announced there was to be a Royal Commission to inquire into the NZ war expenditure and its chairman was to be Brigadier-General Sir Robert Anderson; the other two commissioners were Charles Rhodes, legal manager of the Waihi Gold-mining Company, Auckland and Peter Barr, a well-known accountant, of Dunedin. The Commission held its first sitting at the end of January. The terms of reference were to report on the efficiency and economy of financial administration of the Defence Department in regard to most aspects of the war effort such as administration, controls, pay, military stores, transports, hospitals and so on. The Commission took evidence at various locations throughout the country. As one would expect, Anderson’s examinations of officials and records was painstaking and thorough and, as ever, he had limited patience with obfuscations. A columnist in the ‘Fielding Star’ (2 May 1918) wrote:

“Uneasily must squirm some of the officials of the Defence Department who for so long have sat upon the cushion of a sinecure. Under the fierce light of exposure before the Defence Expenditure Commission the faults, foibles, and frivols of the ‘Defencers’ are shown glaringly. Even the imported Chairman of the Commission (Brigadier-General Sir Robert Anderson) has been repeatedly moved to make some most unpresidential side-remarks. Here is one of them, made out loud during this week's sitting of the Commission in Wellington – ‘I hate to say these things, really I do, I have a great respect for your Defence Department, but these instances are pathetic.’"

Despite some frustrations of this nature, when the Commission came towards its end, Anderson particularly commended the co-operation of those involved in Defence. The ‘Taranaki Herald’ (11 May 1918) reported:

“Thanking General Robin for the way in which he had facilitated the work of the Defence Commission, Brigadier-General Anderson said: ‘We have found everybody absolutely open and nothing has been hidden. You have sent on every complaint great or small and done everything possible.to allow us to get a full and intimate knowledge of your affairs. There has not been a thing kept back of any kind and you have taken the trouble to send information along so as to prevent us getting the wrong impression. We very much appreciate it.’”

The report was in NZ Government hands early in June and Sir Robert and Lady Anderson returned to Sydney in mid-June.

Anderson’s report in the main commented favourably on the NZ war effort. Despite the expenditure of 40 million pounds, the Commissioners found no instances of fraud, embezzlement or collusion. Strengths generally out-weighed weaknesses in administration and much had been accomplished despite the shortage of experienced persons. The country had successfully equipped an army of 100,000 men and sent it across the world. There were a number of recommendations including that fit men should not be held at army desks in New Zealand when they wished to be and should be at the front fighting the war. The report found no instances of favours being granted by the Minister of Defence or any other Minister of the Crown.

Once Anderson was back in Australia, the NSW Government sought advice from him. At this time the NSW Premier also held the position of Treasurer. The current Premier, William Holman, publicly declared that this dual position was too great a strain on one man and recommended a change. The ‘Sydney Morning Herald’ (16 October 1918) reported

“It is proposed to appoint an honorary committee of three expert financial advisers to the Treasury, who will be prepared to counsel the Government generally, and the Treasury in particular, on important matters of financial administration. Two members of this committee have already been decided upon. The posts have been offered to, and accepted by, Sir Robert Mc Anderson and Mr A.P. Stewart, late general manager of the Australian Bank of Commerce. It is believed that the other seat on this advisory committee will be filled by Professor Irvine, who occupies the chair of economics at the Sydney University.”

Anderson’s reputation as a knowledgeable and influential businessman and government advisor continued to grow. He was one of fifty “leading commercial men of the city” who attended a luncheon in November 1918 welcoming home from service Colonel Murdoch, the Red Cross Commissioner in Egypt, England and France. In seconding the toast to Murdoch proposed by Samuel Hordern, Anderson commended him highly and spoke of his high reputation with the British War Office. He said “The organisation of the Prisoners-of-War Department by the Red Cross brought about a greater respect for Australian prisoners in Germany than for any other. That was because the Australians received the largest parcels through the Red Cross.” Anderson did not confine his remarks to praise of Murdoch but also made a throwaway remark alluding to the Australian envoys to the international peace talks, WM Hughes and Sir Joseph Cook. He said “It was a very sad thing that Australia's envoys should be quarrelling. It seemed to him that one was a megalomaniac and the other a fool.”

While Anderson was busy in Sydney commercial life, he also found time to play lawn bowls a pastime that continued to give him pleasure for the rest of his life. He was an early member of Killara Bowling Club (established in 1916) of which J Neale Breden was President for many years. Breden had been the Chief Clerk in the Town Clerk’s office when Anderson was Town Clerk and had gone on to become the City’s Comptroller of Assets. Anderson was also a member of the City Club and later the Rose Bay Bowling Club.

Lady Anderson was occupied in the affairs of the National Council of Women (NSW). She presided at a number of meetings and in April 1919 became the President of the body in Sydney. She resigned later in the year when the family left for England but she was to be an Australian delegate at the conference of the International Council of Women in Norway in 1920. Her involvement in women’s affairs continued for a number of years until curtailed by severe illness.

Sir Robert also continued his involvement in charitable and community concerns. He became interested in the Royal Prince Alfred Hospital at Camperdown (Sydney). The hospital was financed for the most part by public donations and was facing a shortage of funds. Following on the Annual General Meeting held in September 1918, a public meeting ensued and it was agreed that a Jubilee Fund would be set up to buy equipment for the hospital and build extensions to it. The meeting established a committee of some 140 people present and an executive committee of which the Chairman was to be Sir Robert Anderson. The other executive committee members were well known to Sydneysiders including among them the hospital’s honorary treasure, Samuel Hordern, another director and philanthropist, Moritz Gotthelf, and others. Sub-committees were formed to raise money by a variety of means. A large appeal was be made to the public to donate to the special Jubilee Fund which sought donations by half-crowns aiming to collect 200,000 half-crowns (£25,000). The Andersons themselves donated 400 half-crowns. The eventual sum collected was £27,960. At the presentation of the cheque to the hospital in May 1919 Sir Robert said that the committee had privately hoped to raise more but were content to settle for this “glorious failure”. The Governor of NSW said “the cheque represented the largest amount ever collected in New South Wales on behalf of any hospital, excepting, perhaps, on the occasion of the foundation of the institution”. In the following month, an auxiliary society to support the hospital was set up and Sir Robert took part until his resignation prior to his departure for England.

In January 1919, members of the public signed a requisition to the Lord Mayor of Sydney to give recognition to the quarantine staff who had given service during the influenza epidemic. Sir Robert Anderson and Arthur Rickard, prominent real estate developer and foundation president of the Millions Club promoting British immigration at first to Sydney and then to NSW, were the honorary treasurers. In the following years, Anderson and Rickard worked together in various schemes promoting British immigration to Australia.

Sir Robert and Lady Anderson and their children (Jean, Margery, Graeme, Allen, Helen and Sheila) left Sydney on 6 September for London aboard the ‘Themistocles’. Their eldest son Cairns was still in England after his war service studying at the University of Birmingham. Anderson’s purpose was stated to be a lengthy visit on private business.

The Andersons immediately on arrival in England enrolled their children Allen and Helen and later their youngest child Sheila in Bedales School in Hampshire. The school had by then been in existence for nearly 30 years and from its beginnings was ‘avant-garde’ in nature. In contrast to English schools of the time, it was co-educational, non-denominational and promoted an educational programme which included not only English, modern languages, science, art and music but also practical skills acquired from working in the fields and gardens of the school as well as tailoring, boot making and cookery. It did not award prizes and tuition took place only in the mornings. Crafts and hobbies were encouraged. The headmaster, John Haden Badley, was a charismatic man, a Cambridge scholar, whose wife Laura was a suffragette. Badley often quoted Ruskin on the importance of educating “head, hand and heart”. The ideals of the school found favour with the Andersons.

Meanwhile, rumours abounded in Australia that Sir Robert was to become a financial advisor to the Government of NSW. The rumours were denied but in late November, the NSW Government announced that it had commissioned him to make a special report. He was to investigate from the NSW point of view the effects of a suggested amalgamation of the NSW Agency-General with the Commonwealth of Australia’s High Commissioner’s Office; or an amalgamation of the six State Agency-Generals under one chairman; and in the case that neither of these proposals proceeded, he was to investigate how the NSW agency might be strengthened or improved in organisation or financial management and how best to promote NSW’s trade interests. He was to be paid a fee, ten guineas per day with the total not exceeding £500. Much speculation preceded the NSW Government’s eventual full explanation of his role. The NSW Attorney General, Mr Garland, explained to Parliament that “an independent viewpoint should be obtained and Sir Robert Anderson was pre-eminently fitted for the task entrusted to him.” The Premier, Holman, further announced that he personally had made the appointment. Anderson submitted a report by the end of January 1920.

Businessman, Immigration Advocate, 1920-1940

The last twenty years of Anderson’s life were occupied serving as a director to a number of public companies and in promoting immigration to Australia particularly in the form of sponsored settlement. Although from time to time, rumours circulated that he was about to take up a Government position such as heading the Public Service Board or becoming director of the Commonwealth Shipping Line, he did not accept those offers if they were ever made. He certainly declined the offer to become one of the Civic Commissioners in 1928 when the City of Sydney was being administered by Commissioners after dismissal of the Council.

In London in 1920 after his stint inquiring into the NSW Agent-General’s Office, Anderson resumed his private quest for business opportunities and participated in ex-patriate concerns. In September, Anderson was one of a committee appointed to the London branch of the movement to raise a testimonial to WM Hughes in recognition of his efforts on behalf of Australia during the war and in his post war efforts at the Peace Conference. In February 1921, Anderson was named as one of an Australian sub-committee of the League of Nations along with other prominent Australians. During 1921, he visited Germany.

Anderson returned to Australia in December 1922. He was interviewed by the press on his return and as usual he was only too ready to give his views. He warned that British investors did not favour Australia and its states, other than Victoria and that it would in future be difficult for them to borrow cheap money. He said the urbanisation of Australia did not inspire investment confidence. He criticised Australian banks for their unfavourable exchange rates when remitting money to England and, while he said that as a shareholder he was satisfied with the banks’ large profits, he did not feel that they helped Australian trade. He also criticised poor Australian food products available in England giving examples of incorrect labelling of tinned foods or inferior contents which damaged the Australian reputation and diminished sales.

Lady Anderson now became involved with the establishment of a ‘New Hospital for Women and Children’. In 1922, a group of women doctors had created a service to cater for women and their children operating out of a small house in Surry Hills, Sydney. A committee to raise funds to build a new hospital for women and children with an all-female medical and support staff was convened with the support of the Governor-General’s wife, Lady Rachel Forster, whose name was given to the hospital in 1925. Lady Anderson became the first president at the first annual meeting of the New Hospital committee in June 1923 and remained president until April 1925.

While pursuing his business interests, Anderson was much occupied during the 1920s with various bodies sponsoring or supporting British emigration to Australia. Anderson was a guest speaker at functions held by many different organisations at which he promoted the merits of migration to NSW. He was actively involved in the New Settlers’ League of New South Wales of which he was president or vice-president between 1925 and 1929, its most active years. It assisted the welfare of immigrants and at its annual conferences debated general issues of migration as well as practical matters. The Barnardo’s Homes emigration scheme first sent children to Australia in 1921. Anderson was involved with the NSW committee between 1925 and 1934. The Big Brother movement started in 1925 in Victoria but very soon spread to NSW. In the years 1925 to 1931 Anderson was involved either directly in administering its scheme in NSW or indirectly through the support offered to the ‘little brother’ immigrants by the New Settlers’ League. As the economic situation declined during the late 1920s and into the 1930s, unemployment reached extraordinary levels in NSW and public hostility grew toward migrants who might displace Australians in the job market. The Government also withdrew financial assistance to immigrants after 1930. The numbers of immigrants declined tremendously although Barnardo’s and Big Brother continued operations on a lesser scale. Because of the decline, the New Settlers’ League lost relevance and its activities also declined.

Anderson’s involvement in these immigrant schemes grew out of his patriotic feelings for Australia and for its British heritage. The link with Britain for most Australians had become stronger as a result of the War. When Australians favoured immigrant schemes they were strongly of the view that British migrants were best. The continuance of the White Australia policy for so many years indicates these views were widely and deeply felt. While Anderson was a man of his time in advocating strong preference for British immigration, it is interesting that on one occasion he expressed a reservation about the White Australia policy articulating a fear in 1928 that the policy might “create hostility among nations of coloured races” (reported in ‘Goulburn Evening Penny Post’ 9 July 1928 p2).

Anderson expressed attitudes reflecting what might be considered particularly Australian egalitarian principles. He held that positions in the work-force should be available to all who wished to qualify themselves and work hard and not be available only to the privileged classes. He enunciated these principles when he brought about changes in the City of Sydney’s employment practices when he was Town Clerk. He also showed concern for the welfare of those workers in ensuring such provisions as annual leave. He was one of the Royal Commissioners into the Sugar Industry in 1912 who had recommended the provision of a minimum wage and an 8 hour working day. Egalitarian principles and concerns for well-being were put into practical operation during the war when he was instrumental in establishing hostels and relief organisations in England, Egypt and the Middle East for ordinary servicemen in the Australian army. He expressed the principles again in the 1920s in relation to immigration and employment.

Anderson delivered a speech on migration to the National Council of Women in April 1926. The ‘Sydney Morning Herald’ (30 April 1926) reported his speech. He described the operation of the New Settlers’ League and recorded his thanks to the NSW Government Minister for Labour and Industry, J M Baddeley, for his department’s help; in passing, he made a side-swipe at Prime Minister Bruce for the Commonwealth’s perceived inaction noting that “politicians generally were inclined to think that speech was itself action, not merely a preliminary to action.” The ‘Labor Daily’ (1 May 1926), a strong supporter of Lang Labor, using the headline “The Candid Knight” took some glee in publishing Sir Robert’s opinions on employers and workers. The paper quoted him as saying "millionaires are the biggest scrubbers of employers. Every penny is screwed out of the workers. Owners of this description are keen on immigration, because they hope to get cheap labour therefrom”. The paper went on to say

“Sir Robert Anderson is not the usual sort of knight. He is a cute business man who doesn't have to make loud noises to trick people into believing that he is a person out of the common. He has a keen and accurate judgment. He will be remembered as the man who in Egypt —and later in England— straightened out the very tangled affairs and finances of the A.l.F. Essentially he is a sound man. … it is heartening to Labor to know that at least one man in the opposite camp is honest enough to give credit where credit is due. But what interests Labor more is the candid admission of the intelligent Tory of the evil uses to which grasping employers are putting the existing immigration system.”

Anderson was not unaware that abuses were possible particularly in the operation of the migration schemes involving young men. In July 1926 at the New Settlers’ League conference the issue was brought up by Rev G Currie and Anderson said that the percentage of bad employers was small but a ‘black list’ had been started. (‘Kyogle Examiner’ 9 July 1926)

Among other community roles in the 1920s and 1930s, Anderson served for a time as treasurer for the Carrington Hospital for Convalescents and Incurables (or briefly the Carrington Convalescent Hospital) which became the Carrington Centennial Hospital at Camden. In 1933 he became a member of the council of St Andrew’s College within the University of Sydney. Anderson’s eldest son had been resident at the College prior to the War and Anderson and his family members were always active in the Sydney Presbyterian community. The college still acknowledges on its website its Presbyterian origins stating “The ethical and intellectual base of St Andrew’s College came from the Scottish Enlightenment and the Presbyterian Church”. The Sydney ‘Sun’ (20 July 1936) recorded that Anderson had suggested to the City Council that Carillon Avenue near the College be planted with jacaranda trees and the City agreed. Anderson also kept his links with the Highland Society and in January 1928 presided over the Burns Anniversary Celebration in the Domain with activities around the statue of Robert Burns that had been erected by the efforts of the Presbyterian community.

During the 1920s and 1930s most of Sir Robert and Lady Anderson’s children married. Lady Anderson, however, did not live to see all these family events. During the later 1920s her health declined badly and she retired from public life. She died in December 1928.

While in England, Anderson became interested in the development of primary industries in Papua and New Guinea and in particular the extension of plantations producing copra and rubber. European powers (the Netherlands, Germany and Britain) had administered New Guinea as colonies. The administration of British New Guinea, renamed Papua, had been transferred to the Commonwealth of Australia in 1906. Germany had surrendered its territory to Australia in 1914 and in 1921 it became the League of Nations Mandated Territory of New Guinea administered by Australia. Anderson’s interest in Papua and New Guinea meshed with the concerns expressed back in 1912 in the Report of the Royal Commission into the Sugar Industry and with public beliefs in Australia that the country was vulnerable to invasion from the north and so every effort needed to be made to counter this concern by maintaining a strong Australian presence in Northern Australia and in Papua and New Guinea.

The British New Guinea Development Company had been registered in 1910 in London. It owned plantations of rubber trees and coconut palms in Papua (formerly British New Guinea). Lacking sufficient capital, the company was dissolved and reconstructed to raise funds and registered in its new format in England in July 1922. Sir Robert Anderson became a director. Throughout the 1920s the company was buffeted by the falling markets for copra and rubber and affected by Australian Government regulations and tariffs believed damaging to export trade. The Company was the biggest in Papua and for a number of years was managed by GA Loudon, recognised as the most prominent businessman in the Territory. BNGD Co restructured its holdings in various ways and had close relations with Loudon who also at one stage registered his company, G A Loudon Co, with Anderson as a director. The BNGD Company made small profits in the late 1920s when the price of rubber revived.

The Melanesia Company was formed in 1926 with the object of acquiring and extending plantations in the League of Nations Mandated Territory of New Guinea (former German New Guinea). Anderson was a director. Copra plantations were to be purchased but it was also hoped that other crops might be tried as the Australian Government in 1926 had waived tariffs previously imposed on goods from the Territories and passed a Papua and New Guinea Bounties Act providing bounties for the production of a variety of crops. Anderson had been one of those pushing the Australian Government to encourage and assist the Territories; he had privately communicated with Senator Pearce with whom he had worked when he was Minister for Defence and who had become the Minister for Home and Territories. Controversy from the start dogged the Melanesia Company. It was asserted that it was an attempt by German interests to regain a foothold in their former colony and the Company’s bid for the former German properties was rejected until its structure was shown to include only 35% German capital. The Company proceeded to buy other properties as well. There were limits on the amount of former German estates that could be held by one person or company. Favourable conditions were made for ex-servicemen to buy former German properties at lower deposits, longer terms and lower interest.

The plantation industry in the Mandated Territory of New Guinea was dominated by three companies: Burns, Philp Co (the large trading and shipping company based in Sydney), WR Carpenter & Co and the Melanesia Co. Reports in 1929 and 1930 by the Commonwealth Attorney-General tabled in Parliament revealed that what appeared to be “dummying” of holdings had occurred in various forms to evade the size limitations of holdings or to take advantage of the favourable terms given to ex-servicemen. Melanesia Co and WR Carpenter were both suspected of “dummying”. Among holdings pointed out as dubious were some in the name of Anderson and of his son-in-law, Gregory Hamilton Blaxland (who had served in the AIF) in conjunction with the Company’s office manager WE Griffiths; it was alleged that the Rabaul Manager of Melanesia Co, FR Jolley, held a long term power of attorney to deal with these holdings as he wished. The Attorney-General stated his belief that Anderson had no “beneficial interest” in the holding. Interest faded with an inability to actually prove any wrong-doing and the Company, which was experiencing difficulties with a collapse once more of the copra market, was sold to Burns, Philp Co to add to its interests which already included New Guinea Plantations Ltd, a returned soldier company which it financed, as well as ownership of other properties and a virtual monopoly of shipping in Papua and New Guinea.

In 1927, Anderson became a director of a major Australian company, the Australian Gas Light Company (AGL) which still exists as the energy generator and retailer AGL Energy. The company had been formed in 1837 and with the establishment of the Sydney Stock Exchange it was the second company to list. In a speech at the opening of a large branch office at Rockdale (a southern suburb of Sydney), the chairman, Sir John Vicars claimed that the company was the seventh largest in the British Empire and that its gas plant at Mortlake (western Sydney) was the largest in the world (speech reported in the local paper ‘The St George Call’, 17 February 1928). It had a large capitalisation, a large customer base and paid a regular 8% dividend to its shareholders and was profitable and well-run. Anderson served twelve years as a director, the last seven as the Deputy Chairman of the Board, and retired in May 1939.

Anderson was a director of Mount Kembla Collieries from about 1931 to 1940. The Company varied between making a small loss and making a small profit. The ‘Sydney Morning Herald’ (27 March 1940) summed up the situation reporting “Almost without exception, shareholders in colliery companies operating in New South Wales have experienced a lean time for many years. The Mount Kembla Collieries Ltd has not paid any dividend for nine years …”. The company had suffered during the Great Depression and had to contend with much industrial unrest including strikes. The sensationalist newspaper ‘Truth’ proclaimed its blunter opinion that while the company made losses and the shareholders gained no income, the directors were still paid their fees.

In the 1930s Anderson was involved in plans to redevelop the Captain’s Flat Mine in the Southern Tablelands of NSW. The mine had operated between 1884 and 1899 producing copper, silver and gold. The mine field had complex ores yielding lead, silver, zinc, with smaller amounts of gold and copper, and also iron pyrites producing sulphur suitable for superphosphate. The NSW Department of Resources and Energy website describes the mine as follows:

“The importance of the Captain’s Flat mine during the post 1937 phase requires elaboration. While dwarfed by the mighty Broken Hill field (which was one of the largest in the world), it was one of the largest base metal mining fields in NSW, if not Australia. The Mt Isa and Mt Lyell fields were larger, but primarily copper producers. For example, in 1943 8,579 and 8,633 tons of lead concentrates were extracted from Mt Isa and Mt Lyell respectively compared to 11,850 tons from Captains Flat. The Captains Flat mining field is significant for its contribution to base metal mining in Australia, and in particular, New South Wales, over a period of 80 years. It was the major mining site in southern NSW in the 1890’s and again in a period 1937-62. In the 1930’s to 1960’s period, Captains Flat was one of the most important mining sites in Australia, as producer of lead, silver, zinc and sulphur and to a lesser extent copper and gold. Its production was particularly valuable during World War 2. The highly complex mineralogy of the ore body and consequently the varied and changing processing technology was a unique aspect of mining of Captains Flat.”

The mine-owner, British registered Camp Bird Ltd, holder and developer of mines world-wide, conducted tests and drillings locating considerable ore bodies. The Corporate structures involved in the development of the mine after 1930 are complex. Corporate entities involved and interlocking were Camp Bird Ltd, the Lake George Metal Corporation, Lake George Leases Ltd and Lake George Mines Ltd, the last company being registered in NSW in August 1930. Sir Robert Anderson was a director in this company. A priority for the mining company was the building of a railway from Captain’s Flat to Bungendore to join the main southern NSW railway line.

Anderson was heavily involved in negotiations with the State Government to get the railway built. He and mine officials asserted that the mine would be able to send sufficient product by the railway to make its operation viable. Residents of the district wanted the mine and railway to go ahead as many jobs would be created. Anderson said he would be able to find finance to build the railway and a Bungendore-Captains Flat Railway Company was formed. An Act of Parliament enabling the building of the line was passed in 1930 but the Government stalled on further action. The Government argued that finance had not been assured and the effects of the Great Depression were such that metal prices had fallen heavily and investors were wary. The matter became a contentious issue in the electorate of Monaro in 1930 with Government and Company at odds over the facts and the promises. The parent company in Britain did in fact decide to suspend operations until international metal prices recovered. Eventually in 1937, a company restructure created the new company Lake George Mining Corporation Ltd which took over Lake George Metal Corporation which owned most of the shares in Lake George Mines Ltd which in turn owned most of the shares in Lake George Leases Ltd. This company re-negotiated with the NSW Government and a new Act of Parliament involving the building of the railway was passed after agreements entered into by Lake George Mines and Lake George Mining Corporation and the railway was built and carrying concentrates from the mine by the end of 1939. Anderson does not appear to have been involved in this later and successful stage of development although he may have been a shareholder.

Anderson was director of the Australian Mutual Fire Assurance Society from at least 1928 until about 1936. The Society was founded as a Mutual Society to supply fire insurance to its members but it was sold in 1920 to the Commercial Union Assurance Company after which it continued operation under its existing name and with its own directorate. In the 1920s it extended its business to include marine underwriting. It continued in business until about 1960. The Commercial Union Assurance Company continued operation for many more years until being eventually subsumed into the British registered Aviva company.

His last business venture appears to have been to become a first director of Mcarthur Heights Estate Ltd registered in September 1939 “to acquire certain land situated near Port Kembla and to acquire and deal in land”. Plans for a subdivision of the lands were approved by the Illawarra Council in 1940.

During the 1930s Anderson scaled down his activities. He had turned 65 in 1930 and while still performing Company Director’s duties in several companies, he increased his participation in lawns bowls and enjoyed family life. His daughter Margery had married Dr Noel Cuthbert and lived with her husband and children in Perth. Sir Robert frequently took the sea trip to Fremantle on visits and she on a number of occasions visited Sydney. His other married children lived in Sydney or country NSW with their families.

Anderson’s health gradually declined and he retired from competitive bowls. The Rose Bay Bowling Club honoured him by naming a trophy for him which was contested in June 1938. Anderson gave ill-health as the reason for his resignation from his directorship of AGL in May 1939. Anderson died on 30 December 1940 from the effects of Parkinson’s Disease. He was privately cremated; war-time restrictions unfortunately deprived him of the honour of a more public funeral which was certainly his due.

His life exhibited the personal qualities attributed to him in 1897 by the men who recommended him as a suitable candidate for City Treasurer: honour, discretion, ability, energy, and resource. He served the City of Sydney well in hauling it into better Corporate governance; he served Australia well in his role as Army administrator during the Great War and he served Commonwealth and State governments fearlessly as an advisor and as an Australian advocate abroad; he served his community in his contribution as a volunteer to bodies assisting the welfare of that community.

October 2017; Marilyn Mason

Agencies related to

References

City of Sydney Archives:
CRS 7 Minutes of City of Sydney Council; CRS 21 Reports of Committees; CRS 22 Reports of the Finance Committee; CRS 26 Letters Received; CRS 27 Letters Sent; CRS 28 Town Clerk’s Correspondence Files.
(Many of the records in these series have item descriptions or are digitised and available online: www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au)
City of Sydney Aldermen, http://www.sydneyaldermen.com.au/
Hilary Golder: A Short Electoral History of the Sydney City Council 1842-1992; electronic edition: http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/120283/a-short-electoral-history.pdf
Sands Directories of Sydney (available online at www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au)

Portraits, drawings, caricatures of R M McC Anderson:
Photograph: ‘Sydney Mail’, 21 April 1894, p799
Drawing: ‘Australian Star’, (Sydney) 3 April 1897, p5
Photograph: City of Sydney, ArchivePix: photograph of Anderson, NSCA CRS 54/344; 1901
Photographic portrait reproduced in ADB online credited to Australian War Memorial Collection Database; c1916
Photograph Anderson and officers Administrative Headquarters London 1917, Australian War Memorial Collection, www.awm.gov.au/collection/C1005737?search; (collection ID AO3392)
Photographic portrait by Vandyk, c1918, held by National Portrait Gallery London, image online: http://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/person/mp145817/sir-robert-murray-mccheyne-anderson
Photograph: ‘Sun’ (Sydney) 29 November 1919, p1
Cartoon: ‘Arrow’ (Sydney) 17 February 1928, p14
Cartoon: ‘Referee’ (Sydney) 11 November 1931, p19

Online resources:
Australian Newspapers: digitised by the National Library of Australia and searchable online: www. trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper
New Zealand Newspapers: digitised by the National Library of New Zealand and searchable online: https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/ (Newspapers published 1918)
Dictionary of Sydney online: http://home.dictionaryofsydney.org/
Australian Dictionary of Biography online: adb.anu.edu/au.biography
Bedales School, ‘The Chronicles’ Vol 12 no5: http://bedalesschools.daisy.websds.net/
NSW Births Deaths Marriages Registry, indexes online: www.bdm.nsw.gov.au/Pages/family-history/family-history.aspx
World War 1 Service Records: Australian War Memorial and National Archives of Australia: https://www.awm.gov.au/; http://www.naa.gov.au/
Parliament of NSW: former members: www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/parliament/members.net
DC Lewis: “The Plantation Dream: Developing British New Guinea and Papua 1884-1942”, published by The Journal of Pacific History, Canberra, 1996: http://pacificinstitute.anu.edu.au/sites/default/files/resources-links/JPH_Plantation_Dream.pdf
NSW Department for Resources and Energy: http://www.resourcesandenergy.nsw.gov.au/landholders-and-community/minerals-and-coal/derelict-mines-program/case-studies/captains-flat-lake-george-mine
National Archives of Australia Research Guide: “Good British Stock: Child and Youth Migration to Australia”: guides.naa.gov.au/good-british-stock/

Publications:
Paul Ashton: The Accidental City, Hale & Iremonger, 1995 edition
RB Walker: The Newspaper Press in New South Wales 1803-1920, Sydney University Press, 1976
ed GA Lowndes: South Pacific Enterprise, Angus & Robertson, 1956; chapter 2: Alan Birch & JF Blaxland “The Historical Background”; chapter 15: JM Dixon “The Rewards of Enterprise”
ed Michael Hogan & David Clune: The People’s Choice, Electoral Politics in 20th Century New South Wales, Vol 1, Parliament of NSW & Sydney University, 2001
Relationship legacy dataRELATED TO: Council administration FN-0026 (01/04/1897 to 21/02/1901)
RELATED TO: Chief Executive Officer FN-0024 (01/11/1899 to 21/02/1901)
RELATED TO: Governance of the Council FN-0021 (01/04/1897 to 21/02/1901)
RELATED TO: City Treasury Department I AG-0012 (01/04/1897 to 31/10/1899) - Treasurer
RELATED TO: Town Clerks Department AG-0040 (01/11/1899 to 21/02/1901) - Town Clerk
Occupational historyCity of Sydney:
City Treasurer, 1 April 1897 to 31 October 1899
Town Clerk: 1 November 1899 to 21 February 1901

Positions appointed by Commonwealth Government of Australia
Royal Commissioner Sugar Industry Inquiry, 1911-1912;
Adviser to Minister of Defence, 1915;
Adviser to Departments of Home Affairs, Post and Telegraph, 1915;
AIF 1915- 1917: Deputy Quartermaster General AIF with rank of Colonel, 1915;
Commander AIF Administration, London Headquarters with rank of Brigadier-General, 1916-1917;
Representative of Australian Department of Defence at British War Office, 1916-17.

Positions appointed by NSW Government:
Adviser to the NSW Treasury, 1918;
Commissioner inquiring into the financial state of NSW Agent-General’s Office in London, 1919-1920.

Position appointed by Queensland Government:
Adviser on the public service, 1915.

Position appointed by New Zealand Government:
Chairman of Royal Commission on Defence Department Expenditure, 1918.

Positions in Finance and Business:
Bank of New Zealand, clerk, branch manager, assistant inspector, 1881-1897;
Allen Taylor & Company, partner, managing Director, 1901-1915;
Pindimar Port Stephens Ltd, Director, 1912- ;
British New Guinea Development Company, Director, 1922 -c 1930;
G A Loudon & Company, Director, 1924;Melanesia Company, Director, 1926-c1930;
Australian Mutual Fire Insurance Association, board member, Director1928-c1936;
Australian Gas Light Company, board member, director, deputy chairman, 1927-1939;
Bungendore-Captain’s Flat Railway Company, Director, 1930;
Lake George Mines, Director, 1930-c1934;
Mount Kembla Collieries, Director, c1931-1940;
McArthur Heights Estate Ltd, director 1939.

Voluntary and Community Service:
NSW 2nd Artillery Regiment, 1885-1894;
Highland Society of NSW, member, councillor, secretary, treasurer from about 1895;
Indian Famine Relief Fund, joint secretary, 1900;
Civil Ambulance and Transport Brigade (later Corps), Sydney, supporter 1899, committee or board member 1900, 1904-1907;
Honorary secretary of the Australian War Contingent Association for the welfare of AIF soldiers on leave in London, August 1914;
Royal Prince Alfred Hospital Jubilee Fund, Chairman 1918-1919;
Barnardo’s Homes (NSW), member, committee member, treasurer, 1924-1930;
New Settlers League, member, president, vice-president, 1925-1930;
Big Brother Movement, 1925;
Councillor of St Andrew’s College, University of Sydney, 1933.Source system ID54

Relationships

CollectionPeople and PositionsRelated agenciesTown Clerk's DepartmentCity Treasury Department IPositionCity Treasurer [City Treasury Department I]Town Clerk [Town Clerk's Department]Related functionsGovernance of the CouncilChief Executive OfficerCouncil administration

Registration

Detailed recordYes

Start typing here to find a location	Latitude	Longitude	Zoom	Actions

loading google map....

Save Cancel

Menu

Anderson, Robert Murray McCheyne