TRAM MEN'S ETHICS.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1318, 22 December 1911, Page 5

TRAM MEN'S ETHICS.

THEIR PROTEST. MR. RICHARDSON APPROACHEDHIS ANSWER, "I HAVE FIFTY FAKED TICKETS." NOT THE PRESENT MEN. I regret to say that there is undoubtedly a considerable amouut of malpractico with regard to ticket sales, nt present carried on by certain conductors, who manage to that the irregularity is most difficult of dotection. If Inspector-Fuller isro- 1 ' moved from the ticket inspecting staff it will be impossible to get in-' specters to carry out their duties efficiently, aud, indeed, I have no hesitation _ iu saying that, unless the ticket-inspecting staff are supported by the committee, they might as well bo eliminated.—Mr. Stuart Richardson. So ran tho passage in the electrical engineer's recent report to the Tramways Committee of the City Council. It rankled—or rather the publication of it did—and, yesterday, Iho Irani hands followed up their onslaught on Inspector Fuller with a deputation ta Mr. Richardson. Tho electrical imgimcr met them with considerable decision. A. meeting of tramway employees, which was hold at Newtown yesterday morning, confirmed the decision arrived at in a meeting held on tho previous evening, that a deputation from 'the union should wait upon Mr. Richardson in reference to his statement about alleged malpractice. The deputation consisted of Messrs. I). Dalton (president of tho Tramways Union) and A. Sutherland (secretary), and Motorman Ward. It was received by Mr. Richardson shortly after i p.m. What They Said to Mr, Richardson. Mr. Sutherland was spokesman. He stated that two meetings of tho union had been held to consider tho position. It was more than probable that the report submitted by Mr. Richardson to the council was a. confidential one, and not intended for publication, but it had been made public. The men took serious objection to the tone of the report', on the ground that it accused them of theft, and contained an allegation that there woro men in the service who had got theft down to such a fino art that they could not bo detected by an inspector. The union asked that Mr. Richardson should nanio tho men concerned, nnd that, if there wero thieves in the service, they should be put out; Mr. Richardson: "Is that all you havo to say?" Mr.. Sutherland said that it was not. They considered that the statement complained of was a reflection upon, the wholo body of tho men. Tho public had taken it up in a very jeering 'manner no doubt iu some cases iu a jocular spirit, but not in all.. Peoplo had insulted conductors by saying, "Aro you one of the thieves? 1 ' The union asked whether it was not possible that Mr. Richardson's statement should be retracted. They took it that inspectors wero engaged to watch over tho interests both of the public and of tho corporation. If any malpractice, existed the offenders had no right to be in the service. If it could not bo proved by tho Department that malpractice existed, the assertion should not have been made. Mr. Sutherland concluded by remarking that possibly Mr. Richardson had been misunderstood. What He Said to Them. Mr. Richardson read his reply from a type-written sheet, conies of which ho afterwards handed to tno union representatives aud to tho press. It read as follows:— "I havo in my possession at least 50 instances of faked tickets that 1 havo quite recently obtained. "1 havo not charged -anyone at present in the'service with maipraeuce, uui l do say, and contend strongly, that tho proof in my possession warrants the statements that I made in a confidential communication to tho Tramways Committee, and 1 am not in any way answerable for the publication of that confidential communication. "I do not charge tho conductors at present in the tramways with malpractice, and I welcome this opportunity of saying so." "I am not going to say anything more in tho matter at all," said Mr. Richardson as ho concluded his reading. Mr. Dalton: "Then you don't charge any conductors at present in the service with malpractice?" Mr. Richardson: "That is so." Mr. Sutherland: That being so, I understand you to say Mr. Richardson: 1 am not going to say any more about it. Mr. Sutherland: May I not ask one question? . Mr. Richardson: No. Mr. Sutherland: Is not that rather arbitrary? If yuu arc only-—• Mr. Richardson: I am not listening. Mr. Sutherland made some lemark about Mr. Richardson's reply getting tho same publicity as his previous statement. Mr. Richardson said ho had finished absolutely. Mr. Sutherland, after scanning : Mr. Richardson's written reply, remarked that probably it might cover the wholu position. There had been many instances where mon, found guilty of malpractice, had been weeded out of the service, and, to long as they had Mr. Richardson's nssuranco that he had not reflected on men now under his control, it would bo all right. Mr. Richardson: I have given you m.v reply. I am not saying any mure. 1 think the reply covers everything fully. Tho union representatives thereupon withdrew. THE TRAMWAYS AND THE PUBLIC INTEREST. Sir,—Can it be possible that a man is dismissed from tiio sorrico of a community who has been serving the said community in a thoroughly conscientious nnd efficient manner? Tile answer is "Yes," and that community is the people of Wellington. I retcr to tho dismissal from the inspectorship of Inspector Fuller, of tho corporation tramways. Uis superior in office, Mr. Richardson, reports that ho is thoroughly conscientious, and tho most efficient member ol the ticket inspecting staff. So tho City Council have decided to dispense with the most efficient inspector that they have, and that at a time whon n considerable amount of malpractice (which, by Ihu way, is difficult to delect) is being carried on by certain conductors with regard to ticket sales. Js this business? II is cerlninly not business for I he general public who have In pay the piper, opart altogether from the injustice done tn en efficient, and conscientious servant,—l am, etc., SETOV. |'M-r. Richardson slated to n deputation yesterday that lie did not accuse any conductors at present in the employ of the City Tramways of malpractice.] A COINCIDENCE. Sir,—ls it a coincidence that the five members of the Cily Council who voted in favour of inspector Fuller's removal nt the dictation of the Tramway Union were all candidates for Parliamentary honours at Iho recent election? This shows how politics unfit a councillor for his work as a controller of a municipal enterprise. Some mouths ago the corporation advertised for a nicw Traffic Manager. The Tramway Union notified the council that they were satisfied with tho present manager—hence no more has been heard of a new manager. Who do we elect to manage our trams—the council or the union.-—I am, etc., DISCIPLINE. THE MEN WHO till) THEIR DUTY. Sir,—ln your leading article this morn--ing re, Ihe. proposed disnus-salnf Inspector roller, you gave the names of the councillors who failed in their duty lo tho city un llio question ol the tunlrul of

the' tramways. I tru&t you. will give in to-morrow's issue of your paper tho names of thoso councillors who did their duly and refused to be unjustly coerced by the Tramways Union. Citizens want lo Know tho men .whom they enn safely trust with tho conduct of tho affairs of tho city.—l am, etc., JUSTICE.' [Tho names of the councillors who voted against tho proposal to punish Inspector Fuller as demanded by the Tramways Union are: Councillors Shirtcliffe, Atkinson, Cameron, Godbor, M'Kcnzie, and Trevor. They were defeated on the ousting voto of tho Mayor, Mr. X. M. N'ilford.J . ■ ■