Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

THE LONGTON CASE

RAILWAY OFFICERS' COMMENT. Commeuliug upon the Longton appeal case, tho Wellington correspondent of tho "Railway Officers' Advocate" states thai; it "produces gravo symptoms of juggling with justice, to the plainly apparent concern of every railway officer. Wo liavo no desire to dip into the pros and cons of the case on either side further t'hau to briefly refer to the board dealings, Tho Assistant-General Manager, representing the Department, produced four specific charges against Mr. Longton, which at the most must bo put down as trifling, though tho gravity,of insubordination alleged was made much of. Significant it seems that tho principal witness against Mr. Longton, his immediate superior officer, was not called to 6tate his version of Mr. Longlxm's shortcomings. Further weight added to tha case was the fact that Mr. Hutchings— officers' representative on tho board, and an officer of high departmental position, formerly S.M. over Mr. Longton, and, as audit inspector, with full knowledge of the appellant's ability and temperament —adopted, together- with his judicial colleagues, the reasonable decision that tie weight of the evidence was insufficient to warrant the extreme punishment of non-promotion. Apparently the Act permits the power of Ministerial veto, but this power has not been given effect to for a long time. Unfortunately, tho fancied security of our service has been disturbed by the recent application of this autocratic power, which, with a full knowledge of the Ministerial position, forces us to the conclusion that tho alleged power of the Minister is wielded by the Department. It is not at all surprising to find not only a stir of protest from the service, but from the public also. Those on the bank aro tho best critics of the game, and when the public (Press gives voice to , the position, thero is certainly something wrong. It i 3 doubly unfortunate that the new maniu?einent should commence its career to the accompaniment of such a howl of adverse public opinion over 6uch an affair. Wo would point out that this is not an age of autocracy, but of democracy, and we beg politely to remind the Minister that the board is democratic, its appointment being based to a certain extent upon such lines, and it is unreasonable to expect that the service will submit to such injustice as has been meted out. The late Mr. Bishop, as chairman of tho board, made it clearly understood that lie would not tolerate any interference with his decisions. Wo are awaiting tho attitude of Mr. Hewitt and his colleagues over the Ministerial decision in this case." .

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/DOM19190609.2.22

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 218, 9 June 1919, Page 4

Word count
Tapeke kupu
429

THE LONGTON CASE Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 218, 9 June 1919, Page 4

THE LONGTON CASE Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 218, 9 June 1919, Page 4

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert