"THE TIE IN THE HOUSE"

Dominion, Volume 13, Issue 306, 20 September 1920, Page 5

"THE TIE IN THE HOUSE"

j Sir,—Cau you tell mo of what civil or • political rights railway men, or any - other members of tho public services, ore deprived—rights, that is, that aru enjoyed by other members of the com- • t muuity? I read with interest your ret port of tlii) division in tho llouso on Frir day night, and noted with somo feeling 3 of amusement the anxiety displayed by the Leader of the Opposition, and his singularly mixed following, on behalf of a section of the Public Service, to whoso 5 olaims he and they were supinely indii - ' 5 ferent prior to tho advent of the Eeform Government in 1912. If I remember rightly, it was reserved for Mr. Jfassey j and Ilia colleagues in ]913 to first iqnl'er _ upon civil servants and members of tho ' railway service the right to take active ■ part in civic affairs and to become members of local governing Ixxlies. Tho first railway employeo to bo made a t justfee of the peace also owes his ap--3 pointment to Mr. Massey, and it is prob- . ably ivithin tho knowledge of many of P your leaders that two railway omt ployees were granted permission to contest electorates f.t tho last general election, without prejudice to their right to . reinstatement m tho service should they 3 prove unsuccessful. That does not jtook . as if tho railway men are under any. . great disability, or that they are suffer' . mg the loss of any rights enjoyed by i tho general public. Friday's' division seems _to have been taken on tho as< > 'sumption—entirely gratuitous—that raill- way men aro deprived of such rights'i, because they are railway moil, and thn . 5 tie is explainable by the absence of sa ;• many members of the House who ousht ; to have boen in attendance—fourteen or r fifteen Government supporters being away for the week-end. Tour morning contemporary finds the division "signifis cant." Of what? It's own action is in keeping with its reputation for garbe ling facts politically, to servo the parr licular party it supports. , I notice that o the report ut»n which it bases its com--0 meats is distinctly at variance with the reports furnished by yourself and your evening contemporary, particularly in rc- ' gard to the explanation given by tho chairman of committees of his reason a for giving his casting vote against tho ° amendment, namely, that he understood 1 the rights have already been given. Tour 0 contemporary makes it appear that ho D said tho rights were to be given—l aip, etc./ e JUNIUS SECUNDUS. j Wellington, September 18, 1920.