THE TELEGRAPH OPERATORS.

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Issue 3132, 12 July 1881, Page 3

THE TELEGRAPH OPERATORS.

The Wellington correspondent of tho Lyttelton Times says that Mr Stewart's question to the House on Tuesday afternoon about telegraph operators created very considerable interest. It was absolutely painful to listen to Mr Johnston's reply. It was evident he had been coached on the subject, and that he neither believed in coaching, or liked to act the part entrusted to him. He commenced by saying that the operators struck for higher wages, which is quite incorrect. They struck against the extension of hours of labor without adequate remuneration. He admitted that the names of the "ringleaders " were forwarded to the Australian Telegraph Department; but assured the House it was not with the intention of depriving them of employment elsewhere. (A member : What other object ?) Mr Johnston did not reply. He went on to say, referring to railway department telegrams, that tho public safety was endangered by the strike. This again is incorrect, as the circular to the Australian departments was despatched in January 1880, and the railway telegraph system was not amalgamated with the general system until June 1880. Mr Johnston went on to say that the circular sent by the New Zealand department had simply been acknowledged by the departments of various Australian Colonies. This again is misleading, as from direct personal information I am aware that at least one colony sent a reply tantamount to telling the New Zealand Department to mind its own business. This may be denied on the ground that the reply was non official, but I am in a position to state it was sent. Mr Seymour George interpolated a question as to by whose authority the circular was sent. After considerable hesitation, and apparent whispering with his colleagues, Mr Johnston replied hesitatingly: "By the authority of the Minister of the day " (Mr Hall). This is not quite the whole truth, as Mr Hall's memorandum to Dr Lemon, although ostensibly a purely departmental one, was practically a direction from the Government. Mr Johnston's whole explanation was a very pitiable exhibition of a Minister personally irresponsible, not having been in office at the time, loyally trying, on behalf of his colleagues, to make the best of a very bad job.

(For continuation of news see fourthpage.')