MR J. BATHGATE AND THE "DAILY TIMES."

Evening Star, Issue 3300, 17 September 1873, Page 2

MR J. BATHGATE AND THE "DAILY TIMES."

The following letter was sent to the Daily Times for insertion some days ago, but has not been published. In compliance, therefore, with a request, and in justice to Mr Bathgate, we give it a place in our columns :

Sir, —My attentien has been drawn to an article in your issue of the 27th ult. concerning a reduction of Mr Sheriff Watt’s salary, containing the following sentenceßut by way of punishment to reduce Mr Watt’s salary as Sheriff by LSO savors a little too much of vindictiveness.” Such a sentence could only be written by a person in utter ignorance of the matter, and actuated by motives will not stoop to characterise. If it had affected myself only, I would not have noticed it, the misrepresentations of the Daily Times being so ill-founded as to have no weight ; but the imputation of being guided by an improper motive inferentially affects my colleagues, as I could not have been guilty of such an impropriety without their concurrence. I therefore feel constrained to answer you, and to say, emphatically, there is not a shadow of foundation for your statement. The Government were pledged to economy, and, in obedience to the views of the House of Representatives, they resolved during the recess that in the case of a certain class of officers their salaries should be reduced to LSOO per annum, an amount considered reasonable and a fair remuneration for the services performed. This resolution was passed several months before Parliament met, and without any individual case being under consideration. Accordingly when the Estimates were being framed, the principle agreed to was applied where requisite. The salaries of the Sheriffs vary from L 25 per annum upwards. Owing to the policy for some time followed to consolidate offices, the most of the Sheriffs were in receipt from their united salaries of an amount exceeding LSOO per annum. They therefore came within the principle laid down by the Government, and reductions were ordered. In the case of the Sheriff ef Auckland, his united remuneration was reduced from L 575 to LSOO. In that of the Sheriff at Wellington from L 575 to LSGO. In that of the Sheriff at Westport, from L 550 to LSOO. In that of the Sheriff at Hokitika, from L 650 to LSOO. In that of the Sheriff at Otago, from L 550 to L6OO. Of all these officers, Mr Watt held by far the easiest and least responsible post, the fees returned by him for a year being only L 39, but in each case the reduction was greater than in his, except Westport, which was the same. In the app'ication of the same principle, the Resident Magistrates at Greymouth, Bruce, Wakatipu, Dunstan, and Mount Ida were deprived of their salaries as Returning Offices; and officers having salaries of L 450 were prohibited from charging coroners’ fees, which they had been in the practice of doing. The following points are thus established : Ist. The reductions have been general, and in obedience to the wishes of Parliament. 2ndly. Mr Watt’s reduction has been less in amount than the majority of the of fogy cases referred to, while his duties were much lighter. 3rdly. The reduction was resolved upon before Mr Watt’s indiscretion in reading publicly from the Bench a communication sent to him from the Government for his private remarks thereon, took place. 4thly. The Reduction therefore could have po reference tp such indiscretion, and accordingly could pot savor of yindictiveneas. sthly. Economy aps retrenchment cannot be carried out without strong opposition. 6thly. The aspersions of the Daily Times are thus proved to be false and slanderous, as well as tending to be subversive of discipline in the Civil Service. Other untrue statements, circulated in your paper recently, can be as plainly contradicted ; but it is not worth while to allude to them at present. A fitting opportunity may occur. I have to request that you publish this letter in an early issue.—l have.Vp.', •Jqhnt Bathgate. September 11,