RAILWAY GRIEVANCES.

Globe, Volume VI, Issue 611, 3 June 1876, Page 2

RAILWAY GRIEVANCES.

To the Editor of the Globe.

Sir,— l have been waiting for some abler pen than mine to take up the case of the dismissal of Mr Smith, the late station master at Sonthbridge, ostensibly for being unable to find a sack of wheat. The circumstances of the case are briefly these : A quantity of wheat was neflved at Southbridge station for transmission to Christchurch ; they were all forwarded with the exception of one ; a claim was sent in by the consignee, and the station master called upon to pay it; he produced the bag, which had merely been mislaid, but that was not sufficient, he was told he had either to pay the claim or leave ; he declined to pay, and received notice to leave on a certain date. The consignee had also expressed his willingness to lose the sack rather than gel anyone into trouble. It made no difference, the fiat had gone forth—the station master must leave 1 Now, sir, anyone who knows anything of the way in which the work is carried on, must be aware that it is ven unfair to make the station masters directly i esponsitAe for goods entrusted to them for

transmission ; and for the information of those who do not know, the following will, I hope, show that lam right. For instance, a farmer takes, say twenty sacks of wheat, for transmission to Christchurch ; they are tallied, and a receipt given ; they are then marked with the station stamp and number, the station master entrusting this to to a subordinate ; for of course it is conceded that he cannot do the whole himself ; the sulordinate omits to mark one, or he may mark the whole correctly ; they are then stacked ; one may be left out when they are loaded up, there is one short, the station master is called upon to pay for it; declines doing so, and is dismissed—because he argues that it is through no carelessness of his own. You will observe that it is within the power of any subordinate to procure the dismissal of any s’ationmarter by simply omitting to do what he has been told. At the end of the grain season, when all the stacks are sent away, there will, in a case like Smith’s, be a sack unclaimed : it is kept for three months and sold by the Government as unclaimed goods, Mr Smith has been in the service of the Canterbury railways ever since thej have been open, and I believe was working on the line before that; one who is well liked by the public (whose servant he is), as was shown the other day by a petition being got up as soon as it was known that he was to leave, and in less than two hours over 120 signatures were obtained—and this in a small place like Southbridge. One would think that an old servant like this would have had some consideration shown him, and that at any rate an enquiry would have been held, and, if carlessness had been proved, a reprimand would have been sufficient; but the Government would sooner part with an old servant for the sake of 16s than have any chock given to their orders, no matter whether they are fair or unfair. I have it on the very best authority, that were the system carried out at every station as has been done at Southbridge, there would ha a change of stationmasters at nearly every station on the line. Having gone so far into the matter, will it not be as well to see if there are any motives for such summary dismissal. The generally received opinion among railway men is, that Smith is one of the scapegoats for the late strike; if such is the case, who is it that takes it upon himself to stultify the promise of bis Honor the Superintendent, that no one mau should be known in the matter more than another. This is a very serious matter, and one that is likely, if not rectified, to lead to grave results, as it will take a great deal to persuade the men that Mr Smith is not a ‘spotted’ man; and this being in direct contradiction to what was promised when the men agreed to resume work, no one will feel safe, and when the men cease to put confidence in their superiors, things may be said to be in a bad way. There is another case, about which indignation is felt anong the men. On last Saturday one of the men who drive the horses about the yard went to an auction room during his dinner hour, and purchased a half chest of tea, knowing he would be too late to get it after he left work, he took it away with him and left it in the stable until he had done his work, when he took it home. On the Monday a detective and one or two policemen went to the man’s house, without a search warrant , and enquired of che man s wife, if her husband bad not brought home a half-chest of tea, he was told he had, and it was was shewn to him, the sage Bobby said, “ Why you have opened it,” and was told it had been bought for use, not to look at ; he asked where it had been bought, and on being told, left one in charge, while he made enquiries. I suppose his enquiries were satisfactory, for on his return be withdrew the man who had been left in charge. This is another man who has been working on the railway for years, and as far as I can learn has always borne a good character. This poor man has no redress, and I suppose is not supposed to have any feelings to be outraged by a visit, during bis absence from home, from such a force of oolice. If he were seen taking anything from the premises of railway, would it not have been better to have asked the man how he became possessed of the tea, and if his answers were not satisfactory, then take some stronger measures, but it is monstrous that a policeman should be allowed to go into a man’s house, without a warrant for doing so, and without a particle of evidence, against a man of good character. Truly I think the days are past when Englishmen can say, “ Britons never shall be slaves.” Apologising for occupying so much of your valuable space. Yours, &c., ONE WHO KNOWS.