Postal Inquiries.

Hokitika Guardian, 20 December 1922, Page 3

Postal Inquiries.

DEPARTMENTAL METHODS. ROYAL COMMISSION OF INVESTIGATION. WELINGTOX. Doc 18. ■ Air F. K. Hunt, S.M., sitting as a Royal Commission to-day commenced the hearing of certain charges against prominent officials of the I’ost and Telegraph Department in connection with private inquiries held hv the Department into seviral matters, including the Napier Springbok cable leakage. The order ol reference of the Coniiii.issinn s cts out that O.C. Alazengarb, barrister and solicitor, has written to the Executive of the New Zealand Post and Telegraph Officers’ Association. making certain (barges against the administration and other principal officers - of the Department, namely, that in the conduct of their inquiries into charges of misconduct against officers, improper methods have been adopted for the obtaining of evidence; facts favourable to the accused officers have been wilfully and deliberately suppressed, and undu« harshness has been observed in tbo prosecution of inquiries that the Executive of the Association has adopted the said charges, and has forwarded them to the Postmaster-General. Mr Hunt is. therefore, appointed to he a 'Commission to inquire, into and report upon the charges, so tar as they atlcet all formal inquiries held since July 9th.. 1918. Mr P. K. K. Macnssey represented the Department, and the Post and Telegraph Officers’ Association was represented by Mr 11. E. Combs, Secretary of the Association

Three Departmental officers whom tin* charges most closely concern are .Mr A. T. Markniau. First Assistant Secretary; Mr J. T.nurenson. Chief Inspector: and Mr M. B. Esson. Senior Inspector. Mr O. C. Mazengarb appeared oil his own behalf, oil the ground that his name had been freely used. He said he had newer heard of a proceeding in which a complainant was not referred to, as in this case, lie said he was concerned in the inquiries, and found that some of tin employees were complaining of the official treatment, particularly fr'.nn one official. He was asked to report to the association on matters brought to his notice by the men themselves. When there was the feeling of a grievance, some things might ho said that were not properly founded. His report was set up at. their request. The matters in the preamble were, lie alleged, a gross distortion of the fails in his report, such as suggestions of harshness and wilinl suppression. Mr Mai assay said that this was not so. Mr Mazengarb went on to explain that in his letter lie had said that flu* officers prosecuted the men instead d' protecting them. The Department did not merely hold inquiries, hut prosciutcd the men. lie did not say they had been unfair as prosecutors, but they prosecuted, and did not merely hold an enquiry. A postal officer was entitled' to more protection when a complaint was madi . At this stage, Mr Macnssey objected to Mr Mazengarb giving an address.' instead of making all explanation. Air .Mazengarb said there were three alleged charges in the ordcr'-Alf lefenoncc of the Commission. Mr Hunt said ho was not going t> lie hound by any statements in the order of inquiry, lie was going to so" if the inquiries had been i.arriid oilt in a. proper manner, and without the use of improper methods. F. 11. Wiiistauley. postal official said lie was one of lour non coiiCriU'd in the Springbok telegram ease, and he had been called upon to make a statement by Chief nlspectoi' l.auivnson if the second statement which lie made would prejudice him. and the Chief Inspector had replied, “No.” Mr Anderson (Superintendent) hoard him s.'iv "No."

1.-. A. lleichenhacli, also a postal official, 'aid he had been sent for at 7.3'' o'clock out morning, and told to conic in the telegraph office at Napier by the Superintendent who had tailed personally t.» take him (low'll. On tho way. they had pick; * I ut) Air Laurenson at tin' Caledonian Hold. Witness had walked between tin: nllier two men. feeling as though lie were finder arrest. Oil tho way to the office, b • diad seen a friend with whom lie bad wished to speak. He broke away fioe.i the others. The other two on mo up to him quickly, and told nini to come along. This incident had made him I'eel more than ever as it he wt re under arrest. When they reached the office, witness said lit' had an interview w ith them. Mr Lanrcnson opened up by saying: “I'm very sorry to think that an. officer of the clerical branch should have conveyed a telegram to a newspaper.” Witness denied that he had done .so. and after several questions. he was asked to make a written statement. Air Laurenson proceeded to suggust tl'" lines on which the st.'lenient should he made, hut witness had told him that, lie preferred to make ii in his own way.

F. Rodgers, the third postal official in his evidence said he had been called up and asked if he would make a statement. Atv piste was present. The Chief Inspector had dictated the terms in which the statement was to he made.. Alter ho had finished, witness was asked to sign. A day or so later, hi had been in a billiard saloon, and at about l(!.;Vi) o’clock in the evening the supervisor had, come in. and told him that he was required in tlui office. He left thesaloon and found Mr l.nurenson in the middle of the road, and shortly afterwards they were joined by Air Anderson Tint two escorted witness to the office. Wiicn alone, the Chief Inspector had said to him: "I’m very sorry for you. young man. The situation 1,,*, developed very rapidly.” Witness was called upon to make a further statement, and after considerable hesitation he did this. In making it, he omitted all names save his own, and was pressed to supply tluse names. The Chief Inspector ultimately said lie had the Secretary and the Postmaster C„neral at the end of the wire, and wa- in a liurrv to get the ease through, fmler pressure, witness had supplied the other two names. As soon as lie I,ml done this, his notice of suspension was read out to him. He was told tI , |„,inc. mid n>'t talk about the matter to anyone. At this stage the ( ourt rose until to-morrow.