Dismissal of a Railway Guard.

Manawatu Herald, 2 July 1903, Page 2

Dismissal of a Railway Guard.

A CASE FOR INQUIRY,

The safety of human life depends so materially upon the efficient working of the railways that it is unreasonable to find fault with severely strict departmental regulations that are framed in the interests of public safety. At the same time, says the Auckland Observer, it is possible for the authorities to be unduly harsh in the punishment of dereliction of duty. It certainly is so in the case of Guard Turner, of the Rotorua express, who has been dismissed from the service for neglecting his instructions to atop at flag station to allow a goods train from the Thanil to pass. Throughout the community the feeling is general that the punishment is out of proportion to the offence. It would be different if Turner were a careless man, or had been neglecting his duty in any way. As a matter of fact, however, when the flag station was passed he was busily engaged sorting out his freight parcels in readiness for the next stopping place. The neglect of his instructions was not due to carelessness, nor was it intentional. There is every proof of this. Moreover, Turner was undeniably one of the most diligent, reliable, and trustworthy guards On the railways. Both here and in the Wairarapa, where he served for many years, ho is held in the highest esteem as a thoroughly capable and careful official, and a man whose habits are irreproachable. Daring twenty-five years of service, there has never been a complaint against him or a mark against his name. On the contrary, distinction has been shown him for saving life, for efficiency in the discharge of his duties, and for popularity with the travelling public, who had implicit confidence in his trustworthiness. And now, in middle life, within two years of the time when he would have been entitled to compensation on his retirement, he is summarily dismissed for the first fault that has been alleged against him. It is really very hard, and whatever view the Department may take of his offence, the opinion is unanimous in the public mind that he has been treated with undue harshness. Steps are being taken to bring the case under the farther notice of the Government, in the hope that some measure of leniency may be shown to Turner, and we sincerely trust these will be successful. It is certainly a case that calls for leniency. The most trustworthy man is liable to make, a mistake, and against the one example of neglect there is a blameless record of diligent and faithful service extending back for a quarter of a century. Surely the Government ought to take these mitigating circumstances into consideration, and temper their sentence with soma measure of mercy.