The New Zealand Times. (PUBLISHED DAILY.) SATURDAY, APRIL 6, 1878.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 5314, 6 April 1878, Page 2

The New Zealand Times. (PUBLISHED DAILY.) SATURDAY, APRIL 6, 1878.

Civil Servants in this colony have good reason to complain of the treatment they collectively receive at the hands of writers in the public Press. The subject of the Civil Service is rarely touched upon without some vague general charge being levelled at those in the employ of the State. Amongst a certain stratum of society the policeman is regarded with abhorence; but the aversion to the gentlemen in blue is tame in comparison to the hatred and contempt writers in the Press profess to entertain for the members of the Civil Service. Wo have always regarded this abuse of the Civil Service as cowardly and mean. : Civil servants by The rules of the service.are debarred from replying , to attacks in newspapers; therefore they can be libelled with impunity.' However, it is seldom that individuals are singled out for attacks. .Writers generally make a charge along the whole line. They do not condescend to pick a man off here and there. In this respect the war,against the Civil Service differs from' War ,'of a- physical nature, insomuch as 'it is safer to attack the general mass, than to ideal with the army in detail. It was with much pleasure that we read a leader in the Lyitelion Times of Wednesday last. The article is widely different from 1 the ordinary run of those on the same subject. The writer commences by saying that ho has “ no

sympathy with that section of the, public Press which libels the OivilServicd'of the colony.'' ! Nothing can’be move unjust or cowardly than generally to blacken the character of.a 'class by indefinite calumny. The injustice; consists in'coafounding the good and bad'together, ,and in affixing a moral stigma bn l the- as welh as on the guilty. cowardice' consists in the safety and ease with which the attack can be made by the assailant, „ and, in the defenceless position of' those who are attacked. -. It is like a-man ensconced in a tower* shooting' poisoned arrows into .an unarmed-crowd outside." The vague accusation made is that the Undersecretaries .and heads of departments act treacherously towards the present Ministry; that they betray it to' its opponents, and that they deliberately mislead and withhold important information from Ministers in the official-matters which come before them. We are convinced that the imputation is absolutely false, and that Ministers, if they had the opportunity, would be the first to say so.” The writer professes an amount of simple faith in Ministers that must be surprising to themselves. The widespread belief in the incapacity and favoritism prevailing in the Civil Service is a good card for political purposes, and Ministers are not likely - to’ go out of their way to clear the characters of men whose mouths are shut, and who are, consequently, unable to defend themselves. It is those journals which are the most under Ministerial influence which persistently endeavor to lower the Civil Service in the eyes of the public. A word from Ministers, and there would be an end to the base slanders which are daily published.' The members of the Government should not wait for an opportunity to do that which is clearly their duty. ■ If those' in the pay' of the State discharge the duties of their office: in a manner which gives satisfaction to their superiors, the Latter shirk an honorable obligation by not contradicting the false charges made against those who are placed under them. It will be remembered that shortly after the Ministry assumed office last session, a minor wascirculated that the permanent heads of the departments, were throwing obstacles in the way of the Government obtaining information as to the actual position of the finances, and upon other matters. Mr. Stafford asked the Government if there was any foundation for the statement, which had been so industriously circulated by the friends of the Ministry. Sir George Grey, in reply, stated that the Ministry were not responsible for what appeared in the newspapers. A more evasive answer was never given by any Minister of the Crown in this or any other British community. The statement about.withholding information was either true or false, and Ministers should have given a distinct answer to the question put to them by Mr. Stafford. Our Christchurch contemporary thinks Sir George Grey took the only course open to: him, as he had only been [in office a few days, and consequently had not sufficient experience of > the heads of the departments to give a straight reply to Mr, Stafford. Our contemporary .forgets that the charge was one of a most specific character. Certain gentlemen were accused of using their position to impede Sir George Grey and his colleagues in acquiring information. If there were no tangible grounds for the statement, the Ministry should have said ■.so, no matter what were their suspicions regarding the permanent heads of the departments. A denial of the charge at the time would not have committed the Ministry to any permanent belief in the impartiality of the parties who were wantonly accused of thwarting the Ministry. Our Christchurch contemporary is a trifle inconsistent in its remarks. It approves of the action of the' Government in regarding the permanent heads of the' ministerial departments with,suspicion, and yet says : “We prefer to think that no one suddenly becomes base, and that when a man has for years proved himself to be honorable and trustworthy, there is soma guarantee in his character for his continuing to be so. Now, who are the permanent heads of the chief ; Ministerial departments ? They are Mr. Cooper, Mr. Batkin, Mr. Seed, Mr. Clarke, Mr. Knowles, Mr. Gray, and Dr. Lemon. These gentlemen, many of them for more than a quarter of a century, have been public servants in many onerous,and responsible capacities. They have done their duty, in trying - times and under various administrations, with great credit to,themselves and benefit' to the colony. Is it likely that these gentlemen should: within the last six months he suddenly found to be treacherous impostors! Are we to condemn them merely because it pleases some public writer to subjecc them to general vilification 1” There is not a pin’s-point to'choose between a writer in the Press who calumniates civil servants and the Ministry which allows the calumny to go uncontradicted, especially when the lie was circulated by parties who were notoriously in the confidence of Ministers. We thoroughly agree with the following remarks from the article to which we have alluded “We say unhesitatingly that the Civil Service of New Zealand, in point of honor, of morality, of respectability, of talent, of education, of industry, and of conscientious discharge of public duty, will bear honorable comparison with any Civil Service in the world. Its chief faults are not its own, but have been introduced and continued by a vicious system for which it, is not responsible. The reform of that system is an important object of public concern ; and the worst mode of commencing that reform is to indulge in promiscuous personal abuse, which will only be’ attributed to party prejudice, or private malignity.”