THE LONGTON CASE
(To the Editor “N.Z. Times.”)
Sir,—When the above case was before the Appeal Board, Mr Bevan claimed that as he made the regulations ho was entitled to break them. Those are not the words ho used. But that is exactly what ho did. It reminds me of an incident: A man had been, as usual, stationed at tho end of the platform to prevent people getting on. Two ladies and a gentleman made the attempt, and were repulsed, although claiming to be friends of a Minister. Presently Mr Hordnmn came along. Whot happened? I asked the man n he could' not still have stopped the entry.' He said Not Not if they are in company of a- Minister. Discipline and subserviency are two cliitoreni things. If Mr Bevan wished to alter his regulation, there was a proper procedure, which was not followed. Poor Mr HorrioaJ What could he do? His own regulations arc only scraps ot paper, to bo torn up when they don’t suit. So, evidently Mr Bevan had him by the - wool. . Nevertheless, there is a hit of purging and trying-out wanted, and it is to be hoped tho result of this issue will bring it. about. HENRY BODLEV. May 16th. 1916. ,
Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/NZTIM19190517.2.77.7
Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka
New Zealand Times, Volume XLIV, Issue 10282, 17 May 1919, Page 10
Word count
Tapeke kupu
207THE LONGTON CASE New Zealand Times, Volume XLIV, Issue 10282, 17 May 1919, Page 10
Using this item
Te whakamahi i tēnei tūemi
Stuff Ltd is the copyright owner for the New Zealand Times. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International licence (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0). This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of Stuff Ltd. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.
Log in