The Sun 42 WYNDHAM STREET AUCKLAND THURSDAY, JANUARY 2, 1930 DISMISSED TELEGRAPHISTS

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 860, 2 January 1930, Page 8

The Sun 42 WYNDHAM STREET AUCKLAND THURSDAY, JANUARY 2, 1930 DISMISSED TELEGRAPHISTS

IP! RM ties of loyalty bind the members of the Post and Telegraph * staffs in New Zealand. There is evidence of this fine fraternal unity in the concerted protest made by members of the local staff organisations against the stern sentence imposed on the six men recently convicted of using confidential information for the purpose of conducting betting operations during office hours. Each of the six men has been dismissed from his post in the service, a punishment of exceptional severity to men who hare had as much as 30 years of service. It is doubtful, however, if some of the arguments employed by their colleagues as reasons for a reconsideration and leniency should weigh as much as the simple humanitarian sentiment that not only the men themselves, but also their dependants, may suffer privation and want if the prescribed punishment is executed. Had betting been the only charge in which the men were involved, their offence could have been dismissed as venial. In their resolutions of protest the staff organisations point out that all classes of the community indulge to some extent in speculations on the Turf, and though this somewhat precarious logic does not exculpate members of the service who waste the time of their employer—the public—while engaging in their sporting transactions, it at least suggests a very good reason why moderation should be employed by those formulating their sentence. Unfortunately their offence did not end at betting. For the purpose of their betting transactions they turned to their own uses information that came to them through telegrams passing through their hands. The gravity of such a lapse is indisputable. Tt threatens the whole sanctity and security of the telegraph office as a channel of private information. Thousands of telegrams of a delicate and personal nature are transmitted through the telegraph office every day. Any process which allows the development within the service of a spirit which treats these as anything' but a sacred and inviolable charge is to be regretted and sharply discouraged. There is happily no suggestion that the practice of profiting from bettinginformation, which presumably would be in code, though not a code so abstruse as to elude the vigilance of the watchful speculators in the telegraph office, has extended to telegrams on other subjects. The staff organisations themselves would hesitate to endorse any plea for mercy made' on behalf of men who sought to profit by private business telegrams. Even so, it is doubtful whether the principle that betting telegrams and those alone may be recognised as fair game can be admitted. By their arguments, however, they suggest that betting telegrams, being themselves illegal, may be regarded as fair game. Though this principle can hardly be admitted, it is a fact that every move the Post Office makes in the matter serves only to expose its own hypocrisy. The bookmakers’ telegrams that it accepts are passed by the counter because their code disguises them, but they are not so disguised that their character is hidden from the operators and others who handle them. Thus it becomes painfully true that' a certain corrupting influence is introduced into the telegraph office, and this is a factor that has a bearing on the possible mitigation of the sentences. It will in due course be weighed by the appeal board to which the men are carrying their protest and, judging from past practice, there appears to be a good prospect that the appeal board may exercise compassion and reduce the sentences. In the meantime the dismissed men and their friends are, reasonably enough, enlisting all sorts of political influence to their cause. Members of Parliament in these affairs are inclined to show more generosity than judgment. It will be a sad day for the civil service when vote-conserving politicians succeed in overriding the judgments of experienced executives and properly constituted tribunals. There are factors which suggest reasons for clemency in the cases under review, but they are not political factors. If politicians want to avoid a repetition of this unfortunate business, let them induce the Government and the Post Office to define a clearer basis on which to build their relationship to bookmakers and betting. NEW YEAR HONOURS THERE is a mild fascination in anticipating the New Year Honours and making a “shadow list” of those whose services the King is about to recognise. Rumours are always current that this prominent citizen or that has been definitely set down for knighthood and that that citizen or this has refused to accept a minor decoration as an insufficient reward for sterling public services rendered. When the lists are published there are occasionally exclamations of wonder, but for the most part there is approval. The complete British list of honours, at the moment of writing, has not come to hand, but it is interesting to note that many women have been singled out for reward. In the previous list few women were selected for mention and the omission was adversely criticised. Among those honoured this year is Miss Maude Royden who has done pioneer work in combatingprejudice against women preachers. There lias been a commendable tendency in recent years to choose for honour those who have won distinction in the field of art and it is fitting that Dr. Granville Bantock, eminent British composer, should receive the accolade. Interest will be taken, too, in Mr. Srinivasa Sastri’s admission to the Coinpanionage of Honour. This highlv-cultured man is known in most countries of the world for liis oratory, tact and the brilliant services he lias rendered India. The New Zealand honours list is brief and contains no surprises. It was expected that the Chief Justice who, apart from the high office lie now holds, lias had such a distinguished career at the Bar, would receive a knighthood and there will be general pleasure expressed that Mr. T. K. Sidey, veteran Parliamentarian, whose work for Daylight Saving has made liis name familiar to every New Zealander, has not been overlooked. The Prime Minister gains an added honour and Mr. Kane, Clerk of Parliaments, and Mr. Luckham, resident commissioner at Niue, receive the C.M.G. for their services. Mr. Robert Parker, doyen of Wellington musicians, is similarly honoured. Those who pride themselves on their ability to “pick the winners” in advance of the publication of honours lists will be surprised that there is no mention of Sir Thomas Wilford. The new High Commissioner lias seen much political service and there is no denying that a title would be of use to him in his official capacity. Possibly he will “hear something to his advantage” when the Birthday Honours are announced.