RAILWAY APPEAL BOARD.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIII, Issue 99, 4 August 1910, Page 5

RAILWAY APPEAL BOARD.

CRITICISM RESENTED. , R '.' Wellington, ;Wftte«day. B ityfife e hcar % ■ S.M.)'took stn% Exception B unm nKjnenods of H : appeal cases. MMHaaeldenß adce<J. Raflway, Servants of thefi Reviewjrto disavow the «rticlp;-and anß undertaking was given that the matter H woujd be-.consi lejred at the next meeting H of 4xe«tive body. To-day H the executive dealt Vith the question, H aind' unapin/otisly patted the following H resolution:- : -"Taftt itfie editor's reportlß, atid l ail .coitfeip&ndeTice concerning thorn complaint of Mr. W. R. Haseldcn havingH been read to the executive council, theyK ara-of opinion that tha articW<wmp!ain<H ed |ofi kas'lMlf,, have the fullest: confidence in the editosjof of the Railway ißeview." 8 Mr. W. A. Veitoh, president of theH Society., of Railway SerJE vants, stated'; to a Nfew sesand TimesH reporter who,sought further information™. regarding; the resolutkm tmt it waaffl passed be&upe the exefflitjyelouncil wanp satisfied, fend its belief by a legal opinion, that thearticle whichM had been so much debated was not de-K famatory, and that it was within theH' limits of fair comment. i IB -pW* ha«( always found our editor toH , biia'jmoMnte writer," continued <MrM ywtmli, "ani a man who, while he realfl , ised that it was sometimes his duty to™ • criticise others, had always done so iimk a gentlemanly and reasonable way. HigfS attitude on this occasion was no exceplg tion to the tule. Comparing the publi(§r (sjatement made byg-Mr. Haeeldef- #thlS| ffo r m rt#l of rJ>i hi ?Hirß : fcw no Mp e r | M? i i o 4wHpwHK ' «hanf thAC *he,w , fi<&V wakldbuctatiLlnm ! much more reasonable and moderate lanJß guagc than Mr. Haselden's public comS ment upon it." U Mr. Veitch proceeded to take excepß ,tion,,to T the methods,of xenjH , . f fWS%M trievlrfdel <«fjw Mil># WtM ■ i tvieVkM*lpjtf eOfoU & iot MdMta« , discriminately to the public," he reimukS ' . dfa /'aria theFeMft itlwrolft have beeifl [ Wi## I?W#T WMM- Haseldedß ' , sent a letter to the executive counciHß complaining of the article rather thajflß ' making a statement which must in somqß | measure have prejudiced the public mindV ' against the railway men. We couldH , Ks attitude as one of ho»H j ufxlraxT a P,P roacne<l the mait«fl& i » TOtnjtm'Tjpßß mind," continued MrH '■s fWuPreindiced againaffi j of all the cir® \ i cumstances we felt that we must ta'kcK . exception to his attitude in making ■«* place which gave me no opportunity of replying on equal terms. Had I used . '- language -of ■ the- ->amA.>.nature, Haselden's it is quite possible an indig"flnt - "*""""■ />f- .flu, ftfMilJfljnjL '• would'have chained me witn coptemptj ; .$■ of court. I'was, appearing before tne'| Board snot aa*president of tbe JSocifity I ' ' ■ way service. The attack on toe editor £ , 1 facts at the time. I have therefore felt | it my duty, in justice to the editor, tof \malM!.tbifl esplftflfttign,'',. jn-/: § So )■< l i;iMMi-r*T,- v"i!t; i;)"y 1 'n i * \j