CIVIL SERVANTS.

Taranaki Daily News, 3 July 1916, Page 7

CIVIL SERVANTS.

To the Editor Sir, —T feel that someone should cha'lenge the contemptuous tone which the writer of your leader in Friday's issue exhibits towards members of the Civil Service. A fnllacy which is rather general is that because t, civil servant's pay is derived from State revenue or taxation, lie is therefore directly the servant of any individual member of the community. This is, of course, quite wrong. When a person takes service under the State he deals with tli" head of a department, or the Civil Service Commissioner, and he agrees that in consideration of certain pay, provided for certain work, to perform certain duties. He is hound hv rather manv restrictions, too. Xow, if there is fault in this arrangement, it is surely the fault of the taxpayer who elects the Parliament which' creates the foundation of the system. Again, if public servants have too many privileges, are paid too highly for the work which they perform, and have (in ensv time in their occupation, all of which things you will. T hope, not deny are strongly suggested by your leader writer, surely the blame is upon the State which could allow such a state ot atfaii-s. But speaking with n good deal of knowledge of public servants highly placed as well an in the ranks, 1 say that ihere is just, as much honor amongst them in iheir appreciation ot the fact that a loan's best efforts are fine to his employer, as amongst other classes, and [ will add that, ihere arc not many amongst them who would as clearly as vour writer does belittle the "tinker and the tailor." who as a class find I hat to "net welt their part" is where all honor lies iust as the Civil Servant does. No member of the Civil Service is the servant of anv individual, or of anv group of individuals in the community, any mure than the editor of a paper is the servant of the advertiser, or the purchaser of his newspaper. The civil servant has accepted a position from the Covernment, iust as another man accepts a position from a private employer, and he should not be subjected lo vulgar suggestions concerning his contract, more than any other employee. Concei'nin" a war bonus, first of all there are concerns which have granted every member of the stall's a war bonus, without regard to salary. This money must lie diverted from shareholders-otherwise from some of the people—and it is not strictly logical to say that tlie (iovern nient should not do what so many othci employers have done. And wliat may lu an additional reason or two are UicmWhen lean years appear, as is agreed by economists they possibly will after tinwar, tlu; civil 'servant is for the mosl part (subject to a decision of the Pnlilh Service Commissioner) liable to a rate able reduction of salarj, and he is In .reason of his occupation prevented from js'ippleineniieu hi-- income at li time liki 11!ie j>re=c"l •»«!.•• trailers, according Li pep''l " ■ i'ii joying largely inc" ! express an onini seal when you lay «■ .Lt salary of £(j

per week is in need of 110 assistance. Well, first of all, lie is, if lie is a nian at all making some contribution to tlie war or its consequences, which reduces his salary voluntarily, and yon yourself have agreed in your article that up to ,€!! 10s per week represents under normal conditions a considerable struggle for si "reasonably comfortable existence." You freely blame the Government for not atienipting to reduce the cost of living which has given rise to the war bonus question, but the newspapers in my opinion have not done their part in exposing exploitation. The combined force of the Press on this point would be irresistible.—l am, etc., A CIVIL SERVANT.