The Temuka Leader SATURDAY, OCTOBER 11, 1890. OFFICIAL SPITEFULNESS.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2110, 11 October 1890, Page 2

The Temuka Leader SATURDAY, OCTOBER 11, 1890. OFFICIAL SPITEFULNESS.

;The popularity of the Railway Commissioners has been short-lived. The ‘whole country by universal consent lhad condemned them as a complete ifailure, and some of the most conservative members of Parliament spoke of the necessity of a change, Mr Rhodes even went to the extent of saying their removal from office would be made a test question at the elections. Suddenly, however, they sprung into popular favor recently. They dismissed a few railway servants in connection with the strike, and panicstriken people began to sing their praises. Popularity secured under such circumstances, however, could hot but prove evanescent, and now, when the public mind is becoming calmer, their recent admirers are beginning to open their eyes to their acts of folly. We publish in another column an article from the Otago Daily Times, in which they are denounced for having selected for dismissal above all others the President of the Dunedin branch of the Railway Union. The article says all we desire to say on the subject, , besides condemning the dismissal of the four members of the executive in Christchurch. Let it be remembered that the Otago Daily Times is a Conservative organ,' and recently upheld the action of the Commissioners in dismissing the Christchurch members of the executive, yet here we find it now condemning the same thing as “far too precepitate.” Evidently our contemporary is cooling down. Like many others, it lost its head in the recent panic, consequent on the strike, but now in its calmer moments it cannot reconcile with its conscience having lent its ceuntenance to the sixteenth century spirit of vengeance in which the Commissioners have been treating the railway servants. There is a few words in the Times article to which we desire to refer. It says it became necessary for the Commissioners to take strong steps to “ restore discipline.” This is not true. There has been no lack of discipline. Men were taken away from their ordinary work and called on to do extraordinary duty. The performance sf this duty was repugnant to their feelings of honor, and at variance with obligations into which they had entered. To refuse duty thus imposed on them did not amount to contempt of ordinary discipline. It is too, a well-known fact that there never has been better discipline observed in thejaervice than since the union of railway* servants was formed. We have been assured of this recently by no less an authority than one of the traffic managers, who told us that the men were never more amenable to discipline than since they joined the union. It is not correct, therefore, to say that strong measures were required to enforce discipline, for if the men had not been called upon to do violence to their consciences, they would never have disobeyed. The public are now beginning to realise this, and when in the course of time it is seen that the railway servants bore all this calmly and quietly sooner than put this colony to the inconvenience of stopping up the railways by going out on strike, we believe their action will be more thoroughly appreciated, and 1 justice will be done to them. As for .

the Commissioners their doom is sealed. Not only hare they displayed a spirit of ruthless vendictiveness in their actions, but the language in which soma of their official communications with the employers are couched is really a national disgrace. Fancy what the historian of the next century will think when he finds such words as “brutal” "lynch-law” “degrading” and so en applied by such highlysalaried officials to workmen who were guilty of no greater crime than to refuse to break their pledges, and sacrifice their principles. He will conclude that the citizens of New Zealand in the year 1890 must have been rude of speech, ansi vulgar in manners, when such is the language in which the highest public officers communicate with their subordinates. Nearly 18 months ago in criticising the actions of these officers we published the following paragraph

“ Gulliver got so disgusted with his own spsciea— the Yahoos—that ho was never -afterwards able to reconcile himself even t® hts own family. We feel much as Gulliver did. We almost feel ashamed that we belong to the same species as this Board of Commissioners, and so disgusted are with their first action that nothing can reconcile ua to the new management.” We feel more ashamed of them now than ever: The other day Mt Edwards proved their statements to be utterly untrue, and now they say they did not dismiss Mr Newton, of Dunedin, because he was President ef the union there. Who will believe them ? Only those who have not yet got over the strike panic, and they too will not believe them when they * think the matter out in calmer moments.

EXTRAORDINARY CONDUCT, The Railway Commissioners recently removed Mr Garsten, Railway Traffic Manager, from Christchurch to Invercargill. N o one knew the reason why. We never heard of fault having been found with Mr Garston while in charge of this section of the railway. The work appeared, at least to outsiders, to have been excellently done, and their were no complaints. But Mr Garston was removed to a less important section, and no one knows the reason why the change was made. A recent occurrence, however, appears to us to give a clue to it. The people of Christchurch in recognition of the courteous and; efficient way in which Mr Garston had managed the railways got up a testimonial, and were going to present it to him, when the Commissioners stepped in and refused to allow him to accept it on the plea that it was against the rules. Now we know that it is against the police regulations to accept testimonials, hue invariable leave is granted, we know stationmasters, postmasters, and other public servants very frequently obtain liberty to accept similar presentations; we know that such a rule as the one referred to is more honored in the breach than in the observance, but we want to know why it was stringently enforced in the ease of Mr Garston; There is something behind all this, and we fancy we can see the cloven hoof of spitefulness sticking out there. It is most painful to know that the management of the railways is ia the hands of men of this stamp. It was bad enough for Mr Garston to have been practically degraded, but it ia really cruel to deny him the luxury of accepting a substantial expression of the kindly sentiments entertained for him by the people amongst whom he has labored for some fifteen or sixteen years. Were the commissioners envious because he was well liked, while they are hated ? We do not know of course, but what we know is, that such conduct cannot commend itself to anyone, and will not in any way raise the Commissioners in the estimation of the public.