OFFICIAL CIRCUMLOCUTION.

New Zealand Tablet, Volume II, Issue 96, 27 February 1875, Page 4

OFFICIAL CIRCUMLOCUTION.

Some few months since the strictures of the Press were instrumental in sweeping away some absurd regulations with regard to the postage on newspapers, and it was then hoped that many similar absurdities which were known to exist, but not specified, would also be abolished. It would appear, however, that the various governmental departments are far from exempt from the circumlocutory red-tape routine of the mother country, so severely lampooned by Dickens, and that they adhere with the tenacity of barnacles to traditions and usages, the strength of which would appear to increase with the absurdity. It may be remembered that until lately for some reason unknown — at least beyond the pale of the department, — the public were not only prohibited from making use of newspaper stamps in the postage of letters, but the halfpenny stamps, for the transit of intercolonial papers, were utterly useless when despatched outside of the colony, , notwithstanding the required postage was paid to the revenue. Why this should have been the case, or what end was to be accomplished by its practice, was a mystery which we were never able to unravel. Had the prohibition stopped at the disallowance of newspaper stamps on letters, we might .have accounted for it by supposing that the department wished to keep the receipts from tlie two sources separate; but, of course, the distinction with regard to newspapers upset the supposition. Whether the extreme absurdity of the proceeding, and its injustice and inconvenience, became apparent to the authorities, or the voice of public opinion, through its mouthpiece, the Press, had sufficient weight to cause the attention, we are unable to divine, but the obnoxious prohibition was withdrawn. During the past week, however, a case has been brought under our notice which, as an example of red-tape routine of the most orthodox and approved stamp, would be amusing, were it not for the injustice committed. It would appear that the rule of the department, with regard to the delivery of newspapers, prescribes that if the party to whom the paper be addressed has left the address, the subsequent papers received at the office are never put into the hands of the postman for delivery, but remain without the slightest action being taken, until they become cumbersome by their bulk, when they are gathered ia a heap and destroyed. As an illustration of the injustice of the system in force, we may cite the following, as the case to which we have alluded to above : — The collector of this journal, having called witW an account at the supposed address of a subscriber, was ii? formed that the party had left some eleven months since. With a view, then, of learning to whom the papers had been delivered, which were regularly despatched to the address through the post, he sought the postman on the round, and by him was informed that since he became aware of the party having left, the papers had never been taken by him from the post office. As the wrapper would intimate at a glance to the authorities the source from whence the paper came, and. in addition to that, it being received from our publisher securely tied in a bundle of town papers, we ask, was it too much to expect that some intimation should have been forwarded from the department, and that, instead of allowing an accumulation for almost twelve months, some such system should have been put in force as is adopted with regard to unclaimed letters. As a further illustration ot the very elaborate mode of procedure, we may state that we made it our business to see the head of the departmo it on the subject, and although that gentleman showed us a mass of the unclaimed papers, we were also

mformed-so complex was the machinery of the department —that by no other means than the formal claim of the missing subscriber would they be saved from the fate assigned them. We do not wish it for a moment to be understood that we complain of any unjust treatment at the hands of the local officials. Far from it ; for of course they are merely the passive agents in carrying out the eccentricities of their superiors : " tu c d ?. mo . s t em Pfc*ically condemn a course of procedure * 7 ill J l RrS absurdity on its face, is a manifest injuslr Se Wh ? t0 the S° od f aith Qf the Government for the fulfillment of its contract. While bearing testimony to the civility with which we were informed during the intervie *> .? at although in some cases such concession might be maffe if applied for in a fittingly-submissive spirit, as a rule the department would not compromise its liberty of action by any such course, we assert that as a rule— ard a most stringent one it should be— the public should not be subjected to the caprice of any official, nor gladly obtain by courtesy what they should be placed in a position to demand as a right