PRIVATE INQUIRIES.

Auckland Star, Volume LIII, Issue 300, 19 December 1922, Page 5

PRIVATE INQUIRIES.

» DEPARTMENTAL METHODS ATTACKED. COMMISSION OF INQUIRY. WELLINGTON, Monday. Mr. F. K. Hunt, S.M., sitting as a Royal Commission, commenced the sittings to inquire into certain serious charges against prominent officials of the Post and Telegraph Department in connection with the private inquiries held by the Department into several matters, including the Napier Springbok cable leakage. The order of reference of the, commission sets out that Mr. O. C. Mazengarb, barrister and solicitor, has written to the executive of the New Zealand Post I and Telegraph Officers' Association making certain charges against administrative and other principal officers of the ' Department that, in the conduct of inquiries into the charges of misconduct against officers, improper methods have been adopted for the obtaining of evidence; that facts favourable to the accused officers have been wilfully and deliberately suppressed; that undue harshness was observed in prosecuting inquiries; and that the executive of the association has adopted the said chajgps and forwarded them to the PostmasterGeneral.

Mr. Hunt has therefore been appointed to he a commission to inquire into and report upon the charges so far as they affect all formal inquiries held since July 9, 1918. Mr. P. S. K. Macassey represented the Department, and the Post and Telegraph Officers' Association was re-' presented by Mr. H. E. Combs, secretary' of the association. The three Departmental officials whom the charges most closely concern are Mr. A. T. Markman, the first assistant secretary; Mr. J. Laurenson, the chief inspector; and Mr. M. B. Esson, the senior inspector. Mr. 6. C. Mazengarb said this inquiry was set up at the request of the officials concerned. The matters in the preamble of the commission were a gross distortion of the facts staled in his report, such as the suggestions of harshness and wilful suppression. Mr. Macasey said this was not so. F. H. Winstanley, postal official, said he was one of four men concerned in the Springbok telegram case, and he had been called upon to make a statement by the chief inspector, Mr. Laurenson. The witness had asked Laurenson if the second statement which he made would prejudice him. The chief inspector had replied "Xo," and Mr. Anderson, the superintendent, heard him say "Xo." L. A. Reichenbach, also a postal official, said he had been sent for at 7.30 o'clock one morning and had been told to come to the telegraph office at Napier by the superintendent, who had called him personally to take him down. When they reached the office the witness said he had an interview with them. Mr. Laurenson began by saying: "I'm very sorry to think that an officer of the clerical branch should have conveyed a telegram to a newspaper." The witness denied that he had done so, and after several questions he was asked to make a written statement. Mr. Laurenson proceeded to suggest the lines on which the statement should be made, but the witness had told him that he preferred to make it in his own way. F. Rogers, the third postal official, said he was called upon and asked if he would make a statement. A typiste was present. The chief inspector had dictated the terms in which the statement was made. After he had finished the witness was asked to sign. A day or so later he was in the billiard saloon, and at about 10.30 p.m. the supervisor had come in and told him that he was required in the office. He left the saloon and found Mr. Laurenson in the middle of the road, and shortly afterwards they were joined by Mr. Anderson. The two escorted the witness to the office, when the chief inspector said to him: "I'm very sorry for you, young man. The >-itiiation has developed very rapidly." The witness was called upon to make a further statement, and after-considerable hesitation he did this. In making it he omitted all names save his own, and was pressed to supply these j names. The chief inspector ultimately I said lie had the Postmaster-General's secretary at the end of the wire, and was in a hurry to get the case through. Under pressure the witness had supplied two other names. As soon as he had done this the notice of his suspension was read out to him, and he was told to go home and not talk about the matter to anybody. At this stage the Court rose,