POSTAL ENQUIRY.

Press, Volume LIX, Issue 17702, 2 March 1923, Page 12

POSTAL ENQUIRY.

CHARGES AGAINST OFFICERS DISPROVED. FINDING OF COMMISSION. (HUBS ABSOCXMTOK RLSGBAXB.) WELLINGTON, March 1. Some time ago wide public interest was aroused by the hearing, before Commissioner F. K. Hunt, S.M., of charges made against the principal officers of the Postal Department by Mr O. C. Mazengarb, and adopted by the Post and Telegraph Officers' Association. The Commissioner has now submitted his report, during the course of which he says:— v "In my opinion the Post and Telegraph Officers' Association has utterly failed to prove any of the charges it made against the administrative and other principal officers of the Post and Telegraph Department. Not only did it fail to prove them, but the evidence adduced completely satisfied me that the officers entrusted with the investigation of charges against postal officials performed their difficult and unpleasant duties in an absolutely fair and proper manner. The hearing lasted three days, and at the conclusion Mr Mazengarb, solicitor to the Association, and who wrote the letter containing the charges, unreservedly withdrew them." In view of the failure of the Association to prove its case, the- Commissioner orders it to pay the department £SO by way of costs. Details of Charges. The Commissioner states that as the position was placed before him he understood the Association was prepared to prove the following charges:— (1) That when a complaint is lodged by an outsider, the department prosecutes the cause of the complainant with much vigour, and takes up an attitude which the police do not take up even in criminal cases. (2) That the full weight of the department is used to obtain statements from witnesses, and "that without, resorting to certain methods the department could not obtain these statements, s(3) That the department should not approach any person holding -an inquiry without observing the usual rule that is respected in the case of judges, magistrates,, and arbitrators, i.e., not to approach the judge except in the presence of the officer charged and his counsel. The Commissioner's Answers. "Taking these charges or the matters of complaint, as Mr Mazengarb preferred to call them, in their order, I find: I . t "(ly There was no evidence of any kind called to prove that cases were presented to the tribunal hearing them other than in a fair and proper,, manlier. On the contrary, ample evidence from magistrates who heard the cases, and counsel who appeared for the officers charged, was given, which quite satisfied me the cases were presented to the courts by responsible officers in an extremely fair -and impartial manner. In my opinion, it is a fine thing to know that a complaint made by a member of the public against any member of this great Public Service will be honestly enquired into, and if the facts warrant it, the department itself will-.see that the offender will be brought to book. "(2) It was on this point most of the evidence was called; It was suggested that what is called 'third degree' methods were used by officers in obtaining evidence, and that statements /were given in confidence, and that confidence was broken by the investigating officers. I paid very great < attention to the evidence given on i this branch of the enquiry, and again " I found no evidence to support the charge. True, Mr Winstanley. says that before making a statement he said to Mr Laurenson 'Would my remarks prejudice me in any way whatever?' and Mr Laurenson replied 'No.' Charges Without Foundation. "Mr Laurenson'a version is that Winstanley jwas very ill at the time) and he saidT'lf I tell the truth will it'. prejudice me in any wayf' and he (Mr Laurenson) replied, 'How can- truth prejudice you) Winstanleyt' I believe Mr Laurenson's account of the incidenti It is to be noted that Winstanley, Beichebbach, Koger, and McKenzie were each asked if they had any complaint to make against Mr Laurenson's methods, ; and they each said they had not. I don't waste time in commenting on eviience called on this head in the Kennedy case, except to say' : it. proved nothing, i "(3) There is no evidence to prove this'allegation. It was merely,put up, in my opinion, to induce the authorities' to give the Association a voice in the ; appointment of a magistrate or other person to hold an< enquiry. No more serious charges or allegations could be made against administration officers than have been made by, or rather, 'adopted by, the Association. They range, as you can see, from harsh prosecution,-suppression of evidence, and improper means of obtaining evidence, to tampering with the court itself. These charges should not have been* made without careful-investiga-tion,: as the slightest enquiry would have shown they were without ■ foundation.' How a professional man; could have formulated them whem he knew all the facts, and had himself seen the witnesses, I am at a lobs tp understand." - ■ ■ !