THE POSTAL INQUIRY

Dominion, Volume 10, Issue 3170, 22 August 1917, Page 7

THE POSTAL INQUIRY

AUCKLAND POSTMASTER GIVES , EVIDENCE.

methods of the censor

By. TBlegranh—Press': Association.

m, ,' -. Auckland, August 21. J-as hearing of .evidence by the Cottioiission appointed to investigate tho allegations made by-tho Bev. Howard Elliott against postal officials in Auckland was continued/to-day.

James Charles Williamson, who has had forty years' postal service, and has been chief postmaster at Auckland for the past year, said that about 200 men and women were employed in the Auckland office, and handled correspondence. He had had no occasion to investigate serious neglect of duty on the part of any Auokland official. He said tliatwhon Air. Elliott complained by telephone that envelopes had 'boen delivered without the he put tho usual questions and also, asked for a list. ' This list tid not Arrive, and next day lie telephoned to Sir. Elliott, who promised to send it by 3 p.m. that day, but did not do 60. Witness made arrangeinonts to deal with it as soon as it ; arrived. . Ho had endeavoured to ascertain only to a. very limited extent since the inquiry opened tho cause of delay, as/ particulars had not boen furnished. JYom information supplied him by ono of his 1 Officera he had a list showing that on July .13 there were returned' to Box 912 57 open envelopescontaining cards and circulars. . The envelopes. were marked "Gone—no "ad-' 'dress." : Tn addition he-mentioned that, there were a-number of others returiied to the Post Office, some wrongly addressed, and, some-for whioli tKe addressee couid not be found. With regard- to nine letters previously ."'liuded to he gave evidence to ■ the effect tnnt the first produced in Court showed .indications that the flap had .been open when the letter ■was posted. The. second letter showed similar signs of having, been posted -with-, the flap out; Oil the third the marks from the stamping machine were more Ipronounced still. In-his opinion four of the nine were posted with .tho. flap out. With regard to envelopes hearing a piece rf gum'paper on tho flap, he thought he ■could say the 1 paper was there before the envelopes went through the stamping [machine. He inferred from this that the'paper had been placed there before posting. He recollected receiving instructions' from Wellington on December 19 that. Box' 912 was to be consored. Acting on that he'-typed/ an order and senfj it down-to the mailroom-to bo posted jip. ' 1 -

Mr. Gray: "In consequence of some communication from" ■Wellington did you lenew (he instructions ?"—I did.

Continuing, witness said the Auckland postal!censor was Mr. Clouston, who had formerly been-censor in the south. Witness had 110 control over him, and had no knowledge of his methods or the in-. Btructions he received: - 'The censor -worked in a room with, other \clerks, not in privacy. ■ Mr. Ostler:"Do you know of any device, any steaming apparatus or otherwise; by which he opens letters?"—No, I do not. , i Mr. Ostler: Were not letters to minis--Sers opened?. Mr. Gray:' Who said they were opened? This is the first time that anyone las suggested it. Mr. Ostler: Well; what's the use of a (Censorshipsif it doesn't open envelopes? Continuing, 'witness said that after feonie years'-experience a'Sorter should be able to tell at once if an envelope 'were empty, hut in rapid sorting he taisht pass sncli an envelope as those in question. It was his duty to make a suitable endorsement on all empty . envelopes. If a plerk were not pushed for time it would be regarded as a serious breach of duty if nine or ten envelopes out of two thousand were'passed. He ,was not aware that any -(fere found on the night in question. A letter-carrier's endorsement, "Received without contents/' would only refer to-its condition jriien. he received it.' " _ -j

Mr. Ostler: "Were sorters on that particular night very busy!'"—l think so. Mr: Ostler: "Is it not a fact that the Catholic Federation's box is absolutely free from censorship?"—l do aiot think it is under censorship. Sir. Ostlor: "Can I tako that as an admission that it is not?"—I think so. Mr. Ostler: Is it jiot a fact that; thero is not a singlo lioimin Catholic priest or organisation whoso correspondence is con r sored in Auckland?

Mr. Gray objected that the question was not relevant.

Mr. Ostlor: I submit that it is. My question was

His Worship: I heard the question and I propose to uisailow it.

Mr. Ostler: I can show Your Worship that it is relevant.

His Worship: I disallow the question. Mr. Ostler: I would like to point out that, the question is a relevant ono because we havo to inquiire whether the censorship is in the interests if. the Catholic Church; and it is relevant that the inquiry should show that, whereas these loyal Protestants' boxes ;,re censored, there aTe no Roman Catholic priests in Auckland whose boxes ore censored.

■ His Worship: I disallow the question. Mr."Ostler: Very well, Your Worship. After the adjournment Mr. Bishop suid he had reconsidered tho point, niid now admitted'that'Mr. Ostlor was entitled to put tho question. Mr. Ostler: Aie you awaro of iny censorship having been established over any correspondence addressed to a Roman Catholic organisation ? Mr. Gray submitted that according to tho wording of the commission tho question oould not be put. He said it was entirely irrelevant. Mr. Bishop said he foresaw tho present difficulty when first the commission came to hand, hut the question could not interfere or affect tho interests of the 'Empire. Mr.>ostler-to witness: "Is tho correspondence of any Roman Catholic ranimation censored iii Auckland?"—" There is l no Roman Catholic organisation in New. Zealand whose correspondence is censored in Auckland. . Mr. Ostler: "Is any Catholic periodical or literature emanating from tnoCatholic Church censored in Auckland?. —No; • "Mr.-Ostler: "Is the 'Tablet' censored?' r-No. - , '■■'Mr.'Ostler:-"Is the 'Green Ray censored?" —No. . . Mr. Bishop said he recsived hi communication from the Chancellor of the Catholic Diocese of Auckland statins that the "Green Ray" was not a Catholic publication. , Mr. Ostler produced a copy and stated that no one could read it without realising it was absolutely in favour of the Church of Rome. _ . Witness sjt'ated, in reply to _ further questions by Mr.- Ostler. that jie had made no inquiries as to iiho proportion of Catholics employed in the Auckland Post Office. Ho had not heard ot any fnctlon between Roman Catholics and ProI teatants in the service in Auckland. \\ itI ness admitted that the alleged mte of irregularities in connection witli the present charges was much above the average he had previously quoted, namely. -0001. ' • , ~ Mr. Gray: "Do. you know whether any censorship has teen applied to the correspondence of: any Catholic official in Auckland?"— Yes. ' .. ■ Mr. Gray: "Was this Catholic a priest?"— Yes. „ Mr. Ostler: "Was he an alien enemy? —I refuse to answer that question. Witness added that it was not possible to distinguish between literature, and correspondence until it had been handled by the censor. He had never at any time,tried to get from the censor any information in regard to his methods of work. It was not in "his power to order the release of any correspondence by tho censor. Several Postal officials gave evidence a3 to the sorting of the letters m question. The inquiry was adjourned.