Evening Post. WEDNESDAY, JUNE 29, 1881. A SORRY DEFENCE.

Evening Post, Volume XXI, Issue 150, 29 June 1881, Page 2

Evening Post. WEDNESDAY, JUNE 29, 1881. A SORRY DEFENCE.

The Hon. the Postmaster-General might well hang his head in shame ap he replied to the questions put yesterday by Mr. Stewart in reference to tho action of the Government toward the dismissed telegraphists, on which we commented last baturday. We sincerely pitied him for having to make the admission, in reply to Mr. Stewart's former question, that the Government Jiad forwarded to the other Australasian Governments the names of the operators who were dismissed for striking. We still more deeply commiserated him yesterday, when he was forced by the exigencies of official duty to deliver an explanation which everybody felt—and we are sure none more than he —was deplorably inadequate and unsatisfactory, and which most people knew —and he should have known—was gravely inaccurate on several matters of fact. Let us not be misunderstood. Wo do not for one moment imply that the Postmaster-General waa guilty of any wilful misrepresentation. Not at all. He was not a Minister when the events occurred, and so had no absolute personal knowledge on tho subject. Ho simply " told the tale as it wa3 told to him," and evidently had been "briofed" by somebody —we neither know nor care to guess by whom. Unfortunately the statements put into Mr. Johnston's mouth not only failed to afford the slightest extenuation for the action of tho Government, but also, as we have said, wero directly contrary to the notorious facts of the case. In answer to Mr. Stewart's question —Why the Government transmitted the names of the dismissed telegraphists to the other Australasian Governments?—the Postmaster-General made the following most remarkab'e statements: —lst. That tho dismissed operators had struck for higher pay. 2nd. That the striko had caused great inconvenience and even danger to the public, as it prevented the notification by the railway telegraph of tho arrival and departure of trains, which might have caused serious accidents. Now, in the first place, it is a matter of notoriety, having been freely canvassed at the tirno in the newspapers, that the operators did not strike for increased pay. They struck beoiuse their hours of duty were increased from six to eight per diem, while tho overtime allowance which had always been granted for extra hours of night labour, was simultaneously discontinued. They struck because their hours were seriously increased —by 33 per cent. —and their remuneration at the same time diminished. This is a very different affair. It is one thing for a number of employes to combine to strike for higher pay, and quite another for them to do so in resistance of a sadden and apparently arbitrary diminution of pay, coupled with an augmentation of the work demanded. Wo never approved the conduct of the operators who went on strike, and we said so plainly at the timo, while we recognised tho fact that they labored under a grievance. But it is a most indefensible proceeding on the part of the Government to iustify measures of exceptional and vindictive harshness by grossly exaggerating the faults of the victims, and by unwarrantably blackening the case against them The statement that they strnck lor an increase of pay being, as we have Bhown, distinctly at variance with fact, and calculated to prejudice the minds of members and of the public against them, was utterly unjnstifiable, and ought uover to have been put into vha mouth of a Minister. Secondly, tho Postmaster-General waa made to look supremely ridiculous in having to make so absurd a misstatement as that tho strike interfered with the railway service. Everybody knows that at that time the Railway Telegraph Department was a totally distinct one, under the management of Mr. Floyd, and would not have betn affected by all the regular telegraph operators striking. Not a single operator struck in the Railway Telegraph Department, and the train service neither was, nor could possibly have been, ia

any way affected by a strike in an entirely da- \ tinct department with wh'c'a it had no con- j nection whatever. It a<nazes us that anyone . could have had the inipudencd to put into the month of a Minister in his p'.ase in Parliament su-ih a wildly, erroneous and utterly preposterous mi3-statement. Bat evc-nhad every word of both allegations beei literally true instead of the reverse, what possible jnstification wonld it have afforded for the conduct of the Government in regard to the dismissed operators ? We fan discern none. That the telegraphists acted wrongly and committed a grave breach of discipline we freely admit. Bnt they were all fined — heavily in proportion to their wretchedly small salaries. A fin's of £o to a man who gets only JJIOO a year is even more to him than one of £00 to another whose salary is .£IOOO. In each case it would be 5 per cent, of hi 3 income, but in the former it wonld mean curtailment of personal comforts, if not of actual necessaries, while i i the latter it would only involve at the worst, going without a few luxuries. They were all fined, and the ringleaders were suspended for six weeks without pay, in itself a heavy punishment. Their salary averaged about J3135, after tix or seven years' service, and six weeks' suspension was equivalent to a fine of .£ls or so. They might well have been pardoned then. Bnt next they were dismissed. Surely they might now have been deemed to have expiated their sin. But no. Their names were next sent round to sll the other colonial Governments, clearly implying a request that they should not be employed. We aro told this was done merely "as a matter of information " A mo3C unworthy pretext ! Very shallow too, for of what possible use could such " information" be unless as a warning against engaging ''black sheep" from New Zealand? Of course none. There can, therefore, be no doubt a3 to the motive when only one is consistent with the action. Mr. Johnston disclaimed " vindictivenes3," and we are quite sure there was none on his part. But a cruel and vindictive act has been committed, whoever was its real perpetrator or originator. We know that it was to a large extent successful in its object, the di-missed telegraphists, although the best operators in the service, being unable to obtain employment in the other colonies, and being reduced to great distress in consequence. It is said, with what truth wa know not, that one of tho other Governments communicated with replied with a "snub direct," assuring the New Zealand Government that they were quite capable ot judging for themselves whom they should employ. It is a pity that all the Governments, thus unwarrantly sought to be influenced, did not return sim lar slaps in the face for such officious interference. Tho whole affair is mmerably discreditable.