THE LONGTON CASE

Evening Post, Volume XCVII, Issue 133, 7 June 1919, Page 5

THE LONGTON CASE

RAILWAY OFFICERS' COMMENT.

Commenting upon the Longton appeal case, the Wellington correspondent of the Railway. Officers' Advocate states that it "produces grave symptoms of juggling with justice, to the plainly apparent concern of every railway officer. We have no desire to dip into the pros and cons of the case on either side further than to briefly refer to the board dealings. The Assistant General Manager, representing the Department, produced four specific charges against Mr. Longton, which at the most must ue put down as trifling, though the gravity of insubordination alleged was made much of. Significant it seems that the principal witness against Mr. Longton, his immediate superior officei', was not called to state his version of. Mr. Longton's shortcomings. Further weight added to the case was the fact that Mr. Hatchings—officers' representative on the board, and an officer of high departmental position, formerly S.M. over Mr. Longton, and, as audit inspector, with full knowledge of the appellant's ability and temperament—adopted, together with his judicial colleagues, the reasonable decision that the weight of the evidence was insufficient to warrant the extreme punishment of non-promotion. Apparently the Act permits the power of Ministerial veto, but this power.has not been given effect to for a long time. Unfortunately, the fancied security of our service has been disturbed by the recent application of this autocratic power, which, with a full knowledge of the Ministerial position, forces us to the conclusion that the alleged power of the Minister is wielded by the Department. It is not at all surprising to find not only a stir of protest from the Service, but from the public also. Those on the bank are the best critics of the game, and when the public press gives voice to the position, there is certainly something wrong. It is doubly unfortunate that the new management should commence its career to the accompaniment of such a howl of adverse public opinion over such an affair. We would point out that this is not an age of autocracy but of democracy, and we beg to politely remind the Minister that the board is democratic, its appointment being based to a certain extent upon such lines, and it is unreasonable to expect that the Service' will submit to such injustice as has been meted out. The late Mr. Bishop,,. as chairman of the board, made it clearly understood that he would not tolerate any interference with his decisions, and we are awaiting the attitude of Mr. Hewitt and his colleaguos over the Ministerial decision in this case."'