AN INJUSTICE DONE

Evening Star, Issue 18156, 22 December 1922, Page 3

AN INJUSTICE DONE

CONDUCT Df POSTAL INQUIRIES.

ME MAZENGARB ADMITS SRROR.

THE OFFICIALS VINDICATED.

Investigation into the methods of miiring evidence by ibo dnoiitoa officers of the Post and Telegraph Depairtmoot against whom charges of unfairness and harshness have been made by tho Post and Telegraph Officers’ Association: was continued yesterday at Wellington before Mr F. K. Hunt, S.M., sitting as a Royal Commissioner. Mr H. E. Conibs represented the nsso ciation, and the officials charged were represented by Mr P. S. K. Macassey. Mr Macassey, opening for the officers, said that he felt compelled to remark that each and every witness luwPnot only failed to prove the allegations, but had, on the other hand, entirely disproved them. He thought that at tills stage Messrs Combs and Mazengarb should adopt the proper course and withdraw the letter which was the basis of the charge. Proceeding, he said ho wanted to make some comment on the actions of Messrs Mazengarb and Combs in this matter. The charges were made particularly against two of the highest officials in the Post and Telegraph Department, Messrs Laurenson and Markman. Surely it was the duty of Mr Mazengarb, as counsel for tho association, and Mr Combs, as secretary, to ascertain if these charges were on a solid basis before they made them-. His Worship ; You cannot blame Mr Combs. . Mr Macassey (doubtingly) : Well, I don’t know. His Worship ; He thought Air Mazcngarb had been through the whole business and should know. _ . . On being appealed to by His Worship, Mr Combs said that he knew nothing of tho matters from, his own knowledge. He had been at only one inquiry for about five minutes, and it had lasted six days. He relied on Mr Mazengarb, and considered that he was quite competent., Air Macassey said he accepted that. When any professional man made charges of so serious a nature he_ sliould bo sure of bis grounds. What evidence had been produced? He suggested that the whole thing was personal bias and venom against Mr Laurenson, who had been in the department for many years and had an excellent record. He had gained tho admiration of all the officers. He had made hundreds of investigations, and there had been ten or twelve formal inquiries. They had letters from well-known counsel who represented various and the magistrates before whom inquiries were bold, stating that. Air Laurenson had been honorable and fair throughout, and fit remained for Mr Mazengarb to come and make such charges against Mr Laurenson. A. D. Thomson, late Civil servant and magistrate, in the course of evidence, said that tho inquiries in question had been held before him. He said that Mr Laurenson was fair throughout. W. D. Moms, Secretary of the General Post Office, said that Sir Mazengarb showed him a facsimile of Ms letter to the association before it was sent to tho association, and ho pointed out tho unfairness of the accusation. He had never received any complaint from the officers as to the methods of the officers charged, and had every confidence in them. T. Markman, first assistant secretary of the department, said that Mr Mazengarb had alleged that he had improperly used his position to obtain statements from two hoys. Witness had taken action, and Air Mazengarb bad withdrawn his statement. T. B. Salmon, who was acting postmaster at Napier at the time of the Soringbok trouble, gave evidence to the effect"that it was contrary to his experience that the department did not protect its officers when inquiries were being held. Tho departmental officers did not prosecute, but investigated and reported. George Ormsby, postmaster at Patea, said that this was only_ his second experience of postal inquiries, but he saw nothing objectionable dn the method ->f conducting them. John Laurenson, chief inspector of - the department, said that in the past ton years he had conducted a great number of |X)stal inquiries. This was the first occasion on which a complaint had been made against him., so far as he knew, on the point of his alleged unfairness at inquiries. Witness produced letters commending his fairness. Various officers of the department test! fled to the fairness of Laurenson's methods In the conduct of inquiries, and said that the department’s method was to investigate and report, not to prosecute. Laurenson, in the course of tho evidence, produced testimonials from magistrates and lawyers who had been concerned with the postal inquiries to the effect that Laurenson had represented the department with fairness. During the evening sitting Mr Mazengarb said : “ I wish to say that now I realise, after the exclamations given by the departmental officers, that there are other inferences which can be drawn from the actions. lam satisfied that, although the illustrations were correctly._ referred to, the inferences from these actions may be different from what I assumed. I realise that the prosecutions have been conducted with more fairness than I thought when I wrote, and I realise that the criticism in my letter goes entirely too far. I am snrrv I drew inferences from the facts. As I observed them they oast aspersions on the officers concerned. I will withdraw the charges unreservedly.

Mr Combs said that he would like to say a few words as to the position he had found himself placed in. The Commissioner ; I sympathise with you entirely. Mi- Combs said that any matter of importance that came before him as soc«tary of the Post and Telegraph Officers’ Association ho was bound to bring before his executive. In this case the executive decided that the statements in Mr Mazengarb's letter were so important that they should be referred to the PostmasterGeneral. Mr Macassey asked for costs to bo anarded the department. The Commissioner : I will consider it.