POST OFFICE SECRECY

Evening Star, Issue 20591, 17 September 1930, Page 6

POST OFFICE SECRECY

THE AUCKLAND DISMISSALS PROTEST AGAINST REINSTATEMENT [Pr» Uhitsd Pebm Association.] WELLINGTON, September 16. Maintaining that it was absolutely essential that secrecy should be observed in tho Post Office, the chairman of the Wellington Chamber of Commerce (Mr I). J. M’Gowan) to-night expressed the opinion that the action of the department in dismissing six officers of the Auckland Telegraph Office for divulging information in regard to telegrams deserved tho commendation _of the business community. A resolution was passed protesting against the reinstatement of any officer who had been found guilty of such an offence. Mr M‘Gowan said that since the last meeting of tho council of tho chamber he had read in the newspapers that a parliamentary committee had recommended that the men should bo taken on again for tho reason that the punishment of dismissal was too harsh. As the matter of divulging information in tlie Post Office was a most serious one [jo had made it his business to ascertain the facts.

The men concerned wero suspected of divulging information in regard to racing telegrams. They were tried before a magistrate in Auckland and found guilty. They were then dismissed from the service. They were heard before an appeal board, consisting of a magistrate (Mr E. G. Cutten) as chairman and two departmental officers—one appointed by the department and one member elected by the votes of those employed in the department. The appeal was dismissed, the three members of the Appeal Board, including the men’s representative, concurring in the decision. The'men then petitioned Parliament,' and he understood the same evidence was given before the Parliamentary Committee.

Mr M'Gowan said he had looked up the statutes on tho question and found that in tire Post and Telegraph Act it was provided that officers who divulged information in regard to telegrams were liable to a fine not exceeding £IOO or to imprisonment for a period not exceeding six months. In view of that it could not bo said that tho punishment was harsh. Postal officers, he understood, took an oath of secrecy when they wore employed, and it was absolutely essential that this oath should be kept inviolate. ■‘This,” concluded Mr M'Gowan, “ is essentially a matter for tho business man to consider.. He should, by every means in his power, support tho department in its endeavour, to uphold the fine traditions that have existed in the Post Office. The fact that the telegrams wore racing telegrams has no bearing on the question. They might ns well have been business telegrams.”