THE BISHOP CASE.

Grey River Argus, 17 January 1922, Page 3

THE BISHOP CASE.

A SCANDAL VENTILATED. (Our Parliamentary Reporter.) WELLINGTON, January 16. On Friday Holland moved to reduce the mining vote to indicate dissatisfaction with the Government methods of administration in connection with the position of Mr. T. O. Bishop. He pointed out that in last year’s Estimates a sum of £631 appeared against the name of T. O. Bishop “on account of expenses incurred in studying mining methods and appliances outside I New Zealand.” The country had spent £630 in sending Mr. Bishop to ' study mining methods in the United . States ,and very shortly after his reI turn to the Dominion he resigned from | the M ines Department and entered the 1 employment of the Mine Owners’ Fed- ! eration, where he now functioned partly as mining expert and partly as paid ■ agitator. He was- now one of the I most bitterly hostile men to the coal miners. He was not attacking Mr. Bishop, but the Department. When deparemental officers were sent abroad at the public expense to study new methods, the obligation was surely upon the Department to see that they enI tered into an undertaking to remain ' in the country’s service for a stated 'period. Mr. Bishop’s salary was high, ; and he had no grievance on ‘ that I score. There was certainly a moral J obligation upon, Mr. Bishop, but ho 1 did not seem capable of recognising it. That, however, did not relieve the Government of its responsibility. j The Minister remained silent, and I when the vote was taken most of the Liberals voted with the Government. Fourteen votes were recorded for the ; amendment —eight Labour members and , six others.