MORE LETTERS

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume 78, 28 June 1943, Page 6

MORE LETTERS

MAYOR OF WELLINGTON AND CHIEF JUSTICE INVITATION TO FREYBERG’S RECEPTION In a letter to the editors of the “Evening Post” and “Dominion,” Wellington, the Mayor of Wellington gives his explanation of why the Chief Justics (Rt Hon. Sir Michael Myers) did not receive an earlier invitation to the civic reception to Lieutenant-General Sir Bernard Freyberg in Wellington on Tuesday last Sir Michael Myers replies to this letter. In the course of his letter Mr Hislop writes: — The order of precedence for functions of this nature is not well understood by the public, and some people have the impression that the Chief Justice is the “Deputy Governor-General.” That is not so. The order of precedence for State functions is well established by the Government, and the Chief Justice ranks after the Prime Minister and members of Cabinet. At civic functions the mayor and councillors take precedence over all those mentioned above, and during the war the three Chiefs of Staffs are given similar standing to the Chief Justice. The number of seats on the platform is always limited, and at the Majestic Theatre the platform is smaller than the one we have in the Town Hall. The manager of the theatre advised us on Monday last that only 50 to 55 seats could be placed on the platform, depending on the size of the seats. The people to be accommodated were:— Chief guest and two aides-de-camp, 3; mayor, councillors, and wives (less three absent), 29; Prime Minister and members of Cabinet, 24; Leader of the Opposition( as a speaker) and wife, 2. A total of 58, without allowing for the Chief Justice, Chiefs of Staff, and others. We were informed some years ago that the Chief Justice would not attend civic receptions unless he was given a prominent place on the platform. He also made an arrangement with the town clerk that he did not wish to attend many of the civic receptions, but would ask him to forward an invitation whenever he desired to attend. As I desired to provide the Chief of Staffs with seats of equal prominence to that of the Chief Justice, and as putting them all on the platform would mean displacing an equal number of city councillors, I instructed the town clerk not to send an invitation to the Chief Justice without reference to me. The Chief Justice did not ask the town clerk to convey his wish to have an invitation to me till after 5 p.m. on Monday when the office was closed and the typists had left. Consequently it was impossible to have an invitation sent till next morning. In any event I was not going to displace councillors from the platform till I had considered the matter and discussed the position with some of the councillors. Later in the evening I discussed the matter with one councillor and the town clerk, and it was deeided to see if an alteration could be made by making a special table with supports over the footlights to gain additional width on a portion of the platform and send an invitation to the Chief Justice for the stage. The alteration to the furniture was made by which room was found for 12 additional seats. The invitation was in the Chief Justice’s office at 9.15 a.m. The dilemma in which I was placed by the message from the Chief Justice is now obvious. Had I agreed to send an invitation without consideration it would have had to be for the body of the theatre, in which case I would have been accused of doing so with full knowledge that the Chief Justice would have been slighted because it was not for the platform. On the other hand, I was not prepared to displace councillors. When the Chief Justice spoke to the town clerk he was invited to speak to me on the telephone so that the position could be clarified, but this he said he would not do. The gist of the situation is that the Chief Justice received an invitation in ample time to enable him to attend and to do honour to our distinguished guest. Because of some imagined personal slight he preferred not to do so. Had h e felt some personal annoyance in the matter surely his obvious course was to attend the ceremony and communicate his personal feelings to me direct. He did neither, but chose to provoke public controversy in the Press because he states the public should know why he was absent. If any of the public noticed his absence surely the Chief Justice could assume that such people would attribute his absence to good cause and not to any lack of courtesy toward our distinguished guest. Had the Chief Justice written to me direct a public discussion, which all must regret, specially while our guest is still with us, would have been avoided. In conclusion, I am compelled to say that unless the Chief Justice unreservedly withdraws the imputation contained in his letter I shall be compelled to regard the same as a deliberate affront to myself and my fellow-councillors.