CENSORSHIP OF MAILS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LIV, Issue 16624, 22 August 1917, Page 8

CENSORSHIP OF MAILS.

QUESTION OF AUTHORITY.

POSTMASTER EXAMINED.

CATHOLIC PUBLICATIONS.

NO LOCAL EXAMINATION.

The commission of inquiry into the allegations made against the Auckland postal service by the Rev. Howard Elliott was continued yesterday before Mr. H. W. Bishop, S.M. Mr. H. H. Ostler appeared on behalf of Mr. Elliott and the Protestant Political Association, and Mr. A. Gray, K.C., represented the Postal Department.

James Charles Williamson, chief" postmaster, Auckland, said lie had been in the postal service for over 40 years. He had been in his present position for 16 months. There were 90 men and one j | woman on the letter-carriers' staff. Sixty ] men and five women were employed in the mail room. The remainder of the Auckland staff comprised 139 men and 44 women, a grand total of 339. In regard to the investigation of complaints, it was usual to get as many particulars as possible from complaints, and it was his experience that it was prejudicial to a successful inquiry if particulars were delayed or withhold. For the year ended March 31, 1917. the number* of letters I handled was: Auckland postal district, 26,849,017; Auckland City, 12,333,911; j handled by letter-carriers, 6,175,429. Dur- ! ing the year 942 letters had been posted ! in the district without addresses and 16,145 letters were imperfectly or wrongly addressed. In the same period there had been 1486 inquiries for missing letters and parcels. Tho percentage of inquiries in proportion to tne number of articles handled was .004. The. Auckland staff was, on the whole, a capable one, and he had had no occasion during the time he had been in charge here to investij gate a case of serious neglect of duty. In regard to the present charges, "the Rev. Howard Elliott communicated with him by telephone twice on July 5. He alleged that some envelopes had been delivered without their contents. Witi ness asked the usual questions and for a j list of nanus. He also made a request to Mr. Elliott to defer the posting of «ny other circulars if such should be his intention. Mr. Elliott agreed to both lequests. The list had never been supplied, however, despite a specific inquiry lor it on the following day. Witness had endeavoured since the inquiry opened to i ascertain the reason for the "alleged delay and non-delivery of letters, but his inquiries were limited because necessary in- | lorrnation was withheld. Witness produced a list showing that on July 13 57 open envelopes containing white cards j and circulars were returned by lettercarriers marked " Gone, no address." When an envelope was superscribed " If undelivered return to Box — " it was generally held for seven days by the post oitice before being returned. " Eesidbs the 57 letters mentioned. 16 other letters were returned by letter-carriers for the following reasons: Not known by lettercarriers, no such, person in — Road, not found, and received without 'contents, not found, gone with reinforcements, and gone no address.

Censorship Ordered. Witness gave details as to the practice of collecting and sorting letters. In connection with his inquiries into the present charges he had no reason to believe that any letter-carrier had been guilty of a breach of duty. Four out of the nine envelopes that had been delivered without the contents bore external evidence that they had been posted without the flap of the envelope being enclosed inside. In regard to those envelopes with pieces of stamp paper adhering to the flap examination showed that the stamp paper was present when they were put through the stamping machine, and there was no external evidence to show that the envelopes had been opened. He inferred from this that the stamp paper was on the envelopes before they were posted. It was frequently found in* cases where large numbers of packets were posted that many were wrongly or insufficiently addressed or posted without contents. Referring to the censorship witness said that on December 19 he received an instruction from the head office to the effect that all literature to Box 912 was to be censored. A typed order was immediately sent down to the mailroom in terms of the instruction. That order had since been taken from the mailroom wall and posted 111 the general order book at the post office. In consequence of a communication from Wellington the order as to censorship was renewed, because the first order was thought to have been mislaid. An addition to the order— '-please see that all correspondence addressed to Box 912 is held for censorship —was made by witness on the ground that literature may have been contained in envelopes. The 2500 circulars referred to were not submitted to the censor, but the letters addressed to the Protestant clergymen were included in 260 sealed packets, and a further 200 submitted to the censor on the Saturday and Monday. The post office censor at Auckland, Mr. Clauston, had been a postal employee for a number of years, and had previously been censor in Christchurch. He did not inform witness of his instructions from the chief censor.

"Stricter Attention Required." Mr. Ostler; Will you produce the first instruction you had from Wellington regarding censorship?— Some of the instructions were sent back to the head office and have been retained on the file. The other instructions were produced. Mr. Ostler: Your first instruction was dated December 18, and stated that literalure distributed by the. Vigilance Committee was to be submitted to censorship. Did you receive any further instruction up to the time when the order came for a stricter censorship to be established?— No; there was no intervening instruction. Then both orders referred to. and specifically stated, that literature was to be censored —Yes. Notwithstanding your 40 years' expert. ence in the postal service, "and knowing that there was a marked distinction be*tween literature in the shape of pamphlets and sealed letters, you gave instructions for letters to be censored? Yes for the reason I have stated, namely, that literature could be contained in envelopes. You know how sacred a sealed letter is?— Yes.

Section 30 of the Post Office Act draws the very clearest distinction between sealed letters and letter-cards and other postal matter? Yes. Then without instructions you ordered letters to be opened ?—Yes, for the reason I have previously given. Do you not think you went beyond your instructions in ordering the censorship of correspondence ?— I do not. Subsequently to you giving that order you received another order from the head office. Will you produce it? The order was produced. It was from the assistant-secretary, Mr. Waters, stating that the censorship of all correspondence of Br/x 912 was to receive stricter attention of the officers in Auckland.

Did you put a further order in the order book after receiving that?—l cave instructions to the chief mail clerk, but as far. as I know he did not give the instruction.

Have you received, since April 5, any further instruction from the head office regarding the censorship of Box 912? No.

Have you an order in the order book bearing the date of July 6, or thereabouts' regarding the censorship of Box 912'— Yes, it was an order to the effect that the instructions regarding the censorship of Box 912 had been ignored by some officers and stating that unless the orders were fully observed the offenders would be s«T«aly dealt with.

Besides those mentioned is there another instruction from the head office regarding the censorship No. Then why did Mr. Morris say that the censorship on the letters addressed to the Protestant clergymen had not been lifted until Monday?— The instruction must have been to the censor direct. A telegram from the Assistant-Secretary of the Postal Department giving instructions for the censorship over the letters to the Protestant clergymen to be lifted was produced. Mr. Ostler, to witness: You said to Mr. Gray that the circulars had not been submitted to the censor. How does that, square with the statement that the censorship was not lifted until July 9? — Probably that is a matter that rests with the head office. Doos the censor have a private room to work in? No. What are his hours on Saturdays?— From 9 a.m. to 12 noon, or longer if he chooses. Then, the censor does* not work in secret? No. How does the censor manage to open letters that are sealed ?—I do not know. It would be difficult to open a sealed envelope without tearing or steaming?— Yes. Mr. Gray: Who said the letters had been opened? That is the first we have i heard of the suggestion. Mr. Ostler: What is the use of the ; censorship if letters are not opened? (Laughter.) Mr. Ostler, to witness: Is it not a fact that when letters are delayed you pride yourselves on a special delivery?We do it on occasions, if it is the Department's fault that the letters are delayed. It must have been apparent to the censor that the subject matter of the letters was perfectly harmless, and that it was important that the letters to the Protestant clergymen should be delivered without delay?—l cannot answer for the censor. Employment of Detectives. Is there a delivery of. letters on Saturday afternoons in the city ?No; only in the morning.. Can you explain why the letters addressed ~to the Protestant clergymen bore no mark, 'Passed by the Military Censor?"— No.

Is it not a fact that after some years' experience a sorter becomes so expert that ! he can tell if an envelope is without its ! contents —Very often. One of the 2500 circulars sent out was ! submitted to witness, who said that in the rapidity of sorting a sorter may have j unknowingly passed an empty envelope. i Sorters who discovered empty envelopes I in the post office were supposed to mark j them with a suitable superscription, such las " Posted without contents." None of I the envelopes that were supposed to have i been delivered empty were discovered by | the night sorters. Witness was cross-examined as to the I employment of detectives in connection I with the investigation when the allegaI tions were first made and in reply to Mr. : Ostler said that if a postal official wished , to be dishonest he could abstract the conI tents of an envelope while it was in the : course of the post. He said he had had I no trouble with dishonest officials during i the time he had been in Auckland. I Mr. Ostler : Was not one man in Auckland recently sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment for dishonesty ?—Since I came to Auckland ? I understand so.—l do not reoollect it. Counsel handed in a list of three names i of men whom he suggested had been the i subject of inquiry by the postal authori- , ties. J Mr. Williamson : I do not know ariy- ] thing about these names. { Mr. Ostler : Is not the Elliott Street post office under your jurisdiction ?—Yes. Would you not know if an officer there were suspended ?—Yes. Has not an officer there been suspended recently.Not so far as I know. A Ruling Reversed.

Mr. Ostler : Is it not a fact that the post office box of the Roman Catholic Federation is free from censorship ?—I do not know that it is censored.

Is that an admittance that it is not censored.—Yes.

Is the correspondence of any Catholic priest in Auckland censored? Mr. Gray objected to the question. Mr. Bishop said he would disallow the question as it was put. Mr. Ostler : I can show that the question is relevant.

Mr. Bishop : I will not allow the question.

Mr. Ostler: I would like to point out that the question is a relevant one because we have to inquire whether the censorship is in the interests of the Roman Catholic Church, and it is relevant that the inquiry should show that whereas these loyal Protestants' boxes are censored, there are no Roman Catholic priests in Auckland whose boxes are censored. (Loud applause.) Mr. Bishop : 1 will not allow the question to be put. After the luncheon adjournment Mr. Bishop said he had reconsidered the point and he now admitted that Mr. Ostler was entitled to put the question. Referring to the applause that had met a remark of Mr. Ostler's before the adjournment, Mr. Bishop said that the disturbance was most unseemly, and he was not accustomed to it. The proceedings were judicial, and the opinions of the public were not his concern. His remedy it it occurred again, would Ire to clear the Court, although he would be very loth to do that. A demonstration such as had occurred was most disturbing. In reply to further questions by Mr Ostler, Mr. Williamson said he had made inquiry from the night sorters as to whether they had allowed any empty em-elopes to pass, and they "said that they had not. A test had been made, and about a half-dozen envelopes were put through the night sorters' hands ihey xyere not detected by the sorters. Mr Ostler: hat has become of Miss Smiths letter that was posted to Box aiZ, containing an empty envelope that she had received ?-I cannot say, and as tar as I know it was not held tip in the post office. Has the censor got it?—l could not say ; 1 have made no inquiries Did you have any other complaints regarding empty envelopes and Box 912 besides the , com " made by Mr' Elliott —I do not recall any, but thev officers V 6 made to Some of m 'y Catholic Periodicals Not Censored.

Are you aware of any censorship having been established over anv correspondence addressed to a Roman Catholic organisation? Mr Gray submitted that according to the wording of the commission the ques tion could not be put; he said it was entirely irrelevant. Mr. Bishop said he foresaw the present difficulty when the first commission came to hand, but the question could not interfere or affect the interests of the Empire As previously stated he would now allow the question to be put by Mr. Ostler Mr. Ostler, to witness: Is the correspondence of any Roman Catholic organisation censored in Auckland?— There is no Roman Catholic organisation in New Zealand whose correspondence is censored in Auckland.

Is any Roman Catholic periodical or literature emanating from the Roman Lathohc Church censored in Auckland'— No.

Is The Tablet censored?— No. Is The Green Ray censored?— No. Mr. Bishop said he had received a com munication from the chancellor of the Romain Catholic diocese of Auckland gating that.The Green Ray was not a Roman Catholic publication. Mr. Ostler produced a copy, and stated that no one could read it without realising that it was absolutely in favour of the Church of Rome.

Witness stated, in reply to further questions by Mr. Ostler, that he had made no inquiries as to the proportion ot Roman Catholics employed in the Auckland post office. He had not heard of any friction between Roman Catholics and Protestants in the service in Auckland. Witness admitted that the alleged number of irregularities in connection with the present charges was much abo'-e the average he had previously emoted namely. .0004. * Mr. Ostler: Have you means of checking the care of sorters? Mr. Gray : Has any officer any authority. to communicate anv information .m regard to the post office?— No. Any in-

formation which Mr. Elliott had obtained about operations in the post office must have been given contrary to the regulations. The person giving such information must have committed a breach of the declaration he took Vhen entering the post office. Do you, as chief postmaster, know ■whether any censorship has been applied to the correspondence of any Roman Catholic official in Auckland Was this Roman Catholic a priest.— Yes. Mr. Ostler : Was he an alien enemy-?— I cannot answer that question. Witness added that it was not possible to distinguish between literature and correspondence until it had been handled by the censor. He had never at any time tried to get from the censor any information in regard to his methods of work. It was not in his power to order the release of any correspondence examined by the censor. The first he knew of Mr. Elliott's charges was when the report of the meeting was published in the Herald. Mr. Gray: Did you employ detectives to" inquire" into complaints in regard to empty envelopes?— Apart from the two ladies who called at the post office, have you had any complaints from any individual of rondelivery or abstraction of contents o. envelopes? No. Question of Regulations. George William Rudd, chief mail clerk, Auckland, said he had no specific complaint of lion-delivery of letters from Box 912. He received two circulars inviting him to the meeting of the Protestant Political Association. He had no doubt that the six envelopes (produced) had been stamped with the flap out. Mr. Gray: Whose duty is it to submit correspondence to the censor?— sorters place such correspondence in a special box. I am in charge of the box. Do you know whether any of the letters bearing Box 912, posted on July 3 .and 5, were submitted to the censor? — This was the result of a mistake by a sorter. Mr. Ostler: Who was it suggested the letter test? Was it you?— No. Were the letters put through any letter-box? No. Four of those letters were addressed to genuine people. Do you know that you are liable to two years' imprisonment for tampering with matter in the post. —Yes, I do. Who instructed you to take these letters out of the post when they were in the course of the post to genuine people The assistant postmaster. You have taken the statutory oath; don't you think this breach? — You* are aware that there aTe a number of Catholics in the Auckland post office.—One or two. Do you intend that to be taken literally ? Mr. Bishop : Do you know how many? —No, I don't. Mr. Ostler : Do you know that there are one-third Catholics? —If you say so I would not deny it. Do you know of any trouble- between them and Protestants? long ago? Say during the last two years.No. Do you admit that it is possible that during" the time between the posting of letters at Dominion Road and their delivery around Auckland, the contents might be abstracted? —This could be done quite easily. If the sorters find empty envelopes it is their duty to mark it Yes; every letter goes through the hands of the mail-room sorter and letter carrier's sorter and the letter carriers. So far as I know, none of the letters were marked by the mail-rcom sorters as being empty. To Mr. Gray : A man would have the opportunity, if he were so inclined, to abstract the contents of letters in the early houra of the morning. But the common honesty of the Civil servants was relied upon. There was a rule in the post office that all property identifiable should be returned to the owner. The letters used for the test were not intended to be delivered to the addressees.

Mr. Ostler: Can you explain how some postal employees knew that the envelopes contained notices of an Orange Lodge meeting?—l cannot.

Evidence of Other Officials.

Edith Blamford, counter officer, post I office, Devonport, said that Mr. Low' complained of receiving an empty envelope bearing the superscription, " Box 912." She offered to give him an inquiry form, but he replied that he would not bother any further about it. To Mr. Ostler : There were other such letters in the post office. David George Hayes, post office chauffeur, said he collected the letters from the Dominion Road post office about 1.15 a.m. The letters were put in a bag. He did not examine any of the letters. To Mr. Ostler : He went alone on the night rounds. A record was kept of the time he went out and when he came in. Alexander Linton, in charge of the night sorters, said the correspondence collected by Hayes was delivered to him m the early morning of Julv 3 and 5. There was a large number of letters bear' ing some superscription, but he did not notice what box was mentioned. He did not remember that any of the envelopes were empty. Douglas A. Comrie said he had been employed as a cadet in the Auckland post office for about nine months, and had a total length of service of five years. His evidence in chief was corroborative of that ot the previous witness. Launc?t E. Brady and John Robert Herd, messengers in the Auckland post office, save evidence. Thev stated that for a little time they were engaged in the mail-room when correspondence from Box 912 was being dealt with. They did not notice any empty envelopes in the course of their duty. \ James Courtney, sorter at the Auckland post office, gave evidence immediately before the adjournment until ten o'clock this morning.