THE SUSPENDED TELEGRAPHIST

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1610, 7 January 1903, Page 46

THE SUSPENDED TELEGRAPHIST

TELEGRAPH DEPARTMENT AND FARMERS’ UNION.

Mr A. J. McCurdy, “Ronnie Glen,” Trentham, writes:—A paragraph in the “Times” of the 26th of November has reference to myself, and I ask your indulgence to present to your readers some of the facts bearing on the matter. It is scarcely complimentary to your journal for the Hon. O. H. Mills to say he knew nothing of my being called on to resign from the Telegraph Department, as the information was first made public in your local columns on the 13th November. His plea of ignorance can hardly be accepted, seeing that a journalist, following up your “local,” interviewed me aim obtained a faosimile of the whole i>i the correspondence between the department and myself, which fie wired to his papers on the 18th instant. The matter, as wired, has been published in most of the leading papers of the 19th and later dates, and has calico, forth comment anything but complimentary to the Secretary of the department and his Minister. My non-attendance at a “court-mar-tial” is easily accounted for. A me norandum, dated 11th November, sum morning me to attend in Wellington rn 13th November, reached me at Masterton on the 14th. I replied, -fiallenging the legality of the Board’s appointment. No reply to my objection has yet reached me. I returned to Trentham on 17th by express train and was in Wellington on business on Tuesday. On my return to Trentham at 6 p.m., I received a summons, dated 14th, to attend a meeting of the Board, which had taken place on the day of receipt. It is customary to give at least seven days’ notice in all inquiries; in my case three days was deemed ample by the Board, although the mail for Trentham only leaves once daily, and there is no postal delivery in the district. So much for the non-attend-ance point.

As to my connection with the Farmers’ Union, I joined the Upper Hutt branch in January last, after reading the speeches of the Hon PostmasterGeneral and ..the. Minister for Education (as rep Glided, in the “New Zealand Times”) at on January 4th. Si)- Joseph Ward’ is reported as saying: “He welcomed the formation of the Farmers’ Union, and said the farmers had a perfect right to combine to protect their interests and have their legitimate requirements attended to. The union could do much good, and he refused to believe that any man, by joining the union, would, sacrifice his own political beliefs.” Hon. Mr Walker spoke in a similar strain. I subsequently undertook the secretarial work of the branch (a purely honorary position), and since then we have been working in entire harmony with the member for the district and those departmental officers with whom we necessarily come into touch. The matters dealt with have been:—Abattoirs and tiheir hearing on country slaughterhouses, local public works, eradication of noxious weeds, co-operative markets, meat export, fire and accident insurance, fishers and trespass, small birds and rabbit nuisance, rating on unimproved values, and other such topics of interest to the farming community. In regard to the statement that I have refused to give up the union, permit me to point out tfiat no reason has been adduced why I should so do. Having been denied a sight of the papers on the subject, or any information whatever, I insisted, without avail, on my right to know who had laid the information against me, the offence, and the evidence, if any, so that I might know what to defend myself against. I am denied the courtesy and justice accorded to even a common felon! The only point raised is that I am' a member of the Farmers’ Union, and no rule hearing upon the matter has been quoted. I wrote on 20th October as follows (after a correspondence which commenced on the 28th August):—“l do not see my way to resign from either the New Zealand Farmers’ Union or from the Post and Telegraph Department. I am not cognisant of having committed any offence which would necessitate either line of action being taken by me.” I was then suspended, previous attempts to intimidate me and cause me to relinquish my freedom as a citizen and my rights to enter a union having failed. From October 20th I have been no longer a salaried officer of the State, being advised that I would receive no pay during suspension. I nave been suspended now over five weeks. Does the department think, having failed to intimidate me, it can starve me into submission to its tyrannical acts? If so, it is woefully mistaken. I have faithfully discharged my duty as an officer of the department throughout the whole of my service, which commenced in June, 1880, and have ever placed my private affairs in the background, being ready at all times to work whenever called upon, and never upon any occasion has there been even a whisper of breach of secrecy on my part. It has been reserved, for a Cabinet Minister to import the question of “secrecy” into the matter—that secrecy which, among the higher officials, is not always observed in connection with telegrams. To those who may be interested, I would refer the reports in the Napier “Herald,” Christchurch “Press,” and other papers of the 19th November, on file at the Public Library.