THE POSTAL INQUIRY

Otago Daily Times, Issue 18801, 2 March 1923, Page 5

THE POSTAL INQUIRY

COMMISSIONER'S REPORT. OFFICERS VINDICATED. (Pea United Prass Association.) WELLINGTON, March 1. Some time ago wide public interest was aroused by the hearing before Mr F. K. Hunt, S.M. (Commissioner) of changes made against principal officers of the Postal Department by Mr O. C. Masicngarb and adopted by the Post and Telegraph Officers' Association.

The Commissioner has new submitted his report, during the course of which, he says: In my opinion the Post and Telegraph Officers' Association has utterly tailed to prove any of the charges they made against the administrative and otner principal officers of the Post and Teleyraph Department. Not only did they lad to prove them, but the evidence adduced completely satisfied me that the officers entrusted with the investigation of the charges against the postal officials performed their difficult and unpleasant duties in an absolutely fair and proper manner. The hearing lasted three days, and at the conclusion, Mr Mazengaro, solicitor to the association, who wrote the letter containing the charges, unreservedly withdrew them. In view of the failure of the association to prove its case the Commissionin' orders it to pay the department i/50 by way of costs. the Commissioner states that as the position was placed before him ho understood the association was prepared to prove the tallowing charges : i (1) That when a complaint is lodged by an outsider the department prosecutes the cause of complainant with much vigour, and takes up an attitude which the police do not take up, even in criminal cases. (2) That the full weight of the department is used to obtain statements tram witnesses, and that without resorting to certain methods the department could not obtain these statements. (3) That tho department should not approach a person holding an inquiry without observing the usual rule that is respected in the case of judges, magistrates, and arbitrators —namely, not to approach a judge except in the presence of an officer charged and his counsel, “Taking these charges,' - ’ says Mr Hunt, “and the masters of complaint, as Mr Mazengarb preferred to call them, in their order, I find that there is no evidence of any kind called to prove that cases were presented to tho tribunal hewing them ether than in a fair and proper manner. On the contrary, ample evidence from the magistrates who hoard the cases, and conn sel who appeared for the officers charged, was given which quite satisfied me that the cases wore presented to the court by the responsible officers in an extremely fair and impartial manner. In my opinion it is a fine thing to know that a complaint made by a member of tho public against any member of this great public service will be honestly inquired into, and, if the facts warrant it, the department itself will see that the offender will bo brought to book.

“In regard to charge 2, it was on this point that most of the evidence was called. It was suggested that what is called ‘third degree’ methods were used by the officers in obtaining evidence, and that statements were given in confidence, and that that confidence was broken by investigating officers. I paid very great attention to the evidence given on this branch of the inquiry, and again I found no evidence to support tho charge. It is true that Winstanley says that before making the statement he said to Mr Laurensoa: ‘Would my remarks prejudice mo in any way whatever?’ and Laurenson replied ‘No.’ Mr Laurcnson’s version is that Win Stanley was very ill at the time, and he said: Tf I tell the truth will it prejudice me in anyway?’ and he (lie Ixuirensou) replied: ‘How can tho truth prejudice you, Win Stanley ?’ I believe Mr Laiiren.ton’s account of the incident. It is to bo noted that Winstanley, Reichekbach, Roger, and M'Kcnzio wore ouch asked if they had any complaint to make against Mr La (iron son’s methods, and they each said ‘No.’ I will not waste time in commenting on the evidence called on this head in the Kennedy cause, except to say that it proved nothing. “In regard to charge 5 there is no evidence to prove this allegation. It was merely put up, in my opinion, to induce the authorities to give the association a voice in the appointment of u magistrate or other person *to hold an inquiry. No more serious charges or allegations could be made against the administration of tho officers than have been made by, or rather adopted by the association. They range, as you can see, from a harsh prosecution, suppression of evidence, and improper means of obtaining evidence to iamnerinf? with the court itself. These charges should not have been made without careful investigation. The slightest inquiry would have shown that they were without foundation. How a. professional man could have formulated them when ho knew all the facts and had himself to see witnesses I am at a loss to understand.”