THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES MONDAY, JANUARY 6. 1930. THE TELEGRAPH SERVICE.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 20917, 6 January 1930, Page 6

THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES MONDAY, JANUARY 6. 1930. THE TELEGRAPH SERVICE.

The statement which the Prime Minister, who is also Postmastergeneral and Commissioner o£ Telegraphs, has issued respecting the dismissal of sis members of the telegraph staff at Auckland confirms that made a week ago by the Secretary of the General Post Office. The public had been invited by an official of the Post and Telegraph Employees’ Association to believe that the charge that was preferred against the men who have been dismissed was one of discussing racing over the telephone and that “ what they had done was nothing serious.” If this had actually been the case, it would certainly be agreed that the punishment inflicted on the men was one that was out of all proportion to their offence. Sir Joseph Ward has, after a perusal of the relevant documents, found that the offence proved against the men was that of divulging the contents of messages that passed through the office. If the official of the employees’ organisation, to whom we have referred, knew that this was the offence, which ho has described as “ nothing serious,” it may be wondered what in his judgment would constitute a serious offence. The • necessity of maintaining, the secrecy of the telegraph service requires no emphasis, for it is plainly of the highest importance that the community should be enabled to repose confidence in the integrity and fidelity of the telegraph staff. Nothing can ?hake the. faith of the public in the service that is performed by the Telegraph Department more surely than a revelation that the secrecy of the system has been violated. Concerning the extent to which the inquiry that was held before a magistrate in Auckland showed that the contents of telegrams had been divulged by members of the staff we are in ignorance. We know only that the magistrate held that it had been proved that there had been a disclosure of information that was obtained by telegraph officers under their oath of secrecy. The methods by which the offence was shown to have been committed may not have been such as will be generally approved. It is possible, -however, that they were the only methods that could be successfully applied in order that the guilt or innocence of operators, upon whom a suspicion may be presumed to have rested, might be established. The important fact is that the offence charged against the members of the staff who have been dismissed was not of the venial character that might, as was suggested by an officer of the employees’ organisation, be suitably met by “ a caution or probably a fine.” When the decision of, the Secretary of the Post Office was announced, the employees’ organisation /took prompt steps to lodge an' appeal to the board which has jurisdiction in such a matter. At the same time it protested to the Postmaster-general and sought his intervention “with a view to a more humane sentence being imposed.” Sir Joseph Ward has firmly disclaimed any authority to interfere. The Secretary of the Post Office, he points out, has absolute control of the staff and his decision in disciplinary matters can be reviewed only by the Appeal Board. It would certainly be an odd • circumstance if an appeal would lie both to the Post-master-general and to the Appeal Board.