THE POSTAL CHARGES

Otago Witness, Issue 3312, 5 September 1917, Page 9

THE POSTAL CHARGES

EVIDENCE CONCLUDED AUCKLAND, August 21. At tho postal inquiry to-day Mr Willi in. son, chief postmaster at Auckland, m the coarse of his evidence, said that tho stamp marks on tho envelopes delivered without the contents indicated that they had been posted with the flaps open. During the year a large number of envelopes were received from various sources unuddressed or without their contents. In one instance 100 envelopes were posted without enclosures, and were returned to the firm from which they came. Ho received instructions from Woilington to censor tho correspondence for Box and placed instructions in the order book for his officers accordingly. Cross-examined, Mr Williamson said that the Auckland censor was Mr Clouston. wiio was formerly censor in tho south. Witness had no control over him, and had no knowledge of his methods or the instructions he received. The censor's hours on Saturday were 9 a.m. till noon. • The night clerks on duty on the night tho circulars were posted Several postal officials gave evidence as to the sorting of the letters in question. August 22. The Censor (John P. P. Clouston) said he was acting censor and clerk in tho Chief Post Office, Auckland. So far as his appointment in tho postal department was concerned, ho was also .postal censer, a position he had occupied since December 14 last. He had filled a similar position at Christchurch from February, 1915, to September, 1916. The whole of his time was not taken up with censorship duties. Ho received his instructions regarding the censorship from the deputy chief postal censor at Wellington. Ho was not accountable to tho post office, but solely to tho deputy chief postal censor. He first knew anything relating to box 912, and that it was to bo censored in December, 1916, when ho received instruction from his chief, and not from the post office. Mr Gray (for the department): Without inquiring into your methods and practice, may I ask whether the correspondence of any other person or organisation in Auckland beside box 912 is censored? —I am not permitted to say. Did you have any matters relating to box 912 submitted to you between July 2 and July 9? —I do not know if I am permitted to say. Witness received about 200 sealed envelopes at 9 a.m. on Saturday, 7th July, and released them when ho received instructions from his superior officer in Wellington at about 11 a.m. on Monday, tho 9th. Was tho holding of letters an act of the post office or the censor? —Tho censor. Some of the letters in question have pieces of stamping paper stuck to the back of the envelope, was that your work?— No. lit Ostler: Did thg Solicitor-general see vou? —I saw him. Did ho tell you what questions you should answer? —No. I consulted him about a special point. Did you open any of the letters? —I am not permitted to say. Who told you not to say ? —Tho deputy chief postal censor. Is it in writing?—Yes. Will you produce it is confidential.

Is the deputy chief postal censor a postal department' officer or a military officer?— A postal department officer. Do you open letters and read them? — Of course I do. Did you open any of the letters to Protestant clergymen?—l cannot tell you how I dealt with them. Did you know the contents of the letters? —I cannot say anything about it. Where are the letters that were kept back? —I have no information to give you regarding them. Are any kept back ?—I cannot tell you. Did you submit to Wellington any of the circulars? —Yes, one came into my hands as a private individual. TMs concluded the evidence. ADDRESSES OF COUNSEL. AUCKLAND, August 23. Counsels* addresses were taken at the postal inquiry this morning. Mr Gray contended that the Rev. Mr Elliott's charges had not been substantiated. Out of 2500 envelopes posted, containing circulars, only nine persons received them empty, and only two persons had been shown as not having received them at all. Notices posted to 40 clergymen had been shown to have been delayed. The Censor and the Post Office could not bo held in any way responsible. He drew a comparison between the figures he quoted and the charges of corruption made by Mr Elliott from a public platform. In one instance, at least, a letter was proved to bo wrongly addressed. In a number of instances letters were posted with the flaps outside.

Mr Ostler, in replying, submitted that the function of tho Solicitor-general was wholly advisory. He had no right to take independent action in recommending a censorship. Such action ho held to bo entirely •unconstitutional without instruction from the responsible Minister. Mr Ostler then proceeded to review tho evidence. While ho (counsel) admitted that the Solicitorgeneral was not influenced by the Roman Catholic Church, ho had directed an illegal act in tho interests of that Church. The pamphlet which ho censored was not directly connected with tho conduct of the war, and interference with such political literature was an unjustifiable encroachment on the right of free speech. The pamphlet related only to the origin of tho war, not to the war itself. The defence that it might lead to prejudioe recruiting was obviously elaborated after it was known that a public inquiry was to bo held. Moreover, when a censorshin of Box 912 was directed, it was clear that the voluntary recruiting had broken down, and tho Military Service Act had been law for four months and a-half. After Mi- Ostler's address the Commission was declared closed.