SCRIMGEOUR v. WILSON

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 87, Issue 62, 16 March 1943, Page 3

SCRIMGEOUR v. WILSON

Sir, —In a recent issue you published a sub-leader under the above caption and, inter alia, made the obesrvation: “That railwaymen who passed resolutions concerning this matter, could not have known both sides ot the case.’’ Within the railway service there exists ample safeguards against arbitrary decisions, particularly where dismissal or suspension is involved, and quite naturally railwaymen are prompt and unstinting in lending the moral force of their aid to a fellow public servant who, on boarding a train at Auckland, is handed a telegram conveying the Information that the recipient is sacked unceremoniously. Linked with this is the plain fact that the portfolio of Broadcasting is being administered by an appointee who is not a member of the people’s chamber, and can, as a consequence, successfully evade being questioned by the people’s representatives. It may be held in some quarters that around the "Scrim” incident a psychological halo of demogoguery has been built; in any case it is undeniable that, in the mass revival sense, "Scrim” has come into his own again. It is the duty of any Government to determine whether such methods as were employed in the Scrimgeour case are dangerous from many viewpoints; it is also incumbent upon the Administration to require some measure of conformity to traditional democratic practice. The storm of protest that issued from railwaymen’s organisations has given rise to hysterical outbursts from the present Government. Such enithets as "Prejudiced clamour," "Contemptible,” are some examples. But I would suggest such sensitivity might be turned to better use, for it would seem there is enough dictation in the world already without getting it from alleged Labour Governments. —I am, etc., SYDNEY G. PEARCE, Eastown Railway Workshops.