THE P. AND T. DISPUTE.

Wanganui Herald, Volume LIII, Issue 15970, 12 November 1919, Page 4

THE P. AND T. DISPUTE.

Coaimektxng on the suggestion of the Keform Government to appoint a judge of the Supreme Court to examine the Cabinet documents and report on Sir Joseph Ward's contention that the Posit and Telegraph stall had been definitely promised a bonus unltil the end of the year, the Dunedin Star says: It is a position that seriously affects Ministerial honour,, and has no parallel in the administrative history of New Zealand. The public are now entitled to know all the facta of the unique position, which in its present obscurity is not without very disagreeable features. It is not a question of investing with something mode than is really in it a difference of Ministerial opinion about a matter of financial policy; tire gravity is on the,surface for everybody to see. An ‘ex-Mmister of the £rown, with long and intimate expereuce of Ministerial affairs, has asserted Ithat he,, an Post-master-General, made a. definite promise to do a certain thing involving tho expenditure of a largo sum- of public money, and that a Cabinet minute was on record showing that the sum was to be paid as a bonus to the Post and Telegraph staff. It was reasonable to infer without hesitation that such an assertion by an ex-Ministor, who is very naturally jealous of his reputation as a man of honour, would most ccitoinly represent a plain statement of fact. Unfortunately, such an has been challenged. The Prime Minister, also, an administrator ■ with an intimate experience of Ministerial procedure and

a fine sen so and appreciation of Cabinet etiquette—for Mr Massey unquestionably is very punctilious in suck matters—' asserts with equal emphasis that there is no Cabinet minute showing that such a recommendation was ever made, “The matter is far from simple,” sty* the Prime Minister, who explained to an embarrassed Douse that ho was not committed to a Judge, but he desired to have a thoroughly competent person J to look into the whole position and hike evidence, if necessary, as live wLole thing involved .£30,000 or Mo.OOO of public money. The matter is far from simple, and embraces something more than .£30,000 or ,£40,000. It involves a question of Ministerial honour and truth, which he Ministers of the Crown should be more precious than pearls of price. There has been uo suggestion of thj possibility of a simple mistake! having been made either by a Minister or by a clerk. Assertion on cither side is emphatic. Sir Joseph Ward has declared that “it would be good-bye to the safety of Ministers of the Crown if anyone alleging that he had made some promise could ask for a Judge or Magistrate or friendly J.P. to come along and try the case.” To this Mr Massey retorted that no case of trying, and no subpoena or any nonsense of that sort. It will be good-bye to a "exeat deal more thkn the safety' of Ministers of the Crown, who in such a sense need have no difficulty alxrali maintaining their safety, if the people ever come to the stage 1 when they cannot believe that the word of every Minister of the Crown is as good as hi* bond. Therein Ues the gravity of a very remarkable position, which after all may be nothing more lb an another example of how the work of the National Government was cither carried out or shelved.