[Letters to Editor]

Abstract

SIR WILLIAM NOBLE places a construction upon the words used in our article which they cannot reasonably bear. The purpose was to direct attention to the Report from the Select Committee on the Telephone Service (1922), a document very generally admitted to be one of the most important and valuable, of parliamentary papers issued in recent years; and we believe the article to which Sir William Noble refers to be a fair comment on a matter of great public interest. The Committee definitely says in this Report: “We cannot agree with the trend of Post Office evidence that from a telephone point of view the existing organisation works perfectly well, however cleverly managed it may be,” and therefore substantially finds that there was good foundation for the complaints concerning the inefficiency of the Post Office telephone service: the Committee, in consequence, recommends a “thorough reform” (our italics) in the Post Office organisation. The minutes of the evidence taken by the Committee are contained in a public document (H.C. 191 of Session 1921), and therefore the names of the witnesses and particulars concerning them can be readily ascertained by those who so desire. Now, it is true that evidence was given by witnesses representing newspaper organisations, namely, the Press Association and the Newspaper Society; on the other hand, apart from the Post Office officials, the great majority of the other witnesses who came before the Select Committee attended in order to represent important organisations of various kinds, some fourteen in all, such as Chambers of Commerce, Agricultural Associations, and two Municipal Corporations. The general trend of the evidence of the latter witnesses amounted to a criticism of the quality of the telephone service, and although a great volume of the fault-finding was directed against the administrative system of the Post Office, many of the adverse comments made by the witnesses referred to work of a technical kind.