Papuan Administrator.

[To the Editor.]

Sir, —Although a little belated —I did not see the February issue until yes terday—l would like to remark that the references in the article on Judge Gore, of Papua, are most unfair to other members of the Papuan Service.

There are at least three members of that Service who would be given a preference over Judge Gore by most of those competent to express an opinion.

These men possess infinitely greater qualifications—long training in admin istrative positions, lengthy service, men tal alertness, and balanced tempera ment. They are not “popular” in the cheap sense known in Papua, neither are they soldiers, nor are they noted for size, but what they lack in these regards they make up in solid experi ence of the right kind and sound judg ment —accomplishments certainly more in keeping with the duties involved.

Judge Gore is relatively a newcomer to Papua and cannot have acquired sufficient experience to justify selection as successor to Sir Hubert Murray—quite apart from what he may lack in other directions. Also, he is barred from selection by the unmistakable intention of the Papua Act —that the office of Lieutenant-Governor shall be held by an official having executive experience, which Judge Gore has not; and, while he remains a Judge of the Central

Court, he is not likely to have an op portunity of acquiring such experience.

I am, etc.,

J. T. Bensted,

Late Director of Public Works and an ex-Member of the Executive and Leg islative Councils of Papua.

Sydney, 25/6/1932.

EDITORIAL NOTE.— The article to which Mr.

Bensted refers was published without the con sent or knowledge of Judge Gore, and we regret that fact, as it now appears that it may cause Judge Gore some justifiable annoyance.

Anyone who knows Judge Gore will know that he is the last man to take any step—whether through a newspaper or otherwise—to influence any administrative rearrangement.