33

H.—2

284. They go to a depot where they are kept for six months before they are allowed out at all ? —Yes; a system which I have recommended should be adopted here. 285. Would you be surprised to learn that constables have told me that, through want of knowledge of their duty and legal powers, they have abstained from interfering at many points where they thought they should have interfered ?—I am not surprised at anything the constables have told you. I think constables have no right to say such a thing as that. 286. That is not the point. Are you surprised?— Not in the least surprised. It is their own fault: that is all I can say. They are paid to know the law, and Ido not see why they should not know it. 287. Has Police Eegulation No. 61—" Members of the Force seeking by influence to obtain promotion or other advantage in the service are warned that such interference on their behalf will militate against the end they have in view, and render them liable to severe punishment"—been enforced?— Yes ; I think so, where you could find out. It is impossible to find out. The men do not do it themselves, but get their wives to do it for them. 288. As a matter of fact, have not interferences on behalf of men's promotions and transfers been made by public men, politicians, and tradesmen in numerous cases ?—Yes; no doubt they have. 289. Notwithstanding the fact that examination classes, as instituted under Mr. Stratford's control, were abolished, probably for good reasons, you admit, Colonel Hume, that there is a necessity for special training of the police for street duty, by having instituted classes of instruction under the Inspectors ? —That is right. 290. And did you recommend a central depot being established?—l have done so in my report. 291. Yesterday Colonel Hume stated he considered the Force thoroughly efficient, and that no disorganization existed. In your report of 1892, on page 3, you say, "As regards the detective branch of the Force, a thorough reorganization is required, and it should be placed under the control of a man experienced in criminal investigation." Has that been done ?—Yes. 292. Under whose control ?—Mr. Tunbridge. 293. I want to establish this point: that Colonel Hume tried to secure these reforms, and failed to do so ; and I wish to find out why the Minister in charge failed to give effect to it ?—Yes. 294. I suppose you spoke to the Minister privately on matters concerning the Force when you presented your reports ? —Yes. 295. And practically nothing was done to make the Force as you wished ?—I would not say that. 296. Nothing was done to place the detective branch of the Force under the control of a man experienced in criminal investigation, although you made the recommendation in 1892, and right on until October, 1897, when Mr. Tunbridge was appointed ?—That is so. 297. Did the disorganization which existed in 1892 continue to 1897 ?—I do not think so. The very fact of my writing a report like that helped to pull the detectives together; and there is no doubt that they improved very much. 298. In your report of 1894 to the Defence Minister, in paragraph 5, there is an expression which I should like you to explain. Speaking of promotion, you say, "In making changes it has been my object to alleviate, as far as possible, such injustices as have existed for some years in the Force —viz., married constables being stationed in towns, audthus having house-rent to pay, while single constables had charge of stations, and got house-rent, light, and fuel free ; and junior constables having charge of stations, while their less fortunate senior comrades were doing street duty " ; and now, when a station becomes vacant, the senior constable not having charge of one is, when duly qualified, as a rule, promoted to the vacant station. Were there any exceptions to that rule ?— I cannot specify them; there were bound to be. 299. Yesterday I asked you to see if there were any exceptions, and whether no undue promotions were made ? —I know of two cases. I asked the Minister to promote the men, and he did so. 300. That is, for meritorious conduct ?—-No, for good general service. 301. And beyond these two there were no other undue promotions?— No. 302. Colonel Pitt.] What do you call " undue promotions " ?—They were promoted out of their turn. 303. Mr. Taylor.] In February, 1897, there was a batch of promotions of constables to the rank and pay of first-class constables, and two included in the list were Frederick Charles Smith and Timothy O'Eorke : Were they promoted by virtue of seniority ? Those are the two men I have just alluded to. 304. They were promoted for special reasons ?—Yes. The man Smith was formerly an officer in the Force, and I am not sure whether he resigned or was retrenched, and he got back as a constable. I recommended him for promotion, as he was a good officer. Constable O'Borke did some clever identification work at Otaki. 305. Is it not a rule, where there are special reasons for promotion out of order, that they are gazetted?— Yes. ■ i 306. Were any special reasons gazetted in these cases ?—No. It was my mistake only ; it was an oversight. 307. As a matter of fact, did not these two promotions form the subject of Ministerial consultation ?—No ; they were purely from myself. I always had an eye on the man Smith up the Wairarapa. O'Eorke was stationed at Otaki, where a great many people passed through by the trains, and he had led to the capture of two or three thieves. The promotions were purely on my own responsibility. I remember the Minister asked me if I was quite sure they were all right. There was no political influence whatever in either of these promotions. 308. The Minister did ask you whether it was all right ? —Yes, whether I was justified in making the recommendations to him, " because," he said, " I know nothing about the men "

§— H. ?„