183

H.—2

Court opened." I may point out that, though a man appears to be drinking, there is no charge against him, and what can you do ? He was removed from Helensville to be under the Inspector's eye. That is all we could do. 3. The Chairman.'] This you do not regard as a charge against him?—No, Sir. 4. Mr. Poynton.] But there was a charge against him, and you fined him £1 ?—I fined him £1 on the 24th June. 5. Mr. Taylor.] I ask you whether there are no reports there, having reference to the neglect to keep his books posted up while at Helensville, indicating that that was attributable to drunkenness ? —No. It has just struck me that Mr. Bush may have reported to the Justice Department. He would report to that department, and not to the Police Department, as to work in connection with the Clerk of the Court. 6. Colonel Pitt.] Do you know that there was a report ?—No, Ido not; but it has just struck me that is how a report may have been made by Mr. Bush. 7. Mr. Taylor.] Is there no reference there to his habits at all?—No, not a word. 8. Colonel Pitt.] If the Stipendiary Magistrate reported to the Justice Department as to the conduct of a constable, would not the Justice Department send that to the Commissioner of Police ? —Yes, but it would be returned to the Justice Department. 9. Have you any report besides that ?—Here is one by myself, dated 29th May, 1895: " Constable O'Brien is fined ss. for neglecting to keep his books posted up to date, and he is further deprived of the charge of a station." He was removed to Auckland a short time afterwards. 10. You have got no reports from Auckland since ?—Only the one I read to you. There is a complaint about want of tact on the part of O'Brien. It is in reference to an assault on one Thomas McCluskey, and Inspector Hickson reports : " Constable O'Brien states the injured man could not say who had assaulted him, and he made many rambling and contradictory statements ; and yet he took him to the Magistrate's Court to lay information. I wish to see Constable O'Brien in my office to-day. —1/4/97." Then, further, the Inspector says, "If Constable O'Brien had got the blood washed off the man's face it would have been seen that the cut was so slight that it would not be necessary to take him to a doctor. The man was very much muddled; but because he asked the constable to take him to the Court, so that he could lay information for a warrant or summons, the constable complied with his request, and left him there. I have already told the constable that he should not have taken the man in such condition as he was in to the Court, that he should have obtained from the man full particulars as to who had assaulted him. Has a warrant or summons been issued in the case ? When Constable O'Brien was before me, he stated that the watchhouse-keeper and several constables were in the watchhouse wheu he found the man there, and none of them appeared to notice him. I require the names of the constables who were in the watchhouse, and the watchhouse-keeper's explanation." Then, there are reports from the constables. Then the Inspector sends this: " I have inquired into this with the view of pointing out to the constables who were in the watchhouse when Thomas McCluskey came in to make complaint, that one of them should have attended to him, and not have waited until the watchhouse-keeper would be disengaged. The watchhouse-keeper, Constable Crean, was taking a charge preferred against against a prisoner named Small .... I desire to draw your attention to the want of tact displayed by Constable O'Brien." Before that was decided, I suppose his drinking in the hotel comes up, when he was fined £1. 11. Mr. Taylor.] Was he removed ?—I cannot tell you when he was removed, but he has been removed to Napier. 12. Have you got the date of his removal?—No, I believe it was in August, 1897. 13. Do you regard Inspector Hickson as a pretty strict disciplinarian ? —Yes. 14. Do you regard Inspector Emerson as likely to keep a strict eye on a man of these habits? —It is not so much a question of the Inspector as the sergeant. 15. Who is sergeant at Napier? —Sergeant Mitchell, I think. 16. Do you regard Inspector Emerson as being a man likely to be strict in these matters? —I have no reason to find fault with his doing. 17. Do you say he is as strict as Inspector Hiekson ?—No, I do not think he is. 18. In the light of the evidence we have had this morning, do you think O'Brien's promotion to the position of first-class constable in February, 1897, was calculated to add to the efficiency of the Force?— Well, there is nothing proved against him. If you boil this report down :"lam of opinion his illness was, if not wholly, at least partly due to drink." What is the use of that ? 19. Do you think the responsible duties a policeman has to perform to the public are not sufficient to warrant the department in having only steady men in the Force?—ln this particular case the man had twenty years' service, and in view of that service, and when you find he has only three reports against him, I think he is fit for promotion from the second class. 20. Irrespective of his habits as far as sobriety is concerned ?—I cannot take general charges. I will not judge a man on general charges. 21. Does not the department attempt to make itself familiar with the actual character of police officers? —Yes. 22. If you hear general charges, is it not the duty of the department to specially investigate?— You cannot investigate general charges, that is a moral impossibility. 23. But when the charges bear on a specific individual? —-Not unless you can give specific instances. 24. I mean a charge of insobriety ?—How can you inquire into that ? Ido not see how general charges can be inquired into. 25. Mr. Tunbridge.] As to the department inquiring into the general conduct of the officers: if the Inspectors were allowed to send confidential reports to the Commissioner, that were not accessible to the various constables, would not that very materially assist the Commissioner in