E. MACDONELL.]

21

I.—lα.

Thursday, 11th September, 1902. Ewen Macdonell examined. (No. 7.) 1. The Chairman.} You are Inspector Macdonell? —Yes. 2. I may say that it has been ruled by the -Speaker that in cases before Committees all evidence given is equivalent to being given on oath? —I see. 3. So that all the pains and penalties for misstateinents, or anything of the sort, before this Committee are precisely the same as if you were sworn in a Court of law ?—Just so. The Chairman : Well, Mr. Tunbridge, the Committee is all ready. Commissioner Tunbridge : I do not propose to examine Inspector Macdonell, Mr. Chairman. He is merely here in case the Committee might desire to ask him any questions on evidence that has been given. Perhaps Mr. Maginnity desires to examine him. I should, however, be glad to ask him a few questions later on, perhaps, so far as the case affects my own individual action ; that is all. 4. The Chairman.'] You seem to have made a report on these cases, Inspector Macdonell?— Yes, I made a number of reports. 5. But there is one report in particular where a great many things have been done by inference and innuendo ?—I beg your pardon. 6. With reference to an hotel, the name is left blank in the evidence where you are made to say that this hotel, at any rate, is of doubtful character? —Yes. The Chairman ; Had you any evidence to guide you in saying that ? Mr. Maginnity : May I ask which hotel is referred to ? 7. The Chairman.] It is the Postboy Hotel, is it not ?—Yes. 8. Will you please tell the Committee how you arrived at that conclusion ?—I beg your pardon. I did not arrive at any conclusion. I simply said what I was informed. I was informed by different people that it was a house of doubtful character morally. I reported that to my superior officer for his information. I was not making a charge against the hotel. I was simply stating what I was informed. 9. Did you get your information from reliable sources ?—Well, I thought so. 10. Will you tell us some of the people that you got your information from? —I got it from some of the police. 11. Will you tell the Committee from which of the police you got this information ? —I think I got it from two —Constables Williams and Bird. 12. How many constables are there in Nelson ?—Six. 13. These were two of the constables in Nelson at the time?— Yes—that is, to the best of my recollection; and others told me something similar, besides the constables. I might say again, however, that I did not make any charge against the hotel. It was only for the information of my superior officer. But, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask you this in reference to the matter: The Chief Justice the other day stopped a solicitor from asking the police where they got information, or any question whatever in reference to it. The law would not allow the Supreme Court to inquire into that. 14. You are before a Committee of the House now, not the Supreme Court: we have power to call for persons, papers, and things?— Yes. 15. It is a very different matter from the Supreme Court. We do not know anything about what the Chief Justice did. You are before a Committee of the House ?—I understand that, but I did not know whether the law was the same. 16. We do not know anything at all about the Chief Justice's law; it is the law of this Committee ?—Very well. Hon. Mr. Hall-Jones : I think the witness should be informed that he need not answer any question asked him which he considers against the public interest to answer. The Chairman : A witness can, of course, always decline to answer questions; but there is a way of dealing with him if he does so. Witness : I might say that lam not afraid to answer any question. The only thing I look at is this : that some of the people at Nelson might perhaps be subjected to annoyance, and it may not have any bearing on the matter before the Committee. I should, be sorry if any innocent person who said anything in good faith should be subjected to any annoyance. I have been long enough in the world to know that these things can take place. 17. The Chairman.] It would seem that all the persons you got your information from were very truthful, honest, and straightforward witnesses ? —I did not say so. 18. Well, I will put it in this way: Where people happened to differ from what you thought it ought to be, were they untruthful ?—I never said so. 19. But if it is in your report—l suppose you would not deny that ?—No, I do not deny anything that is in the report. 20. In one case you say, " I gave her up. She is an untruthful old woman " ?—That is perfectly true. 21. There was only this one untruthful person in the case ?—I never said so. But my statement is perfectly true. Her answers were most contradictory. She asked me not to take them down, and I ceased doing so. I told her I did not care how often she contradicted herself. 22. How long do you think this irregular state of affairs has existed in Nelson? —I could not say definitely. I was not aware of what was going on in Nelson until I got there at the time of the Jubilee—at the beginning of February last. To correct myself, I might say that the only thing I heard of before then was with reference to one constable. That was by one or two anonymous letters, and I think the Commissioner got one. 23. Of course, you do not take any notice of anonymous letters ? —lt was in reference to one