THE SHOOTING OF PLUMMER.

Auckland Star, Volume XXIII, Issue 218, 7 September 1892, Page 5

THE SHOOTING OF PLUMMER.

DISCUSSION IN THE HOUSE,

AUCKLAND MEMBERS DEMAND

INQUIRY,

(BY TELEGRAPH. — PARLIAMENTARY RE rORTER.)

Wellington, this day. fN the House yesterday afternoon, M r Palmer askod the question of which he had given notice, regarding the shooting of t'lummor, and whether the Government had sold the people of Auckland that no inquiry jyould be held.

Hon. Mr Seddon replied tbab the Mayor Bf Auckland had telegraphed asking the jdvice of the Government re the calling of % public meeting on the subject. The reply sf the Government was that on the whole Circumstances they did nob think any further action on their part necessary.

Mr Palmer moved the adjournment of the House, and referred to the "Observer " illustrations, holding up Constable McKnight to ridicule, and making deliberate charges against him. He said that either the whole affair was disgraceful, or that paper might be prosecuted for libel. He had no wish to prejudice the case ogainsb the constable, but the taking of life w«° a serious matter. Ho had received $ petition from the widow of Fred PlumMte, praying for redress on account of her flight while endeavouring to ettect his KVrest. The petition alleged that the shooting was unwarranted, the deceased being of a harmless disposition and unarmed, Mr Palmor went on to state that the verdict of the coroner's jury was arrived »t on insufficient evidence, viz., on statements of McKnight and Shepherd. He said the assertion was now made that Plummer was shot and wounded in a tree, from which ho dropped and crawlod to a ditch, where he was again fired at, and this time mortally wounded. The constable had empanelled hi 3 own jury, and yeb the Ministers considered the verdict of such a jury satisfactory. Surely it was not enough to have a hurried and a perfunctory inquiry by a jury summoned by the constable him«elf, and he thought in the interests of the policeman, the Department should insist upon having the matter fuliy inquired into. Mr Rees seconded the motion, and stated that thousands of citizens in the Auckland district were outragod in their feolings because of a man unarmed and offering no resistance being shot down by the police in the way Plummer was shot. No man's life should be taken without having the fullest investigation. He believed the whole press of Auckland was unanimous in condemning the haste with which the inquest proceedings were conducted. It was ' due to the community that either Cons'tablo , McKnight should be completely exculpated of the charge, or that punishment should fall upon the proper shoulders. There was nothing in the circumstances as shown by the evidence laid before the coroner's jury that warranted the shooting of this man like a wild beast. He was simply hunted and shot down as far as the evidence showed.

Mr Soddon said he had hoped that in reference to this matter nothing of an extreme kind would have been stated, such aa that this man had been hunted and shot down like a wild beast. Plummer was a notorious burglar, and among other things, was said to have stolen a gun. There might be some doubt aa to his having fired, but he was quite positive that evidence was given as to his having fired at the constable. When a doubt wa3 raised the Government did not allow the matter to rest, but ordered further inquiry. A search was made, and the story about him baing shot in a tree was ahown to have no foundation, beyond that a board bearing bloodstains, caused by the constable handling it after carrying Plummer's foody, was found. To his mind, taking into full consideration Plummer's past career, and considering that the policeman was in the open while Plummer was under cover, the constable acted very pluckily, and there would have been a great outcry if he had been shot down, and Plummer escaped. If accusations of this kind were made policemen would not have much encouragement to undertake dangerous dutios. He could only repeat that the Governmenb had made further inquiry, after inquest, and had found nothing that would justify them in placing Constable McKnight upon his trial, which was the only other step they could take. Mr Thos. Thompson said a great deal of uneasiness prevailed in the minds of the people of Auckland in connection with this matter. While he deprecated the extreme language used by his colleagues, ho was strongly of opinion that the Government should take steps to have further inquiry into the matter in the interests of justice and public security. He urged that a full and impartial investigation should take place. Mr Robert Thompson agreed with this view, but thought it unfortunate that Mr Palmer should have rested his case upon newspaper charges. He believed there was ground for the statement that Plummer's body had never been examined to ascertain if there were other wounds than that which caused his death. He did not impute blame to anyone, but hoped the Government would clear up the matter in interests of public and of constable. Mr Seddon : Wo will make further inquiry. Sir Geo. Grey said that the observations from Government benches seemed to rest on the statement that only newspapers had raised any objection to tho state of matters, but he would point out that two legal gentlemen, one of them of no mean eminence, had stated that this was a matter demanding further inquiry, and he thought this was sufficient ground for inquiry being instituted If everything had been done properly and lawfully, the inquiry would redound to the credit of the constable and his aesistant, and it was due to them that an inquiry should take place. If a mistake was made, and thi3 unfortunate man was wrongly shot, he thought it was a matter that ought to come out. There seemed to be some misapprehension in this country as to the power of constables in dealing with criminals. He remembered a case in which a constable ehob and killed a prisoner who was simply running away, tho policeman thus assuming the responsibility of inflicting punishment of death upon a prisoner who ought simply to have been brought back. The constables seemed to think they had a right to kill prisoners who were only escaping. He urged that there should be an inquiry into the shooting of Plummer, if only to give McKnight and Shepherd an opportunity of reinstating themselves in the good opinion of their fellow-country-men.

Hon. Mr Rolleston agreed that a case had been made out for full inquiry. No extraordinary precautions had been taken to have this matter sifted, and there was reason for an uneasy feeling in the public mind.

Mr Palmer, in replying, referred to the fact that Plummer had been out of gaol three years and leading a respectable life almosb up to the time he was shot, and then he had only stolen a email quantity of potaloeafrom his uncle's place. He thought itwas an extraordinary thing for a policeman to handle that board with bloodstained hands, and he asked why did not that fact come out at tho inquest? He laid stress upon the contradictory statements of McKnight and Shepherd as to whether the constable authorised Shepherd to shoot, and upon the fact chat a careful search had not yet disclosed any evidence of Plummer being aris<v. if this wore allowed to pass withJfither inquiry the police would have

the lives of everyone at their mercy, and people would think the Minister was dofending the police at the expense of the whole public.

Mr Seddon stated thab no inquiry had been asked by the public. The Alayor of Auckland had simply asked for and received advice from the Government.

This closed the debate.

Ib is understood the Government will await further representations from the public before taking action.