THE NELSON POLICE SCANDAL.

Evening Post, Volume LXIV, Issue 83, 4 October 1902, Page 4

THE NELSON POLICE SCANDAL.

The indignation felt in Nelson, and, indeed, wherever the story of the Cabinet's disrating a sergeant and dismissing two constables in the Nelson Police Force has become known, will not be allayed by the news that the Parliamentary Committee which was considering the petitions of exConstables Burrell and Durbridge, for compensation for their dismissal, failed to report. On the 18th ult., we drew attention to the dilatoriness of the Committee, and expressed a hope that the Ministry was not, -as was then feared, adopting the tactics commonly known in certain circles as "sparring for wind." The subject was brought up in the House of Representatives yesterday by Mr. G-aham, the member for Nelson, but neither the Acting-Premier's statement nor Mr. Graham's apparent acquiescence in the view that the Committee could not have reported before the close of the session will be satisfactory to the petitioners, or to those who have suspected that the Government, for' the Premier's sake, was anxiows to hush up a transaction that would not bear the light of day. The excitement which the affair caused in Nelson, and the peculiar character of the Cabinet's proceedings, as disclosed in the pamphlet issued by the Nelson Vigilance Committee, made it particularly desirable that everything in connection, with this extraordinary case should be disclosed. Whether the Parliamentary Committee did its best "as a committee" or not, the fact remains that by not reporting it has helped to prevent discussion. It has played so directly into the hands of th" Ministry that it will require something, more than the statement that the petitioners' solicitor was responsible for the delay, to convince the public that the exconstables have been fairly or properly treated. The punishment doled out to these men seems to have been inflicted by the direct order of Cabinet, and practically in opposition to a previous decision of the Commissioner. We hold no brief for the men, but we do claim that they have a right to a fair trial before being | disrated or dismissed by Cabinet without, J as it seems, the recommendation of their departmental chief . Sir Joseph Ward may have been anxious to "save the face" of his absent leader, and this may account for the two constables' failure to obtain any redress from Parliament, but the affair cannot, and should not, be allowed to rest. Popular suspicion will not be removed until the reasons for the severe punishments inflicted 'in seeming defiance of the Commissioner's judgment are made known. The more enquiry is obstructed the less belief will there be in the adequacy of those reasons.