'INFLUENCE."

Evening Post, Volume LXXX, Issue 5, 6 July 1910, Page 3

' INFLUENCE."

FALSIFICATION RECORDS. 'AST- ARREST AND ITS SEQUEL. A MEMBER'S "INDISCRETION.

The subject of interference with police records, which was briefly referred to in The Post, a few days ago, was discussed at some length in the House of Representatives yesterday afternoon. It was stated that an Inspector of Police in the South Island had, at the instigation of a member of Parliament, altered on the charge sheet the name of a man who was arrested for drunkenness. A LITTLE HISTORY. The elucidation of the affair was commenced by Mr. T. H. Davey, M.P. for Christchuroh East, who, on tic presentation, of tho Police Department's report, made a brief but interesting statement. He desired, he said, to ; take advantage to explain, a mutter which had 1 been the subject of in various papers. He desired! to tell as simply and plainly as he possibly, could w-hat happened. One Sunday afternoon a friendi of his came •oo him in Ghristchurch and told him he •had been arrested' for drunkenness the previous night, and begged) him to see rf it were possible to keep hie, name oab of the court. He told his friend that as it was a first offence there was no possible chance of his name appearing in any newspaper ; only his name would be called out in' court. ' He begged him (Mr. Davey) to stop that if it w«re possible. "I admit I made a mistake," said Mr. Davey, "in going to the inspector and asking him if anything could be done ■for my friend, whom I had known, for 25 years. I made the mistake innocently, afc the instance of the man and on behalf of his wife and family, and interviewed the inspector. He said he would endeaivour to do something for me, and J left Ah© inspector with those words, nob knowing what he proposed to do. The matter has now been reported to the Minister of Justice, and what the department proposes to do with the 'inspector I do not know, but I bitterly regret that, at the intercession! of a friend, I in any .way injured the Inspector .of Police in Christchurch, who has a long and 1 honourable record." Ho thought it was only right, he added, that he should let memibers know the facts of the case. He foeoly admitted Ms fault, and 1 te regretted still more that he had injured a very worthy man. (Hear, hear.) ' MR. TAYLOR'S PART. •Mr. T. E. Taylor said he was very flad that .the member for Clnastcb,urch last, had chosen to bring up the subject in the House. He (Mr. Taylor) felt that •he was called upon to make some reference to it, for this reason. He was waited upon by (3H>istchurch people to whose knowledge it had 1 come thab Bom® interference with the police records had been made ia Christchurch, and the case iwas put to him m this form — they said that a man had been arrested for drunkenness on Saturday, 7th May, that he was bailed out by hi& friends, and that at the intercession of the member for Obristchurch East the police mspector instructed) the constable who made the arrest to alter the charge book, to* delete tlYfo man's name, and substitute a false name ; that the constable refused to do this on the .ground that it was a, request that the inspector had no right to make; that subsequently another poiioe officer ca-Tried. out the alteration •m £ho charge book, and the name of "James Brown" was substituted for the name of the man who, was arrested 1 ; that the oharge sheet was made out in a false name, and that on the Monday morning the man as a first offender was fined 1 as is usual in such cases. H« (Mr. Taylor) had 1 known the man for many years. He was a perfectly straight and. honourable man. He (Mr. Taylor) could j\roll ■understand the irritation, the annoyance, that followed bis arrest, but while the arrest might have been- a misfortune, it seemed to him that the falsification of public records was a very serious thing. He was quite prepared to believe that Mr. Davey asked the police officers .to consider the case of 'the man from pure •kindness of heart, but he did not consider that any public man exhibited 'a very clear view of his responaibdlity if he used hP public position to influence a police officer. To do that "was distinctly StrongFOR PRINCIPLE. He objected to the falsification of the record, because, though it was clearly not an interference with the course of justice in the ordinary way, if they iwere to allow discrimination to be displayed towards a man who was able to bring the influence of his fuiends to bear upon the Police Force, where was it to stop? He was as much grieved over the misfortune of the man that brought this incident about as the member for Christchurch East; they knew that in every way that person was a worthy man. It was no crime for a man to do what he did ; though it was unfortunate it did happen sometimes. But he (Mr. Taylor) held that if the same consideration could not be obtained by the man in the street it had no right to be, obtained by anybody at all. 'If it was allowed to go on unchallenged and unchecked it would be the beginning of a volume of public corruption that was facing other countries in which it had been allowed to go on without check for many years past. The police inspector, as , Mr. Davey said, had a very fine - record of work behind him, and he (Mr. Taylor) was amazed that .with his long experience he should have considered that he was under any obligation to listen for one moment to the suggestion, even from a member of Parliament; he Was more amazed still that a member of Parliament should nave so far forgotten his position and his standard of public morality as to have brought pressure to bear upon a police officer. The man's name was recorded correctly at first. He could quite understand that where a man had made a slip and taken more liquor than was good for him, and found himself ar rested, he should go under a fictitious name, and that the police should ignore the fact, but when the arresting officer knew the man's name was correctly recorded, when the* inspector of police knew it. when the member of Parliament knew it, it became' a most serious offence for any public man to come along and deliberately ask that something should be done that he must know was a falsification of public records. If the same method was to be employed in larger public issues, what v;as to stop the wholesale falsification of records in the Dominion? Four ov five years ago there was an outcry about an affair in which the falsification of Subjio documents was suggested. It was, c declared, a .political crime to falsify ti public record. If there was no of fence or crime in that sort of thing which had taken place in the interests of friendship (there was no other motive suggested), then there could be no fault found, and if, when the opcaaion required it, the falsification of public records took place on a large scale in connection with the affairs of the Dominion, any member of the House who had shown himself 53 lacking in

connection with an important matter laid himself open to the suspicion of being so considerate that he could not discharge tho judicial duties of the Chairmanship of Committees as they ought to be discharged. Mr. Speaker : I must afik the ban., member to confine himself to the motion. There is no question before the House as to the Chairmanship of Committees. Mr. Taylor said he would put it this way : A member of the House, who had interfered in a matter such as had been referred to, and who asked for any position in the country involving the impartial discharge of his duties, had laid himself open to the suggestion N that it would b© difficult for him to act as impartially as he ought to do. Mr. Witty: He has acted as a man and a gentleman. Mr. Taylor hoped the member for Riccarton was not going to raise that issue. He (Mr. Taylor) was going to discuss the question from the standpoint of public policy only. Every member of Parliament had a solemn duty to perform, not to each other and to their personal friends, but from the standards of public morality that were going to govern this country m tho years to come. He had as friendly a feeling towards the member as anybody in New Zealand, he believed he was a most kind-hearted man, and it was that very kind heartedness that had blunted his sense of duty, and it was his failure to appreciate his limitations as a public man that had involved the inspecisr of police in an embarrassment that he ought never to 'have been involved in if the member for Christchurch East had INFORMATION— AND DUTY. Mr. Davey : Or if you had not listened to informer^. Mr. Taylor : "If any constituents come to me and complain that a public wrong has been done, it is my duty to see that no discrimination is shown as between man and man." He said plainly that what tho man in corduroy could not get through want of political influence:, no other man ought to get. Her held the theory that in a democracy they could do a great many wrong things without seriously interfering .with the rights of the people, but in connection with our ocurta of justice they could not interfere with the elemental rights of every man, woman, and child in Tfie Dominion. It was entirely a matter for the Government to say what should be . done with the inspector of police. He (Mr. Taylor) had urged that his offence should be dealt with in the moat lenient possible" manner. He did not see how it was going to be overlooked altogether. It was too serious a thing. "I hold that the most serious offender, though i don't believe the member realises it, is the public man who so far forgot his obligations as to go to ah officer and suggest that consideration should be extended to a friend when he must have known perfectly well that such consideration is not extended to men who have not got influence to help them. Members must come to their own conclusions as to how the blame shall be divided." SIR JOSEPH WARD'S REPLY. The Prime Minister said that the complaint had gone to Cabinet from, the Minister of Justice, and enquiries had been made. There was no justification for the procedure discussed by Mr. Taylor; there could be no question about that. Tho member for Christchurch East had admitted publicly that he had done wrong, and he could not do more than that. That member's action had been prompted by kind motives; the motives were gooa, but the action wa3 wrong. That memher, after making his public admission, was responsible to his constituents for the rest. Sir' Joseph declared that he had heard of cases of people endeavouring to discover matters ] that were private by application to public officers. A member enquired for names, and the Prime Minister replied that he would como to the names later. He contended that this fossicking for private information was more reprehensible than tho action of Mr. Davey. Mr. Taylor: "Dp you suggest that I have been getting' information in that way?" Sir Joseph: "No. lam talking about something that I know something about." It was the duty of the Government to protect the public and the pub- ] lie services against interference in any way. THE GOVERNMENT'S POSITION. No member of the Government had attempted to bring any presure JtO bear on any officer to do anything except his duty. The police officer concerned in this case had a dean record of efficient, ' faithful service, with no black mark against him during thirty-five years, and i it was sad for him to be in the position of having this complaint brought against ! him now. The Government had not fin- I ished its study of the case. It was now the subject of correspondence between the Justice Department and the officer, and before very long the Government would come to a decision as to its clear duty regarding that officer. So far as he- knew, he repeated there had been no improper interference by the Government to have anything introduced in the way of corruption, on the lines reported from a large country not far away from these shores. The Government was quite aware that innuendoes were made to the contrary.