PUBLIC RETRENCHMENT (POLICE).

Evening Star, Issue 7449, 18 February 1888, Page 1 (Supplement)

PUBLIC RETRENCHMENT (POLICE).

TO THK EDITOR, Sd’’, —I have been for some few days expecting to see more correspondence in your columns in connection with the letter signed “ ExPolice Officer,” the suggested new Police Commissioner. This correspondent was of opinion that the amalgamation of two such offices as Police Commissioner and Inspector of Piisona would be decidedly dangerous to the hUtmk of both branches cf onr criminal department I quite agree with that conclusion of “Ex-Policeman,” for it would be against the interests of the public, as well as the prisoners, if an official who Lad to work up and take charge of the case against a man in his position as chief of police should also be able (in bis other capacity as Inspector of Prisons) to use all the many methods of obtaining information now used in onr gaols to make the prisoner or his companions give incriminating evidence. In looking over the evidence—which I have before me—of the almost forgotten Dunedin Gaol inquiry, I find that one of the principal charges against the gaoler was that “ho had frem time to time supplied information to the police concerning prisoners—obtained by him from them whil-tin gaol—which was likely to damage them in any elfoi t they might make to reform, and which consequently gave the police an unfair and unjust contiol over the said prisoners. Yet, in the face of this the Government suggest not only combining the offices of chief of police and prisons, but actually combining them under the management of the present Inspector of Prisons, This proposal is so manifestly unfair that, so far from being an honest endeavor to retrench, it is simply a political dodge to keep Captain Hume’s future salary at the same amount as his present one. But I have another strong objection in addition, viz., the fitness of the person suggested to fill this position. Theie can be no retrenchment in placing a man in a dual office, even at a reduced salary, when bo has been unable to discharge with credit the duties appertaining to one. Let me here state that the many escapes, attempts at prison breaking, and scandals among the staff during Captain Hume’s riyime, fully prove that his services to the Colony are considerably over-estimated. It is preposterous to think the Colony has been paying L7OO per annum, with 25s per day travelling expenses, for an official who our small population never required. But the most damning impeachment of Captain Hume’s ability your readers will find in the 1 Hansard ’ account of the debate on the Mount Cook Prison grant of L 4.000. The Premier, Sir J. Vogel, and all the Otago members united in their denunciation of such a magnificent site being utilised for such *a purpose. Then, the Inspector himself admits that the one wing at present under completion—only one-fifth of the whole building—is more than sufficient to supply file needs of the Colony for some considerable number of years. Yet it was this officer who, as a supposed special cxp;rt from Home, suggested and strongly advised the then Ministers to build this enormous and unnecessary bastilc. The importance of this question must be my apology for taking up so much space, but I think I have said enough to show that the appointment of Captain Hume to the joint offices would be a most serious error, and a damaging blow to the efficiency of our public service.— l am, etc., Watchdog. Dunedin, February 11,