BAUME CASE

Evening Star, Issue 19406, 15 November 1926, Page 4

BAUME CASE

MISTER ORDERS INQUIRY [Pur United Pbess Association.] WELLINGTON, November 13. In re the Baume controversy, the Hon. J. C. Rolleston has issued the following statementMr _ Elliott has made specific charges against the administration of the Prisons Department, and, in spite of categorical denials of his statements, he has persisted in these charges. The Government does not allow the matter of Alleged preferential treatment to Baume to rest, add therefore proposes to invoke the provisions of section 17 of the Prisons Act, 1908, which gives full power for investigation of the conduct of prisons officers and the treatment of prisoners. In accordance with the terms of this section, Mr Riddell, S.M., in his capacity as visiting justice to the Terrace Prison, will be asked to conduct an inquiry, which will bo open to the public. Due notice of the time and place will be given to Mr Elliott, to enable him to be present if ho so wishes, HOT THE IMPORTANT ISSUE MR ELLIOTT WANTS COMMISSION. WELLINGTON, November 14. Mr Howard Elliott states, in reply to the Hon. F, J, Rollestion, that he will not attend to give evidence before Mr W, G. Riddell. He 'Stipulates for a Royal Commission of independent persons. The treatment of Baume in prison, he says, fades into insignificance compared with the question of why Was Baume released. If his conduct was so good in prison, why was he made to leave the country as a (Condition of his release ? THE PUBLIC WILL JUDGE MINISTERIAL REJOINDER. WELLINGTON, November 15. The Hon. Mr Rolleston has made a further statement re the Baume case■ “The Government has complete confidence in the ability of Mr Dallard to fill his position, and has no intention, at Mr Elliott’s bidding, of setting up an inquiry into his appointment, nor, for reasons already stated, will it set up any commission to review the actions of the Prisons Board. Mr Elliott made specific charges _ against the administration of the Prisons Department in regard to the preferential treatment of Baume. When these were categorically denied by the Controller-General he replied that the Controller had deliberately tried to mislead the public. Mr Elliott further stated that he had affidavits and sworn evidence to prove his charges. The Prisons Act provides means for the proper investigation of these charges'. The allegation that, on account of influence, any prisoner was accorded special privileges and special treatment is not so trivia) as Mr Elliott would now have the public believe. If Mr Elliott refuses to produce the evidence which he said was in his possession the public can draw their own inference.”