The Hastings Standard Published Daily TUESDAY, MAY 11, 1897. ROACHE'S REWARD.

Hastings Standard, Issue 319, 11 May 1897, Page 2

The Hastings Standard Published Daily

TUESDAY, MAY 11, 1897. ROACHE'S REWARD.

For the cause that lacks assistance, For the wrongs that need resistance, For the future in the distance, And the good that we can do.

The people of Canterbury have worked themselves up into a great state of excitement over the speedy capture of the man Sheehan, who is charged with the murder of Miss Lawcock at Amberley, and they want the Government to recognise the services of the arresting constable. We can well understand the feeling of the people who are thus moving. The murder was of a most brutal character, and revolting in its details. The people are relieved by the knowledge that the murderer is in the clutches of the law, and in the fullness of their feelings they wish to see the man who has given them relief suitably rewarded. This of course is commendable and very nice, but it is debateable whether the services of Constable Roache are really entitled to any recognition, and if they are whether they are of such a nature as to warrant the Government rewarding him. There is no doubt that he made a speedy arrest, and furthermore that he apparently got the right man ; but then it may be fairly asked, Is it not for such work as this that we keep policemen ? Far from the scene and free from the influence of excitement, we confess that we fail to see anything in the capture of Sheehan of a particularly meritorious character. He was seen by the constable near the scene of the murder, and the policeman followed him np and arrested him. To follow a person in a country district where strangers are easily noted is merely a simple matter, and that the right person was arrested may be said to be a lucky fluke. In any case Sheehan's arrest on suspicion was a foregone conclusion, as in a sparsely populated district his only chance of escape was suicide. Constable Eoache's performance is really of no particular importance, and if Sheehan had been merely a thief instead of a murderer we should have heard nothing about the affair. The constable ran no risks, he was not called upon to use any special intelligence ; and ninety-nine men in a hundred would have done just the same. He has arrested a murderer, and that throws a glamour over the whole affair and the excited people see in his actions something specially meritorious; but for all their excitement they are not stupid enough to put their hands into their own pockets and find the reward for the constable. Not so very long ago—in August of last year—another "limb of the law" arrested another man on suspicion of of having committed murder. We refer to the Petone tragedy, for which Stephen Bosher paid the penalty on the gallows. Long before Bosher was arrested an innocent man was taken up by the police. Now we maintain that if it is right that Roache should be rewarded for the capture of the Amberley murderer, then somebody should be punished for the wrongful arrest of Shore of Petone. Yet there are no excitable people calling for the

punishment of Shore's capturer, nor yet do we hear of any M.H.R. or " leading citizen " advocating that some recompense should be given Shore for the humiliation and annoyance that he suffered through wrongful arrest. Of course it would he absurd to say that the police acted harshly or without warrant in Shore's case. They probably had sufficient grounds for suspicion, and were quite right under the circumstances in taking him in charge. They made a mis lake, however, but still it was their duty to act as they did. And so with Constable Roache, it was his bounden duty to act as he did, even at the risk of capturing the wrong man. That he secured the right man was a fortunate circumstance. It is pure nonsense to demand a reward for the constable. He is paid—and well paid—for rendering the public such services, and he has the satisfaction of knowing that he has done his duty well. There is nothing in it for a reward. If the people of Canterbury are particularly anxious that Constable Boache's work should be recognised we trust they will see the propriety of paying for it themselves. It would be more to their credit than tapping the Government for the money. We have in our social and political life too much of this canting, and too little of it in our business relations. But now and again business men run mad on the subject, as witness the Roache incident. What merchant thinks of rewarding his office boy for being prompt in delivering a message or for giving a bright polish to the brass plate? It is the boy's ordinary work, and he is paid the ordinary wages; if he does his work well that is so much to his credit, and secures his advancement sooner than if he were careless and negligent. So with Constable Roache ; he has done his ordinary duty in an ordinary way, and he gets the ordinary pay for it. It may be that the Canterbury people are excited because it-is an extraordinary thing to see a constable do his duty efficiently. We know that in Christchurch there are loud complaints that the police force is demoralised, that the department is influenced by the brewing interest, and that the policemen do not display any zeal. Viewed from such a standpoint Constable Roache may be entitled to some recognition, but it would be bad policy to reward him. Better it would be for the public to remove the cause of the demoralisation and so get efficient services at all times.