SECRECY VERSUS PUBLICITY.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLI, Issue 12545, 12 April 1904, Page 4

SECRECY VERSUS PUBLICITY.

Wfi have not the slightest doubt that Inspector Cullen does his best, according to his lights, to protect the people of Auckland from burglars, garrotters, sneak-thieves, swindlers, and all that sort of men. Ho is just now energetically proceeding against the gentry who have no visible means of support, for which he has our hearty thanks. He has a very insufficient staff of police 'o assist him in his duties, in which he has- our hearty sympathy. But Inspector CulleiVs abilities, and his consequent usefulness, are very largely discounted by what wo may term the official infatuation for secrecy, by a weird and superstitious fear of taking the public into confidence. One would imagine that the police office considers the entire population of the city,and province to be indifferent as to the maintenance of law and order, where it is not inclined to condone offending, as though the laws which wo pay the police to guard were imposed upon us by some alien authority, instead of being made by ourselves for our own security and protection. The effect is that our citizens are exposed to dangers against which more intelligent police direction, would place them on their guard, and that our police force is deprived of that prompt and spontaneous assistance and information which all loyal and lawabiding persons —the overwhelming majority in every community—would most freely tender to the constituted authorities. There appears to be no doubt that a gang of garrotters has been industriously at work in the city of Auckland. We understand that within the past fortnight at least four cases of garrotting have occurred, and we owe no thanks to the police office for its apparent disposition to conceal the appearance in our midst of this most serious crime. We submit to the common sense of every honest man and woman whether it is not the duty of the police to immediately inform the public of such dangers, so that wayfarers may not fall heedlessly into peril, and so that the argus eyes of the public may be kept keenly nvnlra for the discovery and apprehension of the offenders. We are almost ashamed to have to point out to our police authorities that the average man and woman are equally interested with themselves in the prevention of crime and in the detection of criminals. Yet whenever burglaries, garrotting, assaults on women, , and other gross offences occur, the dominant police idea appears to be to keep them dark, and to rely wholly and solely upon the investigations of detectives, who are as well known as the Mayor, and upon the routine duties of a patrol force which is officially asserted to be utterly insufficient. We would very much like to know how much the insufficiency of our local police force is due 1.0 the superstitious fear of publicity to which we have referred. It may bo said that secrecy is the watchword of the Department and that the local inspector is no more responsible for reticence enforced upon him by superior authority than are the rank and file who necessarily and properly yield him implicit obedience. If this be so then our criticism falls upon the Wellington police bureau and not upon the local control. But in that case we must say that in no other centres are Departmental instructions interpreted as requiring the blind secrecy that prevails in the Auckland police office. Elsewhere, responsible officers exercise discretion as to the publishing of advisable information. It is very regrettable that the local inspector does not exerciso the wise discretion which is apparently claimed and certainly exercised in other cities by

officials holding the same rank in the service, and whose happier experience haa taught them to trust, not to distrust, the public.