THE POLICE FORCE.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 14686, 20 November 1909, Page 4

THE POLICE FORCE.

Mil BISHOP'S FINDING CRITI

C'ISED

REPLY BY MR DINNIE.

ADMINISTRATION DEFENDED

(Prn Ueited Press Association.)

"WELLINGTON, November 19.

Mr Dinnie's reply to the Police Commissioner's report is a lengthy document, traversing the findings in detail. It begins by alluding to the statement in the report that though there had been for several years urgent need for a revision of the regulations, "nothing had been done." Sir Dinnie's reply is that in August, 1906, he received replies from inspectors to a- communication ashing (hem lor suggestions upon the regulations, and new ones were framed. An enormous amount of research was necessary to make them comprehensive, but by May, 1909, the draft- was completed ■and sent to the printer. In August proofs were distributed to the inspectors, who perused and returned them by October, one of them suggesting a conference. Evidence was given that the chief clerk had for two years worked overtime on the draft.

Mr Dinnie next deals with Mr Arnold's charges, and reeks lo show that tho usual precautions were observed, or that as soon as tho real character of men was discovered they were dismissed.

In reply to Mr Bishop's comment on the fact that good discharges were sometimes grunted in entes ot proved misconduct, Mr Dinnie draws a distinction between the discharges. The only ones which were any good, and which would procure the men employment in another force, were those given on parchment forms. These were not given, but merely paper ireiuoranda, which, according To his contention, were of no particular account. In other cases adversely commented on by Mr Bishop, Mr Dinnie contends that (lie evidence does not bear out the criticism br.icd on it.

Mr Dinnie repudiates tire suggestion of political influence. Mr Bishop said, " But I think the most mischievous direction in which political influence has operated has been in inducing the enrolment of men into the forco without sulficicnt inquiry. I have not the slightest doubt that the word of a member has tone vary Jar in many cases, and I am equally euro that in very few instances has the member had sufficient personal knowledge of an applicant to justify his action." Mr Dinnie'a observation is : "I specially nroduccd to Mr Bishop a number of files containing letters from members, and the replies thereto, with the object of entirely disproving fuch assertions as that made by him; in fact, I invited him lo my oHioe to search the files, but apparently he had no desire to avail "himself of the oppoi (unity, a.i he did not visit the office at all. A more unwarrantable suggestion than that mada by him is inconceivable. There was not a tittle of evidence .before him from which he could draw such conclusions, and I challenge him to quote a single instance justifying his allegation. There never wa,* a fimo in the history of the New Zealand Police Force when political influence bad k j ss effect."

Upon the passage'-in the report stating that there were strained relations between him and at least two inspectors he says: "There has been r.o evidence disclosing the existence of any feeling between I lie inspector referred to and myfell', Piior to this commission Inspector O'Brien has been harbouring a sense of resentment since ths finding of the commission of 1005, which reflected upon his administration, lint the feeling has entirely been on his side, and I was not aware of it. As regards Inspector Cnllen there has never bein the slightest friction of any description at any time. This is another of Mr Bishop's misrepresentations."

Upon (lie question of dissatisfaction with promotions 'Mr Dinnio accuses "Mr Bishop of inconsistency in blaming him for promoting a man without an inspector's recommendation, and in the next sentence questioning the wisdom of promoting another who had been so recommended. He quotes Commissioner Tunbridge to show lliat he was of opinion that some of the men were not fit for piomotion, and says: " Out of some hundreds of nwn there arc only three instances which Mr Bishop can quote as having been, as he says, ' unaccountably passed over.' " The question again arises whether Jlr Bishop or myself is the best judge as to the qualifications required in a sergeant. The suggestion by Mr Bishop to alter the rank of station-sergeant to that of senior sergeant was provided for in the

draft regulations 12 months ago; so Hint. Mr Bishop's alarm is quite unnecessary." "One would imagine," says Mr Dinnie, " that Mr Bishop had devoted considerable time to investigating the feeling regarding the headquarters' staff. J would point out that no word of dissatisfaction appears in the evidence until Mv Bishop himself, on the first day of the commission, ' states; "There is an extreme amount of dissatisfaction on the part of some members of ths Force in regard to the headquarters' staff.' I have no hesitation in statim; that this was a most improper and biassed assertion. If Mr Bishop wanted the truth he should not have led the, witness. How did Mr Bishop know before any evidence was taken that there was extreme dissatisfaction? He. could only have gotr (he idea directly or indirectly Irani some discontented member of the force, and I submit that as a fairminded man he should have declined to listen to anything that was not given on oath, and fair and above-board. Beyond an occasional reference to the promotion of some members of the staff to the rank of sergeant, Mr Bishop never asked a question about them from Invercargill to Auckland, and there he made the assertion for the first time that Sub-inspector Wright's promotion had caused dissatisfaction. Inspector Cullen at once agreed with him. Why did not Mr Bishop ask all the inspectors lor their opinion on his way through the Dominion? Apparently it was not wanted, as Mv Bishop had made up his mind before the commission opened, as is shown by Ih'g statement at Invercargill. Mr Bishop next asked about the headquarters' staff at Wellington, and was assured by Inspector Ellison that' 1 prior to the sittings* of this commission ho hud heard of no disat k faction. He thought it was an advantage that they should hold police rank, and he knew no disadvantage unless, as is seen now, it caused some jealousy in the service. Now, so far as I can' find in the evidence, these were the enly occasions on which Mr Bishop put questions as to dissatisfaction regarding the staff, unless, as I have snid before, it was a question about the promotion of some sergeants. As regards Sub-inspector Wright, personally he made no inquiry, and there is not one word of evidence except that volunteered by Sergeant Mathieson and Constable Greene (one a discontented man, who was smarting under an imaginary grievance in connection with his recent transfer, and the other also a discontented man, who thought he should have been promoted but-, whose character, as disclosed in the evidence, showed that he was wholly unfitted for such a position.' How. therefore, can Mr Bishop say that he has deeply gauged the feeling throughout the force on this point? How can he say that Sub-inspector Wright is without doubt' a very capable departmental officer, but for some reason "or other there is a generally expressed distrust of him? 11-e goes on to say: 'Since Sub-inspector Wright's promotion in 1906 there lias been'a simmering of discontent in the force, and ample proof of it will be found in the evidence.' I'challenge anyone to show me the slightest evidence on the point. Such a question was' never raised, and there is no evidence ort it beyond that already referred to. Mr Bishop goes on to say that there is a profound impression that Mr Wright dominates the commissioner and uses his influence to advance the interests of those favourable to himself. Mr Bishop also states that he is not going to express his opinion as to whether that belief is well founded or not. It would be difficult to prove, and he prefers to leave it at that, but he is quite satisfied that the change must be made. As previously pointed out, the only evidence tendered on the point was given by two discontented men, who only advanced their opinion without any proof. Yet Mr Bishop says there is a profound impression, etc. Where did he find it? Who told him ? Why should Sub-inspector Wright, who is exceptionally qualified for the position he holds, be turned out of ollicc on the unsupported testimony of two men and the preconceived opinion of Mr Bishop, and his character blasted as one who is to be distrusted? He further states that he is not able to satisfy himself as to the necessity foi the appointment of a chief detective, and ho -•imagines' that he is not over-worked, and that his office is largely a sinecure. I might hero remark that Mr Bishop has no grounds for his imagination. The chief detective has done good work since his appointment, and has fully justifiedit. lie has successfully handled a number of important and intricate criminal cases with credit to the department and to himself. Tho result of his inquiries in one case alone alleviated a pending prosecution which would have cost the country hundreds of pounds. No exception has been taken to the appointment throughout the inquiry. On the contrary, the chief detective at Auckland said that it had been justified by the results, and was a very »ood appointment.

"Mr Bishop again reflects upon the promotion of Sergeant Mnggeridge, and refers to some of llio stuff supplied from Ik stove its disgraceful. Tho facts are that in eight years one bad lot of waterproof coats and one bad lot of night duty coats were sent out, llio quality being apparently good, but when put to use they were found to be deficient. They were all called in and returned to the contractor, and now one 3 were issued in their places. Surely a lot to make a fuss about! Mr Bishop then recommends that this officer be sent out on uniform duty. To my mind this is a most unjust and unwarranted attempt to injure a hardworking and zealous officer, about whom Mr Bishop expressed himself in these words: 'I am not dispoeed to find fault with the remuneration you receive, because there is a lot of work and responsibility, and you probably do it to the satisfaction of all concerned.' The suggestion that a civil service clerk would soon pick up the duties is to my mind most amusing. Work that requires years of experience to properly master caii, in Mr Bishop's estimation, be easily picked up. The idea is so absurd that I will leave it at that. If Mr Bishop had visited tho, head office to complete his inquiries he would, I think, have come to a different conclusion,"

Mr Dinnie goes through the evidence in detail. Dealing with the -statement that " the feeling that practically existed all through tho force against the headquarters staff was well and moderately expressed by Inspectors Mitchell and Cullen." He quotes all the expressions on the subject by these officers, which are only a. few in,number, and then asks :

" What evidence is there in these oliicers' statements to justify Mr Bishop's remarks about a generally expressed dis trust, etc., of Mr"Wright:" On the question of lenient punishment for drunkenness Mr Dinnie says: " Mr Bishop must know, having examined the defaulters' sheets, that the regulation ho quotes has never been literally enforced since it was made in 1887 (as lie suggests it should be), and for very good reasons. There are so many degrees of what may be considered drunkenness on the part of police officers, and so many different circumstances which govern the quality of tho offence, that it would be manifestly unfair to treat them nil alike. Each caso has been considered on its merits, and I may here remark that what is termed clnin\cr.i:css from the police regulation point of view is a very different thing to tho ordinary acceptance of that., word. In folly 90 per cent, of the charges of drunkenness u.gwn?t members of the force civilians would have no Imitation in saving that the member charged was quite sober, but, from the. police point of view, if he hn.s any signs of liquor on him at all lie is considered unfit for duty, and therefoie drunk within the meaning of the angulation. Mr liishop refers" to the extraordinary inequality of treatment lpplic! to such eases, but with the above explanation it will lis fecn how ridiculous il would bo to apply univei>n! punishment where the circumstances differ in every respect. I have followed the practice adopted in every force I have had experience of, also that adopted by my prcdec:soM in this force. Why does Mr Uishop not compare niy action with that of my prodccojF.ois in'dealing with such cases,' and justify hi.- assertion that 1 have been lenient, ir.stcad of simply (Sprx-shu; his own opinion?" '• Since' 1 assumed charge of this force I have dkueiuMd with the services of no

•less than 33 men, who brought discredit on the service through drunkenness, and who wero taken on in my predecessor's time practically without inquiry." Mi' Dinnie also advances arguments to show thai tl rc commission did not approach its undertaking with an open mind. He point,* „ u t that lie Is responsible for the appointment of 129 out of 761 officers, that (on the finding of the commission) the force is efficient, that it is free from bribery and corruption, and that cvervhlllg is good except the man responsible for the results.