THE POLICE COMMISSION.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 14686, 20 November 1909, Page 6

THE POLICE COMMISSION.

It may be hoped that one good effect' of the issue of the report of the Royal Commission on the Police Force may be to cause the Government to exercise greater discrimination in future iu the appointment of % a l Commissions As tho Attorney-general well and truly said a few days ago, when ho informed a deputation that Mr Diimie's reply to the report of the Police 'Commission could not be laid on the table of tKHouse, a report by a Royal Commis- « ls „ fc e latm . e of % a h!gh judicial officer; and for tl.iO ""on it cannot bo traversed by the Fgn whose conduct has been investiijs reply bemg presented to Parliament such >. p rocedllre TOe nction^

Dr Findlay said—and tlio force of his statement must bo recognised,—then no judge of a Supreme Court would for J a, moment accept the position of a Royal Commissioner. Id the present case, however, the Minister has sanctioned the publication of Mr,:Dimiic's reply through the press, and the. object which its author had in preparing it may consequently be said to have been accomplished. The only' disability which Mr Dinnie suffers under this arrangement is that his reply to the report of the Royal Commissioner will not be preserved along with that document in the Bluo Books; but, if lie can only induce a member of Parliament to incorporate his report in a speech in the House, he will have the satisfaction of knowing that it will bo embalmed in Hansard. The net result, so far as Mr Dinnic is concerned, will be' that his reply will be placed about as permanently on record as the report will be to which he takes exception. As a general rule tho report of a Royal Commissioner being, as Dr Findlay says, in the nature of a judgment by a high judicial officer, is accepted as a, thoroughly fair and impartial finding upon the questions that were remitted to him for consideration. Rightly or wrongly, however—rightly in our opinion,—a feeling exists that in this case the Royal Commissioner gave more than sufficient weight to sonic of the evidence before him that was adverse to tho administration of the Department and gave less than suffieiejit weight to the evidence on the other side, and that upon the whole those who were -csponsible for that administration were somewhat harshly judged in the report.

We do not proposo to examine in detail Mr Dinnie's reply to the Royal Commissioner. It may, however, bs reasonably said that upon sonic important points his defence of Ins administration is far from .ineffective. It is perfectly clear to our mind that in respect of at least a majority of the enrolments of constables which were' alleged to have been made without sufficient inquiry concerning their antecedents Mr Dinnie has no cause to reproach himself. He makes ii strong point, too, when he asserts that Mr Bishop, while expressing the opinion that political influence has operated mischievously in inducing the enrolment of men in the force without sufficient inquiry, did not avail himself of the.opportunity<of inspecting files of letters an inspection of which ivould have showp that Mr Dinnie had withstood in many instances attempts on the part of politicians to exert pressure upon him in favour of applicants for admission. Mr Diiuiie might, as a matter of fact, have strengthened this portion of his reply by a. reference to the clear inconsistency of the report on this point. In one paragraph- in the report Mr Bishop wrote. "No single case- have I found m which there was positive proof of political influence having beer tlio determining factor in any act done as regards an individual or locality." But in another paragraph on the same page ho said: "I think that the most mischievous direction in which political influence lias operated has been in inducing the enrolment of men into the force without ■ -Bufficiont inquiry." And elsewhere in the report ho reviewed at tomo length the circumstances surrounding " one of the worst cases" he had come across "of laxity in admitting men to the force"—the case of a 'man who was strongly recommended in three letters from Mr Houston, ex-M.H.R. for the Bay of Islands, and who turned out to be, according to Mr Dinnie, "an unprincipled scamp." Whether exercised on the Minister-in-'charge of tho Department or upon the permanent official at the head of the Department, political pressure has, it is undeniable, been freely employed on behalf of applicants for admission to the force and of members of the force, and it is impossible to hold, in the face of the evidence, that it was always ineffective. Wliile the suggestion that' Mr Dinnie was not proof against such pressure in regard to the enrolment of applicants is now met by that official with the allegation that it is contradicted by evidence that was available if it had been desired, the fact that, as Mr Bishop mentions in his report, confidential letters to Ministers are not filed necessarily weakens tho conclusion he formed that political influence upon members of the Government has not operated as a factor ii. the determination of promotions. The considerations Mr Dinnie advances in respect to the punishment that is imposed for ' drunkenness in the force arc hardly impressive. They merely indicate that in following a practice in which the plain intention of tho regulations was ignored he has done something that is done elsewhere and that was done here before his time. This cannot be regarded as a valid justification of his action. His defence of himself on this point is the least effective portion of his reply. Upon some of tho other counts, however, Mr Dinnio has advanced considerations which suggest that the report of the Royal Commissioner should not be, accepted without reservation. But where, it may he asked, is to be tho end of this recrimination respecting the result* of an inquiry that should, in ordinary circumstances and according to the institutional rule, have been closed, so far as the persons affected were concerned, with the presentation of the report of the Commissioner? As wo have said, we hope that one outcome of the present discussion will be to check the readiness of the Government to set up Royal Commissions. '