INSPECTOR v. SUB-INSPECTOR.

Otago Witness, Issue 2685, 30 August 1905, Page 18

INSPECTOR v. SUB-INSPECTOR.

AUOKLAND, August 2. The principal interest in to-day's sitting Of ihd Police Commission centred in the eyidence given by Inspector Cullen. .'lnspector Cullen stated that when SubInspector Black came to Auokland the con'ditioitts had changed from what prevailed When the sub-inspector had previously done tiuty in the district. He told the subSaspector that he would do his best to {help him. He took practically the whole of the supervision on his own shoulders, and told the sub-inspector that he was not to be afraid to come to him for advice or assistance. He said he would be pleased to do so, but rarely did. Inspector Cullen said that when he had to go away he found that the sub-inspector left all except formal correspondence to be dealt with when he came back, no matter liow long ke was »way. The sub-inspector should have dealt with them in the witness's absence, and he 'drew' his attention- to this on several occasions. This went on for a very Jong time. ■U£t : -'last he told -"the sub-inspecfor if matters ■were not dealt with .while he was away he would -have to report' the neglect to-, the commissioner. Ec suggested to Mr Black .the" propriety of giving' a "sergeant a- mirn■iber of routine duties to relieve him while "• the. was doing extra work in regard^ to the correspondence.' Inspector .Cullen stated that he also- had to speak to the sub-mspec- - *ot about briefs being sent in and taken to oovrb when -they were not complete. AZ-ihoug-h he had the opinion that the subinspector was not doing justice to the oases lin court, he did not like to hurt his feelings by saying so. These things might have made the sub-inspector think he had a "set" on him, but he looked upon it as his- duty to point out omissions— not serixms,~ but"~yefc omissions — in a- service where work bad to be done systematically. There "was no quarrelling over the matter. ' The first time he and the sub-inspector •""had words" was in connection with the report of a death which oarne to him from' 3Mx Black. There were omissions which should not have been allowed. Previously there had teen criticisms by the coroner in regard to police omissions in a death report, and it went before the public, through th 9 newspapers, as -an instance ol police neglect. He went down to the sub-inspec-tor's office" with the incomplete report, and pointed out the deficiencies. The subdnspectorV reply was that there would have foeea no trouble if there was no friction between witness and! the coroner. A few days later the sub-inspector expressed regret that there had been unpleasantness. "Witness said he also was sorry, and should think no maze of the matter. The Oceanian on which, "witness ordered Black to ieave the office occurred when the subinspector sent up a report, but omitted ;.to „ attach to it the constable's report, which should have been attached. Witness sent fwick the report for this to be, done, and . asked the sub-inspector to be more oarefulin -future.. The 'latter began to refer to tfae length of- thne he had!.- been in the Auckland .. district, but witness said he ■would" not ;.go into any argument. The eub-inspectoir persisted, and witness finally ordered -him to leave the office. As' he 'did so, the - sub-inspector observed, "You - aTe a perfect gentleman^ ' and I will remember the matter." Witness had never acted offensively towards Mr Black or ■borne him any ill-will,, although he had at times "spoken heatedly, as the sub-inspector bad himself. Unfortunately, the subinspector wa& by nature reserved, unapproachable, and very suspicious, and would never meet the inspector Halfway. Whenever^he had reported on the sub-inspector he had dona so as officer-in-charge. He ! 'denied 1 that ho "had ever put himself out of j the -way to avoid speaking to Mr Black, and, in fact, had tried to persuade him to- com© frequently to witness's office to talk over departmental matters. Unfortunately, Mr Black did not do this. He agreed that, in the interest of the service, i either witness or Mr Black should leave 'Auckland. If he (witness) were to be the one to go, ne was quite prepared to do so. If witness had been persecuting Mr Black in the way he alleged, he was himself ■guilty of a very grave breach of the regulations every time he failed to report such alleged treatment. He knew very well that j if he •reported his complaint to "witness that report would be forwarded to the eornmis--fiioner. In regard to the allegation, of espionage over pa-rfcifcular men by particular mien, this was quite untrue. 1 Mr Bishop suggested that "witness should 'explain the reference to what had been called the "black list." Injector Cullen said tliere was- no such list. He remembered giving -various instructions and advice to the sub-inspector when "he first came to Auckland, but nothing in the nature of- a black list. Mr Poynton said the impression conveyed by what Mr Black had said was that there was a black list of citizens who were to be watched. p Inspector Cullen denied &i««

Mr Black explained that hs did not say or mean such a list as that. Mr Bishop : You referred to a typewritten list of civilians. Mr Black : He spoke to me of both policemen and civilians. Mr Bishop ; Did he refer you to a list of Chilians? Mr Black: Only verbally. Mr Poynton: It looked as though he had a grudge against certain citizens, and wanted you to help him to pay them off. That was the impression it gave me. Inspector Cullen said no such thing ever occurred. Mr Cullea was cross-examined at length by Mr Black. ! Mr Dinnie Jhen said to Mr.. Cullen: The j sub-inspector suggests that there has been 'discord between you and me? Mr Cullen replied: I have spoken to you I in an open and frank manner, and I have found you gentlemanly and well disposed | towards me. There is no discord or disloyalty—towards you. JStr Dinnie : I suppose yon find it necessary to maintain strict discipline in your district, olid you have exercised that strictness in .the interests of the' service? ' Mr Cullen :_ Undoubtedly it was In the -interests of the service and public, and in my own interests it was so. If I allowed things to run loose I suffered, and selfinterest is a man's first consideration. " .The President: The sub-inspector referred to what he oalled bitter enmity between you and the coroner. Is that ol a private or public nature? Inspector Cullen : It is official, we have had official disagreements. The coroner and I do not meet privately. Did those relations interfere with your discharge of police duties? — On the contrary; they have tended to keep things more up to the mark. The witness added that he did not know whether the coroner was actuated by personal motives or not, but he took it that he did what he honestly thought was his duty, but when ths coroner criticised the police it damaged the service when remarks appeared in print. Several sergeants and Inspector Cullen were called to speak as to what was described as Sub-inspector Black's unfortunate manner and his method of conducting case 3 in court. The commissioners, however, btopped the evidence regarding court cases on the ground that it was not fair to Mr Black. August 3. Constable M'Giln's complaints against Lispector Cullen were heard to-day by the Police Commission. M'Gilp said that the inspector had treated him unfairly, and once liberated a prisoner witness had arrested on a charge of horse-stealing. Witness's report on which he arrested the accused was read to ihe commission. The Chairman remarked that it contained no information except that the man had a grandmother and' had hurt his leg. .Inspector jDullen suggested that he had treated witness with so much consideration that the people would have something to go on in charging him with making M'Gilp a favourite. 'The commission concluded its Auckland sittings to-<day, when several complaints regarding" the; administration of the force m Auokland were heard. Altogether the Auckland .sittings lasted six days. NAPIER, August 11. Giving evidence before the Police Commission her© to-day, Detective Livingstone, who was stationed at Dunedin during the iimo of the D.I.C. thefts, said his investigations led him to believe they were the work of the firm's employees. Although the records showed he had arrested Moses as a lad for theft, h© had no recollection of doing so. He had heard that M'Donald had be&n caught stealing fruit some time ago, but he n&ver had any suspicion that the police were concerned in the Dunedin i-obberies. He did not think stealing had been going on for years. Inspector M'Donnell suggested the appointment of a sergeant-inaior to act under the sub-inspector at the chief centres, relieving him of a portion of the clerical work, and also lightening his duties as a street sergeant. Continuing, the witness said he did" not think that under -proper supervision larceny at Dunedin could have gone on for a number of years. The appointment of sub-inspectors had not worked well in the majority of places. Sergeant Treavor said that supervision in Auckland was very slack previous to the advent of Inspector Cullen, but it had wonderfully improved sinoe. Speaking as~ to the value of surprise visits, the witness said that since the Dunedin scandal he had made several surprise inspections, and foiutd tl.em warranted, three constables having been reported for neglect of duty. WELLINGTON, August 14 Tli& VoYics Commission opened its sittings here this moruiast. Constable Hi'&ii

Chisholm, of Westporfc, attended with reference to a personal grievance, but the commission refused any evidence unless it referred to the main question of the state of supervision in the force.

Sergeant Cullen said he did not visit "men on their beat by appointment. Ihe beats in Wellington were too large. Political interference in the matter of appointments to the force should be abolished.

Inspector Ellison and the sub-inspector gave evidence that there was no reason to suppose that any thieving was practised by members of the force in Wellington. They believed that something should be done to relieve them of the enormous amount of correspondence and detail work they had to attend to, in order that they might give more attention to police work. They thought the beats in Wellington were too long, and that more constables were recraired.

Sergeant Douglas Gordon, in charge of *h« training depot for probationary constables, said that most of the men who passed through the 1 depot were of inferior education.

Constable William Simpson said that there was irritation in the force regarding the preference that was given- to Roman Catholics. In 1878 there were 311 Protestants and 222 Roman Catholics in the force, and of these seven Catholics and two Protestants were made inspectors. A Catholic who was now an inspector was a constable in 1893. Of nine inspectors appointed since 1696 seven were Catholics.

Th.c commissioners said it would be unwise to go into the religious belief of the members of the force.-

Commissioner Dinnie asked witness if he showed him a return proving him to be wrong whether that would clear his mind of the impressions he had. The witness said, " Yes. It; would be a good thing to disabuse the minds of those who had suspicions."

Mr Bishop snid he deplored the raising of the question. - -