H.—l6b

XIII

a brainless young man." This is dated the 30th April, 1905. The next thing is a very strong recommendation by Mr. W. Symes, M.H.R., addressed to the Minister, and asking his most favourable consideration. Mr. Symes said, "It affords me pleasure to recommend Mr. G., late a constituent of mine, but now of Christchurch, who has made an application for appointment in the Police Force. I have known G. and his family for years : he bears an excellent character; he is healthy, athletic, steady, and an honourable and straightforward young man, and will do credit to the Force." This bears the date 29th May, 1905. This apparently did not have the desired effect, for on the 19th January, 1906, I find another letter from Mr. Symes addressed to the Minister, " I beg to enclose herewith a renewal of Mr. G.s application for a position in the Police Force. I have the utmost confidence in recommending the applicant, having known him for years past: he is a reliable and trustworthy young fellow, thoroughly honest and energetic, and will make a good officer. I therefore specially recommend him to your favourable consideration." He was accepted as a probationer on the 24th July, 1906, and was sworn in as a constable on the 25th October, 1906. Various inquiries were made from different employers, and the answers were all favourable; but the periods of knowledge were all short, and such knowledge as was possessed was manifestly more of the man as a workman than anything else. Not one of the reports compared with that of Constable R. as to knowledge and opportunity for judging and length of acquaintance. I doubt very much if he would ever have been accepted if it had not been for the backing he received from a member of Parliament. For some time the man kept out of trouble; but in Auckland, on the 21st February, 1908, he was fined by Inspector Cullen for entering the room of the Waterside Workers' Union and examining papers therein without permission, also using improper language while in said office; and on the 18th July, 1908, he was fined, dismounted, and transferred to Wellington for grossly insubordinate conduct towards a sergeant, and wilfully refusing to obey the sergeant's orders when on duty at Alexandra Park. Inspector Cullen considered this instance so flagrant that it might have had very serious results, and he thought that the man richly deserved to be dismissed. Instead of that he is brought to Wellington, where he finally behaves in such a gross manner as to bring utter disgrace upon the whole of the Police Force, and to cause people to wonder how such men ever obtained admission to it. These facts require no further comment. It is also another of the evil results of transferring a man for misconduct, which I refer to elsewhere. I have considered the circumstances under which a man was admitted into the Police Force who was afterwards dismissed on account of having been convicted of an assault in the streets of Wellington on the 10th May, 1909. I find that this man was accepted as a probationer on the 4th July, 1907, and was sworn in as a constable on the 28th August, 1907. He had previously been in the Permanent Artillery, and I find that his defaulters sheet while in that Force shows that on the 21st February, 1907, he was fined for inattention at drill and insolence to a non-commissioned officer. I cannot understand why a man who has shown insubordination in one Force should be supposed to be fit for another Force so shortly afterwards, whatever his credentials from friends might be. To show the danger of taking men into the Police Force on the strength of certificates of service outside of the Dominion, and the bad effect it has on our Force, I would refer to the case of a man who was sworn in on the 10th March, 1908. Two months later he was fined by the Commissioner for being under the influence of liquor at 9 a.m. on Sunday, 24th May, 1908, when coming off duty at Wellington. He was then, apparently, according to the practice that I find occasion to so utterly condemn, transferred to Invercargill, for I find that he is dealt with there by his Inspector on the 21st October, 1908, for two serious breaches of duty. Then, onthe 21st January, 1909, he pleads guilty to a charge of " Being on night duty, did leave his beat, and was found in his bed asleep and under the influence of liquor." For this he is dismissed from the service. And all this in a little over nine months.