H.—l6b

was a little bit of bait for such as yourself to bite at. ... I knew what 1 was doing at the time, and I knew it would be made public. . . . We laid a trap for men who are interfering with the Department." ( Vide page 76 of the evidence.) The main dispute between the two was over the statement made by Mr. Arnold that the Finger-print Expert, who is Mr. Dinnic's son, had been granted six months' leave on full pay to go to England. As a matter of fact —and there is not the slightest doubt about it —the young man was granted six months' leave, but only one month on full pay; and there is no reason for believing that any other recommendation was ever made. The Hon. Mr. McGowan is very precise on the point, and the Commissioner has stated so on oath. It was natural that the Commissioner should feel strongly on the point, looking to his relationship to the Finger-print Expert. I think, myself, that it is a matter for regret that a person holding an important and responsible position such as this should be a near relation of the head of the Department. Apart from the fact that anything savouring at all of nepotism should be avoided in the public service, the position cannot lend itself to the interests of true discipline. The relations between the two inevitably form a subject of comment in the Force generally. The Commissioner of Police. At the conclusion of the main evidence in Wellington the Commissioner asked me, as I have previously stated, to allow him a fortnight's time in which to prepare a written statement of the evidence that he proposed to give. So that he should be placed at no. possible disadvantage, although I considered the time asked for unreasonably long, I decided to grant his application. The statement he finally made is embodied in the evidence. It is necessary that I should refer to it to some extent, as some portions of it are misleading, and therefore liable to create a wrong impression. He has gone somewhat beyond his proper function in summing up the results and effect of the evidence, but I do not desire to attach very much importance to this. The responsibility for the findings must be mine, and in every instance in which I express opinions adverse to the Commissioner's review of his own administration, I am able to support my findings and opinions, either by the evidence actually given, or by reference to the official files, from which I have made copious extracts. At the very opening of the Commission, the Commissioner emphasized the fact that he had applied for an inquiry into what he was pleased to term the reckless charges made by members of Parliament as to certain matters in connection with the Police Force. As he evidently wished it to be implied that he was responsible for the setting-up of this Commission, it is perhaps a little inconsistent that he should on certain occasions have shown a disposition to impede rather than to assist the work of inquiry. In the exercise of my discretion and within the powers of my commission, I have called for a large number of files of papers from the Commissioner's office where I have thought that in any way whatever I might be assisted in obtaining material upon which I could better report on police matters generally, keeping strictly within the order of reference of my Commission. I quote here the paragraph conveying the authority,— " And also to have before you and examine any books, writings, records, and documents whatsoever which you shall deem necessary for your information in these premises." Through the agency of those files, in cases where the oral evidence fell short of exactitude, I have in places discovered matter that has caused me to refer to what I have termed the ineptitude of'the Commissioner's administration in certain directions. His reference to my action on page 499 of his statement is entirely uncalled-for and almost impertinent. Wherever I have thought it necessary I have made verbatim extracts from the files to support the view I have taken. In that respect, it is quite true, as he says, that the files speak for themselves. How they speak is a matter of opinion, and must be judged, as

III