THE DUNEDIN GAOL.

New Zealand Tablet, Volume XI, Issue 24, 5 October 1883, Page 5

THE DUNEDIN GAOL.

(To the editor of the Morning Herald.) Slß,~Beading a recent work on " Burmah," I was struck with the way in which the Burmese acquiesce in the killing by the reigning monarch of all the probable rivals to his throne. To them this wholesale slaughteris notimmoral. But when I was reflecting on this, I thought thatjeveiuamongst ourselves, there might be found a "survival," happliy not of the " killing," but of the getting rid of those that may be thought to menace some position of power or influence ; and naturally my thoughts were led to consider how often politicians use their positions to rid the civil -service of the friends "of their opponents. In Air-erica this is a -.recognised thing. I do not say it has been extensively used in New Zealand ; but even in our favoured Colony it has not been unknown. I wonder if this feeling has had anything to do with the management of our gaols. Let me say that I have hesitated to write on New Zealand prisons, because I was employed as counsel for Mr. Caldweli before the Gaol Commissioners, and I have made it a rule not to write over my own name nor anonymously of any matter in which I have been professionally engaged. But in the present instance Mr. Caldweli was honourably acquitted of the gross charges trumped up against him, and his pension has been recommended. I therefore feel free to comment on some phases of ijkis prison question. ~ And first I must reiterate what I said before the Commissioners —the gross nnfairness of appointing two officers of the Minister of Justice's Department to deal with a subject in which necessarily a criticism of his department was involved. If the Ministry wished to have acted fairly by the Dunedin Gaol, it was their duty to have selected two colonists who had no political leanings, and who were not Government officers. Ido not charge the Commissioners with bias ; on the contrary, if the Commissioners were to be officers of the Minister of Justice's Department I do not know if two more fair and capable officers could have been found. But as showing the unsatisfactory nature of the appointment, I note that in the Report there is not one word of criticism of Inspector Hume's conductnot one word said of the absurd orders that emanated from the department in Wellington. The private interviewings, the teadrinking at Mr. Torrance's, the visits to Mr. M. W. Green's to get political aid from an Oppositionist, the hoarding-up of charges, the orders abcufc " cabs," etc., etc., find no mention in the Eeport. Why ? Nor do I find the relationship between the department and the Visiting Justices much dealt with. Again, why ? Here were two branches of the gaol inquiry that gentlemen outside of a Government department would surely have reported on. Again, Jwhat are the duties of an inspector ? Is it the duty of an inspector to deal with " irregularities " when reported to him ? Or should he " collect " them and then ask for a Royal Commission? There are other questions as to an inspector's duties that your limited space prevents me putting. And then how comes it that there is no mention of the ' irregularity " of prisoners seeing newspapers in Lyttelton gaolnewspapers with the evidence given in Dunedin before the Commissioners ? As to the treatment of the warders, I do not know if one can write strongly enough on this subject. By the end of this month only one warder, I believe, who was said "to favour " Mr. Caldweli is left in Dunedin prison. Warder Fredric has had to retire, Warder M'Namara has had to retire, Warder Watson is dismissed, ChiefWarder Flannery is dismissed or offered a situation in a lower grade in another gaol, Principal-Warder Duncan is removed. The charge made against Warder Fredric depended on the evidence of a prisoner whose character Detective Bain has given in the witness-box. Those who know Mr. Fredric do not require me to state his high character and perfect uprightness. Warder M'Namara is also well known to Dunedin citizens as one who has been faithful in the discharge of his duties. Warder Watson, since his re-admission to the gaol, has also borne an excellent character. Surely the one or two irregularities charged against him under his former employment were condoned, and ought never to have been either reported or referred to. Why ha 9he been dismissed ? Then Principal-Warder Duncan, to who&e zeal and hard work so many citizens bore testimony, citizens who knew his work—Mr. Mirams, Mr. Hay, Mr. Smith, etc.— is to be removed to Lyttelton. Why? Is this a step towards his final removal 1 During his twenty-two years ' Government service as a policeman and warder no black mark has ever been made against him ; and this is to be the reward of his faithful service. Nay, it is well known that through an assault by a prisoner, and his hard work he suffers from what so many hard worked warders suffer from —^rsore varicosed leg, and will he be able to go up and down the Lyttelton gaol stairs? ' -Then I come to Chief- Warder Flannery. There was no charge ever made against him. In all the gaol books no charge ever stands opposite his name, and yet he is first dismissed, then later on again disrated. He has not had the opportunity given him that is given the most hardened convict. If a charge is made against a prisoner he is informed of ifc and it is judicially investigated. This has been denied to Chief- Warder Flannery ; and as one who, whilst Provincial Solicitor, knew all the gaol officers, etc., I can say that none bore a higher character than Mr. Flannery. If, indeed, Mr. Conolly's statement were true, that Mr. Flannery stated something that was false, then he was unfit to be a gaol officer, and Mr. Conolly should have dismissed him. The offer to disrate him only shows that Mr. Oonolly is not sensible of the duties of a warder, nor what is due to proper gaol discipline. - i And now as to tl: e relative functions of Visiting Justices and the Prisons Department. Ever since the inspector came and iasisted on supervising the decisions of the Visiting Justices in dealing with charges against gaol officers, the discipline of the gaol has been weakened. There were, I believe, no misunderstandings till the intermeddling of the inspector began. Since then the Visiting Justices have properly refused to deal with charges against warders. Kven now I understand one warder was suspended by a Visiting Justice, who declined to deal with the charge because of central inter-

meddling. The inspector has graciously reinstated the warder till ms arrival. Of coarse this means that all breaches of discipline must be dealt with by the inspector, and anyone who has studied gaol discipline can say how that it likely to work in New Zealand. Do not imagine, Sir, that it is only between Dunedin Visiting Justices and the department that memoranda have passed or misunderstanding arisen. Let all the correspondence between the Lyttelton Visiting Justices be published, and then the public will see what happens when Visiting Justices do their duty. ,^ nat is, however, the saddest thing in the whole business is that hardly a single gaol officer has any confidence in the department. Ine men who have borne the heat and burden of the day certainly have none, and if the few who think they are Captain Hume's favourites express other ideas I doubt their sincerity. The whole department has, in fact, been demoralised. The good name of estimable and able officers has been defamed through aj P ablishin£ ? th e lies that prisoners told of their conduct. And the disheartening of good officers has been painful to witness. Those who are not the inspector's favourites believe they have no chance of promotion. Indeed, one warder, whose service has been short, has just been promoted over the heads of his seniors. And whether this belief of favouritism is well founded or not, the very existence of the belief is destructive of proper discipline. And what are the causes of all this ? I believe it was a gross blander sending to England for an inspector. There were many on the staff quite as capable as the present inspector. If Mr. Caldweli was objectionable to some of our rulers, Mr. Philips might have been chosen. This I can say, that I found Lyttelton Gaol, which Mr. Phillips 'built, better arranged and as well conducted as either Pentndge or Darlinghurst, and these two seemed all that could have been desired in gaols. He knows all about prison discipline, and he is. I believe, eminently a just man. Then another cause is the placing in position of Ministers men who have neither studied nor attempt to master prison matters. It has been said Mr. Dick knew little, but what can Mr. Conolly know ? He has never seen the gaols of the Coloay, and I do not believe he has ever read any standard 'work on gaol management. The result of this lack of knowledge is that he has to defer to the inspector, and by him he is railed. "Then, might I mention another cause 1 It is undeniable that during election times there was a feeling in Dunedin that the gaol officers were against the present Ministry. Ido not know whether they were or not. This I believe, that Mr. Dick would not be ungenerous enough to punish electors opposed to '.him. The feeling, however, may have biassed some Ministers and some Ministerialists. That the Dunedin Gaol officers have been shamefully treated is apparent, and it remains to be seen what the Parliament will do to redress their grievances. If the Parliament does not, then I submit it will be the bounden duty of a new Ministry to show that there is a limit to injustice, and to restore those who have been unjustly driven from office ; and perhaps to tell others that dispensing with their services will not harm the Colony. Much as I would regret the raising of such a political question in dealing with the civil service, still there may be worse things than even that — and worse, I think, have been done during the past twelve months. — I am, etc. Bobbbt Stout.