POLICE "EFFICIENCY."

Cromwell Argus, Volume III, Issue 130, 7 May 1872, Page 6

POLICE "EFFICIENCY."

(To the Editor of the Cromwell Argus. )

Sin, —I read a letter in your paper some time past praising Sergeant Cassels as an efficient officer, &c. &c., and hoping for his return to the district. As one who has suffered by the extraordinary efficiency of this officer, who is so good a revenue-collector, I wish to say a few words. First, —1 would like to ask the person who so admires the Sergeant, what good the revenue does this part of the world ? seeing that there are no roads made, little or no work carried on by Government in the district, and that punts, bridges, &c., have all to he carried out by private enterprise. I cannot think why anyone should be particularly anxious for the collection of a revenue,—-two-thirds of which goes to the other Island, and the other third to the uttermost ends of the earth to collect immigrants to people a land they will not come to willingly. A little may be spent here, in the shape of police, Court, &c. But seeing that one-half the police are employed in tax-gathering, why not do away with the collector, and let the taxes take care of themselves ? By so doing, Government would save the expense of both horse and man, which must be very considerable, even if they did lose a little of the taxes. If that were so, would not dogs and “snobs” rejoice, grow fat, and live at peace ! Mr Birch has gone home, and I was thinking what a line example this district would afford when he is “ spinning a differ” tn the people at home to get them to come to this land. He might say to some poor “snob,” who stands agape, swallowing all that the fluent Birch may tell him of the blessings of emigration,—he might say : “ I knew a man in your line, who' went to New Zealand, and, after travelling far, seeking work and finding none, squatted down, and set to work for himself. But along comes the police, to tell him that work he must not do without first paying £5 to the Government ; and to prove this, drags him over some twelve miles of ground to attend a Court. There the policeman solemnly swears : ‘ I found this man sitting in a place framed with wood and covered with bags, ten feet wide and twelve feet long ; he had one pair of boots hung up, and ho was making another pair ; and he has not paid £5 to the Government for doing so.’ To which the Court, after hearing what the * snob’ had to answer to so grave a charge, says to the culprit: ‘ You have boen guilty of making a pair of boots, there is no doubt ; but as it has not been distinctly and positively proved that you sold them, I shall give you the benefit of the doubt, and dismiss the case ; but don’t do it any more, or you may get into trouble.’ ” 1 fancy that the “ snob’s” mouth would shut quick, that he would listen to Birch’s charming persuasion no more, and I don’t think he would emigrate ! As I took my journey home that night in the cold and dark, I could not help puzzling myself to know what benefit 1 had received at the hands of the Warden, who assured me he gave me some. Of one thing I was certain : I had had to travel some twelve miles, wait six hours, and lose the whole day, besides having to bear all the worry of the thing ; and pay a “ bob” for it into the bargain. And I could not help thinking,—if discretion is the better part of valour, is it not also some part of a “ peeler’s” duty ? or are they not supposed to have any ? I could not see where the sense was in putting me to all this trouble. The money could not be got, as I had none ; to jail they could hardly send me, I think, as it would be, under the circumstances, coming it rather too strong ; and no magistrate would seek the responsibility. 4ml I could not but feel how much more nicely the Sergeant would have done his duty, (which, the Court assured me, he only had done,) if he had said to me : “ You say you are poor ; I shall give yon* month or so to look about you, and get on year feet; if you have not a license then, I shall have to summon you.” Don’t you think, Mr Editor, 1 that would have been a better plan of action, altogether ? Did your correspondent but take into consideration the loss to the district,—in fines, lost time, lost money,—and the harassing annoyance caused to so many people, I think he would hardly be so loud in his praises of this efficient policeman.—l am, See., L. J. Drew.