BAUME'S RELEASE

Dominion, Volume 20, Issue 43, 15 November 1926, Page 8

BAUME'S RELEASE

THE FORM OF INQUIRY MAGISTERIAL COMMISSION TO PROCEED MR. ELLIOTT WILL NOT APPEAR The widely-discussed Bamne release case reached an inter* esting stage over the week-end. Following . ‘'The Dominion’s” announcements on Saturday, the Minister of Justice (Hon. F. J. Rolleston) has intimated that the Government intends to proceed at once with the form of inquiry offered, a section of the Prisons Act being invoked for that purpose. Replying to the Minister’s further state, ment, the Rev. Howard Elliott adheres to bis former attitude and declines to appear and produce evidence unless a Royal Commission, consisting of independent persons, is appointed to investigate all the charges.

The statement of the Minister of Justice in reply to the remarks of the Rev. Howard Elliott which appeared in Sntnrdav’s Dominion was as follows:— “Mr Elliott has made specific charges against the administration of the Prisons Department, and in spitft of the categorical denials of his statements he has persisted in these charges. The Government does not intend to allow the matter of the alleged preferential treatment to Baume to rest, and therefore proposes to invoke the provisions of section 17 of the Prisons Act, 1908, which gives full power for investigation of the conduct of prisons ofificers and the

treatment of prisoners. In accordance with the terms of this section, Mr. W. G. Riddell, S.M., in his capacity as a visiting Justice of the Terrace Prison, will be asked to conduct the inquiry, which will be open to the public, and due notice of the time

and nlace will be Riven to Mr. Blhott to enable linn to be present if be so wishes.’

MR. ELLIOTT’S ATTITUDE FULL INQUIRY IMPERATIVE. The Rev. Howard Elliott, interviewed bv a DOMINION reporter yesterday, made the following reply to the Ministerial statement:— . “The obliging haste with which the Minister of Justice and the prison authorities have arranged for a magisterial inquiry into Baume s treatmen in prison is significant. The inquiry is designed to avoid the most serious of the charges I have preferred, and to confine investigation to matters which are trivial and unimportant when compared with the questions as to—(1) W'liv Baume, Mackay, and Baker, were released, and (2) why was Mr. Ballard, an inexperienced junior officer, appointed over the heads of experienced officers to the position of ControllerGeneral. I know that the general public are intensely concerned in tnese issues. They are not, and I am not, concerned as to whether Baume’s eggs were fried or boiled, or whether the chief warder became head waiter for the occasion. But lam concerned to ascertain why Baume and Mackay were granted what amounts to free pardons, whilst other less influential prisoners served their full terms. It has been alleged that Baume’s conduct as a prisoner was so exemplary as to justify his release, but apparently only a release to leave the country. • “The treatment of Baume in prison is an inseparable part of his treatment as a whole, and cannot be segregated for the purpose of whitewashing the Department by . holding a magisterial inquiry. “With all deference to the Minister of Justice and the Magistrate ■ appointed to hold the inquiry into breaches of the gaol regulations, I state definitely and finallv that I will not appear to produce evidence before such inquiry. I will appear and establish my. charges if a Roval Commission is set up, consisting of independent persons, to inquire into the whole of the' charges. The Government cannot pick and choose on the issue. The Minister is bound to satisfy the demand of the public that confidence be re-established in the Prisons Board. The judgment of Mr. Justice Alpers is involved and impugned by the action of the, Prisons Board. “The sense of justice of the community’ has been outraged by the pardoning of these prisoners, who are fortunate enough to have great influence. The appointment of Mr. Dallard is a reproach, beside which the questions of pyjamas, safety razors,' and eggs pale into insignificance.”, , ; FURTHER STATEMENT BY MINISTER In a further statement last night the Hon. F, J. Roileston said: “The Government has complete confidence in the ability of Mr. Dallard to fill his position, and has no intention at Mr. Elliott’s bidding of setting up an inquiry into his appointment; nor for reasons already stated will it set up anv commission to review the actions of the Prisons Board. Mr. Elliott made specific charges against the administration, of the Prisons Department in regard to the preferential treatment of Baume. When these were categoric-, ally denied by the Controller-General, he replied that the Controller had de- 1 liberatelv tried to mislead the public. Mr. Elliott further stated that he had affidavits and sworn evidence to prove his charges. The Prisons Act provides the means for the proper investigation of these charges. The allegation .that on account of influence any prisoner was accorded special privileges and special treatment is not so trivial as Mr. Elliott would now have the public believe. If Mr.'Elliott refuses to produce the evidence which he said was in his possession the public Can draw their own inference.”