A STRANGE CASE.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXX, Issue 4406, 4 May 1875, Page 3

A STRANGE CASE.

(From the New Zealand Herald, April 26.) •On Saturday, Charles King, late a sergeant in the Armed Constabulary, who had been sentenced by a queer tribunal at Tauranga, calling itself ft a Board of Officers,” to three months' imprisonment with hard labor in Mount Eden gaol, was released by order of his Honor Judge Gillies, “as he was clearly of opinion that the conviction was bad for want of jurisdiction." The opinion of the Judge was obtained by bringing the prisoner before him on a writ of habeas corpus , King being lucidly either well enough off, or having friends well enough off, to obtain the assistance of counsel for the purpose. The most extraordinary part of this proceeding against Sergeant King is the entire secrecy with which it has been hitherto conducted. Nothing was said about it in the local papers to draw special attention. No private information was received from Tauranga. Newspaper correspondents and telegraph agencies were alike silent. Yet a more gross case of abuse of power has not come under our knowledge. A man, held we find in high respect by the people where he was stationed—so high that they assembled on the wharf in a crowd and cheered him as he was put on board ship to be taken to Auckland gaol as a criminal—is summarily tried and convicted by a so-called “'Board of Officers,” of whose existence no one was aware but whose warrant of committal the governor of the gaol seems to have felt himself bound to recognise. Can it be that the secret must be looked for in the reign of terror notoriously exercised by the Native Office and its servants in every district when a few natives give an excuse for their existence ? The East Coast has long been pointed to in this sense as a seat of corruption. No one quarrelling with the authorities, or daring to dispute their dicta, can hold up his head or hope to prosper. The tyranny is most bitterly felt by those who are bona fide settlers in the district. They would gladly throw it off, but they can only oppose the tribe of officials, small and great, at much personal discomfort—at risk in some cases of being annoyed by the natives around them—at risk in others of having their efforts to lease or purchase native land counteracted and, if they desire to get into political life, of having the native vote given cn bloc against them. If this be so—and our inquiries lead us to believe that the picture is underdrawn —it is time the condition of these native districts was closely investigated by a competent commission, and authoritative information obtained.

With reference to Charles King’s case, we have made the most careful enquiries, and believe what we now state to be in every essential point correct. It is not easy to obtain trustworthy information, as our readers, may readily believe. Those who can speak either dare not or will not, and wo are thrown on accounts brought to Auckland by casual visitors from Tauranga as the only resource. In this way wo learn that Charles King served in the Imperial army for fifteen years, and left with a good character when claiming his discharge. He joined the Armed Constabulary when, in 1870, that body was formed on the “ demilitarisation” cry of Mr. Fox. Sergeant King rose rapidly from merit, and was regarded with respect by all classes at Tauranga where he has been stationed for nearly five years. On St. Patrick’s Day some altercation took place between himself and the Commanding Officer—how originating wo cannot say, for we desire it to be understood that wo have avoided the slightest communication with King himself ; with his legal adviser, or with his known friends, in any way whatever. In the course of the dispute, King, perhaps because it was St. Patrick’s Day, lost temper and self-control, and either called his Commanding officer “a skunk” or muttered the word in his presence. We have two accounts, either of which may in this respect bo accurate, but both of which exhibit the sergeant’s conduct as highly reprehensible from a military point of view. Only

—and there’s the rub—the Armed Constabulary are not a military body. It was on Colonel Macdonnell’s pamphlet, on Ms own scheme for demilitarisation, and on Mr. Vogel s cry for retrenchment and denunciation of the reckless and gambling character of colonial finance, that Mr. Fox’s Government came into office in 1869, just as the break-down of the Maori strength by continued defeats had rendered demilitarisation possible. Courts Martial were consequently. abolished, but Boards of Officers seem to have taken their. place. Before one of these Boards, consisting of Captain Bluets, Lieutenant Edgcumbe and Captain Tunics, King was brought in duo form, found guilty, and sentenced to three months in gaol, with hard labor. He was also reduced to the ranks and fined £ 5 , in addition to the other and graver punishment inflicted upon him. He was taken from Tauranga about three weeks ago with, as we have before said, public opinion so strongly in his favor that a crowd of all classes turned out to bid him good-bye. Ho left amidst rounds of cheering, and his departure was an ovation instead of that of a criminal on his way to three months in gaol, with hard labor. ’ t A stranger story of its kind is not often to be told. We have not- a word to say in excuse for Sergeant King’s outburst of temper and loss of self-control. Discipline must at all hazards be preserved, in the constabulary as in other public bodies. But, with the abandonment of military organisation, surely military proceedings and penalties are altogether out of place. No one will maintain that “ Boards of Officers,” shut up in small districts, forming a small and select ring, and doing their best to lord it in a small way over the other residents and settlers, should be endowed with, the powers of military officers, under strict subordination to higher authorities and taking no part in civil affairs. The queer mixture of the penalty inflicted on Sergeant King is the most apt commentary, on the hybrid organisation of the force. _ Reduced to the ranks—there we have the military element. Dined £5 and costs—there the civil magistrate peeps out. Finally, three months imprisonment in the common gaol, with hard labor, brings both military and civil powers once more to mind. It is very clear that this matter cannot be passed over without enquiry. Except for counsel’s aid, Sergeant King would still be suffering a criminal’s fate in the common gaol, and have left it ruined in reputation and broken in his career. And all because his “captain” (we thought, by-the-bye, there were to be no more. military titles in Mr. Fox’s demilitarised force) entered into a personal altercation with his sergeant, in the course of which the latter committed the gross breach of discipline implied in the use of the word “skunk.” Surely the fine of £5 and costs, the reduction to the ranks, or even dis-, missal from the service, met the exigencies of the case, without the punishment as a criminal illegally imposed in addition. It is not only in its personal light that King’s case becomes important, but as part of a system which must be very quickly abolished if it is not to maintain an un-English terrorism, and to keep Maoris and settlei's divided lest there should be no longer an excuse for it to exist.