CANT CAN'T GET A HEARING

NZ Truth, Issue 1210, 7 February 1929, Page 9

CANT CAN'T GET A HEARING

Former Captain of "Hinemoa" Complains That He Was Unjustly

Dismissed On Charges He Can Disprove, While Absent In England

INSIDE STORY OF MASTER MARINER'S DOWNFALL

nORMEKLY master of the GovernF ment steamer Hinemoa; Captain Cant was appointed to go to England'to take charge of the new motorship, Maui Pomare, and to bring the vessel out to the Dominion. During- his absence serious charges, alleging drunkenness and loose conduct with a woman passenger while m command of the "Hinemoa" were made against him. As a result of the allegations, which were made m affidavit after Captain Cant had left for England, he was summarily deprived of his post and told that he could return to New Zealand if he wished, to reply to the allegations. He did not do so at the time, but instead drew a cheque for £150 from the Imprest Account on which he had been previously authorized to draw m connection with the "Maui Pomare," and disappeared for several -months, until at last, "with, sevenpence m his pocket, he surrendered to the London police and confessed his crime. He was sentenced to three months' im-prisonment-in Wormwood. Scrubs gaol, his Master's ticket was cancelled and he returned to New' Zealand a broken man; All attempts to have his case reopened have failed, the Public Service Commissioner; taking up the stand that as Cant did not elect to return to New Zealand immediately after his dismissal to defend his character, he has forfeited his right to do so now. Cant has told "Truth" that he is m a position to answer all the charges levelled against him if given an oppor- ■" ' .. ■■■'.» No Gilded Lily tunity to do so. On his own admission Cant acted criminally m taking money that did not belong to him. He admits that he went "on the bust" with the cash, but he was so dispirited and upset to think that he could be "stabbed, m the back" .when 12,000 miles away from his accusers, without being given a hearing, that he acted as he did m sheer desperation. This paper holds no brief for Cant and it certainly has no intention of white-washing him. He is no gilded lily, but m fairness to the man it must | be- said '.that. he has made no attempt to gloss over his folly m England or excuse himself m any way so far as^his conduct there is concerned. * After perusing a mass of official correspondence on the subject, and the affidavits m which the allegations were. made , against him, "N.Z.; Truth"is by no means satisfied that Cant has been given a fair deal. , . , . Strenuous efforts have been made on his behalf by his solicitors m Auckland to have the matter reopened, but officialdom absolutely declines to consider: it. The result is that Cant, a married man with five children, j is ' a struggling unit m the unemployment market. Out of a maze of detail there emerges the important fact that Cant was summarily dismissed from his post as Master of the "Maui Pomare" Defore he had been heard. This may be the official way of doing things, but it is certainly contrary to all the rules of fair play. The proper thing for the department to have done on becoming aware of the serious allegations that had been made against the captain would have been to suspend him pending the result of a full and impartial inquiry, instead of The Allegations condemning him and dismissing him out of hand. Summarized, the charges made against Cant related to the captain's alleged drinking habits while ashore at Suva on one occasion, and his conduct on - his, return to the ship, when he was said to have been involved m a drunken alter- ■ cation .with two members of the crew. The filthy language allegedly used by the captain within the hearing of ladies was also made the subject of a charge. •„. Further accusations, were levelled against the captain m 'connection with a trip made by the "Hinemoa" to Norfolk Island. It was alleged that he was drinking heavily on that trip, and that a woman shared his cabin. Cant holds evfdence from late members of the crew of the "Hinemoa" which he claims is m direct conflict with the charges made against him and he produced for "Truth's" inspection a mass of '\ correspondence from former passengers who had sailed m the "Hinemoa." Every letter is a testimonial to the sobriety, courtesy and general "efficiency of Captain Cant, and practically every letter has been received since his fall from grace — a significant fact. Cant denies the charges m toto,- and claims that if given the opportunity of appearing before his accusers he can disprove every allegation made, i The onus is on him to do what he says he can do — vindicate his character

(From "N.Z. Truth's" Special Auckland Representative) i * M iiiititiiiiiiiitiiititiiiiiillllllllMlllltlltltlllllllllilllllllllUllUll' \ IIMniIMIIIHIIUIIIIIHMUUIIHIIHHIMIIIItIMIIHitIIiniIIIIItIiMIIIIIW j= Complaining 1 bitterly that he has been condemned without || 1 1 a hearing, his career ruined and his livelihood taken away from || If him without being given an opportunity of speaking m his own §§ 1 1 defence, ex-Sea Captain A. E. Cant, of Auckland, has appealed || i I to this paper for what he describes as "a fair and impartial || || hearing" m the hope that the authorities will give him a |I | ! chance to be heard. II

and reputation — and all "Truth" has to say on this aspect of his case is that, having perused all- the .official correspondence, there is ample justification for a full and exhaustive inquiry into all the facts.

While there is no excuse for the foolish and criminal conduct of Cant, following his summary dismissal, that conduct provides no r.easoh why he should Tict be heard. '

If the charges against him were substantiated at an inquiry that would constitute proof of the allegations, and the ex-captain would have no cause to complain, but until he has been given an opportunity of rebutting the charges

he is entitled, m the circumstances, to nurse a grievance. Cant has expiated his misappropriation of the Government funds, having served three months' imprisonment m an English gaol. To take a master mariner's ticket away from him, as was done by the New Zealand Marine Board m Cant's case, on the grounds of his defalcation of "Government funds, is a serious blow to a sea-faring man. No doubt the cancellation of his licence was fully justified on the facts of his defalcation, but apart from that the main cause and motive of his crime should be taken

into consideration, m common justice. If he can prove that the charges made against him are without foundation the way is open for a reconsideration of his case by the Marine Board. Of course, i£ the cancellation was governed solely by Cant's dishonesty, and not by the allegations miide prior to his crime, there are many difficulties m the way before Cant can win his way back to the sea. When he left Dublin after his dismissal, he fully intended going to London to report to the High Commissioner, but when he reached Liverpool all his good intentions went to the winds. "Something came over me," he said, "and I just didn't go." Cant admitted that he had given way to drink, although he did not spend all the money he had misappropriated, some of it being "lost." "What explanation have you for not writing to your wife m New Zealand?" was "Truth's" next question. "I could not write to my wife because of the shame of the whole thing," he said. He was reminded that it had been said of him that he had deserted his. wife, but this he denied. "Truth" considers his explanation a lame one, to say the least. A letter from Sir MaUi Pdmare, formerly Minister of the Cook Islands, which Cant received m reply to a letter m which he severely criticized the Minister, made reference to Cant's Stern Threat past and the assistance the Minister had g^ven him. "You apparently cannot appreciate the consideration I have, shown to you from the day you joined this department when, In spite of your past record for 'misappropriating your, employer's funds, out of . the generosity of my heart I gave you an opportunity to make good and re-establish yourself m the eyes of decent people," wrote Sir ■Maui Pomare. "Even after your failure to respect the trust I reposed m you and yoti defaulted with the department's funds I still did what I could to assist your family, whom you deserted, not only m continuing payment of an allotment to them m excess of what Audit would permit, but I was also personally responsible for obtaining for your son a Government position with the object of assisting to maintain your family." Sir Maui Pomare's letter also referred to a : serious charge made by Cant against the Minister m connection with his department, which was made the subject of a stern threat to take proceedings against Cant for defamation. .•-'•;, , , Reviewing the whole of the circumstances of the case Cant does not emerge with much credit. He made no secret of the "past" which the exMinister referred to. Cant was m trouble 16 years ago when m the service of the Union Company. He became involved there, and as a result was placed on probation. So it will be seen that ex-Captain Cant is no lily-white injured innocent, and he was plainly told by "Truth" that this paper had no intention of painting him as such. But it is only fair to say that Cant's past was not held against him, on the Minister's own admission, for he was Cant's Claim employed m the service while the former offence was fully known. That offence, therefore, should have no in-fluence-whatever m the present case. In spite of his past misdeeds, the fact remains that Cant was condemned without a hearing when at tlie Other end of the world, and it is not sufficient for the Public Service Commissioner to refuse him the bare justice of "trial" merely because he became desperate and disheartened and did not return to New Zealand to face the charges' forthwith. That Cant was not suspended but "sacked" on the spot, is the essence of the case, and thus he I can rightly claim to be the victim I of injustice. Even a murderer is heard before he lis condemned, and Cant has a right to j be hoard m his OAVn defence. I "Truth" takes no sides In the dispute lat present., but having seen the docujments and correspondence, backed by a personal interview with Cant's solicitors, it is satisfied that Cant has a case that is not without considerable merit, notwithstanding his foolish actions m England. If the Public Service Commissioner is adamant m refusing to reopen the matter, the new Minister should see to if that Cant has a hearing, and without delay. All the evidence should be heard m his presence, and he should be judged on that, fairly and impartially. Cant demands a hearing m the name of common justice, and he is entitled to it. He realizes that not only his reputation as a sea captain b,ut his very bread and butter would be vitally affected by the result, j i