WELLINGTON SITTING OPENED.

Otago Witness, Issue 2896, 15 September 1909, Page 30

WELLINGTON SITTING OPENED.

INTERESTING EVIDENCE. WELLINGTON, September 13. The Police Commission commenced its sittings in Wellington to-day, Mr Bishop presiding. In addition to the Commissioner of Police, Inspector Ellison (Wellington) was- also present Mr Alex. Gray applied for leave to repre-. sent the Lambton Quay police. It be remembered, he said, that the Lambton Quay police had held a meeting while the Commission was sitting in Dunedin. The men were not actuated by any antagonism to the Police Commission, and they wished to withdraw any suggestion of want of confidence in the Commission. The men, upon reflection, considered that then* action was oinwise. If any excuse could be offered, the men said it was the more or lees short reports that were telegraphed from Dunedin. They were under a mistaken impression that some individuals at Dunedin were being offered an opportunity for ventilating personal grievances. Mr Bi6hop: That is the opinion of the Wellington police. Mr Gray: They entirely withdraw from any suggestion of disloyalty or want of confidence in the Commission. In reply, Mr Bishop 6aid he was very glad to see that the police had eeen the error of their ways. Reading the resolution, there was no doubt as to what actuated the people who were responsible for it. Mr Bishop characterised the resolution as absolutely impicper. He should be sorry to think that a body of 40 men belonging to the police force of the Dominion should meet together and speak about matters which they knew nothing about. As a result of a haphazard meeting, the men had carried a resolution tantamount to a vote of want of confidence in the person appointed to hold the Commission, and an expression of confidence in their own head. Personally, be had treated the matter with absolute contempt, and he hoped, having regard for his record, he could afford to do that. He had hoped that th© meeting was not the outcome of the views of the Wellington police as a body. To him it appeared to havo been engineered by one or two individuals. He was glad, however, tx> receive Mr Gray's explanation. The meeting, at the time it was held, had done a a, great deal of harm, and it gave to people who were prepared to scoff at the police and its organisation a further opportunity to air their opinions. Mr Bisrop said that he had endeavoured to prevent people airing their personal grievances before the Commission, but in a Commission like this it was impossible to thus out evidence that was sometimes irrelevant, and even improper. One could scarcely take exception to some of it. Some of the evidence had been described as "entirely irrelevant," and not in the best interests of the service, and other portions had been described as " preposterously irrelevant." He certainly took exception to being personally held responsible for a I irreat deal of that evidence which could be so described. His desire had been to i obtain evidence which would place the i police force on the soundest possible footi ing. and to be spoken of with credit everywhere Mr Gray, he said, would be afforded a full opportunity for examining I witnesses and calling any evidence he desired. Here, as elsewhere, the chief ' officers would be examined, but he (the Commissioner) would not call anj con«table. All that was required was that wit- ! nesses should send in their names to Mr Jamos Grey (secretary of the Commission). i After the preliminaries were over, J. J. Miekle came forward and asked leave to eivo evidenoe concerning a constable who, he alleged, had been guilty of perjury at the time of his trial, and who was still in the force. He considered the man an untit person to be in the force. The Commissioner ruled that he could not hear the evidence. Constable 'J. R. Thompson attended aa a delegate from the Lambton quay police. He asked for 8s a day, rising by 6<J overy three years to a maximum of 10s for constable; that 18 days' leave us granted annually; that the house allowance for married men be increased: and that the accommodation at the Lambton quay station be improved. Witness said the conduct of the Wellington police was excellent. Liquor was not taken into the barracks. He knew nothing about two sergoants having to go to the barracks to make peace, nor <ldd he know of a larrikin element in the force. He had .heard nothing- about a "handy" or a "special " man. and did not behe\e that such a person existed. Referring to tlie crowded stai^ of the bedrooms at Lambton quay. Mr Bishop Raid he thought the state of affairs ab~oiuUlv indecent. Constable J. J. Gallagher endorsed Conetiable Thompson's evidence. Constable Doyle, representing the Mount Cook police, argued that the pay should bs 8s a day for constables and a fioe pa^s on the railways when on holidays. He also ventilated grievances legarding emoluments. John Willett, constable at Wellington, South, appeared to answer an allegation made by Mt Arnold at Dunedin that he (witness) Kad been dismissed frotn^ th>. Wellington tramway service for an alleged bustgestion made to a lady passenger. Witnee tendered letters from the manager of the trajnway service to show that there was nothing against him. In answer to questions by Mr Bishop, the witness said that while at Oriental Bay one day he jiad some timp to spare, anj when coming home he dropped a crab (which a hoy had caught) into a bag canied by a lady jpasen^er. ,He •.

admitted that he did not know the lady, but he said she was " not altogether a ebranger to him." The Commissioner (Mr Bishop) questioned witness closely, and ascertained that a complaint had been made by the lady mentioned above, and that hie had been taken off duty as a guard and put on to do other work. In any case he had intended resigning- from the tramway service, and did so subsequently. Mr Bishop ordered fihat the person in custody of the papers at the tramway office relating to the crab incident should be called upon to produce the file. Witness denied— that at the' time the incident occurred there was any improper suggestion. He had never heard of it. He went on to give evidence as the need for additional holidays and increased house allowance. To Mr Dirxnie : Witness applied to get into the Police Force in tihe ordinary way. He knew of no general dissatisfaction in the 6&Tvice. William James Taylor, constable, Wellington South, came before the commission to complain of winat he called "unjust treatment at the hands of Inspector Ellison." He declared that Inspector Ellison had. treated him with contumely at different times, that he hod called witness a " waster," and that Contaable Abbott had been promoted over his head and the heads of 500 others. He alleged that Constable Abbott had been condemned on the floor of Parliament by Mr M'Gowan, that he (Abbott) had left {•£.« force for two yeaTS, but rejoined, and wEen Mr M'Gowan retired from the Ministry Abbott was appointed to the detective force. He had not had a Sunday off since October 19, 1907. Further, he insinuated that a suggestion was nna.de that Inspector Ellison did not treat all the licensed houses alike, and he I (witness) asked that oetrain reports on the [ conduct of various houses, furnished by subordinates to the inspector, should be produced. To Inspector Ellison: Witness considered he was as wjell qualified as Abbott for appointment to the detective force, and he considered he had been unfairly treated when he was not recommended for appointment. He would bring evidence to prove that Inspector Ellison had described him as a " waster." The facts of this case will be further investigated to-morrow morning. Michael Green, a constable stationed at Wellinsr+on, said he was enrolled in 1875Constables should get 8s a day on joining and holidays. An appeal board was very desirable. He had not found much political influence, but there was a worse influence — namely, that the chief clerk (Sub-inspector Wright) frequently acted as commissioner. With all respect to Mr Ddnnie, he was commissioner in name only. Mr Bishop : Never mind about that. Go on with your evidence. Witness said Mr Dinnie had allowed his powers to be wrested from him by the chief clerk. He believed this opinion was shared by othere. He had known men to come to Wellington to see Mr Wright about promotion instead of seeing the commissioner. There had been disorderly scenes in the Wellington barracks. ■ On one occasion he had been told an assault took place, but it was not serious enough to lead him to go and see the incident. On another occasion the men engaged in horse play. However, the statement of Mr Arnold, M.P., about £he conduct of the station was incorrect. Mr Arnold had been misinformed. Mr Dinnie asked who tie men were who came to see the chief cle-rk about promotions, and witness handed in • some names. Witness denied having had any connection with letters appearing in the newspapers relative to Mr Dinnie. i