OBSERVATORY.

Putaruru Press, Volume VII, Issue 308, 3 October 1929, Page 1

OBSERVATORY.

(By Cosmopolitan). Plain John Citizen is not likely to Be greatly impressed by Police Commissioner Mcllveney’s latest outburst in connection with what may be called the Sydney spectacle case. Inf deed, if the Elsie Walker and many other similar cases had not left honest John convinced of the need for a reorganisation, in our police methods, surely the fatuous remarks telegraphed verbatim from Wellington will now convince him of the need for a change in high places in the police force. Mr. W. B. Mcllveney recently broadcasted the following choice piece of self-praise which W, must have made his Auckland sub- ’ ordinates blush when they read it:— " It is one of the finest cases of detective work in the Southern Hemisphere, and should be an indication to citizens of the Dominion of what the New Zealand police can do.” Then follow the facts which show that the Sydney police had but , one clue to i work on to detect a certain crime. j This was a spectacle case on which j was embossed the name of a New V Zealand maker. Two hours after the cable arrived in Auckland the owner of the spectacles had been named. The spectacles had been made for him while he-was serving a sentence in Mt. Eden gaol! Two hours does not seem especially speedy for the job, and if any praise is due it should j surely go to the optician who was ! able to give a scientific description of the glasses in such clear terms as | to make them identifiable by his | Auckland confrere. The finding of j an optician whose name was embossed on a spectacle case, and the search of his records till a customer whose address was Mt. Eden goal was discovered, is one which even a ' Taw office boy addicted to Sexton Sir Blake would scorn to shout from the • house tops. Plainly Mr. Mcllveney A has said too much or too little, for it W Is unlikely any Auckland detective needed a wet towel around his head to follow such a clue. Short of leaving his name and address the crim- \ , Inal in question could hardly have assisted the police to a greater degree. ,

Unfortunately, “following information received,” the Minister in charge of Mr. Mcllveney’-s department committed what might be termed a blazing indiscretion in connection with the Christchurch fires- when he volunteered the opinion that there was not a “ fire bug ” at work in Christchurch. A few days previously the Chief of Police had made searching enquiries into the many serious outbreaks in the City of the Plains, and there is at least circumstantial evidence that Mr, Wilford’s remarks were based on Mr. Mcllveney’s detective work. Again, too little or too much has been uttered, for Mr. Wilford’s belief is likely to deceive no one. If intended to lull the “ bug ” to a false sense of security it is a puerile effort and truly playing with fire, while if the Ministerial statement is to be believed then Christchurch must be peopled With many peculiar individuals, such as business men who delight in using “ jelly ” and jemmy on their safes before playfully setting alight to their premises; who lay tubing saturated with petrol to their reservoirs and light the far end; vicars who set fire to their studies; and above all a Mayor who heaps his furniture up, sets alight to his house and then opens the windows—all while attending a banquet. All this may be merely circumstantial evidence to the powers that be, but it would be interesting to hear the private comments of the victims concerned on Mr. Wilford’s dictum. The views of a prominent Waikato magistrate, sometime of this very English city, might also be especially interesting.

Of course, all of the fires are not to be attributed to the “ fire bug.” There are careless people, stupid people, wayward people and all kinds of people, even in this Cathedral City. Careless people like those electricians who never seem to wire houses quite as they should do, or like those who will persist in leaving their electric iron to heat up while they do their shopping. And stupid

people who look for a gas leakage with a match and find it; who boil prodigious quantities of fat in open utensils on open fires; and who clean gloves with benzine and the aid of a candle. Then lastly those who regard a fire as a never-failing source of profit and consider themselves entitled to share in insurance company dividends by other than the accepted methods. In view of all this, it is quite possible that Mr. Fire Bug has been unjustly blamed for many fires. There is at least one historic precedent for this view—Powelka. Poor old Powelka may or may not have been all that some people said he was. Be this as it may, one thing is certain, he could not have lit a couple or more fires Palmerston way within half an hour and over fifty miles apart. Doubtless this also applies to Mr. Bug of Christchurch.