South Canterbury Times. TUESDAY, MARCH 30, 1880.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2193, 30 March 1880, Page 2

South Canterbury Times. TUESDAY, MARCH 30, 1880.

It is much to be regretted that, in these hard times, a constant tendency should be manifested to add to the expense of unreproductive State institutions. Some years ago, when the Vogel-Atkinson Ministry was in office, a number of innovations, with a view to the better management of such iudispcnsiblc white elephants as gaols, hospitals, and lunatic asylums were projected. It was proposed that a central prison should be established at Taranaki, for the benefit of the numerous over-enterprising individuals who have patronised that naturally forlorn region with their presence. About the same time it was represented that for the proper control and economic working of this grand central burglars’ boarding-house, an inspector of gaols should be appointed, whose duty would be to flit like a humming-bird in a flower-garden among the lesser criminal refuges of the colony, making Taranaki, of course, his head-quarters. As a companion to the man skilled in the treatment of social villiany, an inspector of lunatic asylumns was likewise recom-

mended, whose peculiar care would be the duo supervision o£ the higher iutelligencies who preside over our mental infirmaries. Unfortunately for Taranaki, but luckily for the colony, the central prison scheme was not adopted, and thn Inspector of Gaols was considered a luxury for which there existed no pressing necessity. The lunacy idea, however, fared somewhat better, and a brand-new Inspector—Dr Skac of Edinburgh was speedily on his way to the Colony. Of Dr Skac’s aptitude for the position that, he now occupies there can be little doubt. He has furnished the Government with voluminous reports, and his recommendations in the way of providing improved accommodation and new buildings for the have committed the colony to a large amount of expense, but whether on the whole he has proved a pajmblc investment for the community is a doubtful question. At the time when the central gaol and gaol inspector proposals were discussed, very satisfactory reasons iverc given why neither of them should be entertained. In the first place, the accommodation already provided for the crime of the colony was quite sufficient and it was considered that the moderate staff of prisoners which our criminal courts evolved were tolerably well looked after, so that additional supervision was unnecessary. Then again, it was held that the circumstances of the colony w r crc not so flourishing as to warrant the incurring of further expense in the maintenance and management of law-breakers. The result is that these interesting objects of solicitude who sport the broad arrow on their backs, have been allowed — much to the annoyance of the lately rejected member for Lyttelton and a few other amateur gaol reformers —to prosecute their callings without the assistance of an inspector of gaols, or the accommodation of a general lodginghouse at Taranaki. Singularly enough, despite this neglect there have been remarkably few complaints from the cells, and apparently none of the prisons of the colony have suffered from the want of supervision. In the absence of any complaints’of the kind we arc rather surprised to learn that the present Government, in its wisdom, has thought proper, without consulting Parliament, to add to the cost of those institutions by sending to England for an inspector of gaols. We are told that he is to be a man of experience, who know r s something of the guillotine in France, and the knout in Russia, and, moreover, he will have the obvious advantage of being quite a stranger to colonial society. Whether this will enable him the better to study the habits and characteristics of the colonial criminal is quite another matter. There is an old saying about far-off birds having fine feathers, which, it is possible, may be found to apply to this precious inspector whom the Government is about to import from England. Quito recently we took exception to the grow ring disposition that is being displayed to under-rate and insult colonial talent. We objected, for instance, to the introduction of Mr Higginbotham from Victoria for the purpose of reviewing and criticising the performances of railway engineers of probably equal skill and experience in this colony. For a similar reason we regard the introduction to New 7 Zealand of an inspector of gaols from England as quite uncalled for. That such an officer will prove a profitable investment for the colony is in the highest degree improbable. He maybe a proficient in England, and he may have half of the text-books on prison management in Europe committed to memory, but that will not adapt him for the position of an inspector of gaols in New Zealand. As regards the treatment which is judiciously applicable to the colonial criminal hemust necessarily be a thorough novice. Officers of experiporience, Avhosc efficiency has withstood the test of years, the present Governors of the gaols of New- Zealand, have a rigid to expect some other kind of recognition for their valuable services than to he superseded in this manner. If it is necessary to add officer upon officer in an already over-ofliccrcd colony, why not choose the most efficient from our midst instead of risking the importation of shoddy from abroad. But our gaols, wc submit, subject as they arc to the inspection of visiting justices and others, arc sufficiently supervised, and in the absence of any complaint about the Avant of supervision this Inspector of Gaols is simply a,surplusage. He is not needed, and the colony has surely had quite enough of official white-elephants without adding to the number.