THE POLICE COMMISSION.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXII, Issue 9553, 28 July 1909, Page 5

THE POLICE COMMISSION.

By Telegraph—Press Association. CHRISTCHURCH, July 27. The Commissioner, Mr Bishop, S.M., addressing Mr Laurenson, M.P., said a reference had been made to him in the course of evidence at Invercargill by a constable at one time stationed at Lyttelton. The secretary of the Cmmissioner had been instructed to give Mr Laurenson the main heads of the statements made. These came properly within ths scope of the Commission, inasmuch as they referred to political interference and undue influence. He I gave Mr Laurenson to understand I clearly that it was not because of his being a member of Parliament that he was brought into the matter at all. Mr Laurenson was represented by Mr Dougall, solicitor, who will examine witnesses on Mr Laurenson's behalf. John Connell said that some time before the General Elections in 1905 Mr Laurenson, at the Lyttelton Police Station, spoke to him regard- [ ing pilfering at the wharves. Pre- : viously written complaints had been made by importers. Mr Laurenson asked how he was getting on with the pilferers, and said he had been speaking to Commissioner Dinnie about witness. Witness left Lyttelton in March, 1906. The election was in the previous December. Witness went on to say that the papers made much of his evidence at Invercargill, but for the most part the wharf workers he knew were as decent fellows as he ever met. He did not think Mr Laurenson meant to say they were all thieves or pilferers, but he did say that they furnished their houses and found boots for their children. The Commissioner said there could be no doubt about what'witness had said, as when witness gave evidence he (the Commissioner) realised the seriousness of the charges made and pulled him up. He told him that it was tantamount to accusing Mr Laurenson of being privy to the theft. After somt cross examination, witness said it was suggested he should go away to an out station, and Mr Laurenson had previously been to the Minister and Commissioner Dinnie, trying to get him away. He had to rep'y to charges as a result of Mr Laurenson's letter. After a lengthy cross examination, which considerably shook Connell's original statement, Mr Dougall said that it was obviou3 that Connell was entirely astray regarding the time of the conversations with Mr Laurenscn, and r.ow said these were purely /casual. Mr Laurenson would deny that he ever made these remarks to Connell. That it was impossible for him to associate himself In any way with the matter, such as Coi - nell had alleged. The Minister would agree with him that the sting had been taken out of the matter altogether, as Connell now said he was not Certain what inference he took from what he heard. Commissioner Dinr.ie also gave eviJence regarding the disrating of Cornell, to the effect that Mr Laurenson had notlvng to do with it j whatever, though he complained to th> Minister about hia inefficiency. Mr Laurenson will make a statement (his afternoon, giving a full denial. ALLEGATIONS AGAINST MR LAURENSON. THE MEMBER FOR LYTrELTON I "THUNDER-STRUCK." CHRISTCHURCH, July 27. The Police Commission opened this morning. Constable Connell, now of Invercargill, was cross-ex-amined at length regarding allegations made by him against Mr Laurenson, member for Lyttelton. Witness said he suggested Mr i Laurenson had tried in every way he knew to get him out of Lyttelton. He had not been removed as the result of complaints made by Mr Laurenson. Mr Laurenson gave evidence on his own behalf. No conversation of the kind referred to by Constable Connell had ever taken place between them. He had never suggested to I Constable Connell that he was 'oo active in his duties, or to get him a better position if he left Lyttelton. Letters he wrote to the Minister were written in consequence of complaints made to him. He had refused to forward any complaints except written ones, and he had been very careful not to say a single word gaii3 t Constable C)nnell. He had never in the {lightest degree suggested that any injury should be done Constable Connell. He was

thunderstruck at the allegations made at Invercargill by Constable Connell, He had been on friendly terms with him, and would rather have done him a good turn than anything else. The complaints had come in before the election of December 6th, 1905. Witness had been in Wellington attending Parliament till five weeks before that election, eo that he could not have had the alleged conversation with Connell. As to Connell's statement that men making complaints were of bad characters, he only knew that one had been twice convicted for drunkenness, and one for bad language. Mr W, Dinnie (Commissioner of Police), Mr R. J. Gillies (Inspector of Police, Canterbury District), and Mr Charies Rutiedge (formerly Sergeant of Police of Lyttelton) gave evidence to the effect that they knew of no instance of Mr Laurenson having interfered with any member of the police force. Mr Bishop, S.M. (Commissioner) referring to the statements made by Constable Connell concerning the wharf labourers, said that he did not think that Connell intended to say that they were a [dishonest community. The way the evidence was circulated was liable to cast stigma on the general body of wharf labourers, but that was not the impression left on his mind. Connell was dealing with individuals among wharf labourers. There was no impression on his mind that the general body of labourers were accused, and if they had been itjwould take more than the evidence of a disrated detective to convince him that they were dishonest. The Commission will resume tomorrow.