H.—l6b

X

" Ist June, 1909.—This is to certify that Mr. James Holbrook served in the New Zealand Police Force as a constable from the 11th June, 1908, to the 24th May, 1909, during which time his conduct was satisfactory.—W. Dinnie, Commissioner of Police." This is the sort of certificate on the strength of which a man would be admitted into another Force, in the same way as the Commissioner admitted, say, No. 1, previously referred to, on discharges issued outside of the Dominion. No. 3 case was the following : — This constable was sworn in on the 18th June, 1907. He had had a considerable quantity of previous service in the British army and in the Birmingham Police. On the 25th December, 1908, he was fined ss. for neglect of duty, and on the 28th of the same month he was fined £1, dismounted, and transferred from Auckland to Wellington for assaulting a fellow-constable at Alexandra Park Racecourse. On the 26th February, 1909, while in Wellington, he tendered his resignation from the Force, and this was accepted as from the 28th. Across the face of his defaulters sheet, which contains a record of his two convictions, was written the following : " Discharge handed to ex-Constable R. personally. Character, Good. 1/3/09." This is signed by Sub-Inspector Wright. lam bound here to say that they must have very different ideas in the Commissioner's office to mine as"to what constitutes " bad " conduct on the part of a constable. There is attached to the file a letter from a constable in Invercargill, dated the 26th February, 1909, forwarding a letter addressed to him by a man in Auckland accusing Constable R. of decoying his wife away from her home and children, and asking for assistance to get evidence on which to prosecute the constable. The Invercargill constable said that he had no desire to be mixed up in the matter, and wished it to be left in the hands of the Commissioner. This letter was minuted as follows : " Inspector Cullen,—Please have Mr. B. informed that the police cannot assist him in this matter. Constable R. was discharged on resignation, 28th ultimo.—W. Dinnie, Commissioner of Police. Ist March, 1909."' The Commissioner, in his sworn evidence before me, in replying to Mr. Arnold's statement, said, " It was after he left the Force and the Dominion that information was received by the police that a married woman had left with him." Looking to the fact that the Commissioner himself minuted the husband's letter on the Ist March, 1909, and that his Chief Clerk puts into writing the fact that he personally handed to the constable his discharge on the Ist March, 1909, presumably in the Commissioner's offices, it is an extraordinary statement for the Commissioner to make that the man had left the Dominion before the police knew of the " married woman " episode. In his evidence before me Mr. Arnold gave an outline of this case, substantially correctly, and said that the police might not have known the fact of this man's relations with this married woman while he was in the Force. There is no evidence that they did know. What Mr. Arnold might have said in his place in the House does not concern me in this connection. No. 4 case was referred to in his evidence by Mr. Arnold as follows : " This man was working on the tramways. He was dismissed from the tramway service in one of our New Zealand cities for making immoral suggestions to lady passengers, and he joined the Police Force." I have looked fully into this case, and I cannot blame the police for what has occurred. It is the tramway authorities who are entirely at fault for suppressing information as to this man's antecedents—such information as the Commissioner admits would have had the effect, if he had known it, of preventing the enrolment of this man in the Police Force. His record of service in the employ of the Wellington Corporation as a conductor showed that he had been dealt with on ten different occasions, five of these being for insolence to passengers. He was allowed to resign instead of being dismissed, and his resignation took effect as from the sth December, 1907. He was accepted as a probationer on the 23rd March, 1908, and was sworn in on the Ist April, 1908. The man had a number of very satisfactory discharges from various employments and testimonials as to character, and a certificate by Mr. Richardson, M.1.E.E., Tramways and Electrical Engineer, certifying that this man had resigned from his position as he found the work was not congenial. This, in the