page 6

The Enquiry.

It will be borne in mind that up to this time we were going to an enquiry where there were "no charges" made by the Department, yet Murphy had been dismissed on account of what had come to the knowledge of the Department and I naturally requested at once to have access to those matters which came to the knowledge of the Department, or be furnished with formulated charges. Bat notwithstanding previous assurances I had to encounter stubborn departmental resistance to any distinct information, and was denied access to the Survey file, which was described as "confidential," but which, doubtless, contained much correspondence and memos, prejudicial to Murphy. I was officially informed, however, that this file was in the hands of yourself, Mr. Mueller, and I contended that "if this file were in the hands of Mr. Mueller," who might be prejudiced by it, and was practically to be a judge in the case, it should also have been open at least to my inspection on behalf of Murphy, the accused. My contention was, however, of no avail, the Survey file was denied me, and I have never yet seen it, though in your hands, Mr. Mueller, before and during the whole enquiry. My object in asking formulated charges and particulars of any accusation likely to be brought against Murphy was to limit the scope of the enquiry, and the evidence thereon. Not being able to get formulated or specific accusations, which would be notified any defendant in a Police Court, I telegraphed on the 28th March, 1892, to the Surveyor-General to let me know if the "disclosures; first alleged by him (as already mentioned) "constitute the sole ground "of Murphy's dismissal" To this I received the reply next day that "The file of Justice Department now with Mr. Mueller contains the reasons for dispensing with Murphy."

Anyone would think: that the sphere of accusation had thus been narrowed down to definite limits, for the "Justice file" referred to comprised, beside Mr. Dansey's letter, which I have commented on, the inquest proceedings, the four natives' statements containing charges—charges of impropriety between Murphy and Mrs. Blythe, and the forwarding letters of the Coroner and the Resident Magistrate. But though I was thus led to believe that the inquiry would be limited to the charges as in this "Justice file," it apparently was not so, for the day after receiving the telegram from the Surveyor-General (viz., 29th March, 1892) practically limiting the enquiry to the "Justice file," I received a memo, from you, Mr. Mueller, informing me that your "instructions" were to enquire not only into Murphy's conduct as overseer, and the truth or otherwise of the natives7 statements, but also into the additional matter of "certain" monetary transactions in which Murphy is concerned." This was a matter that was now mentioned for the first time, and it will be recollected that I at once remonstrated with you and the Surveyor-General that this money matter was quite new, and inconsistent page 7 with the latter's telegram confining the enquiry to the "Justice file," which contained no charge, nor mentioned anything whatever about money, I also at the same time wrote you, pointing out to you that as Murphy's honesty and moral and official character were at stake, the periods, acts of misconduct as overseer, dates, and amounts of money, and under what circumstances, should be specified, and requesting to be furnished with same accordingly, To this remonstrance I received a memo, from you, Mr. Mueller, repeating that your instructions were to enquire as already notified me, but admitting the variation and extension of the scope of the enquiry; and I received also a telegraphic reply from the Surveyor-General to the effect that the money enquiry would be separate from the other, and that Murphy would receive due notice of particulars after the preliminary enquiry.

Up to the present moment Murphy has had no notice of these so-called money transactions, though the inquiry, so far as I know, has concluded in relation to them r but of this further on. Now, I have mentioned the preceding matters to show the confusion and contradictory attitude of the Department in relation to Murphy's dismissal and this enquiry, and also to show the extremely unsatisfactory—because indefinite—nature of the charges or accusations Murphy had to meet; and this dissatisfaction was in no little degree heightened by other disadvantages and circumstances attending the mode of obtaining evidence against Murphy, as well as the partial and discouraging surroundings and manner of conducting the enquiry, Indeed so much was this the case that I was tempted, for these reasons, on several occasions before and during its progress to withdraw from it, as I frequently felt that its indefiniteness and mode of procedure did not warrant me in submitting ray client's character and position to such a tribunal; but having embarked in the matter, and at Murphy's earnest request (because his integrity and character were at stake), I continued to act throughout the enquiry.

To describe what I mean by these partial and discouraging surroundings I need only mention that, sitting on the Bench beside you throughout the enquiry (contrary to my repeated protest), and, doubtless, on and off it, instructing you in relation to various matters, was Mr. Malfroy, who had sent the defamatory telegram already alluded to; and Mr. Dansey (the brother-in-law of one of the native witnesses) who had taken the four natives' statements, and had forwarded them on with the covering letter which I have stigmatized already, couched, as above shown, in such vindictive terms, drawing the Surveyor-General's attention to what he called Murphy's conduct "in this sad affair," was clerk and interpreter of the enquiry contrary to my protest. My request that all proposed witnesses should be "ordered out of court," till required, was also refused except as to the four natives who had already made the declarations. All other native witnesses were present as they liked, and heard the testimony of the others. The European witnesses were in and out of court-room during the whole enquiry, some of page 8 them actually, for hoars at a time, taking notes of the evidence as it proceeded. As Mrs. Blythe (on whose behalf also I watched the enquiry) was present to instruct me, so far as her character was in, volved, and out of consideration for her feelings also. I thought, and requested that she might be spared the presence of a morbidly curious crowd; but my request was refused on the ground that it was an open enquiry. I pointed out, without effect, as you are aware, that the enquiry was quite open in the sense of having the fullest legitimate testimony that might be brought adduced, but that the presence of the crowd was unnecessary to the strictest investigation. It will also be remembered that the persons present in court were, being chiefly witnesses and their friends, opposed to Murphy, frequently interrupting the proceedings with "Hear, hear's," to your occasional remarks, and with marks of disapprobation during my cross examination, and also when I thought it necessary to argue and protest against the admission of merely second and third-hand testimony Very frequently other ejaculations of a more or less rude and antagonistic character came from the audience. So far did these interruptions take place that several altercations between myself and the audience became imminent, especially when some of them had the audacity to ask to be allowed to put questions to one of the witnesses. The disorder became so great once or twice that there were signs of a total collapse in the whole enquiry.

Then, you will remember that in opening the enquiry you, Mr. Mueller, stated that the enquiry was not a legal one (which was true) in which you would be guided by any rules of evidence, but by common sense, and that you would accept what evidence you thought necessary, and conduct the enquiry in your own way, stating at the same time that you would give me every opportunity of cross-examination. It was not long before it became quite evident to me that, acting under instructions possibly, (for I didn't see them), you were anxious to get down those statements which might tend to substantiate the case against Murphy; and all the long, tedious statements of Maoris—of a purely hearsay character—were patiently listened to, and taken down, whilst, as it seemed to me, an amount of impatience seemed to ensue during my cross examination and during the statements of some of the witnesses for the defence.

I will bring two circumstances to your mind which show what you conceived to be your functions in this inquiry, I vouchsafed to liken you to a judge, but this you promptly repudiated, and said that you were only concerned to ascertain and take down whatever might be considered to substantiate the charge, against Murphy, leaving myself or Murphy to bring out whatever we might think favourable to him. This is supported by your apparent disappointment at the evidence of Mr. Butt, who was called ostensibly against Murphy, but turned out to be a most favourable witness for him, when you said to him, "I understood you would give different "evidence Mr. Butt. Had I thought or known you would have "given this evidence I would not have required you to come."

page 9

This I observed upon instantly as indicating an unconcern for any evidence favourable to Murphy, Again, before concluding the case against Murphy you addressed the audience, and invited any of them to be witnesses if they chose, but none responded, This most extraordinary course was not, however, taken by you at the close of the evidence for the defence, nor would I ask it. I must not forget to remind you that, though you announced your intention of giving me every latitude in cross-examination, the privilege was somewhat neutralized by your coming occasionally to the rescue of some of the witnesses by telling them that you had no power to compel them to answer my questions, insulting or otherwise, and that they might accordingly decline to answer, a hint which the record of the evidence (see Mr. Griffiths' evidence) shows the witnesses promptly availed themselves of,

I need not pursue this point farther than to say (speaking quite impartially and with all respect to yourself) the whole course and conduct of the enquiry was such as to impress an impartial observer with the belief that the desire to vindicate the action of the Department was paramount to and more prominent than the desire to accept or recognize any testimony, facts, or circumstances which would tell in favour of Murphy; and the only consolation I experienced beyond the consciousness of my client's innocence and unjust treatment was, that after the conclusion of the defence, at the close of the enquiry, with all its partial surroundings, my remarks evoked the applause of the fullest audience which had attended the Court-house during the enquiry.