The Police and Drink.

It was admitted by a number of policemen in one city that they had for years frequented a certain brewery at night, and that on occasions liquor was taken from the brewery to the police barracks. The undue familiarity of many police with the publican interests was clearly demonstrated. On June 21, 1892, a sergeant of police was dismissed for having been drunk and attempting to break into a private dwelling. In February of the same year he was severely reprimanded for having been found asleep at mid-day in the public street. When reporting the man to the Defence Minister, the Commissioner said, "He is unfit for further service in the force." On June 28—seven days after the dismissal—one of the wealthy brewers of Wellington, who finds a large portion of the election expenses for Govern- page 326 ment candidates in Wellington, wrote to the Premier on the sergeant's behalf. On July 5 the man was reinstated, but in a lower grade. In a few months, as a result of petition and representations from Members of Parliament, the man was promoted one step, and in August, 1893, at the instigation of Mr. Guinness, M.H.R., he was again promoted and given charge of a station. As against this special treatment, it was proved that many men, with clean records, have been kept for twelve years for their first step of promotion, and intense dissatisfaction existed throughout the force because of such exhibitions of favouritism.

Another constable was reported as on sick leave in December, 1896, suffering from "severe debility." I produced extracts from the hospital books showing that the man was in the hospital suffering from delirium tremens at the time. The inspector admitted he knew the man was undergoing treatment for chronic alcoholism at the time he returned him as suffering from "debility." the inspector did report this man on another occasion to the Commissioner as being "a tippler, and having the appearance of a set," but the Commissioner said he did not take any action as he did not regard this as a "charge." It would be interesting to know what would constitute "misconduct," under such rule as that. In December, 1896, this constable was in the hospital with delirium tremens; in February, 1897, he was promoted to first-class constable; in June, 1897, he was fined £1 for being in an hotel drinking whilst in uniform; and with the knowledge in their possession, is it any wonder that discontent should exist amongst the decent men in the force?

In another case Captain Russell, who was Mr. Seddon's predecessor in the Defence Office, dismissed a mar for having been found helplessly drunk just after noon on the Christchurch racecourse. Thousands of people were present. Mr. Seddon became Defence Minister within three months of this constable's dismissal; he had been on friendly terms with the constable on the West Coast before his star rose in the political firmament. Within a few weeks of getting power, he reinstated this friend in his old rank, and placed him in the same district where he had misbehaved himself! In certain cases it was proved that punishments recorded on constables' defaulters' sheets by the inspectors, had been cancelled by the Defence Minister, without consultation with the inspector imposing them, and in one case a punishment inflicted by the Commissioner himself was removed by a direct order of the Minister, without consultation with the Commissioner. In several cases where men had been retired on compensation (there is no pension fund in New Zealand), they were reinstated upon the understanding that the moneys received as retiring allowances would be refunded; but they were not refunded, and the Department permitted the men to defy the agreement to refund.