Other formats

    Adobe Portable Document Format file (facsimile images)   TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

The Pamphlet Collection of Sir Robert Stout: Volume 77

The Premier's Standard of Veracity

The Premier's Standard of Veracity.

Public men whose duties force them into controversies with the Right Hon. the Premier, either in Parliament or on the public platform, are at a great disadvantage if they observe the ordinary code of honour.

Let me cite some illustrations.

Page 655, "Hansard," October 19, 1897. Speaking during a discussion relative to the composition of the Royal Commission, the Premier said:—"He (the new Commissioner Tunbridge) has been consulted, and, as a result of that consultation, we have decided to set up an inquiry, and we have decided that inquiry shall be in the shape of a Royal Commission. I may say now, that the new Commissioner thinks it would he his duty to take part in that inquiry. I quite agree that he should he on the Commission.

Lest anyone should think Mr Seddon, in the statement just quoted, only intended to intimate that Commissioner Tunbridge should be present at the inquiry in his official capacity, let me clear up the ambiguity of the passage by quoting from "Hansard," page 9, Nov. 16th:

"Mr Monk: Is Mr Tunbridge being included as one of the Commissioners?

"Mr Seddon: Yes that is our intention at present."

On May 20th, 1898, I examined Commissioner Tunbridge—unfortunately for the Premier, as the following will show:—

Mr Taylor: Did the Premier wish you to go as one of the Commissioners?

Mr Tunbridge: It was mentioned, and on account of witness's slight experience of the colony, he left the matter to the Premier. He did not decline to act, but expressed the opinion that it would be a mistake if he was put on the Commission. He was taken at a disadvantage, being asked to express an opinion so soon after his arrival in the colony.

In its report the Royal Commission had the following special finding upon one case it investigated. Charge by Mr James Brown against Sergeant Hannan, of Stafford, of acting dishonourably in reference to the purchase of certain property of Miss Conway, at Stafford Town, West Coast.

Finding:—We find this charge, so far as it relates to Miss Conway's property, fully proved, and are of opinion that the circumstances show that Sergeant Hannan should no longer be retained in the Police Force of the colony. Miss Conway, of Stafford, by the death of her mother, became under her will entitled to a certain hotel, land, billiard-table, and other property. Sergeant Hannan was Clerk of the Court and agent for Public Trustee at Stafford at the time of Miss Conway's mother's death, and was on friendly terms with the family. His wife was at Mrs Conway's death-bed. He led Miss Conway to believe he was her page 16 friend, and represented to her that he knew someone who would buy the hotel property, but that he could not get more for her than £135 for the whole property. He represented, further, to her that one Henne, a rival hotelkeeper at Stafford, would not buy her property from her. On the other hand, he had represented to Henne, for whom he had undertaken to purchase a part of the property—viz., the license and billiard-table—and who had authorised him to give £160 for such part, that Miss Conway would not sell same for less than £170. Sergeant Hannan subsequently told Henne that Miss Conway had sold the property to him, Sergeant Hannan, and he agreed to sell the license and billiard-table to Henne for £160, who agreed to buy same at that price after he knew that Hannan had bought for himself. Upon Hannan's representation that he could not get more for her, Miss Conway agreed to sell, and did sell, the whole property to him for £135, so that he got the whole property (including land and buildings, estimated for stamp duty by his solicitor at £45) for £135, and sold the license and billiard-table only to Henne for £160. In short, we find that he deceived both Henne and Miss Conway, each of whom Hannan led to believe he was acting in their interest, and that he acted fraudulently towards both of them." In 1899 this man, who had been summarily dismissed from the police force for acting "fraudulently" towards certain persons, had the audacity to petition Parliament for compensation for loss of office.

His petition failed, as it should have done.

In 1901, when the supplementary estimates were being put through, there appeared upon them an item of £183, which it was proposed to pay for loss of office to this man who had been jerked out of the force because of his fraudulent conduct. The "Hansard" record shows what occurred.

Page 1249, "Hansard," November 7th, 1901.—Mr Symes, Egmont, said, in reference to David Hannan, ex-Sergeant of Police, for whom there was £183 put down as compensation for loss of office: That officer had several black marks recorded against him, and it had been proved that he was connected with some business that no police officer ought to have been mixed up in. If he was entitled to it at all the amount should have been put on the estimates some years ago.

Right Hon. the Premier said: "As to Constable Hannan, that officer was not mixed up with anything at all. The transaction upon which he was called upon to resign was some business transaction altogether unconnected with his duties as a police officer.

"There had been no black murk against him."

Could any statement have been more at variance with the truth than was that made by the Premier in his defence of an undeserved vote of public money to a man who had been guilty of such dishonourable conduct, but who had been an acquaintance of the Premier for years on the West Coast.

The Premier forced through the House, this payment to Hannan, but many deserving men who have lost health and strength in the service of the colony have petitioned in vain for relief from the same Ministry that perpetrated this job, a job that only succeeded when supported by a gross untruth as to the man's conduct.