Some One May Say there is No Clear Proof that Colonel Hume Was Not, on his Own Motion, the Author of the Lawliss Scandal—read his Sworn Testimony.

On Friday, the 18th February, Colonel Hume was under examination in Wellington. (Page 53 of the Official Report):—

Mr Taylor: You remember the correspondence with Inspector Emerson over the subject of granting a license to a man named Lawliss?

Colonel Hume: Yes.

Mr Taylor: You remember writing one letter suggesting that the police should withdraw their opposition to the granting of a publican's license to this man?—Yes.

Who authorised you to write it?—I said I was directed by the Defence Minister.

Who was the Defence Minister then?—Mr Seddon.

You did not interfere with the police in regard to the issue of a license to this man of your own motion—it was distinctly under instructions? page 24 —Yes; I think the correspondence says so, too.

Can any thins: be more concise?

Could anything be more astounding than the fact that, on the very next day, the Commission sat, and, during my absence, Colonel Hume was put under examination by Commissioner Tunbridge on this matter, with the following results:—Speaking of the wire sent to Inspector Emerson on the 11th May, he said:—"That particular telegram I imagine I sent myself, but I may have spoken to a Minister before I sent it. I am not sure. I am quite willing to take the responsibility.

Speaking of the wire sent to the Stipendiary Magistrate on the same day, be said: "I am positive I showed the papers to the Minister before I sent that telegram, because I had no authority to telegraph to a Stipendiary Magistrate without a Minister's consent."

Then Commissioner Tunbridge asked Colonel Hume, "Do you say that you recommended that telegram?" and the Colonel, despite the testimony of the 18th February, said 'Yes." And then, to complete the farce, Commissioner Tunbridge asked him, "And you take the responsibility for it?" "Undoubtedly," replied the Colonel.

On pages 24 and 28 of the Official Report, Colonel Hume describes how he got "wigged" for something he did without the permission of his political master, and I cannot explain his marvellous somersault in this matter, except upon the hypothesis that he got wigged by his political boss between my examination of him one day and his next appearance before the Commission. His candid admissions of Ministerial interference with the Courts of Justice were fully reported through the newspaper press. The Wellington bye-election was approaching, the interests of the great party spelt with a capital "I" were jeopardised, and, therefore, the Colonel's first day's evidenue must be modifled. What other conclusions can one come to?

The truth of the suggestion that Colonel Hume's memory was refreshed by a wigging from the Premier could only be ascertained from the Right Honourable gentleman himself, and it is, therefore, to be deplored, that for State reasons, he declined to come before the Police Commission in 1898. Had Madame Roland lived to-day, instead of during the period of the French Revolution, she might have exclaimed, "Oh, Democracy! what things are done in thy name!"

The report of the Royal Commission on the condition of the police force, from which we have been quoting, is a sorry record of tammany methods in full blast. The one person whose personality had been dominating the police force from January, 1891, when Capt. Russell retired was the Right Hon. the Premier.

As we have already seen, Colonel Hume, the then Commissioner of Police, when asked whether the reappointment of a constable to the force without loss of rank or pay, within seven months of the date he had been dismissed for gross misconduct under Capt. Russell's rule, would not create heartburning and disorganisation amongst members of the force, replied: "It was not for me to think at all. I did as I was told. Although in connection with efforts made by the public to get this man reinstated just before Mr Seddon became Defence Minister, Colonel Hume had written and said: "As the offence was so public, his reinstate-men would be disastrous to the discipline of the force."

For details of those corrupt, incapable and drunken members of the police before 1898 who were sheltered, promoted or reinstated by the Pre- page 25 mier whilst Defence Minister, I refer anyone wishing details to the pages of the report of the Royal Commission or to the summary of that report published at the time.

How heavily the political machine, as operated by the Premier, weighed down upon the intelligence and authority of those public servants under his control may be judged by these extracts from the official records.

Colonel Hume said: I think it is not fair to the Commissioner trying to bring pressure to bear on the department. In my report for 1896 was the statement, "I do say however, that interference with the administration of the force, without due cause, must result in the breaking of the bonds of discipline. This influence is brought to bear on the Minister, not on the Commissioner. Of course, it is hard for the Minister to resist. and, I suppose in some cases, he yields. I think the Minister's yielding to this influence affects independence of management on the part of the Commissioner. The will of the Commissioner is subservient to the Minister.

Inspector Broham, Christchurch, said: "The first step necessary to the improvement of the police force is, as I have already stated, that the Commissioner should have complete control of the force."

The Chairman: What do you mean by complete control?—No Ministerial interference.