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

A Standard for Testing Administration

A Standard for Testing Administration.

One has no right to judge a man or a party by one isolated act, but if the individual or the party is guilty of continuous wrongdoing, one is justified in criticising any or all the actions within the period of their activities.

My contention is that the unanswerable facts prove that a low moral standard has governed the actions of this Administration from the time the Premier assumed his present position after the death of Mr Ballance.

Let us test this contention by facts.

The defiance of statute law displayed by the Government when the late Colonel Fraser was appointed Sergt.-at-Arms in 1894 was a prelude to many subsequent administrative actions of a questionable character. The law then and now declares that no man can be appointed to a position in the employ of the State within twelve months of his having been a member of Parliament. This provision was made to prevent jobbery in the manipulation by a Government of candidates at Parliamentary elections.

Immediately after the general election in 1893 Colonel Fraser, who retired in favour of a Government nominee, and who had been a member of Parliament up to the 1893 elections, was given the position of Sergt.-at-Arms. A vigorous protest page 11 was made by the section of the Liberal party desirous of preserving the party honour unblemished, but it was without avail against the desire of the Ministry and the weight of the party majority.

This act was a defiance of statute law. A man who will flout statute law is not possessed of the keen sense of honour necessary to enable him to administer with dignity the affairs of a democracy.

In 1897 the police force of the colony had become so dissatisfied, disorganised and inefficient that the House, following upon an indictment of the department made by the writer, forced from the Premier a Royal Commission, charged to investigate and report upon the condition of this important public service. The police authorities would be deservedly censured if, after arresting a criminal, they deliberately permitted him to destroy the evidence necessary to convict him when arraigned for trial.

On October 19th, 1897, the Right. Hon. the Premier announced that a Royal Commission was to be appointed to inquire into the organisation and administration of the police force. From that moment, the force was in the same position as any case would be that was under consideration by the Supreme Court. The then condition and character of the force was the issue. Now came attempts to destroy evidence, the production of which was essential to prove the discontent of the men—the disorganisation resultant upon uncertain, inequitable and delayed promotion.

Within sixteen weeks after a Royal Commission had been announced, and before it actually commenced its sittings, an unprecedentedly large batch of promotions was gazetted:—

Twenty-five 2nd class constables promoted to 1st, February loth, 1898.

Twenty-seven 3rd class constables promoted to 2nd, February 15th, 1898.

Three constables promoted to 4th class detectives, December 1st, 1897.

Seventeen sergeants promoted, January 1st, 1898.

Seventy-two in all.

The only possible effect this remarkable spasm of righteousness could produce would be to silence seventy-two men, whose just claims for promotion had been ignored for years. And the evidence of the negligent administration of the Police Department at this point was completely destroyed, so far as the possibility of producing it before the Royal Commission was concerned. No fair-minded man can view this action of the Government or the Commissioner in any other light than as an unwarrantable interference with the course of justice.

If the purpose of these promotions was to burke inquiry into legitimate grievances, it partially succeeded; but no sophistry of Commissioner or Minister can justify the promotion at that juncture of nearly

One-seventh of the Entire Police Force of the Colony,

after a Royal Commission, ordered by Parliament to investigate all matters affecting the police force, had been announced. Such tactics were smart, but not such as honest men will approve of, It will inevitably prove as conclusive to the public mind, as indisputable evidence of the scandalous absence of promotion, as a recital of their grievances by the seventy-two fortunate recipients of this delayed and inopportune bestowal of promotion would have done.

Commissioner Tunbridge freely admitted, under examination, that these promotions would have the immediate effect of removing discontent.

This action was as improper but as politic as would be the destruction or removal of a Voucher, or of any evidence filed in an action after it was page 12 entered up for the consideration of the Court. The police force of the colony had been entirely controlled by the Right Hon. R. J. Seddon from January, 1891, and the appointment of the Royal Commission in 1897 put his administration of that department on its trial.

Let us look at some details which shed a lurid light on the Premier's administrative ideals. I quote now from the official report of the Royal Commission of 1897.

On the 5th November, 1890, Capt. Russell was Defence Minister. One of the constables doing duty on the Christchurch racecourse on this date was helplessly drunk at 3 p.m. The history of the affair is clearly set out in the following extracts from the report of the Royal Commission (p. 39):—

Mr Taylor to Colonel Hume: "Would you read the report in connection with the case?—This is from Sergeant McDonald, who, I think, was in charge next to Inspector Pender at Christchurch: "Police Station, Christ-church, 5th November, 1890.—I beg to report that at 4.20 on this date Constable Cullen informed me that he had been sent from the racecourse in charge of the constable named marginally (first-class constable No.—) by Sergeant Briggs, who was in charge on the course. I saw the constable, who was under the influence of drink, and unfit for duty. I informed the constable that he was to consider himself suspended, and remain at the station until further orders. Later on, I told the constable he could go to his station, and that he was to report himself at this office at 9 a.m., 6th November, 1890.—Alex. McDonald, Sergeant-Major." Then my minute follows: "Inspector Pender.—As Constable———has failed to appear at your office at 9 this morning, and as he was absent from his station last evening when under suspension, he has only aggravated the first offence, which is of itself the most serious; but as he has very long service, I will not dismiss him, but his services are dispensed with from date of suspension.—A. Hume. 7th November, 1890."

The Chairman to Colonel Hume: Is that man in the service now?—Yes.

Mr Taylor: You dispensed with his services, but you did not dismiss him; you allowed him to resign?—Yes. That appears clearly to indicate that at that time I had power to dismiss. That was the 7th November, 1890.

Was that under Captain Russell's administration?—Yes. Captain Pus-sell was in office until the 24th January, 1891. The next paper on the file is a telegram, dated 13th November, 1890, as follows: "Colonel Hume, Wellington.—Regret Con-stable————been discharged through breach of regulations. Have known him several years. Always thought him most efficient officer. Pleased if could reinstate.—S. Manning, Mayor of Christchurch.

Were there any other requests for his reinstatement?—There is a petition here, dated "Christchurch, 17th November, 1890." The first signature is J. Ollivier, formerly Resident Magistrate for the district, and there follow eighty-four other signatures.

What was the result of that?—There is a letter, dated the 5th December, 1890, as follows: "Re petition dated Christchurch, 17th November, 1890, to the Hon. the Minister of Defence. The same has been submitted to the Hon. the Defence Minister, who has directed me to inform you that Police Regulation No. 62 states that drunkenness on duty will invariably be punished by dismissal or enforced resignation, and in Constable——'s case it was a bad page 13 case of drunkenness, on account of its being in a public place—namely, the racecourse—and in the sight of a large concourse of people. The constable was, in consequence of his long service, allowed to resign instead of being dismissed, but the Hon. the Defence Minister (Captain Russell) is unable to grant him compensation, and declines to reinstate him.—I have, etc., A. Hume, Commissioner.—To J. Ollivier, Esq., J.P., and those who signed the petition." When this petition came in, I wrote to the Defence Minister as follows: "This matter has been already before you, and you were pleased to approve my decision. The constable was allowed to resign on account of his long service, and was not dismissed. I know of no Act that admits of a man being granted compensation on resignation." This was minuted, "Approved."—H. A. A.

When Mr Manning, Mayor of Christchurch, asked for this reinstatement, Colonel Hume replied by wire as follows:—"Am sorry to say that Constable—'s offence is so serious that the punishment, which is in accordance with Clause 62 of the Regulations, cannot be altered. As the offence was so public, his reinstatement would be disastrous to the discipline of the force."

When petitions were presented from certain Linwood residents, urging reinstatement, Colonel Hume remained firm in his decision. It will be observed that both Captain Russell and Sir Harry Atkinson declined to do a thing which Colonel Hume rightly said would prove disastrous to the discipline of the force.

In January, 1891, two months after the racecourse episode, a new spirit entered the administrative affairs of the colony. The watchword of the Defence Department was no longer "discipline and efficiency."

Constable——had been a crony of the Hon. Mr Seddon at Kumara, before either the colony or Her Majesty discovered him, and a "disaster to the discipline of the force" was a trifle light as air in comparison with the necessity for keeping a friend in his billet.

One of the first administrative acts of the Right Hon. Mr Seddon was to reinstate a drunken policeman—inflict a "disaster upon the discipline of the force"—and to accomplish his purpose, he practically coerced officers into furnishing reports, the existence of which might, in the absence of the facts now elicited, have enabled him to say he was guided by departmental recommendations.

At how many points ill the public service of this colony the Premier has successfully defied the laws of decency and order in the interests of "party"—a term synonymous with "himself"—the future only will reveal.

That this transaction exhibits the "spirit" of things political during his control of the Colony's affairs, I have no doubt, and being strongly convinced of this, I speak my conviction.

After the facts were all dragged into the light, I asked Colonel Hume whether he did not consider this affair a great discouragement to other men in the force. To which he replied:—

"It was not for me to Think at all: I did as I was told."

Colonel Hume further stated that the telegram ordering——'s reinstatement "was sent directly under the instructions of the Defence Minister, Mr Seddon."

Colonel Hume was forced to cater to the new political power presiding over his department, by recommending the adoption of a course in May, 1891, which, in November, 1890, he declared would be "disastrous to the discipline of the force." I now continue the evidence:—

Was there further correspondence in regard to his reinstatement?

page 14

Yes. The next is a petition from the dismissed constable to the Premier, who was then Defence Minister, dated 30th April, 1891.

What was the result?—Mr Seddon minuted the petition as follows: "I think Inspector Broham knows Constable——. Ask his opinion. Also ask Inspector Pender to report—(1) On the charge for which ——was called upon to resign; (2) generally upon—'s conduct as a police officer; (3) whether the offence has been, by the constable being out of the force now some twelve months, sufficiently punished."

What was the date of that minute?—12th May, 1891.

When was he dispensed with? On the 7th November, 1890. The next paper is a memorandum from myself to Inspector Pender, carrying out the request of the Minister, and the Inspector replied.

The Chairman: What was the result of this reply from Inspector Pender?—There is a telegram, sent on the 28th May, 1891, to ex-Constable ——, as follows: "Referring to your petition dated the 30th ultimo, and addressed to the Hon. the Defence Minister, I am directed to inform you that if you report yourself at the Police Station, Wellington, you will be appointed to the Police Force as a first-class constable from the 5th June next.—John Evans (for Commissioner)."

Mr Taylor: Was he a first-class constable when he was dismissed?—Yes.

And he was reinstated in his old rank?—Yes.

Do not you consider that a very great discouragement to other men in the force?—I must decline to answer that question. It was not for me to think at all. I did as I was told.

Mr Taylor: I want to ask whether that telegram, ordering his reappointment, was sent directly under the instruction of the Defence Minister, Mr Sedclon? Colonel Hume: Yes.

Do you know if Constable——was formerly stationed on the West Coast in the township of Kumara? Some-where on the West Coast, but I do not know where.

All the above quotations from the official report are taken from my examination of Colonel Hume before the Commission.

In the case just recorded the Premier made his personality felt immediately he succeeded Capt. Russell as Defence Minister, on the 25th January, 1891. His action in this affair was the keynote to the administrative spirit that was to mould the affairs of the Defence Department.

Is it a matter for surprise that the police force was so unspeakably corrupt and inefficient in 1897 that it had to be cleaned up, in answer to an indignant people and Parliament, by the appointment of Com. Tunbridge and a Royal Commission, costing the colony about five thousand pounds.

My contention has been that whilst a man of low character can, under the pressure of public opinion, legislate above his own level, no man can administer affairs above his own level. Administrative Acts always disclose the real character.

The whole police force soon realised that the code of honour observed by Sir Wm. Russell, whilst administering the police force as Minister of Defence up to the 24th January, 1891, had been succeeded by a new spirit. It was not long before "political pull," personal friendships, party considerations and the interests of the trade became the principal factors in decisions emanating from the Defence Department.

Let it be remembered that it took a Royal Commission, and my personal attendance before that Commission as public prosecutor for nearly six months, to bring to light the page 15 "Vouchers" which demonstrated the existence of the gross corruption and utter confusion which the administrative methods and personality of the Right Hon. the Premier, as Defence Minister, had introduced into this important branch of the public service.

In view of the exceedingly onerous duties which the police have to discharge, the public are justified in exercising the closest scrutiny of their character and efficiency. The protection of property is popularly regarded as the principal function of the force. As a matter of fact, it is of quite secondary import in comparison with the tremendous power the police possess over the individual citizen. Men and women's liberties and reputations are, in a great measure. at the mercy of the police.