}
250
है
cautioned him not to say anything to Captain May against your Petitioner. The insinuation is obvious, namely, that your Petitioner knew that the witness could But the fact that give evidence of misconduct on the part of your Petitioner.
the witness has not given or attempted to give evidence of misconduct by your Petitioner, other than the said conversation, surely goes to show not only that there was no such misconduct, but that the alleged conversation together with its insinuation is false.
21.-AU HING P.C. 143, and HAU HANG P.C. 137.-One of these two men, Au Hing, was actually banished as a promoter of gambling. Hau Hung (one of the contingent sent to England for the Diamond Jubilee celebrations) was taken straight from the steaner into gaol. Both are now in the Police, Your Petitioner cannot notwithstanding their self admitted delinquencies. remember exactly what they said, but though they naturally and, one may say, necessarily, did their best to say what would please the Captain Superintendent, they could say nothing worse than that they had heard, or that they believed, that your Petitioner received bribes from 2, Wah Lane. On the other hand, their direct evidence goes in Petitioner's favour, on the charge of negligence, for
your they admit that they took bribes not to report the gambling, and did not do so.
22.-The actual finding against your Petitioner was gross neglect of duty in not reporting the gambling house at No. 2, Wah Lane,
As to duty, your Petitioner was not in charge of any of the sections into which, for the purpose of better suppressing gambling, the central district of the city is divided. He was in charge of the general criminal investigation work. From 1891 up to 1893 your Petitioner was active in searching for and prosecuting gambling houses, but about the middle of 1893 your Petitioner was directed (reversing earlier instructions of Captain Superintendent May) to cease from that work, and to devote himself to the general criminal business of the Colony. Your Petitioner accordingly so instructed his staff of detectives, leaving the special task of discovering and suppressing gambling houses to the individual Inspectors, heads of sections in the Central district, whose particular business it was under the Police Regulations. Thereafter, whilst Captain May was in charge, your Petitiouer only made investigation himself on one or two occasion s nuder special instructions. Of course, the general duty to report any gambling house, of whose existence he might become aware, continued as before. But your Petitioner asserts most positively that he had no knowledge of this gambling house at 2, Wah Lane.
As to opportunities of discovering gambling houses, even Inspectors of districts or sections have only very limited means of investigation, or more properly speaking they have no means at all, and are entirely dependent upon information supplied by informers. They have, for instance, no more right than an ordinary constable to enter or to send spies into houses suspected of being gambling houses (see Police Regulations, heading "Public Gambling," Rule 1), and ordinary constables are positively prohibited from so doing under pain of dismissal (sce Police Regulations, heading "Constable,"
9
Rule 73). Now and again, of course, an experienced officer's suspicions may be roused by chance observation as he moves about, but naturally this does not often happen, aud with regard to this particular house, the evidence is that the managers not only had Chinese detectives and others in their pay, but also kept a large number of watchmen on purpose to ward off detection. Your Petitioner may add that this house is in a low neighbourhood, in a lane chiefly composed of brothels, where people of a low character are constantly going in and out, and where, consequently, detection by mere observation is practically out of the question. Moreover, as to sources of information, gambling informers would naturally report to the Inspector in charge of the section, and not to your petitioner. The other principal source of information consists of letters, generally anonymous, addressed to the Captain Superintendent, which Captain May almost invariably passes on to the Inspector in charge of the district or section. Again, the reversal of the former practice of rewarding informers out of fines imposed on gamblers has left them without much inducement to inform, except with the object of making money out of the gambling houses by giving them information of the prospective raid.
Captain May has admitted that at the time when the above charge was laid against your Petitioner, viz.: July 13th, he had not realized that the powers of Inspectors were as limited as those of Constables, and, in fact, thought that Inspectors were not bound by the limitations affecting Constables, but that they could, conformably with the Rules, enter suspected houses if they chose, and send in spies of their own motion. Perhaps had Captain May realized on July 13th, 1897, the real position of Inspectors, he would have paused before taking action, or recommending H.E. the Governor to take action by way of suspension, upon the mere suspicion raised by an entry in a Chinese gambler's book or paper, without a tittle of evidence obtained, or a word of explanation asked.
your
23.--What makes the case strange is that whilst your Petitioner and several others were suspended, two Inspectors whose names (or rather numbers) were also on the list were apparently left undealt with until a considerable time afterwards, indeed not until the public press had demanded an enquiry or an apology. Soine enquiry was then held by the Captain Superintendent, and Petitioner has purposely delayed this Petition to ascertain the result, but as nothing is yet known, no doubt their cases have been referred home. Both men at this time (November, 1897) are still discharging their duties as Inspectors. Your Petitioner makes no complaint; both are men of excellent repute, but he points out that the fact that their cases were undealt with shows that in respect of them the list of names found was felt, and properly felt, to be unreliable. The fact was that neither of the men had been stationed in the district or section in which No. 2, Wah Lane is situated for about eighteen months previously, and then only temporarily for a few weeks.
Your Petitioner was shown the entry referring to his former Police number in the paper, but had no opportunity of examining the document as a whole. As the document seemed to him outside the case, and not necessary to be