Royal Commission report day 50 page 13
Story of the KellyGang - the Royal Commission Report
The Royal Commission evidence for 7/9/1881
(see also introduction to day 50)
[[../../people/peN_P/nicolsonPAC.html|Ass Com Charles Hope Nicolson]] giving evidence
1st. As to the relations which had existed between Captain Standish and myself for some time, I say that those relations were the effect of his jealousy of everything I did. The Commission had an opportunity of seeing the malice which Captain Standish bore me when he was examined; but I say, without fear of contradiction, that on no occasion did I allow my private feelings in this matter to interfere with my duty as an officer of police, and that I served Captain Standish as loyally as if he and I had never had a difference of opinion. In 1863 Captain Standish told Mr Hare not to leave the colony, as if anything happened him he should have his place. This no doubt, was the motive of his conduct, not only to me but to almost every other inspecting superintendent before me.
2nd. Captain Standish was on bad terms with the first inspecting superintendent in the force, Mr Peter Henry Smith; and Mr Littleton, independent of other reasons for leaving the force, had a most violent quarrel with Captain Standish before he left. It is true that when I succeeded Captain Standish and Mr. Hare in the North-Eastern district I had to feign a want of energy, as part of my system was to lull the gang into nothing was being done or known about the gang; but my evidence shows that even at that time I was almost continually on the move, but that I had to spend a good deal of my time in Benalla, as it was there the information used to he brought to me. The men felt the inaction of this period I have no doubt, as they had just been returned to ordinary duty from search parties in the bush, well equipped and provided, and having generally a very good time of it, in addition to free rations and extra pay. Theirs was a life of enjoyment while they were on the search parties, and, of course, under the system that I considered necessary for the service of the country they would feel the difference, living in the barracks on ordinary pay. I think that, from the account of my career in the force which I have been obliged to give to-day, that want of energy is not a trait in my character, although my detractors have thought fit to try and turn the caution and discretion I endeavored to use into a charge of inertness. As to the charge that my management was expensive, the return I have handed in, and which is printed at page 31 of the evidence, shows expenditure incurred by Captain Standish and Mr Hare, as well as when I had charge, and as the figures speak for themselves, I will not trouble the Commission on that head further. It was apparent to me that the duty would probably occupy some time, which was another motive I had for reducing expenses. I got them as low as could be. My reason being not only general economy, but also that I knew that the case was one that would require considerable time to conclude. There are some incidents which have been referred to in the course of this enquiry which I think it my duty to explain. Unfortunately Mr Hare and I have been, as it were, pitted against each other in this Kelly business, and a certain amount of bitterness has been caused thereby. Whether we are to blame for this or not remains with the Commission to say; but in my own defence I would point out that owing, no doubt, to some extent to Mr Hare's plausible manner and glib tongue, he succeeded in ingratiating himself so thoroughly with Captain Standish, and through Captain Standish with Mr Ramsay, that he was afforded means of taking the Kellys which I never had. What use he made of those opportunities the Commission is aware of. He tells you himself, when he was sent up to relieve me in June 1880, Mr Ramsay gave him carte blanche to do as he pleased, while it will be remembered that when I took charge, in July 1879, large bodies of police and the whole of the artillery force was withdrawn from the district, and I was stinted in funds and hampered with orders from head-quarters in Melbourne, all of which caused me vexation and hindered my operations. Now I ask the Commission what Mr Hare has done to deserve special advantages over other police officers. If it is admitted that it was necessary to allow him more men and more money to give him a chance of taking the Kellys , I am content. But when he (with the assistance of Captain Standish) spent eight months in pursuit of the Kellys with the largest body of police that ever was in the district, and with the artillery force at his command to watch the townships, so that he had the full benefit of the services of all his police, and when he spent more money per month than was spent in the pursuit at any other time; and with all these advantages, when I relieved him, in July 1879, he did not know if the Kellys were in Victoria. I do not see what he has done to justify Mr Ramsay in saying that the Government of that day had unbounded confidence in him, and that if he would take charge he should have carte blanche. In addition to this, I would point out some admissions made by him as to his career in the police force and the conduct of his pursuit of the Kellys . Although by no means inclined to hide his light under a bushel, the only memorable incidents in his career (putting aside his share in the capture of Power) to which he can point with pride are the arrest of a burglar who was armed and the intention to throw a man into the Murray who never turned up to be thrown in. Are either of these circumstances such as should inspire “unbounded confidence”? Under these circumstances, is it not to be wondered at that, having been “in” the capture of Power, Mr. Hare should claim all the credit of that capture? I would also point out to the Commission that Mr. Hare sometimes allows his tongue to run away with him, and attempts to garnish his case by loose statements and indiscreet admissions. As an instance of what I allude to, I would point out to the Commission the statement made by Mr Hare that when he relieved me in June 1880, no more was known of the Kellys or their movements than was known when I relieved him in July 1879. After the patient hearing which the Commission has given to the evidence, such a statement as this requires no further comment from me. One of my agents came in and told him that the outlaws had gone out, and blood was to be shed. No notice was taken of it, and no warning was sent out, so that the tables might be turned on the outlaws; and yet he says we knew nothing more about them when we left than ten months previous. Again, Mr Hare in his report plainly suggests that the removal of the black trackers was a ruse to get the outlaws to break cover, and that it had the desired effect. But when cross-examined on this point he is obliged to admit that the removal of the trackers was no ruse, and that the taking of Ned Kelly and the destruction of the gang was mainly due to accident. Mr Hare told you that as a peace officer he thought he was justified in inducing the gang to make a raid on a bank, and perhaps commit murder, in order that he might obtain information of their whereabouts. Is this one of the reasons for the unbounded confidence which was placed in him? I have made no attack upon Mr Hare , but simply refuted his accusations against me. In his last statement he claims having done all the hard work, and got nothing for it. This is absurd, as he has been enjoying the best position in the force for the last fourteen years. As to the hard work, compare it with that of any other officer of the force. The depot had always been held by a military man, one specially qualified to take charge of the nursery of the force.....
Previous page / Next page
| ! | The text has been retyped from a microfiche copy of the original. We have taken care to reproduce this document but areas of the original text may been damaged. |
The previous day / next day . . . Royal Commission index
