Royal Commission report day 9 page 11

From KellyGang
Jump to: navigation, search

previous page / next page

The Royal Commission evidence for 6/4/1881

(full text transcription)

(see also introduction to day 9)

Henry Moors giving evidence

1683 Any Chief Commissioner?— Nor Chief Commissioner for upwards of twenty years. In the earliest days, of course, under Captain MacMahon, when the force was being brought from a chaotic state into a state of some order, it was a common thing for us to stay till seven o'clock . I have been repeatedly detained until seven o'clock with the work of the office; but you cannot compare the present time with that.

1684 Are you not aware that, at the time I was in the office, there was good reason to be careful. You said I was very careful in looking over papers; had I not good reason to be, as the circumstances were very peculiar?— Yes; I did not imply the contrary at all. The only thing is I drew a contrast between you and Captain Standish, that you would take the longer time—constitutionally you would take a longer time in going through a file than Captain Standish would. That was the only thing I spoke of.

1685 I do not like to make invidious comparisons, but did you find any of Captain Standish's reports about that time sent back because they were contrary to evidence or did not meet with satisfaction?— No, I think not, because who was there to send them back? He was the head of the department, and the officers at Benalla were under him.

1686 There were letters to other departments as well?— I could not say that Captain Standish's correspondence was in any way inaccurate further than would be the case with any man at a distance from the scene of operations.

1687 Have Captain Standish's reports been sent back from other Government offices, the Chief Secretary's, for instance, because the memoranda did not comprehend the case exactly, or did not represent the case so well as if he had given it more attention?— No, I cannot recall any case of the kind.

1688 Did the reports sent away in my time to other departments meet the situation?— Certainly they did, so far as I could judge. In regard to the reports from both there was always considerable care taken in the office; everything was sent off after scrutiny. We have a thoroughly confidential and careful staff, and if there had been any oversight we have that confidence in them that any clerk seeing anything wrong would have pointed it out. The reports in the one case as well as the other were careful, accurate, and satisfactory.

1689 In addition to the usual correspondence of the office, was there not a great addition connected with the Kelly business?— A very great addition, as everyone in the office felt.

1690 By the Commission. —Was there more correspondence and work during Mr. Nicolson's time than during Captain Standish's?— I think not.

1691 At the particular period at which Captain Standish complains of muddle in the office?— No. Well, during the Kelly affair, whether Captain Standish was at the office or Mr. Nicolson, the average was much about the same.

1692 The only thing was that Mr. Nicolson took a little longer time in passing it through?— Yes.

1693 And you do not acknowledge that the office was in any state of muddle whatever?— No, further than this, if you find clerks with a heap of papers and they find they have to stay late hours, some would call that a state of muddle, but I do not.

1694 It was delay on pressure of business?— Yes.

1695 But the business was cleared up as Mr. Nicolson went along; there was no undue accumulation?— No.

1696 By Mr. Nicolson. —On other occasions when I acted for Captain Standish, which were very frequent, was there any bother or difficulty about papers, or any delay previous to the Kelly outbreak?— No, I cannot recall anything of the kind.

1697 By Mr. Hare. —Have you any account of documents that have been removed from the office by Mr. Nicolson since he has been Acting Commissioner with reference to the Kelly affair ?— No.

1698 You have not kept an account of them?— No. When he called for papers, when he was in the office, of course they were brought before him; and naturally I did not think it necessary to keep a record of what were taken.

1699 You do not know what papers have been taken or what he has in his possession?— No.

1700 No record kept?— No.

1701 Have many papers been given him?— Not very many.

1702 By the Commission. —Have you got a registry?— Yes......

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.

We also apologise for any typographical errors.

The previous day / next day . . . Royal Commission index