The Argus at KellyGang 1/9/1881

From KellyGang
Jump to: navigation, search
(full text transcription)

The further examination of Captain Standish before the Police Commission was continued yesterday, and concluded. The commission adjourned until to-day, when Mr Sadleir's closing statement will be heard, and his cross-examination, if possible, completed.


POLICE COMMISSION

WEDNESDAY, AUG. 31

Present - Messrs Longmore (chairman) Hall, Gibb, Levey, Dixon , and Fincham.

Captain Standish , who was recalled and examined by the board said - With the exception of Mr O'Connor, never had a disagreement with any officer until Mr Nicolson was shifted from Benalla by order of the Government. The feud between witness and Mr O'Connor was not an official but purely a private matter. Was very dissatisfied with nothing being done against the outlaws during Mr Nicolson's time. Considered that Mr Nicolson showed a want of generalship and did not act on information received. When witness went up he decided after consulting with Messrs. Hare and Sadleir that it was useless sending out search parties except on apparently reliable information. Witness was up in the district for seven months with 70 extra men, but he never came within sight of the Kellys, yet considered himself quite justified in condemning Mr Nicolson. Saw by the evidence that Mr Nicolson threw several chances away. Mr Nicolson was hunting the Kellys in the first instance for six weeks. Witness succeeded him with 60 or 70 more men, and produced no better results. Witness, however, had previously told Mr Berry that it would be fortunate for the department if the outlaws were captured in 12 months, on account of the number of their sympathisers. Witness himself employed secret agents, but was always very careful so that he should not be betrayed by sympathisers. Mr Nicolson had many chances which he (witness) never had. Knew Mr Wallace, the schoolmaster. Wallace once told him he could go out shooting in the ranges at the Christmas holidays and find out where the Kellys were. Afterwards found him unreliable.

The CHAIRMAN – Explain why you have tried to exalt Mr Hare and depress Mr Nicolson. In one part of your evidence you said the one treated the constables like men and not like dogs. Now that requires explanation.

Witness – Shortly after Mr Nicolson took charge witness visited Benalla and a horse was ordered out of the stable. The constable who took it out should, according to Mr Nicolson's rules, have stood in front of the horse and held him by both hands. The man, however, only held him by one hand, and Mr Nicolson's language towards him for so doing was the most violent and disgraceful he (witness) ever heard. Could not recollect the language used and could not tell the constable's name.

The CHAIRMAN – This is very unsatisfactory.

Witness said he adhered to all the statements he had made.

The CHAIRMAN – The whole tenour of your evidence has given me the impression that you intended to elevate Mr Hare and to depress Mr Nicolson, and your statements should not be allowed to pass without proof. Would there be any difficulty in finding out the constable whom you say Mr Nicolson addressed in disgraceful language?

Witness – I could not tell you. I have not the slightest idea.

Examination continued – Mr Hare was the best officer he had ever known in the force without exception. He was about the most popular man in the force whilst Mr Nicolson was about the most unpopular. Mr Hare was kind-hearted and genial, he never bullied the men, and the men would do anything for him. The men performed their duty better under him than under Mr Nicolson. Not- withstanding Mr Moors' evidence, the office fell into a muddle under Mr Nicolson.

The CHAIRMAN – Mr Moors explained that Mr Nicolson was not so perfect in office work as you were, but that he only delayed papers a little longer in the office.

Witness – That, I suppose is a quasi explanation. What I know is from hearsay. There were no arrears of any importance when I returned.

The CHAIRMAN – Then do you adhere to your statement that the office was in a muddled state?

Witness – I adhere to what I heard from the clerks in the office.

The CHAIRMAN – Are there any of those clerks in the office now?

Witness – I cannot give their names, lest it should harm them. They complained that under Mr Nicolson they were kept in the office longer hours than was necessary. I was urged to return to town.

The CHAIRMAN – By whom?

Witness – Well, I do not like to give names.

The CHAIRMAN – The commissioners are entitled to know.

Witness – Then I would sooner withdraw that part of my evidence.

Mr FINCHAM – That cannot be done. You have made a charge, and must now give proof. When in Benalla you received a letter from the office stating that you were required here?

Witness – Yes.

Mr FINCHAM – And when you inquired you found there was just cause for bringing you back to town?

Witness – Yes.

continued

, .1. , .2. ,


 ! 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.