The Argus at KellyGang 11/10/1882
For a clear case of intimidation we may refer our readers to the letters sent by the secretary of the Police Commission, and published in The Argus of yesterday. The commission inter alia is fishing for evidence against certain officers, and the idea was conceived that Senior constable Bourke could tell something. He was delicately approached m the first instance the secretary, Mr Jas WILLIAMS, was not only courteous but complimentary. Constable BOURKE is informed that he is “the most valuable witness examined regarding police matters in Melbourne ."
The commissioners, it is thus indicated, are inclined to regard the constable with a favourable eye. Cannot he do something more to earn their patronage? Cannot he come forward a second time, and say that he omitted the point of his tale in the first instance? If so, says Mr WILLIAMS, writing on a Saturday, "see me about 12 o'clock to-morrow at the Treasury." Constable Bourke repudiated these discreditable overtures, and the news that he had so done reached the ears of the solicitor for the defence of one of the accused officers, and also came to the knowledge of this journal and inquiries were made into the matter. But what had the commission to do with this? Obviously nothing. Yet Mr J WILLIAMS, either on his own authority or that of the commissioners, proceeded to address the constable in portentous phrases -"Senior constable BOURKE," so the precious document commences, "if you care to accept friendly advice, you will avoid identifying yourself with that seems systematic opposition to the efforts of the Police Commission to discharge their duty to the public . . . Pray, how comes it that the press knew of your having received the letter? . . If the letter leaves your possession, or a copy of it finds its way into the press, I shall officially bring the matter under the notice of the Police Commission. The Police Commission must not, and will not, be trifled with." It is not too much to say that such language is indecent, and that the act of first coaxing and then threatening a constable is highly improper in itself. And the question may be put whether the officers of the police force can be expected to maintain efficiency so long as the men are liable to be secretly approached in any such manner. The present Government is not responsible for the creation of the Police Commission, but, on the other hand, it is answerable for the condition of the force. Parliament is answerable also, and sooner or later Ministers and members will have to face the issue whether or not in the public interests this particular commission should not be requested to close its mischievous labours. In the meantime the commissioners may be invited to consider whether, amongst other officers who require "discipling," they should not place the name of their own secretary.
The Police Commission had a private sitting yesterday to consider the evidence taken in regard to Superintendent Winch and Inspector Larner who were accused having had monetary dealings with publicans. It was arranged that a report should be presented to the Chief Secretary to-day. The commission has come to a decision unfavourable to both officers.
| ! | 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. |
