The Argus at KellyGang 11/2/1882
THE POLICE COMMISSION
TO THE EDITOR OF THE ARGUS
Sir, – If it is a fact that the secretary of the Police Commission has been instructed to collate the evidence for the Government, there is little doubt that it is unfair to all concerned. You have but to look at the narrative to see the way in which things tending to exonerate members of the force accused have been overlooked – as an instance, in bringing points under notice, the number of question, and informant's name are given in the margin; but on reading through it I find that at least one most important accusation that was proved quite unfounded is passed over with as little comment as possible, viz., the Mansfield telegram accusations (page 15). Is the reason for this that the accuser is a Minister of the Crown, and that it would be treasonable to mention his name? As this person is the principal accuser of more than one of the officers – was known to have hunted up evidence against them unsuccessfully, and to have asked at least 80 per cent of the leading questions, it is manifestly unfair that his name should be left out where he was considered to have made unfounded charges.
It is well known that witnesses were summoned by the secretary, seen only by him, and then informed that their evidence would not be required. Why was such power placed in any one's hands excepting the chairman or a quorum of the board? Again, why was Constable Bracken – one of the most important witnesses – never called, while men, some of whom bear unreliable characters in the force, were brought forward?
The officers were ordered out of the board-room, as their presence was supposed to intimidate the witnesses. Can the commission show this insinuation to be true by the evidence up to that time? Decidedly not. We find by the questions put to constables during the absence of the officers that members of the commission were capable of intimidating constables, and did so by leading questions, two of which I here give. In the craze against Sergeant Steele we find Constable Arthur asked,
Question 11,137, page 397 – “Could you be positive that Steele deliberately fired at that young fellow? Answer – No, because he was the nearest to me, and had to fire past me.
"Question 11,138 – You have no hesitation in saying that Steele deliberately shot at the young fellow? Answer – Yes, he shot at him."
Then as to their anxiety to prove secret service useless, we find Constable Gascoigne asked: -
“Question 9,628, page 348-Were those private agents employed by the officers from time to time men you could not place implicit reliance on? Answer – The only one I know is Aaron Sherritt &.c.
“Question 9,633 -Look over the list of agents, and see if you know them, &.c. Answer – There are as many different people in the district of the same name that I know that it would be hard to tell.
“Question 9,634 -Do you think that men bearing those names would give any reliable information?
Answer -I think so.
“Question 9,635 -As a rule, you consider the agents were misleading the police? Answer – I do.
This after the constable had acknowledged that he only knew one agent! In the evidence of Sergeant Steele insinuation is made by a commissioner that he received a letter from one of the officers saying that now “ Berry was in power he would do so and so." The letter referred to was read by the commission, and found to contain no promise of the kind, or mention of any Minister's name. (RC9150)As this accusation was made, why was the letter not printed that " all who run might read? In the minutes of the meetings it will be seen that some of the most important motions were moved by a member of the board, who only found time to attend 20 out of 66 meetings. It may be asserted that he read the evidence, but this is to be doubted if his time was so valuable.
As the question is raised of the fitness of the secretary to the Police Commission to collate the evidence for the Government, surely there is greater reason why Mr Graves, now a Minister of the Crown, should not be allowed to have a voice in their decision. The public have but to read his evidence from page 559 to 567, and his questions (in The Argus) to the witnesses, to perceive his animus against some of the officers, therefore the necessity for the Ministry requesting their colleague's non-interference in this matter. That the force requires more supervision is apparent to all – police are to be seen talking together with their hands in their pockets, and last week in a suburb from which came a complaint of police inattention, I saw a constable on duty in a principal street enjoying his pipe; time, half past 4pm. Not much harm one may say in this, but it indicates that things are not as they should be. –
Yours, &c.,
TRUTH.
Feb. 9.
see earlier correspondence from same person 7/1/79
| ! | 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. |
