The Argus at KellyGang 2/3/1882
POLICE COMMISSION
Editorial
The Cabinet, it is announced, sits today to deal with the report of the Police Commission. The time is opportune, therefore, to consider one point which has not yet been explicitly stated, and mischief may possibly be averted by mentioning it. It is an unheard of thing that a Royal commission should assume judicial functions. And if, contrary to all precedent, the Police Commission is allowed to usurp such powers, a breach of all judicial rules will be committed. What has happened is this. A police officer has been called-say Sergeant Steele or Detective Ward. The man has given his evidence, and has gone about his business. The next thing ho hears is that in his absence charges have been made against him; that the evidence has been considered; that he has been found guilty; that sentence has been pronounced, and that he is to be disgraced and degraded. All this takes place, as we have said, in the absence of the accused individual, without any charge being formulated, and with-out the man being called upon for any defence. It is somewhat difficult to write with calmness about the stupidity and tho harsh, persecuting spirit which dictated this course to the commission, but we merely state the undeniable facts, and point out that there is no warrant in law or equity or practice for such a procedure.
The rule is that before a public servant is dismissed or degraded, he should be informed of his crime, and should be called upon to make his defence to a board appointed to hear evidence, and to find on the issues remitted to them. And this is simple justice. Nobody charged with a general or “fishing" investigation is ever allowed to deal with individual cases. A coroner's jury investigates the cause of death; but if the result is a charge against any man, the coroner cannot fine the individual a penny, nor yet sentence him to imprisonment for a day. Ho can only direct that the man shall take his trial. So with the Steam Navigation Board.
THE POLICE COMMISSION AND THE SECRETARY'S DEFENCE
TO THE EDITOR OF THE ARGUS
Sir, – Mr Wiliams' explanation shows considerable literary ability, but every one will agree with you that it does not establish his character for perfect impartiality and for that particular ability that would justify the Government or the commission in placing full confidence in any collation of the evidence made by him.
Before dealing with the supplementary references which he has furnished to you – and how long, I would ask, are these supplements to go on? – I will take seriatim some of the statements in his explanation to the commission on Tuesday.
The first I shall notice is the admission that in Mr Sadleir's rejoinder the references have been found of so exhaustive a nature that no further collation of evidence in his case is necessary. This looks very like as if this officer was not afraid of having light thrown on his conduct from every side, and, as Mr Williams acknowledges, he is a "shrewd and able" man, it is exceedingly probable he knew what he was about. Then, on the other hand, if Mr Sadleir's references were exhaustive, where was the need of those supplementary ones furnished to you? Your article this morning answers the question.
Mr Williams says that "Mr Nicolson appeared to have accepted in globo the conclusions of the commission, except as regarded his retirement from the service." I should think so, for the commission, probably enough without being aware of it, have absolutely exonerated him from every charge brought against him, either directly by Captain Standish or Mr Hare, or indirectly by the anonymous accusers whose statements were brought forward by Mr Graves. They had to fall back on this officer's state of health, which, however, appears to be good enough for any duty for years to come. That he defended himself with spirit against accusations of a very serious character, and that he resented, with some bitterness his unjustifiable recall when success was almost within sight, no person outside the commission will accept as sufficient ground for his compulsory retirement.
Mr Williams virtually admits my assertion that he did boast that "he could have made it hotter for the officers." He does not call it boasting, but a "defence of the action of the commission," and he says, "the expression of opinion in a private club should not be viewed with significance." Considering that the members of this (the Yorick) club are mostly pressmen, who have a larger influence in forming public opinion than any other class in the community, it is difficult to see how he could have taken a better opportunity of making his views public. But my assertion had reference to his remarks made under very different circumstances.
Mr Williams mentions a "synoptical outline, with exhaustive references," furnished to the commission. What has become of these references? Surely the Government who have to decide on the evidence, and the officers whose position was at stake, had a right to know on what the recommendations were based.
As retards the "false statements of fact" and "unfounded insinuations," it would take all my remaining space to vindicate them fully, but they will be forthcoming in due course.
Mr Williams substitutes question 9,679 for question 9,697, and so far his explanation is satisfactory, but would he ever have corrected it himself if attention had not been called publicly to it? The Argus has already impugned the application of question 9,190. I will add that it is most grossly misleading. At the most it is only a repetition by a witness of what another person stated elsewhere. The original speaker was himself before the commission, but was not questioned on the subject. The alleged indiscriminate firing alluded to in Q 9,190, took place at 5 o'clock a.m., in the interregnum, so to speak between Mr Hare's departure and Mr Sadleir taking the command, while the single shot at the flag of truce was at 10 am, five hours later. It is singular how only two out of some hundred onlookers observed this shot. But as to the indiscriminate firing, the witness says it occurred "when the outlaws came out at the northern side of the hotel, as Mr Sadleir came down the line," i.e., the instant he landed from the train. Now, how is it that
Mr Williams will not give the explanation put before the commission for this firing? Sergeant Whelan, Constable Dwyer, Mr Sadleir, and others show that this firing was commenced by the outlaws on Mr Sadleir and his party as they left the train, and that the other police seeing the outlaws firing returned the fire. Here a perfectly justifiable proceeding is made a weapon against the police, and is especially aimed at an officer who had no responsibility whatever in the matter. Mr Williams explains the absence of references on this point on the ground that the commissioners were so unanimous that farther references were not required. Now Mr Sadleir's explicit instructions to the police were, "There are a number of innocent persons in the house. To fire breast high if they fired at all, and only when the outlaws showed." Mr Sadleir had the frankness to acknowledge that in spite of these instructions he had to check the trackers on one occasion, and that in the darkness and excitement no one person could prevent all unnecessary, and, perhaps, reckless firing. But to put it forth that indiscriminate firing was a feature of the day's proceedings, either before or after the innocent persons escaped, is one of the worst and most unfounded insinuations in the report.
I shall deal as briefly as I can with the references Mr Williams has furnished to you, omitting those you have noticed this morning. It has to be borne in mind that the point of the accusation lies in this – that the loose firing endangered the lives of the innocent persons kept prisoners in the hotel. Reardon, p 278, says that Jones's boy was shot in the first or second volley, i.e., before the police knew of the presence of the innocent persons. The rest of his evidence, except the reference to the firing on the flag, relates to the interval between Mr Hare's departure and Mr Sadleir's arrival. Barry, Q 7,390, 7,486, does not bear on the point in question, or has been given in error. Gascoigne, 9,679, has already been alluded to. M'Whirter, 10,343, describes the firing between the police and outlaws as referred to under 9,190 above. Mrs Reardon, 10,590-96, describes incidents that occurred almost immediately after Mr Hare retired, and hours before Mr Sadleir took charge, and it is not shown that the firing then was not perfectly justifiable. Dowling (4,785-96) fired when he saw the outlaws. Steele (9,014) describes as above the outlaws firing on Mr Sadleir's party as they got out of the train, and the return fire by the police. But the best evidence of all was that after the first volleys not a single person was hurt. Although the commission had to deal with the actions of three officers at Glenrowan, no attempt is made to keep their actions or the different occurrences of the day separate. Having lumped the events of the day together, they proceed to fix on one officer, Mr Sadleir, the whole responsibility, in the teeth of the most conclusive evidence. The more closely the whole of the findings as regards this officer are examined into, the more indefensible do they appear. – Yours, &c,
J.P. Feb 23.
see earlier letter, earlier letter ,
| ! | 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. |
