The Argus at KellyGang 7/8/1882 (2)
Royal Commission - evidence
Ex detective Bourke's evidence was to the following effect: - He joined the force in April, 1857, and left it in April, 1875. There had been no change in the management of the force since he left. The force had deteriorated since 1868, in consequence of the officer in charge being inexperienced. Mr Secretan was under witness's supervision from 1859 to 1861, and was then a third class detective. He applied for promotion to the second class, and witness forwarded his application to Mr Nicolson, who was then in charge of the detectives. Mr Nicolson sent it on to Superintendent Chomley, the present chief commissioner, for a report, and the latter, under whom witness and Mr Secretan were working at the time, replied that the applicant was entirely unfit for the service. Mr Nicolson then returned the application to witness, and directed him lo instruct Detective Secretan to withdraw it, as if it were forwarded to the chief with Mr Chomley's remarks he would be placed at the bottom of the list and would have no chance of promotion. Mr Secretan accordingly withdrew his application, but within a fortnight he was promoted to the second class on the recommendation of Mr Nicolson alone.
When Mr Secretan first joined the service Mr Nicolson wrote to witness directing him to take every pains in instructing the new officer, and to give him an insight into the detective business. Witness, however, could get no good out of his subordinate. Subsequently Mr Secretan told witness that Mr Nicolson was going to make alterations in the force which would be to his benefit. Witness thought that this statement was only a boast, but soon after-wards Mr Secretan was made sub-inspector in charge of the detectives. The old and experienced members of the force then became very dissatisfied. In the explosion case in which Mr Reynolds lost his life, the chief commissioner instructed Mr Winch to take charge, and witness was specially retained to assist in bringing the culprit to justice. Mr Secretan threw obstacles in their way, and would send witness on other work. Witness pointed out that the explosion case required all his time, but Mr Secretan then said, 'obey my orders, sir' Eventually witness referred the matter to Mr Winch, who reported it to the chief, and then Mr Secretan was directed to interfere no more with him until the explosion case was over Mr Secretan displayed the same spirit to all the senior detectives, and encouraged the junior hands to quarrel with the seniors. He compelled witness to retire, on the ground that he suffered from rheumatism. The best men in the force at present were Eason, Mackey, and Foster. The force should consist of 12 good men, under a competent officer, and the present pay would be sufficient.
Ex detective Mainwaring was also closely questioned by the commission as to the individual merits of the detective officers. When asked whom he would recommend as the best man to take charge, he said Detective Eason was well qualified, having education, ability, and seniority, but he was getting on in years. Sub-inspector Kennedy was an experienced man, but he made a better police officer. Detective Mackey was the best man. Although a junior to some, he was a senior detective, and had proved himself fit for any duty.
Inspector Secretan has given evidence, which we have already published, that the detective service is nearly as efficient now as it was prior to 1868. In proof of this he handed in to the commission returns of the arrests made by the detectives in 1866, 1877, 1880, and 1881. As to Detective Foster's statement, that immediately after he applied to be examined an attempt was made to hurry him away to Adelaide, Mr Secretan produced a file of correspondence, winch showed that Foster had arranged to leave a week before he actually went, and that he was directed to take the overland route for the purpose of distributing certain photographs and placards amongst the police stations on his way. The delay of his departure was occasioned by the time occupied in getting the photographs and placards printed.
In January, 1860, Mr Secretan, as he further showed, was not under Detective Rourke, for Rourke was then also a third class detective, having been reduced from the first class for falsifying reports. Detective Foster's grievance was probably that he was not promoted before four or five other officers who were far superior to him in ability. He was also once fined £3 by the witness (Mr Secretan) for misconduct on board a Geelong steamer. What he (Mr Secretan) said with regard to Foster, in the matter of two rings, was that he had been informed that he was once charged with having stolen them. The correspondence and evidence on the matter, which had been produced, did not support the charge. Still he (Mr Secretan) received the information as he had stated.
Detective Eason was a man of considerable ability, but as he had been away from Melbourne for 15 or 16 years, it was a question as to whether he could now cope with crime in the metropolis. In the training of detectives they had to be sent to attend to small cases at first, and it was well to employ a senior detective in small cases at times. The arrest of a man for a small offence frequently led to important results. Yet it was not the practice to cumber officers with trivial inquiries when they had important work to do. As to the serving of pawn lists it was an excellent practice, because it brought the detectives into contact with the pawnbrokers, whom it was very desirable that they should know. With regard to Detective Upton, he was discharged from the service in June, 1876 in consequence of his knowledge of Western Australiana not proving so good as was expected. The Goldstein robbery did not take place until the 1st of June, 1877, or 12 months after.
Upton left the service, and the offenders in the case were not previously known to the police. It was quite true that he (Mr Secretan) had sent detectives out on night duty. He was accustomed to do this when any particular class of crime was prevalent, and he had generally found the practice successful. As he had said before, he had always considered that the allowances made for the detectives' expenses were too low. It was untrue that the newspapers were taken away from the office. They were all there always, and could be seen by any officer who liked to ask for them. That any correspondence about complaints had been burned was also totally untrue. With regard to the case of the lady in Toorak, he produced evidence that the stolen property was redeemed from the pawn office by the lady herself, who paid the pawnbroker with a cheque direct. A second cheque had been referred to by Detective Foster as having been drawn out by this lady and given to him (Mr Secretan).
| ! | 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. |
