The Argus at KellyGang 10/2/1882
Editorial
FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 1882
A letter, which demands the immediate consideration of the Government, appeared in our issue of yesterday. It refers to the collating of the evidence of the Police Commission for the use of Ministers when the Cabinet proceeds to deal with the report of the Commissioners and the replies of the police officers to the charges made against them. All the work connected with the commission was badly done. It is customary, when a voluminous report of evidence is issued, to publish also a complete index. We have some admirable models of what should be done. The report of the Civil Service Commissioners, for instance, was made a work of permanent value by the thoroughness of the indexing and the consequent ease with which reference can be made to the facts and the opinions elicited during the inquiry. But no attempt at indexing was made in connexion with the Police Commission.
A mass of undigested evidence was put before the public, and the consequence is that Ministers, confronted by extraordinary statements on the part of the commissioners, and warm denials on the part of the aggrieved officers, are fairly puzzled. They find it difficult to spare the time to test allegation and reply, and therefore they have ordered the evidence bearing on the disputed points to be extracted and prepared for their use. The work would facilitate the labours of Ministers, no doubt; but it is a delicate and judicial undertaking, and it should be entrusted to no other than some competent and unbiassed person. Instead of that, as our corespondent complains, the collation has been left to the secretary of the Police Commission.
The writer of the communication says:
" Nothing could well be more objectionable and unfair, It is, of course, to the interest of this gentleman to see the recommendations carried on at, and as the report is his work-and he boasts publicly that he might have made it much hotter for the officers-it is easy to imagine which way he would be biassed. Throughout the inquiry this gentleman was distrusted by every person concerned in the investigation, including several of the commissioners, and complaints are freely made that respectable persons who volunteered evidence favourable to the police, or antagonistic to the preconceived notions of the principal commissioners, had hindrances thrown in their way, and finally were not called at all. The report itself abounds in false statements of facts, unfounded insinuations, and misleading references to the evidence. These latter, at least, must be the work of the secretary, but they are of such a character that it requires a close acquaintance with the business to detect them."
From information in our possession we believe all the statements in the paragraph to be true. And the most important sentence we have already shown to be strictly accurate. The report undoubtedly abounds
(1) in false statements of facts,
(2) in unfounded insinuations, and
(3) in misleading references to the evidence.
Such an assertion no doubt demands proof. For one instance, we may take the sensational, highly-coloured, and dramatic version of the firing on the Glenrowan Hotel, given on page 27 of the narrative. It is so worded as to convey the impression that the police fired indiscriminately into the hotel after they knew that there were prisoners in it; that they fired on the white flag; and that in consequence of this reckless conduct a child of Mrs JONES was wounded, and the man MARTIN CHERRY was killed. This is the most serious and damaging passage in the report. But it is well known - no one denies the fact - that the child and the man CHERRY were wounded by the volleys with which the police answered the fire suddenly opened upon them by the outlaws. The hotel was in the way. Screams told the police that there were people in the building, and orders were then given which prevented any of the prisoners from being hurt. The only person who was scratched by a bullet afterwards was the lad REARDON, who was shot as he was escaping in the darkness, because, not responding to a challenge, he was believed to be a bushranger. So important a statement, reflecting as it does upon men and officers alike, should be backed up by clear references.
Two only are given-namely, to question 9,190 and question 9,697. The first question is hearsay evidence-not direct-that “the blackfellows were blazing away at anything and everything, and the second has nothing to do with the subject. It is a statement by Constable GASCOIGNE, that the police were stopped from rushing the hotel by the volleys fired from the verandah! No authority whatever is given for the alleged firing on the white flag, probably for the reason that any reference would have shown that the offence was a solitary shot fired by an individual« tracker, who was brought to order at once. The two questions quoted are supposed to cover all. It is not too much to say that we never met with a more impudent literary fiction than these references given in support of a passage on which the report may be said to turn. “Misleading" is a mild term to apply to them.
Of course the Government were ignorant of the circumstances of the case when they ordered the collation. Without that comparison of the evidence and the report which they have not time to make, Ministers cannot realise the untrustworthiness of the latter document. But they must see now that it would be unfair and improper to place the accused officers once more in the power of their eager accuser. The individual who could prepare such a re port as the one we have challenged, will, we may be sure, be equal to the task of supporting it. Ho is not at all likely to take pains to expose his own errors. How, indeed, can it be reasonably expected that he will do anything of the sort His collation of statements we may expect, indeed, will be marked by all the objectionable features of the extraordinary report now under review. We submit, therefore, that the Government should either abandon the collation, and form a judgment in each case from the charge and the officer's reply, or they should entrust the work to a barrister of good standing, or to some competent and experienced public officer. It is time that this sorry police business should be brought to an end. But the termination should not be accompanied by a conspicuous injustice, by which all might be marred.
| ! | 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. |
