The Argus at KellyGang 3/6/1881
Editorial
The police commission has resolved to "dispense with the further attendance of officers." This is a polite way of intimating to the gentlemen whose conduct is the subject of inquiry, that they are no longer to be permitted to hear the evidence taken by the commission, or to cross examine the witnesses. The reasons given by the commission for adopting this course are two in number, the first being, that the sub officers and constables appear when giving evidence to be swayed by the presence of the officers, and the second, that the officers, in the questions they put, seem to be influenced more by a desire to injure one another than to elicit the truth. The first of these reasons is an insult to the men, and the second an unjustifiable reflection on the officers. We believe that the majority of the men in the police force have sufficient self respect and regard for the obligations of an oath to tell the truth whether their officers are present or not, and even taking the commissioners' view, that the men are afraid to tell the truth from fear of consequences, the mere absence of the officers from the room will not re move the dread, for the evidence is recorded, and will, at some time or other, be in the possession of their superiors. As to the second point, there has doubtless been unnecessary and unpleasant questioning, but the ten dency of it all has been to bring out the truth rather than to suppress it.
But has the true reason for the new departure been given? The commission is notoriously a prejudiced tribunal, so far at least as its chairman and other prominent members are concerned, and it has all along shown an anxiety, both by the kind of witnesses it has called, and the manner in which it has examined them, to obtain testimony in justification of its hostility to the police officials. Some of the members, in fact, are merely working up to a foregone conclusion. Upon a good deal of the evidence brought forward quite a different light has been thrown by the cross examination of the officers, and some of the commissioners have scarcely disguised their annoyance when a different turn has been given in this way to a witness's story. It now looks as though the commission had resolved to allow no further interference of this kind, and had made up its mind to conduct the inquiry henceforth in its own way and at its own pleasure. If the reasons given for departing from the recognised rules of proceeding are well founded, they were in operation just as much at the beginning of the inquiry as at the present stage, and the sudden change of practice will not unnaturally be attributed to other motives than those which are declared.
As to the officers, they are placed in a most unfair position. Apart from the condensed reports which appear in the news papers, they will have no knowledge of what transpires during the inquiry, for the evidence in full will probably not be printed until long after the last witness has given his testimony. There will, therefore, be no proper opportunity for replying to statements which may be made to their disparagement, and, what is of equal importance, there will be no opportunity for cross examination. This is placing the officers at a tremble disadvantage. No one who has listened in a court of justice to the examination in chief of a witness and his subsequent cross examination, can have failed to notice how different a complexion is often placed upon facts by one simple question asked of an unfriendly or forgetful witness. To deny a prisoner the light of cross examination would be to deprive him in nine cases out of ten of his only means of defence, and the position here is much the same. The police offices are virtually on their trial, and they have the right to be present during the hearing of evidence, and to exercise the privilege of cross examination which belongs to every defendant. We do not ask for them more than justice, but nothing less than justice should they have. If the commission has any regard for fair and honourable dealing, or any respect for public opinion, it will reconsider its ill advised action.
At the sitting of the Police Commission yesterday, Mr Chomley acting chief commissioner of police was one of the witnesses examined. He gave his reasons for recommending tho appointment of Mr O'Connor to an inspectorship in the North Eastern district, and the grounds on which he had stated that another outbreak of bushrangers was probable. That statement was partly based on reports received by him from the police in the district, which were to the effect that the proceedings of the commission so far had disheartened the force and were calculated in the event of another outbreak, to materially increase the difficulties under which the police would labour.
THE POLICE COMMISSION
THURSDAY, JUNE 2
Present—Messrs Longmore (chairman), Fincham, Anderson , Gibb, Graves , Hall, and Dixon .
Constable Dwyer, examined by Mr O'Connor, continued.—He and his comrades understood that Constable Kirkham was under Mr O'Connor. At Glenrowan heard Mr O'Connor say to Mr Sadleir there were prisoners in the hotel, but that firing at the front would not hurt them. Witness saw Mr O'Connor in the trench. The trench was not 7ft. deep. It was not true that Mr O'Connor in that trench could only command the top of the house. The trench was the only place from which it was possible to command the front of the house, and no one could escape from the house without being observed from the trench. Witness did not think or hear any- body say that Mr O'Connor acted with cowardice. He thought he had noted bravely, and heard it remarked that he was a splendid shot.
To Mr HALL.—Mr Kirkham was under Mr O'Connor's orders. There were not as many shots fired from the house as were fired at it.
To the CHAIRMAN.—there could not have been half as many fired back from the house. There were seven men in the trench. Had the outlaws fired with as much rapidity as the police they might have fired half as many shots.
Constable Gascoigne examined.—Had been in Superintendent Hare's search party, comprising about seven men, in June, 1879. When he was with that party they once perceived indications of tracks of the outlaws. Superintendent Hare thought the tracks seen were those of persons looking for horses, but it was subsequently ascertained that at the time witness called attention to the supposed tracks one of the Quins had been seen in the locality in question. Was not with Mr Nicolson's search party; was not one of the cave party. The search parties were much troubled by false reports and information on all hands. Witness after a meeting with Aaron Sherritt told Captain Standish that he would not care to follow Sherritt. He regarded the agents generally who were paid to give information to the police as unreliable. Witness only knew Sherritt among the agents, and regarded him as untrustworthy. He believed, as a rule, the agents were misleading the police.
Mr DIXON - Then, if your impression be correct, there would be no chance of the Kellys being caught by a system of secret spies.
Witness -No, unless suitable men were found
, .1. , .2. ,
| ! | 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. |
