Royal Commission report day 49 page 2
Story of the KellyGang - the Royal Commission Report
The Royal Commission evidence for 6/9/1881
see introduction to day 49
Sup John Sadleir giving evidence
16660 You had not responsibility with reference to the Kellys, but with reference to the general business you had?— Yes. Of course in the ordinary business I had to have respect to arrangements made by the other officers; that is, I could not take away men from bank townships, my own men, without their consent.
16661 Supposing any information you became suddenly possessed of was of sufficient importance, would not you have been justified in assuming the responsibility of taking what steps you thought best?— Yes. Of course I am speaking of general responsibility. I am speaking of the abstract rule of every disciplined service. That is, in general matters a junior officer cannot be responsible except in matters where he has been allowed to carry out his own opinions, and even then he is not responsible if his actions afterwards, or his opinions, have been approved by his superior officer. The latter then becomes responsible; but I am not shielding myself behind that. I will accept responsibility to this extent: whenever I acted alone, or even offered advice that was acted on by my senior officers, I will take the consequences. Apart from the question of responsibility, I think the evidence leaves it perfectly clear that I gave all the assistance in my power. I think I may say, that it is the value and extent of that assistance that has caused some persons to consider me as having taken a separate and independent responsibility in this matter.
The next question I come to is the search at Sebastopol, on November 7th, 1878 . This is a case in which I took a personal responsibility. It was I who collected the police from Taylor 's Gap, expecting, six only, but thirteen turned up. I brought two from Beechworth, and on my advice five were brought from Benalla. This, with the three officers, made twenty-three police in all. I know the popular belief was, that there were many more. In my own evidence I stated thirty-five, but twenty-three is, I believe, the absolutely correct number.
In the letter handed in by Mr. Graves , it is stated the information by the bark stripper was delayed for two days, in order to take away the chance of capturing the gang from the six or seven constables then at Beechworth. Will the Commission be good enough to refer to that letter. It is one of the statements in that letter I am referring to now. The statement in the letter is, “Another case similar happened shortly afterwards at Beechworth, where reliable information reached the constable in charge, that the outlaws were in the vicinity. The constables, five or six in number, decided to visit the house, and when everything was complete and ready to start, an officer dropped in, and ordered them to remain in barracks, and wait for orders, which they were obliged to do. The consequence of this delay was, that when all the usual red tape routine was gone through, they surrounded the hut in three days after the information reached Beechworth. The Kelly gang had decamped the day previous. There is something very singular in this case. When this particular hut was surrounded, there were almost as many officers present as constables. The question arises, were those constables delayed for the purpose of collecting all the officers in the district to be present at the “great charge of Sebastopol ,” as it is now called, and so on. My statement in reference to that is this:—The fact is, there were only two constables at Beechworth. I received the information late on the night of the 6th November; telegraphed as soon as I had done speaking with the informant, asking for assistance, within an hour of my first hearing of the affair, and before daylight, the whole party was under way. I think that explains any statements as regards delay. The mistake in not letting Mr. Nicolson know the full purport of the information was purely accidental because, in the darkness, when I was speaking to Captain Standish , Mr. Nicolson was, I thought, standing beside us. The telegram he had from me was evidently all the information he required, for his instinct showed him perfectly well what was necessary when we sighted the hut. He was the first man into it.
The next matter I have is the reported appearance of the Kellys at the One-mile Bridge near Wangaratta in the same month. My own impression is that that has been explained by the statement of the original informant at Wangaratta. If you think so, I will not take up your time with my remark”. You examined the woman at Wangaratta. Is it necessary for me to give any explanation of that?
16662 I think the responsibility rests on Mr. Brooke-Smith in that?— I do not think I am involved in that at all.
16663 It is better to give your version of that affair?— Then I will give my account of it. This is another case in which I acted to some extent on my own responsibility. The first intimation I had of this appears to have been from Sergeant Steele on the railway station at Benalla and then only in the shape of a rumour. My instructions to him ( Steele ) were to halt at Wangaratta, make enquiries there, and if report reliable to inform Mr. Brooke-Smith, who was supposed to have a strong party there. Mr. Brooke-Smith reported to me on the subject to the effect that the rumour was not confirmed. The Commission will remember the original informant, Mrs. Delaney, coming before them at Wangaratta and stating that she could not say the persons seen were the Kellys, nor could she see say arms with them.
The Chairman — There was nothing taken down. She came informally and said she simply knew that four men had passed, and she did not know who they were. The Commission did not think it worth while to take that down, and she said she had no other information to give after.
By witness — I do not think Mr. Lang was justified in putting the evidence on this subject in so strong a light.....
Previous page / Next page
| ! | 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. |
The previous day / next day . . . Royal Commission index
