5,498 bytes added,
04:00, 15 November 2015 '''Full text of article'''
TO THE EDITOR OF THE ARGUS
Sir,-If rumour be correct there is fresh danger of matters connected with this unfortunate [[Royal Commission|commission]] being further complicated. It is said that the secretary of the commission has been employed in collating the evidence for the Government. If this is true, nothing could well be more objectionable and unfair. It is, of course; to the interest of this gentleman to see the recommendations carried out 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. Through out 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. Those 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.
The conduct of the commission during the inquiry, the disregard shown by them to every principle of fair play and to the common rules of evidence, and to the well being of the police force, should make the Government specially cautious about accepting any resumé of the evidence without a careful consideration of the context and the circumstances under which the witnesses were speaking..
I find on reference to the minutes that nearly 4,000 questions, viz, from [[Royal Commission report day 24 page 9|9,373]] to [[Royal Commission report day 36 page 1|12,768]], were put to witnesses while the defendants were shut out of the room. The ostensible plea for the exclusion of the officers was that their presence deterred the police witnesses from speaking out. That this was a mere hollow pretence is shown by the commission straightway examining the following witnesses -Mr [[Chomley (2)|Chomley]], commissioner of police, Messrs [[Jacob Wilson|Wilson]], [[Carrington|Carrington]], [[Melvin|Melvin]], [[McWhirter|M'Whirter]], [[Allen|Allan]] (the last three reporters), Mrs [[Reardon|Reardon]], Messrs [[Reardon|Reardon]], [[Dowsett|Dowsett]], [[O'Connor|O'Connor]], [[Rawlins|Rawlins]], [[Const Armstrong|Armstrong]] Dean [[Matthew Gibney|Gibney]]. Except Mr Chomley not one of these witnesses had any connexion with the police force. Besides these were examined Inspector [[Insp Wliiam Montfort|Montfort]] (whose evidence was kept secret), Constables [[Const J Dwyer|Dwyer]], [[Gascoigne|Gascoigne]], [[Const Arthur|Arthur]], [[Const W Phillips|Phillips]], [[Johnston|Johnson]], and [[SConst Flood|Flood]]. It will perhaps scarcely be credited that these were the most important witnesses before the commission.
I am not at all surprised that the Government, in their desire to act justly both towards the commission and the police, should find great difficulty in dealing with the evidence, the greater portion of which is wholly irrelevant to the business in hand. For the rest it may be said it is impossible for any stranger to the proceedings to sift the grain from the chaff. This is chiefly the result of leading questions by the commission, and the refusal to tho defendants of the right to cross examine the moat important witnesses. In every instance, as it appears to me, where the defendants were allowed to cross examine, matters were placed in a much clearer light, and where witnesses had spoken unguardedly, as led by the commissioners, their evidence under cross examination put facts invariably in a truer light, to the great advantage of the defendants. I would therefore ask is it to be left in the power of any interested and irresponsible person like the secretary to pick and choose what evidence is to be laid before the Government? I think no one has the smallest doubt that the leading members of the Government desire to do justice in the business, but I would respectfully suggest that there are but two courses open consistent with fair dealing:- Either that the evidence as now collated should be submitted to the defendants before the Government pass judgment upon it, or that seeing how unreliable, unfair, and un English has been the whole course of procedure by the commission, their recommendations should be rejected, except on such points as cannot be disputed. An end should be put at once to the farce of having so many of the principal and most efficient officers on full pay but suspended from duty, while the police force is going to the dogs through want of supervision -I am, &c.
J. P.
Feb. 7.
see [[The Argus at KellyGang 10/1/1882|letter from JP]] , [[The Argus at KellyGang 2/3/1882|later letter]],
<br />
{{MicroficheCopy}}<br />
<div id="newspaper-nav">
[[The Argus at KellyGang 13/1/1882|Previous edition]] [[The Argus at KellyGang 10/2/1882|Next edition]]
</div>
[[Category:1880s]] [[Category:1882]] [[Category:February 1882]] [[Category:The Argus]] [[Category:Newspaper]] [[Category:press report]] [[Category:1882]] [[Category:history]] [[Category:Royal Commission into the Kelly Gang]] [[Category:police commission]]
MediaWiki:Sidebar
{{^|Original page location \documents\N82\82_02_09_Argus1.html}}