The Argus at KellyGang 12/8/1880 (3)
Editorial
Whoever else may have been guilty of a neglect of duty with regard to the Kelly gang, the fault cannot certainly be imputed to the ex-Chief Secretary, Mr RAMSAY. And one of the wisest of the acts of that gentleman was the order that the prisoner, EDWARD KELLY, shall not be indiscriminately visited. No doubt a prisoner as a rule has a right, subject to regulation, to see whom he pleases, but it would be ridiculous to place EDWARD KELLY in the position of a man who must be considered innocent until the verdict has been given and sentence has been recorded against him. The man has been outlawed once as a murderer, and the first duty of the Crown is to see that the desperado who was caught with so much difficulty does not after all cheat the gallows by means of assistance from friends. No doubt, also, Mr RAMSAY had a second object in his order, and that is, to prevent narratives appearing in the press which would all tend to palliate the Kelly crimes, and put the criminal in a favourable light before the community. And with this object the right-thinking members of the community will be as ready to sympathise as with the other, for it is unhappily notorious that one section of our populace is demoralised enough in connexion with the Kelly gang without anything being done to aggravate the evil.
The tendency which exists to regard a man with his hands imbrued in innocent blood as a modern ROBIN HOOD is much too prevalent in Victoria, and it requires to be sternly checked, and not encouraged. Nothing would stimulate the feeling, however, so much as the printing of stories from KELLY’S own lips. In many instances, all that he said would be believed, and what he would say is easily foreshadowed. He would malign the police. He would accuse this man of cowardice and that of perjury. He would himself posture as something of a hero and a good deal of martyr. He would be irresponsible for his utterances, and his new victims would be as powerless as those whom he killed near Greta. This much can be predicted with certainty, because KELLY has already done something of the kind. He left a manuscript at Jerilderie, a copy of which came into the possession of The Argus, and we found it to be entirely unfit for publication, because it was of the character stated. And, moreover, the trick of maligning the police on some side issue, and of posing as the victim of persecution, is common to all habitual criminals, male or female, as every attendant at the courts of justice knows. It is the mental badge of all the tribe.
The lying stories told by WEECHURCH are fresh in the public mind, and also those of the notorious SCOTT, alias “MOONLIGHT,” who went into the box to swear away the liberty of an innocent man charged with the crime which SCOTT had himself committed. Instances could be multiplied. It is notorious that the habitual criminal has dogged hatred of the police and a morbid vanity as regards himself, and, above all, that he is incapable of telling a true story, and must romance. Mr. RAMSAY was therefore justified in saving the community from the pollution of the Kelly lies, and we can only express surprise that Mr. DAVID GAUNSON has not seen his way to promptly contradict the assertion that he has lent himself to make possible an evasion of the wholesome rule. Mr. GAUNSON visits KELLY as his solicitor. Yet it is alleged―and no contradiction has appeared―that he has allowed KELLY to use him as a means of placing before the public a series of statements which on the face of them are false and injurious. We can only hope that Mr. GAUNSON will yet see his way to assure the public that he has in no way abused his position, and we must certainly warn the public against placing the smallest faith in Kelly narratives, no matter who may be the reporter. Their value is the same as that of the Jerilderie manuscript, which, as responsible journalists, we declined to publish.
Edward Kelly was yesterday committed to stand trial at the Beechworth Circuit Court on October 14th, on the charge of having murdered Constable Scanlan. Very little fresh evidence was brought forward.
end
| ! | 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. |
