The Argus at KellyGang 16/1/1883

From KellyGang
Jump to: navigation, search
(full text transcription)

TUESDAY, JANUARY 16, 1883

Editorial

It was deemed necessary to prepare the community for the publication of the report of the Police Commission on the detective force. Cautious intimations appeared that something extreme and sensational was to be expected-the notice being given lest the shock should be too much for the astonished reader.

These precautions were very kind, but they were also quite unnecessary. The report is as malicious and as absurd as regards individuals as the mysterious announcements predicted would be the case, but nobody, we apprehend, will be greatly disturbed by its appearance. Whenever Mr LONGMORE prepares a document, it is apt to bear a family likeness in strong language and weak conclusions to his historic Grattan address, and the proper treatment includes a good deal of contempt.

Putting vituperation aside, the truth about the detective department appears to be that, in common with the police force generally, it has fallen somewhat below par of late, and, moreover, an unfortunate jealousy has been created between the general and detective forces, impairing the efficiency of both. Commonsense plans for the remedy of these defects have been submitted by the permanent heads, and they could have been brought into operation at any moment without the intervention of the commission, which has blocked the way, and has done much to demoralise this as well as other branches of the service.

The evidence given by the new chief commissioner, Mr CHOMLEY, shows that he is strongly of opinion that it is a mistake in this colony to maintain the detective force as a separate organisation, and that he thinks it should be placed under the control of the superintendents of districts. In the country districts this is practically the case already. But in Melbourne the detective force works under its own officer, and Mr CHOMLEY would set aside this arrangement, and would place the city superintendent in charge of the whole police force of the city, the one officer being thus responsible for the due repression and detection of crime, The suggestion meets with no great opposition, but on the contrary appears to be favourably viewed by men of practical experience in both branches of the service, and under such circumstances it is sure to receive a trial. When the long-service officers are intolerable accord as to the best way of providing for local requirements, there is good reason why their plans should be adopted, if only as an experiment. The commission has not evolved anything unknown to the chief commissioner, but it has adopted the scheme of the officer who is answerable for the management of the force, and who might very well have been allowed to manage it when he was appointed a year ago.

Mr LONGMORE and his friends are pleased, however, to add details the absurdity of which is visible at a glance. Under the new arrangements the detective department will still exist. The men will be there and the work will be there, and the commission sapiently propose that the management of the detective business shall be undertaken by the chief commissioner himself. How the one officer is to perform the double duty of inspector of detectives and chief commissioner the report does not indicate. The impropriety of such a union of offices has not struck these clear-visioned gentlemen, though to other people it is plain enough that the duty of the chief commissioner is to keep subordinates up to the mark, and is not to undertake a subordinate's duty himself. If the chief commissioner works with the minor officers, who is to supervise the work of the chief commissioner?

Nor does the commission note that while adopting Mr CHOMLEY'S principle they would destroy it in effect. The chief commissioner advises that the whole force of the city should be worked by the superintendent of the city. The commissioners, while protesting against the present division, would practically preserve it by putting the detectives under the personal control of the chief commissioner. So far as the city superintendent is concerned, he probably would prefer the detectives to remain under an inspector, who is his inferior in rank, to seeing them transferred to an officer who is his superior, for in the latter case they would be still further removed from his control. What the police officers ask for is that there should be one head for the city forces. The commission, while approving of the principle, would still maintain two heads. The gravity of the contradictory utterance is owl-like.

The commission really warms to its work when it comes to consider the relative position of detectives and criminals. The feature of the first report of the commission was, it will be remembered, the sympathy expressed with the KELLYS. EDWARD KELLY was the here of the document. It was his bravery, tact, and moderation that were extolled, and in this instance Mr. LONGMORE has found a kindred spirit in one PATRICK BOARDMAN. This young gentleman, after a somewhat adventurous and vicious career, was captured breaking into a bank at Hotham. When seized by Detective DUNCAN he made a desperate resistance. Failing, however, to do his capturer much harm in the back yard at Hotham, the astute Mr. BOARDMAN has endeavoured to injure this officer and others before the commission, and he has found Mr. LONGMORE and Mr. LONGMORE's associates far more sympathetic than ordinary judges and common juries. Mr LONGMORE sees the situation at a glance. Our KELLYS and our BOARDMANS are not thieves. They are the almost innocent victims of cruel men in authority. It is his duty to proclaim their merits and their wrongs and to punish their persecutors. It will be worth while analysing at another time the reasons on which these morbid conclusions are based. Is the meantime, we may remark what a splendid com- mission Mr. LONGMORE and his friends would have been for OATES and BEDLOE in the olden days. They would have swallowed everything.

Order Now

 ! 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.

We also apologise for any typographical errors.