The Argus at KellyGang 16/10/1882 (2)
ROYAL COMMISSION
AD INTERIM REPORT continued
It was felt, however, that it now became a duty incumbent upon the commission to prosecute their inquiry further, in order, if possible, to arrive at some definite conclusion as to whether there existed any justification for the other charges affecting the character and conduct of Superintendent Winch and sub-inspector Larner. The examination of witnesses was accordingly resumed, with the result which your commissioners have now the honour to submit.
SUPERINTENDENT WINCH'S CASE
Superintendent Fred A Winch joined the Victorian police as a cadet, 6tb September 1852. He is, therefore, the senior officer of the department, and by right of seniority usually observed in the promotion of officers of the superior grades, he should, under ordinary circumstances, be occupying the position of chief commissioner. The reasons for Mr Winch's non promotion have not been satisfactorily explained, and the plain inference is that it was not deemed expedient, notwithstanding his claim by seniority, to entrust him with the duties of so high and responsible a position.
The several documents submitted to your commissioners having a bearing upon this officer's career in the service disclose certain facts which, taken in conjunction with the general tenor of the evidence adduced, appear to throw some light upon the motives actuating the Executive in ignoring Mr Winch's claims to preferment.
In the sear 1861 a board was appointed to inquire into certain alleged irregularities in connexion with financial matters brought against Superintendent Winch while officer of the depot. On some of the issues he was acquitted, but the board found that he had been guilty of the grave irregularity of borrowing money from a subordinate for the purpose apparently of verifying his accounts.
For this he was severely reprimanded, removed from the depot, and his salary for the period of his suspension from duty disallowed.
A document dated 10th December, 1880 signed by Jas J Brown, cab proprietor, East Melbourne, was forwarded about the date mentioned, in which Mr Winch was charged with having been drunk and creating a disturbance at night near the Boundary Hotel, in close proximity to certain brothels. A memo signed by Mr C. H Nicolson, and dated 9-3-81 , written upon the document, is to the following effect - "I have had several interviews with the Chief Secretary on this subject, and I do not think any further steps can be taken in the matter."
Many serious charges and insinuations reflecting upon Mr Winch in his official and private capacity were contained in letters and statements received by your commissioners from time to time. The verification of several allegations depended upon the evidence of individuals whose characters might be impugned, and whose testimony consequently would be regarded as unreliable, or provoked by personal feeling. It was therefore decided to examine only such witnesses whose respectability was some guarantee of honesty and truthfulness.
The specific charges brought against Mr Winch may be briefly formulated as follows:-
1 Borrowing money from Mr H Edwards, licensee of the White Hart Hotel.
2 Incurring obligations by taking away bottles of whisky and brandy and other articles of consumption from the same hotel, without tendering immediate payment for the same
3 Inducing Mr Edwards to advance £32 by means of a post-dated cheque
4 Asking Mr. Andrew M'Cutcheon for a loan of £60
5 Obtaining monetary assistance from Sergeant Bell, and bestowing special favours upon that sub-officer in consequence
6 Being found in a notorious brothel under suspicions circumstances,
7 Transferring Sergeant O'Sullivan from Melbourne to a suburban station, for his efforts against the illegal trading of publicans, and in clearing the streets of abandoned women at night
8 Suppressing a summons issued by a constable against a hotelkeeper named Martin Stobie.
As superintendent of police of the city Mr Winch was also held responsible in a general way for the existence of so many disreputable hotels in Melbourne, for the immunity which led to the widespread demoralising influence of prostitution, and the systematic evasion of the law respecting Sunday trading.
Your commissioners desire to refer briefly to these charges seriatim.
To the charges 1, 2, and 3, Mr. Winch substantially pleads guilty, urging in extenuation that Mr Edwards and he were old and intimate friends. It must be self-evident, however, that such a plea is untenable in the face of the 165th regulation, which expressly and without reservation prohibits members of the force from incurring obligations with publicans and storekeepers, as by so doing they necessarily trammel their own actions and weaken their usefulness in the discharge of their duties.
, .1. , .2. , .3. , .4. , .5. ,
| ! | 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. |
