The Argus at KellyGang 16/8/1880 (2)
Editorial
In another column may be found a letter from Mr DAVID GAUNSON, the solicitor who has undertaken the defence of EDWARD KELLY. Mr GAUNSON pretends to have been greatly pained by an article which appeared in our issue of Thursday, warning the public against putting faith in the statements made by the prisoner. In the exercise of our discretion we thought proper to protest against the style of defence which Mr GAUNSON was attempting. Not content with his legitimate functions, he had taken advantage of his position to become the channel of communication between KELLY and the public. This he does not deny. Whether it is according to professional etiquette for a solicitor to act as a reporter for such a purpose we need not now stay to inquire. It was sufficient for us to know that improper means were being taken to prejudice the public mind against the witnesses for the prosecution to justify us in putting the public on its guard. We pointed out what might be expected from a man in KELLY'S position-how he would be certain to malign the police, accuse this man of perjury and that of cowardice, and posture as something of a hero and a good deal of a martyr. For doing so we are told that we have rendered ourselves liable to " a criminal information for printing matter injurious to the pensioner, and well calculated, if not absolutely intended, to prevent his having what is his right-a fair trial." If this is the case, Mr GAUNSON had better move in the matter without delay, for we say once more, advisedly, that " it is notorious that the habitual criminal has a 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,"
We have no reason to believe that KELLY is better than the rest of the tribe. As to our trying to prevent his having a fair trial, that is simply nonsense. It is because we wish him to have a fair trial that we protest against Mr GAUNSON'S irregular attempts to ' steal a march upon the authorities. If Mr GAUNSON had not provoked our remarks they would not have been made so, if any one is to blame, the fault lies at his own door. If he had not taken to highly improper reporting we should not have been obliged to Grieve him by our comments on his productions. The letter we publish to-day is just on a par with the reports, in that it is intended to excite a spurious sympathy for his client. Of course, KELLY is entitled to all the ad- vantages which the law allows him. It is for the Crown to prove the charges against him in proper form, and to go on with one case after another, until it obtains a conviction for one of the crimes of which the prisoner has openly boasted, and for which he was declared an outlaw.
To so much fairness KELLY is fully entitled. But if we are asked to speak of a man who has been outlawed for certain offences which he has himself admitted, as a possible innocent, to be treated with all imaginable tenderness, we must respectfully decline to do anything so ridiculous.
Edward Kelly still remains in the Melbourne Gaol, where he is rapidly recovering. The Martini Henry bullet which lodged in his foot has been removed by Dr Shields, and Kelly has experienced great relief from the operation.
end
, .1. , .2. ,
| ! | 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. |
