The Argus at KellyGang 21/2/1882
THE POLICE COMMISSION
TO THE EDITOR OF THE ARGUS
Sir,-It appears that my letter of the 7th inst., has had the effect of sending Mr Williams, the secretary of the Police Commission, to consult his lawyers, and according to Mr Hall, with very little result.
In all my communications to you I have endeavoured only to state some of those facts which Mr Hall has carefully avoided, and I can honestly say that I am more anxious to state these in such a manner as will rather tend to put the commission right than to show Mr Williams in the wrong. I will not in this letter go beyond showing some of the "misleading references previously alluded to, believing it probable that the “false statement of facts," &c., may charitably be traced to these references. If this be so, there are surely some among the commissioners who would be ready to reconsider the findings if they find they have been in any way misled.
You will find the references in that part of the report which is called "the sketch," and "given in lieu of the usual résumé of the evidence."
I will begin with section V of the sketch, as all preceding this is of little moment. In this section the evidence of Mr Nicolson, Q 999, Detective Ward, 3,148, and Constable Meehan (who, by the way, is not a constable), is given as showing the imperfect armament of the police at the time of the Wombat murders. But Mr Nicolson's evidence has no reference whatever to this period. Detective Ward refers to his own arms, which were of his own choosing, while he was engaged on secret duty, and when he could carry no other weapon than a small revolver. Meehan's statements I cannot find in the reference given, but in any case the man was laughed out of the room. The same carelessness is shown in reference 15,493 and 1,727 further down this section of the sketch. I refer to these not that they bear on any important point, but as showing how little trouble was taken to sort the evidence.
In section VI not only carelessness, but something much worse is displayed. Even in the very title of the section, "The Sebastopol Raid," which means a predatory excursion, an animus appears to be shown. It is attempted here to prove that on this occasion the proceedings proved an utter fiasco, calculated simply to excite ridicule, and for this Mr Sadleir must be held distinctly responsible. Captain Standish, Q11-13, is quoted, but he there describes himself as in charge, and sending Mr Nicolson with a party to search the hut, and in Q13 justifies Mr Sadleir, as Mr Nicolson does elsewhere in the limited credence placed in the informant. The reference to Mr Nicolson. Q361-311(361-411 is, I presume, meant) shows nothing clearly but that, in Q369, that Captain Standish was in command, and of course the responsible officer, and further on that he (Mr Nicolson) though specially charged with the Kelly business, did not take the trouble to ask what the morning's work was about. Mr Sadleir, Q1775, is quoted to show that the police horses made a great noise as they passed over the rocks, but no reference is made to the immediate context which shows that this was unavoidable, that the police were halted a good way off the place to be searched, that the inmates were found all fast asleep, and that the assembling of so many police was quite accidental. As regards their number, Mr Nicolson's mere guess is put against the exact evidence given in Q16,661. The reference to Q1,768, lower down this section, is also misleading. It is employed to prove that the information was kept from Mr Nicolson. It shows exactly the reverse. Q336 quoted here has no connexion whatever with any part of this business. The section winds up with the extraordinary assertion
"That the entire proceedings of the day were little better than a travesty, and as indicating the extent to which discipline prevailed in the force, it may be mentioned that not a single witness could positively state which of the officers present was actually in command of the party."
There were but two witnesses examined on this point, Mr Nicolson and Constable Falconer. Mr Nicolson, in Q369 as above, states expressly that Captain Standish was in command, and Constable Falconer that he got no instructions from any one.
In section VII Constable Johnson is quoted in condemnation of Sergeant Steele for not departing from his instructions, and following the tracks of some persons at the time unknown. It is the only reference given on the point. The witness says if he (Johnson) and his party were to proceed on he was of "opinion they would overtake the outlaws, as he believed they were close on to them." Whether Johnson's belief was correct or not is immaterial, but the fact is, he was speaking of an occurrence a week after Sergeant Steele's affair, and of which probably, the sergeant for the first time heard when the commission was sitting there is abundant evidence elsewhere favourable to the sergeant, but it is passed over in complete silence.
In section VIII there is the same carelessness, or worse, in giving references to the evidence in support of loose statements and insinuations. I refer particularly to Questions 1,888 and 12,676, which, with their content mean something quite opposite. Question 16,690 absolutely overthrows the assertion it is quoted to support, and they all show with what great care the officers did their work.
In section IX , referring to the Euroa Bank robbery, leaving out of sight some false statements of fact, there are two assertions, the evidence relied on being referred to in a general way only. First, there is the assertion that "Mr Nicolson did not sufficiently realise the danger to the banks to apply for reinforcements." This was before 10th November, 1878 . The report states that Messrs Nicolson and Sadleir endeavoured to prove the contrary by a letter which bears date eight or nine months later. Now, Sir, you will be surprised to learn, and so perhaps may some of the commissioners, that not only this letter but a telegram, both dated Nov. 4th, 1878 were produced before the commission in Q2,022 showing that reinforcements were asked for and refused, bearing out entirely the allegations of the officers. The second assertion is that Mr Sadleir, when passing in the train by Glenrowan, saw one of the residents, a suspected sympathiser, peeping round a corner. This is magnified into importance by making it appear that this man was watching the movements of the two officers in the train, and there-upon Mr Sadleir is condemned for not making known what he saw to the police at Benalla. This is one of that officer's alleged errors of judgment, but it is overlooked that the last train had passed, and both post and telegraph offices were closed. A reference to question 3,588 is given as proof that there virtually was on this day no police protection at Euroa. No doubt this was the case, but the fact is the witness was speaking of another place altogether. Question 1254 is also given, but it has no bearing whatever on the subject. These last are mentioned to show with how little care the references have been strung together.
This point brings me to the end of Mr Nicolson's first régimé, but with your permission I will proceed to deal with the remaining references in my next communication. I consider the commission, as honest men, should feel obliged to you and your correspondents for pointing out these inaccuracies, for though they may not be held guiltless of carelessness and inattention to their work, still there are reasons for supposing that their report was founded unintentionally on imperfect data. Who it is that is responsible for thus handling the evidence is a question the commissioners must themselves decide. It takes one familiar with the evidence to estimate the full force of errors such as are here exposed, and which I intend still further to show, and I doubt not it can be clearly demonstrated that some of the unanimous findings of the commission are quite as much at fault, and for the same reason as those on which they were divided. – I am,
&c,
J. P.
| ! | 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. |
