The Argus at KellyGang 21/3/1882
THE CASE OF SUPERINTENDENT HARE
TO THE EDITOR OF THE ARGUS
Sir,-May I ask leave to offer a few remarks upon one point in connexion with the recommendations contained in the report of the late Police Commission, viz, with regard to an award of a special annuity to Superintendent Hare, as compensation for the serious wound received by him in leading on his men against the armed outlaws at Glenrowan.
I think that it may be said without exaggeration that when it was known that Mr Hare was seriously wounded, everyone throughout Victoria -Kelly sympathizers and I also think that everyone nearly concurred in recognising the justice of the recommendation of the Police Commission that some special compensation should be awarded to him for his wound. Somehow, however, probably through an accidental oversight, this point seems to have escaped notice when the Executive dealt with the report, and it is on this account that I request permission, through your columns, to offer a few remarks upon the matter.
It is in H M army and navy recognised and established that if injuries received on service, and especially on service in the field are of a certain degree of gravity, leaving after ill effects, the recipient-be he drummer boy or A B, commander or colonel - is entitled to pecuniary compensation on a certain scale, commensurate with his position. "Fighting for the love of one's country" is a phrase that sounds well, but as a matter of fact we generally fight because we or our rulers are in love with somebody else's country or because we find ourselves drawn into some one else's quarrel. Soldiers have sold their brains, their blood, and their muscle from time immemorial, and it is held no disgrace to accept money grants as rewards for victories gained in the held, or as compensation for wounds received in action. The great Duke of Wellington, Sir Henry Havelock, and Sir Garnet Wolseley are instances of the former, while I am personally acquainted with several officers who still serve their country, and who draw what is graphically styled "blood money," on account of wounds received in action, and quite independently of the pay of their rank.
Now, the same principle has, I think, been invariably admitted and applied with regard to colonial forces whenever such forces had to meet and exchange shots with an enemy in the field. In New Zealand, during the Maori war, it was applied to militia, to volunteers and to constabulary. The magnitude of an action is as nothing in the matter-only one man fires the bullet that wounds in any one case, whether there be five men engaged or 5,000. In the Glenrowan affair it was not a case of ordinary police duty, it was practically a bit of actual warfare-the scale is immaterial-and those engaged ran the usual risk of actual warfare. And as a set-off up against those risks, they had a right to expect the usual compensation in the way of blood money for lasting wounds, and of pensions to widows of those who might be killed. I do not suppose that Parliament would have hesitated an instant in granting a pension to the widow of any constable who might have been killed on that morning at Glenrowan; neither should there be any hesitation in granting blood money if fairly earned.
The division of the £8,000 reward has no bearing whatever on the matter in any shape or form, the whole question is, did a certain individual receive a bullet wound in conflict with armed outlaws, and was that wound of a certain degree of seriousness. The accepted gauge of the seventy of a wound which entitles the recipient to compensation is in Her Majesty’s Service, its resemblance or approximation to the loss of a limb. Thus the loss of a limb has a fixed sum set against it, and if a wound is tantamount to the loss of a limb the same sum may be granted in compensation. Now, in the case under consideration, I believe that I am correct in describing Mr Hare's wound as a compound and comminuted fracture of the bones of the wrist, with great loss of blood, and general shock to the system. As to the after effects they are manifest to anyone who examines his injured wrist and hand and compares them with the sound ones. I therefore venture to express the opinion that this wound was, and is in its results, such a one as may be considered to fairly entitle the recipient to special compensation. If there be any doubt, Mr Hare might appear, as is customary also in Her Majesty's Service, before a board of surgeons, and let their verdict determine the matter.
I have endeavoured to leave sentiment out of the question altogether, but it is poor encouragement to the police force generally to feel that the personal bravery and the disregard of personal risk, which are essential qualities in the conduct of a spirited attack, are not to receive recognition in the event of such disregard entailing serious injury on any individual engaged.
The occasions on which our police have to meet firearms with firearms are happily few. Surely we will do well to try that if such occasions unhappily arise, there may be no extra inducement to men to waver or to hang back, in a settled conviction that it is to be all risk and no comnensatory " blood-money."
-YourB. &c.
F C ROWAN
Late of H M 43rd Light Infantry and of the NZ Armed Constabulary
March 15, 1882
| ! | 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. |
