The Argus at KellyGang 22/2/1882
THE POLICE COMMISSION
TUESDAY, FEB. 21
Present – Messrs. Longmore (chairman), Fincham, and Anderson. MLA's, and Mr GC Levey. The CHAIRMAN said the secretary had called the commission together on account of some reference made to his conduct in the press. The commission had looked into the matter, and determined to pass a resolution of confidence in Mr Williams. It had been alleged that as to the commission's report Mr Williams had done all the work, but if necessary documents could be shown which would prove that the commission fully considered the report, passed amendments in it by resolutions, and carried it throughout by resolutions. The report was the work of the commission alone. As to Mr Williams having collated the evidence for the Government, the Chief Secretary told him (the chairman) that he had very great difficulty in getting the evidence collated, and asked whether he could get him assistance in any way. In reply, he told the Chief Secretary that the secretary of the commission could do that work better than anyone else, and the Chief Secretary formally requested Mr Williams to do it. Mr Williams applied to the Chief Secretary for specific instructions, which were given. He (the chairman) read over nearly all the evidence as it was collated, and considered it had been done properly. But of course the commission had nothing to do with that work.
Mr FINCHAM moved the following resolution :-
"That the Police Commission have thorough condence in the ability, impartiality, and integrity of their secretary, Mr Williams, and desire to state that in collating the evidence taken before them the secretary only obeyed the instructions of the Hon J M Grant, conveyed through the chairman of the Police Commission."
Mr ANDERSON, in seconding the motion, said that for a considerable time after joining the commission he had a strong impression that Mr Williams was favourable to Mr Hare. But Mr Williams had also been charged with being favourable to Mr Nicolson. When the antagonistic feelings between those two officers were borne in mind, it must be patent that anyone believed by some persons to be favourable to the one and by some persons to be favourable to the other must be sailing a very straight and impartial course indeed. He had much pleasure in seconding the motion. He had attended the meetings of the commission as closely as most members, and had found Mr Williams most impartial, careful, and painstaking, and courteous, kind, and gentlemanly to all. His conduct was all that could be wished for in a secretary of the commission.
The motion was carried and the commission adjourned sine die.
Prior to meeting in public, the commission sat in private, and at the private sitting Mr Williams read the following statement :-
A letter signed "JP " appeared in The Argus on the 9th inst., from which I take the following extract :-
" It is of course to the interest of this gentleman to see the recommendations carried out, and as the report is his work, and he boasts publicly that he could have made it hotter for the officers, it is to imagine which way he would be biassed. Throughout the inquiry this gentleman was distrusted by every one concerned in the investigation, including several of the commissioners, and complaints are freely made that respectable persons who volunteered evidence favourable to the police or antagonistic to the preconceived notions of the principal commissioners had hindrances thrown in their way, and finally were not called at all. The report itself abounds in false statements of facts, unfounded insinuations, and misleading references to the evidence."
There are several points here raised upon which the commission should demand an explanation at the hands of their secretary. I therefore applied to the chairman to enable me to submit a statement in reply to this anonymous correspondent. With your permission I shall begin by reading the correspondence which took place in reference to the compilation of the evidence :-
" Royal Commission of Police Force. "T R Wilson, Esq., Under Secretary.
"Sir, – Prior to proceeding with the collation of evidence taken before the Police Commission, I think it desirable that I should fully understand the precise intention of the hon. the Minister as to the mode in which the work shall be done.
"There are two modes by which the wishes of the hon. the Chief Secretary can be given effect to, viz. : -
"1. By the selection and arrangement of those passages in the evidence upon which the officers in their replies rely in support of their cases as against the report and recommendations of the commission.
"2. The preparation of a digest or précis of the evidence relating pro and con to the case of each officer, giving in a succinct form the points which guided the commission in arriving at their conclusions, and those put forward by the officers in defence of their conduct.
" If the Chief Secretary should prefer the latter plan, the work will of course be carried out in conjunction with the chairman.
" It would perhaps be convenient that the officers' replies should be printed. They have not been ordered to be printed by the House, so Mr Ferres informs me – I have, &c ,
" JAS WILLIAMS, Secretary." Minute by Chief Secretary
" Collate evidence according to second proposal.
" December 20,1881 " J M G '
| ! | 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. |
