The Argus at KellyGang 22/2/1882 (3)
The writer in The Argus states that the report abounds in false statements of facts, unfounded insinuations, and misleading references. I solemnly declare that I am not conscious of there being in the sketch any false statement of facts, unfounded insinuations or wilfully misleading references. Upon this latter point alone The Argus proceeds to support the contention of its correspondent. It is urged – " It (the description of the attack upon the hotel) is so worded as to convey the impression that the police fired indiscriminately into the hotel after they knew that there were prisoners in it, that they fired at the white flag," &c. The Argus denies in effect that there was indiscriminate firing. I confess that if there was one point upon which the commission were unanimous more than another it was this, so much so that marginal reference was considered superfluous. The two references given, and in one of which there is a mistake by the accidental transposition of a figure, were upon the point that the white flag had been fired on, not by the regular police, but by the black trackers. The following is the statement in the sketch : – "Indeed the firing at this time by all accounts seems to have been indiscriminate. The prisoners, in a state of terror, arranged to hold out a white handkerchief, at which several shots were immediately fired, a proceeding highly reprehensible, as the most untutored savage is supposed to respect the signal of surrender."
The references given are 9,190 and 9,697. The latter should be 9,679, which will be found at page 351, where Constable Gascoigne deposes that there was but one shot fired at the white flag, and that was by a blackfellow. The Argus will not impugn the accuracy of the other reference, when, as I have stated, the object was to show that the blacks were engaged industriously potting away at the premises. Following the evidence of Gascoigne, The Argus holds that only one shot was fired. In the sketch it is asserted "several" shots were fired at the white flag, and in support of this view the following may be quoted from the evidence of one of the prisoners, Reardon, in 7,656 is asked :– Did you let it be known to the police in any way that you wanted to get out ? – Yes. 7,657 – How ? There was one tall chap, I forget his name, put a white handkerchief out of the window, and there were three bullets went in at once. The shots went from the drain straight in at the window.
The expression "untutored savage," with the references attached, points to what was passing in the writer's mind, namely, the extraordinary conduct of the black trackers on that occasion. It must be obvious that if one of the constables had been guilty of such an act as firing on the white flag, the comment would have been very different. In support of the allegation of indiscriminate firing I append a series of references which may be useful to The Argus writer. The Argus complains of the absence of an index. To index properly the voluminous evidence taken before the commission would occupy two competent men about three months. I compiled an index to assist in the discussion upon the report, but it was not to my mind sufficiently complete. I accordingly asked Mr Nicolson, Mr Hare, and Mr Sadlier to compile each an index of his own case. The officers did so, and to a great extent the compilation of the evidence sent in to the Government was based upon these. The index prepared by Mr Hare was particularly useful, and one portion, giving references in support of his official report, was followed minutely, and the reprint of the evidence relied upon regarding his version of the interview with Mr Nicolson at Benalla was set out in full. Further I attached the index prepared by each officer to their respective cases submitted to the Government, so that any possible leaning on the compiler's part could be at once rectified by turning to the accompanying index.
Before concluding I think I may be permitted to say a few words upon the statement made by "JP" that "throughout the inquiry the secretary was distrusted by everyone connected with the investigation, and that several of the commissioners shared in that feeling." This, upon the face of it, must be an untruth. Those who know anything of official routine are well aware how slender a hold the secretary of a Royal commission has upon his position. A word from the chairman, a well-grounded complaint from a single commissioner, and his occupation is gone. If the secretary of the Police Commission, therefore, were deemed undeserving of the confidence of the chairman, and of at least the majority of the members, his services would have been dispensed with before the inquiry had proceeded many days. The officers may have distrusted him, though I maintain they had no just reason for doing so. In my dealing with the officers I was most careful. I knew that I had shrewd, able men to contend with – men whose duties naturally made them suspicious of people's motives, and who would not spare their best friends if the interests of justice required it. I knew that if I committed myself, even by a word, to one of them, from that moment I placed myself in his power, and possibly he might use that power unsparingly. I pushed this prudence to the extent of refusing even the innocent invitation to take a glass of wine or to luncheon with any of those gentlemen. Prior to the investigation I knew the officers only by repute. I had never to my knowledge seen Mr Nicolson or Mr Sadlier. Mr Hare
I had spoken to only once, and that was about seven years ago, when he gave me some information respecting a murder at Frankston. Until close upon the termination of the inquiry I was on the most friendly terms with all the officers. Mr Sadlier and I had at the start a misunderstanding, but the matter was explained, and things afterwards went smoothly. The officers were in the habit of daily visiting me in the commissioners' room, and one and all held the most unrestrained conversation respecting the evidence. I never had with one or other of the officers a single conversation of a confidential nature, and outside of the commissioners' room or the company of the commissioners I never spoke, that I can remember, to Mr Nicolson, Mr Hare or Mr Sadlier on the subject of the inquiry. They were alike to me – perfect strangers. I was always, I think , courteous and obliging. I have frequently taken in infinite trouble to procure for them any telegrams or police documents that they might require.
| ! | 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. |
