The Argus at KellyGang 30/8/1881
editorial
TUESDAY, AUGUST 30, 1881
Our news columns to-day contain the intelligence that the Police Commission proposes to conclude its labours by sitting with closed doors while it takes the evidence of the officers who have been virtually placed upon their trial. This, it will be admitted, is an extra-ordinary step. It is extremely unjust to the officers, that while a hundred witnesses have been called to testify in public that they believe this and have heard that to the detriment of the gentlemen in question, the men whose efficiency has been thus aspersed are not to be allowed to make any public reply. Their wishes do not appear to have been consulted in the matter. And whether they have or have not acquiesced, the public has also a voice in the decision. The public has read substantially all the evidence up to date, and having been taken into the confidence of the Commission so far, the public has a right to demand that it should hear the case unto the end, so that it may form an unbiased opinion. To invite people generally to weigh one side of the case, and abruptly cut them off from weighing the other, is trifling with the community. It may be said that the evidence will be published some day in a blue book; but this is really no reply. The public will never see the blue book. Members of Parliament will never read it. The point is that the same publicity which has been given to the accusation should be given to the reply.
We were in hopes that the commissioners were learning their business as they went on. They commenced badly enough. If attention is paid to their proceedings, it will be seen that the whole- some and necessary rules which govern judicial or semi-judicial proceedings, were continually set aside, and it is certainly the fault of the commissioners if, right- fully or wrongfully, the impression is produced that there has been a set against certain officers, and that these gentlemen are not receiving fair play. Ministers were asked by the Commission to suspend Mr NICOLSON, the assistant-commissioner of police, from duty, and also Superintendents HARE and SADLEIR, and this suspension has been used against the officers throughout the inquiry as prima facie evidence of misconduct. On June 1st, the whole of the defendant officers were excluded from the sittings of the Commission, and were so excluded for a month, mainly on the ground that, by their presence, they intimidated the witnesses. This was remarkably considerate to witnesses who wished to gratify any spleen or pique, no doubt, but it was by no means considerate to the persons most concerned in the matter. And as one half of the persons who were examined had no connexion with the force as they included such men as the reporters of the press – it is difficult to see where was the intimidation. Under any circumstances, the practice of ordering accused persons out of court, so that they may not cross-examine hostile witnesses, is one which never has and never will commend itself to British ideas of justice. The revolutionary tribunals of France, which earned an unenviable notoriety by convicting so soon as they were satisfied of the guilt of the accused, did not go so far as this, for they did as a rule allow that their victims should be present during their trials, to hear, confute, and plead. The looseness with which evidence has been admitted by the Commission is equally extraordinary. We always objected to the presence of Mr GRAVES on the Commission, for the simple reason that as representative of the district which lies under the stigma of screening and succouring the Kelly gang, he virtually held a brief. It was not in the best of taste, to say the least, that after sitting for months as a judge, and taking the lead in the examinations, Mr GRAVES should leave the bench, and appear before his colleagues as a witness. Still more extraordinary is it that the Commission should receive from his hands as evidence a batch of anonymous statements. Anonymous communications of this class are always regarded with distrust by individual recipients. It is difficult to imagine what justification there can be for a public body welcoming such documents, and placing them upon its records.
We believe that the bulk of the members of the Police Commission mean well, and that their errors have arisen from inexperience. Most of them have not served in such a capacity before, and it was natural that they should be easily swayed by the members who, if they had not an object to serve, were at any rate prejudiced. Moreover, the investigation partakes necessarily of the character of a fishing inquiry, and a certain latitude in the conduct of the proceedings must be allowed. It is time, however, that the majority of the members took a more active part in the conduct of the business than they have yet done, and that they should so order affairs that the beginning and the middle of the inquiry may be redeemed by its termination. No doubt it would have been well if a large portion of the evidence had been taken with closed doors. A great deal of mischief, it is to be feared, has been done by the public disclosure of the agents and of the modus operandi of the police in the pursuit of the outlawed gang. Every particular concerning the operations of the officers of the law has been dragged to light, while on the other hand the friends and the sympathisers of the KELLYS remain hidden in darkness. There is probably ground for the assertions which have been publicly made, that if another outbreak were to take place the police would find the difficulties in the way of their obtaining information greater than ever, while the bushrangers would be as sure as ever of shelter and assistance.
This evidence, we admit, should not have been publicly taken, but the harm has been done, and it is a strange thing that the one portion of the testimony which the Commission desires to suppress is the exculpatory statements of the officers at whom quasi criminals and anonymous accusers have been allowed to throw mud at pleasure. The members of the Commission can scarcely have considered the full effects of a decision which must inevitably induce the press and the public and Parliament to ask whether they are properly qualified for the task entrusted to them, that of conducting a difficult inquiry and measuring out justice without regard to individuals. We would strongly urge upon them the propriety of reconsidering their determination. The defendant officers ought, we submit, to be allowed the same publicity which has been conceded to their assailants.
| ! | 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. |
