The Argus at KellyGang 4/3/1881 (2)
Editorial - Parliament
The second attempt of the Ministry to frame a commission of inquiry into the management of the police has been no more successful than the first. Mr Graves is still a member of a body which is to sit in judgment upon men and officers of the force, and yet Mr Graves his brought charges which, if they have any meaning at all, imply that the men and officers in question were in collusion with the Kelly gang. Mr Graves undertook in the House to prove his statements. His word is pledged to that effect. And in order to prove his charges he takes his seat upon the bench, and this is surely worse than Mr Mirams, who wants to make sure of the jury, but does not aspire to be his own judge also. Of the good taste Mr Graves shows in acting we say nothing, but the one desire of Mr Berry should be to do equity and to place on the judgment- seat the member who has openly preferred a charge which no other individual in the community would have dreamed of, is, we submit, unfair to the police.
One of the allegations is that the police were not properly backed up by the residents of the Kelly district. Some of the settlers, it is said, sympathised with the outlaws; others made a fine profit out of the expenditure, and looked with as much favour upon the campaign as Natal settlers are said to bestow upon a South African war , and for the same reason Mr Graves has denounced the accusation as a slander. It is, we admit, natural that he should vindicate his constituents, but, nevertheless, the question whether or not the police were thwarted by the civil population, and whether or not settlement should be allowed in wilds beyond the easy reach of the law, are among the issues to be tried. It would, we contend, be as decent to put one of the police officers on the commission as it is to nominate a gentleman who will practically hold a brief for - or will at any rate minimise the case against - the alleged sympathises.
And then there is the appointment of Mr Longmore as chairman. For this post a man of good judgment and with a clear head is necessary, and the Ministry have selected the most wrong headed and prejudiced man in the Assembly. Mr Longmore was not considered competent by his excolleagues to administer a department. He was a failure at the Lands Office, and therefore was not reappointed. His friends, who deplored his proceedings, claimed that his "intentions are good" and a severer condemnation of a politician than to say that he is so incapable as to habitually defeat his own ends can hardly be passed. The Ministerial motives in making these appointments are on the surface. Mr Berry would not be responsible any longer for Mr Longmore's blundering at the Lands Office, but muddling the police inquiry will not hurt the Government.
Mr Graves is a waverer, and the Longmore plumes are ruffled, and the compliment is paid of appointing them to this commission in order to soothe differences within the party. But the compliment is paid at the expense of the public interest. If a proper board could not be appointed, it would have been better not to have appointed a board at all. The report of the Longmore board will he valueless.
| ! | 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. |
29-aug-11
