The Argus at KellyGang 6/11/1880
A meeting was held last evening at the Hippodrome for the purpose of taking into consideration the case of the convict KELLY, now lying in the Melbourne Gaol under sentence death. For the credit of Melbourne, we regret to say that many thousands were present to express sympathy with one of the greatest ruffians ever consigned to the gallows. Of course, the action taken will have no effect upon the fate of the unhappy man, but it is truly lamentable that a crowd like that assembled last night could be got together for such a purpose. When we heard that a meeting had been called, for the obvious purpose of bringing pressure to bear on the Executive, we anticipated a considerable gathering as in every large city the dregs of the population are in a state of chronic antagonism to the law, and ready, in season and out of season, to avail themselves of any opportunity which offers a chance of impeding or defeating its operations. But large as the criminal class in Melbourne may be, it could not have furnished one-fourth of those who took part in the movement of yesterday, and so we are driven to the conclusion that numbers outside its ranks have mixed themselves up in this most discreditable business.
The proceedings were of a most disgraceful character, Mr DAVID GAUNSON , MLA, who acted as attorney for the prisoner at the police court investigation and subsequent trial, gave a highly-coloured and one-sided narrative of the events which have resulted in lodging his client in the condemned cell. But how any man of ordinary intelligence could be credulous enough to accept his statements surpasses our comprehension. Mr G AUNSON, who, be it remembered, is a public man, and occupies the important post of Chairman of Committees in the Legislative Assembly, had the audacity to ask his hearers to believe that the gang of which KELLY was the leader only murdered KENNED Y’s party in self-defence. In proof of this he adduced some cock-and-bull story to the effect that KELLY had heard that the police did not intend to apprehend himself and companions, but to shoot them down like dogs wherever they might be found. Such a tale carries “lie” on the face of it. Constables, we know, are not in the habit of going about uttering such threats. But if, for the sake of argument, we assume that it is true, why, we would ask, was it not brought out and proved on the trial?
We are aware that after he had been found guilty, KELLY stated that he could have put a different complexion on affairs had he cross-examined the witnesses himself, but no one in their senses would attach any importance to such an announcement. The prisoner was provided with counsel, and had GAUNSON as his confidential adviser; and had there been any further facts essential to the defence to be brought out, we may be sure that they would have been elicited. We are told, moreover, that the fact of the police party having carried arms in excess of their usual equipment, served to confirm the rumours which the Kelly gang had heard concerning the deadly intentions of the constabulary. That Sergeant KENNEDY’s force had a rifle and a fowling piece with it, is true, but this fact was not known to the men they were seeking to arrest until Constable LONIGAN had been butchered. Perhaps it will be contended that they acted in self-defence when in cold blood they gave the coup de grace to poor KENNEDY as he lay wounded on the ground?
But, of course, the “self-defence” theory cannot be entertained for one moment; and had Mr G AUNSON had any regard for his public position, he would have told his audience so. It would be a very nice position of affairs if policemen could be justifiably killed on refusing to “bail up” at the bidding of the criminals of whom they were in search. Had KELLy and his companions surrendered themselves when they knew that warrants were out for their capture, they need not have feared any violence, and it would be monstrous to suppose that they could subsequently be allowed to plead the imaginary necessity for resistance in extenuation of their crimes. We only mention these few matters to show the hollow nature of the pretences on which the resolution agreed to yesterday evening was founded. As we said before, the action taken cannot have any effect in arresting the course of the law. In passing sentence on the prisoner, the learned judge who presided at the trial said:―“The facts (adduced in evidence) are so numerous, and so convincing, not only as regards the original offence with which you are charged, but with respect to a long series of transactions covering a period of 18 months, that no rational person would hesitate to arrive at any other conclusion but that the verdict of the jury is irresistible, and that it is right.”
The entire press of the colony, irrespective of party, is of the same opinion, and we venture to think that there is not a respectable citizen in Victoria of intelligence and thoroughly sound mind who thinks differently. The meeting of yesterday evening is a very deplorable fact, but we can only hope that many who gave of their countenance are heartily ashamed in this time of their weak and impudent conduct.
| ! | 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. |
