The Argus at KellyGang 7/1/1882
Our comments upon the report of the Police Commission have brought us nearly to the conclusion of the document. The two most important of the recommendations which have not been noticed are those affecting Mr Sadleir, superintendent of the district, and Sergeant Steele, in charge at Wangaratta. The commissioners say that Mr Sadleir was guilty of several errors of judgment; that his conduct of affairs at Glenrowan was not judicious; that his treatment of Constables Kelly and Johnson was harsh and unmerited, and they therefore recommend that he be punished by being placed at the bottom of the list of superintendents.
One part of this finding, we presume, is correct. It is that Mr Sadleir sometimes erred in judgment. Would anyone have believed the contrary assertion, that in a novel, perplexing, and difficult business, Mr Sadleir was invariably right ? The only man who is infallible – who is always correct, is Mr Francis Longmore – that is, in his own opinion; and in the opinion of others no person is more uniformly wrong. The commissioners do not state what the alleged errors of judgment were, but content themselves with this oracular but absurd allegation – an allegation which is true in turn of everybody the wide world over. The real question is, did Mr Sadleir serve the state with uniform zeal and general intelligence? – and the evidence may be allowed to speak for itself. As local superintendent, Mr Sadleir was the lieutenant of the officer in special charge of the district. He served under Mr Hare, Mr Nicolson, and Captain Standish, in turn, and these, his commanding officers, did not appear to desire any change of their subordinate. There was great difference of opinion in Melbourne as to the rival commanders and their systems, but it was never suggested that the right-hand man of the officer in charge should be replaced. It seems to have been felt that Mr Sadleir was trustworthy and loyal. No greater compliment than that he was kept in his post from first to last could be paid him, and this circumstance is one which should outweigh the querulous complaint of the commissioners.
When these gentlemen come to specific instances, the value of their remarks about "errors of judgment” can be tested. The treatment of Constables Kelly and Johnson by Mr Sadleir is said to have been “harsh and unmerited." What was it? A superintendent has to report from time to time on his subordinates. In the discharge of this duty Mr Sadleir testified to the, bravery and efficiency of Constable Kelly, as shown both in the search for and the attack on the outlaws, and he recommended the constable for promotion. This certainly was not harsh." But soon afterwards he reported that Constable Kelly, when told off to, take charge of Greta station with three constables, pleaded to be excused from fear of personal risk. Another constable undertook the duty. The transfer of the constable is recommended as a mark of my disapproval." It is true that Constable Kelly objected, as alleged, and surely therefore it cannot be said with truth that the disapproval of the superintendent was "unmerited." The commissioners, who would be nothing if not perverse, approve apparently of the refusal of the constable to discharge his duty, reprimand the superintendent, and direct that the offender shall be rewarded. This is Mr Longmore's idea of maintaining a high tone in the force!
It is evident that what disgusts the commissioners most with regard to Mr Sadleir is "the conduct of affairs at Glenrowan." They sneer at the idea that it would have been foolhardy to rush the building, and yet they had had it in evidence that this was the opinion of every responsible person on the ground. Inspector O'Connor said that a rush meant a serious loss of life.'
Constable Kelly says that it was inevitable that "some men's lives would be lost.” Constable Arthur testifies, of course we would have been shot," and Constable Dowling, Constable Barry, Constable Johnstone, arid the others are of the same opinion. Mr Sadleir told his men that the consideration that he might lose two or three of them if he ordered an assault weighed with him, and that he would defer a rush to the last – and the commissioners are pleased to insinuate a "want of capacity, if not courage," on his part. But we have dealt with this passage before. It must suffice here to state that if Mr Sadleir had sacrificed a constable or two, the first to turn round upon him and to accuse him of a criminal disregard of the lives of his men, would have been the consistent. Mr Longmore. Mr Sadleir joined the force as a cadet in 1852. He has steadily worked his way upwards, and the officers whom he served under in the Kelly search speak in high terms of his character, his ability, and the value of his services. As he says "I strove, so far as lay in my power, and in the interest of the public service, to heal divisions and to prevent misunderstandings;" and certainly an officer who commended himself both, to Captain Standish and to Mr Nicolson must have shown no little tact and judgment. Mr Sadleir, we must submit, is as unfairly treated by the Commission as are Mr Nicolson and Mr Hare.
As to Sergeant Steele, the recommendation that he should be degraded to the ranks, because he did not set aside his superior officer as imbecile, and neglect his own special work to discharge a duty specially delegated to somebody else, is felt to be too absurd to be carried into effect by any Government. It has been generally condemned. And the one journal which has supported the commission has defended the recommendation by reviving a charge against Sergeant Steele, which the commissioners set aside with-out asking him to call witnesses in reply. The commissioners recommend that Sergeant Steele should be degraded. His superior officers, knowing all the facts of the case, recommend that he should be promoted. After all was over, Mr Nicolson wrote, "Your conduct has been such that it does not require my aid."
The commissioners recommend that Detective Ward should be censured, and reduced a grade. There is evidence that the detective induced certain constables to alter their reports, not for his own benefit, but to keep matters smooth with men who had disagreeable duties to perform, and who were getting tired of them. Every officer bears testimony to the fact that Ward's heart was in his work, and with this remark his case may be left in the hands of the Government. Inspector Brook Smith, no doubt, was altogether unequal to the stirring and difficult duties of the Kelly search. His incompetency was speedily recognised He was removed from the district, and now the commissioners suggest that he should retire from the force on a small pension. The force will not suffer if the suggestion is acted upon. The commission recommend the dismissal of the constables who were in the hut on the night of the murder of Aaron Sherritt. Captain Standish excuses them. But the fact that the men remained terrified in the place until the following midday, so that news of the tragedy did not reach Beechworth until the afternoon, speaks for itself. It would be improper to excuse their conduct.
Of the unpreparedness of the police force, the want of arms and of bush horsemen, of the causes which led up to the Kelly outbreak, and the causes which militated against its early suppression, the commission are for the most part silent. The congenial task of slaughtering subordinate officers has occupied all their attention. We must endeavour briefly to rectify the omission.
| ! | 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. |
