360
(68)
No-release of a perjured witness in the Supreme Court could be sustained in law or not, and whether the man was or was not entitled to his discharge; there was another case, where one of this Honourable Commission had been visited with heavy penalties under the Chinese Passengers' Act, that also was referred to me to determine whether the penalties ought to be—not remitted, but reduced; and the fourth case is that now referred to by Dr Bridges, of a reference to me yesterday irregularly made through the Crown Solicitor, and not through the Acting Colonial Secretary, of the propriety of mitigating the penalties incurred by an offender against the Post-Office acts, after judgment signed on cognovit. I consider after the unmistakable intimation of yesterday, that I am under the heavy displeasure of the local Government, and unfit either altogether or in general, to advise in cases of pardon or mitigation. My deep respect for His Excellency ought to compel me to abstain from obtruding an unwelcome advice in such matters, and to wait till I am sent for. I refrain the more carefully, because I have always, as Dr Bridges knows, objected to the transaction of official business by him with myself in an irregular manner, and that it has at least once happened, that by officialising my reply to his written communication not amongst the Government records, which I did by way of protest against what I conceive a dangerous irregularity, I have made it necessary for the Government to apply to me for a copy of the unrecorded document, in order to have it entered upon record. Such a case is that of a letter of the 16th March, 1857, not recorded till the 18th of the same month, when I refused, remained for a time in my custody. A petition was turned into Government Offices to be copied for that purpose. In another case, I sent a copy myself. I content myself with appealing to the whole tenor of my public and private life, in this and another hemisphere, so far as it is known to the few in this island whom I respect, or whose good opinion I seek to maintain, as to whether it is possible for me, without changing my moral and intellectual nature, to be guilty of those aberrations from truth, distortions of facts with malignant purpose, and deliberate calumnies against personal character, which, although made in my hearing to-day, I shall not honour by repudiating.
No man has ever charged me with that want of proper appreciation of, or nice respect for, the reputation of my office, or of the humble individual who fills it, which deficiencies have been justly declared to amount to a deficiency in integrity itself. I need not add, that by no court of honour have I been tried, and, my personal evidence being tendered, weighed, and found wanting, declared guilty of such conduct. No man has ever charged me with having reserved for a more convenient season my defence against imputations, whensoever, wheresoever, and by whomsoever cast, upon my fair fame and credit. Nobody has charged me with having patronised and protected against the sharp edge of the law the iniquities of subordinates, whom it was convenient to count amongst my satellites. Nobody has charged me with having, either in person or by deputy, dissuaded or made the endeavour to dissuade nervous, doubting, unwilling witnesses from appearing before a court like this,—a court of honour, if the reputation of the person accused be concerned,—a court of great political import, if the good of the community, the credit of the Government, and the responsibility to opinion and to law, of every servant of the State from His Excellency down to Mr Grand-Pré, be matter of public concern. Nobody has charged me with encouraging the accused by precept or by example to raise technical, quibbling, pettyfogging objections, to the reception of evidence before such a Court, and so to base his hopes of immunity not upon the moral conviction of his innocence, but upon the difficulty of wresting from the grasp of an unwilling Government the legal proofs of his guilt. And finally, nobody has accused me, much less convicted me, of seeking my own escape from public odium and contempt, in the destruction of public records of which I was the custos, and which contained the damning evidence of my own complicity, or that of my subordinates, with thieves, receivers, murderers, and pirates.
All the books from the Police Station were handed to Mr Grand-Pré, with the exception of those I now produce. Mr Grand-Pré must have received them. I do not remember Mr Caldwell being present. Mr Grand-Pré shewed Secretary, advising him to apply for the books. I refused to deliver them on that occasion, until I should have consulted the Chief Justice; with the exception of those sent away, the case are now produced.
NORMAN RAMSAY MASSON, Acting Registrar to the Supreme Court,—Called and examined.
I remember the trial of the case in which Ma-chow Wong was convicted. There were two informations and three cases. There was a vast number of books sent in from the Magistracy to the Supreme Court, several of which were used as evidence on the trial, and several not. After the trial had concluded, the papers used, as well as not used, were handed in to the Chief Justice, in which it was intimated that the Governor, and, I think, the Acting Colonial Secretary, had authorized the delivering up of the papers. I spoke to the Chief Justice, and Mr Grandpré took the documents out of Court, and gave me this receipt for them:
["Received books 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8—8 books, February 5, 1858.
A. GRAND-PRÉ.”]
I was sitting next to Mr Kingsmill at the Governor's table on the last Queen's Birthday, when Mr Caldwell sat on the other side of Mr Kingsmill. I think I heard two or three times Ma-chow Wong's name mentioned. I did not hear all that was said. My impression throughout the conversation was that Mr Caldwell was condemning the verdict. I could only hear snatches of the conversation.
(69)
ALEXANDRE GRAND-PRÉ, Collector of Police Rates,—Called and examined.
On the 15th July, 1857, I was Acting Superintendent of Police. I remember meeting Mr May on that day, and telling him I had a case against Ma-chow Wong. Upon hearing Mr May's statement as to my having a charge against and arresting Ma-chow Wong, I confirm the same; but I wish to state, that I made during that time inquiries regarding the case, and found from what I could see at the time, that Ma-chow Wong was not guilty in respect of that case; and I knew that I could find him at any time.
When I was Assistant Superintendent of Police, a man belonging to the shop brought a note to the Police Station from Mr Caldwell, and I delivered up the articles, having previously seen the petition. I am not certain whether I consulted Mr May, nor whether I received instructions from Mr May to give them up. There was only one Chinaman came, a man whom I had previously arrested. I delivered up all the articles, some bundles, but no books or papers. Subsequently, I went to Mr Masson with the petition, and received the books and papers on the 5th February, as mentioned in the receipt.
I remember the occasion of the gold-dust robbery, and that 1,000 taels of gold remained in possession of the Police after the trial. I remember a petition for the return of the same to the claimants. The gold-dust was in my custody at the Old Police Station. I had the key of the chest in which it was kept. I got an order from Mr May to give it up. Mr May said to me, "You may give up the gold-dust to Mr Caldwell." About seven or eight Chinamen, who said they were passengers in the boat from which it had been stolen, came to Mr Caldwell's office in the western room of the Old Central Station. The gold was brought into that room by me, and delivered to Mr Caldwell. When I so delivered the gold-dust, there were, besides myself and Mr Caldwell, two Chinese clerks present in the office. I do not know if Mr May was present, and do not think he was. I think it was that morning I received the order from Mr May, and delivered the gold-dust about 12 o'clock. I think it very likely that Mr May was upstairs in his room when the gold-dust was delivered. After the gold-dust was weighed, seven taels were returned to me by Mr Caldwell, because, I think, one of the men was absent. I believe I heard Mr May conversing with Mr Caldwell about the gold-dust three or four days before it was given up, but do not recollect what was said. I subsequently delivered the seven taels to Mr Caldwell, without any order in addition to my first order to deliver the whole. I am not certain that I did not get another order to deliver the seven taels; my impression is that I did not.
I was at Boggs's trial, and recollect his reading from a paper something in his defence, criminatory of other people. I recollect the paper from which Eli Boggs read at his trial. It was stated by Boggs to be written by Mr Caldwell, and recommended Ma-chow Wong, Mr Caldwell's brother, to the care of the pirates. I have seen the paper; it was in my custody up to his trial, and was laid on the Supreme Court table for his defence. He asked me for the paper, and I gave it to him. This paper was also brought up at the Police Court. He identified the paper as one taken from him, but did not read from it. It was, I believe, read in court by the Acting Registrar, and handed to the Jury in the box. I saw it put back into the tin box, which must have been taken back with the rest of the prisoner's property to the Gaol. I have not since seen the paper, which must either now be at the Supreme Court or in the Gaol.