(“Daily Press" of 25th April, 1870.)
6
is necessary
Reverting to the Report from the Acting Superintendent of Police, first to notice the point alluded to recently by a correspondent, namely, that Mr. CREAGH makes a serious error in taking as a basis of his calculations the "strength of the Police of all grades, on the 31st December, exclusive of Water Police, Guards over Gaols, and other Public Buildings, and men employed on special duty" to be 385, while the Colo- nial Estimates shew the authorized strength to be 717, or nearly double the number re- ferred to. As the various items following the word exclusive refer to duties generally performed by the Police, it is certainly rather difficult to understand why the actual strength of 717 was not given.
307
The next subject to be noted is the HOLWORTHY murder which is thus disposed of:-" Mr. HoLWORTHY was attacked when walking at mid-day on one of the hill-roads on 24th January; the object appears to have been robbery solely. Within two weeks information was received that the stolen property, a watch and chain, was in a China District about 40 miles from Hongkong. In May the names of the four men said to have been implicated in the murder were obtained, and in July and August two of them were arrested, and the watch recovered in Chinese territory, by the co-operation of Mandarin CHIẾN TĂNG, The two prisoners were subsequently tried, convicted, and sentenced to decapitation in Canton, by the Chinese authorities, as there exist no means, under any. treaty, of claiming the rendition of Chinese guilty of crime on British soil."
This, no doubt, from a Police point of view, is a very satisfactory manner of dealing with one. of the most cold blooded murders ever perpetrated, and a case in which the Police showed their incapacity to a remarkable degree.
Such a report of the case could surely never have been intended for circulation here, where the actual circumstances are so well remembered. According to this report, con- siderable credit is due to the Police. A murder is committed, within two weeks evidence is obtained of the whereabouts of a watch and chain stolen from the victim, and the names of the four men implicated ascertained; watch recovered; two of the accused ar- rested, tried, convicted, and sentenced to decapitation.
On referring to the Police reports, it will be found that on the 5th February, 1869, CHUN-A-LUN, WONG-A-KEE, and Soo-A-CHOY, were charged before C. MAY, ESQ., by Mr. CALDWELL, with being concerned in the murder of Mr. HOLWORTHY, and after several remands, fully committed for trial on the capital charge on the 15th March; again, it will be noticed that on April 5th one Low-A-sow was charged before the same Magis- trate, with having, in company with others not in custody, committed the same crime, and he also on the 11th April was fully committed for trial. As these three parties were not even alleged to be connected with each other, and as the evidence in each case. was separate and distinct, it would appear to follow that Mr. HoLWORTHY was murdered three times by three different bands of criminals. But has it ever been clearly esta- blished who did commit the crime?
These facts are silently passed over in the Report of the Acting Captain Superintend- ent, and yet by a reference to Appendix B, annexed to the Report, under the heading "murder," we find that these men referred to as having been committed for trial by Mr. MAY, are entered opposite the entry of the crime as convicted. Unless these dis- crepancies can be explained, the Report cannot be relied on, and as that is the basis of the deductions shewing the improved efficiency of the Police, their accuracy may well be questioned.
Glancing down this same column-Appendix B-we find five cases of murder for last year against two for the previous year, and yet a comparison in favor of the improving efficiency of the Police is drawn from this very column; for a little further on, we find five convictions for 1869 against one for 1868, in fact, that these admittedly innocent parties in the HOLWORTHY murder case are put down as guilty and convicted.
On the next line of the same return, we find 49 cases of "robbery with violence from the person," against 41 only for the previous year 1868, shewing an increase of 8 in the most serious class of offences-for most assuredly "highway" robbery must come under that catagory. The case of Mr. HOLWORTHY was of this class, but terminating as it did in death, murder was added to the first crime. Again, we observe under the heading of "felonies not already given," 51 cases for 1869, against 17 only for the preceding year. This definition of felony appears vague and objectionable, as it leaves the reader entirely in the dark as to the precise class of crime referred to, whicht ought not to be the case, considering the enormous increase from 17 to 51. crime can it be that has so much increased?
What