3682.
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference :-
TILLICO. 885
12 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH—NOT TO
1
MY LORD,
No. 87.
(FIJI.)
LAW OFFICERS to COLONIAL OFFICE.
We were honoured with your Lordship's commands, signified in Mr. Malcolm's
Temple, 29th March 1876. letter of the 16th February ultimo, stating that he was directed by your Lordship to forward to us the under-mentioned papers, viz.,
(1.) A printed report by Mr. Rothery to the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury upon the case of the " Atlantic," and the proceedings of W. H.
Hayes, the master of that vessel, dated the 15th October 1870. (2.) The opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown on the above report, 22nd
November 1870.
(3.) A printed correspondence between the Admiralty and the Colonial Office of last
year. (4.) A letter from the Board of Admiralty, enclosing a further report from Mr. Rothery, and requesting to be informed of the precise nature of the instructions which should be sent to the Naval Commander-in-Chief on the China Station, with a view of bringing Hayes to trial in the event of his acquittal on other charges by the Spanish authorities at Manila, where he was then imprisoned.
2. Mr. Malcolm also said that he was to state that, as regards the last of the three questions, your Lordship had informed the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty that although it would be advantageous, in some respects, that Hayes should be tried in Sydney or Melbourne, it might be more convenient that he should be taken, if re-captured near Manila, to Singapore for trial.
3. That with reference, however, to the two former questions raised in the Admiralty letter, we should observe, from the report which it enclosed, the names and occu- pations of the persons who could give evidence against Hayes, one of them having been, at the time of the "Atlantic" case, Acting Consul at Tutiula, another, the Consul at Samoa, and a third, a missionary in the Pacific. That your Lordship was in com- munication with the Foreign Office as to the place in which the two first-named witnesses are to be found, but it must be taken for granted that, even if the evidence of any of the witnesses be obtainable, it will be with considerable difficulty and after much delay. That your Lordship was, however, most anxious that this man should be brought to trial, as his atrocious crimes committed upon natives in the Pacific had made his name a byeword throughout Polynesia, and your Lordship would not be deterred if any feasible mode of bringing him to justice can be found.
4. That it was further to be observed that Hayes sometimes claimed to be an American citizen, and that, though his nationality is not settled, he probably would advance the.claim if arrested by British authorities.
5. Mr. Malcolm further stated that in these circumstances lie was to request that we would inform your Lordship whether we are of opinion that--
(1.) The British Government would be warranted in causing Hayes to be apprehended out of British territory (e.g., in Manila), by consent of the local authorities (supposing him to be released from prison), there being no extradition treaty between this country and Spain.
(2.) Whether, supposing him to escape from Manila, the captains of British men- of-war could, with safety to themselves, arrest him on board a British ship on the high seas without any further evidence against him than what is contained in the papers in this case.
(3.) Whether Her Majesty's Government would incur any undue responsibility, if, after having caused him to be apprehended, they were to bring him to Singapore or elsewhere for trial, and then, owing to the difficulties above stated, fail to get sufficient evidence to secure his committal for trial.
6. In conclusion, Mr. Malcolm was pleased to say that he was to request that we would give immediate attention to the case, in view of the important issues which it
contains.
▲ 18916.-87. 25.-12/84.