PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference :-
C.O-885
13 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
2
to restrict, so far as possible, the scope of the punitive measures which he was called upon to take.
That Mr. Bramston was accordingly to invite us to take the papers into our con- sideration, and to favour your Lordship with our opinion as to-
(1.) Whether under the circumstances the execution of the natives was lawful as an
act of war.
(2.) If not, whether it was lawful on any other ground, as for instance, that it was
an act done under the authority of the Joint Naval Commission. (3.) If not, whether, having regard to Article V. (6) of the Western Pacific Order in Council of 1877, the jurisdiction of the High Commissioner's Court, as created by Articles 12-17 of that Order, extended to the island of the New Hobrides in which the occurrence took place.
(4.) Whether Captain Davis was liable to proceedings in the High Commissioner's
Court for his action in the matter; or
(5.) Whether the circumstance of his being vested with the authority of the Joint Naval Commission precluded the High Commissioner's Court from entertain- ing the matter.
That Mr. Bramston was to add that your Lordship would be glad to be favoured with any observations which might occur to us generally upon the subject.
We have taken the matter into our consideration, and, in obedience to your Lordship's commands, have the honour to
Report
1 and 2. That we are of opinion that the execution of the natives in question cannot be justified as an act of war; but we are of opinion that, having regard to the circum- stances of the case, and the authority given to Captain Davis by the Joint Naval Commission to finish the case (soe letter from Lord Charles Scott, dated 29th January 1891, paragraph 7), his conduct was justifiable as being an act of retaliation, and necessary for the punishment of the murderers of Mr. Latour. At the same time the case is one of great difficulty, and it would be well if definite instructions could be laid down for the guidance of officers in such circumstances.
3 and 4. Questions 3 and 4 become, in the view we take, of lesser importance; but we are of opinion that Captain Davis could be put on his trial before the High Com- missioner's Court under clauses 6, 7, 22, 27, and 28 of the Western Pacific Order in Council, 1877, or he could be tried in England under 24th and 25th Victoria, cap. 100.
The fact that Captain Davis was vested with authority from the Joint Naval Com- mission would not oust the jurisdiction of the High Commissioner's Court, or of the English Court if he were charged under the statuto 24th and 25th Victoria, c. 100., though it would have a most material bearing upon the merits.
We have only to add that we are of opinion that no proceedings should be taken against Captain Davis.
The
Right
&c.
We have, &c.
(Signed)
Hou. Lord Knutsford, G.C.M.G.,
&c.
&c.
RICHARD E. WEBSTER. EDWARD CLARKE,
19434.
No. 221A. (BRITISH GUIANA.)
LAW OFFICERS to FOREIGN OFFICE.
MY LORD,
Royal Courts of Justice, We were honoured with your Lordship's commands signified in Sir Philip
September 17, 1891. Currie's letter of the 1st ultimo, stating that he had to transmit to us, by direction of your Lordship, the papers noted in the margin of his letter which related to the death of a British subject named William Campbell from a gunshot wound received at the hands of the police on the Venezuelan bank of the Ainakooroo river, which formed the boundary between Venezuela and British Guiana.
That the attention of Her Majesty's Government was first called to this case in an unofficial note from Señor Pimentel (see Document A), who arrived in this country last year as Secretary to a special Envoy from the Venezuelan Government, and remained in England after the Envoy's departure.
That in that communication it was stated that the President of the Republic had ordered an investigation into the matter with a view to the exemplary punishment of the guilty parties.
That full particulars were subsequently received in a letter from the Colonial Office, dated the 10th April (see Document B), and an account of the circumstances would be found in the report from Mr. im Thurn, the Colonel Government's Agent in the district, which formed the second inclosure.
That the facts, as stated by Mr. im Thurn, are, briefly, that William Campbell, a respectable settler in the north-western district of British Guiana, visited an English- man on the Venezuela shore of the Amakooroo, and while in his house was arrested by the Venezuelan police without being informed of the nature of the charge against him. That he did not appear to have actively resisted the police, who requested him to accompany them to the station, but while surrounded by them in the hammock where he lay, he received a gunshot wound in the hand. That the shot appeared to have been fired by one of the policemen acting, it is said, under the orders of a sergeant. After Campbell was wounded he was taken to the police Inspector, by whom he was sent up the river to the Venezuelan Governor of the district. was then sent down the river accompanied by a Magistrate who had received orders That he from the Governor to hold an inquiry into the matter. That the exact result of that inquiry had not been ascertained, but the police Inspector and the policemen seem to have been punished, while Campbell himself was released and allowed to return to the English bank of the river. That he proceeded shortly afterwards to a hospital up the Barima river, where he died of the effects of his wound, eight days after the date on which he received it.
That an inquest was held on him by the Colonial authorities at Amakooroo, and the jury returned a verdict of wilful murder against the policeman who fired the shot, and the police officer in command of the party.
That it would be observed that Mr. im Thurn attributed Campbell's arrest to the fact that he had failed to report himself at the Custom-house when arriving on the Venezuelan bank of the river.
That at that stage Her Majesty's Ambassador at Berlin was directed to request the German Government to allow their representative at Caracas who was for the moment in charge of British interests in Venezuela, to present a note to the Venezuelan Government expressing the hope of Her Majesty's Government that the guilty parties would be punished and compensation awarded to the relatives of the deceased (see despatch No. 70 to Sir E. Malet, April 29, 1891, Document C.).
That the reply of the Venezuelan Government would be found in Mr. Trench's despatch No. 133, July 17, 1891 (Document D.), and it would been that it contained no admission of their liability to compensate the relatives of the deceased.
That meanwhile, shortly after the representation to the Venezuelan Government had been forwarded to Berlin, further information was received from the Colonial Office in the letter dated the 6th May (Document E.).
That from that Report it appeared that the Venezuelan authorities held a further inquiry into the matter, the result of which was that the shooting of Campbell was decided by them to have been accidental, and the policeman detained on the charge of murder was acquitted and released on bail to appear before a higher tribunal at
E 65453.-35. 25,-10/91.
Reference :-
COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
RF REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC-
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference :-