7184...
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference :-
THI
זווי
TC.O.885
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC-
COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH—NOT TO
14 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
Mr LORD,
No. 35.
(NEW SOUTH WALES.)
LAW OFFICERS to FOREIGN OFFICE.
Royal Courts of Justice, April 19, 1893. WE were honoured with your Lordship's commands signified in Sir Edward Grey's letter of the 6th February transmitting to us papers relating to the claim of Mr. J. B. Carpenter, the master of the barque "Costa Rica Packet," on his own behalf and on behalf of the owners and the crew of that ship for compensation from the Netherlands Government in respect of his arrest on a charge of theft by the authorities of the Netherlands East Indies at Ternate in November 1891, and his subsequent conveyance to and detention at Macassar from the 16th until the 28th of the same month, when he was released by order of the court.
That the facts of the case were so clearly and fully set out in Mr. Carpenter's state- ments and declarations inclosed in the letter of the 17th January from the Colonial Office and in the report from the Procureur Général of Netherlands India, inclosed in Sir G. Bonham's Despatch No. 72, Commercial, of the 20th August last, that it was thought unnecessary to trouble us with any further statements of the case in his letter. That it would be seen from the report of the Procureur Général of Netherlands, India, that the proceedings of the Netherlands authorities were sought to be vindicated on the ground that they were entirely in accordance with Netherlands law and pro- cedure, and that the Procureur Général particularly insisted in justification of their action upon the facts; (1) that the offence alleged against Mr. Carpenter was a criminal offence both according to English and to Dutch law, and (2) that a valid and sufficient prima facie case was made out against him.
That with reference to this latter point the Procureur Général argued with some force that the sufficiency or insufficiency of the evidence for the purpose mentioned must be regarded and determined by a consideration of the doctrines of Dutch juris- prudence and of the requirements and usages of Dutch tribunals which it was suggested. were of a less strict and exacting nature than those by which English courts govern themselves in the like circumstances.
That as to the exact position of the prauw, when she was found floating apparently derelict "at a short distance from the coast of Boeroe," and taken possession of by Mr. Carpenter, some conflict of opinion appeared to exist; but that your Lordship was on the whole disposed to agree with the view expressed by the Government of New South Wales and by the Secretary of State for the Colonies upon this point (see Colonial Office to Foreign Offico of February 3rd, 1893, with enclosures), that the balance of evidence was in favour of Mr. Carpenter's contention that the prauw was boarded and portions of her cargo removed when she was adrift upon the high seas outside the Netherlands territorial waters.
That it would be seen, however, that the "mise en accusation" (Appendix B. to Mr. Carpenter's statement) asserted that he was suspected on plausible grounds of having, in the beginning of the year 1888, at a distance of not more than three miles from the Islands of Boeroe, seized a prauw adrift and maliciously appropriated the goods therein; and that it appeared under the circumstances open to the Procureur Général to argue, as he was understood to do, that there was a prima facie case against Mr. Carpenter on this head justifying his arrest and detention, although on further investigation the judicial authorities did not consider the charge satisfactorily and indubitably established.
That those portions of the Procureur Général's report which dealt with considera- tions of English Law, and with supposed offences (such as dishonestly selling a part of the cargo of the prauw on Netherlands territory) not apparently alleged against Mr. Carpenter in the actual "mise on accusation were, as was submitted, scarcely relevant or material to the prosent inquiry.
That Sir Edward Grey was to observe, although it was thought that that circum- stance would probably not in our opinion affect the right of Her Majesty's Government to presa Mr. Carpenter's claim should wo consider it to be a good one on the merits, that the claimant was by origin an American citizen, and that he was subsequently (ie., in 1872) naturalized not in the United Kingdom, but merely in a British Colony, viz., the Straits Settlements.
0 74779.-17. 25.-5/08.
i