SZE
353
(54)
they are referred to the present Attorney General for his opinion. The application in the Ma-chow Wong case was referred to the Chief Justice, and Acting Attorney General.
I
The report of the Chief Justice is certainly not conclusive. I can only speak of three or four cases of pardon, and certainly in two of these, it was in opposition to the Chief Justice: one of the two, which I remember at the present moment, was a case of mitigation.
own.
I lodged him at the Police Station; he was called upon to find bail, committed in default, and subsequently discharged. He had been in Gaol several times before, and was known as a thief. That is the only case in which I know of Ma-chow Wong giving information since he has been in prison. As far as I know of the case, Ma-chow Wong did not give any information relative to the supposed murder of a witness in the treason case; it was given by two or three political prisoners who were detained. Mr Inglis can state the names of the informants. I recollect
I have not seen any documents which would enable me to speak with certainty concerning Mr Caldwell's express-mentioning this fact to Mr May, that these political prisoners had made such offer, if such information would conduce to the granting of their pardon. As to the question whether if, but for the article in the China Mail, it is probable the pardon of Ma-chow Wong would have been granted, it is impossible for me to give an answer; I never could have made up my own mind to have voted for Ma-chow Wong's pardon, and yet I was convinced there was no evidence to justify his conviction. Before he was apprehended upon charges upon which he was tried, I had myself urged the Governor to deport Ma-chow Wong, on information I had received from Macao, and I give that as my reason for stating, that I could not have voted for his pardon. Mr May was not called upon to give information to the Council touching Ma-chow Wong and his pardon, before the appearance of this article in the China Mail. I was not aware that Mr May had taken great interest in collating evidence against Ma-chow Wong; but I was aware that he had taken interest in getting up the case. I cannot account for Beaver's discharge, as there was evidence against him of confederation with pirates in the papers found on him, beyond this, that I was told that the case had broken down, and he was discharged by the Magistrate. To the best of my belief I was not present at Beaver's examination. I cannot tell whether the documents found on Beaver were adduced in evidence against him at the Police Court. I have no remembrance of presiding at an examination of Beaver in the Gaol, nor do I recollect ever having seen him.
On the 27th of May I went to Macao. I was there ten days, and the communication was verbally given me by the Governor of Macao, as near as I can say on the 4th June, when instructions were given Mr Caldwell to apprehend Beaver. I cannot say whether it was known Beaver had been in the employ of Mr Caldwell and Ma-chow Wong. I now know that whether I knew it at that time. I remember on one occasion being present in the Gaol with Mr Inglis and Mr Caldwell, and some examination taking place, with reference to a ship's Comprador. I think the man Pan Poi-yeen, the writer of the petition upon which the Comprador was arrested, was examined in the Gaol by Mr Caldwell and Mr Inglis. When I wanted an interpreter, Mr Inglis who had given me the original information said he was not quite certain of his Chinese. I sent for Mr Caldwell to interpret for me. Mr Caldwell was certainly not the medium through which I got the information, and I do not think information from the Gaol inmates originated with Mr Caldwell. Had I been able to speak Chinese, Mr Caldwell would not have been applied to on this occasion.
ATTORNEY GENERAL,-Recalled at his own request to make a further statement.
I wish to be recalled for the purpose of performing an act of justice to Mr May, Dr Bridges in his evidence to-day has declared, that throughout the case of Ma-chow Wong, and I think he said generally, he had observed Mr May has been influenced to activity against Mr Caldwell, by bitter feelings and party spirit; and yesterday Mr Caldwell, I think came up with Mr Day, and had an interview I think with the Governor on the subject of Ma-chow Wong's release; then Mr Caldwell afterwards presented a petition from the Chinese. He spoke to me several times on the subject, and I fancy, but am not quite certain, that he was called in at some meeting of the Executive Council. I think those were all the overt acts of Mr Caldwell in the matter. I do not remember what remarks I made to Mr May when he brought the information concerning Ma-chow Wong on the 18th July, 1857. I remember seeing some papers about it, but what I said or did I do not know. I intimated to Mr May somewhere about the beginning of the case, that it would be better he should not sit in the investigation. I think that Mr May's statement of what took place on the 18th July, when he brought me the information, is correct.
I did not arrive at the opinion that Mr May was a partizan at that time. I had the opinion all throughout.
I know that Ma-chow Wong since his conviction has given information.
I lost a gold watch, and Mr Inglis informed me he had got a clue to the theft of the watch, and I think his information came through Ma-chow Wong. The man was apprehended by myself, being pointed out by a coolie of my own.
without naming the person alluded to, said he attributed all these proceedings to vindictiveness. As I am aware that Mr Caldwell has elsewhere stated, that he considers Mr May is at the bottom of the whole proceedings, I suppose he meant Mr May yesterday. I beg to declare most solemnly, that Mr May had nothing whatever to do directly or indirectly with any one of the inquiries which lasted nearly two years, and resulted in my letter of 8th July 1857, urging and demanding of this reluctant Government, Ma-chow Wong, which led first to the prosecution of the latter and now to the inquiry, which the present Commission is carrying on. I have named my informants from the Governor down to Mr Dixson, and Mr May, I solemnly declare, was not one of them. So far from it, I always inferred from Mr May's guarded and cautious way of speaking on the subject of Police abuses, that he was a friend and even a partizan of Mr Caldwell's, and therefore unwilling to give evidence; and the first moment of my forming a suspicion to the contrary, was on the 8th July, 1857, when I was putting the last hand to my report of that date, now before the Commission; it was in the Supreme Court.
(55)
had left a blank for that portion of it. Mr May was present as Acting Sheriff. Far from imagining that he was willing to help me, I expostulated with him, thus--"Good God, Mr May, you cannot defend this abominable connection between Mr Caldwell and Ma-chow Wong; you cannot expect me to go on finding bills for mock piracies on the evidence of the wretches whom you bring before this Court as Crown witnesses. You have heard the speech of Eli Boggs. Can any Government stand against such infamy and disgrace, and you have seen the demeanour of Mr Caldwell who heard that speech and shrunk under it." To my astonishment Mr May replied, "I have never had but one opinion about Mr Caldwell, Ma-chow Wong, Eli Boggs, or the connection; but I am nobody, and have no power." It was then I asked his permission to refer to him in the report, as one who would speak if called upon. He said "yes," and advised me also to refer to Mr Inglis, who knew a great deal also. I did so. The prime mover in all these inquiries is I, myself, and I have named those who have instigated me to become such. Mr May was but one of my witnesses, and as the Commission will see, by no means a ready one.
CHARLES MAY,-Recalled.
I was told by Mr Inglis, that there was an intrigue within the Gaol walls to give an apparent cause for the pardon of Ma-chow Wong, and that he, Mr Inglis, opposed himself to the intrigue. I do know that parties of police went to Stanley on the information derived from the Gaol, that military at Stanley were called out to assist the police, and that very many houses at Stanley were searched at dead of night. One of the cases then occurred in which police acted without any order from me, or knowledge of the mode in which they were acting, or directions as to how they were to act, which resulted in the apprehension of two or three men on a charge of murder, which case broke down at the Police Court. The last scene of the farce was the apprehension of some of the informants for apprehending two men on the charge of murder, and then attempting to extort money from them; that case was, I think, decided by the Chief Magistrate. My firm conviction is, that no murder was ever committed of the man in question. I heard from the Governor of the Gaol, that Mr Caldwell has had several interviews with Ma-chow Wong, subsequent to his conviction at the Supreme Court.
By reference to my previous evidence, and my letter of 20th July, 1857, it will be seen I have spoken, and then written, of a connection existing between the gold dust robberies, Pang Poi-yeen being one and Ma-chow Wong; I have heard the Attorney General's statement and concur with it. Until addressed by the Attorney General I never expressed any opinion to the Attorney General, or to any high Government Officer, on the subject of the impropriety of the intimacy between Mr Caldwell and Ma-chow Wong. It will be observed by my evidence, that I was in no way a participator in this intimacy, and that I always exhibited my sense of the impropriety of the acquaintance, and full intent of bringing Ma-chow Wong to justice when I had opportunity.
Shortly after resuming my office of Superintendent of Police, in January 1858, a Chinaman presented himself to my office late one afternoon, and said that he wanted police to go to Stanley to apprehend some men on suspicion of murder of a Chinaman, whose name I knew and whom I knew to have been the principal witness in the Stanley treason case. I questioned the man, ascertained that he had no knowledge but from hearsay, and told him to bring any person to me who could give information of the act, and measures should be taken. The next day on seeing the Colonial Secretary at Government Office, the Colonial Secretary said, "You go to Mr Inglis at the Gaol, he will give you some important information on the Stanley murder case," and informed me they had taken three men on the charge of murder. I said "No men have been apprehended, but I will go to Mr Inglis." I did so, and Mr Inglis said, "I am quite certain that three men have been apprehended because a Chinaman who has been employed in the matter, states that he saw the three men in custody at Stanley last night." We had some further conversation in which he mentioned that two Chinamen then in the Gaol, under Ordinance 2 of 1857, supposed to have been connected with the treason case, had caused this information to be given, upon which the Acting Colonial Secretary and police had been previously acting, but strangely that they wanted to mix Ma-chow Wong up with the matter, and hoist him out of Gaol on the credit of his information.
I judged from what Mr Inglis told me...
SZE
353
( 54 )
they are referred to the present Attorney General for his opinion. The application in the Ma-chow Wong case was referred to the Chief Justice, and Acting Attorney General.
I
The report of the Chief Justice is certainly not conclusive. can only speak of three or four cases of pardon, and certainly in two of these, it was in opposition to the Chief Justice: one of the two, which I remember at the present moment, was a caseof mitigation.
own.
I lodged him at the Police Station; he was called upon to find bail, committed in default, and subsequently discharged. He had been in Gaol several times before,
and was known as a thief. That is the only case in which I know of Ma-chow Wong giving information since he has been in prison. As far as I know of the case, Ma-chow Wong did not give any information relative to the supposed murder of a witness in the treason case; it was given by two or three political prisoners who were detained. Mr Inglis can state the names of the informants. I recollect
I have not seen any documents which would enable me to speak with certainty concerning Mr Caldwell's express-mentioning this fact to Mr May, that these political prison- ed opinion concerning the 70 alleged rebels surrendered at Kowloong. As to the question whether if, but for the article in the China Mail, it is probable the pardon of Ma. chow Wong would have been granted, it is impossible for me to give an answer; I never could have made up my own mind to have voted for Ma-chow Wong's pardon, and yet I was convinced there was no evidence to justify his conviction. Before he was apprehended upon charges upon which he was tried, I had myself urged the Governor to deport Ma-chow Wong, on information I had received from Macao, and I give that as my reason for stating, that I could not have voted for his pardon. Mr May was not called upon to give information to the Council touching Ma-chow Wong and his pardon, before the appearance of this article in the China Mail. I was not aware that Mr May had taken great interest in collating evidence against Ma-chow Wong; but I was aware that he had taken in- terest in getting up the case. I cannot account for Beaver's discharge, as there was evidence against him of confed. eration with pirates in the papers found on him, beyond this, that I was told that the case had broken down, and he was discharged by the Magistrate. To the best of my belief I was not present at Beaver's examination. I cannot tell whether the documents found on Beaver were adduced in evidence against him at the Police Court. I have no remembrance of presiding at an examination of Beaver in the Gaol, nor do I recollect ever having seen him.
ers had made such offer, if such information would conduce to the granting of their pardon. On the 27th of May I went to Macao. I was there ten days, and the communi- cation was verbally given me by the Governor of Macao, as near as I can say on the 4th June, when instructions were given Mr Caldwell to apprehend Beaver. I cannot say whether it was known Beaver had been in the employ of Mr Caldwell and Ma-chow Wong. I now know that whether I knew it at that time. I remember on one occa Beaver was in Mr Caldwell's employ, but I cannot say
well, and some examination taking place, with reference to sion being present in the Gaol with Mr Inglis and Mr Cald-
a ship's Comprador. I think the man Pan Poi-yeen, the writer of the petition upon which the Comprador was ar- rested, was examined in the Gaol by Mr Caldwell and Mr Inglis. When I wanted an interpreter, Mr Inglis who had given me the original information said he was not quite certain of his Chinese. I sent for Mr Caldwell to interpret for me. Mr Caldwell was certainly not the medium through which I got the information, and I do not think information from the Gaol inmates originated with Mr Calí- any well. Had I been able to speak Chinese, Mr Caldwell would not have been applied to on this occasion.
ATTORNEY GENERAL,-Recalled at his own re- quest to make a further statement.
I wish to be recalled for the purpose of performing an act of justice to Mr May, Dr Bridges in his evidence to-day has declared, that throughout the case of Ma-chow Wong, and I think he said generally, he had observed Mr May has been influenced to activity against Mr Caldwell, by bit-
Mr Caldwell I think came up with Mr Day, and had an interview I think with the Governor on the subject of Ma-ter feelings and party spirit; and yesterday Mr Caldwell, chow Wong's release; then Mr Caldwell afterwards pre- sented a petition from the Chinese. He spoke to me several times on the subject, and I fancy, but am not quite certain, that he was called in at some meeting of the Ex ecutive Council. I think those were all the overt acts of Mr Caldwell in the matter. I do not remember what re- marks I made to Mr May when he brought the informa- tion concerning Ma-chow Wong on the 18th July, 1857, 1 remember seeing some papers about it, but what I said or did I do not know. I intimated to Mr May somewhere about the beginning of the case, that it would be better he should not sit in the investigation. I think that Mr May's statement of what took place on the 18th July, when he brought me the information, is correct,
I did not arrive at the opinion that Mr May was a partizan at that time. I had the opinion all throughout.
I know that Mu-chow Wong since his conviction has given information.
I lost a gold watch, and Mr Inglis informed me he had got a clue to the theft of the watch, and I think his infor- mation came through Ma-chow Wong. The man was ap- prehended by myself, being pointed out by a coolie of my
without naming the person alluded to, said he attributed all these proceedings to vindictiveness. As I am aware that Mr Caldwell has elsewhere stated, that he considers Mr May is at the bottom of the whole proceedings, I sup- pose he meant Mr May yesterday. I beg to declare most solemnly, that Mr May had nothing whatever to do direct- ty or indirectly with any one of the inquiries which lasted, nearly two years, and resulted in my letter of 8th July 1857, urging and demanding of this reluctant Government, Ma-chow Wong, which led first to the prosecution of the an inquiry into the connection between Mr Caldwell and latter and now to the inquiry, which the present Commis- sion is carrying on. I have named my informants from the clare, was not one of them. So far from it, I always infer- Governor down to Mr Dixson, and Mr May, I solemnly de- red from Mr May's guarded and cautious way of speaking on the subject of Police abuses, that he was a friend and to give evidence; and the first moment of my forming a even a partizan of Mr Caldwell's, and therefore unwilling suspicion to the contrary, was on the 8th July, 1857, when I was putting the last hand to my report of that date, now before the Commission; it was in the Supreme Court.
I
( 55 )
had left a blank for that portion of it. Mr May was pre- sent as Acting Sheriff. Far from imagining that he was willing to help me, I expostulated with him, thus--"Good God, Mr May, you cannot defend this abominable connec- tion between Mr Caldwell and Ma-chow Wong; you cannot expect me to go on finding bills for mock piracies on the evidence of the wretches whom you bring before this Court as Crown witnesses. You have heard the speech of Eli Boggs. Can any Government stand against such an infa- my and disgrace, and you have seen the demeanour of Mr Caldwell who heard that speech and shrunk under it." To my astonishment Mr May replied, "I have never had but one opinion about Mr Caldwell, Ma-chow Wong, Eli Boggs, or the connection; but I am nobody, and have no power." It was then I asked his permission to refer to him in the report, as one whowould speak if called upon. He
said "yes," and advised me also to refer to Mr Inglis, who knew a great deal also. I did so. The prime mover in all these inquiries is I, myself, and I have named those who have instigated me to become such. Mr May was but one of my witnesses, and as the Commission will see, by no means a ready one.
CHARLES MAY,-Recalled.
เ
me, that there was an intrigue within the Gaol walls to givǝ an apparent cause for the pardon of Ma-chow Wong, and that he, Mr Inglis, opposed himself to the intrigue. I do know that parties of police went to Stanley on the informa- tion derived from the Gaol, that military at Stanley were called out to assist the police, and that very many houses at Stanley were searched at dead of night. One of the cases then occurred in which police acted without any order from me, or knowledge of the mode in which they were acting, or directions as to how they were to act, which resulted in the apprehension of two or three men on a charge of murder, which case broke down at the Police Court. The last scene of the farce was the apprehension of some of the in- formants for apprehending two men on the charge of mur-
der, and then attempting to extort money from them; that
case was, I think, decided by the Chief Magistrate. My firm conviction is, that no murder was ever committed of the man in question. I heard from the Governor of the Gaol, that Mr Caldwell has had several interviews with Ma- chow Wong, subsequent to his conviction at the Supreme let- Court. By reference to my previous evidence, and my ter of 20th July, 1857, it will be seen I have spoken, and then write, of a connection existing between the gold dust robberies, Pang Poi-yeen being one and Ma-chow Wong; I have heard the Attorney General's statement and con-
and I believed that Ma-chow Wong's influence has been cur with It. Until addressed by the Attorney General I
exercised since his incarceration in the Gaol, to cause the never expressed any opinion to the Attorney General, or to any high Government Officer, on the subject of the impro apprehension of persons. I also should like to speak on the priety of the intimacy between Mr Caldwell ahd Ma-chow subject that I am a partizan, or acted as such in bringing Wong. It will be observed by my evidence, that I was in Ma-chow Wong to trial. I should like the Hon. the Chief no way a participator in this intimacy, and that I always Magistrate to be appealed to on the subject of my mauner when I had occasion exhibited my sense of the improprie- of assisting in the conduct of the inquiry, and I also wish to ty of the acquaintance, and full intent of bringing Ma-chow draw the attention of the Commission to these particular Wong to justice when I had opportunity. Shortly after points in the evidence given by Dr Bridges; first, that dur- resuming my office of Superintendent of Police, in Januarying the three years Dr Bridges acted as Attorney General, 1858, a Chinaman presented himself to my office late one I never brought the subject of Ma-chow Wong's crimes to afternoon, and said that he wanted police to go to Stanley to
his knowledge, and that he does not mention, and I now apprehend some men on suspicion of murder of a China-state, that I never spoke to Dr Bridges on the subject of man, whose name I knew and whom I knew to have been Ma-chow Wong, until 1 presented myself to him with the the principal witness in the Stanley treason case, I ques- sworn information; and yet on the 28th July, one day only tioned the man, ascertained that he had no knowledge but from hearsay, and told him to bring any person to me who intervening, he acts towards me as if I really were the par- could give information of the act, and measures should be tizan he wishes to make me appear. I should like that a reference be made to the Hon. the Chief Magistrate also up- taken. The next day on seeing the Colonial Secretary at
on this point, that in the case initiated before him on the Government Office, the Colonial Secretary said, "You go to Mr Inglis at the Gaol, he will give you some important 17th July, I never interfered directly or indirectly, and that, as I first related to the Colonial Secretary on the morning information on the Stanley murder case," and informed me they had taken three men on the charge of murder. 1 said of the 20th July, I only took usual interest in the case be- "No men have been apprehended, but I will go to Mr Inglis." cause there was no other officer of Police willing or able to I did so, and Mr Inglis said, “I am quite certain that three conduct the inquiry. It is also apparent to me, and I hope men have been apprehended' because a Chinaman who will be apparent to every Member of the Commission, that who has been employed in the matter, states that he saw from what Dr Bridges said in his evidence this day, he (Dr the three men in custody at Stanley last night." We had Bridges) felt convinced that the readiest way to attack Mr some further conversation in which he mentioned that two Caldwell was through Ma-chow Wong. I am not quite Chinamen then in the Gaol, under Ordinance 2 of 1857, certain, but I think Dr Bridges stated in his evidence to- supposed to have been connected with the treason case, day that the report of Mr Caldwell on the examination of had caused this information to be given, upon which the the papers was made anterior to the charge in the China Acting Colonial Secretary and police had been previously Mail; it is evident that Dr Bridges is mistaken. The acting, but strangely that they wanted to mix Ma-chow article in the China Mail appears on the 17th September, Wong up with the matter, and hoist him out of Gaol on the the report of Mr Caldwell is dated the 5th October, and the credit of his information. I judged from what Mr Inglis told | meeting of Comncil on 12th October.
,
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.