CO129-074 - Lieut. Governor Caine & Sir Robinson - 1859 [6-12] — Page 407

SOA

403

( 109 )

Mr Tarrant.-Was it a principal charge against Caldwell that was defeated by the destruction of thos books.

every reason to believe from the suspicious circumstances lieved him to be under Mr Caldwell's inflence, I was star above stated, that the burning of the papers had taken led at hearing him say "I assure you I leave nothing place subsequently to the 10th of May 1858, when I had his discretion, what he does, is under my personal inspe made references in Council to the subject, and perhaps "tion and command." I therefore repeat, on oath, the firs subsequently to my other references of a later date. Mr sentence of the passage in my unsworn evidence to which Mongan had not then been examined, nor Dr Bridges on that my attention is now drawn. subject, and it was on their evidence that the date of March and not of May or June was first assigned to the burning. Therefore my speeches in Council and my correspondence in the Caldwell case were in my mind when I made that

Mr Anstey. Certainly. I believe if those books had bee statement, and I still think that Mr Mongan's memory produced, the Commission would have closed their enquirie has been confused as to dates. Be that as it may, it at that point, and said what need of further witnesses is not true that only one reference was ever made That charge is contained in my letter to the Colonia by me in communicating with Government or its offi- Secretary of 13th May, for I know nothing of the absu cers prior to the 10th of May 1858, to the danger arrangement of charges which, by H. E's warrant of the of employing Mr Caldwell. Besides my strong official, appointment, the Commission were directed to enquire into written a few days later in the same month of February, That charge was two fold. First, that Mr Caldwell had upon a matter which had been referred to the Chief Jus-contracted to befriend with zeal Ma-chow Wong after tice, and from the Chief Justice to myself, I mean the it had transpired both to himself and to the public that want of Interpreters in the Supreme Court, the Magistrate his name appeared in discreditable solidarity with Ma before whom I now appear knows well that with his per- chow Wong's in the books and papers of that pirate, and mission I used his name on behalf of a proposal to get secondly, that one mark of that zeal was, his having Tong Aku back to the Colony. In justifying that propo- pretended to make an exact report of the contents of thos sal I did much more than refer to the danger of employ-books and papers to the Governor in Council, and making ing Mr Caldwell, and I expressed myself so plainly with regard to his connection with Ma-chow Wong, that I re- ceived the same day, or the next, a reply from Dr Bridges requesting me to mind my own business, and reminding me that I had more than once incurred Sir John Bowring's displeasure for using strong language. There was at least one other letter written, I think in March, but relating to the Pawnbroker's case, which contained, and was meant to contain, a strong remonstrance, with or without mention- ing Mr Caldwell's name, against the line taken on Mr Cald- well's understood recommedation in the previous month of October in restoring the Pirate's wealth to his piratical family. Every one of those letters were laid before the Caldwell Commission in June or July last by Dr Bridges himself, and I cannot understand his having forgotten two of them. Furthermore, in the debates on the Opium Farm Ordinance, and on, I think, earlier occasions in the Legislative Council, my references to Mr Caldwell's unfit-always expressed to me, and to which Mr Dixson, himself, ness for trust had been frequent and notorious. I had repeatedly pressed Mr Wade, the Chinese Secretary, to let me know what he found in the Ma-chow Wong papers, and particularly whether they supported the 2 memo. I used the strongest language to him, the Chinese Secretary, to express my convictions as to Mr Caldwell. I had told Mr Inglis, who was in daily communication with the Colonial Secretary, in the course of the winter that I should require very strong coroborative evidence in favour of any case got up by Mr Caldwell before I would find the Bill. Mr Inglis admitted as much in his evidence before the Commission. Finally, I had, on at least one oc- casion in the Colonial Secretary's room, and before the end of March, openly told Dr Bridges that I could not understand how the Government could entrust such a man as Mr Caldwell with anything. Having till then be-

a report which omitted all reference to every item which those books and papers contained of the piratical, trea sonable and felonious actings and dealings of that convit I declare, upon my oath, I as have declared when not upon oath, that during the period to which I can speak of my own kowledge, namely from March 1856 to end of July 1857, I only knew two persons in the Colony who had shewn any spirit of zeal to bring Mah-chou Wong and his confederates to justice. Those two persons were Mr Dixon, who promoted and incited me to the enquiry almost taunted me to it, in fact, and myself, so persuaded by Mr Dixon. Mr May, down to the end of July 186 appeared to me to be cold, if not indifferent, and I even remonstrated with him for his supposed coldness, at the trial of Eli Boggs, when, for the first time I learned from him that he entertained precisely the same opinion of Mr Caldwell and Ma-chow Wong, which Mr Dixson, had

has more solemnly adhered in his evidence of the second day of the Caldwell enquiry. I consider his [Mr May's conduct to have been perfectly fair and impartial throughout.

Remanded to August 21st,--W. H. MITCHELL. SEVENTH HEARING.

Saturday August, 21st 1858. Cross-examined by MR TARRANT,—— drawn to an undue and persevering interference on the During my tenure of office my attention has been

part of Dr Bridges; not only with Mr May, as to whom self, until I had shown that I was determined to resent am asked, but with every public officer, including my it; and I was present when the Chief Magistrate brought the subject before the Legislative Council, when much disapprobation of Dr Bridges' conduct was expressed.

201

over.

( 108 )

tain statements in the China Mail, to the effect that some been sent back to him by Mr Wade or, that, he, the Gegern- thousand Dollars worth of Gun-powder had been purchas or, knew anything of the two men; and then Mr Cleverly ed, Mr Caldwell showed me a bill for the purchase of added that he had also heard that the papers were burned. some small quantity. The same as regards Spear Heads. There were two or three gentlemen standing by at the I give these as instances. The second day completed the time who heard this conversation. I replied, being natural- examination so far as Mr Caldwell's report was concerned.ly excited, that neither in the Legislative Council nor in 1 wish to state that on the second day's examination one their correspondence with me when I appealed to those bundle of papers did pass into the hands of Mr Caldwell and papers and memoranda, had they (the Government Au- his teacher without having first passed under my own eye thorities) ever dropped a word to lead me to suspect that or that of my teacher. This comes to my recollection they were not in existence, but, on the contrary, had answer- from the fact that 3 days after my formal examination ed me generally in writing that all the documents relating closed, I took up that bundle of papers (as well as I can to the case should be laid before the Commission. I then recollect it was the identical bundle,) and looked them went in to give my evidence, and in answer to a question from Mr Day, I took occasion to advert to the astounding information which I had just received. I did it as nearly as possible in the words which appear at page 32 of the printed minutes and which are as follows.—“I cannot un- derstand how, after my repeated and solemn references to the danger of employing Mr Caldwell in any matter of State or Police, of which my official correspondence with the Executive Government subsequently to the proceedings in the Executive Council furnish some of instances, His Excellency or any member of his Government would ven- ture upon the destruction of a single portion, much less the whole of what I must pronounce to be the damning proofs of his guilt. I submit to the Commission that this spoliation of evidence compels them to act upon the uni- versal principle of all Juris prudence "Contra Spoliatorem omnia præsumuntur." make these observations because I am informed that shortly before, or shortly after, the

Deponent being asked what prompted a proceeding so much out of course, states, I did so because I had heard that Mr Caldwell was trying to obtain a pardon for Ma-chow Wong, and I wished to be able to say if neces- sary that all the documents on which the report was founded had passed under my eye. Mr Caldwell shewed his report and asked me if it was in accordance with the memo. which he had taken and exhibited to me on the 5th. I concurred in the report.

(Signed) JAMES MONGAN.

SIXTH HEARING

--

Friday, August 20th, 1858. THOMAS CHISHOLM ANSTEY,-examined on oath under Subpoena on the part of defendant vites,

I never had heard or suspected that the documents of the Ma-chow Wong case were even missing until some days after the Caldwell Commission had been opened.-- | ventilation of the subject matter of the present enquiry, Mr On the 17th June 1858, I stated in evidence before the Mongan having consulted the Executive Government, Commission, according to the facts, how the burning of the through one of its officers, as to what was to be done with Books first transpired. I find that on the 9th June, Mr the Ma-chow Wong papers still in his hands, was directed May had suggested to the Chairman the production of to destroy them. Not a syllable of this transpired until those papers, and a slip of paper was sent out to Dr Brid- subsequent to Mr May's examination before the Commis- ges's Room by the Chairman. I remember Mr Jozé D'sion. In this case I had made myself Inquiries of Mr D'Al- Almada coming in and reporting in an under tone that neither those papers nor the two men which Mr May had also asked for were to be found. Mr D'Almada came up to me and repeated the statement, and I laughed at it, and said every body knew they were in Mr Wade's hands down to the time of his sailing to the North. Mr D'Alma- da then went back to Dr Bridges's room and returned and said they were very likely in Mr Wade's hands still. This made me go up to the chair as soon as the examination they were on was finished, and I stated to the Commission that that was impossible, as Mr Wade had told me he had done with the papers befere he left for the North. I sug gested that if their loss could be proved, secondary evid- ence might be given of their contents. Nothing was said then of their having been burnt or destroyed. But on the morning of the 17th June having been called to give evi dence I remember a very loud conversation between Mr Cleverly and Sir John Bowring in the Governor's room which it was impossible not to overhear from the end of the Verandah where I was standing. Mr Cleverly came out and said the Governor denied that the papers had

mada who was sent for by the Commission on that occa- sion, and what he told me was that they had disappeared and no one knew what had become of them, It was next suggested that they were probably in the hands of Mr Wade. I then volunteered my evidence to the Commis- sion which shewed that that was impossible, and now, at the last moment, it is suggested that they have been burnt. About an hour afterwards a letter which is not noticed on the minuutes, and to which I presume my observations gave rise, was read aloud from the chair It came from the Chi- nese Secretary's Office and avowed the burning of the pa- pers by order of Dr Bridges—Until I heard that letter read I did not believe the papers had been destroyed. That is all I know about it.

Mr Tarrant, referring to the first sentence of a quoted paragraph at page 32 of the minutes of the Commission, enquires what references, if any, the witness had ever made to the Government upon the danger of employing Mr Caldwell in matters of State or Police.—

Deponent replies, The Court will observe the dates. If the case there put as hypothetical had occurred, I had