[66]
[67]
previous stage of this inquiry to call upon Mr. Caldwell either to substantiate His Excellency then said that that was not the this charge or to withdraw it. proper time to enter upon the subject, but that if charges were brought against him (Mr. May) he would have full opportunity of meeting the insinuation re- ferred to, or any others which might be brought against him. Mr. May there- fore thought this the proper time to renew his application.
His Excellency the Governor said the Council considered it desirable that the direct charges now brought by Mr. Caldwell against Mr. May should be gone into first, and at the close of them Mr. Caldwell might be called on to withdraw or pro- ceed with the charge, or rather insinuation, alluded to.
The first charge was read:-
16
With being cognizant and permitting the existence of a public brothel in Hollywood Road within a few doors of the house occupied by him, and although the existence of the same was officially brought to his notice, taking no steps to suppress the same, the keeping of such brothel being an offence under Ordinance 12 of 1857, and the suppression thereof being his duty as Superintendent of Police."
Mr. Caldwell referred in support of this charge to the following extract from Dr.
20:- Bridges' evidence before the Caldwell Commission of Inquiry at page
"I remember an inquiry concerning a charge against Mr. May of not putting down a notorious brothel. In March last one Atai was charged before the Magistrate with keep- ing an unlicensed brothel out of the brothel district under the following circumstances: Having had
my attention drawn by a person in no way connected with the government to the fact that certain brothels were allowed out of the district, and in particular to one-in the neighbourhood of Mr Murray's house-I saw Mr. May, and requested him to cause this brothel to be put down. We had some conversation on the subject, and about a week after- wards finding that nothing had been done, I desired Mr. Caldwell to do what I had re- quested Mr. May to do. Mr. Caldwell took certain steps which led to the keeper of the house being brought up before the Chief Magistrate. I had also certain reason to believe that Mr. May was in the habit of frequenting a house in the immediate vicinity of this brothel, and I was determined that the fact should be elicited, if possible, at the investiga- tion before the Magistrate. I attended as a spectator, and as Mr. Caldwell gave his evi- dence without in any way referring to Mr. May or to such house, I requested the Ma- gistrate to put such questions to Mr. Caldwell as would elicit these facts, which I intended to bring to the notice of the Governor. The Magistrate did put the question; the facts were elicited; and also the belief of Mr. Caldwell that the woman living in the brothel had escaped therefrom into the house frequented by Mr. May. On the following day a letter was received by me, being also addressed to the Attorney-General and Chief Magistrate, making a violent attack upon Mr. Caldwell for the insufficiency of the grounds upon which he had supposed that the woman could escape into the house already referred to, and also I wrote in consequence attacking the motives from which the statement had been made.
to Mr. May either on that or the following day, explained the circumstances under which Mr. Caldwell had given his evidence, and laid the whole matter before the Governor. This letter was written on the 11th March, and entirely exculpated Mr. Caldwell from having brought the matter forward, and shewing that what he did was on my action.
My report to the Governor bringing certain charges against Mr. May, and Mr. May's charges against Mr. Caldwell, were referred by His Excellency to the Chief Magistrate, who made two reports, the first blarning both Mr. May and Mr. Caldwell, the second being on reconsideration of the blame upon Mr. Caldwell, an exculpation of him. Letters were written by order of His Excellency, conveying his decision both to Mr. May and Mr. Cald- well. The letter from His Excellency to Mr. May was in the nature of a very severe re- primand. There were two letters to Mr. Caldwell; the first on the occasion of the Chief Magistrate's report was also a severe reprimand, and that upon the reconsidered report was in exculpation of him."
Mr. May explained that on one occasion he came up to Government Offices on business, and Dr. Bridges jocularly mentioned that Attai was keeping a brothel, and that he wished him (Mr. May) to look after it. He, Mr. May, replied that he was aware Attai was keeping a house, but that he believed it was not a low one, but rather one frequented by Gentlemen and used by kept women, and probably there would be much difficulty in proving that the house was a brothel. He also pointed out that the Ordinance invested the Registrar General with large powers in respect to unlicensed Brothels, which were withheld, for good reasons, from the Police, and that Mr. Caldwell was therefore the most fitting person to take immediate steps in the matter. He, however, said he would make inquiries, and on leaving De. Bridges he at once directed Mr. Jarman to look after the house and ascertain whether anything could be done about it. He heard no- thing from Mr. Jarman after he liad given him these instructions, and thought
no more about the matter until he was informed that Mr. Caldwell had a few days afterwards-about a week-entered the house and laid an information against the keeper of it before the Chief Magistrate. Mr. Caldwell then swore that the inmates of the Brothel had escaped over the roof into his (Mr. May's) house. He admitted that Mr. Caldwell might really have believed such to have been the case when he made this statement on oath, but he blamed Mr. Caldwell for having brought such a serious charge against a brother Officer, especially one with whom he was on bad terms, without notice, behind his back, and with not having taken sufficient means to ascertain whether it was true or not.
He ac- cordingly remonstrated in strong terms officially at the time against the action taken by both Dr. Bridges and Mr. Caldwell in the matter, and denied the truth of the statement. An investigation was held, and all the papers were referred to Mr. Davies, the Chief Magistrate. The alleged escape of the women into his (Mr. May's) house was then found to be entirely false; indeed, it was impossible, there being fixed bars to the window, through which the women were said to have passed, as Mr. Caldwell might easily have ascertained. He now appealed to Mr. Caldwell to state whether he still believed that the statement sworn to by him before the Magistrate as to the escape of these women was true.
Mr. Caldwell replied that immediately after the conviction of Attai before the Magis- trates, he had discovered his mistake as to the women having escaped into Mr. May's house. He believed they never left Attai's house, and had heard since that they were concealed on the shelves of a wardrobe behind the dresses. He, however, ascertained that they could not at all events have escaped into Mr. May's house as the window by which he had supposed they had entered, was barred That on discovering his mistake he had written to the Government acknowledging it,
Mr. May said this was the first time he had ever heard that Mr. Caldwell admitted his error; and he complained in strong terms that a public Officer should have made in open Court and on oath a statement most prejudicial to his character as a public Officer and inan of honour, and on discovering that he had sworn falsely had neither communicated with him on the subject, nor made any public acknow- ledgment of his error.
Mr. Caldwell said he thought he had done enough in writing to the Government.
His Excellency pointed out to Mr. Caldwell that in his "Vindication," published more than two years after his discovery of his error, he had not only repeated the accusation against Mr. May as to the escape of the women into his (Mr. May's) house, but laboured to prove the correctness of this statement, which he now admitted he knew to be false.
Mr. Caldwell expressed surprise, and begged to be allowed to look at his "Vindication;" he thought he had there stated that that was only his impression at the time, but that he had subsequently discovered his error.
Mr. Caldwell, however, was unable to point out any such acknowledgment of error, or to offer any explanation whatever of his conduct in publishing in his Vindica- tion a gross calumny on Mr. May, which he at the time knew to be false.
The second Charge was proceeded with :--
"With altogether refusing to interfere himself or to permit the Police Force under his orders to carry out the provisions of Ordinance 12 of 1857 (the Brothels' Ordinance) in opposition to the terms of the said Ordinance."
Mr. Caldwell referred in support of this charge to the following extract from the evi- dence given by Dr. Bridges before the Caldwell Commission of Inquiry: -
"The Registrar General has had much more to say to it than he would have had, but for the positive resistance offered by Mr. May. Finding that I could not get anything done by one officer, I was obliged to resort to another. It is the sole duty of the Registrar General to license the brothels, and it is the duty of both Registrar General and Superin- tendent of Police to prevent any violation of the law; but it is the special duty of the Superintendent of Police and the Police force, to confine the brothels to the proper district, and take care that none exist out of it. I do not mean that this duty is expressly defined by the Ordinance, but it arises out of the general duty on the part of the Police to prevent any violation of any existing law. There are special duties assigned to the Registrar Gene.
Page 21.
370
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.