8
0
315
testify will attend when called upon. For myself, my humble services are always at your disposal in the cause of truth and justice.
1 have the honor to be-Sir,
Your most obedient Servant,
W. TARRANT.
P. S.I am afraid that I have not made the charges involving Mr. Scott in the conspiracy sufficiently explicit. Going further in detail then, I would assume that proof of conspiracy in most cases has to depend on the inferences to be drawn from certain results. Now the result to which I draw attention is this, On the 23d of March, 1861, Shum Ahing bring them as now in gaol, Caldwell wrote to Scott, and Scott replied, in effect thus-that while I was in the Criminal Gant, under punishment for libel, I was on terms of great intimacy with Shum Abing. That he had seen mo with my arms round his neck, and that he had several times separatod Well, the atrocions falsehood of this story is clearly proved by the de clarations of Ritchie and others appended, and I deny it in toto.
What then was the object of the concoction? The answer is--to make it appear that Shum Aling was so much under my influence as to be ready to do all I told him, and in proof of this readiness he wrote that statement implicatory of Caldwell in his intimacy with Mah-chow Wong, which led to Shum Ahing's examination by the Commeil when he gave such proof of that intimacy, as, with other, led to Caldwell's dismissal from the Government Service,
I need not further point out that the discredit attempted to be fastened on Shum Abing was calculated to confirm his sentence, and to check on- quiry into the means which led to his conviction. That it has had this effect is patent by no steps being taken by Government to release the man from his pabuful position. The wrongfully convicted Shum Ahing-still languishes in gaol, subject to all its torture!
So premising, a necessity for detail in the last charge is less apparent. Caldwell, after Shum Ahing's conviction, was more than once in the gaol, and spoke to him; and as it is proved that he and Scott concocted one lie together, it follows that it is reasonable to infer that they concucted and devised the rest.-W. T.
ABSTRACT of papers accompanying letter to the Attorney General
of date the 27th February, 1862,
A-Mr. Marquis's letter acknowledging general correctness of— B-Letter to Mr. Marquis of 19th February, 1862.
C-Mr. Boye's declaration before the British Consular Agent on
the 19th February.
D-Certificate by Captain of the Port, of despatch of Emilie Pireire, E-Released Coolee contracts and certificate.
-Deposition of Delfino Xavier.
G--Cheang Achuu's declaration.
II--Declaration of Procuraturate Interpreters. 1-Declaration of Ritchie and others.
THE ANSWER,
HONGKONG, March 4th, 1862,
SIR, Having perused the papers which you have submitted to me, and having considered all you said in reference to the charges you made against Mr. D. R. Caldwell, I have to inform you that it is no part of my duty to undertake the prosecution which you appear to think it is incumbent on me to institute.
In substituting the Attorney General for the Grand Jury, the Colonial Legislature abstained, and as I think properly, from vesting in him the powers of the Grand Jury to receive evidence on oath. I am unable therefore, as the substitute for the Grand Jury, to supersede the ordinary functions of the Police Magistrate.
I therefore return the enlosed papers to you, in order that in case you consider that the papers justify any criminal proceedings, you may apply
to the proper Tribunal.--I am Sir,
Your obedient Servant,
W. TARRANT. Esq.
JOHN SMALE,
Attorney General,
EASYTRENAJEMOVING!!
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.