TEN YEARS CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE • BAHAMAS, 1880-1890. The Reasons of my Resignation. Administration or Justice in Bahamas. CASES REFERRED TO : THE LUCILE CASE. THE SANDS et al. CASE. THE TAYLOR CASE. (A Gross Contempt of Court.) Is Corporal Punishment Legal in such a Case ? The Opinion of Sir Richard E. Webster, Atty. General^ df liver ed trt the \H6use of Commons^ ^' •'. ^;. V ON! ;- :■.... . "FLOGGING IN THE" BAHAMAS," DISCUSSED AND COMPARED WITH STANDARD AUTHORITIES. By HENRY W. AUSTIN, ESQUIRE, Ex-Chief Justice of Bahamas. cr [^ B. Q. R. INTRODUCTION. For the better understanding of these papers in this form, I !^ive a few introductory explanations. I am an advocate of the Bar of Lower Canada, now the Province of Quebec. I was named Chief Justice of the Bahamas, in 1880, by Mr. Ghidstone's Government, at a salary of ;^700sterlin<^ per annum and small fees. The Earl of Kimbcrly was at that date the Secretary of State for the Colonies. As such, I was the sole judge of all the Superior Courts in the Colony, Chancellor and Judge of the Vice- Admiralty Court. I was afterwards named President of the Legislative Council of the Bahamas. The tenure of office of the Chief Justice is " during pleasure." A Colonial judge (in the West Indies), if removed or suspended by the Gov- ernor of such Colony (as he may be under liurke's Act), has a right of Appeal to the Privy Council. The constitution of the Bahamas is composed of an Executive and a Legislative Council and a Legislative Assembly — -it is what is called a half-crown Colony. The Governor is appointed by the Crown; his Council (the Executive) is composed of four officials, the Secretary of the Colony, the Attorney General, the Receiver General, and the officer commanding the troops for the time being, and of five local men chosen by the Governor and appointed by the Crown, who hold office during pleasure. The Legislative Council is composed of nine members, including the President, officials and non-officials, all named by the Govcrnoi-, and hold- ing office during pleasure. Tlie Representative Assembly, elected septennially by the people, of 30 members. The present Attorney General (who is a native of the Islands) is the Speaker of the Assembly, and as Attorney General he is a member of the Executive Council ; he is also Advocate General in the Admiralty Court, and allowed private practice as an attorney in all the courts.' He is also a Queen's Counsel for the Islands, and the Crown Prosecutor. During my term of office there were four different Governors appointed : Mr. Callaghan, who died ; Captain Lees, now Sir Charles Lees, Governor of the Mauritius; Mr. Blake, now Sir Henry Blake, Governor of Jamaica; and Sir Ambrose Shea, from Newfoundland, who is still the Governor. LETTER TO LOUD KNUTSFORD AFTER MY RESIGNATION. CANADA. Montreal, Temple Building, Gt. St. James St., nth June, 1890. My Lord : Your Lordship is aware by this time that I have accepted the pension provided forme, which you were pleased to inform me you thought " a liberal one," and that I have resi^^ned my office. I did this by compulsion, and in consequence of your action and menaces ; d^wC^ particularly, your having expressed the strong opinion that the ''public interests" required my retirement. I have, nevertheless, been condemned by you unheard, or without being furnished with the accusations or charges which have been secretly made to the Colonial Office (as I conclude) against me, or without being informed who my accusers were, or are, or of being afforded the opportunity of meeting them face to face. I had a right, I think, to look to you for protection and support, rather than a hasty condemnation upon ex parte proofs, or upon hearsay evidence. Audi alteram partem \s a well-known maxim, which applies more par- ticularly when a Chief Justice of a small Colony, where there is fiot responsi- ble Government, is the accused. I claim, now, my right to h^ heard, as I can address you without the intermediation of a Governor to report and comment on my writings; which "reports" are considered "private," or without responsibility, by the Colonial Office. I will, I think, show plainly that in the reports and communications which Governor Shea has made to the Colonial Office affecting me, or my conduct, he has apparently been acting with tiiose opposed to me, and who were combined to get me removed from office. I will only go back to the time of Governor Shea's return from England to the Colony in 1888, when he communicated to me your despatch on the commitment of Thomas Taylor for " Contempt of Court," in which you pronounced a censure upon me, and informed me that, if "I did it again," it might have serious consequences ; I had no desire to go through what I did on that occasion, or to have my life in jeopardy, a second time, even in the service of my country. I then waited upon the Governor, and stated that I thought your censure uncalled for, and that the legal opinion you appeared to have acted upon, that my sentence was " illegnl'' was erroneous, and I stated to the Governor that if such a despatch were made public, it would prejudice me, and be in- jurious to the administration of justice, by weakening my authority in the Colony. The Governor then promised me that the despatch in question should be seen by no one. I pointed out to him that as Mr. Taylor, as Adminis- trator, had made the report of the contempt case, that he might be entitled to see the despatch. The Governor then said that even Mr. Taylor should not see it. I was satisfied. A case of the " Lucile " in the Admiralty Court occurred about this time, for the decree in which case I was attacked in the Nassau Guardian, which happens to be the Official Gazette of the Islands. I refer, particularly, to that paper of date 27th February, 1889, and to the leader commenting on the decree in the " Lucile" case. I give only the concluding paragraph : "This decree has been discussed so freely and fully by the commercial portion of the community, and with such a degree of earnestness, that it would not surprise us if steps were taken to initiate proceedings whereby a grievance which has been smouldering some time, and strengthened by cir- cumstances of late occurrence, will burst into a flame which should result, if properly represented, in the removal of the source.'' (Italics mine.) I would remark here that the principal writer of slander in the Nassau Guardian is the Rev. Robert Dunlop, minister of the Kirk of Scotland, who is now a great friend of Governor Shea, although he was dismissed from all positions of honor by the Governor Blake (the previous Governor) ; he is an unprincipled man, a disgrace to his cloth, a wolf in sheep's clothing, and almost the only clergyman who did not sign the addresses to me on leaving. In that "Lucile" case figured prominently one William Culmer, mem- ber of the Legislative Assembly, a friend and client of the Attorney General) Malcolm, also owner of the salving vessel " Douglass ; " he was the chief promoter of the libel suit against the "Lucile." He marshalled the evidence, and was himself a witness in the trial before me in the Admiralty Court. The night previous to my rendering the decree he wrote me the follow- ing letter, which was clearly intended to influence my judgment — a bid for salvage ! — marked " Private " : — " His Honor Chief Justice Austin will pardon the liberty I take in addressing your Honor. While at the dinner-table last evening in conversation with other gentlemen, the question of salaries came up, and some of those 8 gentlemen said our Chief Justice was barely able to live on his stipend. It certainly ought not to be the case with one of our highest officials, and I think the Governor might bring the matter before the House of Assembly for its consideration, and I have no doubt that body would deal fairly with the subject. " I certainly would give the matter a fair consideration, and while your Honor has enemies, he has also the good opinion of some who are connected with that body. The thought canie to me, after I retired last night, to call on your Honor; but I am, and always have been, a diffident person, and so is Mrs. Calmer. I have repeatedly asked her to let us call on your Honor and Mrs. Austin ; but she, like myself, being so diffident, have never done so. I trust your Honor will pardon the liberty I iiave taken. " Believe me to be your Honor's " Faithful and obedient, "(Signed), W. CULAH':R." « I acknowledged his letter, and the next morning the decree was ren- dered ; it was unfavorable to the demands of the salvors, and Mr. Culmer did not succeed in his suit. The salvors had been proved to have been guilty of stealing bags of sugar from the wreck and had not made restitution. The decree found the tender which had been made into Court sufficient. In this "Lucile" case the Attorney General occupied for the underwriters ; in conducting the defence he always spoke of Mr. Culmer as " his friend, Captain Culmer," and cross-examined him as a witness very gently indeed. The Attorney General is the Advocate General in said Court. A few days after this decree (the Legislature being then in session) Cap- tain Culmer moves in the House a motion as to " whether it was the opinion " of the Government, after the censure pronounced upon the Chief Justice by " the Secretary of State for the Colonies in the Taylor case, that the Chief "Justice should be allowed to continue in the discharge of the important " duties of his office." The Attorney-General, as Speaker of the Assembly, having stated, in reply, that it was a matter for the Home Government to decide, and that they had already made known their decision, Culmer thereupon moved for the despatches on the subject ; and the despatch particularly hereinbefore referred to was the only one sent down by the Governor, and it was pub- lished in the Nassau Guardian at length, April, 1889. The piodiiction of this despatch .uul its publication did ine injury, and was contrary to tlic pyoniisc made nic by th.' Governor that it should not be seen ! I believe now that it was sent down to help my enemies in the '• Lucile ' case — Culmer and others ! I can come to no other conclusion, as he (the Governor) must have read the article in the Nassau Guardian on the decree, and there was no necessity then for sendinj^ it down and makin;^ it public ; it is plain, also, that the Attorney General and Culmer were actint; in concert. Before tlie correspondence in the "Sands " case was sent by the Governor to your Lordship, I called upon the Governor to be furnisheil with the Attorney General's reply to my statement of 5th February, but he refused to give it. I had a right to see it. The Governor's letters to me in this matter are couched in insulting and discourteous terms. On the i6th April, 1889, I received a letter from him, informing me that he had in due course transmitted the correspondence between me and the Attorney General to your Lordship, and that he had been instructed by you to inform me that, " with reference to the allegation in my statement of 5th " February last, that the Attorney General would not allow the witnesses in " the Affray case to state the whole truth, and that in this trial facts wiiich " were known to the Attorne)' General were suppressed, that I must either " withdraw this charge or state precisely the facts which I allege to have been " suppressed, and subnn'tsuch proof as I could adduce in support of the ciiarge.' In reply to this letter I requested the Governor to inform your Lordsiiip " that " my statement referred to was written after the Affray case had been tried, " and at intervals during the progress and after the conclusion of the Murder " case, and when the proceedings were fresh before my eyes ; that the impres- " sions I received and the opinions 1 formed on those trials were for my " guidance and directicn ; that I was a witness (the most important one in " Court) of what had taken place; that I had already stated the facts, and, in " doing so, I had studiously avoided (as f^ir as possible) comments. " That I had declined to formulate charges against the Attorney General "although invited to do so by the Governor. " That I had pointed out to His Excellency that I was the accused and " not the accuser. I was called upon to defend myself against the Attorney " General's attacks. "That to adopt the course offered me by his Lordship, of producing proof " in support of the allegation in the statement referred to, would, I thought, be " derogatory to the position and office I held, and contrary to my own inclina- 10 " tioiis aiul feelings. That I therefore the more willingly availed myself of the *' opportunity afforded me ot withdrawing the allegation specially referred to by "your Lordship, and I therefore withdrew the said allegation from my state- " nient of the 5th of February." On the 22nd April the Governor writes me, acknowledging my letter of the 20th April, and expressing regret that 1 had failed to give a direct re[)ly to the demand of Lord Knutsford contained in the Governor's letter of the 16th April, to which I was again referred. He continued thus (making some alterations) : "You are called upon by " the Secretary of State either to unreservedly withdraw the serious charge "against the Attorney General in your communication of 5th February last, " or to state precisely the facts which you allege to have been suppressed, and "to submit such proofs as you can adduce in support of the charge." The Governor concludes thus : " I shall be glad to have an early reply " that shall meet distinctly either of the conditions laid down in the "Secretary of State's letter of 22nd A[)ril." I answered " that I availed myself fully of Lord Knutsford's offer, and pre- *' ferred to withdraw the charge specially referred to in my statement of 5th " F'ebruary rather than proceed to the proof of it, and I thereby withdrew the " charge referred to." Notwithstanding these two formal (as I pretend) withdrawals of the charge which 1 was specially allowed by your Lordship to withdraw, on the 22rd April (and without, of course, submitting my withdrawals to your Lord- ship), I am favored with a further communication from the Governor, inform- ing me for the first time that your Lordship required to know if the Attorney General was amenable to the serious charge I had preferred against him, and saying "that this demand was not met by the terms of my letters," and therefore he stated " if I did not by an early reply unreservedly withdraw my "accusations (in the plural j because they were not susceptible of justification " or proof, that he should be compelled under instructions to appoint without " delay a commission to investigate the case and report for the information "of the Secretary of State." I need scarcely point out to your Lordship the persistence with which I am pursued in this correspondence by the Governor, and his un- justifiable demands upon me when the matter was in your hands, and which he had no right to make without firstly submitting my withdrawals to your Lordship and receiving instructions. I maintain that I had already done what I had been allowed to do by your Lordship, and that the matter was for your decision, and that the decision had been given and it was final, and II that the Governor had no right to call upon me to withdraw other portions of my statement with the comment that tlicy were " woi susceptible (i^ justification or pr 00/." I answered his letter on the same day, pointing out that, as I had already twice declared that I withdrew the allegation referred to in ni)' statement, I declined to do more; and 1 said that in case His ICxcelleiiC)' appointed a commission, that I trusted the commissioner would not be a local man, as I should have little confidence in such a nomination, and did not believe justice would be done. On the i6th May the Governor and Council met to discuss the commis- sion, when it was decided that an independent commission should be asked for from England, and the Colonial Secretary \Taylor) was instructed to pre- pare a letter to this effect md the Council adjourned to next da)'. On the next day, on motion of I le Governor, the proceedings of the previous day were ignored, and without discussion it was decided to try the case them- selves. At this meeting the Governor spoke of me in disparaging terms, styled me " an old fool," " the obstruction," and referred to the Attorney General "as our friend," saying, " we shall know how to protect our friend." It is well known that the night previous to this meeting he had seen members of the Council to talk them over about this commission. On the 26th of April, I received a letter from the Governor, informing me that, as I had not relieved the Attorney General from the serious imputa- tions contained in my statement, it had been decided that an enquiry should take place before the Governor and Council, of which I should be notified. This showed the determination of the Governor to oppress and to harass me, and that they were determined " to «know how to protect their friend " (the Attorney General). On ihe iith May, 1889, a constable in uniform served mc with a writ of summons in my chambers, to attend beft)re the Governor and Council, exhi- biting to me the original of the writ, I conclude for the purpose of harassing and insulting me, and to proceed to judgment upon my default to appear. It will be seen that I ivas specially summoned to prove what I had formally loithdrazvn with your Lordship's permission. "Before His Excellency the Governor in Council." " In the matter of the charge of His Honor Henry William Austin against the Honorable Ormand Drummond Malcolm, Q.C., Attorney Gen- eral, is charged with having suppressed evidence within his knowledge, and thereby causing a miscarriage of justice in a case of Queen vs. Frank Allen 12 Sands, Lewis Philip Knowlos, Albert Bethel and Willir.m Dunshee, tried in the General Court of the said Islands, Hilary Term, 1889, for an affray." To His Monor Henry William Austin, etc., etc., etc. "Take notice that the Attorney General has been cited to apt)car before the Governor in Council at Government House, T6th Ma>', 1S89, at 10 o'clock, to answer the char<;e herein, and that you arc hereby required to attend at tJie time and place aforesaid, antl then and there substantiate the truth of the said charge, and adduce such facts in support thereof as you may be possessed of. (Italics are mine.) The Attorney General had been nominally suspended although no .public notice had been i^iven as 1 : usual in such cases, and a ^Ir. Rae, Stipen- diary Magistrate, acted as Attorney General during the enquiry, as it appeared. The whole thing was arranged, and a sham, the intention being apparent and the result of the enquiry a foregone conclusion, and although it appeared by the citation and proceedings that the Attorney General was the accused, and was to be tried and put on his defence. I was to be condemned and found guilty of all sorts of things as the sequel showed. The/6rjf//;/t'/ of the Council is an important consideration. Mr. E, B. A. Taylor, the Colonial Secretary, was an open enemy — he had not spoken to me for two years. # ^ ^ •TV TT n^ TV* TT =^ =^ ^ =^ Mr. Taylor knew my opinion of the doings with the Savings Bank funds which caused its suspension in 1885, or it may be presumed he did, as Governor Blake had asked and obtained my opinion in writing, although he never acted upon it or brought an}- one before the Courts to be punished. 4^ A^ ^ ^U Mf 4U n^ TT n^ tt tv tt Dr. Kemp, another member, was a connection of the Attorney Gen- eral, and controls the Nassau Times, his brother being the editor. Mr. R. H. Sawyer is a bosom friend and supporter of the Attorney General. He was not fond of me because I did not allow him 60 per cent in the Vice-Admiralty Court upon all cases (small cases) of derelict mahogany logs which he obtained from the salvors on the out Islands by barter, and then brought into port and into the Court. Anotlier, Mr. Richard Farrington, was the uncle of the wife of Frank Allen Sands, one of the accused in the Affray case, and one of those who participated in the murder of Gay, as I contended and contend. This Coun- 13 cil, besides beiiii^ hostile to me in a marked dei^rcc, was not sworn to do justice, were under no oath except their oath of office allegiance, and to keep the secrets of the Council. The Clerk of the Council was a Mr. Gurdon, with no experience as a clerk takin;4 down evidence and proceedings of this kinil ; was at this time engaged to be married to ^ ^ a niece of the Attorney General (he has married her since). He wrote the minutes of the Enquiry under the dictation and control of the Governor and of Mr. Rae, acting as Attornc}' General, sitting by his side. They passed a law to give themselves power to swear witnesses on the Rn- quiry — a very doubtful measure to swear witnesses and compulse them when the Court was not sworn I This Acizvas not disallowed, I was surprised to see. I attended as summoned, and raised no objection. It woulil no doubt have gratified my enemies sitting in Council, had I objected and refused, to obey them. I submitted. Tiie only independent and impartial man who sat in that Council was Major Ellis, of the 1st West India Regiment ; he endeavored to see justice dore, although almost a stranger to me. Another member, Mr. Jose[)h Hrown (the jeweller), was absent at Audros during nearly the whole of the lOnquiry, but by the Governor ordering postponements his return to town was secured, and he took his seat on the morning when the Attorney General read his defence, and then he voted with Governor, who had named him the day previous to a scat in the Legislative Council 1 I\Ir. William E. Ambrister was absent during most of the Enquiry, and I conclude he did n()t vote. The minutes shouUl show this, as everything else that occurred, I applied for a Commission to Ottawa, Canada, to take the evidence of Mr, Charles T. Gibbs, ivho had been present at the Affray trial in Nassau. An Act was passed to legalize such Commission, and a Commission issued, and was sent to Ottawa for execution, but with special instructions from the Governor t\\:it it was returned ///jVa/z/tv. The consequence was that, Mr. Gibbs being temporarily unwell, the Commission was returned in twenty-four hours after its delivery unexecuted, ami I lost the evidence of an important witness. Hut curious to relate this Act was subsequently rt^/.srt//(?Tt'^<^/, so that had I taken Mr. Gibbs' evidence under the Commission it would have been a legal nullity. I send herewith a deposition of Mr. Gibbs made in Ottawa according to the form of the lav/ in Ontario. The Governor acted as a partisan on this Enquiry ; lie con'.luctcd the Enquiry. 14 My witnesses were kept in a room in the basement of Government House, and called up one by one by the Private Secretary, as required by me. I was allowed a seat on the piazza, and was brought in by Mr. Gurdon when the Court was ready. One morning 1 was kept sitting there an hour and a half before I was called in. The Enquiry sat with closed doors. My witnesses were frequently inter- rupted and insulted by the Governor. Evidence was excluded — questions disallowed by the Governor in a peremptory manner, and answers were not written down in the minutes by direction of the Governor. I was interrupted by the Governor in a pciemptory manner, and he told me not to interrupt him, that I was not there as Chief Justice. I took notes of these things, and so did Major Eilis. Although I was not boiitid to prove what I had alleged in my statement of the 5th February after the withdrawals I had formally made, I assert that, being forced to the proof before the Court of Enquiry, I fully proved ivhat I had withdrmvji, " that the Attorney General had suppressed evidence in that Affray trial, and had kept back evidence, and had caused a miscarriage of Justice." I kept notes of the evidence before the Enquiry, and can produce them, and so did Major Ellis, and if it docs not appear by the Report of the Governor that it 7uas proved, I can come to no other conclusion than that the copy sent to the Colonial Office by the Governor is not a true copy of the origitial minutes. I call for the production of the '' original minutes." Subse- quently to that Enquiry, in fact recently, the Governor informed me that the Council was unanimous in its decision. I knew this to be uiitrue, for I knew Major Ellis had dissented, and if his dissent does not appear in the copy of the minutes sent to the Colonial Office, it has been kept back by the Governor or Mr. Gurdon. I am in possession now of the dissent of Major Ellis, and his "findings" as the result of that Enquiry, and I am authorized to use his notes and argu- ment. They were produced and read by him before the Council, They are kept with the greatest precision and care. The Governor has admitted to me that the presence of Major Ellis on that Enquiry was most valuable from his acquaintance with the practice of Courts Martial ; and the Governor j/'rt/'^^/ to me that Major Ellis agreed wit!', them in their conclusions. This I kneiv to be tnitrue. The motive for the conduct of the Attorney General on that trial is now more apparent. There is prima facie proof that Frank Allen Sands and Lewis P. Knowles, one or both of them, are connected with the wife of the Attorney General in some degree, and the firm of Sands Bros, in Nassau are clients of the Attorney General; Mrs. Malcolm was a Sands. The letter of IS the 3rd July, or notification of the Governor to me of the decision he and his Council "had arrived at," is most insulting and shows malice. He, contrary to all precedent, as President of a Court of Enquiry, moved what he called " Resolutions" against me before his Council. The substance of those resolutions is to be found in his said letter to mc of the 3rd of July, referred to already. The Governor proceeded to England to support his own decision, and returned to the Colony with your Lordship's despatch in his pocket. He stated to his Council on his return, that he thought it would be " more satis- factory" if he went to the Colonial Offur about it. Your Lordship notifietl me that you had come to the same conclusion as the Governor and Council. I may be permitted now to ask whether }-our Lordship approves and adopts the insults offered me in the Governor's letter of the 3rd July, inform- ing me of their decision. During the Enquiry, and previous thereto, there resided in Nassau the Rev. George O'Keefe, a Roman Catholic priest, apparently a great friend of the Attorney General, as they were continually seen together. He also pro- fessed friendship for me although I was only slightly acquainted with him; he wrote me letters and sought interviews with me, saying sometimes that he was sent by the Governor and Lady Shea ; at other times he said that he came of his own accord. On the 2"th of April he came to ni)' house and told me, among other things, that Lady Shea was my enemy ; that she was a dangerous woman, and that she could do what she liked with the Gov- ernor. . . . .......... I did not think she was an active enemy until I was told so by Mr. O'Keefe. The Reverend gentleman also told me that if I would only withdraw the case against the Attorney General, I could retire on a pension. He said also that the vote of i^200 by the Legislature at that time, and the dinner s^ivcn the Attorney General, was to support him at that crisis, lie also said that Major h^llis, he knew, was the on/f one frictuily to me on the Governor's Council. I have four or five letters from the Reverend gentle- man, which I can produce if allowed the opportunity. I am, your Lordship will see, exposing a conspirac)' to deprive me of office; it has been successful. I show some of the machinery working and some of the parties engaged in it. ........ Previous to the Message of the Governor (which is marked " No. 5," dated 25th February, 1889), the Governor sought and obtained several interviews with me. He told me he would vacate my office if I did not consent to his i6 terms and resign. I declined to consent to anything. The '' Message " referred to is insulting to me, ami, no doubt, was meant to be so. It was sent by tlie Governor to the Legislative Council in charge of Dr. Kemp, instead of being sent to nic as the President of the Council. The Bill founded upon it was introduced in the House of Assembly b}' Air. Taylor, Colonial Secretar)-, on the evening of the 25th of February, read a hrst and second time on the 27th F'.'bruary, and passed in silence — it had been so arranged by the Governor. In the Legislative Council it was rushed through with the same undue haste, the Council being packed with my enemies (the same members of the Executive Council). I had to sign the bill as President, " By order of the Council." The bill is not truthful ; it says in the preamble, " Your Lordship deems it expedient that I be relieved of my duties." I am not aware that your Lordship ever used these words. I believe these offensive terms are put into your mouth by the Governor and the Attorney General, acting in concert. Again, it is untrue that I had expressed my " willingness to retire." I had merely accepted your Lordship's offer of a pension because I considered it was imperative, your having expressed the opinion that " the public interests" required my retirement. I am, however, at a loss to know what "public interests" required my retirement! The " Message" is also libellous, and so is the " Bill" founded upon it. So that, upoii the Bill receiving assent as it did with your approval, and, I presume, upon your advice, it became a permanent insult to me on the Statute Book. I was made take the pension with the insult attached to it, for which I think your Lordship is responsible. By the second section of the Act it was to come into operation on the day it was " published." The Legislative Council sat at eleven o'clock on Monda}', the 3rd of May ; the Act received the assent of the Gover>ior, and it went that day by the mail to England ; but such was the hurry and anxiety of the Governor, antl of those acting with him, to get the Bill into immediate operation that he cabled from New York to tiie Colonial Office to get a hasty assent to the Bill. There is malice apparent throughout in the conduct of the Governor luhile lie was making professions of friendship to me ! On the 6t]i of iMarch, the Governor sends a message to the House, recommending an increase to the salary of my successor, and any future Chief Justice, of £100 a year, "in consequence of the greatly increased responsibilities of the Superior Courts, consequent on the progress of the industrial developments of the Colony, and the larger interests of which the Courts have to take cognizance of." All this is a fiction — there ivcn no " increased responsibilities of the Superior Courts;" but it was thought by the Governor and his party that, having disposed o{ inc, they would do the justice to my successors which they had refused to mc. The Nassau Guardian (no doubt inspired by the Governor and his clique), on the 2(st of May, 1890, in an insolent and libellous article, says: "That the immediate consequence of the liill retiring Mr. Austin was another measure raising the salary to ^1,000." It further sa}'s : "The desir- ability of this increase of salary had been talked about, but while Mr. Austin was in office it would have been useless to propose it." This paper, of course, refused to publish the addresses I received on retiring. There is another matter : the G'^iwcmov interfered \\'\i\\ mc in the per- formance of my duty. On the 7th of December, 1S88, I received a note from the Piivate Secretary of the Governor, requesting me to call upon him. I did so, when he showed me a report and com[jlaint of the Attorney General to the Secretary of State, complaining of my having stopped a portion of his fees in the Admiralty Court. The Governor then told me that " it was a pity to let it go to the Secretary of State, that I had better settle it, that it was a small matter." I told him that 1 could not settle it otherwise than I had done; that Mr. Malcolm, as Advocate General before the Admiralty Court, was not entitled to this fee he c\:i\mc(.\, and had been taking :\nd receiving from the Yic^xiiiYAY without my knoiol edge ; that having found this out, I had stopped it, but 1 oftered to refer the matter to the Admiralty, in London, for decision, and that if Mr. Malcolm was entitled to it, he should continue to receive it. I submitted the case to the Admiralty in London, and the reply was that he was not entitled to this fee. Mr. Malcolm has been taking and receiving this fee from 1883, when the new table of fees was established, uj) to the time of the complaint to the Governor, and 1 think he should be called upon to refiuid them. The amount could easily be established by the Registrar of the Court. I don't know what course your Lordship will adopt to do me justice, although a tardy justice after loss of office. I am entitled to ask that an enquiry be made, and that a Royal Commis- sion be named to enquire into these things ; and that I be afforded an oppoV' tunity of being heard and of producing proofs of what I allege. I ask that i8 I be furnished with a copy of all correspondence and despatches from the Governor Shea to the Colonial Office affecting me, and with a copy of the Report of the Court of Enquiry, and that the Governcr be called upon to produce "the original minutes" of that Court of linquny, and that I be afforded an opportunity of seeing them. I invite your Lordship to read carefully the findings of Major Ellis on that Enquiry, of which I now send a copy ; and to compare those "findings" with the report made by the Governor. To read the evidence of Mr. Gibbs, which was excluded from that En- quiry by the sharp practice of the Governor. I also send a confession of Depaine, now undergoing sentence in Nassau prison for manslaughter (the alleged murderer of Gay), which was sent tome before leaving, with a request that I would con ider his case and afford him relief. I promised him that I would send a copy to your Lordship. This statement confirms the view I took on the trial of the murder, that not only Depaine but all the others zverc coticemed in the murder of Gay, and Major Ellis came to the same conclusion on the Enquiry, as appears by his notes which I submit. I regret the unavoidable length of this communication. I shall print a case founded upon it, and circulate it and give it to the public. ^ TT TV W TV # ^ # # =^ I take the honor to be, Sir, Your Lordship's obedient servant, (Signed), HENRY W. AUSTIN. I send herewith 1. Major Ellis' dissent and notes and " findings " on the Enquiry. 2. Mr. Gibbs' evidence excluded from the Enquiry. 3. Depaine's statement of Confession, 4. Copy of Addresses to me on retirement. 19 FROM THE COLONIAL OFFICE, (Copy) Downing Street. 14th July, 1890. Sir, I am directed by Lord Knutsford to acknovvled " " Have I proved terror for the Court to say what is terror, and if it is necessary to prove it ? " 25 The Court charged the jury on the law and the facts proved, and gave the opinion of the Court on the whole case as presented. 'I'hat an affray was from tiie French ejfrayer, to frighten. That it differed from an assault because it was \ public lorong, and thr.t an assault was of a private nature. That there must be a skirmish or fighting between two or more. That there must be a stroke given or offered, or a weapon drawn, otherwise that it was not an affray. That tiiere had been, no doubt, a serious affray. That there had been strokes given and ofiercd, a weapon had been used. That a man had been killed, it was said, in tiiat affray. I believe I stated my opinion that I thought it had been proved ihat there appeared to be others implicated. I also stated that the witnesses of the Crown, Henry James Thompson. Alexander Thompson and Josiah Kelly, whose evidence the Attorney Gen- eral had spoken of in his address and impugned, appeared to me as worthy of credit in this case as the evidence of Nathaniel Elliott, called for the defence, who had been complimented by the Attorney General. That there had been nothing proved before the Court to shake the evidence of the witnesses of the Crown, or to affect the character of i-heir tes- timony, and that the evidence of the Crown was in the opinion of the Court as reliable as the evidence for the defence. As the jury were leaving the box, the Attorney Gener.il rose with a book in his hand to comment on the charge. I did not hear exactly all he said in the confusion of a crowded audience and jury retiring. I told the Attorney General to be seated, that I could not allow him to comment on the charge, and would not answer questions on the law as I had laid it down. I did not order him rudely to resume his seat. It is my practice not to allow counsel to reply to the charge. It is the general practice of courts in my experience, although it is sometimes attempt- ed by counsel acting under excitement, but it is seldom allowed. The charge of the judge is the finishing of the case, it then goes to the jury. The Attorney General had already addressed the jury three times, I have to keep order. Counsel must submit to the rulings of the Court and practice of the Court cnrsns curia: est lex ciirice. The Attorney Gener.d is an officer of the Court, and must submit to the ruling and practice of the Court as other counsel. The entry in my minutes I give. 26 "The Ationic) General rises lo comment upon the charge. The Court told him that il was not allowed to comment on the charge, or to question the Court on the law as laid down." The jury retired^at a quarter to three o'clock p.m., and came back in ten minutes with their verdict " Not guilty."' Then there was applause and noise and confusion in which the Court adjourned to the following day. I will state that I did not in that charge impute to him neglect of duty. I stated my opinion upon the laiv and the facts proved as I was called upon to do, and as it was my duty to do. I stated my opinion openly, without making imputations. I may also remark here that I considered that the Attorney General conducted the case throughout in a very unusual way. He limited the enquiry. He stated in his opening address (^already referred to, p. 3), "That this was a simple misdemeanor, and that he wished to keep the case separate from the more serious case." He would not allow his own witnesses to give their evidence ; he checked them and confined their evidence, so that they could not tell all they knew, as they were bound by the oath administered to them to do. Charles A. Demicrit, in particular, was not allowed to tell all he knew, I think. The Attorney General, also, in his address to the jury which I have given, seemed to attack his own witnesses, and to wish to discredit them. Such proceeding is against the rule that a party cannot discredit his own witnesses. The Court defended the witnesses for the Crown in the charge. I come now to the second charge — it is introduced in this way in the letter of 2nd instant : " Being thus prevented from making any statement in vindication of the course which 1 had adopted, I took the opportunity, when opening the case of murder (which was tried on the 30/// January), of pointing out to the jury the principles of law which applied to the cases, and cited authorities which guided mj' conduct ip; the proceedings which 1 had taken against the four persons before referred to. One other person connected with the case, a boy, 1 should mention, was a witness at the trial." The Attorney General admits that it was " to vindicate the course he had adopted " that he took advantage of the opportunity, in opening the case of murder, to point out to the jury Xhe principles of law which guided his conduct in formulating the charge he brought against Frank A. Sands, Lewis P. Knowles, Albert Bethel and William Dunshee, for an affray. He was not called upon to "vindicate iiis com'uct," and the occasion 27 did not warrant his taking advantage (as he says) " of vindicating his conduct." His proceedings, his address to the jury at the opening of the murder case (on the 30th of January) were quite irregular, and might have been stopped by the Court. He had said to another jury (on the 17th January) that the '' affray case had nothing to do tvith the murder case'' and an argument in laiv to point out to th.Q Jury in the murder case the principles of laiv which guided him " in framing the information in the affray case " was foreign (strictly speaking) to the murder case, and arguments in law ought always to be addressed to the Court, and not to a jury and the audience in Court, as the argument of the Attorney General in opening the murder case was clearly intended for — he was hitting at the Court. He was allowed to take his own course. He stated at the opening of the cause (I give notes made in the minutes) " That his duty was to decide from the evidence zuhat course he was to take. He owed a duty to society. That lie had to say who was to be tried a?id who was not to be tried." " That he was bound to give it his whole consideration." He cited from Archbold, principals in the 1st degree. "The actor — he said prisoner was the actor; principals in the second degree are the other parties implicated. Principals in the second degree — I say no." Cites Archbold, Roscoe, Russell, cases in point on presence — who present .'' " There must be a confederacy between the parties as to common design ; none here. Reg. v. Keats, in which several parties were indicted and tried for the ..ame murder." " 111 the evidence there was no case against the other parties, I decided." " It was clear ; nothing to show a common felonious design in these other parties." Archbold, 720. " Found the parties ran off were not implicated in this case." Russell a ain, 765 : " What laid down ? (r ;ads) : I found the men did not go out on a felonious purpose in this case." Now for the case itself: He gives definition of murder, then : Charles A. Demerit was the first witness for the Crown [the same witness called for the Crown in the affray case and before the Coroner). After he had been examined hy the Attorney General and cross-examined by Mr. Clutsam for the defence he was examined by the Court ; he then said : ' When I first saw Gay he was with two women in the street. It was a quarter 28 past eight o'clock, the hour that church service came out. St. Matthew's is the nearest church to this place. I did not recognize any of the men. Thty came up, talking loud. " They laid hold of Gay and pulled him about. Gay had done nothing ; his shirt was hanging out when he came to me. It was about twenty minutes on the outside when I left the house. 1 came out and found Gay lying on the abutment. The man was laying above the drain on the Parade — old burying ground. The service was over in St. Matthew's Church. When I got there, I found four persons near Gay, a tall man named Thompson; there were about six there. " I saw people running to the man but I saw none running away. Gay was covered with a sheet. I helpeil carry Gay to the asylum. Kelly was with me when I reached the wounded man, he did not go to the asylum. " I believe I have told all I know about the case. After the crowd accu- mulated about the wounded man I saw a good many men with sticks." Several other witnesses were examined for the Crown. Now I particularly call attention to the evidence of James Henry Thompson. He swore he was down here in December last, he knew Shadrack Gay ; he was down at the same time in another vessel. He remembers a Sunday night Shadrack called to a boat to come ashore. He said, " I am half murdered in Burying Ground Bay above Boxing Bay." I came off, landed at the wall a little below burying ground piece when Gay called to me. I crossed Bay Street when I landed and walked up, then heard Gay cry out. I walked a little swifter. Gay cry, " My lord, come here." I was then near burying ground, found Gay just near Thompson' s house ; he was on the ground, three on top of him, others on either side of him. They had him down, others standing by. I took hold of them. I pulled them off — two — the other got off, two ran round the corner, others went into Thompson's yard, two or three stood outside. One of the men on top of Gay was "Jeff," the prisoner. I pulled him off — two went into one corner, other three went into the yard. Jeff ran inside the fence. I did not see the little boy. I saw Gay was cut up. He had o.ily his pants on. He got up and stood a little bit. I then turned away. Saw Gay and my boy in the street. I saw no one then but our boys. I came away. Had gone a little way when I heard Gay say, " My God, I am cut." I turned back again. Shadrack was then going into the sea, not full tide then ; when I got to Gay he was standing up. I said to him, " Who cut you .'' " and he said, "Jeff cut me." I caught hold of him; his entrails were hanging out then. I sing for assistance. I took off my own shirt and tied up Gay's belly 29 with it ; then we helped him up. He said, " Put me down," he was in such pain. We laid iiim on the abutment. I helped take him to the asylum. I went to look for Jeff. I saw Gay afterwards dead in the asylum. To the Court: It was about a quarter of an hour after I had pulled the men off Gay that I saw him cut. To the Court : The place where I pulled the men off Gay to the place I saw him cut was as far as the Court House to Bay Street. He walked after he was cut. It was a little below the drain I found Gay cut. I was not far from Gay when he cried he was cut. Alexander Thompson and James Moxey confirmed this testimony. One of the bad effects of acquitting the parties in the affray ca.se was to qualify them to appear as witnesses for their companion "Jeff" in the mur- der case. Frank Allen Sands and Albert Bethel were witnesses for defence. They flatly denied all the witnesses for the Crown had sworn to. Nothing else was to be expected ! The Attorney General in his address to the jury in his reply, speaking of the evidence for the defence said that, if the jury believed it, the evidence of the Crown would be of no effect. The case lasted two days, and the evidence is very voluminous; nineteen witnesses were examined. I will now mention what occurred in forming the jury. Nine of the jury who had served on the jury in \.\\q. affray case were called. They were, of course, not challenged by the prisoner, nor were they told to stand aside by the Attorney General, which he should have done ; he sat quiet and said nothing. The Court objected to C. R. Perpall on the ground that he was one of the jury who had tried the affray case. Bosfield, because he had served on the Coroner's Jury. Ernest Macpherson, James Saunders, Theodore Knowles, Robert H. Smith, Samuel J. Smith, George R. George, because they had sat upon the affray case, were ordered to stand aside. When the turn of the Court came to address the jury (iii the charge), it became my duty to ansxver what the Attorney General had said, as he says "to vindicate his conduct," as his remarks were so uncalled for, and were calculated to have a bad effect. I commenced my charge by citing Blackstone on the duties of Grand Jury. That the Grand Jury were always instructed in the articles of their enquiry and their duties by the judge who presided on the Bench at the opening of the Assizes. 30 That they then retired to their room and received the indictments ; that they heard the evidence only of the prosecution ; that the finding of an indictment was in the nature of an enquiry or accusation which was to be afterwards tried and determined by the Petit Jury. That the Grand Jury had only to enquire whether there was sufficient cause to put the party on his trial to see whether there was a prima facie case. That, to find a Bill, at least twelve of the jury must agree. I then told them that the Grand Jury was abolished here in 1848. I referred to the Act Bahama Law I., p. 87, called, " An Act for the better regulation of Trial by Jury." The preamble states that, " whereas the prosecution of criminal offences is attended with great uncertainty from the absence of knowledge on the part of the Grand Juries of the particular facts, etc., etc and the mode of proceeding, etc interfere materially with the administration of criminal justice and tend to facilitate the escape of offenders." For remedy, etc., the proceedings by indictment is abolished. Sec. II. That all examinations, informations, bailments and recognizances, taken by any Justice of the Peace, etc., etc., shall be returned to the office of the Attorney General at Nassau, etc., who shall proceed against and prose- cute the person or persons charged and accused in such examinations or informations, or such of them as the Attorney General may not deem expedient to admit as approvers. Sec. Ill, That every such information as last aforesaid shall be exhibited in open Court by the Attorney General, or some duly authorized counsel, and shall thereupon be fyled ; and the trial of every such information shall proceed in the same manner as by indictment, etc. I read the statute. I then pointed out that the grand distinction between the proceeding by indictment and an information was that an indictment was an accusation founded on the oaths of a Grand Jury, whereas an information was merely the allegation of the officer who exhibits it. I said that I preferred the pro- ceedings before a Grand Jury as much safer, particularly as an Attorney General might fyle his information against any one as he might choose, and proceed on it without asking leave of the Court, and might not proceed in a case if he so thought fit. I then said that it appeared to me that the Attorney General, under our local lazv, stood exactly in the place of the Grand Jury, and that his duties 3' were similar, only, instead of preparing an indictment, there was to be an information. That his duty was, if he found that there was a prima facie case made out or presented and brought under his notice in the depositions taken before the Magistrate or Coroner, to fyle an information and to inform the Court of it, and to bring it under the notice of the Court, sitting the Court. That he was not bound by the description or title of the offence given by the Ma istrate — that the Magistrate might call the offence what he liked ; it was for the Attorney General lo formulate the charge upon the depositions sent to him by the Magistrate, and not to rely upon the Magistrate's pro- ceedings. I then referred to the depositions and proceedings before the Coronen and the findings. The opinion which that jury expressed upon the culpable conduct of Frank Allen Sands, Albert Bethel, Lewis Knowles, William Dunshee, and George Henry Lee. The depositions and proceedings before the Magistrate in December, 1888 (13th and 14th December), endorsed "Murder." To the depositions and proceedings before the Magistrate, i8th December, 1888, "creating an affray," all of which I now furnish copies. 1 told the jury that these three Records had reference to one event which occurred here on Sunday, the 9th of December; to tlie same facts told by the same witnesses. That it was clear that it was one case ; that it ought not to have keen divided or presented in different forms. That the Attorney General had all these depositions and proceedings before him zuhcn he formulated his informations for the Term. That he was in the place of the Grand Jury, and that if he saw there was a prima facie case exhibited bj' these depositions and proceedings, his duty was to charge the accused. That he was not to usurp the functions of the Petit Jury and try and dispose of the cases in his office. That there w^as a prima facie case presented against all the parties, Frank A. Sands, Albert Bethel, Lewis P. Knowles, William Dunshee, George Henry Lee, and William Henry Lewis Depaine. That the Court was now more convinced than ever that there was a case against them all. That they should have been charged and arraigned for the murder of Shadrack Gay., or for manslaughter. That such was my opinion. I regretted that I could not view the case as the Attorney General appears to have done. 32 I was again interrupted by the Attorney General. The Court told him that it could not be allowed, that he must remain seated. The Court then referred briefly to the law of principals in the first and second de^jree, quotinjr standard authorities in answer to the law quoted by the learned Attorney General to the jury at the opcnine:; of the case. The Court said that principals in tlie second degree are those who are present aiding and abetting at the commission of the fact. That it was not necessary that the party or parties should be actually present an ear or eye witness of the transaction. He is (or they are), in con- struction of law, present aiding and abetting if, with the intention of giving assistance, he or they be near enough to give assistance if the occasion arise. Now the Court said there was proof that all these parties referred to the depositions, or most of them were in this position. The Court then said that there must be participation in the act — that that they had done so, and that they had acted in concert. That it was not for a Grand Jury to decide whether there had been a "•felonious participation,'' that that was a question for the judge when the case came before the Petit Jury — Case R. v. Moore, i Leach 314. "If two persons driving carriages incite each other to drive furiously^ and one of them run over and kill a man, it is manslaughter in both." Reg. V. Swindall, 2 C. & K. 230. "If two persons encourage another to commit suicide, and be present abetting him while he does so, such person is guilty of murder as principal; and if two persons encourage each other to self-murder, and one kills himself but the other fails in the attempt, the latter is a principal in the murder.'' Again, " if a master assault another with malice prepense, and a servant ignorant of his master's design take a part with him and kill the other, it is man- slaughter in the servant and murder in the master." i Hale 446. In a late case, Patterson J. : '* That all persons j)reseut at a prize fightf having gone thither with the purpose of seeing the prize fighters strike each other, were principals in the breach of the peace." Reg. v. Perkins, 4 C. & P- 537- Aiders and abettors were formerly defined to be accessories at the fact, but this doctrine is exploded, and it is now settled that all those who are Present aiding and abetting when a felony is committed are principals in the second degree, and may be arraigned and tried before the principal in the first degree is found guilty. 2 Hale 223. And may be convicted though the party charged as principal in the first degree is acquitted. R. v. Taylor, Leach 360. 33 I did not tell the jury that all these parties would be convicted, but I said that in my firm opinion there was a strong prima facie case against them, and that they should have been arraigned and put upon their trial before a Petit Jury for murder or manslaughter. The Attorney General seems to make a point in his letter that he had a "discretion " to exercise, I don't think so; if so, it was divoise discretion, a legal discretion, he should have exercised — a sort of judicial discretion. Lord Mansfield said that this discretion meant "a discretion guided by law." It must be governed by rules, not by humours; it must not be arbitrary, vague and fanciful, but equal and regular. I now pass to the third accusation, that I had before mc for . ue time previous to the trial all the depositions and the calendar, etc. The depositions before the magistrate in a bundle were sent to me to make extracts from before the Term for m\- private use at the trials. The coroners in question I never saw until I sent after them recently. The practice here to save the Attorney General trouble in making office copies is to send the depositions for the Term to the Judge. It is not the right practice, but I found it here and I have allowed it to continue. I did not permit or give permission to the Attorney General to formu- late his informations as he has done, it was no part of my duty and I was not consulted ; it was not the duty of the Attorney General to consult me. I was aware of our local law 15 Vic. c. 3, sec. IX, which provides that if upon the trial of any person for a misdemeanor it shall appear that the facts given in evidence amount in law to felony, that the Court has the discretionary power to discharge the jury and to direct that such person be prosecuted for felony. Upon the trial of the affray it did not at that time appear to me from \\\c facts given in evidence that they amounted to a felony. The facts (all X\\g facts as they were before the Attorney General and in his knowledge) did not come out on that trial of the affray, simply because they had been suppressed and not allowed to come out. I would therefore not have been justified in the exercise of the discretion which the local law gave me of ordering the parties to be tried for felony. I was not then in possession of all the facts as they were known to the Attorney General, and as I knezv them after the murder case. I had not an arbitrary discretion to exercise, but a discretion guided by law. , After the verdict in the murder case the Attorney General again rose in Court and referred me to this section of our local law, which he might have done previously on the aft'ray trial. 34 He may have formulated the informations of the term with a perfect knowledge of our local law (it is presumed he did so), and therefore knew what would be the effect of an acquittal of the parties in the affray case. I think I have now answered all the charges of the Attorney General. I have no desire \.o fornitUate charges against him. I simply state what took place, leaving him to draw his own conclusions. These cases have caused considerable excitement here, and continue to disturb society. The race prejudice has been roused, the parties implicated in the case being what are called white, and the murdered man ht'xw^di black man. No doubt there has been a grave miscarriage of justice, and I am glad of the opportunity of laying the case before your Excellency. I have the honor, etc., H. W. AUSTIN, Chief Justice. In support of this statement a. Proceedings before coroner. b. Depositions before magistrate in the murder case. c. Depositions before magistrate in the affray case. GOVERNMENT HOUSE, NASSAU. lOth February, 1889. Sir, With reference to your Honor's communication of the 5th inst., received hereon the nth inst., I am directed by His Excellency the Governor to inform you that he has given full consideration to the statements it contains which embody such grave charges against the Attorney General ; that His Excellency feel it necessary to request that you will formulate the case which seems to you to justify the imputations you have mad 3, in order that it may be transmitted for the consideration of the Right Honorable the Secretary of State for the Colonies in a more concise and intelligible shape. Your obedient servant, (Signed), J. GURDON, Priv. Secy. 35 Nassau, i6th February, I889. Sir, I have the honor to acknowled^je the receipt of your letter of this date, informing me that His Excellency the Governor requests me to formulate a case in a more " concise and intelligible form " against the Attorney General which seems to me to "justify " the " imputations " I have made, in order that it may be transmitted for the consideration of the Right Honorable the Secre- tary of State. In reply you will do me the favor to inform His Excellency the Gover- nor that the statement I had the honor to send in on the nth instant was the only statement I could furnish when requested by your letter of the 5th inst. to make one, and was not a voluntary one. What occurred in Court in my charge to jury in the cases in question I have given as well as I can from memory and from my minutes. If my addresses to the jury, in presenting to them the law and my opinion on the facts proved on those trials, are to be taken as " imputations " against the Attorney General in the opinion of His Excellency the Governor, I may regret it, but what I said then and there in Court was said in the. per- formance of my duty, as I understood it, and was unavoidable. I am sorry that I cannot well, with proper consideration for myself and Wi^ position in which I was acting, state what occurred in a mote concise and intelligible shape. I have already made it as concise as possible ; in fact, to put the matter perhaps more plainly before His Excellency would necessitate a transcript of the whole of the minutes of the Court, which time would not allow at the date I was called upon for the statement I have furnished. I have already stated that I had no desire to formulate charges against the Attorney General. I made, and make no imputations unless it is con- sidered that they appear in the charges to the juries in those cases referred to which I have given. Should His Excellency decide to place the matter before the Secretary of State for the Colonies, I would much prefer it, in jus- tice to myself, that the whole transcript of the minutes and proceedings in the Court in both trials (the afifray and the murder cases) be also sent. I have the honor, etc.. To J. GuRDON, H. W. AUSTIN, Private Secretary. Chief Justice. 36 Memo: — I asked the Governor \.o furnish me with the answer of the Attorney General to my statement, but he declined doing so, saying it was a general answer. As I was the accused, I had a right to see the answer, and to judge whether*it was a gmeral answer. Mr. Malcolm's letter to the Governor he never attempted to prove. The proceedings in our Courts were not reported in our small newspapers, the only report of the murder trial, referred to by the Attorney General, appeared in The Freeman, February 5th, which I give. Nassau, Tuesday, F"ebruary 5th, 1889. QUEEN vs. DKPAINE. MURDER. "In his charge to the Jury, the Chief Justice explained that since the abolition of the Grand Jury of the Colony in 1848, the duties of that body devolved upon the Attorney General, and he asserted that the law officer of the Crown had in his possession sufficient evidence showing a prima facie case against the men tried for the affray as accessories, and that they should have been brought to trial with the prisoner charged now with murder — as principals in the second degree. The jury brought in a verdict of man- slaughter. (The letters of 16th, 22nd and 26th of April, 1889, about the withdrawal of the allegations to suppression of evidence, referred to in the letter of nth June, 1890, to Lord Knutsford, should be read here to avoid repetition.) Special Act passed by Legislature on demand of Governor, received his assent 9th of May, under which I was summoned on the nth May, 1889. 52 Vic, Cap. 7. AN ACT Authorizing the Administering of Oaths in certain Cases. (Assented to 9th May, 1889.) MAY it please the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty that it may be enacted and be it enacted by His Excellency Sir Ambrose Shea, Knight Commander of the Most Distinguished Order of Saint Michael and Saint George, Governor and Commander-in-Chief in and over the Bahama Islands the Legislative Council and Assembly of the said Islands, and it is hereby enacted and ordained by the authority of the same as follows ; I. In any inquiry held or made before the Executive Council of these Islands the Governor by order in Council may order and direct that the 37 evidence and statements adduced and brought foruard on such intjuiry shall be given and taken on oath and the Clerk of the said Council shall have power and authority to administer all oaths required to be administered on any such inquiry. II. All pcrsonu wilfully deposing or affirming falsel)' in an inquiry be- fore the E.xecutive Council of these islands shall be deemed guilty of perjury and shall be liable to all the pains and penalties attached thereto. III. When an order has been made under the first section of this Act it shall be lanful for the said Council to cause Siiininonscs to be issued uiuler the hand of the Clerk of the Council rec[uiring the atteiulance of any person before the said Council at a time and place to be specilied in such summonsi to give evidence upon oath of the truth of any facts appertaining to such in- quiry or any other matter touching or relating thereto, I\'. Every person so summoned who shall neglect or refuse to appear according to the exigency thereof, or, who having so appe.ired shall refuse to take th(? oath, or shall refuse to give evidence, or to answer according to the best of his knowledge and belief any question when thereto required shall for every such default or offence be liable to be imprisoned for any period not exceeding Twenty days. V. The Clerk of the said Council when so directed by the Council shall hve power to issue a warrant for the commitment to the Nassau Prison for the period mentioned in the preceding Section, of any i)erson neglecting or refusing to attend when summone 1 under this Act, or havini:^ attended refus- ing to answer an>' question when thereto required. VI. Such w.irrant shall be e.vcecuted by any lawful constable of these Islan>-ls in the s.ime manner as warrants issued by any Magistrate or Justice of the Peace are now executed by such. SUMMONS UNDER ACT 52 VIC, C. 7. To His Honor Henry William Austin, Chief Justice: — Take notice, that the said Attorney General has been cited to appear before His Excellency the Governor-in-Council, at Government House, in the City of Nassau, on Thursday, the i6th of May, A.D. 1889, at ten o'clock in the forenoon, to answer to the charge herein ; and that you are hereby required to attend at the time and place aforesaid, and then and there to 3a substantiate the truth of the said charge against the said Attorney General, and to adduce such facts in support thereof as you may be possessed of, (Signed,) J. GURDON, Clerk of Council. I was summoned under the above Act (liable, I presume, to all the pains and penalties) altiiough I was President of the Legislative Council, and the Legislature then sitting. The Act was ruslied through the Legislature, no copies printed being issued, as was usual ; it received the assent of tiie Governor on the 9th May> was signed by inc as Vrcsidcnt of the Council, and, on the nth May, I was served by a policeman in nniforni, loith his hat on, in the Judge s Chambers, in the Court House, with the foregoing summons — the policeman exhibiting to me the original of said summons, I conclude to enable the Governor and Council to have a return of service, so as to proceed against me rigorously should I neglect to appear, as provided by said Act, sec. 4. I now give the summons, or subpoena, for the witnesses under this Act : " To Samuel J. Bosfield, Ernest W. MclMierson, and Charles A. Demerit : — " You are commanded that all business being laid aside, and all excuses, you, and every of you, appear in your proper persons before His Excellency the Governor-in Council, at Government House, on Friday, the seventeenth day of May, instant, at ten o'clock in the forenoon, to testify the truth, according to your knowledge, in an Enquiry now pending before His Excel- lency the Governor-in-Council, into a charge preferred by the said Chief Justice against the said Attorney General of suppressing evidence within his knowledge at the trial of Frank Allen Sands, and others, on a charge of affray in the General Court, Hilary Term, 1889, and this you, or any of you, shall by no means omit, under penalty of imprisonment. "Witness His Excellency, *' Signed and Sealed. " [L.S.] "J. GURDON, " Clerk of Council." Fortunately, there were no commitments under this Act, although many witnesses were deprived of their personal liberty during this enquiry. I was kept for many days a prisoner, I may say, by this Court of Enquiry, at great inconvenience, away from public duties, deprived of my 39 personal liberty. The whole thing was an oppression and trespass upon Her Majesty's subjects in my opinion. The Freeman, the only independent newspaper in the Colony, seemed to grasp the position, and to see the dan^^T and oppression of such an Act. It sounded the alarm. The other two papers, the Nassau Guardian and Nassau Times, preserved an ominous silence. The Nassau Guardian is the Government organ, Official Gazette. The Freeman, Tuesday evening, May 7, 1889. " Is IT TO 15E A Star Chamber? " A dubious looking measure passed the Lower Branch of the Legis- lature last week, which, from the peculiar circumstances surrounding its introduction in the House, and the seciccy and haste of its passage, would seem to indicate that it is one of singular importance to, at least, the Government. " The measure provides for investing the Governor-in-Council with the power to administer oaths to persons giving evidence under certain circum- stances before the Council, such persons thus becoming amenable to all the pains and penalties attached to an oath taken before a Court of Justice ; also to compel persons to give such evidence with power to summarily inflict punishment by imprisonment for refusal to comply. The Bill was intro- duced by the Colonial Secretary, without previous notice, on Wednesday night ; it passed its second reading and committal on Thursday night without apparently eliciting the slightest attention on the part of the members, who had no printed copies of the Bill, and went through its final course on Friday night — thus making its uninterrupted introduction and passage in three con- secutive sittings of the House. - " Obviously there is some reason why such powers are not given in Her Majesty's Commission appointing Her Representative and Delegate to the Government of the Colony; and knowing the temper of the Oligarchy who control the machine here, we deem it a matter to cause a little apprehension to the people when such powers are surreptitiously conferred by the Legis- lature upon Her Majesty's Representative and an irresponsible Council. " What is it for / Have we not a Court of Justice, with all the stafif and paraphernalia of a Court of Appeal, beside a Judge of Common Pleas, two Stipendiary and Circuit Magistrates and a host of Justices of the Peace and Out-island Justices ? Is it for some great State trial for which our present Courts are not competent ? If there is any question so complex and important as to be above trial by our present Courts, by all means let us have a RoYAL 40 Commission. It is our opinion that in the present networked state of affairs a Royal Commission to investigate certain little matters on the spot would do heaps of good for the Colony." I looked upon this Act, 52 Vic, C 7, as unconstitutional, a usurpation of power by the Governor and Council. The Act, no doubt, was drafted and prepared by the Attorney General (Malcolm), the legal adviser of the Gov- ernor and Speaker of the Legislative Assembly. The Act created a Court with powers equal to and beyond those of Queen's Bench. It created a new offence. The Act has only to be read to see the extraordinary powers conferred liy it upon the Executive Council — oppressive and against the liberty of the subject, a Council eonducted by the Governor. The Governor seeks and obtains powers from the Legislature (of which he was the head and the enacii'ig power) which were not conferred upon him by his commission, for the purpose of trying a question which had arisen in the highest Court of the Colony (a question of law and procedure), between the Chief Justice of the Colony and the Attorney General (a wrw/Z'^'r of his Council), the Chief Justice being l*resident of the Legislative Council. This Act was subsequently alloived to stand by Lord Knutsford or Her Majesty's advisers, and is to be found in the Statute Book of the Colony. It ought to have been disallozved in my opinion, although it had served its purpose, as it was assented to on the 9th May, and put into operation on the iith of May, by serving the summons upon me. Copy of letter from The Rev. Father George O'Keefe: Nassau, Monday Kvening, February n, 1889. My Dear Chief Justice, You are already aware that I know something of the controversy be- tween you and the Attorney General. To be plain with you I know that he has written to the Governor deinanditig that he, the Governor, bring the matter in dispute between yon to the attention of the Secretary of State for the Colonies, I, of course, do not, and cannot enter into the merits of the case between you, but I beg you to believe that you have my sincere sympathy and un- bounded respect. I hope then that you will not consitier me impertinent if I say to you that I should be sorry to have this matter gc home to the Colonial Office at the present time, or during the present admii.istration. I see but one way to prevent this, and that way is the following : — 4> I would respectfully su^^gest, sir, tliat you answer tlie Governor's com- munication by saying that you regret there shouki be any disagreement between you and the Attorney General ; that there may liave been faults on both sides ; that j'ou are willing to submit the matter in dispute to the arbi- tration of tlie Governor, and that you will abide by any decision the Gov- ernor may come to in this matter. Such action on your part would throw the whole responsibility on Sir Anibrcjse Shea, and I am confident he will be equal to it. If m\' suggestion (made through sincerest friendship and esteem for you) meet with your approval, I think there is still time to act on it. With your permission I shall wait on your Honor to-morrow morning about 9.30, and we will discuss the matter. T hope it may meet with approval, as I am confie ?nt no real interest will sutler by dclax'ing the appeal to the Secretary of State qui Icutc fcstinal in into cuiibulat, ct qui in tuto ambiilat longitm iter f licit, I would wish the contents of this letter (which is written entirely on my own responsibilit}-) be kept secret between you and me. Your most obedient servant, (Signed), GEORGE O'KEl-LFK. To His Honor 'II It Chief Jistick. (Memo, on the envelope of the letter : "I met him anil the ^Vttorney General driving together on the da>' he wrote the letter — the date.) He came to my house the next morning. He said he had come about the difficulty between me and .Mr. Malcolm ; that the Governor and his wife had been to him about it at his house, and asked him to see me. I told him that I must answer the charges the Attorney Creneral liad made against me in his letter to the Governor, and that it would be for the Governor to decide. Wednesday, 1 2th Feb. Mv Dkar Chikk Justick : I have received your note, though in it you are very considerate of me. I gather from it that I have unduly interfered in matters which did not con- cern me. I am very sorr)', and beg you still to believe that I was influenced by the kindest motives towards j'our Honor. 42 Thanking you for being so patient with me, I remain, sir, Your Honor's obedient servant, (Signed), GEORGE O'KEEFE. Saturday, April 27th, 1889. My Dear Chief Justice: I am anxious to have a conversation with your Honor alone. I am not instigated to this by anyone, but I have learned something which I think you ought to know. On hearing it, you, yourself, will be the best judge of its value. If it were not for }our position, I would ask you to do me the honor to come to my house any time in the evening after half- past seven o'clock. As I can hardly ask the Chief Justice to do that, I ask you to do me the honor of receiving me sometime this evening or to-morrow. Your Honor's obedient servant, (Signed), GEORGE O'KEEFE. (memo, on envelope of letter made by me the moment he left.) " O'Keefe called at my residence at eight o'clock, and remained talking violently till half-past nine o'clock. "The only proposition seemed to be that I withdraw my statement to the Governor of Malcolm's proceedings. " I listened ; he told me that he came of his own accord. '•That he knew that if I would resign I could do so on £sSO 'i >'ear. " He told me also that the only one on the Governor's Council who was at all friendly to me was Major Ellis. He said he was intimate with the Major. He said he knew Lady Shea was my enemy, but that he thought at one time that the Governor was my friend, but that he did not think so now. He said Lady Shea was a dangerous wonian ; that she had done much to injure him ; that she could do what she liked with the Governor." I wrote to him on the following morning. Sunday Morning, 28th April. Sir: I made some notes of what you told me last evening at the interview you sought and obtained. 43 I am more convinced than i was before that there is a conspiracy going on here to ruin or crush me, or to expel me for the purpose of screening Mr. Malcohn, or to elevate him. He is yoitr friend, as you informed me last night ; I must be allowed to tell you that when the time comes for me to defend myself, I shall be compelled to call upon you to tell all you l- what you say took jilace last evening at my residence. I caution \'ou. 1 den)' what you say — it is false. There were others in mj- house who, fortunately for me, heard what took place between us. You were watched and suspected ! 1 must leave you in the enjoyment of your wicked designs, so much in character with y(-)ur sacred office- T am prepared to face }'ou, whenever you like to give uk; an opportunity, before His Excellency. Your obedient servant, HENRY W. AUSTIN. To Rev. Georce O'Keefe. " ox T(^P OF A VOLCANO." A letter from Mr. Camplejohn, Judge of the Court of Common Pleas and the Coroner for the Islands, who held the inquest on the murdered man Gay. He was examined as a witness on the Enquiry before the Governor and Council ; a great friend of Attorney Geneial Malcolm. Thursday, i8th April, iSSg. Dear Chief, Since seeing you yesterday, I have reason to ask you to act wisely in this matter of the Attorney General, and think over whether it would not be advisable to withdraw your charge against him " with suppressing most important evidence." 45 No more serious charge could belaid against any man. Can you prove it ? If you cannot you will in all probability be asked to resign. Vou are on tlie top of a volcano. If you are sick and disgusted with the whole affair, and wish to retire, ask for a pension and I have good reason to know that )'ou will get a good one. Talk the matter over with Mrs. Austin. If you withtlraw the charges j'ou can easily state some reason, that you did it impulsively, etc, I am writing )-ou solely in your interest, and with the most sincere feelings of friendship u hich I have alwa)'s entertained towards you. Belie\'e me faithfull}' yours, CAMTLEJOHN. MINL'TKS AM) EVIDKNXE HEFORE COURT OF EXi^)UIRV. Government House. Nassau, i6th May, 1889. Fac-Siinilc of the Minutes of the Court of Enquiry, kept by Major I'^Ilis, a member of the Court of Enquir}-. The Chief Justice calls witnesses. ist. Eihi'ard Duncovibcduly sxvoru by Clerk of Council : I am Clerk of the Crown and Custodian of the Records, and Registrar of the General Court of the Bahamas. I ani an attorney of that Court and a native of these Islands. The Chief Justice is the sole judge of that Court. I produce three registers of that Court: The General Court, Criminal Jurisdiction, Hilar}- Term, 1889. Minute Book. Eirst two books kept b}' me. I prepared the third book, which was commenced 2nd Oct., 1888 ; it contains the minutes of the Chief Justice in his handwriting. I produce the Coroner's inquisition in case of the death of Shadrack (ia_\ , opened on loth December, i888. (The Governor here iutcrritpts the Chief Justice to find fault it'ifh the course he is adopting.) The Coroner is E, G. Camplejohn, Esq. The Inquisition was fyled nth December, 1888 The following witnesses were examined by him : Charles Allen Eemeritt, Ida Stevens, Euphemia Jane Eernandez, Alexander Thomp- son, James Henrj' Thomp.-ion, James Moxey, George H. Lee, W. Robinson, M.D., Doctor Holmes. V^erdict was against Henry Louis Depaine for Wilful Murder. 46 On returning the verdict the jury requested the " Coroner to place on *' record their censure of the culpable conduct and proceedings of Frank Allen " Sands, Albert Bethel, Louis Knoivlcs, William Dunshee and George Henry Lee, " ivho, from th<: evidence, although not criminally are yet morally guilty, being " accessories before the fact of the final issue, the murder of Gay." The jury viewed their conduct as being disgraceful in the extreme. — Signed by Coroner. The day after filing Inquisition, I delivered it to the Attortiey General. I afterwards got it from the Attorney General and gave it to the Chief Magis- trate Thompson. The Attorney General returned it to me after the trial of the murder case on January 2<^th or 30///. Inquisition produced and fyled. Early in February I remember making a copy of draft of statement. (The Governor again interrupts the Chief Justice, saying those papers were not disputed.) Chief Justice says the papers were referred to by the Attorney General, he had them in his possession one month, and ivas acquainted ivith their contents' Witness continued : I produce depositions of witnesses taken at the Police Office, before T. A. Thompson, Esq. (fyled as P), endorsed "Nassau, N. P., 18th Dec, 1888," the witnesses examined by Mr. Thompson : Charles A. Demeritt, Ida Stevens, George Lee, James Henry Thompson, Alex- Thompson. Mr. Thomp- son has now left the Colony. I don't know where he has gone. These depositions were filed by me on the 17th January, 1889, after the trial of the affray case. I received them from the Attorney General. The depositions are in Mr. Thompson's handwriting. 1 produce depositions in Police Court, Reg. v. William Henry Louis Depaine, in handwriting of Mr. Thompson, Magistrate, signed by him, taken on 13th and 14th Dec, 1888. The witnesses were Charles Demeritt, Ida Stevens, Geo. Lee, Alex. Thompson, James Henry Thompson, William Kelly, George Colebrook, James Moxey, Euphemia Jane Fernandez, Albert (or Alfred) Kelly, James Williams, Robert Kelly, Nathaniel Elliott, W. Robin- son, M.D., Dr. Holmes, M.R.C.S.E. I presume the Magistrate delivered these depositions to the Attorney General. (The Attorney General acknowledges having receive;d them.) The Attorney General handed them to me on January 30, 1889. I fyled them. I made a copy of them, and then were sent to His Excellency the Governor on February 5th. I also produce deposition of Shadrack Gay made before the Police Magistrate, filed Dec. 10, 1888 ; it was given to me the day after it saw taken. 47 I gave it to the Coroner, and on its return from him I gave it to the Police Magistrate. I produce an Information in the General Court, 1889, The Queen v. William Henry Louis Depaine, for murder ; it was No. i in that Court. It was fyled by me in open court, on the 15th January, 1889. on the motion of the Attorney General. It is in the handwriting of the Attorney General, and is signed by him. This was an Information informing the Chief Justice that Depaine, on the lOth December, 1888, did murder and (Governor again interrupts and finds Jault ivith the procedure.) (The Chief Justice explains that his object is to show that nearly the same witnesses were examined in two cases.) Witness continues : The witnesses for the Crown were Charles A. Demeritt, Ida Stevens, Euphemia Jane Fernandez, Geo. Lee, Alex. Thompson, James Henry Thomp- son, William Kelly, Geo. Colebrook, James Moxey, Albert Robert Kelly, Nath. Elliott, W. Robinson, M.D., F.A. Holmes, M.D. Seventeen witnesses were examined. There were three witnesses for defence, Frank Allen Sands, Albert Bethel, Nathaniel Elliott. The trial took place on the 29th and 30th January, 1889. He was tried for murder, and a verdict of manslaughter was returned. I produce certified copies of said Information made by me. The murder is charged in Information No. i to have occurred on Dec* 10th, 1888. The affray (Information No. 2) to have occurred on the 9th December, 1888. I produce paper marked Criminal Calendar, Hilary Term, 1889, in handwriting of Attorney General. (The Governor again interrupts Chief Justice and complains of the pro- cedure.) The Calendar was prepared by Attorney General. The murder case is No. I, the affray case No. 2. (Exhibits handed in.) I produce the minutes of the Court opened on 13th January, 1889. I shew nformation fyled. A motion was made by Mr. Clutsam, attorney for defence, that the murder case be postponed for a week, which was granted. No. 2 information was tried before No. i. The affray case was tried on 17th. The jury in that case were Samuel C Smith, P^'dward L. Bode, Robert Henry Smith, James Beecham Saunders, George R. George, Ernest R. T. 48 Macpherson, George U. Higgs, H. Theodore Knowles, Charles M. Mather, Albert North, Charles Perpall, Joseph Cambridge. The witnesses for the Crown sworn by me were C A. Dcmcritt, Robert Kelly, Ida Stevens, K. J. r\'rnandex (lO in all). The witnesses for defence were George Lee, Anthony Roberts, Na- thaniel Elliott. Mr. Clutsam defended. The Attorney General opened the case for the Crown. He made three addresses to the jury. One opening, one after closing his evidence, and one in reply. The jury retired and deliberated about eight or ten minutes. — Verdict, " Not Guilty." The C-ourt wa.s packed with spectators, and there was much api)lause. The murder case, Information No- i, was tried on the 29th, it having been set down for the 22nd January. The jury were : (The names given.) The names of the witnesses, seventeen examined for Crown, and two for defence, Frank Allen Sands and Albert Bethel, both had been defendants in the afl'ray case. The verdict Manslaughter. The Attorney General conducted the case for Crotvn and made three addresses — opening, closing case, and in reply. Mr. Clutsam defended. Nathaniel Elliot t^ a zvitncss for the defence in affray case, was examined for the Croivn in murder case. The prisoner Depaine wassentenced on 5th February. The Chief Justice said he did not approve the verdict, that it was contrary to the evidence and the directions of the Court. I produce the 7;//; amine me. I swore in the General Court that the crowd attacked Gay in front of my mother's house. I also swore that Gay came to the t;atc and spoke to me about three minutes after the crowd had left. I also swore that Gay and the females went to the eastward, and that I followed them a few minutes after. I swore that I heard the sound of breaking of limbs of trees, and I turtlier swore that when I reached the spot where Gay was,T found him wounded ; that spot was just above Eastern Parade. That is all I know about the case, and 1 swore that in the General Court. Exiunined by the Council: — Two days after the evidence in the Police Court I was ofTered a bribe. Tom Sands called out, " You white son of a bitch, if you give evidence against my brother, you will have your guts cut out." W. R. Kemp heard this ; he also told me not to go eastward as my life had been threatened by one of the Sands. The elder brother Sands said he would do anything for me he could. Tom Sands threatened me as I was leaving the Police Court. 55 (Note. — Tin's fvidcncc was not entered in the minutes of the proceedings by the Clerk of the Council by direction of tlie Governor, the former evi- dence in the examination in chief havinii been omitted.) I'Mfth witness, 1]. W. T. McPherson, jwt'r;/ .■ — My name is l-jiiest Walter Taylor McPherson : I was on the jury panel in January last, Hilary Term. I was drawn on a jury on the 17th January for trial of I'rank Allen Sands and others. The Chief Justice was on the Bench, the Attorney General prosecuted for Crown, Mr. Clutsam defended. The Attorney General opened case for the Crown, addressed the jury. I was on the front row, close to him. I recollect Charles Mather. Charles Perpall, foreman ; Theodore Knowles, L. Saunders, Samuel Smith Cambridge, were on that jury. IV/ie/i the Attorney General addressed us he said zve mere to have nothing to do with the mnrder case. 1 believe he said that the ^iixAy ivas not a serious or a heinous case. I think his ivords were that the affray ivas not a very serious character . He said it was ^z// ^i^;^//, fighting in the street, or iiigh- way. He said it was an affray, BUT not of a serious character. He said five or six men set upon another mm and beat him near the Eastern Parade, near Boxing Bay. He said that after the beating they ran away. He said there was an aftVay committed, but not of a serious nature. He said some- thing more happ ned aftcrivards with which zve had nothing to do. He said the two cases were separate and distinct ; that all zae had to settle was the affray case, and that the murder ive had nothing to do xvith. I think he said the murder would be tried by another jury. The first witness was Charles A. Demeritt ; he was examined by Attorney General. Once or twice I think the Attorney General told him to be careful what he was saying. When the witness began to make a long talk or rigmarole of it, the Attorney General checked him. He told him to confine his evidence to tlic affray and what he saiv take place. Mr. Clutsam for defence addressed them twice. The Attorney General also addressed them twice. I think the address of Attorney General and Mr. Clutsam differed in some points. One w.is as to the distance to which the sounds anu eric were heard. I think Demerett was examined by Mr. Clutsam. I heard the speech of Attorney General in reply to the case for the defence. I cannot remember the words. I do not remember him find- ing fault zvith his own ivitv^sses ; hut I recollect him praising Nathaniel Elliott, a ivitness for the defence, saying that his evidence luas plain and straight f or ivard, and that he kneiv him to be a respectable man. The At- torney General said he left the case to the jury as to whether they believed 56 the evidence of the Crown or that for the defence. He said that if Natlianiel Elliott spoke the truth, then the iK.n1ncsses for the C^'own must have committed perjury. At tlu-saiiie time he said that he thought Nathaniel iilliott's evidence very clear and plain evidence. I am a native of Nassau, and I know most people well. 1 know J. B. Saunders, one of the jury on the affra)' case. I cannot say if he is related to Frank Allen Sands, but I have always IumkI it. J believe he is a cousin. I have always heard it so. I know he has al\\a\'s been in the employ of Sands Brothers. He was so at the time of the trial, and is so now. I do not know if lie is related to the defendant Knowles. I have never heard so. I know Theodore Knowles. I do not know whether he is related to defendant Knowles. The jury pjave a verdict in the affray case. We deliberated about twenty minutes to the best of mv recolKction. The defendants were acquitted. There was a great crowd in the court and outside. I was in the General Court when the murder case was called. My name was called as a juror. I was told by the Court to stand aside, because I had tried the aft'ray case. All who had sat upon the affray were told to stand aside. Perpall, the foreman, married a Miss Kemp. I^ank A. Sands married a Miss Farritigton, daughter of William Farrington. I tio not know if they are related. I do not not know whether Nathaniel Elliott, a witness for the defence, is a relative of William Dunshee, a defendant in affray ca. e. Cross-c.\amined by Attorney General. The witness Demeritt did not answer your question in tlie manner you wanted. What I meant by " rigmarole " was that he made a long story when you wanted a direct answer. Yoit said that the affray case was not very serious, but that a serious case would come after. / must say that you lid us to believe that Elliott's evidence was good evidence, and if ive placed confidence in it zee must reject the evidence of the Crown. You said that Elliott icas not connected tvith any one in the case. The jury believed Elliot fs evidence that caused the defendants to beacqu itted. We came to a verdict on Elliott's evidence- The occasion was not the only one I have seen the Court crowded, but that time it was very much crowded. Examined by Mr. Brown, one of Council, The Attorney General's charge was that there had been an affray com- mitted, but not a very serious one ; I mean that before that I thought it was a serious matter, as one of the persons concerned in the affray had committed a murder. By the separation of the affray from the murder c.-i.^c, the former became the more serious. 57 Examined by Colonial Secretary. Nathaniel Elliott appeared to the jury to be a reliable witness. Examined by Major Ellis. / tliiiik the jtiry zvere influenced by tlie statement made by Attorney Geictal that Elliott's evid'-nce zvas good evidence. Examined by the Governor. The Jury believed Elliott's evidence because it was given in a straight- forward manner. Sixth witness, Samuel J. Bosfield, sivorn : — My name is Samuel J. Hosfield, I was present in the General Court Hilary Term, in January last. I am editor of the Freeman newspaper, pub- lished here. I was present in Court during the trial of the defendants Sands, Bethel, Knowles and Uunshee, for affray, on the 17th January. I was absent for about hcdf-an-hour between 11 and 12 a. m. and also 2 and 3 p m., the rest of the trial I was in Court. I reported the tri.il in my paper of the 23nd January. I heard some of the evidence. 1 heard Demeritt, James Thomp- son, Alex. Thompson, Robert Kelly, Josiah Kelly. I also heard the evidence of a woman and part of another. 1 heard the address of Attornej' General opening the case to the jury, and I paid attention to it. In opening the portion of the address that struck me that he said something to this effect : that Ae ivishcd to disconnect the affray case from the murder case. I heard ///;// tell the Jury that he ivishcd to impress them zvith the fact that the affray was distinct from the murder, and they were to confine their attention to the affray case. I believe Charles Perpall, McPherson, Mather were on that jury. I can- not remember other names just now. I remember Attorney General .yA^'/^v/ Demeritt once or twice in giving his evidence. My idea was that the Attorney General wanted time, and that the witness was going too fast. / heard the Attorney General discredit his own witnesses. I noticed that he tried to The Governor interrupts, " We don't want your opinions, zve want facts." The witness continued : In cross examining ii7//les, cue of the dcjciuiants in affray case. I know J. Beechani Saunders, who was a juroi'. It is commonly reported that he is relatetl to F. A. Sands ; he is in the sho]) oi J. V. Sands, the brother of F. A. Sands. I know Perpall. I know he is veiy friend !)• with F. A. Sands, but I do not know whether he is related to him. The onh' time I was present durins:^ the murtier trial w.is zvhen the defendants in \\\i^afray case, Sands and Bethel, loerc examined for the dcfcjicc of Depainc. I was not there when the jury w-as empanelled. I heard the Chirf Justice examine Sands. I heard the Court reprove S amis for his levity intJic box zv hen he was giving his evidence. The Court examined Sands at great length after the cross-examination by the Attorney General. I heard him szuear that he -was the party attacked, not Depdne; he said, he received a " severe lick." I heard he had also given evidence in the murder case ; he admitted that he was struck in the affray. The defence was that they zvere attacked and not the aggressors. I was not there when the Attorney General examined Nathaniel Elliott. I am connected with the Attorney General by marriage remotely. The Attorney General's wife is my mother's first or second cousin. Cross-exann'ned by the Attorney G.Mieral: — I never informed the Chief Justice that I was ready to give evidence here for liim. 1 did not want to come. No one ever came to me to ask me to give evidence. I have expressed my opinion openly about the case very freely, and it may perhaps have reached the ears of the Chief Justice. I have never been appointed by anyone on his behalf. Ninth witness, VV. E. I'ritchard, sioorn : — I was present in General Court dininif the trial of V. A. Sands and others forafifra}', but not durinir the whole time. I was there for a short time on several occasions during the day. I did not hear the opening of the address to the jury. I did not take much notice of the case, but remember hearing Deineritt examineti, but I think it was in the murder tri.d. 1 did not hear the Attorney General examine Demeritt in the aftVay case. I knew some of the jurors in affray case. I was not there when jury were empanelled in the murder case. All I know is that F. A. Sands and others were on trial for affray. I was present when F. A. Sands was exam- ined as a witness for the defence in the murder case. I know him to be the same Sands that w.is defendant in the affray case. I was not present when l^ethel was examined. Tiie Attorney General declines to cross-examine. Tenth witness, George U- Higgs, sivoni : — I was one of the jury in the affray case when F. A- Sands, Knowles, Bethel and Dunshee were tried. The Attorney General addressed us more than once I think- I cannot recall what he said word for word in opening the case. The substance of what he said was that the charge was one of affray. I do not remember him explaining what he said ; he said it zvas not a serious case, or something to that effect. I do not remember zvhethcv he said the murder had nothing to do ivith it. I sat on it as a distinct case from the murder. I looked upon it in that light, that was the impression conveyed to me by the Attorney General in his opening address. Dnrin; the zohole of the trial the Enquiry tvas limited to the affray. I think the Attorney General in- structed us that a more serious case would follow. I recollect the examination of the first witness, Demeritt. The Attorney General interrupted him in this way, as far as I remember ; he said : " Wait a minute, my good man," when the witness went on speaking instead of con- fining himself to the answering of the question. The witness went beyond the question asked, and was then checketl by the Attorney General- I do not know whether Demeritt was annoyed at being checked, /was told that the affray case was distinct from the murder case, and I judged it so. I did not sit on the murder, and I was not there. I heard no part of the case. The Attorney General declines cross-examination. The Chief Justice makes a formal application for four witnesses to be subpoenaed to attend from various o;;t-Islands. All are witnesses of the Wesleyan persuasion. 62 Mr. Rae points out that these witnesses cannot be compelled to attend unless their reasonable expenses be first tendered. The Chief Justice replies that he has been ordered to produce witnesses, antl if such witnesses were not called and heart!, then he has not been heard. He knows that they were in Court during the trial of the affray case, and they will say what they heard and saw. The Governor says he does not think that these witnesses can be sum- moned by the Council unless affidavits as to what their evidence will be. The Chief Justice declines to put his hand in his pocket. He says he believes they are material witnesses ; but, perhaps, some of the reverend gentlemen he proposes to call for to-morrow may be able to say what these witnesses from the out-Islands may know. The Attorney General here complains that the Chief Justice has said more than once that he tloes not know what his witnesses are going to say. He wants to know if everybody who was in Court on the dajs of those trials is to be called, and he asks that the Chief Justice may formulate the exact charge and specify that part of the evidence which was suppressed. The Chief Justice objects that everything the Attorney General said or did is evidence in the case. Therefore, he asks that the ministers from the out- Islands be summoned. The Governor again says that the Council is entitled to know what grounds there are for supposing that these ministers knew anything. The Colonial Secretary asks that the charge may be specified ; also, that Chief Justice may not be allowed to continue to call witnesses here whose evidence he does not know beforehand. He as^-s if the C/iiiif y//j7/a'has Ziitluirim'ntJic charge of suppressing or withholding evidence, and points c;/// the injury done to the public service by his absence from his ivork. He protests against the case, lohich he calls a pure waste of time. The Governor again says that the Chief Justice ought to give his reasons for supposing that the out-Islands witnesses knew anything. The Chief Justice declines to. The Governor refers to the expense of the Commission for taking evi- dence abroad, and asks the Chief Justice if he was willing to bear the expense. The Chief Justice declines to do so. The Attorney General again asks that the Council may call upon the Chief Justice to specify tiie portion of evidence alleged to be suppressed or withheld. He reads an address commenting on the evidence already pro- 63 duccd, and limiting the issue to " the suppression of evidence." He asks that the l^nquiry should be limited to this issue, and that no evidence should be produced concerning his wife's relations to any of the defendants. The Chief Justice and Attorney General withdraw. After some discussion by tile Council on the question, it was decided that the Chief Justice should be asked by a letter the grounds on which he supposes that the out-Island witnesses can give material evidence. 2ist May, 1889. A letter from Mr. Farrington is read referring to the question asked yesterday by the Chief Justice, st.iting that in consequence of that ques- tion he feels a delicacy in sitting, and therefore begs to be relieved from fur- ther attendance. The Council agrees to relieve Mr. Farrington. The letter written to the Chief Justice in accordance with yesterday's resolution is read. There has been no reply. The Governor says that yesterday the Chief Ju.-,tice stated that he, the Chief Justice, did not formulate the charge, but possibl)- the Attorney General did. The Governor says that this seems to throw some imputation upon the Council, and that he proposes to ask the Chief Justice what he means by it. The Chief Justice and Attorney General come in. The Attorney General hands in a statement on which he based his application yesterday. The Governor: " Chief Justice, before proceeding with our business " to-day, you made an observation yesterday which I think will require some " explanation. You said that the charge was not your charge, and that " possibly it was that of the Attorney General." The Chief Justice denies that he meant any imputation, that what he said was for information, and to know whether the Attorney General had done so. "The Attorney General is a member of the Council, he has frequently attacked me, and interfered with me in the examination of witnesses. I want to know whether he has had anything to do with the framing of the charge. I meant to convey no imputation, and I withdraw the expression." Eleventh witness, the Rev. Francis Moon, sioorn : — I went to the General Court on one or two occasions during the affray trial. I was present when F. A. Sands and the others were on their trial. I heard the evidence of a boy named Lee. The Attorney General was examining him. I stood by the door. I did not sit down. I remained there ten minutes or a quarter of an hour. I heard the examination of the witness Lee. When that was finished I left the Court. I saw my son in 64 Court, the Rev. F. M Moon ; he resides at Governour Harbor. I think Mr. Smith was there also- W/iaf struck uic during the cxaviination of thisivitncss Lee was, that he should have heev taken out of the box and sent into the dock because of his outrageous false swearing. He admitted that he had sworn to the state- ment in the Tolice Court, and lie swore to another in the General Court. He gave as his reason that he had been frightened by Mr. Crawford, the In- spector of l\3lice Mr. Crawford was standing by me, and said he had never spoken to the boy. It was during the examination in chief that he made this statement. That is all I heard of th(! trial. The defence it struck nw had nothing to do, because the witness for the Crown was so nnuh in favor of the defence. Mr. Clutsam did not need to ask any questions — he asked a few in cross-examination. I think my son was in Court during the whole trial. I believe he was. All the evidence 1 heard was that of Lee. I heard no atl dresses. Cross-exann'ned by Attorney General. The boy Lee swore that he said what he said in the Police Court because he was afraid of Crawford. I cannot say why he made this state- ment- It might have been because his attention was called to the difference between the evidence that he had given in the I'olice C^ourt- Re-examined by the Chief Justice. His evidence was all in favor of the defence altogether. The Rev. Joseph Kewley, before sworn, says that he knew nothing of the case, and was not present during the affray trial. The Chief Justice says he was misinformed, and regrets having brought Mr. Kewley there. Twelfth witness, Samuel J. Finder, sivorn : — I was summoned on \.\\c Jury in January last. I attended the Court. I was in Court part of the time during the trial of F. A. Sands and others for affray, from the commencement. I was there ab(nit two hours. I heard the opening address of the Attorney General to the jury. I do not recollect anything he said in particular. Ho said it was not an important case. He said that the affray had nothing to do with the murder, and that the jury must keep the case confined to the affray. He said the affray hap- l)ened on a Sundaj* evening. I cannot say the day of the month. I recollect the Sunday. He said it was a simple misdemeanor. I won't say that he said it was a case of people fighting in the street. I saw the first witness, C A. Demeritt, sworn, and heard his evidence. I know him. The Attorney General examined him very slight, very slight indeed. Ill interrupted him and checked him in his evidence. He would not allow 65 him to give his cvidaicc straightforz\,'arii. Dcnicritt seemed displeased be- cause he was not allowetl to ^ive a strai<;litfor\vard stateiiieiit. I know Demeritt well. I believe him to be a stiai<:[l)tfor\\ard man. I believe lie would not tell a lie. Me behaved in the box like an honest, nprit^ht man. He was prevented from telling all he knexo, lie meant to say more if he had been alUnved. I did not notice the I'rovost Marshal in Court. I saw another witness examined. I thj not know his name. 1 was there a couple of hours. I heard Demeritt cross-examined by Mr Clutsam for the defence, if I had been a stranger in Conrt I should have thonght the Attorney General ivas DliFKiNJJlNc; instead of I'RosEi i ti.nc. There toas no need of a defence. I was not there w hen the verdict was returned. I have heard that the defendants were acipiilted. I xvas not surprised. I know some of the parties who wete on that jurj-. Theotlore Knowles, lieecham Saunders, C- Georije. I think Knowles on the jury is related to the defendant Knowles. I don't know what relation.ship. 1 know that Beecham Saunders is employed by Sands Brothers, one of which com- pany is F. A. Sands, the defenil mt. 1 was called to sit on the murder trial a few da)'s after the affray case. I heard the jur)- called. I was called. I asked to be excust'd, because I was a relative of the accused Depaine. His mother was my first cousin. I don't think it right relatives should try relatives. I recollect that, wiien the jury was called, the Court objected to those who had sat u[)on the affray trial. Several appeared and were objected to. The Attorney (leneral did nothing zuith regard to challenging jurors and said nothing. He sat still. I believe nearly all the same jury were calletl and were objected to. I was not in Court during the murder trial. As soon as I was excused I went off. Cross-examinetl by Attorney General- As soon as Demeritt began to give his evitlence )ou stopped him and asked him questions. You would say to Demeritt, as he was s[)eaking, " that you did not require that." You meant that you did not require the evidence he was giving; but I cannot remeiViber the particular point. If Demeritt swore that you checked him and asked him to wait till )'ou were ready, I should believe him, because I believe him to be an honest man. Yon stopped him from giving his evidence. I don't recollect what you prevented him from saying. I believe what Demeritt says on oath. He told me different outside to what he told you inside. If he swore that he told all he knew in the General Court I should not know whether to believe him. / maintain what I said, that if I had been a stranger in Court I should have thought that you were for the the defence. It was principally 66 ill \()iir mode of ixniiiiniiii^ Dcincritt atnl the way yon opcuai the case to the jury that I si)- that. Von said it ivas a very slight eharge. You said it iK.'as not a grave charge, or something; Hkc that. Yon said it tvas not connected with the innrder case. In my opinion the txvo xocre con- nected and ought to have been connected. In my opinion the affray defendants should have been indicted for complicity in the murder. Vou said it was a tuis- dfim-aiior. I thoiiL;ht from the ivay yon examined the witnesses that there zoas no need for a defence. I thoiitjjiit so from the way \ou examined Demcritt. I lieanl one other witness examined and I left. I don't know liow many were examined. I only heard the first j)art of the case. As soon as the jurors were called in the murder case and came u]), the Chief justice questioned them, ami told th him to witlulraw. The Governor jisks the Attorney (jeneral if all tiie depositions and papers connected with the case were placed in the liands of the Chief Justice before the^trial. The Attorney General answers : " Ves, they were so placeil in his hands on the 28th December." The Chief Justice said : " I did not have them all. I liad not the Coroner's Inquisition. I had the otiiers two or tliree days before." The Attorney (ieneral : " I sent them." He reads what purports to be a memo., di ted December 28th, which enumerates documents. The Governor asks if there was any suppression of papers. 69 The Chief Justice sajs there is no allegation of suppression of papers. I did not rect;ive the Coroner's inquisition, but I make no complaint of it. The preliminary proceedings miy be taken as havin^; been perfectlj- regular. The Governor reads Attorney General the decision of the Council, and says that if, in consequence of their decision, the Attorney General requires time for consideration, the Council will have no objection. The Attorney General says he x'^nji/litig to goon. Fourteenth witness, Theodore Knowles, sisjoni: — I was on the jury panel that January Term. I was one of the jury who tried the case of a ff ra)' in which Sands and others were defendants. I do not remember the date. I recollect the Attorney General addressing the jury at the opening of the case. He told us what the case was ; he said the charge n'as affray. He told us what an affray was ; he said it was when per- sons were armed for the purpose of committing an affray, and putting Her Miijesty's subjects in bodily fear. He said the case occurred on Sunday evening in the Eastern part of the town. He did not say it was not a very serious oftence. He said it was a .serious offence. (The witness here says that he is rather deaf.) I cannot recollect whether ho said it was a simple misdemeanor. The Chief Justice asked : " Did he say that he wished t;, keep the cases separate .' " The Governor said this is irrelevant. The Attorney Geiuiwl did not put foriK'ard any evidence sluicing the affray terminated in a murder. He did not put iti evidence ffte dying declaration q{ Ga}'. //(' limited our Enquiry to the affray. I remember some of the jurors — Perpall, Saunders. 1 recollect some of the witnesses for the defence, but I do not recollect their n nes ; if they were mentioned, I shouKi perhaps remember. I recollect one for the Crown, Demeritt. 1 recollect him because I know him. The others I do not know 1 heard in the evidence the /\tt(jrne}- General find fault loitli his witnesses in that they had sworn that the}- were alarmeil i)efore the Magistrate, while in tile General Court the)- swore that they were not alarmed. That was the cause of fault. I heard him praise one witness fur the defence as having given straightforioard evidence, I have heard that uitness teas a joiner. I am related to Louis C Knoioles. one of the defendants on the ajfniy trial. I am his second cousin. I do not think that L. C. Knoiolcs is here noiv, but I am not certain. I believe that lie left the [)lace for Long Island directly after the trial. All the defendantn were acquitted. Louis C- Knowles' family live here, but his father is in Long Lskuui for a time, I was called as a 70 juror on the murder trial. Many who sat on the affray case xvere called on the murder case. They were told by the Court to stand aside. I understood that this was done because tliey had sat on the affray case. The Mr. Saunders I have referred to I know by si^ht, but not to speak to. 1 don't know whether he is a relative of F. A. Sands. Cross-examined b}' the Attorney General : The only complaint I am aware of was that the women were found fault with for giving evidence different to that which they gave at the Police Court. I did not know it was necessary to inform the Court that I was re- lated to L. C Knowlcs, the defendant. It did not influence my decision. I heard jurors in the murder case ordered to stand aside. It was done instantly by tlie Court as they came up. Each one was told as he came up. Examined by the Governor: I am not intimate with Louis C. Knowles, but I know his father well. Examined by Air. Brown : I think the jury placed most reliance on the last witness, the joiner. The man's name ivas Elliott. Examined by Governor : " I am a little deaf." (Note. The evidence was read over to him. This is \.\\c first time this pre- caution was taken.) Fifteenth witness, Hilton C. Albury, sivorn : — I was in Court in January last when F. A. Sands and others were tried for affray. The AtUirncy General appeared for the Crown and Mr. Clutsam for the Defence. I was there when the Court opened. I heard the opening address of the Attorney General to the jury. He tried to impress on the Court thc.t he was Attorney General^ and the grounds he had separated the mur- der ease from the aff'ray. He explained his position as Attorney General. I heard the examination <»f C. Demeritt, one of the witnesses examined by the Attorney General. / ivas struck that he was not alloived to speak as freely as he zoished to. He zcas interrupted and checked. Every time he wanted to go ahead the Attorney General said, " Stop, stop, stop," I am not asking you that ! " Tiiis occurred two or three times. I went away imme- diately after Demeriti's examination in chief. I did not hear the cross- examination, and did not return to Court. I knew some of the jurors on that trial, nearly ail. I am a native of the place. I recollect Knowles, Saunders and Perpall. I have heard that Knowles the juror is related to Knowles the defendant. 1 know Saunders the juror is very closely related in business to Sands the defendant. Cross-examined by Attorney General : I am a sliopkeeper. I never informed the Attorney (jeneral that I \va.s able to give the evidence. 1 have never spoken to any of iiis family. I was particularly careful not to express my opinion in the case in the presence of his son for fear I might be called here. I have never spoken to his wife on the subject. I cannot say what Demeritt wanted to say. Perhaps the answer he- gave was tliftercnt to that required by the question. IViiiaps his reply was irrelevant to the question you put. He would go on to explain. That is the only way you interrupted him. He would goon to cx[)lain, and you said, "\o, no, that is not what I want." My brother was in Court, but he was not sitting by me ; he had, I suppose, an opportunity- oi hearing as well as me, if he was there. Examined by the Governor : — The Attorney General, in his opi/ii/i^ iidilrcss, did not describe the case in what would have been a satisfaetory way to nie. He did it in a feeble icay- I cannot remember the terms he used. My idea loas that the eases should have been one ami indix'isible, and that all the defendants should have been arraigned to- gether. It was in that vieio that I regarded the presentment of the ease as feebU . His evidence is read over to him (witness). A letter from the Chief Justice is read to the effect that he cannot state that the witnesses from the out Islands can give material evidence, a^ he lias not been in communication with them. The Council decides that, under the circumstances, it would not be justified in issuing the subpoenas which would cause great exjieiise. A letter is directed to be read to Chief Justice, informing hini of this and of the fact that he had been told on the 2 1st insi.iiii tii.u liie Council waived the condition of the Chief Justice bearing the ex[)ensc, iiml that tJie application is refused simply on the grounds that he cannot state that he believes the witnesses could give material evidence. 25th May, 1889. The Council met to despatch Commission to take the e\idcnce of Mr. Gibbs, of Ottawa. j8ih May, 1889. In repl)' to the Governor, the Attorney General says the following are the documents he handed to the Chief Justice on December 28ih : — I. Deposition in Murder Case before Coroner Mid Magistrate. J. Depositions in the Alfray. 3. Dying ileposition of Gay. ^2 Sixteenth witness, William Robinson, M.U., sivorn : — I am Resident Surgeon of the Asylum. I was so in December last. Sunday evening, 9th December last, a man named Sliadrack Ga}' was brought in that evening, between 9 and 10 o'clock ; he had a verj' bad wound and was almost in a dying state. He was in a state of collapse about 12 o'clock. His clothes were torn and saturated tuith blood, and his bowels xvcre protruding. The Inspector of Police brought the patient to the Asylum. The Police Magistrate came and took the man's dying declaration in my presence. Dr. Holmes was there, Mr. Crawford, and otiicr witnesses. (The declara- tion read by Clerk of Council. Daniel Clarke and Joseph Charles and other witnesses present.) That statement was taken before me. Shadraek Gay died next morning. He complained, before dying, of pains in his siiouklers ; he complained more of ln"s shoulders than of his wound ; he was bruised rt'/'c?/^/ the shoulder. The shoulder was swollen; there was a cut on the left forefinger. There was no symptom of beating beyond [the shoulder ; he was all covered with dirt and sand ; he was a strong man of from 30 to 35 years of age ; he was a powerful man. l^r. Holmes assisted me in my examination- I had the 7vound half -stitched. When he came in he finished it. The bruise on tiie shoulder loas infiieted with a dull instrument such as a stick or a man's fist. I was examined as a witness before the Coroner s jury. I was not examined for the affray case in the Folic Court before Mr. T. A. Thompson. / received a sumtnons to give my evidence beft)r'.- him, but I icvr.s- not examined. I do not know why I zvas not e.xamined. Mr. Craw- ford c.une anil told me I was not requiretl. That is as close as I can remember now what he said. I was waiting outside the Police Court. Dr. Holmes was not there. I do not remember his being there. / zoas examined in the murder case before Mr. Thompson, it 'was before the affray ease came on there. I am sure of it. I recollect the trial in the Cieneral Court. I was summoned as a witness in the murder case only. I was in Court for a few moments xvhile the affray case was going on. I saw F, \. Sands and otliers being tried standing near liie dock. / was not examined as a 'witness by the Attorney General in that case. I was examinetl as a witness in the murder case when "Jeff" was tried. Dr. Holmes was also examined. Cross-examined by Attorney General : — I had no personal knowledge of the ficts connected with the affra}'. The statement which has been read by the Clerk is the only declaration that Shadraek Gay made. I think it was taken about «o.3o p. m. ; he died about 5 a. m. next morning. No one asked me to give evidence ; but Mrs. Austin, 73 some days a^o, spoke to iiie about the dispute between the Attorney General and the Cliief Justice duiin ing 76 declaration of Gay.) It was a Sunday night the declaration wa.s taken in the presence of those mentioned in it and of the accused. The accused had been arrested by the police — he was the only one in custod)-. I ^Mve no orders to arrest any one. I did not issue a warrant. 1 was takinij a walk after service, and met some one in the road who told me that a man had been stabbed in the Kastern District. I went to the Police office, saw the Inspector. I met the wounded man being brought in down East Haj' .Street on a stretcher near the corner of Culmer Street. I went to the Asylum. I wanted to see whether it would be necessary to take the dying declaration. The man died the next morning, and then a regular information was laid before me by the Inspector. An inquest was held by the Coroner, the depositions were passed \.o me, and I used them on an investigation. I got \.\\{i\w from the Clerk of the Crotvn, they are those now produced. I used them to see whether I had elicited all the facts. I examined sixteen witnesses. One of them, John A. Thomson ; he occupied a house near the Eastern Parade, on the south side of East Bay Street. There are no houses on the other side of East Bay Street at that point. I examined James Moxey, who was also examined before the Coroner. He said something about so mething having been passed to the accused Depaine (Extracts from the deposition are read.) Moxvy 7vas not eran/ined in the affray case in the Police Court. 1 enquired after the Coroner's investigation of Mr. Crawford, the Inspector of Police, if any charge was to be made against the other defendants. He said he had seen the Coroner, and that the Coroner had informed him that the Coroner's jury had acquitted the other detendants. 1 suggested that he should see the depositions, and next morning a charge of assault and battery was made by Mr. Crawford against the other defendants. The charge was against Sands, Bethel, Knowles and Dunshec for assaulting and beating Shadrack Gay on the night of the 9th of December- \ warrant was issued, and these parties were arrested and released on bail in i, 200 each. They were all young men of about 24 or 25 years of age except Louis Knowles, who was about 17 years old. After committing Depaine I communi- cated xvith the Attorney General, forivarding him the depositions, and lorote to him tvith reference to the case against the men charged loith assault. (The letter is read.) It was to the effect that Gay being dead, a charge of assault and battery could not be against Sands and others, and I asked if the charge should not be for riot and affray. / do not think the Attor)uy General anszaered that letter, /think I loent over atul consulted Knw, and he .'greed with me. I then advised the Inspector to institute a charge of riot and affray for that of assault and battery. He zuetit to seethe Attorney General, and 71 on the morninpj of the i8th December he withdrew the charge of assault and laid one of affray instead. The charj^e is in the words of lej^al authorities and phraseoloj:^)'. I worded it. On the i8th, four men had appeared to an- swer the first charrjc; they were forniall)dischart;ed and then re-arrested on the second chari^e. The papers uow handed to mc arc the depositions taken by ;«^ against the four men. The Inspector of Police prosecuted. I examined the witnesses — that is, all tl.at were called by the prosecution. iJenieritt, Stephens, Lee, James H. Thompson and Alex. Thompson. The Inspector l^ave tiie names to me. / did no* examine James Moxcy, Dr. Robinson or Dr. Holmes. I do not think Dr. Robinson or Dr. Holmes were summoned. No suhpcena could issue from my office without m>' authority. I have to sign them when I am sitting. / say positively that Drs. Robinson and Holmes were not summoned. I did not think it necessary. They were examined in the murder case. All these papers, exhibits 4, 6, 7, and 8, refer to the same events, viz., the murder of Gay and the affray which occurred on the night of 9th of December. / think he must have been stabbed between 8 and 9 p.m. I do not think it was 9 o'clock when I met Gay being taken to the Asylum. I believe that Mr. James Austin Thompson was in the locality in which the murder was committed. I met him walking by the bier — I think he was helping to carry the wounded man. Cross-examined by the Attorney General. I ex- amined every witness that was called by the Inspector lor the prosecution of Depaine for murder. There was one witness I wished to call, his name was Josiah Kelly. I think I brought you the letter marked 18. I consulted you throughout. I have no doubt that the charge of riot and affray zvas the proper charge to pre- fer against the four defendants. I had several interviews with you. When I concluded the murder case, I investigated the affray case. The witnesses brought forward for the prosecution were sufficient to establish a prima facie case, and I committed the defendants for trial. I took the evi- dence with great care, and endeavored to elicit the full particulars of the matter in both cases. I was present in the CjcnerrI Court during part of the trial for affray when the murder case came on. 1 was on circuit. While I was in Court 1 had an opportunity of observing what was going on. I was there when two witnesses were examined, and I saw nothing different to the ordinary conduct of the case. I was not there when the addresses were made. I remember the name of one witness, Nathaniel Elliott, who was examined before me in the murder ease. I was much impressed with his evidence. I thought // very important, I think I spoke to you about it. It impressed me favorably ; he gave his ;8 evidence carcJuUy ami iniclligcutly. I kiioic nothing oj the man pcrsonaiiy- Klliott's evidence was important authority that the man Gay had not been altof^cther blameless, and that his friends were also not free from blame / have acted for you on one oeeasion, I consider it the duty of the prosecuting .'Ittorncy Genera/ to elicit the truth, no matter xvhethcr it is in favor of the prosecution or of the defence. The Attorney General here exercises to a certain extent the functions of a grand jury. His position is very peculiar. It is his duty to lay the whole truth before the Court. Mad Elliott's evidence been such as I hiard in the Police Court the Attorney General would have l)een justified in commending it. If the Attorney Cicneral believes the witness to be speakinij; the truth, lie should bring it before tlie jury on whichever side it should be. In my opinion it is the duty of the Attornex' General to bring the ti'//r'/? truth before the Court. It is no part of his dut> to secure a conviction when the evidence does not justify it. I was in Court once or twice, but I cannot give any of'inion as to the xvay the case luas conducted, but while /was there I saw nothing unusual. I know Louis A. Duty. 1 remember that you were Attorney General at the time. I had to examine into certain charges made against him in his capacit)- of Resident Magistrate. I do not know tiie editor of '• The Free- man." Examined by Major Ellis : — Dr. Robinson nuxy have been smnnioned to gii'c evidence in the affray c^sc but he zvas not examined. My duty was simply to see that a prima facie case was established, and to examine such witnesses as were called by the prosecution. Nathaniel Elliott was a witness for the prosecution in the murder case. His evidence was valuable as showing that the motives alleged of Gay and his companions in going up the street were not true. He teas net an im- portant zvitncss in the affray case for the Crown. His evidence did not justify the acquittal in the affray case, as two wrongs did not make a right. He did not arrive on the scene until after the assault had taken place. In answer to the Governor : — His evidence would have been in perfect harmony with a conviction for affray. I did not hear his evidence in the General Court in either case. Re-examined by the Chief Justice. iilliott said that when he got opposite John //. Thompson' s house, he found Jeff, one Lce^ and the man that had been in front of us outside in the street. Sands, Bethel and Bunshee wc\c\\\ Thompson yard, and Thompson was order- ing them out. Jefif showed me a cut on his head. This showed that Elliott 79 had ctmu' ii|) when the affra)' was over. I did not know that thevi was any itlatioii.s/iip Ihtivrcn lilliott and Duusluc. Had I knoivii this I slioukl not have attached so nun It importaucc to his evidence, as rclationsliip naturally l)as some effect, li Would be correct to say that if Nathaniel ICIliott spoke tlic truth, tlKii llie witnesses for the Crown must have conimittetl perjury, but with regard to the points only that Gay and his companions followed the defendants with retaliatory intention. Twentieth witness, James Austin Thompson, sworn : — I was oil the jury panel in Hilary Term last, and was foreman on the jury on the trial of "Jeff" for murder. I saw Shadrack Gay the nipjht he WAS, wounded; he was brought to the asylum ; I assisted in bringing him part of the way. I fnst saw him lying on the abutment opposite the Eastern Parade. That was between 8 and 9 p.m. lie was wounded. I was l^assing b}-, ami m)' attention was called by hearing a man sa\-, " he must be dead with his guts cut out." I went across the burying ground and found Shadrack Gay where the fence was down. There was some 10 or 12 people standing up, men and women. I recognized some of them. Gay's head was resting on the knees of a man named Thompson, he was a stranger to me. I spoke to Thompson, and asked him if the man was dead- He lowered his heatl and called iiim by name, ".Shaddiel" He raised one arm, his lips moved, but I could hear nothing. I suggested that an attempt should be made to bring him down, and I assisted. I was not called upon or examined at the Police Court or before the Coroner. I was summoned on the Coroner's jury, but diti not serve. Mr, T. A. Thompson, the magistrate, is my nephew. I have no recollection of telling him what 1 knew. Mr. McDonald was with me, and saw all I did on the night of December the 9th. Cross-examined by Attorney General : — I know nothing of the facts of the wounding of Gay, beyond w hat I Jiave heartl. I was in the General Court part of the timciiuring the trial of the aflVa}- case. I was there at difterent times. From what I saw I had no reason to suppose that the case was conducted difterent from t)tlier cases. I cannot remember if I iieard the evidence of Elliott for the defence in the afiVay case. I heard him in the murder case, but I am not prepared to say I heard him in the affray case. His evidence was read over to him. DKEENCE. The Attorney General says that he does not want to call witnesses ; that nothing has been proved ; that no evidence of suppression of evidence has been proved. 8o The Governor says that it would l»e ilesirable for iiiin to call witnesses if he has any. Mr. Malcolm calls witnesses. I''irst witness, Charles W. Mather, sxt'oni : — I have been servinfj as a juror for five or six year-;. I remember bein^j summoned as a juror in January last. 1 served in a c.isi' in which Sands, Ik'tliel, Knowles and Dunshec were tried for affr.i)-. \'ou (the Attorney General) prosecuted. I did not notice an^thin^ different in your conduct in that case. I remember a man named Nathaniel I'iUiott who was e.Kamined in that case for defendants. I believed his evidence. Nothing you said about Elliott influenced me in coming to a verdict. Your address to the Jury had no effect on me than if you had not addressed us. I know him to be a trustworthy, reliable man. I iiave known him for many years. There was nothinj^ in your conduct to lead me to suppose that you did not wish lo obtain a verdict. I believe you did wish to secure a verdict. ' The Chief Justice declines to cross-examine. Second witness, Robert H. Smith, siooni : — I have been serving as a juror for many years. I served on case Reg. V. Sands and others for affra>'. You (Attorney General) prt)secuted for the Crown. I did not notice that you acted differently in thai case than )ou have done in other cases. The jury in that case brought in a verdict of acquittal. I was not influenced by what \ou said. My reason for acquitting the prisoners is that I did not consider tliere ivas sufficient evidence. I am of opinion that you sought to get a verdict of conviction. I remember a man named Nathaniel Elliott, a witness examined for the tlefence. Nothing that you said about Elliott influenced me in my verdict. As far as I could see in that case we two witnesses swore alike, and that made me think the evitlence was insufificient. Cross examined by Chief Justice : — I am here because I was subpcenaed. The Attorney General sent for me and I went to him to his office. I zoas alone with him. He talked to me about the ease. He said if he required me he would send for me- He sent Mr. Samuel T. Smith to me before 1 went to his office. The dying declaration of Gay was not put in evidence before us. The At- torney General said that Gay's declaration had nothing to do with the case. Dr. Robinson and Dr. Holmes were not examined. / knew Nathaniel Elliott for 25 years ; he married the sister of William Dunshec, xvho was on this trial. I know J. Beecham Saunders, who was one 8i of tile jury with mc. lie ^i'as in Jic employ of Sands Bros., of iv/iich firm F. /\. Snuds, one of tin defendants on his trial, belonged- I knew Thculorc Kiiowks who was on that jui)-. I do not know whether he is a rekition of Knowles, the defendant. My name was called on the- mnrder trial of Jeff, which took place some days after the affray ease^ Several other jurors who had sat with me on the ajfray case were called. We were selected because we liad sat on the affray trial. I have kwoww Nathaniel Elliott for years. About the time of this trial he built a house on Hay street^ I believe the house was conitnenccd before the trial. ICxainiucd by the Governor : — I heard the addresses of the Attorne)' (General. 1 tlo not think there was a want of viiijour in his addresses. I do not riMueinber now what lie said about Nathaniel Mlliott. Examined by Major ICllis : — I think the Attorney General made two addresses. I can only remember the first address that he saiil the affray case was not like an ordinary case and that he said two or three times that the affray case was separate from the murder case altogether. His eviiience was read over to him. Ciiarles R. Perpall, sworn: — I iiav<; been serving as a juror for the last three years. I served as a juryman in January Term last in tlie case of Reg. v. Sands and others for affray. You (Attorney General) prosecuted in that case. I noticed no difference between your conduct in that affray case from other cases. You appeared anxious to obtain a conviction. 1 remember a man named N. Elliott examined for the defence in tiiat case. I remember you referred to him in your address to the jur\-. I remember that you said something to the effect that you believed him to be a very honest man, and you liad never htian! anythinc against his character. The defendants were acciuittcd. In bringing in m\- \'crdict 1 was not inflnenceti in any w.iy by wliat you said respecting Elliott. I formed my opinion with regard to the witnesses for the Crown. I did not believe Tlujmpson then or Uemeritt ; that's what influenced me in arriving at a vcrtiict. Cross-examined by the Chief Justice : — I am a client of the Attorney General's, anti \ alwa}^s consult him on business. I am not related in any way with the Sands famil}-. I heard the evidence on the affray trial. The dying deckiration of Shadrack Gay was not read to us. Doctors Robinson and Holmes were not examined. I did 82 not know at that time of the trial that Nathaniel l^lliott was related to the defendant Dunshee. I know it now ; he is a brother-in-law of Dunshcc. My name was called as a juror on the muidei- trial of " JetV," about a week after the affray trial. I was told to " stand aside " by the Court, because I had sat on the affray trial. Evidence read over to hini. Albert North, sxuoni : — I have been serving here as a juror for many years. I remember sitting as a juror in the case Reg. v. S>uk1s and others for affray. You prosecuted (Attorney General). I heard you open the case and examine the witnesses. As far as I could see, you conducted that case like any others. In my opinion you opened it strongly for a conviction against the defendants as against any others. I remember Nathaniel Elliott being examined in that case. 1 cannot remember what you said about Elliott. I remember your saying something ; what you said about him did not influence me iit any way in my verdict. I arrived at a verdict upon tiie evidence I heard, and tiiat alone. Cross-examined by Chief Justice : I know the Attorney General ; he deals with us. I am a butcher. I know N. I'^lliott. I did not know, at time of the trial, that he wa'^ a brother of the defendant Dunshee. I know it now. I do not know that he has recently acquired a new shop in Hay street. His trade is a joiner. In the afifray case I formed my opinion from the evidence I iiearil. The dying declarali'n of Shadrack Gay was not read to us. I do not remember Doctors Robinson and Holmes being examined. 1 came here because 1 w.is sub- pcenai'il this morning. 1 have not spoken to Samuel T. Smith, nor to the Attorney General, nor to any one, about my evidence. I met Smith on the road this morning and we came here together. I know he was a witiios here. 1 do not know if he is in the en^ploy of Sands Hros. Evidence read over to him. liiluard L. IJode, .vtiV'/v/ .• — Ivxainincd by Attorney General : I have been serving as a juror here for about last three years. 1 served as a juror in January last in case against Sands and others for afifray. I heard you conduct the case; I saw notiiing different from other cases. I thought you strove prett)- hard to obtain a conviction against those defendants. They were .icquitted. I remember Elliott being examined. I cannot remember any particular wonls you used djout Elliott. I did not believe the evidence of Thompson. I found the evidence cor.ir.idictory ; that was the reason for S3 my verdict. I mean the Thompson who came from the SmacU. They belontj to the out Islands. James II. Thompson I had seen before. I know hinj well. On Monday after the murder he came and talked about the case. Evidence objected to by Chief Justice. Objection maintained Iwidence closed and read over to iiim. Samuel T. Smith, sivorn : — Examined by Attorney General : I have been serving as a juror for many years ; served as such in January last in case .Sands and others for affray. You prosecuteil- I did not notice any difference in your manner in conducting that case. In my belief }'ou pressed strongly for a verdict in that case as in any other. I remember Elliott Iteing examined as a witness. I think he was a witness for the Crown, I think I remember some of your remarks about Elliott. You made some Comparisons between the evidence of Elliott and Demeritt. You s;iiii that if the evidence of Demeritt was true, then Elliott's evidence was not true; but if Klliott's evidence was true, Demeritt's was not true. That is as near as I recollect. The defendants were acquitted. In arriving at my verdict I was not infl.ienced by your remarks about IClliott- I heard all the evidence. 1 heard tin investigation in the Police Court. I heard the s.ime witnesses in the General Court when I was a juror. My opinion is that if the evidence had been the same in the General Court as given in the I'olice Court, I should have been bound by my oath to convict the defendants ; by that 1 mean that the evidence in the (ieneral Court was contradictory, and differed in issential points — that led me to bring in the verdict 1 ditl. ()nly one juror did not concur in the verdict of " not guilty," he was n.imed Cambridge. I know Louis N. Duty. I have heard him express himself about you. He said that you and Taylor had done him an injury ; th.it he hatl no friitully feelings tou.irds you, and that some day he would be iveii with you ami Taylor. This I he.ird him s.iy more than once. Cross-examined by Chief Justice : I am pai tly eniploj-ed in purchasing logwood on behalf of the " Lochner." in which Mr. Sands is a stockholder. I think I was employed at the time of the affray trial. I was not in the place of Jeff. "Jeff" was Mr. Sands' out- door clerk. 1 weigh wood for him, and I get paid so much per ton for weighing wood . ICxamined by the Governor : — Mr. Sands em[)lo)'ed me to \\ei;^h wooii, I ihink I was employed during 84 the affray cast' I was never employed before by Mr. Sands. Tt is part of my usual occupation. Evidence read over. In reply to the Governor the yXttorney General and the Chief Justice both acl- who was stabbed b}- Pepaine was, a short time before this, attacked and beaten in the street by a crowd of five or six men and b())'s, among which crt)wd was Uepaine and also Frank Allen Sands, Lewis 1'. Knowl .>s, Albert Bethel and William Uunshee. The four parties last mentioned were chargeil by the Inspector of Police, on the iJlh instant, with a.s.saulting and beating .Shadrack Gay, under 33rd Sec. 28 \'ic-, ch- 3; but I have come to the conclusion, as Gay is dcati, and the sec. iledares that the coin[)laint must be by one on behalf of the party aggrieved, that this charge will not lie, and that a charge of riot and assault should be made in-^tead. 85 I should be obliffod if you would, after pcrusinff the evidence, instruct me as to whether I should not express this opinion to tlie Inspector of Police in order that the charj^e of assault and batter)' may be withdrawn and one of riot and assault made acjain.st the four parties I have n.iined. I have the honor to be, sir, Your most obedient servant. (Signed), T. A. THOMPSON, Stip)-. and Cir. Mag. The Honble. AlTORNKY GeneraI.. Copy o^ ante mortem statement of Shadrack Gay (the murdered man), taken in Asylum on evening 9th Dec, It)' T. A. Th()m{Json, Magistrate. " Public Asylum, "Dec. 9lh, 1888. '' Whereas it has been made to appear to me by the statement of " William Robinst)ii, Resident Surgeon Superintendent of the new Provi- " dence Asylum, that Shadrack Ga)- had received a severe wouml with ;i knife, " is dangerously ill and not likely to recover ; and it appearing that tiie said " Shadrack Gay is able and willing to give material information relating to '' the charge made against a certain William Ilenrv' Lewis Do[)aine of " feloniously and unlawfully wounding him, said Shadrack Gay, with intent to " murder, I take the following statements under oath at the New Provi- " dence Asylum, this ninth da)' of December, eighteen hundreil and eighty- " eight, in the presence of the accused, William Henry Lewis Depaine and of " Drs. Robinson and Holmes, Hon. W. C. Crawford, Daniel Clarke, Joseph " Clarke, Samuel A- McGregor, James Rcnvling, C A. P>artlett, Raphael " Racine, Mavor Stirrup, James Ces. I was stantling in the road talking to some of our girls who had "just come from home. Jeff and the other fellows were [)laying druid<, and " they knocked me out of the road anri wanted to shove w x: down. I asked " what they meant; they all said, " We mean to put hell on you." ]<:{{ didn't 6 86 " say so. The other fellows caiij]fht hold ofnic, not Jeff, nnd they struck me, " and tore my clothes all to pieces. I was goin^ to make a blow, and Jeff " caught hold of me. I asked, " What have I done to you ?" He saiil, *' You " want to fi^Wit." I said, " No." Jeff said to the other boys, " Let him ^o, I " know who he is." They had hold of me tryinpf to throw me down. They ■' all left me and went up the street. I had to ^o to my craft alon^ " the same way. The fellows said, " You son of a bitch, what you want " to-night you will catch." I went on the Hay and called my boys to come " up with me. My boys came from their vessel. I walked up first to where " Jeff and the fellows were ; they a^ain tjot hold of me and be> case. The duty of the Attorney General was duple, peculiar to the Baliainas. He had to exercise all i\\c functions of a Grand Jury under a special statute — to examine all depositions sent to iiim by the Magistrates and Coroners — to sec if any one had been j^uilty of any crime, and u[)on a prinid facie case appearinjT he was to present it for trial before the Court and a Petit Jury in Term by written Informations, to inform the Court. This duty was put upon him by the special statute referred to, " abolishinij the Grand Jury in the Ji'ahamas." (Vide my stateinent to the Governor, where the Act is quoted.) A<^ain, by another statute of the Hahamas, i7 Vic, c i4,tiie Attorney Gene- ral is invested with powers to require further proceedings by the niajjfistrate if he had reasonable grounds to believe any other person was ^principal or acces- sory to any ofilence. In this particular case (the murder of Shailrack Gay) the Attorney General, it was proved, had all the depositions taken by the Coroner (Cample- john) ill the inquest on body of Gay, before him. The Coroner and jury \YAi\ found that Frank Alhn Sands, Letuis P. Knozvles, Albert Bethel, William Dunshee and George Lee " were accessories before the fact (the murder of Ciay), that they 7oere 'morally' but not ' legally' guilty." What the Coroner zcrotg doxon zvas nonsense ; he had misdirected \.\\cjury. '' Accessories before the fact " to a felony, whether at Cotnnion Law or by statute, are deemed guilty o{ felony^ and may be indicted xuith the principal, or for a substantive felony ; but loith this finding and inquat before him the Atton^ey General did nothing to rectify the proceedings of the Coroner, or order further proceedings against others ; but diuctid the ///K*9|c I have said previously that the power to pardon for contempt of court could not be exercised by the Crown. On the same occasion, in answer to Lord Belmore. the Lord Chancellor said : — " The Crown has been advised that it had an undoubted right to pardon "offences; yet that contempt of court did not come within that power; no " authority for the exercise of any such prerogative could be found." The reason, I say, is obvious, because, as Lord Chief Justice Cockburn remarked in the case cited, Reg. v. Lefroy, a contempt of court zvas a con- '^ tempt of the Sovereign." Had I flinched in punishing this man, I might have been obliged to close the Courts of the Colony. I should have been dominated by the criminal classes, or probably attacked again on the Bench. I had no reliable protection. ■// 114 The position of the judge in an out of the way Colony is so different from what it is in England, where it is surrounded by safeguards of all kinds. I had to deter others from committing a like offence, and to punish a notorious criminal and a dangerous man to be at large, who had been already convicted of six felonies. The question put in the House of Commons by Mr. H. Fowler on the 7th of March, 1889 (which has already been given) was a simple one. The Attorney General should not have answered it by giving onljf his own opinion. Th(? answers he made as reported (which I have given) cannot, I pretend, be considered what was required of him on such an occasion. The censure pronounced upon me by the Secretary of State was calculated to do injury, and the publication of the despatch conveying tJie censure which the Governor made many months after its date, did further injury in the Colony. My proceedings ordering flogging were not contrary to law, or illegal. The discussion in the House of Commons caused the scandal and not my proceedings. There was no scandal caused b>' my proceedings in the Colony — there was a general feeling that justice had been done. The Secretary of State for the Colonies, by law, has no judicial func- tions in the Colonies ; he has no appellate jurisdiction in the Colonies that I am aware of. The case in question being an extreme one, and a novel one, mighty I think, have been submitted to the Lords of the Privy Council by the Secre- tary of State before he censured me. It was a fit case to put before the Privy Council for their decision. It was a quasi criminal case, and my judgment was final unless set aside by the Privy Council. On the 3rd May, 1889, the case was again brought before the House of Commons when in Committee on Supplies. Mr. Pickersgill moved for a reduction of the salary of the Secretary of State in order to challenge the decision of Lord Knutsford in this case, declaring that he had not been severe enough upon me. The Under Secretary of State (Baron de Worms) is reported on that occasion to have defended the action of the Government, and he entered fully into the particulars of the case. He described the attack made by Thomas Taylor on the Court " as a desperate attempt to murder the Chief Justice," and he concluded his remarks by saying "that it was thought it •' would be unwise to proceed to such an extreme step as suspension of the " Chief Justice." "5 Mr. Pickersgill pressed for a division and the Government was sustained. Thus ended this matter in the House of Commons. Had I been suspended I should have had the advantage of being heard before the Privy Council in support of my judgment. This is the first opportunity I have had of vindicating my conduct. Those who may take an interest in this case are invited to examine the old authorities, as well as the more modern ones hereinbefore referred to and quoted. Montreal, Canada, July, A.D. 1891. ADDRESSES PRESENTED ON MY RETIREMENT. St. Mary's Rectory, Nassau, Bahamas, May 21st, 1890. My Dear Sir,— I have been requested by the clergy a'nl ministers of the several churches and congregations of thi City and Island to forward to you the enclosed letter of sympathy and farewell : — As a comment upon your somewhat sudden and regrettable retirement from the office ol" Chief Justice, the document is a weighty one, coming as it does from an intelligent body of men who, as pastors of these several congre- gations, come into daily contact with every condition of life found in your late jurisdiction. Those whose names arc appended represent the white, black, and coloured element of our population. They know the feelings of European residents of old Bahamian settlers, of merchants who have most at stake in the community, and of the labouring classes. Speaking for myself, an Englishman, who has spent twenty-four years in Nassau, and to whom, from long acquaintance, all classes speak unre- servedly on matters of general interest; speaking for myself, I can say that I view your departure as a public misfortune, for I hazard the assertion that outside a certain circle of a few bound by blood and marriage, it is impossible to find in this Colony a dozen persons who speak otherwise than with respect and confidence of one who is styled by the masses "the righteous judge." I remain, my dear sir, Yours with respect and esteem, CHARLES WAKEFIELD, B.A., Archdeacon. ii6 Sir,— Your sudden retirement from the office of Chief Justice of the Colony cannot be allowed to pass without our expressing and conveying to you the deep regret that we feel at the loss of your able, impartial and conscientious discharge of the manifold and arduous duties devolving upon you as Chief Justice of this Colony and Judge of all the Superior Courts for the past ten years. Wc view your departure with profound sorrow, and as a loss to the Colony of a judge that is upright, fearless and righteous. You carry with you the esteem and respect and the good wishes of a great majority of those who have had opportunities of estimating your worth. We earnestly desire for you and yours, health, happiness and abundant prosperity. 'We have the honor to be, sir, yours faithfully. Signed by Twenty-five Ministers of Religion. A supplementary address in the same terms. Signed by seven more Ministers of Religion from the Out Islands. Nassau, N.P., May 2ist, 1890. Sir,— Knowing that you are soon to take your departure from amongst us, we take this opportunity of expressing our hearty goodwill, sincere appreci- ation and earness sympathy for you. We view with unfeigned regret your consent to and acceptance of the pension granted you by the Legislature of these Islands, not that we deem it unmerited ; but we look upon the measure with unalloyed suspicion after the perusal of the Message of His Excellency the Governor, dated the 25th of February, 1890, inspired as it claims to be by Her Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for the Colonies, that for reasons of State, an upright, conscientious, and impartial judge, as you have proven yourself to be during your ten years of office in the Bahamas, you have been compelled to suffer for righteousness sake, and because you have done your duty. Fully alive to your worth as an able and upright judge, we cannot refrain from expressing our unqualified disapprobation of the course of pro- ceedings which has, we believe, driven you to an enforced resignation. We learn, also, with a feeling of indignation that rumours have been circulated in England with a view to represent you as unpopular amongst "7 the people, and we take this opportunity of repudiating this as a malicious fiction, contrary to the openly expressed wishes of the people who look upon the whole procedure against you as directly opposed to their interests, as against right, and as not calculated to the beiter and more impartial administration of justice in the Colony. You leave us with feelings of our unfeigned respect, not unmingled with alarm for the future for the independence of the Bench in this Colony. We give you the assurance that you possess our cordial esteem, respect and goodwill ; and tendering you our best wishes for the future, we trust you and yours may enjoy all the blessings and happiness of life wherever you may reside. Signed by LOUIS N. DUTY and 112 others. Chambers, 2nd May, 1890. My Dear Sir, — I cannot permit your sudden retirement from the Bench of this Colony to pass without expressing and conveying to you the very great and sincere regret I (and I can with perfect truth declare a large majority of the inhabi- tants) feel at the loss of your able, impartial and conscientious discharge of the multifarious and arduous duties devolving upon you as sole judge of all the Superior Courts therein, and which have been continuously and satis- factorily performed by you for the past ten years. Upon your retirement you will have the satisfaction of knowing that you take with you the respect, good wishes and esteem of those who had opportunities of judging and estimating your worth, who fervently wish for the future health, happiness and prosperity of yourself and amiable family. Believe me, my dear sir. Yours ever faithfully, (Signed), T. M. MATHEWS, Q.C. Nassau, N.P., May 24th, 1890. Sir,— As you have ceased to hold the office of Chief Justice of the Bahamas, having received a retiring allowance from the Legislature, and as you will soon be leaving our shores, we cannot allow you to depart without asking you to permit us to express to you our feelings of respect and confidence. u8 Irreproachable in your private character, and as Chief Justice holdinfr the scales and wielding tiie sword with a firm and even hand, you have caused the Scat of Justice to be feared, respected and trusted, and tempering severity with equity and mercy, you iiave secured that it is neither hated nor despised. We are confident tiiat the vast majority of those who have had intercourse with you, or hrve in any way been observant of your conduct in your high office, feel, with us, that in losing you we are losing an honest man, and a conscientious, fearless and impartial judge. h'rom our own knowledge we can assure you that by very many, especially by those of the lower and more helpless classes of the community, your memory will be cherished with feelings much deeper than those of mere respect. VVc believe that you will carry away with you a mind conscious of its own rectitude, and we assure you of our sincere esteem and our best wishes for your future happiness and prosperity. (Signed by) M. R. PYFROM, JOSEPH RORKR, F. BULLARD, W. F. ALBURY, and 660 others. Nassau, May 23rd, 1890. Reverend Sir, — I have to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of yesterday, requesting me to publish a copy of an address which has been presented to the late Chief Justice, signed by the clergy. Inasmuch as the publication of the address would necessarily be accom- panied with comments of my own not in accord with the sentiments expressed in the document in question, I deem it best, after due consideration, to decline very respectfully to permit the address to appear in my paper. Very faithfully yours, (Signed,) E. A. MOSELEY. To the Venerable Archdeacon Wakefield. 24th May, 1890. My Dear Judge, — I enclose a note from the Editor of the Nassau Guardian, which speaks for itself. Why can he refuse to print in what claims to be a free paper what is merely a matter of general information .-' Why need he "accompany 119 the address with comments of his own " not in accordance with the senti- ments expressed in the document ? The cause of your persecutors must be pretty bad, if they are afraid for it to be known tliat you have hosts of friends. What a pretty pass the Colony has come to when the whole body of ministers of religion are refused a voice in the new.spai)ers. What a country to live in ! How do we know who will be the next object of malicious attack, and what protection or justice could any one hope (ov who has the clique against him ? That article of Wednesday was the most unchristian, ungcntlemanly and inhuman production I have ever seen in a public newspaper. They evidently wish you to leave, apparaitly to outsidiTs, broken, branded and friendless. Magna est Veritas, etc. Always yours with esteem, CHAS. C. WAKEFIELD. THE TIMES ALSO REFUSES. Nassau, N.P., 22nd May, 1S90. Dear Sir, — I received your note enclosing an address to his Honor the late Chief Justice H. W. Austin, with a request to publish the same; in reply thereto, I beg to say I am unable to do so. Yours most obediently, (Signed,) CHARLES H. E. KEMP, Editor Nassau Times. Nassau, May 26th, 1890. Sir, — Under the present existing state of affairs, with the entire Press of the Colony, as we have reason to believe, under the control of the clique inimical to you, we find it a matter of impossibility to obtain the publication of our address and your reply thereto. We feel certain that the refusal to give publication is in keeping with the editorial of the Nassau Guardian of the 2ist instant, so as to make it appear abroad that the editorial is the opinion of the people. : , ' I20 -: We, however, who arc aware of the real situation, know that public opinion is suppressed by the few who actually control the press of the city. We regret this untoward state of affairs, and express without doubt the opinion that were we in telegraphic communication with the world, thi> high-handed and unjust state of affairs would not be tolerated. On behalf of the signers of the address we are Very sincerely yours, (Signed,) JOSEPH RORER, W. F. ALBURY, W. E. PRITCHARD, LOUIS N. DUTY.