THE CARL ATROCITIES.

Evening Star, Issue 3100, 25 January 1873, Page 3

THE CARL ATROCITIES.

The Melbourne papers contain long accounts of the trial of Morris and Mount, for complicity in the Carl massacres. The evidence was recapitulative of that given in the inferior court, and published by us ; and in stating his case, the Crown Prosecutor (Mr Adamson) said he was “glad to be able to be able to do without that man,” meaning tfce notorious Murray. We give a condensed account of the speeches by Mr Ireland, the prisoners’ counsel and the summing up of the Chief Justice Mr Ireland, in the course of his address to the jury for the defence, said : —“ As to the arms that were put on beard, why, every vessel that cleared out for tl at part of the world with any object was obliged to carry arms to protect the cfew from the inhabitants of those islands. And with reference tb these natives, as allusion had been made to the subject, he must say that so long as two races existed side by side, the one inferior to the other, the same course of dealing could not be pursued with the weaker race as with the stronger one. He did not defend the system, he was merely stating a fact—was merely stating what everybody knew to be a fact, and the British Government had recognised the fact, for it had passed a lawlecalising the traffic —had passed a law authorising the transfer of these natives from one Island to another. They would not h'Ave done that had the men been whites, or the equals of whites. This w&s done to develop© the resources of Queensland, and of some islands in the South Pacific occupied by whites. They thus recognised that the race which peopled this hemisphere were different from whites. This would show, then, that these prisoners were not the murderers and villains that t}p*y had been painted simply because they went Into thii' business. The traffic'was recogfused by the British Government, A British consul issued licenses for it. A British consul boarded the ships and inspected the natives, although what his inspection was worth might be judged of from the evidence that had been given on this trial, and British crui sers seemed only to make very cursory examinations of any ships they met. It seemed to him that the supervision began at the wrong end, and that instead of its beginning at Fiji, it should have been carried ona(i j;be islands. Regulations were ta ked about requiring- interpreters for every language ; but it was well known that there were nearly as many languages as there were islands, and that It was therefore impossible to obtain interpreters. It was nonsense, therefore, to talk of iot'eypekre. And as tbe natives,

if got at all, must be got without interpreters, the hj nglish Government, by sanctioning the traffic in the way they did, necessarily sanctioned whatever abuses had occurred. How were people to go to these islands, and without knowing the language, make the natives understand they were to be engaged for three years, and were to be sold for LlO per head ? How many vessels could be freighted if every native was made to understand this ? Force, therefore, was inoi lental to the system, and its use was connived at by the Brilish Government. They recognised the traffic as an opening in which young and adventurous men might be employed.” With regard to the two prisoners, Mr Ireland said:—“ These men left Victoria with the design of settling on some of the islands. They had no intention or desire at all to begin kidnapping, and it was not till they got to Palma that this system of kidnapping was commenced. The vessel was purchased in Melbourne by Murray ; it was insinuated that the prisoners were his partners in that transaction. But there was nothing of the kind. The only arrangement made was that they should obtain land, and that Murray should supply the labour that was wanted.”

The Chief Justice’s summing up was able and exhaustive. He defined the crime of murder, a id alluded at length to one of the poi ts of the defenc?, namely, that the blacks on board the Carl were struggling to get possession of the deck, and that consequently the whites wore in imminent per 1, and had to kill them in self-defence. “ If,” said his Honor to the jury, “you thought that the ship and the lives of the parsons on board were in imminent peril, and the taking away of the lives of the natives was the only way in which these persons could save themselves from peril, then it is just possible you miaht consider it an element in reducing it from murder to manslaughter. I have no hesitation in telling you that I cannot put tho case before you in that way with the evidence I have before me, but I cann t withdraw it from you I see no evidence, considering tho matter impart ally, which shews that they were in imminent peril, that imminent peril existed, or that there was any necessity, if they were in imminent peril, to have recourse to the violent measure of taking away all their lives. . , . I think there was no imminent peril existing The steps were not taken which men ought to have ta en, how.-oever determined, which men having any reg rd to human life would have taken. Yon must remember that you arc not to regard this as a case of peril in the same way as if these men were not end to effect their escape. T hey were put there unlawfully by men on board that ship, and if that or w or those men < n board that ship were placed in peril, they brought them-elves into that peril, ami they cannot be allowed to hold the same position as men who were brought into it by the acts of natives themselves. These natives were justified in gaining their liberty as best they could ; and if the man on board the ship resisted them, they were perfectly justified in taking away life, if there was no other way of escape for them. On the part of the natives, it would have been an act of justifiable homicide.”

The jury, after a deliberation of about four hours, returned a verdict against M unit of not guilty of iqurder, but guilty of manslaughter ; and against Morris, guilty of aggravated manslaughter, Tflty did not seem to be less intelligent than ordinary jurymen, and this verdict took every one else who had heard the evidence by surprise. It is the general opinion of the public of Victori*, and the press which represents it, that no clearer ca e of murder has ever been established ; and it is supposed that the jury won d have returne I a vi-.rdi ;t more in accordance with the evidei ce had it not been for the fact t that Murray, the archoffender, still walks about a free man. It is also said that that is no rea on why the New South Wales Executive would not hang Armstrong and Dowdeii. With regard to t’ie verdict of “aggravated manslaughter” against Morris, the Chief Justice said there was “no such thing,” and a verdict of “manslaughter” was entered The prisoners were brought up for sentence two or three days after, and several witnesses gave them a good character. The Chief Justice then mentioned a difficulty that had been suggested to him about passing the sentence. The Imperial Act 12 and 13 Viet., cap %, which was p.ssed iu 1840, to give Colonial Courts the power to try offences committed on the Sea, contains a provision that persons convicted of offences shall be liable and subject to, and shall suffer all such and the same pains, penalties. Ac., as by any law or laws wow (that is in 1849) in force, persons convicted of the same respectively would be subject nud liable to in case such offences had been committed and were inquired of, &c., iw England .” By the 9th Geo. IV,, cap. 31, sec 9, the punishment for manslaughter was, in transportation for life or for not less than seven years, or to be imprisoned with or without hard labor lor any term not exceeding four years. In 1881, however, an Act Was pa-sed in England, 24th and 25th V ict. cap. 95, which repealed the 9th Geo. IV., and by the Act 24t,h and 25th Viet., cap. 100 the punishment i rovided for manslaughter is penal servitude for life, or for any term not less than three years, or to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding two years, with or without hard labor. The question thus arises, what is the punishment that is to be awarded? Trans portation has been abolished, and penal servitude substituted. Can the Court award transportation or penal servitude, or is it limited to simple imprisonment with or without hard labor ? Toe Chief Justice intimated that he would be glad of the astidance of counsel iu determining the question. argument on the point was postponed for a few days.