LATER.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXVIII, Issue 3718, 2 October 1906, Page 3

LATER.

His Recapture, Escape tbe only Moans of Protest. Will not Kill any more Chinamen. Christchurch, Yesterday. Lionel Terry was re-captured at Ohoka, up the North liiu, on Sunday afternoon by two constables. He was brought to town this morning.

He says he had no thought of making a permanent escape, and realised that re-capture was only a question of a day or two at most. Whilst hoping to be as long free as possible, he was not sanguine of evading his pursuers for any length of time. He persists in characterising escape as a protest against the systen of which he disapproves, Terry declares it is his intention to make the same protest whenever an opportunity offers. He will, in fact, escape from custody again on the very first chance he gets. He realises thoroughly the hopelessness of attempting to get any distance away, but he is quite satisfied to get an occasional airing if the fates are fortuitous. He regards an escape as the only possible protest for an inmate of a mental hospital and incarceration in such an institution worries him very much. He considers his committal to the asylum is neither an excuse nor justification, and is persistent in asking for an inquiry into his own case and into the legislation which permits such a state of things. He made his escape clad only in a shirt, but had planted other clothes in the asylum grounds. He walked all night through a bitter sou’-wester and succeeded in getting additional clothes and food from a farmhouse. He states he would not kill another Chinaman it he were set free, killing one being as sufficient a protest as killing fifty would be

Correspondence with the Government.

If Lionel Terry’s recent flight from Sunnyside was not evidence enough that life at the Mental Hospital has palled on him, sufficient is given by a letter which he

wrote to the Premier on 14th August, under the heading “ Rex v. Lionel Terry.” “On September 14th last,” he writes, “ I killed a Chinaman in Haining-street, Wellington. This action was undertaken by me for the purpose of challenging by practical test the law relating to the presence _of race aliens in this country, which law I hold to be inimical to the health, safety, and general welfare of its white inhabitants, and contrary to the British Constitution.” He goes on to say that he did not attempt to plead for his life, and announced his refusal to accept a commutation of his death sentence to penal servitude for life. He informed the Minister of Justice that “only a direct issue would adequately meet the case, and he received, indirectly, an unsatisfactory and evasive reply.” Subsequently h; laid the matter, in writing, before the late Premier, and was “ led to believe by the late Governor of Wellington Gaol that the case was under the consideration of the Government.” Then came the transfer to Lyttelton, and ultimately to Sunnyside, a proceeding which Terry describes as “a disgraceful and cowardly subterfuge.” Plainly, he wants the Government to recognise that while in full possession ,of his mental faculties he killed a Chinaman, and he wants the issue thoroughly threshed out, not with a view to condoning his deed, but traversing the whole principle of yellow immigration. “ I trust,” he states, “ you will respect the following statements : ‘ ‘ If the laws of a country are designed for the benefit of its people, as they should be, there should be no hesitation on the part of the Government in administering them. The failure to execute a law is certain proof that it is imperfect, or unjust, and it must inevitably be regarded with contempt by the people as a natural consequence. The law admitting race aliens into this colony is either a just and beneficial law, or an unjust and injurious law. If it be held _to be just, I hereby exercise my right as a British subject in demanding that it shall be executed in accordance with the sentence passed upon me at my trial. If it be held to be unjust, then by the same right I demand its abolition and my own freedom. If, however, I, as a British subject, am refused my right to justice, then I, on ray part, must refuse to remain a Brl tish subject, since I cannot even pretend to respect a nation which withholds justice from its people, nor is it reasonable or natural that I should.” Terry adds the following note : —“A man should be tried by his intellectual peers, I was not, and, therefore, did not feel it encumbent upon me to reveal the knowledge I have gathered regarding this subject, more especially as, in the opinion of ignorant men, such a course might have been considered an attempt on m / part to palliate my supposed crime. This knowledge, in spite of its vital importance, I intend to retain until approached by those whose bounden duty is to be acquainted with it, in the respectful manner becoming to those who seek guidance.” Sir Joseph Ward, in a letter dated 20th August, briefly replied that the matter was one under the control of the Hon. J. M’Gowan, Minister for Justice, to whom Mr. Torry’s communication had been referred.