THE LATE CHATHAM ISLAND MURDER.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XVI, Issue 208, 1 September 1881, Page 3

THE LATE CHATHAM ISLAND MURDER.

(By Telegraph.) Wellington, Wednesday Dight. The much talked of despatch from the Governor to tho Secretary of State regarding the commutation of the death sentence on Wharepa was laid on the table of the Council to-day. It ia dated only 9 days back (K 3, Auguat 22nd) and is as follows:— "My Lord,— The 47th article of the Colonial Regulations provides that when a capital sentence is carried into execution in a colony the fact is lo be reported by the Governor to the Secretary of State. No snch report is required in a commutation of the sentence; and I did not therefore tbink it necessary to take up your Lordship's time by reporting that on the llth January last, agreeably to the advice of the Premier, Mr Hall, but acting aa directed by the llth paragraph of the Royal instructions according to my own deliberate judgment, I commuted tbe sentence of death passed on a certain Te Wharepa. for the murder of bis wife, into one of penal servitude for life. Mr Hall, the Premier, like myself, coneidered ths sentence should be commuted but the only two members of the Council (Messrs Whitaker and Dick) who attended ita meeting weie on the otber hand desirous that Te Wharepa should be executed. The two absent members of the Executive Council also telegraphed that tbey were in favor of carrying out the sentence of, death. The opinion of tho_e gentlemeD did not appear to me to possess all the weight wbich they would have had if delivered in Council, after consideration and discussion of the arguments adduced by me for a mitigation of tbe penalty, but tbey certainly show a preponderance unfavorable to the exercise of mercy in this instance among tbe Council end the case may thus be supposed to come within the Tth article of the Royal instructions, which directs the Government to report the grounds and reasons of hia action when in the exercise of the powers granted by the Queen's letters patent he acts in opposition to the advice of the Council. Ido not myBelf think tbat cases of this character are contemplated by that article, the exercise of the prerogative of mercy appearing to form a Bpecial subject of instruction exclusively dealt with by tbe llth article whicb points out the course to te followed by the Governor in the event of his commuting a capital ■sentence in opposition to a majority of his Council, but any doubt oa the subject is sufficient to justify me in troubling your Lordship with reßpect to a matter of otherwise no interest beyond tbe colony, and as ay Ministers are desirous that I Bhould make such a report witb a view to its presentation to the local Legislature, I cannot bave any reluctance in complying with their wishes.— l have, &c, Arthur Gordon." To this despatch is appended the following minute by the Governor. The Governor has carefully considered the papers on the case of Te Wharepa, sentenced to death for the murder of his wife. He has also duly weighed the opinion of the two members of the Executive Council, who attended tbe Board this day aB well as those of the otber members communicated to him by telegraph. The Government has no doubt of the committal of the murder, or that the prisoner ha? legally, and his Excellency believes not unjustly, incurred the penalty of death, bat, before deciding that tbat penalty sball be irflicted, His Excellency feels bound to take into full account the following considerations :— (1) That tbe prisoner was undefended ; (2) That the previous history of the murdered woman reuders her adultery not improbable ; that it was generally supposed to be notorious ; that it was unquestionably btlieved by the prisoner, and appirently by the jury, also who would have recommended him to mercy had not the Judge forbidden them to do so. The first consideration bas very great weight with tbe Government. His Excellency thinks that even the evidence given, adduced ss it was wholly on behalf of the Crown, would have been sufficient to enable the Council to rase a possible preBumption of manslaughter, it beiog alleged, and apparently admi'ted, that the woman had been banished from her husband's house, and was killed while endeavoring to force herself into it sgaiu after haviug been successfully repulsed in ber attempt to force a passage by the door. Ifc ig quite impossible to say what might have been the verdict of the jury had this view of the case been put before them, or by wbat evid»nce it might have been supported had a properly conducted defence t een insisted on. Moreover, had tbe prisoner been defended, doubts maj be entertained whether a successful resistance might not have been t ffered to the admission of tbe most important evidence against bim, evidence which the Judge allowed to be given with manifest hesitation, first saying that be wou'd admit it if the prisoner consented to its reception (a course not altogether in accordance with that prescribed by the best English authorities) and subsequently (tbe prisoner baying refused to do this) admitting it at the request of the prosecutor, who, in answer to a question from the Judge, '•took the responsibility" of the step, a responsibility resting as it cannot but appear to His Excellency with the Court alone. His sectnd consideration baa, of coursp, no legal value, nor d^es His Excellency attach to it all fche weight which seme might be inclined to do, but it is impossible to exclude it from all irfiuence when considering whether the circumstances are such as to permit or preclude the exercise by tbe Crown of the prerogative of mc-rcy. It should not be forgotten that the jury desired to recom mend the prisoner to mercy on the ground of his wife's misconduct, but were directed by tte Judge not to do so, there being no evidence on tbat point before them, tbat is to say, there having been no defence and no evidence given except for the prosecution which was, of course, not likely to adduceevidence exculpatory of the accused. On the whole, therefore, His Excellency cannot say that he is thoroughly satisfied tbat the murder was cot the result of the struggle caused by the woman's effort to re-occupy her husband's house, or that the case is one, the circumstances of which preclude the Crown from sparing tha life of the criminal —His Excellency therefore remits the penalty of death as advised by the hon. the Premier, commuting it to that of imprisonm.nt for life, aud directs the necessary papers to be made out accordingly) signed (A. H. G. Government House. Auckland llth January 1881)." Tbis despatch and minute have excited a good deal of comment, and I understand tbe subject ia likely to be brought up m the House. The papers are not yet printed.