THE CASE OF SULLIVAN.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXX, Issue 4316, 20 January 1875, Page 3

THE CASE OF SULLIVAN.

(From the Melbourne Leader.) We pointed out recently that the exercise of the Queen's prerogative by the Governor of New Zealand in the case of Sullivan was a legal bar to our sending that miscreant back in custody to the colony that liberated him, and suggested that if the authorities here had discharged Sullivan, warning him to leave the colony within a stated period, meanwhile keeping him under close surveillance, we should soon have been rid of his hated presence. The legality of that view is suppdrted by the protest of a section of the New Zealand Press, which declares that Sullivan, with the Queen's pardon in his pocket, "is to all intents and purposes according to law a free man, with all the rights and liberties of a British subject," and the difficulty that the authorities here find in carrying out their decision in regard to him is additional proof, if any were neoded, that their just indignation outran their discretion. Viewing the case in its moral aspect, however, we should be quite justified in sending Sullivan away in one of the Government steamers, and landing him on the coast of New Zealand irrespective of any protest on th» part of the authorities there. New Zealand, it may be urged, had very little consideration for her neighbors when Bhe let loose this ruffian to prey upon them, and it may be argued that we should have no greater consideration for New Zealand. Unfortunately, however, reprisals of this character made in anger are not calculated to bring about the harmonious action that is necessary to prevent each colony in future transporting its dangerous criminals to tho other, and it is desirable that some common understanding should bo come to upon this matter at once. In new South Wales, where there "is a healthy tone of public opinion upon this subject, and where another threatened debate upon Gardiner's release may upset the Parkes Ministry, we may count upon moral sympathy and material support ; and if we abstain from dealing further with Sullivan until the New Zealand Government, together with the other Australian Governments, have agreed to keep their own criminals, or to oxercise proper local surveillance over pardoned convicts, wo shall have achieved a more desirable end than if we strained our own local statute in tho isolated case of Sullivan. It would follow as a matter of courso upon such an agreement between the colonies that Sullivan would bo either sent back to New Zealand, with the consent of that colony, or discharged from custody'here with a strong hint to at once take his departure. Practically, Queensland has adopted tho system we advocate, two criminals there having lately been pardoned conditionally upon not quitting the colony, where it may bo presumed they will bo kept under surveillance. Recent unpleasant arrivals in Australia from the French

convict settlement' of New Caledonia invest the whole question with international as well as intercolonial importance, and no time should be lost by these Governments in dealing with the difficulty in a statesmanlike manner. The same journal has the following : Sullivan, the New Zealand Thug,' remains still in confinement at the Melbourne gaol, the steamship companies refusing to take him, and the Government, it may be presumed, scarcely seeing the way clear to employ the Victoria or the Pharos for that service. In our haste to get rid of Sullivan it seems probable that the indignation of the public outran its discretion. We have undoubtedly a legal right to hold him in confinement for the full term of three years allowed by the Influx of Criminals Prevention Act. It may be doubted, however, if we have the legal power to carry him to a neighboring colony and land him there, even though it be New Zealand, to which we are indebted for the foul importation. Sullivan was released by an exercise of the Queen's prerogative, as are many quite aa notorious criminals by the Indian Government. Landing in England, the royal privilege he enjoyed was recognised by the police there, who contented themselves by simply keeping Wm under constant surveillance, which at last became so irksome that he was glad to leave the country. Had they arrested him he could have pleaded the Que«n's pardon, and must have been discharged. Here the case is different. An Act is in force that locally overrides the Royal prerogative, bnt it is of no effect beyond Victoria. We may punish the ruffian for being here in contravention of the law, but it is gravely to be doubted if we can extend the operation of the law so far as to transport Sullivan to New Zealand, or anywhere else. Obviously the better course to have pursued in Sullivan's case would have been to discharge him, with the intimation that if he did not leave the colony within three days he would "be re-arrested and sentenced to imprisonment. We should thus have been relieved of a great difficulty. Kept under close surveillance night and day, the fellow would have quickly found means to leave the colony, without any more trouble to us than the employment, for a short time, of a couple of detectives. Meantime it is understood that the police are actively instituting inquiries as to the murders Sullivan is supposed to have planned and carried out in this colony, and if.any one charge of this character can be sheeted home to him it will have been as well that a difficulty arose as to the fellow's disposal.