(In issue of 3rd October.)
After Yuan-chung-chao had been shot by Fawoott, the villagers were very much alarmed and excited, and the Magistrate of the district on learning the news, sent and had Fawceit arrested and taken to hia Yamen. This was really extending proteotion to foreigners, for he was afraid that the villagers would make s disturbance. Fawcett was then examined xs to the circumstances of the case, and made a full confession, and he also wrote a letter to the foreigner superintending the erection of the lighthouse, The fatal weapon was taken and brought to the Yamen, and that, as well as the reply [of the foreigner], wax deposited along with the records of the There is the least doubt that ug-chiao was shot by Faweett.
The Magistrate then sent Fawcett on to the Chefoo Taotai, and the latter having just received a letter from the British Consul, at once handed Fawcett over to that official. All this shows that Chinese officials observe the Treaty, and are careful in their treatment of foreigners, Faweott, however, now changed his statement, and said that he was beating one man with revolver when it went off by accident, and hit another who was standing by." But why must he use " revolver of all thinge, which he knew wae a dangerous weapon. fo beat a man with His doing ay shows he was bent on murder, and the wish of Taotai that he should forfeit life for life was only reasonable. English law, however, is liberal with such offences, and calls wrongfully Jie a attach some punishment.
Judge directed the Jury in accordance i law, and ina spirit of humanity for which ho deserves gratitude, but the Jury found " verdict of not guilty: Bow can auch verdict, for which no reasons antinfy people? If killing & man by a gunshot is no offence, a fortiors it in no offence to kill'a ian in a fight, At present friendship and peace exist between Western nations and China, and both officials and people are' in' harmony, but, if Chinaman were to shoot a for: against it.
Moreover, even according to Engli law, a case such as th punishment; bit thy acted up to their ow expected that the Chinese will be quietly restrained by their own officials, Here: After. there will be cases, and those too certainly not few, where Chinese will thia us a precedent, and oven surpass original; and Tam afraid the Chivese officials will have difficulty in giving judgment as Chinese In would require. Such atate of things will not be to the advantage of foreigners.
2.—Reply by a Western Scholar to the above.
(laaue of 14th October.)
I have read the letter ayhich you printed inbour issue of 3rd October from your Chefoo Correspondent, Ho-wei-kung, ro-garding the Fawcett trial, in which it was made to appear that Fawcett's having escaped punishment was something very extraordinary, and that the disregard of the Judge's ruling by the jury was unfair and unjust; and inasmuch asthe state-incomplete, I beg space for the following remarks, The letter leaves out two important considerations. 'The firat is, that it appeared from the hearing ofthe trial, that on the morning of the day on which the unfortunate occurrence took place, the natives at the Promontory had been mal ing a disturbance, and that a number of villagers, armed' with hoes and other instruments, had mobbed and beaten Fa cott and his men; and, therefore when, in the afternoon, on hearing that his men hind again been attacked, Fawoett secreted a revolver about his person before going out, it is evident that he did so as a matter of self-protection. Moreover, be fore thia, it was already common talk in Chefoo that the mandarin in charge of the work had not been repressing the country people, but rather had been egging them on to be obstructive to foreigners, #0 as to prevent the latter from employing Ningpo workmen, the consequence of which was, that the' villagers hiad become very bold and aggressive. The fault, therefore, rests rather with the offic than with Faweett, inasmuch as they did not repress the matter ginning, but allowed it to proceed till it came bloodshed. Th erection of the lighthouse was no private matter of foreigners, but an Imperial affair, and therefore the local offic should lnve taken particular measures to repress the population.
Secondly, the evidence given by th witnesses called by the Chingse offic was mutually contradictory and—iitsufficient, Moreover, one of them had been "beaten by the officials in order to compel him to give evidence as they wished—a circumstance that to Englishman's mind would throw great picion on the prosecution, 'Che jury, all of whom were diet of not guilty, most likely on this particular ground. The evidence of the Ningpo workmen, called' by the defence, entirely pact that given by the prosecu-ion, and these men had not, like the proitnessos, been induced by threats and promises to give evidence, but lad only boon assured that if they spoke the whole trush they would not be handed over to the mandarin for imprisonment, prosecutor's withers, who hid be benton, lind no alternative but to speak iis ho did.
An regards the confession made Fawcott when before the Chin i Was insufficient. English law do desire an accused person to make a confession he is usually @ at the time of arrest, that it wi etter not to make a statement. It in considered that, independent proof of the citcumstances is more satisfactory than a oonfession, and-at any rate the accused must have been firat told that any statement he thay hide may be used against him at his But the conduct of the mandarin torting a atten different from sich straightforward dealing.
The Judge, in charging the jury, at the close of the trial, did his best to porauade them, to, return a verdict of guilty;'but he only considered offence to be that of manslaughter, im wrongfully used a he'ought/not to have ao used it, jury, however, were of a different opinion, on the grounds that thie witness had b beaten and the populace had not been kept q Had this been a'case between two Englishinien, sime, auch' verdict by the jury would have been considered quite correct.
The institution of juries may not quite understood by "Chinese, but it system which is highly cherished by the Knglish people, as being their best possible safeguard, and which hes worked most satisfactorily for several hundred years. If you search the world through, it will be found that all civilized and fourishing nations regard the protection of the subject as the most important consideration, and that those nations which have no' protection for the subject are civilised and flourishing only in name. It is, therefor incumbent on every nation to abolish ination by torture, and I anticipate that this nation (China) will before many Years sweep away such an abuse. It behoves those who have the management of affairs to consider the matter well.
3.—Reply to the above by @ Chinaman, (Issue of 13th October.) I have just read the remarks by a Western Scholar," in the Siunpao, on the
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.