THE CASE OF GARRATT THE CONVICT.

Marlborough Express, Volume III, Issue 113, 18 April 1868, Page 4

THE CASE OF GARRATT THE CONVICT.

To the Editor of the Marlborough Express. Sir, passed an Act, entitled the Convict Prevention Act, making It unlawful for any person who had previously been convicted of felony, either in Great Britain orany colony except Victoria, to be found in Victoria, unless the party had been at least two years at liberty. Atthistfme the Government of Tasmania was In the habit of granting pardons to convicts under sentence, on condition of their quitting the colony. A great many robberies were about this time committed on the diggings, which were all put down to the credit of the Vandemonians. The Governor of Victoria sent the Act home for the Koyal assent, and in due course it was returned disallowed. The fact was that Sir William Denison, at that time Governor of Tasmania, wrote to the Secretary for the Colonies, representing the Victorian Act as an infringement of the royal prerogative of pardon. Sir William urged that the royal pardon operated as a full discharge of the consequences of conviction, and in this view the Colonial Office concurred. But at this time a Colonial Act sent home for the royal assent was in force until returned disallowed, and the Victorian police authorities acted oh it from the first. Every vessel arriving from Hobart Town or Launceston was searched, and all expirees or conditional pardon men were sent back. No sooner did the formal disallowance arrive in Melbourne, than the Victorian Legislature re-enacted the statute. This time the Act was assented to, and has continued in force ever since in Victoria. I am not aware whether there is. an Act of this kind in New Zealand. Sir David Monro, in his address to the Nelson Financial Reform League, states that the Otago police escorted Burgess’s gang out of the province of Otago into Canterbury, and Sir David argues that if the police were under the control of the General instead of the Provincial Government, they would have escorted them out of the colony, and the Maungatapu murders would have been prevented. Where the police could have escorted them to, is what Sir David does not explain. The difficulty has at length arisen in a most puzzling way. You will recollect that Henry Garratt was sentenced to penal servitude in Victoria for robbing the Bank of Victoria on Ballarat. - Before his term expired, the Victorian Government granted him a pardon, intimating to him at the same time that he most leave the colony. He came over to New Zealand, and at once commenced sticking-up in Otago. Shortly after being taken, he was tried, convicted, and sentenced to penal servitude. Garratt has been again brought up at the City Court in Melbourne as a prisoner of the Crown illegally at large. His story js a curious one. He stated that while at work in the quarries he hurt his knee, and was sent to the hospital; while in hospital he re - ceived a pardon, but was informed that he must leave New Zealand- He replied that ho would ptcfer remaining in New Zealand to returning to Victoria, as the Victorian police would not allow him tol get a living there; .on which, he says, be,was taken out of bed, and at once sent in charge-of a detectivetb Melbourne; of course he came within the terms of the Convict Prevention Act of Victoria, and they sent him back to Dunedin by the s s. Omeo last month.By y?hat legal authority Garratt was isent to Melbournedoesoot appear. But it is plaihjthai if New Zealand has an Act similar to the Victorian ■ one, Garrett may pass the remainder of bis natural life in passing between Dunedin and Melbourne, and as he will require a detective to keep him company, the process will be rather expensive, What is to :be done?; It is said that once on a time a Jersey judge, in sentencing a prisoner at the: bar, said you have been'so repeatedly convicted, and yoar character U so bad, that you cannot bo allowed

any longer to remain on the island. The sentenc of the Court, therefore, is that you be transported to England. Prima facie it would seem that the New Zealand Government might get over the difficulty by following the Jersey precedent; but, unfortunately. it has been tried before by Victoria, and found not to answer.

A few years ago two convicts managed to conceal themselves aboard one of the mail steamers in King George's Sound, and were landed in Melbourne j they were at once sent back. But this was too good an opportunity for the Melbourne authorities to pick a quarrel with the Homo Government on the question of transportation to Western Australia, to be lost. Accordingly a complaint was made to the Colonial Office, and it was urged that the mail boats ought no longer to call at King George’s Sound. But the Imperial Government refused to cut Western Australia out of the mail line, and the P. and O. Company objected to giving up their coaling station. Of course nothing could be easier then than for the Victorian authorities to prevent convicts from Western Australia lauding from the mail boats in Victoria. But the selfappointed custodes mordum in Victoria were indignant, and they forthwith opened a subscription list for the purpose of sending expiree convicts to London ; of course they could not compel them to go. Neither could any Colonial Governor give the royal assent to an Act for transporting colonial convicts to England, and so the voluntary system' was tried. It was announced that any person who had been convicted of felony, and whose sentence bad expired, could have a free passage to London. A few went, but the system of giving such a privilege to ci devant criminals only was too ridiculous, and it was soon dropped. Now, the fact is, there is a great deal of hypocrisy and humbug in the whole affair. First, Sir William Denison, while protesting that a pardon placed a convict in the same position as a person who had never been convicted, and who had an undoubted right to reside in any part .of the British dominions, was at the very time granting pardona to convicts on the condition of their quitting Tasmania. The Victorian police, without any legal authority, hunted Garrett out of that colony. He had been convicted of felony in Victoria, and no colony can be allowed to send its expiree convicts to another. Unless there be a Convict Prevention Act oo the New Zealand Statute Hook, the forced deportation of Garratt from New Zealand to Melbourne was also illegal. As for the Otago police escorting Burgess’s gang out of Otago, it is a most inexplicable proceeding. If Burgess’s gang had been charged with any crime it was the duty ot the police to arrest them and bring them for examination before a Magistrate, if not, the police had no right to interfere with them. Under what law a colonial police could expel any person from the colony without trial I cannot imagine. It is true that a Russian Prefect of Police can do so, but the Australasian are British and not Russian colonies. Besides, the Russian police authorities would order an obnoxious person to quit the Emperor’s dominions and not merely to go to another province. Sir W. Denison was perfectly right in saying that a convict who had either been pardoned or whose sentence had expired has the same rights as a person who has never been convicted of any crime ; but this doctrine is not consistent with conditional pardons. These colonies are all portions of the British Empire, and if a man is fit to be at liberty in one colony he is equally fit to be so in another. It is perhaps as well that Garratt’s case should have occurred to furnish the reductio ad absurdum of the present colonial law. The Melbourne Argus has always been an advocate for the strict enforcement of the Victorian Convict Prevention Act. Mr. Edward Wilson, one of its proprietors, was one of the principal movers in the subscription for sending expiree convicts to England. The practice in Victoria seems to have been to exclude parties who have been convicts out of Victoria by the legal operation of the Convict Prevention Act, and to drive Victorian Convicts by the illegal action of the Executive Government and the police. Since Garratt has been sent back to Victoria the Argus has discovered that it is not right to hunt a human being like a wild beast even if he has been twice convicted of felony. The question is, shall New Zealand have an Act similar to the Victorian or not ? The royal assent to the Victorian Act is a tacit admission by the Imperial Government of the right of a colony to exclude parties who may previously have been convicts in another colony. But there can be no pretence for saying that Victoria or any other colony can expel its o vn expirees. Hud Garratt not been convicted at Now Zealand he would have been legally free in Victoria. Yet his legal freedom would have been of no avail as the police would have worried him out of the colony. It is the province of the Legislature to enact laws and of the Executive to administer them. If the police authorities in New Zealand commence expelling parties from the colony illegally on their own authority, they may find themselves not only in collision with the other colonies but the Imperial Government. Of course the Victorian illegal practice must bo stopped. , | 0 At the Postal Conference held in Melbourne last year, it was resolved to hold other conferences of delegates from the various colonies to consider other subjects of interest as they might arise. Previous to the conference on the postal question a conference of Victoria,: New South Wales, and South Australia was held on the Border Duties Question, and its resolutions were afterwards ratified by Acts of the various Legislatures. Mr. Hall in the Now Zealand; Assembly of last sessiomstated that it was intended to bring th(j subject of a general colonial Court of Appeal before the next conference. 1 It would appear that the convict question would be much better settled by an intercolonial conference than J by, separate and perhaps conflicting legislation in the Various colonies. The Border Duties Conference was a success ; ttie Postal was a" failure. Perhaps the Postal question may have to be settled by a second conference. ■ Should Ithls "be i Bo rans an interchange of the views of the gqxeramynta on the convict question and.practiCs.—Yours, &c., Heney Cobkis. Blenheim, April 2nd,!868. - 45,5 ssumi& ; ..Since-- writing the le.ter-Ao you,i?a~Garratt, I have, jascertained £thatf. Garratt^jwito' convicted in Melbourne in. Nov, 1855, and sentenced to iO years ‘pehiti servitude.' In 18(11 lie Was granted a"ticket-of-leave on condition of residing in the Beech worth district He escaped to Otago; and, as he alleged in the City Court at Melbourne, he was driven out of Victoria fay the police. There can be ho doubt that the Melbourne Bench rightly interpreted the law. Had the New Zealand

authorities in 1861 sent Garratt back to \ ictoria he would of course have been sent back to Pentridge to complete his Victorian sentence, which would not have expired until 1865. Instead of this they allowed him to be convicted in New Zealand, and in 1868, nearly three years after the expiration of his Victorian sentence, they send him back to Victoria on a charge of being a person of the Crown illegally at large. The provisions of the Victorian Act are, that no person who has been convicted of felony out of Victoria shall be allowed to reside in that colony until he has been three years free. Garratt s Victorian sentence has long expired. His New Zealand sentence had only been terminated by a pardon the previous month. April 17th, 1868. ' H. C.