THE CASE OF LOUIS CHEMIS.

Pelorus Guardian and Miners' Advocate., Volume 6, Issue 51, 28 June 1895, Page 2

THE CASE OF LOUIS CHEMIS.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —The able leader in your issue of the 7th June has once more afforded evidence of the untiring efforts you make with a noble generosity in the cause of justice and fair play. Allow me a little space in your valuable paper to express my deepest feelings of sympathy for the appeal you so ably have made for the release of an innocent man, whose liberty and freedom is jeopardized by a gross miscarriage of justice. Permit me to re-1 spectfully suggest to the consideration of .the public another point, which is noli irrelevant for our object and should not be overlooked, in order to give more evidence of the innocence of Chemis, and prove that the trial from beginning to end was a blunder. “ The statement made to Colonel Hume after the trial by Loxly Pickerings, George Hogg, and Fred. Sandgwick, all strangers to Chemis, to the effect that they did see on that night a man described as having a heavy sandy moustache, being in possession of a gun, foaming -with rage, having a quarrel with Hawkings before the murder, and this statement has been confirmed by the fact that after - the trial, on the examination of the sleeves of the victim’s coat, stuck by the congealed blood were found three hairs, which had evidently belonged to a sandy moustache.” This point will contribute very much to establish Chemis’ innocence, by the fact that the statement is in thehandabf;an intelligent and impartial officer of the Government-—Colonel Hume. A few months since I sought an interview with the editor of the Tory paper—the Evening Post— of Wellington for the object of trying to soften his views in regard to the Chemis case by arguing the whole evidence, but after that interview I am not in the least surprised at the relentless animosity of that paper against any legislation or movement in favour of Chemis. The editor of the Evening Post, if I am not mistaken, was the Foreman of the Grand Jury in the case of Chemis, and that’s enough to account for his unjustifiable callosity. In his present position he should have the decency of holding his tongue a.nd let the public opinion have predecence. When this heartless gentleman heard the object of my errand, he shortly and roughly said, “Chemis was found guilty, and should have been hanged long ago 1 ” “Please,” said I, “On what evidence?” He replied, “I decline to have any discussion upon the evidence of the case.” To this I promptly re,torted, “ Sir, you refuse to argue on the points of the evidence because you have no ground to stand on. You should go to Russia, where you would find more congenial soil to display your authrocracy,” and then I left.. I don’t wonder after that that Chemis was found guilty, without even a spark of circumstantial evidence to rely bn. During the present session the House of Representatives should consider tbe advisability of appointing a Royal Commission to thoroughly weigh the whole Of the evidence of the case and do justice, as the New South Wales Government has lately done in tlje case of Deaq, who was~condemned to death for poisoning his wife and afterwards reprieved. Hoping your efforts in the interest of justice will Be crowned with success,

I am, &0., D. M. Salvador, Chaplain of Lyttelton Gaol.)