Litchfield to the secretary to the Government of India, foreign department, May 22, 1879

Mr. Litchfield to the secretary to the Government of India, foreign department.

Sir: I have the honor of bringing to your notice the annexed copies of letters and their inclosures which have passed between the deputy commissioner of police and myself relative to a murder alleged to have been committed on board the American bark C. O. Whitmore, when on the high seas, as follows:

• Copy of my letter, No. 252, under date of 13th of May, to the commissioner of police.
• Copy of a letter from the deputy commissioner of police. No. 1767, under date of 20th May.
• Copy of my letter, No. 254, under date of May 21, to the deputy commissioner of police.
• Copy of a letter from the deputy commissioner of police, No. 1797, under date of May 21, with accompanying opinion of the honorable advocate-general, regarding the case as represented to him.

The examination of the accused before the magistrate was concluded to-day, and he was committed for trial before the high court on the 26th instant, I believe.

Regarding the proceedings in this case thus far, I regret that I cannot approve of the course pursued by the deputy commissioner of police, or concur in the opinion submitted by the honorable advocate-general, for the following reasons:

• The crime was committed on an American vessel on the high seas, clearly within the jurisdiction of the United States.
• The person accused of the crime appears on the shipping articles of the vessel as a Swede, and I feel obliged so to regard him; or in case he denies that he is a Swede, and claims any other nationality, in the absence of proof to establish his claim I must regard him as an American.
• The accused was virtually a prisoner in my custody when he arrived at Calcutta on an American ship and in irons; and my request to the commissioner of police to take him ashore to a place of greater security, till I could find it expedient to send him to the United States for trial, was not a surrender of the prisoner to the local authorities, but a request for a favor, which, I presumed, it was usual to grant under such circumstances.
• The application for the opinion of the advocate-general appears to me to have assumed without proof that the accused was a British subject, and to have represented me as having claimed his surrender for trial in America, whereas no such claim had been made by me.

Furthermore, by raising a question regarding the extradition laws, it may have conveyed the idea that the accused was a “fugitive from justice,” who had been arrested here, whose extradition I had asked for.

I fear that by reason of a misapprehension of the nature of the case, the honorable advocate-general gave an opinion quite different to what it would have been had he fully understood the facts concerning it.

Action in accordance with the opinion given, it appears to me would be in violation of the rights of the United States, and establish a precedent at variance with the accepted interpretation of international law both in England and the United States.

Were there proof to establish the claim of the accused to be a British subject, and had he escaped from the American vessel, and subsequently been arrested here, or had he come regularly into the custody of the local authorities otherwise than by my request, I should not have felt called upon to raise the question of jurisdiction.

Inasmuch, however, as I am impressed with grave doubts regarding the regularity of the proceedings referred to, and feel assured that the Government of India is equally desirous with my own that no mistake should be made from lack of a clear understanding of the question at issue, I respectfully submit the matter for your consideration, and have the honor to request as early attention thereto as may be convenient on account of the limited time before the date fixed for the trial.

I have, &c.,