Litchfield to William H. Seward, May 23, 1879

Mr. Litchfield to Mr. Seward.

Sir: I have the honor to inform you that Captain Shillaber, master of the American hark C. O. Whitmore, reported that during his passage fom New York to Calcutta, on the 31st day of January, 1879, when sixteen days out from New York, in latitude 25° 36’ N., and longitude 35° 50’ W., an ordinary seaman, whose name appears on the ship’s articles as John Anderson, stabbed the chief officer, Mr. William C. Moffett, in his left side, causing his death a few hours afterwards.

Intelligence regarding this occurrence first reached me by telegraph from Diamond Harbor, a station about —— miles below Calcutta on the Hoogly River. The telegram read as follows: “Murder has been committed on board the C. O. Whitmore. Please make necessary arrangements.”

This reached me on the evening of the 12th instant, after office hours, and, as it gave me the impression that the murder might have been committed that day, and that prompt measures might be necessary to secure the offender and prevent further trouble, I immediately sent a note to the superintendent of police with a copy of the telegram and requested him to take necessary measures to secure the accused upon the arrival of the vessel. The next day I received from the port officer a copy of an extract from the report of the captain of the C. O. Whitmore giving the particulars above referred to, copy of which is herewith inclosed.

Upon receipt of this information I wrote at once to the commissioner of police requesting him to have the accused taken ashore and imprisoned till such time as I should find it expedient to send him to the United States for trial. (Copy of this letter, No. 252, under date of May 13, inclosed.)

When on board the ship on the following morning the captain received a note from a sergeant of the river police requesting him to appear at the police court with the American consul with him. I accompanied Captain Shillaber to police headquarters, and had an interview with the deputy commissioner of police, who informed me that “the case” had been made over to the government solicitor, and the accused would be taken before the magistrate at once, and if I had any objections to his trial here I must appear before the magistrate and make them. I then called upon the government solicitor and expressed doubts regarding the jurisdiction of the local courts, and upon his suggestion the magistrate postponed the examination until the opinion of the law officer of the government could be obtained.

On the 20th instant I received a communication from the deputy commissioner of police to the effect that the question of jurisdiction had been referred, through the government solicitor, to the advocate-general, who had decided that the accused should be tried before the high court of Calcutta in its admiralty jurisdiction. (Copy of this letter, No. 1767, inclosed.)

Accordingly the examination before the magistrate was proceeded with.

On the 21st instant I sent a letter to the deputy commissioner of police requesting a copy of the advocate-general’s opinion. Shortly after, upon the same day, I received a letter from the deputy commissioner, inclosing a copy of said opinion. (Copies inclosed.)

From the nature of the application upon which the honorable advocate-general based his opinion, I felt convinced that he had misapprehended the nature of the case, and by reason thereof had given an opinion, which, if followed, would result in a violation of the rights of the United States. I therefore appeared before the magistrate yesterday and told him I could not concur in the opinion expressed by the advocate-general, and wished him to note the fact lest my presence during all the proceedings, without protest, might be construed as indicating my approval.

Upon my return to the office I wrote to the honorable secretary to the government of India, foreign department upon the subject, copy of which is inclosed.

The reasons therein stated for not concurring in the opinion of the advocate-general, viz:

• That the crime was committed on board an American vessel on the high seas clearly within the jurisdiction of the United States.
• That the accused, signed the shipping articles as a Swede, and I must regard him as such; or in case he denied that he was a Swede and claimed any other nationality, I must, in the absence of proof, regard him as an American.
• That the accused, having been brought to Calcutta in irons on an American ship, was virtually a prisoner in my custody, and had not been surrendered to the local authorities, nor had I asked to have him delivered to me.
• That the accused was not a “fugitive from justice,” and that I had reason to believe from the nature of the application for the opinion of the advocate-general, that he had been led to misapprehend the nature of the case, seemed sufficient for referring the matter to the Government of India and urging its careful consideration.

The accused says he signed the name John Anderson to the shipping articles and told the shipping commissioner he was a Swede at the suggestion of his boarding-house keeper in New York, and asserts that his real name is Alfred Hussey; that his home is in Liverpool, and gives the name and number of the street where he says both his parents are now living, but he furnishes no proof of these assertions.

If the accused is able to prove that he is a British subject I do not understand that the courts here would have jurisdiction, as he was not arrested on shore or surrendered for trial; and even then I am told by the government solicitor there is no Indian act by which offenses committed by a British subject within the limits of a foreign state are made punishable here.

As regards this particular case I feel confident that trial here would be as impartial and as satisfactory in its results as one held in the United States, and would be attended with far less trouble, and there are no special reasons that I am aware of why a trial in the United States should be desired if the courts here have jurisdiction; but as establishing a precedent it appears to me to be of the greatest importance to have it carefully considered and wisely decided.

I shall be thankful for any suggestion regarding the course I ought to pursue when similar cases arise in the future.

I am, &c.,