Mr. Choate to Mr.
Hay.
American Embassy
London, August 14,
1901.
No. 640.]
Sir. I inclose a petitiona addressed to me by Charles
Lilly white, a naturalized American citizen (British born), asking me to
present his claim set forth in the petition to the British Government,
in respect to which I have the honor to ask your instructions, having
myself a strong opinion that he is entitled to have it presented
diplomatically.
[Page 232]
You will observe that it is the case of the arrest in New Zealand of the
wrong man for a crime committed in England seven years before, and taken
away from his residence and his work; kept in custody for more than 6
months, under circumstances of very considerable hardship; transported
to England and there discharged, there being clear proof that he was not
the man.
You will also observe that Lillywhite resided in the United States most
of the time for nine years, from 1885 to 1894, during which period, in
1890, he became an American citizen, and still claims full rights as
such. I inclose copy of a letter just received from Mr. Barratt, his
counsel, in answer to my inquiry whether, in the six years since he left
the United States, he had any idea of abandoning his American
citizenship—which appears to be satisfactory.
What has thus far occurred in respect to the claim is this: About the 1st
of July, soon after his release, which occurred on the 26th of June, he
called on me to know what he should do. The newspapers had expressed
much sympathy for him, and the home secretary, in answer to a question
in the House of Commons, had intimated that he was waiting to hear from
the claimant. It seemed to me that it was a case which the British
Government would prefer to take care of themselves in a liberal spirit,
without any formal or official intervention—and I told him that I would
say so to Lord Lansdowne unofficial, which I did. He said that he would
speak to the home secretary about it, and I asked him to let me know
what steps he would suggest the claimant should take. After some time I
received the inclosed note of July 23, from Lord Lansdowne—which, as I
told him after perusing it, seemed to treat my inquiry as official
rather than unofficial, as I had regarded it; but he said that in such a
matter he thought that made no difference, and expressed a general
disposition to do the fait-thing in the matter. I have concluded that,
if you regard him as entitled to it, the claimant will be greatly aided
by having his case presented officially to the foreign office under your
express authority. You will observe that Lord Lansdowne says that, “if
any application is made direct by Mr. Lillywhite, it might be addressed
to the mayor of Colchester,” but I am of the opinion that a proceeding
so initiated would have but a slim chance. I have not, however, felt
authorized to initiate officially, without your express instructions, a
diplomatic claim.
You will observe that Lord Lansdowne asks for information as to the
practice in the United States in such cases, but I do not believe that
such a case has ever occurred in the United States. It is not an
ordinary case of a false arrest and imprisonment. The man was torn from
his place of residence and brought half round the globe, and subjected
to great hardships, on a mistake of identity; and I think that Lord
Lansdowne and the home secretary both regard it as an unusual case and
entitled to exceptional treatment. And I shall be much surprised if
investigation should not disclose many cases somewhat similar, which
have been presented diplomatically with favorable results (vide cases in
Vol. IV Moore’s International Arbitration Digest).
I therefore inclose the petition for your perusal and instructions; and,
whatever your conclusion may be, I will be obliged if you will return
the petition to me, as I have made no copy; and I suppose that the
making of copies would entail large expense on the claimant.
I have, etc.,
[Page 233]
[Inclosure 1.]
Mr. Barratt to
Mr. Choate.
1 Temple Gardens, Temple, E.
C.,
August 13,
1901.
Dear Mr. Choate: I have just seen Mr. Lilly
white, and he states that the Labor Party in New Zealand several
times approached him about becoming a British subject and standing
as a labor candidate for the New Zealand Parliament. He always
refused to change his citizenship from American to British.
He also states that when going into the hospital at Wellington, New
Zealand, in 1900, he gave his proper description as an American, and
it so appeared on the card at the head of his bed in the
hospital—that he was well known amongst his fellows there to have
strong American sentiments.
The evidence annexed to the petition shows that he went by the name
of “Yank” amongst his fellow-workmen.
This, I think, meets the suggestion that he may have abandoned his
American citizenship fairly well.
Yours, etc.,
[Inclosure 2.]
Lord Lansdowne
to Mr. Choate.
Foreign Office, July 23, 1901.
Your Excellency: On the 28th ultimo your
excellency made a verbal representation relative to the case of
Charles Lillywhite, a United States citizen who was brought to this
country from New Zealand on a charge of murder and who was
discharged on the ground of mistaken identity. You intimated that
Lillywhite had a claim to compensation on account of the mistake
made by the British authorities.
I have the honor to inform your excellency that an inquiry has been
made and that the following is a summary of the facts bearing on the
matter.
On the 11th of January, 1894, a coroner’s jury at Colchester returned
a verdict of willful murder against one Arthur Blatch. The crime
charged was one of special atrocity, and the evidence against Blatch
was considered conclusive.
It was at first believed that Blatch had gone to Chicago, and an
application was made to the United States authorities for his
extradition, but he could not be traced in that town. In February,
1897, the Colchester police received news from the police at
Wellington, New Zealand, that Blatch had been seen there, but an
endeavor made at the time to arrest him led to no result. In
November of last year, however, the man identified as Blatch was
arrested at Wellington; the warrants issued by the coroner and the
mayor of Colchester in 1894 were sent for execution, together with
the evidence taken in the case, and in due course an order was made
for the prisoner’s return to this country.
On his appearance before the magistrates it was conclusively shown to
be a case of mistaken identity, the defendant being Charles
Lillywhite and not Arthur Blatch; but it should be mentioned that
besides the witness on whose information the prisoner was arrested,
2 police constables specially sent out from Colchester, and another
witness, positively identified the prisoner as Blatch.
In cases in this country where one man has been arrested in mistake
for another and is discharged by the magistrate, it is not the
practice for any compensation to be given from public funds. His
Majesty’s Government, however, are not aware of any previous case in
which a mistake of this kind has led to the defendant being conveyed
for so long a distance. If any application for compensation is made
direct by Mr. Lillywhite, it might be addressed to the mayor of
Colchester; but no opinion can be expressed as to the manner in
which it would be dealt with until the precise nature of the claim
is known.
In considering any such application it would be of advantage to His
Majesty’s Government to know whether it is customary for any
compensation to be given from Federal funds or from other public
sources to persons arrested by mistake, and generally to be
furnished with any information as to the practice in the United
States with regard to compensation in analogous cases. I shall be
grateful if your excellency can assist me on these points.
I have to add that Lillywhite’s passage back to New Zealand will be
paid to him if he applies to the home office, Whitehall.
I have, etc.,
