The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1856-1888, 1857-11-26
THE PACIFIC
Commercial Advertiser.
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 26.


The statement of Capt. Newell of the bark
Alice Frazier, in regard to the mutiny on board
his ship, published in our issue last week, has no
doubt been generally perused. In such disturb
ances there are always two sides to thestory, and
we avoided expressing any opinion on the subject
until the opposite party could have their state
ment published. should they choose to dose. At
the request of the seamen whose names are APP
pended to it, we insert their account of the affair
in another column of to-day's paper.
The two statements are now before the public,
and there can be very little question, judging
solely from what has been published, that there
was resistance to the authority of the master of
the Alice Frazier, and a settled determination not
to do ships duty when on the whaling ground at
least, if not before, and that such resistance and
mutinous determination extended to several
Of the crew. 1t does not require open revolt on
the part of seamen to justify the master in ar
resting and confning them. He can doso if he
has good grounds for believing that they have
any such purpose in view.
The rights and duties of masters and seamen
are clearly laid down in American and British
laws An endeavor to make a revolt or mutiny
on board of a ship at sea is punished by imprison-
ment for five years. =
aAcsuaI disobedience to some order given is not necessary to
crew have combined together to disobey orders and to do 10
s ~, the 'hsnss is complete BY such continuation . Ma''s'
.Any seaman who unlawfuny confines the master or. other
eudeavor to make a revolt. = And II the master does.
in fact, go unmoIested to every part of the ship whenever he
go armed, and is restrained from performing the duties Of his
station by such mutinous conduct Of his crew, as might inthmidate
. Erin man, this would amount to confinement PEI. 2l3.
The statement of John Fernand which appears
to-day is not so authentic as we could wish. It
appears from what he says that he was not a wit
ness of the scene which resulted in the death of
Harry Sheppard as published last week. OF
course he received his account from the seamen
confined, and it may be true or not. The skull
cap, which we have seen, bears evidence of hav-
ing been pierced by a ball, but it would require
positive proof on the point to disproye the state
ment of the captain, which was that he did NOT
have his cap on at the time of his death. Whether
the captain was justified in striking either of the
men when in shackles is a questionable point. A
j~ailor+is authorized to silence a prisoner who may
attempt resistance, OF is unruly even when in
irons. And the authority of a captain is GER
tainly not less than that ola %jailor.
We are informed that on his arrival at Hilo,
Capt. Newell solicited an investigation of the af-
fair, and the DISPOSITIONS of the officers and sea-
men on board the Alice Frazier were taken before
the American Consul at that port. The evidence
produced before Major Miller, We understand,
goes TO corroborate the statements of Capt. Newell
in our hist issue. And we learn further that his
soamen were 30 satisfied with his conduct that
they preferred remaining with him rather than