, 1877-06-23
An Outrage.

at Colman's mill. white man by the
name Of Peter Feeney assaulted a Chi
naman and threw him into one of the
saws of the scantling machine, which
resulted in cutting off his large toe and
otherwise larceratipg the left foot. The
facts proven are these: Peter Feepey
and another white man and the China
man were at work together on the north
side of the mill; Feeney having charge
of one saw the Cbinaman another, a
white man being stationed between
them to keep the lumber clear by pass>
ing it from one saw to the other on the
rollers, For some reason this inter.
mediate man had left his post telApor-
aiily and the lumber was aecumulatine
at that point. Feeney left his saw and
went to where the Chinaman was at
work and commanded him to clear
away the lumber that had thus accumu.
lated. The Chinaman not compfy1n :,
as promptly as Feeney desired, he
caught hold of the Chlnaman and
threw bim down between the rollers
and held him some minutes. Feeney
then started back to his own post, and
the Chinaman picked up an instrument
used in propelling lumber upon the
rollers called pic1eroon. Whether'the
Chinaman took up this instrument to
use III clearing away the lumber or in
elf-defence does not clearly appear;
but when Feeney saw the Chinaman
have the pickeroon, he Immediately re-
turned and again assaulted him, throw
ing him down on the floor close to the
scantling machine, and in the melee the
Chinaman's foot was canght in one of
the saws of the scantling machine and
cut as above stated. DR.. Calhoun, the
attending surgeon, testified on the ex-
animation. that the large toe was en-
tirely Cut off, the bones of the next Sc
vered and the foot otherwise badly
mangled; that it would take several
months, under favorable circumstances,
for the Chinaman to recover, and that
the injury was permanent.
The Chief of Police arrested Feeney
and took him before Justice Selye for
examination upon a charge of simple
mayhem, under section SO of the Crim-
inal Code of the Territory. While the
officer had Feeney in his custody he,
Feeney, said He didn't give id if
it had cut the Chinaman in two." The
Chinaman employed private counsel.
but the Prosecuting Attorney for the
Territory was present during the exam~
ination. taking no part. however. in the
prosecution. The evidence aken upon
the examination was the testimony of
the Chinaman injured and two others
and several white men employed in the
mill.
Upon the close of the examination
the Justice announced that he should
not hold the defendant to bail upon the
charge of Mayhem, but would send
him before Justice Scott for t.ial for an
assault and battery. The Prosecuting
Attorney thereupon remarked that he
had listened to the testimony and did
not think there was any case sgains
the defendant. Private counsel there
upon retired from the case and the
Prosecuting Attorney dismissed the
proceedings, and thus ended the farce
of this examination. Had the victim
been white man, does any one SUD-
pose such q result would have followed,
If this were an isolated case of the
failure of justice on account of the yic>
tim belonging to prosecuted race, the
necessity of calling attention to it would
not bs 80 great. But it is not. About