The Irish standard., 1892-05-28
IRISH AMERICANS

1llx111 Ia ll IL i IL AxA Xyo
Continued From First Page.
opinion the man should not have been
convicted.
In May, 1893, Mr. Perry Belmont, then
House chairman of the committee On
foreign affairs, introduced resolution
instructlng that committee to inquire
into the facts of the case of John Curtin
Kent and report to the House thereon.
The report was presented in July, 1888, in
which was given history of the case and
resume of the evidence, and concluded
with an expression OF the deepest SYM
pathy for Kent, and regretted that he had
not an opportunity OF presenting his case
to the jury, and that he had erred in sup
posing that the attention of the American
minister had been called to his case before
trial. The papers then wet to the state
department with a number of atfdavits
from Americans, Irishmen and English
men as to Kent's character, to the fact
that he was known here and frequently
addressed as John Curtin; that he was un-
der treatment by DR.. Gallagher, and that
he informed them OF his intention to
visit Great Britain and Ireland. His
certificate of naturalization was also
fled in the department.. The presiden-
tial campaign of 1888 soon followed, and
the matter was apparently Left in abey
ance.
When Mr.. Blaine became secretary of
state the friends of Kent became very
hopeful that the Intervention of the
American government would be applied
to obtain his release, but they have been
sadly disappointed. The sickness Of the
secretary delayed action for some time.
In 1891 a synopsis Of the petition on dle in
the state department was furnished him,
and in November, 1891, reply, from
which the following is an extract, was
made by him: f'Ihe case of Mr.. Kent was
called to the attention of the department
before, and under my Instructions the
American minister at London has care
fully examined it and has reported
thereon within short time. 1t appeared
that in addition to two awkward circum~
stances admitted by prisoners brother
there were many others brought out at
the trial of the case, which, unexplained,
seem to have afforded basis for the ver-
dict Of the jury. Mr.. Kent's trial did
not begin until more than two months
after his arrest, and he WAS defended by
two barristers, one of them Of the rank
of Queens counsel. Any evidence tend
ing to show his innocence ought to have
been produced then, and subsequent
application based upon it would need
satisfactorily to show why it was not SO
produced. Without going into details, I
regret to inform you that it is the opin-
ion Of the department. upon an examine
ton of the case, that the circumstances
do not warrant it in intervening with her
maiesty's government. OF course, Mr..
Kent's friends can present petition to-
the English home secretary for q pardon
or q reduction of ssutence, and in doing
80 they can, with propriety, urge every
proper consideration in MIR. Kent's behalf.
An English lawyer who was engaged
in the case, writing to Kent's father,
said: "As regards the case against your
son, it was very weak, consisting of 2
statement made by Bernard Gallagher
TO Glasgow detective, and I believe that
had it not been for the prejudice against
the prisoners your son would not have
been convicted, as, indeed, the treasury
did not press much for conviction
against him" Such are the words of all
and one familiar with the
manner in which London juries arrive at
verdicts in criminal cases.
Kent has brother living in New York.