The Daily Times. — 1860-11-16 (Liverpool, Merseyside, England)

KEEGAN. Before any searching inquiry as to the cause of the man's death, the chief mate admits having set about making preparations for the disposal of the body, which were not less extraordinary than they are questionable, if not suspicious. We say he did so without searching inquiry, because he stated that he ordered these preparations before knowing from the men, as he easily might have done, that KEEGAN had quarrelled with and struck the deceased. Why this haste ? The arrangement contemplated by the chief mate was to have the body sent ashore in a box as " dry goods," and to have the same deposited on the Landing-stage on Sunday night, where it very probably might have been allowed to remain uninvestigated until next day, by which time it was believed the ship would have been got to sea. KEEGAN must have been well aware of these arrangements having been made for the safe disposal of the body ; and yet it is asserted that about four hours after the death of the Malay he leaped overboard and is supposed to have been drowned, as he has not since been seen or heard of. Now, not one of the witnesses supported the chief mate's evidence as to the fact of a man having gone overboard. The chief mate subsequently told the second mate that such a thing had happened, but no one on board saw or heard anything to corroborate the statement. No doubt the captain of the ferry-boat heard some cries,—but he saw nothing. The cries may or may not have been those of real distress—may or may not have been from KEEGAN or from the water. Upon the whole, the conduct of the mate and of KEEGAN, as well as KEEGAN'S supposed disappearance, seem to be equally inexplicable, consistently with the innocence of the one and the complicity of the other. It is quite clear, at all events, that there was a desire on the part of the mate, at least, to get rid of the body without further investigation. Of course his motive might at first have been merely to prevent the detention of the ship in the river. But when he had ascertained that KEEGAN was supposed to have killed him, was not his perseverance in the attempt to conceal the truth something like the act of an accessary, at least after the fact ? Was it not his bounden duty to have secured KEEGAN and handed him over to justice ? KEEGAN is not said to have disappeared until long after the death, and the mate had thus every opportunity of taking him in charge. But he did not do so; and even the reported suicide stands unconfirmed by a single witness, or contingent probability. The Coroner, in summing up the evidence, and , putting the case to the jury, said that death had been caused by ~ violence of some sort or other." Now, the medical evidence showed clearly what kind of violence had caused death. It was not by a fall, but by a blow from a heavy blunt instrument. Therefore, a murder was committed by some person or persons, perhaps unknown ; and yet, the Coroner recommended the open verdict of " Died from injuries not known how received." As to the supposed suicide of KEEGAN, the Coroner urged that it was of little consequence, as there did not appear to be evidence sufficient to convict him of murder. But still we hold it to have been proved that a murder had been committed ; and, therefore, in the circumstances, it was of the utmost importance to ascertain,more definitely whether KEEGAN was living or not. No adequate effort of this twit Was made ; and  whether KEEGAN is dead or alive, must now, we fear, remain a mystery. The Jeremiah Thom' son has sailed for America, and we have small chance of learning more of the true state of de facts.  Thus, there has been added another name to the already frightfully long list of recently committed murders, whose perpetrators seem destined to remain concealed in impenetrable mystery. We wish sincerely that we could persuade ourselves that all was done that might and ought to have been done to detect the author or authors of such an atrocious crime.