790B.00/11–1651
The Chargé in Burma (Day) to the Secretary of State
No. 453
Enclosed is the Supreme Court’s judgment on Dr. Seagrave’s appeal, handed down on November 12, 1951, which acquits him on all charges.1
The Supreme Court approved the Appellate Court’s (the High Court) decision in acquitting Dr. Seagrave on the second of the three charges on which he had originally been tried. The Supreme Court’s grounds for reversing the conviction on the third charge were that the High Court had misconstrued the meaning of the word “aid” in connection with the appellant’s giving some medicine and a box of surgical instruments to Naw Seng, leader of a rebel group. The Supreme Court held that Dr. Seagrave’s use of the word “aid” in his statement to the Trial Court was an admission of facts, not of the offence charged. The Supreme Court decided that the proper interpretation of the evidence was that he was under duress at the time the act was performed, and that although he knew that his act had aided the rebels, his intent was to save his stock of medical supplies and protect his hospital, rather than to “encourage, harbour and comfort” Naw Seng and his followers. The Supreme Court therefore allowed [Page 311] the appeal, and set aside the conviction and sentence on the third charge.
The penultimate paragraph of the decision has nothing to do with the points of law in question or with the appeal itself, but is believed to be an accurate statement of the state of mind of many Burmans, and in addition is believed to be an attempt to mollify individuals who have been consistently anti-Seagrave.2
Dr. Seagrave’s lawyer, U Kyaw Myint, plans to make application November 17 to the authorities for permission for Dr. Seagrave to return to Namkham. It is believed that the acquittal will make it more difficult to refuse his application, but the Embassy remains pessimistic about his chances of returning at an early date.
- Not printed here.↩
-
The penultimate paragraph of the Supreme Court’s decision read as follows:
“One more word and we are done. On going through the bulky record of the proceedings, we cannot help thinking that the appellant himself has brought all this trouble upon himself. His attitude towards the Karen nurses and Naw Seng and his men during their first occupation of Namkham and his attitude towards Brigadier Lazun Tang would make some people suspect that his sympathies were with the Karens. Once this suspicion was engendered, whatever he did or said would appear, not only to a lay mind but even to some trained minds as an act to help and encourage the Karen rebels. This is exactly what has happened in this case. Therefore, what we like to urge is that those who come to our country and enjoy our hospitality should not give grounds for suspicion, either by words or deeds, that they are taking sides in our internal affairs. We are a small country and we desire, as is the policy of our Government to live on terms of friendship with everybody. We like to settle our affairs and promote the welfare of our people in our own way. If anybody is found interferring in our internal affairs in disregard of our law, he will be punished irrespective of whoever and whatever he may be.”
↩