(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "The Case of Kieng Chek Kham Muon before the Franco-Siamese Mixed Court. Constitution of the Mixed Court and rules of procedure"

© 



u 
>* 



UC-NRLF 




^^ 35 TbO 






^: m^ 




;;:^- 

«!''-? 



!» 



BERKELEY 

.IBRARY 

INIVERSfTY Of 
CALIFORNIA . 



^,fd'.%7^-^ ' 




Library of O«org« B. MoFarland 






:y 



ft 



y 



; 



ISinqiioni of Siiiin. 



%\t €iu of Peng €j\tl (|%m JImw 



BEFORE THE 



I^IIA:N^C0- SIAMESE IMIXED COUB,T. 



CONSTITUTION OF THE MIXED COURT. 



AND 




RULES OF PROCEDURE. 



THE TRIAL, JUDGMENT AND CONDEMNATION OF PHRA YOT. 



—x: 



June 1894. 



y 



.JPO 



; 



« 

r 



1)5 fl^- 
' 5" 



I 



AFFAIR OF KHAM MUON (KIENG CHEK). 
FIRST PART. 

Constitution of the Mixed Coubt. — Rules of Procedure. 



On the 20th of March 1894, the Minister Resident of the French Republic at * 
Bangkok informed the Siamese Minister for Foreign Aifairs that the French Govermeut 
had decided to submit the Judgment given by the Siamese Court, on the 17th March, 
1894, to a Mixed Court, according to the right given if by the Convention of -kd 
' ectober, 189.-J. (I). 

^B On the 2ud April, following, M. Jos. Piliuski, Charge d'Affaires of the 
French Republic, notified to H. R. II. Prince Deviuvougse that the Froacli 
Government had decided the composition of that Court, which would be composed 
of a President assisted by two Siamese Judges and two French Judges. In tlie same 
letter, M. Pilinski gave the names of the Judges appointed by tlie Frcmcli Government, 
(2) and lequested H. R. H. Pi-ince Devawongse to inform him of t!ie names of the 

^^iamese Judges appointed by the Governmeub of His Majesty. 

^P The 6th April, H. R. H. Prince Devawongse answered giving tho names of the 
two judges appointed by "the Siamese Government, and requesting to be informed 
of the intention of the French Government concerning the rules to be followed 

^J)y the Mixed Court in the proceedings and judgment of the case. * 

I^V In answer to this request, the French Charg^ d'Afi'aircs forwarded, ou 
the 18th May following, to the Minister of Foreign Affairs in B.ingkok, the text 
of 'Rules of Procedure to which some slight alterations were made bj- mutual 

^^onsent and which were finally adopted on the '26th May. 

^K These Rules are the following : 



Rules or Pkockodkb to bk followed bepoee the Franco-Siamese Mixed Court 

APPOlNTlil) TO JUDGK THE PhRA YoT AfFAIR. 



la 

i 



1. Three days at least before the opening of the sittings, the Act of 
Accusation drawn up by the Public Prosecutor shall be notified to the Accused. 

2. The Court shall sit on the day and at the hour appointed by the 
President for the opening of the sittings, in a room of the Frencli legation. 

3. The Judges, the Witnesses, and the Accused not speaking the same 
language, the President shall appoint interpreters who shall be duly sworn to 
translate faithfully the words to be conveyed to those who speak different 

anguages. 

4. The Accused, assisted by his Counsel, shall appear free and only accompanied 
y guards to prevent him from escaping. The President shall ask him his name, 

age, profession and the place of his birth' then shall warn him to bo attentive 
to what he is about to hear. Immediately after, the President shall order the 
Recorder to read the Act of Acausatioa. The Recorder shall read it aloud. 



I 



(1.) Convention of 3rd October, 1893, Art. III. "The authors of the outrages of Tong Kieng 
" Kham and Khaui Muon shall he tried by the Siamese authorities ; a Representative of France 
"shall he present at the trial, and watch the execution of the penalties pronounced. The 
" French Government reserves to itself the right of appreciating if the condemnations are sufficient, 
" and, eventually to claim a new trial isefore a Mixed Court, whereof it shall determine the 
composition." 

(2.) President : M. Mondot, President of the Court of Appeal of Hanoi : Judges : M. Camatte, 
Counsellor of the Court of Appeal of Saigon, and Fuynel, Procureur de la Rcpublique at 
Mytho; Pubhc Prosecutor : M. Durwell, Procureur de la Republique at Saigon, 



orft-y 



5. The Public Prosecutor shall lay bafore the Court the grounds of the 
Accusation and shall afterwards' give a list of the witnesses called both by himself 
and by the accused. 

This list shall bo read aloud by the Recorder. 

6. The President shall order the witnesses to withdraw to a room prepared < 
for them. They shall not leave this room exco^st to give their evidence. 

7. The A-'cused shall be examined, then the witnesses sliall be heard, after 
having been sworn before this Cuart to say all tlio truth and nothing but the 
truth ; the llecorder shall note tliis as well as their names, professions and 
residence. 

8. After the evidence of each witness, the President shall ask tlie Accused if 

t 

* he wishes to answer to what lias just been said against him. 

It shall not be allowed to interrupt the witness ; the accused or his counsel 
shall be allowed to put him questions through the President, after he shall have 
given his evidence, and to l?iy before the Court anything against the witness or his 
evidence that might bo useful to the defence of the Accused. « ' 

The President shall also have the right to ask from the witness or the accused 
any explanation he shall deem necessary to discover the truth. 

The Judges and the Public Prosecutor shall have the same facility aft^ir they have 
asked the President's leave. 

9. During the whole course of the trial, the President shall have tlie right to 
hear all witnesses and to obtain all information which he shall deem necessary to 
discover the truth. • 

10. After the hearing of the wionesses and the observations to which their evidence 
may have given rise, the Public Prosecutor shall be heard, and shall develop before the 
Court the circumstances upon which the accusation is based. 

.The Accused and his Counsel shall have the right to answer. 

The Public Prosecutor shall be allowed to reply but the accused or his Counsel shall 
always have the right to speak last. * 

The President shall then declare the debates closed. 

11. The President shall put the questions arising from the debates in these words : 
"Is the accused guilty of having committed such a deed, with all the circumstances con- 
tained in the Act of Accusation." Then ho shall put the question of extenuating circum- 
stances. 

12. After the questions shall have been read by the President, the Accused, his 
Counsel, and the Public Prosecutor shall bo allowed to make any observations, on the 
way the questions are put, which they will deem fit. If the Public Prosecutor or the 
Accused object to the way in which a question is put, the Court shall decide on the merits 
of their objection. 

13. The President shall then order the Accused tp retire, and the Court shall with- 
draw to the Chamber of deliberation to deliberate upon the solution of the questions and 
the punishment to be awarded. 

In case of Condemnation the punishment shall be inflicted according to the following 
rules, viz : 

Art. 1. — Homicide committed vjlnutarily is called murder. 

Art. 2. — Any murder committed with premeditation or ambush is termed 
assassination. 

Art. 3. — Premeditation is the desigrf formed before the deed, of committing an 
offence against the person of a certain individual, or even of any individual that will be 
found or met, even were this design to depend on a certain circumstance or condition. 

Art. 4 — Acccomplices of a crime or an oflenco shall incur the same punishment as • 
the authors of such a criuie or ofl'euce, except when the law will havo disposed otherwise. 

Art. 5. — Shall be punished as accomplices of an action termed crime or o^ence : 

* Those who by gifts, promises, menaces, abuse of autliority or power, culpable machina- 
tions or artifice, shall have provoked such an action 

Those who shall have procured arms, instruments or any other means employed to 
commit the action, knowing that tliey were to be employed to commit it ; . 



I 



— 5 — 



Those who knowingly shall have aided or abetted the author or authors of the 
. action, in the facts which led up to, or facilitated or prepared it, or iu those that 

completed it 

Art. 6. — Those who knowingly shall have received all or part of any things stolen, 

* embezzled or obtained through a crime or an offence shall also be punished as accomplices 
of such a crime or offence. * 

Art. 7. — However, when capital punishment shall be applicable to the authors of 
a crime, it shall be replaced with regard to the receivers, by iiard labour for life. 

Art. 8. — Whoever shall bo guilty of assassination, parricide, infanticide or puisoning 
shall incur capital punishment. 

Alt. 9. — Murder shall be punished by death, when it will hav^ precedeil, accom- 
panied or followed another crime. 

Art. 10. — Whoever has fraudulently taken away a thing which does not belong to 
him is guilty of theft. > 

Art. 11. — Whoever shall have voltuntarily set fire, to edifices, vessel, boats, stores, 

* \toodyards, when tliey are inhabited or are used for habitation, and generally to places 
inhabited or used for habitation, whether they belong or do not belong to the author 
of the crime, shall be punished by death. 

Art. 12. — The penalties edicted by the law against the one of those of the accused 
who will have been deemed guilty, but iu whoso favour will exist extenuating circum- 
stances, shall be modified as follows : 

If the penalty edicted is death, the Couit shall apply the penalty of hard labour for 
life or hard labour for a time. Condemnation to hanl labour for ?l time shall be inflicted 
for five years at least and twenty years at the most according to the appreciation of the 
Court. 



-3.==^.fgJ§c=-e- 



I 



^> 



%\t P^keb Jf;t'Ettxo=^kme$c Court 



SUMMARY. 
Accused. 



AFFAIR OF KHAM MUpN.(KIENG-CHEK) 
SEICOISTD PART. 

The Tbial. 
t First Sitting, Monday 4th June, 1894. 

—Preliminary i)roceedings. — Rending of the art of accusation. — Examination of the 



■ f 



The sitting is opened at 8 A. M. The Court is composed of M. Moudot, President of 
the Court of Appeal of Hanoi (President) and four Judges, namely : M. Cammatte, 
Councillor of the Court of Appeal at Saigon, M. Fuynel, Procurear of the French 
Republic at Mytho, Phya Maha Amati Thibodi and Phya Kassem Sukari. M. Durwell, 
Procureur of the Republic at Saigon appears for the prosecution, and M. Duval of 
Saigon, instructed by M. Tilleke, the Accused's Solicitor, appears for the defence. 

M. M. Hardouin and Xaviet- sit on the bench as interpreters. Also appear as 
interpreters M. M, Paul^Nhu, Nai Yem, Nai Arouu, Khun Borivan. 

The President reads the Article of the Convention constituting the Court. He calls 
for the Accused Phra Yot and demands his name, age and profession. Then the 
President states the charge upon which the accused is arraigned and explains that the 
Court is assembled to faithfully, religiously and independently fulfil its duties with strict 
regard to Justice and equity. 

The statement is translated to the accused by M. Xavi^r. Phra Yot is then accom- 
modated with a seat and the Act of Accusation is read by the Recorder in French, and 
afterwards in Siamese by an interpreter. 

Act of x\ccusation. 

The Procureur of t'.:e Republic acting as Public Prosecutor in the Mixed Court of 
Bangkok ; 

Considering the steps of procedure followed against the accused, Phra Yot Muang 
Kwang ; 

Considering Article 3 of the Franco-Siamese Convention of the 3rd October 1893, 

Has the honour to state as follows : 

About a year ago, during the day of June 5th 1(893, the Inspector of Militia, Gros- 
gurin, ordered to escort the Siamese mandarin Phra Yot Muang Kwang from Kham 
Muon to Outhene, disappeared at Kieng Chek, with tlie greater part of the Annamite 
militiamen who composed the small detachmeut placed under his orders. The circum- 
stances which preceded and lead up to that unfortunate event, and those which 
accompanied and followed it may be summed up thus : — 

For several years now the Laotian provinces of the upper Mekong, situated on the 
left bank of the river and forming pa^-t, from time immemorial, of the Empire of Annam, 
placed under our protection, had been invaded by the agents of the Siamese Government; 
amongst the most important of these territories is the province of Kham Kurt, which 
formed till 1893 the two districts of Kham Cot and Khain Muou, both administered by 
Annamite mandarins. About that time, Siam," taking advantage of the troubles of the 
Court of Hue, believed herself strong enough to assume authority, and commenced to 
establish herself in the regiou ; in fact in 1886 the Siamese mandarin Phra Yot \yeut and 
officially occupied, in the capacity of Khaluaug, the post of Kham iluon. 

That irregular proceeding could not fail to arou.-o the attention of the Government 
of the French Republic, whicli lost no time in takiug the measures necessary to sufoguard 
the interests of the protected country. This was the situation, when in the month of , 



May, 1893, M. Kesideut Luco, of tlio piovinco of Vinli, received from tlie Governor- 
Geueial of ludo-Chiua the urder to proceed to Kham Muou, liis mission being to nccu])y 
that post and again vindicate tlio full and free exercise of riglits wliich liad been so little 
respected until then. On the 18th May, the French delegate presented himself before 
the fort, occupied by the Klialuang Phra Yot, to resume possession of tiie province in 
the name of his Government; and on^tho 22ud of t!io sumo mouth, after useless parleying, 
full of delays and leticence, ho decided to take official possession of the fort. At the 
same time he notified to the Siamese mandarin, wiioso men had been disarmed to prevent 
any conflict, that ho was going to accompany iiim to Outheue to assure him a safe 
protection against the Laotian population of t'.io country who m liis administration had 
animated with feelings rather unfavourable tj hiuiself : that unpopularity, which Iiad* 
raised vigorous protestations oa the part of Phra Yot, is ostablilhed by precise aud, 
detailed facts. An essentially pacific character, then, must be ascribed to the small 
detachment placed under the orders of Inspector Grosguriu and composed only of 2U 
militiamen (linh-co), and a Cambodian interpreter nameti 13oou Chan. Phra Yot, at 
^rst, agreed to these decisions and on the evening of the 25t!i, the ove of the day fixed 
for his departure, he addressed to M. Resident Luce a letter the real dignity of which 
it is impossible to contest, but which implied an engagement oi honoijr. which the writer 
could not break without being guilty of felony. He handed over, in fact, in the terms 
of that important document, to the care of the Uepresentativo of France, tlie territory of 
Khammuon and all its dependencies, as well as its officials and inhabitants, muking only 
in the nauie of His Majesty the King of Siam, his mastai', the reservations and protesta- 
tions imposed upon him by his office. He prayed, besides, the Resident to be good 
enough to transmit his letter to the Goveruments of France aud ISiam, that they might 
fully examine the legal aspects of the question and arrive at a definite solutiou. Such 
were the textual terms of that document which constituted a real capitulation, 
and by which Phra Yot, disclaiming all personal responsibility, formally engaged to take 
no action on his own authority. 

It is in these conditions afld under the faith of t!iat treaty, that the small body. of Fran- 
co-Siamese troops, the one escorting the other, quitted Khammuon on the 2Gth May. 
After five days' marching, while good feeling between the two officials aud their men did 
not seem to have ceased, the travellers reached the post of Kieng Chek, situated on the 
Nam-Hin-Boon, GO kilometres from Outhene, where they were compelled ty wait while 
the inhabitants got together the boats necessary for transport on the river. M. Grosguriu 
whom the latter days of forced marching had fatigued, was iu a state of weariness and 
weakness which had forced him to keep to his bed since his arrival at Kieng Chek. 

. Prom that moment the attitude and intentions of Phra Yot appear to have changed. 
He seeks, at first to scatter as much as possible the escort wliich seems to annoy him, aud 
instead of occupying, with his men, the shelter near the French enc.impmeut which M. 
Grosguriu had informed him he intended as his residence, ho takes himself ufi' directly to 
an abandoned Laotian village, near to Kieng Chek, and settles there. The French officer 
did not seem to attach much importance to tliis first incident, but having learned tlie 
next day, by his interpreter, that oue of the officers of the detachment,' named Luang 
Anurak, was spreading alarming reports in the neighbourhood, and sought to alienate 
the surrounding population from us by auuouuciug an early offensive return of the 
Siamese troops, he resolved to put an imuiediate end to tint state of things by securing 
the person of the impostor. With that intention he had himself couducted to Phra Yot's 
house, and pade that person point out the man ho (Grosguriu) sought, and ordered the 
militiamen who accompanied him to seize him (Luang Anurak), It is wrong to try to 
attribute, as has been done, to that euergetic act an aggressive and hostile character; ho 
acted only with the object of avoiding all motive for a confiict, and to stop, by arresting 
their author, reports the persistence of which might put au end to the concord which had 
reio-ned between the two parties until then, Besides, no direct violence was exercised 
towards the prisoner, no bad treatment was inliicted upon him, and the assaults he com- 
plains of must be attributed to his own resistance. M. Grosguriu limited himself 
to retaiuin" him iu tlie house he occupied himself, aud having him kept under observa- 



* 



liou, reserving to liiinself on arrival at Outlioue, tlio right to hand him over to the 
Siamese authorities. 

This arrest, which the uircumstancos imposed, became a pretext for Phra Yot to still 
further remove from tlie ueiglibourhood of the French detachment; the same day he 
sent to Inspector Grosguriu a request that Luang Anurak should be set at liberty, and 
immediately took advantage of a refusal to retire wjth his party to the rock of Wieng- 
Krasene, a naturally fortilied position situated about five hours from the village of Kieng 
Cliek. It is here that he met, 6y chance, as he has dared to say in his affidavit, the 
Siamese troops from Outhene, at the head of wliicii he was to march on Kieng Cliek. 
The explanation of tliat chance is found in a document produced to the Court at the first 
trial, and the importance of which dominates all this action. Scarcely two days after the 
■ departure from KliUm Muon, on the 28th May, the accusoil Phra Yot addressed, 
to the Siamese authorities at Outhene a pressing appeal the terms of which give an exact 
impression of his intentions towards the small escort of French soldiers whicli accom- 
panied him. Without makinf,' any allusion to the capitulation he had just signed, ho 
asked in that letter tliat there should be sent immediately, by forced marches, reinforce- 
ments with whicii he could take tiie offensive and drive back the French s )ldiers. This 
act constitutes a ^-eal treason, and is alone sufficient to condemn the one who has 
committed it. It was on the receipt of that letter that the mandarin of Outhene, Luang 
Vichit, caused to be sent in the direction of Kieng Chek the two detachments which 
joined Phra Yot's party at the rock of Wieng Krasene ; the instructions written, 
although not signed, which can be read on the back of the document, and the declaration 
of the officer Nai Tooi who alludes to liaving had communication of the document before 
his departure from Outhene, leave no doubt in that respect. 
Thus we arrive at the very day of the outrage. 

On tlie morning of the 5th June, Phra Yot's little troop, ro-inforced by the two 
detachments commanded by Nai Tooi and Nai Plaak, took the way to Kieng Chek : one 
can reckon, even relying on the statements of the Siamese officers, on over 100 armed 
men composing that little corps ; two of Phra Yot's solUiers, previously disarmed at 
Kham Muon, carrying guns as well. At three o'clock they arrived at Kieng Chek. 
Almost immediately the fusillade commenced, the fire burnt on all sides, the hut 
inhabited by M. Grosguriu was not long before it was destroyed, and the unfortunate 
officer, who had been mortally wounded at the commencement of tiie attack, perished in 
the flames ; the same fate was reserved to almost all tlie militiamen who accompanied him, 
and some only escaped by a miracle. Two of them, the Cambodian interpreter Boon 
Chan, who has since succumbed from the effects of his wounds, and the militiaman 
Nguyen Van-Khan, also wounded, have been found. After the massacre and the fire, the 
aggressors organised a pillage, and everything which had not fallen a prey to the flames, 
arms and effects which had belonged to the French, were immediately transported in the 
Siaj.nese junks and became the property of the authors of that too easy victory. The 
affidavits of the two witnesses who escaped from the massacre are absolutely explicit on 
this point. Finally I must recall hero the odious treatment these two unfortunate victims 
had to submit to in the course of the long painful jouruey from Kieng Chek to Bangkok ; 
injuries and humiliations, tortures and menaces of death, they were not spared any of 
these. 

Several versions of the facts which liave been briefly touched upon, some of Siamese 
origin, the others from an Annamite source, have been produced in the course of the 
inquiry and during the first trial of this affair ; but in presence of the contradictions they 
disclose, and in default of an enquiry on the spot it is as well to accept that which good 
sense and the concatenation of circumstances indicate, that which the written proofs pre- 
viously mentioned more precise and clear than the general and very confused evidence, 
seem to impose. Grosguriu and his militiamen were the victims of a real surprise, a surprise 
long premeditated, brutaly conceived and prepared, and if they, on their side, fired on the 
Siamese troops, they only acted in legitimate self-defence. The real instigator of all 
this drama is none other than the accuseil, Phra Yot. His previous actions, his presence 
at the moment of the attack, his direct action on the troops placed by him at Kieng Chek, 



— 9 - 



and, at last, the order to fire which he gave, are so many exact facts that his own 
affidavits establish, and if the accusation has not beeu able to prove, from lock of im- 
raediato inquiry, liis dii'ect participation in the assassination of Grosguiiu, there aio 
nevertheless laid to his charge the facts of undeniable complicity by aid and assistaoce, 
complicity by instructions given, for which complicity he incurs a responsibility even 
greater than the author of the crime. 

It is in vaiu, therefore, that Plira Yut should seek to iuvoke for his acquittal a letter 
which was addressed to him from Nongkliai under the dace of 20th May, by Luang 
Vichit; this docuuient and the instructions it contains arc anterior, to the events of 
Kham Moun, and cannot refer thereto. 

It is in vain also that he has pieteuded, foi' his defence, tiiat Ids first intentions, on 
his arrival at Kieug Chek, v.-ere of an absolutely pacific character, that he only camo* 
there as an interceder for the liberty of Luang Anuiak : it is well-known what was the 
result of these pretended negotiations, carried ou at tlie head of a verilahle sm-iU army. 

Consequently: Tne accused Phra Yut Muang KwsAig, about 40 years of age, 
Siamese mandarin, formerly Royal Commissioner at Kham Muon aud Kham Kurt, born 
at Nakon Swan (Siam), residing at Bangkok, is accused : 

L Of having, at Kieug Chek (province of Outhene), ou tiie 5th June 189-3, been an 
accomplice in a wilful homicide committed ou tlie pei'sou of tlie Inspector of Militia, 
Grosguriu, a French officer attached to the Annamite province of Viuh, in provoking by 
culpable machinations and artifices, to the said Iiomicide ; in giving himself to the author 
or authors, instructions for its committal ; in procuring arms and other means of action. 
knowing tlioy would be used for that purpose and in aiding and knowingly abetting the 
authors in the acts which prepared, facilitated, and consummated it. 

With this circumstance that the said homicide was committed with premeditation. 

2. Of having, under the same circumstances of time aud place, and by the same 
means enumerated above, become accomplice of the crime of wilful horaicido committed 
on the persons of divers Annamite militiamen aud of the Cambodian interpreter 
Boon Chan. • 

With this circumstance, that the said homicides were committed with premeditation. 

3. Of having, under the same circumstances of time and place, been an accomplice 
in divers thefts of personal property, effects and apparel, arms aud munitions, committed 
to the prejudice of the same and of the Annamite militiaman Nguen van Khan aud 
knowingly concealing all or part of the articles stolen. 

With this circumstance, that the said theft's have accompanied and followed the two 
crimes of homicide above specified. 

4. Of having, under the same circumstances of time and place, been an accomplice 
of the crime of wilful incendiarism of divers Laotian huts used for habitations, in giving 
instructions for its committal and knowingly aiding and abetting the authors in the acts 
which prepared, facilitated and consummated it. 

All acts constituting the crimes and complicity in crimes provided and punished by 
the provisions of the Articles of the Penal Law enumerated by the rules of special proce- 
dure in the trial. 

Given at Bangkok, the 27th May 181)4. 

Le Procureur, 
(signed) Georgk Dukwell. 

The President then asked the Public Prosecutor if lie had any questiouss to ask 
concerning the evidence to be produced or the .witnesses to be heard. 

M. Duryell replied asking that certain witnesses should be hoard aud that the letters 
written by Phra Yot to Captain Luce on May 2oth aud to Nai Um on May 28th aud the 
letter by Luang Vichit to Phra Yot on May 20th 189J, should be read. 

The Court consented to tiiis course. 

The President then proceeded to examine the Accused. 

Before putting any questions to Phra Yot, the President reminded him that he was 
now before a Tribunal of another race, of another religion, but hu might feel assured 
that he was before a Court just, honourable, and ready to do full Justice to him. 



10 -^ 



The Fresident: You have been for mauy years Royal Commissioner on behalf of 
His Majesty the King of Siamj in the province of Kham Muou ? 

A.— Yes. 

Q. — You have governed that district to the best of your ability ? 

A.— Yes. 
• Q. — According to a document written by Capt. Riviere, the inhabitants were not 
friendly to you, and you made exactions from them ? 

Accused denied having made any exaction. 

Q. — You were in Kham Muon in 1893 when Capt. Luce was ordered to take over 
, that territory as belonging to Annam ? 

A.— Yes. 

Q- — You resisted him several days, but finally you wrote a letter handing over the 
territory. It was signed Phra Yot Muang Khuang. (Tlie letter was i"ead to the 
Accused)? The text is as follow : "I, Phra Yot Muang Kwang, Deputy Commissioner 
of the Districts of Kamkurt and Kham Muon, write this letter, to you the French 
Commander: I hereby commit to your care the territory of Kamkurt and Kham Muon 
with the interests therein contained, while making formal declaration of our continued 
absolute lights over it. 

" Siuce His Royal Highness Prince Prachak Silparkom ordered me to come up to 
administer the district of Kamkurt and Kliam Muou, (territory which touches on the 
Annamite frontier at the Post called Tar Mooa) I have taken charge of tlie district and 
of the sub-otlicials and tlie inhabitants of various nationalities in it, in peace, prosperity 
and justice. 

"But alter many years had passed, on the 23rd day of May in the year 112 of the 
Siamese era, you, and four French officers, having under you more than two hundred 
soldiers, came and plundered my stockade and caused your soldiers to come and surround 
and'seize both myself and ray officers and my men, and pushed and thrust us forth by 
force of arms and drove us out of our stockade and would not permit me to stay and 
carry out my official duties and look after the interests of "my Government, accordinn; to 
the orders of His Most Gracious Majesty, who is my Sovereign. 

"You refused lo let me stay, and thrust out both me and my officials and my soldiers. 

"I now beg to commit to your care the territory, with the sub-officials, the inhabitants 
and the Siamese interests therein, (while making formal declaration of our continued ab- 
solute rights over it) until such time as I shall receive any instructions, whereupon I 
shall arrange the measures to be taken subsequently. 

"And I require you to send this letter to be laid before the Government of France 
and the Government of Siam, so that the matter may be examined into, and a decision 
may be arrived at, and that territory may be returned to Siam, which history and 
tradition have shown to be hers, and to have been administered by her, until now from 
the beginning. 

(Signed), Phra Yot Muang Kwang." 

Accused acknowledged having written the letter. 

Q. — You reserved the right of Siam to the territory leaving the decision to both 
Governments. 

A.— Yes. 

Q. — FrovisioHallij you evacuated the territory, and you confided formally the territory 
to Captain Luce, provisionallij in favour of France ? 

A. — I felt that I was evicted from Kham Muon by force and I handed over the 
territory under protest. 

Q. — After writing the letter to Capt. Luce you started for Outhene ? 

A.— Yes. 

Q. — You had an escort of 20 Annamites under Inspector Grosgurin ? 

A.— Yes. 

Q. — Seeing that Grosgurin was stricken down by illness and that his party was 
weaker than yours, did you mean to treacherously attack him and use reprisals against 
tim wlien you sent this letter of May 28th to Nsli Urn ? — 



— 11 — 



The letter was then read. The letter is as follows : — 

" I, Phra Yot Miian<>- Quaiiy;, Deputy Commissioner of Muang Kam Kurt and 
Muang Khaiii Muou, send this letter to Niii Roi To Nai IJm, Commissioner of Tar 
Outhenej and iufonn him that the French with 20 soldiers are coming to take me down 
to Tar Outhene, and we have readied Ban Plia Muang'. Let Commissioner Nai Roi To 
Um prepare arms and send them up, so that my meu may also be fully armed, as the 
arms belonging to my party have been confiscated by the French. If the French io not 
listen to my protest, I with my officers and meu will join together to resist them. IE the 
French are allowed to bring me down as far as Outheue tlie French will develope a mucli 
more hostile and high-handed attitude and seizie the territory belonging to Siam on the 
Mekong, aud thus the honour of the King will be tarnished, aud blame will certainly . 
fall upon you aud me. I have only about 10 men, but 1 am resolved to serve His 
Majesty will all my power. I request you therefore to send me soldiers and men. Let 
them march by day and night, and if they ariive, the King's enemies will not be able to 
adopt so high-hauded an attitude towards ns." , 

Q. — How did you come to write this letter to Luang Vichit, three days after having 
professionally handed over the teriitory to Capt. Luce, speaking of your patriotism, and 
urging that steps should be taken to drive out the French, especially as you were 
travelling in the same direction as your letter ? At all events Capt. Luce might have 
expected that you would be sure to keep the peace until the two governments had agreed 
about the territory. How could you act as you did without committing treason '•' 

M. Duval, Counsel for the defence, here objected that Phra Yot was unable to follow 
the Court. He objected to the construction placed upon certain words i.e. "handing 
over." 

M. Xavier, intei'preter, then repeated the question. 

Accused answered that there was a custom in the country that when anyone handed 
over pi'operty under protest, an attachment was made, representing the right to again 
enter into possession of the property ' * 

M. Duval. Phra Yot strictly followed Siamese law. 

Q. — Why did you first hand over the territory under such an attachment, and then 
write such a letter to Luang Vichit ? 

A. — I was compelled to write the first letter. I had the feeling that I was evicted 
by force, but I did not intend, in the letter, to give up the territory. 

• Q.-^Notwithstanding that you had left the territory and that you had written for 
instruction, did you think you still had power to write for soldiers to come and assist you? 

Accused said that under the reservation he made in writing the hrst letter, he thought 
he was justified in writing to Luang Vichit. . 

. I'he President. The Court will note the valeur morale of this mental reservation. 

Q.— You followed the course of the river Nam Tlin Bonn and stopped at Kieng 
Chek y 

A.— Yes. 

Q. — Did Grosgurin explain to you why he arrested Luang Anurak? 

A. — He told me because Luang Anurak had spread certain alarmings rumours at 
Kham Muon that the Siamese would return in force. 

The President. Grosgurin had a perfect right to arrest Luang Anurak after that, 
in self defence, for he was in an unknown country aud only had a handful of meu whose 
fidelity was doubtful, 

Q. — The day after the arrest you left fo/ Vieu Kraseue where you found reiuforce- 
ments whicli had been dispatched in consequence of your letter of may 28th. 

Why did you return to Kieng Chek ? 

A. — To ask for the release of Luang 'Anurak. 

Q. — Considering that France and Siam were not at war at the time, why did you 
take such a largo body of meu to ask for the release of Luang Anurak, seeing that 
Grosgurin and the Annaraites were living in private houses? 

A. — I had not at the time the least intention of attacking Grosgurin. I simply went 
to ask for the release of Luang Anurak. , 



— 12 



Q. — It is quite impossible to believe that Grosgurin who was sick and whose party 
was the weakest would be first to attack. The Siamese witnesses have stated that there 
were at least 100 men surrounding the house. 

A. — I have already stated there were not more than 50 or 60 men, and the witnesses 
must have been mistaken. 

Q.— Grosqurin was very ill and it is quite incredible that he should have fired upon 
peaceful men, without any provocation. What can you say to that ? according to your 
own version Grosgurin began the firing. 

A, — Grosgurin's party commenced firing and killed Khoon Wang, who was sent up 
to ask for Luang Anurak's release. 

Q. — Supposing they did fire and kill one of your men, you killed 15 of theirs. You 
say yourself you had 50 men when you left Kham Muon and there wei'e 50 others with 
Nai Tooi and Nai Flaak. That makes 100. 

A. — My men were only 15. 

Q,. — How can you explair that Boon Chan and the Annamite soldier, who were 
examined separately, both give a different version to yours, and say that Grosgurin was 
sick in bed and the A unamites were expecting no aggressive action at all? They both 
state that you came with a numerous troop and that the Siamese commenced firing. It 
is impossible to suppose that these two witnesses shonld have agreed together seeing 
that one was examined at Bangkok and the other else where. 

Accused answered he could not help their having told such a story. 

Q. — What interest had Boon Chan in saying what he did ? You are an influential 
man in a high position and a poor man like him could have no interest in charging you 
with such an action ; The charge is then that Grosgurin was assassinated in a cowardly 
manner, that the utteutal was directed by you, Phra Yot, and that you are the author or 
accomplice of the crime. 

M. Duval. I would ask that the cirsumstances of Phra Yot's meeting with Nai Toi 
and Nai Plaak be related; what was agreed upon between them, whether the officers had 
orders from Vichit and if Phra Yot saw those orders. 

^ccuserf answered this question saying : When I« met Nai Plaak and Nai Tooi they 
showed me their orders. 

M. Duval. And you sent Koon Wang forward to ask for the release of Luaug 
Anurak ? 

Accused hero stated that after Grosgurin had been told that peace would be brokeuy 
Luang Anurak jumped from the verandah when immediately a shot was fired from the 
house which killed a soldier from Korat. Several other shots followed and two more 
men. fell before the Siamese began firing. The men of Grosgurin were arrayed at the 
foot of the stairs. Grosgurin was above. 

The President. That version is difiicult to believe, all the witnesses have agreed that 
this was not so, in their depositions in Saigon and Bangkok. 

The public Prosecutor, Did M. Luce tell the accused the motive of the escort ? 

A.— No. 

The Public Po'osecutor . Was the accused in any way troubled during the march ? 

A. — In leaving Kham Muon we were between files of soldiers. Our men were partly 
Laotians, partly Siamese. After the first shot I shouted: " let us talk, it is not too late." 

ThePresident. Did you give the order to fire ? 

A. — I said, do what you like. 

TJie President here read a report from M. Garanger, made after an enquiry at the spot 
which read as follows : s 

The report read as follows ; — 

On arriving at Kieng Chek, the Inspector took up Iiis quarters at some hundred 
metres from Phra Yot. Fearing that Phra Yot miglit play him some trick, M. Grosgurin 
sent some one to fetch Phra Choun, Phra Yot's subordinate, the next morning that he 
. might keep him near him until a sufficient number of boats were got together to descend 
to Outhene. Phra Yot made no observation. Phra Yot came to see the Inspector and 
told him, in a friendly manner, that he was going down to Thong Lam, to await him 
there, which is a day's journey on the Nam-Hin. Boun and Phra Yot left immediately 



— 13 



with his disarmed men. Three days afterwards he received three hundred Laotians sent 
by the Governor of Lamabouig ami of Oiilhene, with ten Siamese commanded by Nai 
■ Van, come from Nonj; Kai, at tlio request of Plira Yot, made on the eve of his departure 
from Khammouu. On the third day of the moon of tlie seventli month, towards nine in 
^ the morning, the Inspector was sittiug on ilic verandah of the house built on piles, 
dressed only in his vest and pants, whpn the sub-lieutenant saw a strong armed band 
appear before him, while Nai Vau and six other Siamese were coming directly towards 
the bouse. The Inspector did not seem to understand anything about the arrival of this 
band, and his interpreter, Boon Chan, liaJ gone to seek victuals at the neighbour- 
ing village. In spite I'f the ten Annamite militiamen wlio were standing 
at the foot of the ladder, the seven Siaiueso were able to come close up; from 
his verandah the Inspector attempted to carry on a conversation, but 
without his iuterpreter it was impossible for him to understand the new 
comers. He then made a sign to the Siamese to ascend to the verandah. Grosgurin was 
then standing on tiie threshold of tiie door communicating ^ith his bedroom and the 
.verandah, loaning with oue hand upon the dooi-post. Nai Van tlun gave the Inspector 
to understand that ho must give up t^) him Phra Cliouu, if he did not he would hive to 
' take him by force of arms. Grosguriu replied that he would give up Phra Choun as 
soon as he arrived at Outhene. During this explanation Phra Olioun jumped out of one 
of the openings and ran away. Plira Yot, who daring the parleying had caused the 
house to be surrouaded, seeing his subordinate out of danger, cried " fire, fire." The ten 
militiamen were killed ou the spot. The Inspector dropped back, his body being in his 
bed room. Nai Van himself received a Siamese bullet in his stomacli (of whicli he died). 
The militiamen had only time to fire three rounds. The intarpreter, Boon Chan, on 
hearing the firing came up at a run, and as soon as he c&me in sight he received two 
bullets and was immediately seized. 

Did the Laotians fire? Yes, many of them; they weve obliged. Phra Yot was 
among them with his revolver in his hand, threatening to kill those who did not fire. 

Phra Yot then set fire to tke house, in which the body of Grosgurin lay, and then 
immediately ordered his men to emb#i"k for Tong Lam. He returned three days after- 
wards to instal himself at Kieng Chek and. at the same time, to inter the I'emains of the 
Inspector and Phra Yot's subordinate, Nai Van. 

(Signed) Gabanqer. 

.• Outhene, 24th May 1894. 



I 



One of the Siamese Judges endeavoured to make accused comprehend the purport 
oTfthis but the extempore translation not being very successful the accused could not 
reply thei'eto. 

The Court therefore adjourned tU 8 o'clock on Tuesday morning. 



14 



Second Sitting— 5th June, 1894. 

SUMMARY.— Examination of the witnesses for the Prosecution. 

Nyugeu Van Khan was the first witness called. ; 

21ie Preddent. — What is your name, age and profession ? 

A. — Nyugen Van Khan, Annamite militiamen. 

Q. — You are neither related nor connected to Phra Yet ? 

A.— No. 

Q. — Raise your right arm and swear to speak the truth and nothiug but the trutlr. 

A.r— I swear. 

Q. — Tell us what you know of the affair of Kieng Chek. You were in the service 
of M. Grosgurin. Tell us what you have seen. 

A. — I went with the accused from Kham Muon to Kieng Chck. 

Q. — Give us all the particulars. How many of the killed went from Kham Muon to 
Kieng Chek ? 

A. — I do not remember. 

Q. — Tell us what happened there ; what you have scju. How many days did you 
stay at Kieng Chek before tbe a«e)(<a<. 

A. — I was about 10 days at Kieng Chek. 

Q. — You do not appear to understand what I ask you. Tell us how long, how many 
days, you were at Kieng Chek when the attentat took place 'i 

A. — Eight or ten days. I was with four of my comrades in the house of M. ros- 
gurin. I saw a Siamese band arrive who surrounded the house, and fired near the house 
after which they set fire to the building. I was hidden myself because I was wounded 
and I saw M. ^Grosgurin lying dead. 

V Q. — When you arrived at Kieng Chek where did M. Grosgurin stay? 

A. — In a house. 

Q. — On the way from Kham Muon to Kieng Chek we?re you near M. Grosgurin ? 

A. — I was near him, and saw him constantly. , 

Q —Was he ill or well ? 

A. — He was very ill and was unable to eat. 

Q. — And on arriving at Kieng Chek was he better or worse ? 

A He was very ill on the elephant, and on arriving at Kieni^ Chek, he could 

scarcely walk, and immediately went to bed, 
„ Q. — Did you see him often ? 

A. — Yes, every day. 

Q. — Where was he? Was he oftener lying down than standing up? 

A. — He was generally lying down, but sometimes got up. 

Q. — Do you know anything about the arrest of Jjuaug Anurak ? 

A. — Yes. 

Q. — Did 3'^ou see the arrest of Anurak ? 

A. — I was in the neighbourhood. 

Q. — I ask you if you helped to arrest Luang Anurak ? 

A. — No, I did not. 

Q. — When Anurak was arrested how was ho made a prisoner? Had he irons ou his 
feet or hands ? , 

A. — No he was not bound. * 

Q. — Where was Plira Yot staying at the time ? 

A. — Near the house of M. Grosgurin. 

Q. — At what distance? Tell us exactly as you can remember ? 

A. — About as far as from here to the other side of the river (which is about 100 yard) . 

Q. — Just now you were tolling us what happened. Go ou with your story. 

A. — When M. Grosgurin arrived at Kieng Chek he sent the elephants back to Kham 
Muon as well as the men who had carried the provisions. He was very ill, and lad been 
in bed for 10 days. Phra Yot had many men with him, and oue day he came and 



» 

— 15 ~ 



surrounded tlie house aud firod upon us. It was then about 3 o'clock in tbo afternoon. 

Q. — Who was in the house? 
^. a A. — There were five Militiamen and the interpreter. 

Q. — Did you see the Siamese around the house ? Could you say how many there were? 
. A. — I saw them but I did not count them. They were all round the house. 

r Q.— Attend carefully. You say these were five men with M. Grosgurin, but he left 

» Kham Muou with 20. Where were tl'e others ? 

[ A. — They wei-e below and around the house. 

Q. — When they saw the Siamese, did they form in ranks ? 

A. M. Grosgurin called out to them, but they had not time to obey before the firing 

began. 

Q, — What did Anurak do ? • 

A. — He was in the house and jumped out as soon as ho saw Phra Yot come. 

Q. — Before the Siamese attacked, did no oue attempt to parley ? 

A. — I was not present. , 

Q. — You do not quite undei'staud the question. Tell us as you can what you have 
seen ? You «wear that the first shots were fired by the Siamese ? 

A.— Yes. 

Q. — Were there any persons killed or wounded ? 

A. — At that particular moment I could not see. I was told afterwards by Boon 
Chan. 

Q. — Did you see Grosgurin die ? 

A. — No, I saw him when he was dead. 

Q. — Did you see him hit, and before he was dead? 

A. — No, I was not there, I was hit by the same fire. 

Q. — Have you really seen Grosgurin dead ? 

A. — Yes he was on his bed dead. 

Q. — Are you sure of that ? 

A.— Yes. 

Q. — Between' the firing and ihe time you saw M. Grosgurin on his bed, was there 
time to place him there ? 

A. — I do not know, I was wounded. 

Q. — Look well at the accused. Was he amongst the Siamese soldiers who surrounded 
the house ? 

A. — I do not know him well. He has a mai'k which I do not see. 

llie Public Prosecutor here remarked that the mark was on the side of the accused's face. 

Witness : Yes he was at Kham Muou. • 

■ The President, But have you seen him among the men who suri'ounded the house. 

A. — No, I did not see him. 

The President here asked the Public Prosecutor if he had any questions to ask the 
witness. 

The Public Prosecutor. Yes, I wish to ask if on the departure from Kliam Muou, they 
had I'eceived orders from M. Grosgurin relative to their conduct towards the Laotians and 
the men they escorted. 

The President. Did Grosgurin instruct you what to do, aud how to treat Phra Yot ? 

Did he tell you not to illtreat or rob the people ? 
A.— Yes, we were told to take nothing without paying for it. 
Q. — After you were wounded ^id the Sialnese take anything belonging to you ? 
A. — Yes, my rifle, and everytiiing else. 

Q, — Did they illtreat and strike you, specially on the way, and fasten you on board 
. , the boat ? 

A.— No they did not strike me. During the journey they assisted me. 

Q. — When you were at Kieng Chek did you see anyone put fire to the house and 
from what side ? 

A. — Yes the house was fired on all sides. 

The President then asked the Public Prosecutor if he hud any further questions to put 



— 16 



to tlie witness. Oa receiving a reply in the negative, lie asked the accused's Counsel i£ 
he had any questions to ask the witness. 

M. Duval. I should like to ask the witness where were the Aunamites exactly 
stationed at the time of the first shot. 

A. — Below the house near the stairs. 

M. Duval. Just now he said around the house. He must be exact. 

A. — They were near tlie stairs. 

M. Duval. I wish the Court to note the contradictions of the witness. 

A discussion then took place between the President and M. Duval. 

Examination continued : 

Witness. I was in the house and, at the first shot having been wounded, I jumped 
down from the house. 

The Preside7it. Being wounded he fled. 

M. Duval. Did he see or did he even hear the shots fired ? 

A.— No. 

M. Duval. Did he seo the firing ? 

A. — Yes, but more than once. 

M. Duval. Of what nationality were those who fired ? 

A. — Siamese. 

M. Duval. At what distance were they. 

A. — Very near. 

M. Duval. You say that no one in the house fired before f 

A. — No one. 

M. Duval. But did they fire after ? 

A. — I cannot remember, I was wounded. 

M. Duval. Did you see any Siamese officers enter the house ? 

A.~Yes. 

31. Duval. When and who ? 

A. — One officer who wore a sash. '' 

At. Duval. Could you say if it was Phra Yot ? 

A. I am not sure. 

31. Duval. It was after the firing ^ 

A.— Yes. 

M. Duval Just now he said that after the first shots he was wounded and fled. 

The Public Prosecutor. The witness was wounded and concealed himself behind a 
tuft of bamboos from whence he saw all was going on. 

M. Duval. After the first firing M. Grosgurin called the guard, did it come ? 

A. — Yes immediately ; but the Siamese were then near the house and those who were 
wounded fled. 

3l. Duval. How were you able to see the officers pnter the house since you had also 
fled? 

A. — I saw everything from the clump of bamboos where I was concealed. 

M. Duval. Was the first gunshot fired before Anurak jumped out of the window ? 

A. — At the same moment. 

M. Duval called attention to the inconsistency of this answer. 

On the question being repeated, witness said the shot was fired immediately after- 
wards. 

The President now insisted, at the request of tho Prosecution, on witness saying 
whether he saw the first firing as well as heard it. 

Accused, Yes. 

Q. — And was it immediately after Anurak jumped off the house ? 

A.— Yes. 

Q. — Are you sure that the Siamese fired first ? 

A. — Yes — I saw Anurak jump out of the house for I watfched him for some distance ; 
I saw him running in the direction of his friends the Siamese. 

Q. — Where was he when the first shot was fired ? 

A. — When I saw him, firing was taking place on all sides. 



4 



- 17 



I 



\ 



\ 



Q- — What distaace was Luang Aiiurak from tlio house when the first shot was 
fired? 

A. — About as far as tlic end of this room. Luang Anurak had reached the Siamese 
when the first gun sliot was fired. The Siamese then approaclied the house and there 
was a general firing. 

The President then asked a SiamSse Interpreter if he would repeat to the accused 
the substance of the examination of the witness. The Interpreter said it was too long, 
and that^it would be necessary to begin again the examination for him to interpret 
properly. • 

As the Interpreter of the Legation spoke Siamese as well as French, the President 
bade him repeat the examination. The translation of the evidence concluded, the Presi- 
dent asked if accused had anything to say against the depositions. 
Accused said. Nothing. 

M. Duval. Asked tlie President to enquire of the Interpreter if he had carefully 
repeated the last sentences of the witness to the accused and also to the iudi^es. 

Tlie Public Prosecutor asked if the Interpreter had properly translated the statement 
of witness that the first shots were firod from the Siamese side ; and that the escape from 
the house had preceded the firing. 

Accused then asked whether witness was a '•' boy," or a soldier, and whether he had 
been wounded. He added that he did not recognise him, and did not remember having 
seen him. 

llie President then read a medical certificate certifying to certain wounds received 
by the witness, and said that witness was a militia man and not a "boy." 
One of the Siamese Judges asked if Nguen Van Khan had fired. 
A. — No he had not. 
Q.-Why ? 

A. — Because 1 had not my rifle and I was wounded. * 

The 2nd Siamese Judge asked whether the house had been set on fire in front or 
from behind? 

A. — I saw the house on tire in front but I do not know what others did as like 
every one, I thought it best to fly. 

The Court at this Juncture adjourned for a few minutes, to consider how to deal 
with the evidence of Boon Chan, given at the previous trial, Boon Chan having since 
died. 

I'he President on retuiniug, announced that it had been decided to have the evidence 
read. • 

. The Recorder therefore, read that evidence in French, when the President interrupted 
and asked if the prosecuting and defending Counsels would agree to take French version 
as read. 

This was agreed to on both %ides, on the condition that the evidence might be 
referred to in addressing the Court. ^ 

Ned Aroo7i then read the evidence of Boon Chan in Siamese. 
The President asked accused if !ie had anytliing to say against the evidence. 
Accused said there was much that was not true. 
The Court then adjourned at 10.45 until Wednesday morning. 



I ' 



18 



Third Sitting— Wednesday 6th June 1894. 

SUMMARY :— Examination of the witnesses for the defence : Luang Anurak. 

The Court opened at 8.05 a.m. when the witnesses for the defence were immediately 
called. ' 

The first witness was Luang Anurak. 

After giving his name, age and rank he was sworn. 

The President, You were under the orders of Phra Yot ? 

A. — Yes, as assistant. * 

Q. — Tell us what happened at Kham Muon. 

Witness began ^ihe history of the Kbam Muon affair from the beginning, when the 
President suggested he should go more rapidly, and that he should come to the events 
that directly referred to the attentat. 

M. Duval, Counsel for the defence, begged that the depositions should be full and 
complete as being of great importance, and he had also several questions to put to the 
witness. 

M. Duval then asked what were the sentiments w hich guided witness and Phra Yot 
when they wrote the letter to M. Luce and in what spirit they had written that letter, 
since he (witness) was consu Ited in the drawing up and forwarding of the letter. 

Witness. We agreed tog ether ou the form the letter should take, and it was written 
according to the Siamese custom and contained the protests app licable to such a case. 

The President. Let us come to the letter to Nong Kai. Under what conditions 
was it written ? Do you remember that letter ? 

A. — Yes, I am quite aware of the letter referred to. I member it quite well, 
though not the exact terms. Only generally. 

The President. Very good. 
' M. Duval. I would suggest that witness be examined on the subject of his arrest. 

The President. Where and how were you arrested ? 

A.— I was arrested at Kieng-Chek. M, Grosgurin, accompanied by Boon Chan and 
nine or ten men, annamite soldiers, came to see Phra Yot. Phra Yot asked what he 
wanted, when Grosgurin replied that he would see pi'esently. 

Q. — Relate the circumstances of your arrest. 

A, — Grosgurin and Boon Chan then spoke together, when Grosgui'in asked, " where 
is he." Phra Yot said " there he is." 

Q. — Then they arrested you ? 

A. — Grosgurin and Boon Chan again spoke together. I did not know what they 
said. Then the soldiers seized me by the neck, the shoulders, the arms, and struck mo 
savagely. 

Q. — Then they took you to the house of M. Grosgurin ? 

A. — They tied my hands and pushed me into a boat, and took me to the house of 
M. Grosgurin. ^ 

Q. — How many days were yon with M. Grosgurin ? 

A. — Five or six days. 

Q. — What happened on the sixth day ? 

A. — After five days I heard a great noise. I saw Grosgurin and the soldiers run out- 
side, also Boon Chan. I saw Khoou Wang and Boon Clian near the stairs. Grosgurin was 
on the verandah and T was near him. 

Q. — You then jumj^ed down ? 

A. — No, not just then. Khoon Wang said to Boon Chan: "I come with instruc- 
tions from Luang Vichit to demand the release of Luang Anurak, the handing over of 
our arms and other property to Phra Yot, and the evacuation of Siamese territory by the 
French. Boon Chan repealed this to M. Grosgurin who replied " that it was impossible.'' 
I was then called by Phra Yot. Boon Chan spoke to Grosgurin who seized me by the 
hand and cried "Cay, Cay." An Annamite soldier then ran up, came into the house and 
took a rifle. At this moment Boon Chan ran up, and Grosgurin tried to pull me into 
the house, Grosgurin was inside though still ou the verandah. I saw the " Cay " load 



19 



the rifle and I broke away and jumped down from the house. At the momout I jum- 
ped down I licard a shot from the house. 
» M.Duval. Tiiat is important. The shot was fired as Anuiak jumped. 

^ Witness. When I jumped down I heard the shot, and I siw a Korat soldier fall dead. 

V I ran to Phra Yot and asked him v.-hat we had better do. Phra Yot said do not fire yet, 
we must first try to arrange matters. At this liino I heard two other shots and turning 
round I saw Khoon Wang and another soldier fall. 

Tho President. Very good, go on. 

Witness. Then Phra Yot, Nai Plaak and Nai Tooi consulted together, Nai Tooi and 
Nai Plaak wanted to return the fire. 

Q. — Are Nai Plaak and Nai Tooi superior, equal, or inferior in rank to Phra Yot ? 

A. — Phra Yot is a civilian official; tho others wore military men.' I cannot bo suro 
who was superior but I believe Nai Tooi and Nai Plaak were in command of «the men. 

27(6 President then asked the Public Prosecutor and M. Duval if they had any ques- 
tions to ask witness. * 
• , Both having answered in the negative, witness was told to go and sit down. Ho 
placed himseft behind Phra Yot. As he was turning away, The President asked him: 
during these latter events was Grosgurin ill or well. Did he appear to you strong and 
vigorous? 

A. — He had fever but ho could walk. 

The second witness for the defence, Nai Tooi, was then called, and sworn. 

2'he President. Do you hold and inferior rank to Phra Yot? 

A. — I am a Captain. 

M. Duval. As Nai Tooi was under tho orders of Luang Vichit before quitting Kham 
Muon, and had received orders and instructions from Vichit to find Phra Yot, it would 
be well if he gave details on these points. 

Tlie President. On quitting Outhene you received orders to go where ? 

M. Duval. Were his order^ written or verbal ? 

The President. What orders did you receive r* Were they written or verbal ? 

A. — I received written orders first and afterwards verbal orders. 

Q. —From whom ? 

M, Duval here complained that the translation was not properly rendered and that 
tiie replies of witness were not accurately conveyed to the President. 

'J'he President was understood to say that M. M. Hardouin and Xavier were there to 
control any fault of interpretation ajid that their competence in this respect was 
undoubted. • 

• The President. After you had received orders what did you doV 

A. — I received orders to deliver Phra Yot and to make the French evacuate the 
t erritory. 

Q. — Where did you come from*? 

A. — From Outhene to Wieng Krasene. 

Q, — How many men had you ? 

A.— About 50 or (30. 

Q. — How many men were there under other officers at Wieng Krasene ? 

A. — There were only nine and those of Phra Yot. 

Q. — How many had Phra Yot ? 

A.— About 19 or 20. 

Q. — Thsre were altogether tlien'about 90 ? 

A. — Only about GO. 

Q. — You ivent to Kieng Chck the day after your arrival ? 
• ' A.— Yes. 

Q._What did you do ? 

A. — At Kieng Chek Phra Yot sent Khoon Wang to demand the release of Anurak. 

Q. — It was then Phra Yot who gave that order? 

A. — Yes, after the three of us (Nai Plaak, Phra Yot and myself) had consulted 
together. 



20 — 



The President said that the Court would accept the version placed before the Siamese 
Court of the arrest of Anurakj if the defence had uo objection. 

M. Duval. Ask the witness what orders they (the three) gave after their Conference, 
apropos of the orders received from Outhene. 

The witness was recalled and the question put by the President. 

Witness. At Wieng Krasene I communicated to Phra Yot the orders of Vichit, 
ordering us to demand the freedom of Phra Yot, and the evacuation of the territory by the 
French. But as Phra Yot was free and Anurak a prisoner, it was necessary to go and 
deliver the latter. 

M. Duval. Had you orders to deliver him by force ? 

A. — No, we had no orders to deliver him by force. 

Q. — You were lihen at Kieng Chek with fifty rifles when you saw Anurak jump from 
the house ? 

A.— Yes. 

Q. — Did you hear any shots ? 

A. — Yes, the first one. 

Q. — Any others afterwards ? 

A.— Yes. 

Q. — From the Siamese ? 

A. — At the first shot a Korat soldier fell ; then after two or three other shots came 
from the house we asked to parley with the French, but they continued to fire. We then 
replied. 

Q. — The witness said that beside setting Phra Yot free, they had orders to make the 
French evacuate the territory. Has this been properly translated ? 

A— Yes. 

The Public Prosecutor asked if Luang Vichit had really shown him the letter on the 
back of which he had written the orders ? 

M. Duval said that that was agreed to by the defence. 

The President. The letter has been produced by you ? 

A.— Yes. 

Khoon Narong, the next witness was then called and sv/orn. 

Q. — You were with Phra Yot when Anurak jumped down? 

A. — Yes. When Anurak jumped out of the window one shot was heard. 

Q. — Did you see Anurak arrested ? 

A.— Yes. 

Q. — How many days was he with GTOSgurin r 

A. — Four or five. 

Q. — Did you see him jump to the ground ? 

A.— Yes. 

Q. — Did you hear the shots at this time ? 

A— Yes." 

Q. — Where were you '{ 

A. — At the foot of the stairs. 

Q. — What were you doing there? 

A. — Nothing. 

Q. — Were you armed ? 

A. — I had a rifle. 

The President (sharply). He was doing nothitfg. He was walking about with a 
rifle in company with 50 or GO other armed men like himself at 3 o'clock in the afternoon. 

Q. — How did you come there? 

A. — I was with KIioou Wang who had come to demand the liberty of Anui'ak. 

The President. Then he was doing something. When one comes with 80 armed 
men around a house, one comes for something. 

Q. — Tell us what you saw ? 

A. — I was with 4 or 5 soldiers of Phra Yot and 50 men of Nai Tooi who had come to 
demand the release of Anurak and the evacuation of the territory. 



21 



% 



Q, — After the first sliot did you lie;ir othoi's? 

A. — Amirak jumped down, then there was one shot; then others which killed 
Khcon Wang. I heard the officers and Plira Yot toll the nieu not to fire. 
M. Duval. The order to fire was given after the first short V 
A. — The Siamese replied by firing a number of shots. 

The President. Nai 'I'ooi had 60 men ; how many had Nai Piaak with him? 
A. — The two troops uurabcreJ about 50 to 60 men. 
The Public Prosecutor. Were the troops Laotians or Siamese ? 
A. — Siamese. 

The next witness Honiu visot, a soldier, was called and 'sworn. 

The President. He does not appear very intelligent. • 

M. £)Kjja^ requested that his deposilion should be taken. 

Q. — Were you present at Kiong Chok and did you see Anurak jump down? 

A.— Yes. . 

Q. — Did you see Grosgurin ? 

A. — Ko J did not see him. 

Q.— After the first shot, jo\x Iieard others '^ 

A. — Two other shots were fired after the one when Anurak came out. 

Q. — Then, nothing more, all was finished ':! 

A. — I heard other shots again and hcird Phra Yot call out to wait. 

Q.— Where was Phra Yot ? • " 

A. — In front of the house. 

Q.— Had he a rifle ? 

A. — No a sword. 

The Public Prosecutor. Of what nationality is the witness ? 

A. — Siamese. 

• 

Khoon Chamnung was then called and sworn. 

Being asked by the President to lift up his right hand to take the oath, witness, 
evidently unaccustomed to this European way of proceeding laughed. 

The President commented severely upon the attitude of the witness. 

The President. You are the man who took two bottles of medecine from the house of 
M. Grosgurin ? 

A.— No. 

Q. — You wei'e, however, recognised by Boon Chan as having taken these flasks of 
medecine ? • 

A. — It was not I. 

Q. — Did you see Anurak jump down ? 

A.— Yes. 

Q. — A shot was then fired ? * 

A.— Yes. 

Q._Who fired it ? 

A. — Some one in the house. 

Q. — Were there other shots ? 

A. — Yes, others which killed Khoon Wang. 

Q. — Did you see anything else ? 

A. — I do not remember anything else very well. 

The PuWic Prosecutor asked tlie nationality of witness. 

A. — Siamese. 

Khoon Vichit a Siamese in the service of Phra Yot, the next witness was called and 
sworn. 

Q. — Were you at Kieng Ghek with Phra Yot ? 
A.— Yes. 

Q. — Did you see Anurak jump from the house ? 
A— Yes. 



— 22 



Q. — At this moment a shot was heard ? :% 

A.— Yes. ■' ' 

Q. — Whence came it ? 

A. — From the house. 

Q. — Were there other shots ? 

A. — Anurak ran towards us and then there were other shots. 

The President. Was tliis witness examined before the first Court ? 

A. — No, he did not give evidence before tlie other Court. 

The President then called Nai Plaak, the next witness. 

M. Duval produced a certificate from Dr. Deuntzer stating tliat Nai Plaak was ill 
and unable to attend Court. This certificate was read in French and in Siamese. 

This concluded ithe evidence. 

The Court tlieu adjourned for five minutes, after which tlie Public Prosecutor 
delivered his speech for the Prosecution. 

llie Public Pyosecutor first called the attention of th.e Court to the disputes which 
had of old existed between tlie Empires of Anuam and Siam about the sovereignty of 
the left bank of the Mekong. He gave a historical sketch, from a French point of 
view, of the origin of the recent differences between France and Siam concerning the 
same territory. The provinces of Kham Kurt and Kham Muon both situated on the 
borders of the Laotian country and of Annam proper, were more especially contended for 
by both neighbouring powers. During recent years Siam tried to consolidate her 
occupation and to extend it more and more. However, as recently as 1883 we still find 
that Annamite mandarins were appointed in the name of Annam to rule over Kham 
Muon and Kham Kurt. But at this time Phra Yot was sent by the Siamese Govern- 
ment as Deputy Commissioner to administer those places and to erect a fort at Kham 
Muon where we find him still acting in the same capacity in 1893. How he understood 
his administration, and what his conduct was towards the natives whom he 
was supposed to protect, we already know from the report of Captain Luce 
to whom, when he was on his way to Kham Muon, the natives camo from 
all sides complaining of ill treatment and acts of prevarication and of cruelty 
which they had experienced from the accused. The Counsel for the Prosecution hero 
read an extract from M, Luce's report, stating that the information of M. Luco was 
strongly corroborated by a Conference held in July last, by a French officer named 
liosiere, at the French Geographical Society. This explorer, relating his journey in 
Laos, speaks very unfavourably of the accused and of the many unpopular acts which ho 
heard had been committed by him as Commissioner of Kham Muon. Monsieur Durrwell 
quoted two or three instances and especially one where Phra Yot, having to resist a 
revolt of some of his own men, received a wcKiiid the trace of which was still visible on 
his forehead. In May 1893, the French Government having decided to reoccupy tliis 
territory, Captain Luce was sent to Kliam Muon in order to take possession of it. This 
mission was essentially pacific. He had to avoid as mucli as possible any act of violence; 
any efi"iision of blood. He communicated the object of his mission to Phra Yot, who at 
first showed some intention of resistance, but afterwards changed his mind and consented 
to leave his post and evacuate the territory. Accordingly, he and his men left the 
stockade, and the day after the 23rd May, Phra Yot wrote to Captain Luce tlie letter 
which had alread}'' been re;id in Court and the importance of which would not have 
escaped the attention of the audience. The learned counsel then read an extract of this 
letter in which it is specially said : ^ 

" I beg to commit to your care the territory with the sub-officials, the inhabitants 
and the Siamese interests therein, while making a formal declaration of our continued 
absolute rights over it, until sucli time as I shall receive any instructions, whereupon I 
shall arrange the measures to be taken subsequently, and I require you to send this letter 
to be laid before the Governments of France and of Siam, so that the matter may be 
examined into, and a decision may bo arrived at, and that territory may be returned 
to Siam, which maps, Iiistory and tradition have shown to- be hers, and to have been 
administered by her until now from the beginning." 



23 — • * ' 



Counsel for the Prosecution considered this letter equivalent to a formal agreement, 
»or rather to a capitulation by which the accused distinctly bound himself not to agaiu 

\take up arms against France or to enter into any acts of hostility against her, but to wait 
until matters should be peacefully settled between the two Go/ornments. Phra Yot had 
tried by mental reservation of, as the learned Counsel for the Prosecution termed it, by 
a capitulation of his own conscience, (o elude the consequences of this promise. But 
these consequences were clear, notwithstanding two objections which might, it was pre- 
sumed, be made on behalf of the defence : First, that Phra Yot simply complied, when 
he wrote this letter, with a formality very usual in Siamese law and custom, namely, that 
when anyone is evicted by violence from what he considers to be his legal property, he 
enters a protest involving an attachment on the object of which he is deprived ; Secondly, 
that he declared in the letter that his future conduct would depend on further instrjictions. 
In reply to tliese objections, Counsel for the Prosecution contended on the first point that 
the only consequence of this alleged Siamese legal proceeding could be a mutual 
obligation for both parties to peacefully wait for a decision of the competeut 
authorities, ^Qd, on the second point, that Phra Yot liimself, without waiting fov 

. instructions, had, on the 20th May, sent a letter to Nai Um, in which, reporting 
the events of Kham Muon, he made no mention of his letter to Caplaiu Lace, but tried 
to excite his countrymen to acts of reprisal. Captain Luce had decided t) send Phra 
Yot and his party to Outhene, and to furuish an escort suliicieut to protect the accused 
from the eventual consequences of his unpopularity among the natives. Nothin<' seemed 
to disturb the good harmony between the parties on the way from Kham Muon to Kienf 
Chek. They marched without any definite order and not at all as though the Siamese 
were the prisoners of the French. Only one day before they arrived. Monsieur Grosguriu 
with his party were in front, and Phra Yot and his party, being left beliind to march by 
themselves, seized the opportunity to lag behind, so that while Grosguriu and his men 
camped at a place called the New Shelter, Phra Yot and his followers stopped at the 0!d 
Shelter, about three hundred yards further down Ihe river. A short time afterwards 
Monsieur Grosguriu appears to have been informed that a lieutenant of Phra Yot, named 
Luang Anurak, was spreading a rumour among tlio natives that the Siamese would 
come back in force to fight the French and reconquer their lost position. The whole 
population was alarmed and Grosguriu considered that, as a guarantee for his own 
security he had to act energetically. On the following day, therefore, he 
went to Phra Yot's quarters with his interpreter. Boon Chan, and nine or ten of his 
soldiers, and proceeded to arrest Luang Anurak in the manner that had beeu related by 
several witnesses. They were compelled to use violance, but this was justified bocaivio 
Ljiang Anurak resistqti. They opposed violence to violence. On the same evening, 
Phra Yot sent a messenger to Grosguriu to request the release of Luang Anurak. The 
request was refused, and Phra Y^bt could hardly expect anything else, because it could 
not be presumed that Monsieur Grosguriu would easily have departed from a measure 
that had been adopted for his own security. Phra Yot took this as a pretext for moving 
some three hundred yards down the river to a place called Wieng Krasene where he felt 
secure. There he met, not casually, but as a consequence of his own letter of the 28th 
May to Nai Um, two officers, Nai Tooi and Nai Plaak, who had beeu sent by Luang 
Vichit, the Siamese Commissioner, at Outhene, with troops to release him from supposed 
captivity. The orders of Luang Vichit were written on the back of the above 
mentioned letter of the 28th May. Circumstances being altered these two offi- 
cers and Phra^Yot consulted togetheilln^ agreed that Luang Anurak had to be rescued. 
They decided also to exact from Monsieur Gi-osgurin the delivery of the goods presumed 
to have been taken at Kham Muon, and the evacuation of the Siamese territory. In 

• 'execution of this plan thoj^went to Kiong Chek with a force which, if all the evidence 
were taken into account, might bo reckoned at about a hundred men whereof sixty at 
least wei-e armed with guns. This force was first met by Boon Chan, the Cambodian 
interpreter, who asked what their intentions were. They said that they wanted the 
delivery of Luang Anurak and that they intended to ask for it peacefully. Peacefully 
with sixty armed soldiers-! They then went on and stopped at a short distance from Mou- 

« eiour Grosgurin's quarters. One of them Khoou Wang went to notify what they re- 



— 24 — 



quired from Iiim. Here .there arc two contradictory versions, what we may call 
the Siamese and the Anuaraite versions. The Kiameso version is that, during the inter- 
view with Koon Wang, Luang Anurak stood next to Monsieur Grosgurin at the top of the 
ladder that was in front of the verandah. When Monsieur Grosgurin had/ 
distinctly roEusad to comply with Khooa Wang's request, one of the Siamese, 
probably Phra Yob, called to him to come down. Monsieur Grosgurin took hold 
of Kiioon Wang's wrist and tried to drag him inside the house, calling, at the same time, 
an Annamito sergeant to come upst lirs. The sergeant ascended, took a gun and loaded it, 
and then Luang Anurak succeeded in wrenching himself free from Monsieur Grosgurin 
and jumping down from the house. Immediately afterwards a shot was fired from inside 
the house aud a Kflrat soldier fell dead. Two or three gunshots from the Annamites fol- 
lowed. Two more Siamese soldiers wore hit aud, after a short consultation between the 
three Siamese chiefs, it was decided to return the fire. This version thus leaves the 
whole responsibility of the attack on the Annamites. 

The Aunamite version is quite different. It is dirtinctly said that after Luang 
Anurak had escaped, the Siamese fired first, that Monsieur Grosgurin, very unfortunatoly, 
but probably owing to his evident state of illness, omitted to take even the most olemen- <c 
tary precautious necessary for future contingencies, that there were not more than five 
Aunamite soldiers in the house, and tliat the fatal result was the killing of Monsieur 
Grosgui-in himself and of nearly all his soldiers. 

The choice between these two versions could not be doubtful. It was certainly to 
be regretted that M. Luce himself had not had an immediate enquiry made on the spot. 
This would have greatly facilitated the elucidation of the whole truth. But if the Siamese 
witnesses who gave their evidence, either before the Siamese Court or before the 
present audience, were compared with the witnesses for the prosecution, it 
could not escape attention that the former were taken exclusively from 
aiHoug the Siamese and not the Laotian followers of Phra Yot, notwithstanding it had 
been abundantly proved that a great part of his followers consisted of Laotians, Then 
these witnesses had every facility for communicating with one another and there was 
every likelihood of their being influenced by their chief, living aud being examined, as 
they were, all in the same place. Boon Chan and the Anuamite soldier, on the contrary, 
were examined quite separately. Boon Chan, who had unfortunately .since died, had 
given his evidence successively before the Siamese authorities, before M. Pavie, Minister 
of France, and before the Siamese Court, whilst the second was examined first at Saigon 
by M. Dscos, and afterwards before that Court. They could not thus be suspected of 
having concocted their depositions together. Moreover, there was a document quite 
recently put before the Court, namely the report of M. Garauger, Jhe French Commercial 
Agent in the Province of Outhene, which gave the current version of the event as 
admitted in the very place where it occurred, and from which it resulted that the 
responsibility of the agression was to be imputed- exclusively to the Siamese chiefs. 
Although this statement could not be admitted as legal evidence, the information which 
it gave had undoubtedly a great importance. 

For all those reasons Phra Yot was accused of having been, if not the principal 
author, at least an accomplice in the perpetration of the crimes mentioned in the 
Act of Accusation. 

The Court adjourned at about 10.30. 



f Libr»ry of Qaorge B. Mo "Pa'-lan^ 



^ 25 - . • • 






Fourth Sitting— Thursday 7th June, 1894. 

SUMMARY :— Address of M. Duval, Counsel for the Defence. 

Messieurs de la Cour. 

In one of his most cliarming fables, 4ihe fable in which he sliows us a peasant of the 
DanuTje laying before the Roman Senate the claims of his fellow citizens, our great poet 
Lafontaine puts in the mouth of this messenger the three following lines : 

" Je supplie avant tout les Dieux de m'assister, 

"Veuilleut les Imraortels cftnducteurs de ma langue, 

"Quejeuediso rion qui doive etre repris." (1) • 

Such is exactly my state of mind as I rise to defend my client; for 1 feel the diflB-, 
culties of my task, the difficulties of the task of a French lawyer defending ^ Siamese 
mandarin wlio is accused of the awful crimes the Public Prosecubor has related to you. 

I beseech therefore the Court, should 1 fail to conqueij one of tliese difficulties, to bo 
persuaded that my words will have failed to carry the exact meaning of my thoughts and 
that I slwtll' bo the first to regret the lapsus I may have coramitteJ. 

Considering the gravity of the accusation, the defence must not expose itself to the 
reproach of having neglected even one of the circumstances alluded to by the accusation, 
and therefore I shall resume before you tlio Act of Accwsafciau itself, I shall follow it 
word by word and shall enJeavour to prove to the Court by the documents of the case, 
and by the contradictious of the witnesses for the Prosecution and by the evidence of the 
witnesses for the defence that Phra Yot is innocent of the crime which he is accused of. 

The Act of Accusation begins thus : 

"For several years now, the Laotian provinces of the upper Mekong, situated on the 
"left bank of the river and forming part, from time immemorial, of the Empire of Au- 
"nam, placed under our protection, had been invaded by the agents of the Siamese Gov- 
"ernment; amongst the most important of these territories are the province of Kham Kurt, 
" which formed till 1893 the two districts of Kham Cot and Kham Muon, both adminis- 
"tered by Annamite mandarins. About that time, Siam, taking advantage of the troubles 
"of the Court of Hue, believed herself strong enough to assume authority, and commenced 
" to establish herself in the region ; in fact in 1886 the Siamese Mandarin Plira Yot went 
"and officially occupied, in the capacity of Khaluang, the post of Kham Muon. 
, "That irregular proceeding could not fail to arouse the attention of the Government 
" of the French Republic, which lost no time in taking the measures necessai-y to safeguard 
"the interests of the protected country. This was the situation when in the month of 
" May, 189;}, M. Resident Luce, of the province of Vinh, received from the Governor 
e " General of Indo-China the order to proceed to Kham Muon, his mission being to occupy 
" that post and again vindicate the full and free exercise of rights which had been so little 
"respected until then." 

Allow me to dwell a few minfttes on these first words of the accusation. I do not 

believe, gentlemen, that I have to follow the accusation on this ground. It little matters, 

to my mind, in this affair, to whom belonged, at the time of the Kham Muon events, 

the left bank of the Mekong, or whether the respective claims of the French and Siamese 

Governments were founded or not, I have to defend Phra Yot against a well defined 

accusation, and I have only to consider the matter as regards what specially concerns 
Phra Yot. 

For the last eight years, the fact is acknowledged by the Prosecutor himself, 
my client, occupied the post fjf Tt^ham Muon, according to the orders of the 
King of Siara, his master ; never, for eight years, had he been disturbed in this 
occupation; he had therefore the right to consider himself the lawful master of the 
region, and had he not ^nsidered himself so, he only had to obey the orders which com- 
pelled him to remain there. He had not to take any part in political opinions and dis- 
cussions; he was a governor intended to govern and not to discuss the acts of his, 
superiors. 

(1) I luusfc begin by beseeching the gods to assist me. May the Immortals guide my tongue so that 
• I say nothing that may deserve to be blamed. 



' • . _ ^6 — 



Let us 'liow resume the Act of Accusation. 

" On the 18tli May the French delegate presented himself before the fort, occupied 
" by the Khaluang Phra Yot, to resume possession of tlie province in the name of his 
'•Government; and on the 22nd of the same month, after useless parleying, full of delays 
" and reticence, he decided to take oflBcial possession of the fort." 

Here, gentlemen, let nie give my opinion on thfe' conduct of the accused. Th% Act 
of Accusation does not say that at that moment accused did not oppose the least 
resistance, that he acted as a coward, that he surrendered the place vfhich his duty 
oblicred him to defend. But accused will have to account for such conduct to his 
superiors, and the consequences may be vei-y serious for him, but this is of little moment 
for the present. , 

I now come to the letter written by Phra Yot to M.. Luce : 

"At 'the same time M. Luce notided to the Siamese mandarin, whose men had been 
" disarmed to prevent any conflict, that he was going to accompany him to Outhone 
"to assure him a safe protection against the Laotian population of the country whom 
"his administration had animated with feelings rather unfavourable to himpelf : that' 
"unpopularity, which had raised vij^orous protestations on the part of ' Phra 
"Yot, is established by precise and detailed facts. An essentially pacific character, 
"then, must be ascribed to the small detachment placed under the orders of 
"Inspector Grosgurin and composed only of 20 militiamen (linh-co), and a 
"Cambodian interpreter named Boon Chan. Phra Yot, first, agreed to these 
"decisions and on the evening of tho 25th, the eve of the day fixed for his departure, 
"lie addressed to M. Resident Luce a letter the real dignity of which it is impossible 
"to contest, but which implied an engagement of honour which the writer could 
"nut break without being guilty of felony. He handed over in fact, in tlie 
"terms of that important document, to the care of the Representative of France, the 
" temitory of Kham Muon and all its dependencies, as well as its officials and inhabitants, 
" making only, in the name of His Majesty the King of Siam, his master, the reservations 
" and protestations imposed upon him by his office. He prayed, besides, the Resident to be 
"good enough to transmit his letter to the Governments of France and Siam, that they 
"luight fully examine tlie legal aspects of the question and arrive at a definitive solution. 
" Such were tlie textual terms of that document which constituted a veritable capitulation 
" and by which Phra Yot, disclaiming all personal responsibility, formally engaged to take 
" no action on his own authority."' 

Notwithstanding the reserve which I have laid to myself as a rule, gentlemen, ib is 
impossible for me not to say here a few words concerning the way in which M. Luce's 
march on Kham Muon must be appreciated. 

As 1 have already endeavoured to prove to tho Court, Phra Yot had the absolute 
right to consider himself the lawful Governor of the province. Thus, when M. Luce 
presented himself before Phra Yot's post, and ordered ,him to abandon it, it is impossible 
to admit that the latter could have considere'l this otherwise than as a violation of Siamese 
rights, as contrary to the orders which he held from his chiefs, in one word, as an act of 
hostility. Oh, I know, gentlemen, that Phra Yot's conduct in this matter is far from 
being exempt of blame, I do not wish to ask you, gentlemen, by what word you would 
characterise the conduct of one of our officers who would abandon, without the least 
resistance, the post which France would have confided to his care. I consider that Phra 
Yot's responsibility towards his Government is very heavy and I should not care to have 
to justify his conduct in this respect. ' ■ *« 

Phra Yot committerl an act of cowardice which ho fully realised the next day, once 
the first feeling of fright had passed away; and then it was that he wrote to M. Luce that 
letter the importance of which rules the whole of this case, that letter on which, you. 
Monsieur le Procureur de la Republique, base the whole of your accusation and of which 
1 shall make the basis of my defence. 

These are the words used by Phra Yot, according to tho translation accepted by 
tho Coui't : 

" I, Phra Yot Muang Kwang, Deputy Commissioner of the Districts of Kamkurt 
and Kham Muon, write this letter, to you the French Commander : I hereby commit to 



'27 



your caro tho territory of Kamkurt and Kliarn Muon with the iutorests tliorein contained, 
^ wbiie'^akinpf formal declaration of our continued absolute rights over it. 

" Siuce His Royal Hif,'huess Prince Prachak Siiparkliom ordered me to come up to 

^ aduiinistor the district of Kamkurt and Kiiaiii Muon, (territory which touches on tho 

^Annamito frontier at the Post called Tar Mooa) I have taken charge of tho district and 

of tho sub-oQBcials and the inhabitants of various nationalities in it, in peace, prosperity 

and justice. 

"But after many years had passed, on tho 23rd day of May in the year 112 of the 
* Siamese era, you, and four French officers, having under you moro than two hundred 
soldiers, came and plundered my stockade and caused your soldiers to coino and surround 
and seize both myself and my officers and my men, and pushed and tjlirust us forth by 
force of arms and drove us out of our stockade, and would not permit me to stay and 
cari'y out my official duties and look after the interests of my Government, accor'diug to 
the orders of His Most Gracious Majesty, who is my Sovereign. 

"You refused to let me stay, and thrust out both nie and my officials and my soldiers. 
• • "I now beg to commit to your care tlic territory, with tiio sub-officials, tie inhabi- 
tants aiTa*the Siamese interests therein, (while making formal declaration of our con- 
tinued absolute rights over it) until such time as I shall receive any instructions, where- 
upon I shall arrange the measures to bo taken subsequently. 

"And I require you to send this letter to be laid before the Government of Franco 
and the Government of Siam, so that the matter may bo examined into, and a decision 
may bo arrived at, and that territory may be icfcurnoJ to Siam, which histoiy and 
tradition have shown to be hers, and to have been administered by her, until now from 
the beginning. 

(Signed), Phea Yot Muang Kwanq." 

Here, gentlemen, we have to examine a point of Siamese law which has, indeed, 'an 
equivalent in our own law. Several times during the course of these debates I have 
requested. Monsieur le President, to ask the witnesses what was the exact moaning of 
the Siamese word which tho interpreter has translated by " I confide to your care." 
The witnesses' answers proved that there exists au old Siamese custom by virtue of 
which when in a distant region where no Court and no official exist, two people disao-ree 
on.,the right of ownership to a thing, one of them Confides the thing to the other and 
goes and lays his claim before the nearest Court or official. Phra Yot feeling incapable 
of defending Kliam Muon confided it to M. Luce and very honestly warned him that 
ho did so reserving all his rights, and that he was going to apply to his superiors fpr 
or(iIers ; this is undoubtedly the moaning of this sentence "until orders will have 
" reached me after which I shall take further measures.'' 

It has never entered the mind of Phra Yot, as the accusation has it, to surrender his 
territory to Fi'ance definitely and to accept the acts of M. Luce : ho had not the rio'ht 
to do so. This letter is very clear and may be condensed in the following words : I yield to 
strength being incapable and not desiring to take upon mjself to resist, but as soon as I shall 
have received orders I shall obeij them. 

And with perfect logic and consistency, two days after ho applies for those orders 
to Nai Roi, his chief, in the following letter : 

"I, Phra Yot Muaug Kwang, Deputy Commissioner of Muang Kara Kurt and Muang 
Kham Muon, send this letter to Nai Roi To Nai Um, Commissioner of Tar Ontheuo, aud 
inform him thjit the French with 20 awtdtCTrs are coming to take me down to Tar Outhene, 
and we have reached Ban Pha Muang. Let Commissioner Nai Roi To Um prepare arms 
and send them up, so that ray men may also be fully armed, as the arms belonging to my 
|)arty have been confiscated by the French. If the French do not listen to my protest, 
I with my officers aud men will join together to resist them. If the French are allowed 
to bring rae down as far as Outhene the French will develope a much more hostile and 
Iiigh-hauded attitude and seize the territory belonging to Siam on the Mekon"*, and thus 
the honour of the King will be tarnished, and blame will certainly fall upon you aud me. 
I have only about 40 men, but I am resolved to serve His Majesty with all my power. I 



I 



I 



28 - 



request you therefore to send me soldiers aud incu. Lot tlieni march by day and night, 
aud if they iirrive, the King's eueniies will uot bo able to adopt so high-haude-J'. au 
attitude towards us." 

This letter carried . by a mosseagor anivos at Outheue wliere Luang Vichit comes 
across it ; it is opened by the superior officer who immediately puts two of his officers Nai 
Tooi and Nai Plaak at the head of sixty men aud sends t!iom to Phra Yot with tlio fol- 
lowing writt'iu orders : 

" Let Nai Tool march forward as fast as possible; wherever Aiinamite soldiers shall 
"be met, let them be driven back; if they resist they must be fought, let your meu 
"strongly settle at Kieng Check. Whatever happens, deliver Phra Yot so as to have 
" thus the assistance of his men." 

These orders and these reinforcements reach Phra Yot at Kieng Chek. (I have 
passed urdcr silence so far M. Grosgurin's march for nothing important Iiappouod to 
call attention to it). 

What was then the respective situation of both sides? 

M. Grosguriu seeing Phra Yot's attitude, and hearing the rumours that circulated 
amongst the inhabitants, had reflected that ho had perhaps acted rather 'light'y; aud 
tried to find a means of hitting a decisive Wow. 

Phra Yot's lieutenant, Luang Anurak, provided him with an opportunity ; ho spread 
rumours of resistance which reached M. Grosgurin's ears. 

The latter then accompanied by the interpreter Boon Chan and several armed 
Annamite soldiers came to the old shelter where Phra Yot had camped and required 
that Luang Anurak should be delivered up to him ; notwithstanding Phra Yot's refusal 
Anurak was seized, ill treated, bound and carried off manu mililari to the house where 
Mr. Grosgurin lived. 

It is after this arrest that Luang Vichit^s men arrived at Kieng Chek. Phra Yot 
informed the two lieutenants of the situation, and all three decided that to obey their 
orders they had to require Grosguriu to give up Luang Anurak, aud should they meet 
with a refusal, to obtain his release by force. 

Phra Yot's secretary, Khoon Wang, was sent to parley, and he did not hide to 
M. Grosguriu that to keep Anurak a prisoner any longer would bo breaking the treaty 
made between the two companies. 

M. Grosgurin refused and Khoou Wang come and reported the result of his inter- 
view to Phra Yot. The latter, considering this refusal, and together with Nai Tooi and 
Nai Plaak decided to go to Grosgurin with all their men and make another application. 

They, thus, marched towards the house and again parleyed with M. Grosgurin who 
peri3isted in his refusal, and Phra Yot, considering that Luang Anurak was unjustly 
maintained a prisoner, called the latter. Luang Anurak came on the verandah and was 
violently j^ushed back inside the house by M. Grosgurin himself; he then managed to 
escape, jump from the veranhah and join his companions. 

These facts, gentlemen, are undoubtedly proved by the evidence you have heard ; 
the witnesses for the prosecution themselves do not give the prosecution the means of 
uot holding these facts as absolutely correct. 

We now come to the principal circumstance of this case : to the murder, says the 
accusation ; to the battle, says the defence. 

The Act of Accusation on this important point is wonderfully concise : "Nearly at 
the same time, the firing began, and fire was lit on all sides." 

Well, let us examine, whether the i^itnesscc far the prosecution, gave Monsieur 
I'Avocat General the right to hold this sentence as correct, whether the witnesses for the 
defence do not destroy it completely, and do not prove the diametrically opposite version. 

The first witness, tho most important undoubtedly, who seems to corroborate the 
Act of Accusation is the Cambodian interpreter Boon Chan. Lot us see how he relates 
tho ])rincipal scene. 

In the statement written in his own hand, aud delivered to H. R. H. Prince Pra- 
chak. Boon Chan declares " that at that time (i.e. at the time when Luang Anurak escaped) 
/ heard the jhhuj oj ijuns. Uiifortunatelij I do not know loho becjaii to fire first." 



29 — 



In the statement of 20tli October, 1893, before M. Pavio, ho delares " T cried to our 
Milii^inen : to arms ! and I went out to prevent the Siamese from firing, hut lhf>/ loould not 
listen to my request and herjan at a distance of 5 or 6 metres firing on the house." 

Before the Siamese Coui't the same B;)on Clian states a ; foll-ows ; " Grosgurin then 
rose and told me to enquire ivhat all these loarlike preparations onc'int. I explained: Do not 
fire, do not fire, let its have an explanaiion^first. Th.eij began to shout fire hut theg had not get fired." 
Such is, gentlemou, the evidence ou which is built this capital Accusation : a vvitnes.s 
who tells you first 7 (7o 7ici« /i'no?« who began to fire first, who \a,^ev on sa,ys that the Siamese^ 
began to fire first and who finally declares that the same Siamese liad not i/ct fired, can such 
a witness be worthy of confidence, and in your inmost conscience is it possible for you to 
form any opinion whatever from these three different versions? How could so important * 
a circumstance as the first firing have escaped tlie notice of Boon Cha'n who from his own • 
admission stood on the verandah next to Grosgurin at tlio critical moment? How could 
one, in the presence cf these three different versions not be of opinion at the very least 
that such an evidence must be put aside? i 

Bat this is not all, the second witness, the liok-co Ug-vau-Kliau is not more decisive. 
To .Mjnsicuv le Resideut Duces, on the 1 jth December 1893, ho replied t!mt at 
the moment wiien tiie Siamese fired, he was on guard at the foot of the ladder of the 
"house occupied by M. Grosgurin. 

In Court, he contradicted Iiimself. I have already at the time requested the Court to 
make a note of it, and said on the contrary tiiat he was with three of his companions in 
the upper part of the house. 

Moreover, in the statement he made tj the Court two days ago I request the Court 
to note an undeniable improbability: Ug-van-Khan pretended ho had been v.-ounded 
amongst the very first, pretended that he had gone down from the upper part of tho 
house, that he had taken refuge under the stairs of the verandah ; that then from there 
he had reached the clump of bamboo where the Siamese found him. 

Wounded, indeed, how could the witness be stupid enough to expose himself to more 
blows in leaving tho interior of the house and hiding under those stairs where he could 
not reach without having gone down the said stairs and consequently without having 
exposed himself as a target to the Siamese shots. , 

Much more extraordinary still is that imprudent flight he pretends to have made 
from under the stairs where supposing ho had doubled himself up ho might have been 
Si^fe, tothat clump of bamboos which he could not reach without crossing a piece of 
ground swept by tlio shots. 

All this is unlikely, inadmissible and tho Court certainly will value it for what it is 
worth. 

As a natural consequence, I am now led to compare with this fragile evidence that 
of the witnesses for the defence. 

Here the witnesses' attitude is different and is not, as Monsieur le President seemed 
to insinuate in the course of these dgbatcs that of witnesses repeating a lesson learnt by 
heart, but of witnesses stating the truth : if these men have all come and made the same 
statement to the Court it is because they told tho truth, the unadulterated truth. 

All these witnesses, gentlemen, without one exception, stated that the first firing 
came from the house, at the moment when Luang Anurak escaped, that Khoon Wang 
had been hit by it and had died, consequently tliat two other Annamite shots had killed 
two Korat soldiers, and that it was only after having undergone these throe firings that 
Nai Tooi, Nai Plaak and Phra Yot, of one accord, had given order to fire in return. 

The eviylence before the SiamcSff'CTourt of Nai Tooi who was unable to appear before 
you has been read and has corroborated tliese facts : Phra Yot's statement was identical. 
Let us even, gentlemen, consider the situation leaving aside the witnesses. There 
' is one fact proved, acknowledged by the Annamite liuh-co himself, that is that firing 
began, just at tho very moment when Luang Anurak jumped from the verandali. Well, 
is it likely, is it possible to admit that the Siamese would have fired ou tho house as 
Luang Anurak was crossing the space which separated them from the house. They would 
infallibly have killed him. I insist on this point, gentlemou, as I have already done in 
the course of these debates, Ug Van Khan was very plain ; it is just at the moment 



— 30 

J . 



( 



when Luang Anurak escaped that the first shot was fired. Monsieur lo President asked 
hitn to lae.isuro the distiiice that sopxritol t'lc two groups at tliat inomout : it i'as 
proved that this distvnco was 20 metres. Well, Laan^^ Auurak would never have had 
time to cross that space of 20 metres, and would have fallen under the shots of his own 
soldiers. 

The true version, the version which the evidence and which sound logic corroborate, 
gentlemen, is that one of the Annainite soldiers who had charge of Luang Anurak fired 
ut the prisoner who was escaping, that his shot killed Klioon Wang, that two of his 
companions fired immediately after liiin, killed two Siamese, and that it is only then, in 
Order not to allow themselves to be massacred without resistance, and in an absoluti 
case of legitimate self-defence that the Siamese men answered the firing and caused the 
unfortunate results which we now deplore. 

1 beliq^vo, gentlemen, I have made this point sufficiently evident, and I can without 
dwelling any longer upon it, come to the last sentence of the Act of Accusation : 

" It is in vaiu, says he, tlia^i Phra Yot should try to find an excuse for his conduct 
"in a letter addressed to liim from Xoug-Khay on the 20th May by Luang Vichit: tliis 
" document and the instructions it contains are anterior to the events of Kham Mu-O'i'-.aul 
" cannot ajjply to them.^' 

The defence has never meant to plead that this letter could have reached accused 
Phra Yot before tlie events of Kieng Chck. I only wish to argue from it to show that it 
was in the Siamese intentions to resist the French by force of arms and that orders were 
given in that sense. 

There is the letter : it does not need to be commented upon : 

Xongkhai, May 20th 1893. 

" 1 am instructed by H. K. H. Prince Prachak Silparkhom, the Royal Commissioner 
" of Lao Puen, to acquaint you that a report of Phya Suriyadet has been received, in 
" which it states that Luang Mol Yothamyog reports as follows : 

" On the 5th May 1893 at about 3 o'clock in the afternoon, Ong-Rara-thu the French 
"Governor of Puseen (Annam J, another Ong-Kamthu the French Commander, Quan-ba 
'■' a French officer and a Frenchman whose name were unknown to Luang Mol, came 
'to Topone with 400 soldiers, and arrived at Luang IMol's camp at Chieng Rom. At tho 
"time Luang Mol was sick with fever and confined to his bed, his officer cried out that 
" the French force arrived at the camp, when Luang Mol came out of his room, the Freuch 
"force signalled by their bugle for their soldiers to force into tho stockade and then the 
"French officer ordered their men to surround Luang Mol, who reports that if ho desired 
''■ to escape he could then have been able to do so, but he saw at the same time that ha 
"couM uot successfully resist the French and he resolved to remain at his post to 
" sacrifice his life for His Majesty's service without attempting to retreat or escape. 
" The French then kept him as a prisoner in another house and intended to take Inm to 
" Phine and to the Mekong. t 

"Furthermore, Luang Vichit and Tho w Chiang Choomi made a statement that the 
French had taken Luang Mol as a prisoner, and took him down to Wang-Khan, and 
also that they had turned out all our guard from Pha-baug. 

" We have therefore prepared our force to march on immediately. Let you, Phra 
"Yot tahe good care of every post and road with all your force and prepare to defend 
" them. // iliQ Freiicli would advance upon you in awj manner let ;jou defend wjainst them to 
" yonv utmost 1 vf'iW cQuxo at once with soldiers and force from Nongkhai to stay at 
" Outhenc and bo ready to assist you as emergency Tcrjiaired." 

(Sealed and Signed) Luano Vichit Saresart. 

I repeat to tlie Court that this letter does not need any comment. It is tho evident 
proof that resistance against French occupation was decided by the Siamese Govern- 
ment; this is the only poiut I wished to prove by it. 

This letter leads me quite naturally to mention the one which is not mentioned in 
the Act of Accusation but which Monsieur le President has read at the last sitting. I 
allude to the letter of M. Garanger. 



31 



The version it relate.?, gentlbtneu, lirings us to the very lirst ver.siou which was 
spreadrunraeJiately after the event, acconliug to which Plira Yot would have assassi- 
nated M. Grosgurin whilst the latter was lying sick in his bed, with his own revolver 
torn from his belt. 

I need not point out to the Courc that M. Garanger is a ue>v comer in the country, 
that he accepted blindly what may havij been reported to him, and that his proteges in 
order to gain his sympathy had but one object which was to depict Grosgurin as a martyr 
and Phra Yot as an assassin. I believe, gODtlomen, I have successively coasidorcd the points 
and documents which are the most important in this case: 1 still have to consider the 
four charges made against the accused and to see which of them you may consider as 
well founded. 

Phra Yot is accused : 

"1 — Of having, at Kieng Chek (province of Outhene) ou the 5th of Jui?e, 1893, 
"rendered himself accomplice of an act of wilful homicide commiltcd on the person of 
" Inspector Grosguriu, French officer and inspector of militkuun, attached to the pro- 
' 'ivince of Viuh, by provoking by culpable machinations and artifices the above 
" menfeivilfd homicide ; by giving to the author or authors of it instructions to commit 
"the murder; by procui'ing arms and other means of action, knowing for what purpose 
" they were to be used ; and by aiding and abetting, knowingly, the author or authors, 
"in the acts which prepared, facililated and consummated the murder." 

" With the circumstance that the aforesaid murder has been committed with pre- 
" meditation." 

I believe I have proved that there was no wilful homicide, that the interpretation 
of the letters compels to put aside all culpable machination, that the instructions were 
only given in a case of legitimate self-defence, and that the arms were brought by the 
men of Luang Vichit. 

" 2 — Of having, in the same circumstances of time and place, and by the means 
"enumerated above, rendered himself accomplice of the wilful homicide committed ou the 
"persons of certain Annamite soldiers and of the Cambodian Interpreter Boon Chan. 

"With the circumstance that the aforesaid murder has been committed with 
premeditation." 

The answer to this is the same as the one made to the first charge. 

" 3 — Of having, in the same circumstance of time and place, rendered himself 
"accomplice of certain fraudulent thefts of personal property, arms and ammunitions, 
"committed to the prejudice of the same, as well as the Annamite soldier Nguj'en Van 
"Khan, by concealing knowingly all or part of the stolen property. With this 
"circumstance that the above mentioned thefts have been accompanied and followec/ by 
" the two crimes of homicide above specified." 

This charge, not having been alluded to in the course of the debates, Nguyen Van 
Khan himself not having mentionecVit in his evidence, and Monsieur TAvocat General 
not having insisted on it, must bo put aside by the Court. 

"i — Of having, in the same circumstances of time and place, rendered himself 
accomplice of the crime of ai'son of certain Laotian buildings, place serving as 
habitation, by giving instructions to commit the arson, and by assisting knowingly 
tbe authors in the circumstances which have led to it, facilitated and consummated it." 

It has appeared from the debates tliat the fact of houses and other property being 
set on fire was the natural result of the firing^. This charge shall al&o be put aside by 
the Court. , —' 

Well, gentlemen, seeing that the four charges are thus annihilated, what shall be your 
verdict ? 

According to the rules of proceeding your answer will have to be yes or no. 

If you say ycs^ gentlemen, it will be that I shall have badly fulfilled my task, that 
I shall not have succeeded to convey to your minds the conviction which has guided me 
throughout these debates, conviction without which I would not have accepted to 
defend Phra Yot, and he and I shall respectfully accept your verdict. 

If your sentence is no, gentlemen, it will be that you will not have forgotten that 



this left bank of the Mekong, the region where these unfortunate events have ^ taken 
place, is to-day French territory, that you will have wished to prove to our new subjects 
that French Justice is great and impartial, and that it can appreciate according to what 
they are worth even events which it deplores most. 

My task is over, gentlemen. It is with confidence that I trust Phra Yot's fate in 
your hands. 

Luang Chamnong, one of the interpreters, having translated the substance of 
M. Duval's speech to the Siamese judges. 

The Public Prosecutor then briefly replied, contending that the evidence of Boon Chan 
and the Annamite soldier was more reliable than that of the witnesses for the defonoo ; 
inasmuch as the latter told a story agreeing at all points, while the former showed some 
-.liscrepancies. If Boon Chan's depositions were unsatisfactory it must be remembered 
that they were obtained from him whilst he was a wounded prisoner under fear of doiitli. 
lie further submitted that Phra Yot pledged himself not to do anything till he received 
instructions from his Royal Master, and that he broke his pledge two days afterwards and 
attacked his friendly escort. , . 

The President then read to the accused an indictment of twelve counts, chiefly 
founded on the Act of Accusation and asked him what plea he had to make to each one. 

ylccMsecZ replied that he was not guilty of the accusations laid to his charge, as he 
left Kham Muon under compulsion. At Kieng Chek he only acted in self-defence and he 
had throughout obeyed the orders of his superiors. 

The Presiderd then adjourned the Court till Saturday, 9th June, when he said 
judgment would be pronounced. 



».*-v- 



- 33 - _,7 



Fifth Sitting— Saturday 9th June 1894. 

SUMMARY :— Non-appearance of the Accused.— Judgment put o£E to a further Sitting. 

The Bench took their seats at 4.15 i'. m. 

The President declared the Court resumed and ordered thu accused to bo produced, 
and an official left for this purpose. There was a delay of a few minutes, when the 
President ordered the Cambodian Interpreter of the French Consulate to see that the 
accused was brought in. 

A few minutes after ho came back and stated that the accused was not there. 

The President tlien said : 

" The Court, considering that tlie accused Phra Yot does nob a'ppear, and that no 
"justification of his absence has reached the Court, orders that the case shali be con- 
" tinued at a further sitting.' 

The Court then rose. » 



*» i 



s 



/ 



t 



^.^J 




^ 



AFFAIR OF KHAM MUON (KIENG CHEK). 
JUDGMENT. 

9 

Sixth Sitting— Wednesday 13th June 1894, 

SUMMARY :— Readiiiff of the Judgiueut. 

On Tuesday 12tli June ifc was anuouuced tliat the Mi^AsJ Cou-l wuuld asstiiiible the 
iiiext day at 4 p.ui. to deliver Judgineut. 

^t 4.5 p.m. on Wednesday loth June the Court assembled niid the President, after 
• having ordered that the accused siiould be produced, and the latter having appeared, 
read the following Judgment: 

The Mixed Court which was instituted by and meets iu virtue of Article III. of the 
Convention of October 3rd, 189'), between the Governuicnt of H. S. M. the King of Siam 
and the French Republic, and composed as follows : 

President : Monsieur Mondot, 

President of the Court of Appeal of Hanoi. 
Members : Monsieur Camatte, 

Counsellor of the Court of Appeal of Saigon, Judge. 
( Monsieur Fuynel, 

Procureur de la Republique at Mytho, Judge. 
Phya Maha Amat Thibodi, Judge, • 

Phea Kassem Su Kaui, Judge, 
Public Prosecutor : Monsieur Durwell, 

Procureur de la Republique a Saigon. 
Recorder : Monsieur de Couloeans, 

Interpreters duly sworn for the case : ^ 

, Messrs. Hakdouin, French Consul ; 

Xavier, 
Paul Nhu, 
Nai Yem, 
Nai Droun, 
Khun Borivan, 

gave the following Judgment: — 

Whereas iu view of the written documents which have been produced, and according 
to the debates that have taken place during the sittings of the 4th, 5th, Gtli, and 7th 
instant, the facts submitted to the^'.w^'.¥lodge* of the Court may and must sum up as 
follows : — 

The Siamese Mandarin Phra Yot i\Iuaug Kwaug, for several years occupied, as the 

' King's Commissioner, the region which is bounded by the frontier of Annam, when, about 
the middle of tiie month of May 189-J, Capt. Luce, French Resident, conveyed to him au 
order to evacuate the proviuce of Kliam Muon, wliicli appeared to have always been com- 
prised within the territory of tiie Empire of Anuam. After liaviug for several days 
offered a certain amount of resistance to the injunctions of the Representatives of the 
Republic, he made submission, on May 2ord, by a letter iu which lie confided the ad- 

, ministration of the Province to the care of Capt. Luce, until the Siamese and French 



r 



\^^ -'30 _ 



Governments should have decided to whom tlie territory iu dispute bclont^ed. AUIiQugh 
tliat cession was provisional and dependent as to its ulterior effects, on the negotiations 
which would take place between the Government of H. M. the King of Siam and that of 
the French Republic, Plira Yot formally pledged himself to accept, until further order, 
the substitution of French authority, and, consequently, to abstain from all hostile action 
against the Representative of France, Confiding 'in the sincerity of that promise, 
which was of such a nature as to assure him of his perfect securit}^ the Inspector of the 
Garde Civile, Gi'osgurin, appointed by Capt. Luce, did not hesitate to undertake, with 20 
men only, in a region which he did not know, to accompany the Siamese troops to the 
■ frontier. After several days' marching in the direction of Kieng Chek, Phra Yot secretly 
wrote, and furtively sent, to Capt. Nai, at Outhene, a letter in which, making a 
st'rong and pressing appeal to the patriotism of the soldier, lie begged and strongly in- 
sisted on his quickly despatching arms, men and subsidies of all kinds with a view to a 
violent and decisive attack against the French. 

By this document dated May 28tii Phra Yot repudiated the formal engagement con- 
tained iu the letter he had written five dfxys before to Capt. Luce ; in breirliipg tlius 
the compact which he had freely made with the French officials without even being able 
to pretend now that he had received at that moment any order, any advice which led to 
tiiat sudden determination he not only committed a disloyal act, he spontaneously anp 
voluntarily assumed the penal responsibility of the crimes which would necessarily 
result as the immediate consequence of that provocation. 

Continuing their way towards the Siamese frontier the two small bodies of troops 
soon reached Kieng Chek, the place designated for a long halt. They had scarcely arrived in 
that locality when Grosgurin was informed that Luang Anurak, Phra Yot's lieutenant, 
was trying to stir up trouble against the French. Completely isolated iu the heart of a 
fanatical population, in an almost savage region, and with only a handful of 20 men to 
protect him, the Representative of France had a right to look to his own security, a right 
which became a duty having regard to the Annaraites placed under his orders. In these 
conditions he did not hesitate to make sure of the person of Anurak in order to put him 
out of position of doing any harm; he thus used a right of prevoutive legitimate defence, 
which he appears to have exorcised with moderation, if one believes the statements of 
Boon Chan and of Nguyen Van Khan. 

The next day, Phra Yot, who had been careful to remove to a certain distance from 
Grosgurin's house, in order to escape his surveillance, went secretly to Wieng Krasene, 
five hours' navigation from Kieng Chek, towards Outhene. Two days afterwards he 
retur,ned bringing forces which had been sent to that place as the result of his letter of 
May 28th. It is these troops, numbering in the opinion of all the witnesses, 70 men , 
effectively armed, who, on June ord, suddenly surrounded the house whore Grosgurin 
was and massacred the Representative of France and the greater part of the Annamites 
who accompanied him. < 

The " act of war " not being able to be invoked, since peace reigned between France 
and Siam — which is expressly recognised by the two Governments in the Convention of 
Oct. 3rd, 1893, according to which the act specially submitted this day to the examination 
and Judgment of the Court is termed attentat — the criminality of that investaieat and of 
the homicides which followed cannot be contested, even if the version given by the 
accused and supported by some of his companions in arms were admitted. In fact, 
according to them, Luang Anurak would have run out of the house with the object of 
escaping; an Annamite would have fired upon iiiifitfff^e moment, and inflicted a mortal 
wound on one Korat soldier ; and this act of violence would have immediately provoked 
the reprisals of the Siamese. If the law allows the legalisation of an act committed when 
we are menaced with death, it is only in the case in which the imperious necessity of self- 
preservation makes it a duty. One can only resist an aggression ; and it is evident that 
» Grosgurin, confined to his room by illness, as is attested by all the witnesses who were 
near him, surrounded by a small number of Annamites, could not for an instant have 
thought of attacking the numerous armed troops which surrounded his house. 

The truth is clearly shown from the respective situations of the Siamese and 
Laotians on one side, and of Grosgurin with only some Annamites on the other. 



9 



-87 J>v^" 



If we rljsiniss tlio secondary details on which nuavoidable contradictions liavo ari?en, tho 
.depositions oE Boon Chan and Nguyen Van Klinn, taken at different times and places 
(which dispells all suspicion of previous collnsiou between them) inspire the Court with 
sufficient confidence to be used as basis to a verdict. The arrest of Luang Auurak, 
which was a just and legal act, as has beeu jiroved, served as a pretext for a crime 
directed against the Representative ^f France. Under cover of parleying towards 
obtaining the liberty of Luang Anurak, a banii of armed men assembled around 
Grosgurin's dwelling in a most menacing manner. Whatever may be the point from 
which the first shot was firod, it is manifest that a violent aggression was prepared and 
carried out by those who invested and then invaded tho house, and that Grosgurin 
succumbed, without possible defense, to a homicide long premeditateji, and carried out 
in a cowardly manner. 

The participation of Phra Yot in this crime is just obvious. It was he who caused 
troops to arrive, who went himself to fetch them at Wieng Kratone, and who conducted 
them to the place where, under his direction and with his as«if=tance, they committed the 
murder whi^jh-it is the duty of the Court to punish. 

TTie complicity of Phra Yot in the pillage and burning of the house is not shown with 
t'he same certainty. It is not impossible, iu f;ict, that these crimes coming after the 
wilful homicide already mentioned, wore accomplished without the knowledge of the 
accused by one of those minor subalterns, whose uncultivated and savage nature the 
Court has been able to appreciate. 

Considering the application of tho penalty : 

Whereas, if the acts of which Phra Yot has beeu guilty present all the character- 
istics of crimes against common law, the motive which animated the accused, the end he 
'had in view, make an appreciable difference between him and the ordinary assassin who 
takes away the life of a fellow creature with a view to gratify his cupidity and to satisfy 
a feeling of hatred or personal vengeance. These divers degrees of moral responsibility 
must be taken into consideratiofii by a Court of Justice, and ought to correspond with 
the divers degrees of criminal responsibility ; it is through extenuating circumstances 
that the Judge must equitably determine the exact proportions. 

On these grounds the Court has resolved to return the following answers to the 
questions put to it : — 

1st Question. — Has a wilful homicide been committed at Kiong Chek (province of 
Outhene) on June 5th ISOJ, on the person o£ M. Grosguriu, Inspector of Militia of the 
province of Vinh ? > 

• Answer : Yes, by a majority. 

2nd Question. — Has the said homicide been committed with premeditatiou ? 

Answer : Yes, by a majority. 

3rd Question. — Is the accused guilty of having been au accomplice in the crime 
of homicide above specified and qualified, in provoking by machinations and guilty arti- 
fices, in giving himself to its authors instructions to commit it, in procuring arms and 
other means of action, knowing that they would be used for that purpose, and in aiding 
and abetting with knowledge its authors in the acts which, led up to, facilitated, and 
consummated it ? 

Answer : Yes, by a majority. 

4th Question. — Have wilful homici^ej boeu«committed under the same circumstances 
of time and place on the persons of 15 xVnnamite militiamen, not named? 

Answer : Yes, by a majority. 
, £th Question. — Have the said homicides beeu committed with premeditation ? 

Answer : Yes, by a majority. 

6th Question. — Is the accused guilty of having made himself by tho same means 
an accomplice in tho homicides above specified and described ? . 

Answer ; Yes, by a majority. 

7th Question. — Have fraudulent abstractions of ohjeis iiiobiliers, eft'ects and clothings, 
lirms and ammunition been committed under the same circumstances of time and place, 



u 



38 — 



to tlie prejudice of the same, as deposed by the Cambodiau interpreter Booa Chg.nj and 
the Annaniite militiaman Nguyen Van Khan ? 

Answer : Yes, by a majority. 

8th Question. — Did the said fraudulent abstractions accompany, precede, or follow the 
crimes of homicide above specified ? 

Answer : Yes, by a majority. " 

9th Question — Is the accused guilty of iiaving been an accomplice in the said 
fi'auduleut abstractions and of giving instructions to commit them, and knowingly 
keeping back any part of the objects stolen ? 
^ Answer : No, by a majority, 

10th Question-7-Was the crime of wilful burning of various Laotian huts, places 
^inhabited and serving as habitations, committed under the same circumstances of time 
and place ? 

Answer : Yes, by a majority. 

11th Question — Is the adjused guilty of haviug been an accomplice in the said crime 
of wilful incendiary in giving instructions for its couimittal and in knowingly.aiding and 
abetting its authors in the acts which led up to, facilitated and consummated it? 

Answer . No, by a majority. 

12th Question — Are there extenuating circumstances in favour of the accused ? 

Answer : Yes, by a majority. 

MoNDOT, President ; 

Camatte, Judge ; 

FuYNEL, Judge. 

Messrs. Phya Maha A mat Thibodi and Phra Kassen Su Kari, Siamese Judges, ' 
declared that they refused to sign. 

, The Interpreters : 

Signed : Mondot, President Hardouin, 

Camaxxe, ■ Xaviee. 

FuYNEL. , 

Consequently 
,.The Court, considering articles 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9 and 12 of the Special Rules thus 
worded ; < 

Article 1. — Homicide committed voluntarily is qualified murder. 

Article 2. — Any murder committed with premeditation or through ambush is 
qualified assassination. < 

Article '3, — The accomplice of a crime or of an offence shall incur the same joenalty 
as the authors themselves of such a crime or ofl'ence, except in the case where the law 
disposes otherwise. 

Article 5. — Shall be punished as accomplices of an action qualified crime or offence, 
those who by gift, promises, menaces, abuse of authority or of powei-, culpable machina- 
tions or artifice, shall have provoked this action or given instructions to commit it ; — 
those who shall have procured arms, iustrumeuts, or auy other means employed to 
commit the action, knowing that they would •bt?-«<y ployed to commit it ; — tlioso who 
knowingly, will have aided or abetted the authors of the action, in the facta which led up 
to or facilitated or prepared it ; without prejudice etc. 

Article 8. — Whoever shall be guilty of as-sassiuation, parricide, iufauticide, or * 
poisoning shall incur capital punishment, etc. 

Article 0. — Murder shall be punished by death when it will have preceded, accom- 
panied or followed another crime. 

Article 12. — The penalties edictei] by the law against tlie one or those of the accused 
who will have been deemed guilty but in whose favour will exist extenuating circum- 
stances, shall bo modified as follows : , 






If the penalty edicted is death, the Court shall apply the penalty of hard labour for 
life cfi" hard labour for a time, Condomaation to hard labour for a time shall be inflicted 
for live years at least and twenty years at the most according to the appreciation of tha 
Court." 

Has condemned and condemns Phra Yot to the punishment of 20 years hard labour; 
condemns him besides to defray the cc^sts of the trial ; 

Orders that the execution of the Judgment shall be supervised by the Minister 
Eesident of France in Bangkok. 

This Judgment was given ia tUe Hall of the French Legation in Bangkok, the 
Wednesday thirteenth of June, ISQi, at 4 I'.m. in a public sitting. 

Signed : Paul Mondot, President. ^ 

Camatte, Judge. 

FuYNEif, Judge. 

" Haedouin, Interpreter. 

Xavier, ditto. 

• DE CouLGEANs, Recorder. 



Hb 



CONTENTS. 



a- » " TO ^ Or* ■-» 



/ 



Affair op Kham Muon (Kieng Chbk). 

First Part.— Constitution of the Mixed Court. 

Rules of Procedure 
Second Part. — The Trial. 



J 



First Sitting—Monday, 4tli June, 1894. 

Preliminary proceedings.— Reading of the Act of Accusation. — Examination 
of the accused ... ... ... ... .•• ••• 

Second Sitting — Tuesday, oth June, 1894. 

Examiuation of the witnesses for the prosecution 

Third Sitting— Wednesday, (ith June, 1894. 

Examination of the witnesses for the Defence : Luang Anurak ... 

Fourth Sitting— Thursday, 7th June, 1894. 

Address of M. Duval, Counsel for the Defence 

Fifth Sitting— Saturday, 9th June, 1894. 

. Non-ai)pearance of the Accused. — Judgment put off to a fuiiher Sitting 

Third Part.— Judgment. 

Sixth Sitting.— "Wednesday, 1:3th June, 1894. 

Reading of the Judgment 



14 



18 



25 



33 



35 



L 



14 DAY TTiv 

RETURN TO DESK FRn^ ^ 

DESK FROM WHICH BORROWED 

lOAN DEPT. 




r / of G..oro,-i ij. Mc Fa'-laiul 




' ■, *' 



■■1^^'^ 



'.•y^v* ■(!:?■ ~';iVi$?;:iy)ii'S-cr.-i'