Page images
PDF
EPUB

Mr. Cardwell to Viscount Monck.

DOWNING STREET, December 3, 1864. MY LORD: The attention of her Majesty's government has been directed to the violations of British neutrality, of which certain persons have been guilty who profess to hold commis. sions from, or to act in aid of, the so-called Confederate States, and who make the soil of Canada the scene of their hostile preparations against the United States.

These violations of neutrality are a great offence against the British Crown, and her Majesty's government are of opinion that the government of the United States have a clear right to expect that the Canadian law shall be found in practice generally sufficient not merely for the punishment, but also for the suppression and prevention of these border raids.

The Secretary of State of the United States has reminded Earl Russell of the act which was passed by Congress in the year 1838 for the suppression and prevention of hostile attempts prepared in the territory of the United States and directed against the government of her Majesty in Canada. The circumstances of the two cases are not the same, and it does not appear to her Majesty's government to follow that precisely the same enactment which the Congress passed in 1838 is necessarily suited to the present case. They have observed with pleasure the promptitude and vigor with which you have put in force the existing law, but would wish you to consult your advisers and obtain the opinion of your law officers whether that law places in your hands sufficient available powers for the effectual suppression and prevention of these raids, or whether it is necessary for you to apply to your legislature for increased powers. In this latter case, any power for which your lordship should apply might naturally be limited, as the powers of the act of Congress were limited to a definite term with a view to meeting the immediate exigency only. I have, &.,

E. CARDWELL. His Excellency Viscount Monck, &c., &c., &c.

Mr. F. W. Seward to Mr. Burnley.

DEPARTMENT OF State,

Washington, January 4, 1865. Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your communication so the 31st ultimo, relative to an alleged military organization in Canada of fugitive from the United States. In reply, I have the honor to state that the efforts which were made by her Majesty's authorities to ascertain the truth in regard to the representations on the subject are very gratifying to this government. It is hoped that the result may prove the conclusion arrived at by those authorities to be well founded. I have the honor to be, with high consideration, sir, your obedient servant,

F. W. SEWARD, Acting Secretary. J. HUME BURNLEY, Esq., &c., 8c., Gr.

Mr. F. W. Seward to Mr. Burnley.

Department of STATE,

Washington, January 4, 1865. Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge, with much satisfaction, the receipt of your note of the 28th ultimo, transmitting a copy of a despatch addressed to you by the governor general of Canada, from which it appears that his excellency will cause an investigation to be made in regard to the supposed employment, for purposes hostile to the United States, of two vessels now in course of construction at Montreal. I have the honor to be, with high consideration, sir, your obedient servant,

F. W. SEWARD, Acting Secretary. J. Hume BURNLEY, Esq., &c., 8c., &c.

Mr. Seward to Mr. Burnley.

DepaRTMENT OF STATE,

IVashington, January 6, 1865. Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your note of the 31st ultimo, suggesting that the captain and officers of the Night Hawk, who are still detained as witnesses, may be liberated on bail. In reply, I have the honor to inform you that I have submitted a copy of that note to the favorable attention of the Secretary of the Navy. I have the honor to be, with high consideration, sir, your obedient servant,

WILLIAM. H. SEWARD. J. Hume BURNLEY, Esq, &c., fc., fr.

Mr. Seward to Mr. Burnley.

DEPARTMENT OF State,

Washington, January 6, 1865. SIR : : Referring to your communication of the 26th of November last, so far as it relates to the capture and destruction of the steamer Night Hawk, and to the treatment of her crew at the time of her capture, and while they were on board the Niphon, I have the honor to enclose a copy of the record of the proceedings of a naval court of inquiry held at Boston, Massachusetts, for the purpose of investigating the matter.

Upon examination of the circumstances of the case as they are disclosed in those proceedings, it is considered that they involve no ground of complaint against this government or its naval officers. I have the honor to be, with high consideration, sir, your obedient servant,

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. J. Hume Burnley, Esq., 80., 8c., 8c.

(NOTE.—The report above referred to is on file in the Navy Department.]

Mr. Burnley to Mr. Seward.

WASHINGTON, Junuary 7, 1865. Sir: With reference to your note of the 19th ultimo, which you did me the honor to address to me, respecting the extradition of the St. Albans raiders, with a view to its being communicated to his excellency the lieutenant governor of New Brunswick, I would beg leave to lay before you copy of a despatch which I have received in reply from his excellency as to the necessity of some more convincing evidence being brought forward than what your simple note of requisition contained, before the parties can be fairly brought to trial, should

they be within the lieutenant governor's jurisdiction, which appears not to be the case at present.

In view of the re-arrest of most if not all of the raiders, I would leave it to you to decide whether it is necessary to act upon the suggestions of his excellency.

I have the honor to be, with the highest consideration, sir, your most obedient, humble servant,

J. HUME BURNLEY. Hon. William H. SEWARD, fc., Sc., c.

Mr. Gordon to Mr. Burnley.

FREDERICTON, December 29, 1864. SIR: I have had the honor this morning to receive your despatch of the 20th instant, enclosing a copy of a note from the Secretary of State of the United States, requesting the extradition of certain parties therein named.

Requisitions under the provisions of the Ashburton treaty for the surrender of criminals who had taken refuge in this province have hitherto been invariably made directly to the lieutenant governor of the province, through the United States consul at St. John's, or the governor of the State in which the offence was committed; and with a view to securing the object desired, I should venture to recommend that the precedents in this respect should be adhered to, as it is far from impossible that the note of the Secretary of State might be considered in our courts of law as not a formal requisition under the treaty. I do not myself share this opinion, and should be ready to issue my warrant on the notification received by you, but in such cases it is as well to take no steps by which, if taken, the subsequent proceedings may incur a risk of being vitiated.

A copy of the opinion of the law officers of the Crown in England, dated January 27, 1864, was no doubt forwarded to her Majesty's mission at Washington; but to prevent all possibility of misconception, I annex extracts from that opinion which seems to throw some doubt upon the propriety of my issuing such a warrant without evidence being adduced of the commission of the offence of the parties and of their being now within this province, and which show the absolute necessity for the production of such evidence before a magistrate can commit the parties to jail for extradition.

As, however, the case now under consideration is one the main facts of which are matter of notoriety, I am prepared to issue my warrant on the receipt from you of a telegraphic intimation that the evidence which will be required by the committing magistrate is about to be forwarded, together with the reasons which induce Mr. Seward to believe that the parties are now in this province.

I must, however, point out the entire inutility of my issuing my warrant or of attempting to arrest the parties (if in New Brunswick) until I have been placed in possession of evidence to adduce against them. At the present moment any magistrate before whom they might be brought must inevitably order their discharge. He would call on whatever counsel may be intrusted with the prosecution of the case for evidence such as would be required to enable him to commit for trial had the offence been committed within his own jurisdiction. But none such could be offered, as, except the statement of Mr. Seward's note, not even any prima facia evidence is adduced as to the connexion of the parties named with the offence committed, and they would necessarily be at once set at liberty.

It is provided that copies of the depositions originally taken may in such cases be received as evidence; and if I learn that such documents have been forwarded, or are on the point of being forwarded, I will at once take whatever steps are in my power for bringing the alleged criminals to justice.

I may remark, however, that I have received no information which leads me to believe that the parties named are in this province; but I have to request that you will inform Mr. Seward that I have given stringent directions to the police to ascertain whether such is the case, and in the event of the discovery of any of these individuals, to maintain a careful watch upon them until I am in a position to proceed against them with more probability of effecting their extradition than is now the case. I have, &c.,

ARTHUR H. GORDON. J. H. BURNLEY, Esq., &c., &c., &c.

Mr. Seward to Mr. Burnley.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE,

Washington, January 9, 1865. SIR : Referring to the correspondence which has taken place between us in regard to the detention of persons taken on board of the Night Hawk, I have the honor to inform you that, as the registry of the vessel proved her British ownership, I have recommended their release, notwithstanding the fact that she was engaged in supplying the insurgents with contraband of war. The certified copy of the register which accompanied your note of 6th instant is now returned.

I have the honor to be, with the highest consideration, sir, your obedient servant.

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. J. HUME BURNLEY, Esq., fc., sc., &c.

Mr. Seward to Mr. Burnley.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE,

Washington, January 10, 1865. SiR : I have the honor to acknowledge with much satisfaction the receipt of your communication of the 3d instant, in regard to the readiness of the Canadian authorities to prevent the consummation of the hostile intentions of a certain body of men at Halifax, which formed the subject of my note of the 21st ultimo.

I have the honor to be, with the highest consideration, sir, your obedient servant,

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. J. HUME BURNLEY, Esq., Sc., 8C., &c.

Mr. Seward to Mr. Burnley.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE,

Washington, January 10, 1865. Sie: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your note of the 17th ultimo, communicating to me, under the instruction of her Britannic Majesty's government, a copy of a despatch of the 26th of November last, addressed by Earl Russell to Lord Lyons, in regard to the notice given by this government for the termination of the existing conventional arrangement between Great Britain and the United States, limiting the naval force of the respective governments on the lakes, and to the reasons which prompted that notice.

The views and suggestions which Earl Russell has thus presented to this gov. ernment will receive an attentive consideration, I have the honor to be, with the highest regard, sir, your obedient servant,

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. J. HUME BURNLEY, Esq., $c., 80., 8c.

Mr. Seward to Mr. Burnley.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE,

Washington, January 10, 1865. SIR: Referring to my note of the 6th instant, transmitting to you a copy of the proceedings of a naval court of inquiry to the conduct of Acting Ensign Lemon on the occasion of the capture and destruction of the Night Hawk, I have now the honor to state that on the 31st ultimo the Secretary of the Navy informed me that as some weight appeared to have been given to an alleged conversation between Captain Glisson, of the Santiago de Cuba, and the master of the Night Hawk, in which the former is said to have condemned the conduct of Acting Ensign Lemon, the Navy Department considered it necessary to call upon Captain Glisson for an explanation, and that he had replied substantially as follows:

“Acting Ensign Lemon was reported to me by the captain and engineer of the Night Hawk as having struck the engineer, and I remarked to them that neither the government nor myself would allow any one to be improperly treated unless they resisted the authority of the officers, and immediately sent for Mr. Lemon, who stated that when he boarded the Night Hawk, after ordering the officers into the boat, the engineer came up to him and said that he would not go until he got his clothes, and appeared to resist his authority. He then struck him on the head, and afterwards he got into the boat.

"I did not disapprove of Mr. Lemon's course on learning the above facts." I have the honor to be, with the highest consideration, sir, your

obedient servant,

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. J. Hume BURNLEY, Esq., 8c., 8c., &c.

a

Mr. Burnley to Mr. Scward.

WASHINGTON, January 10, 1865. Sir: Her Majesty's government have had under their consideration, in communication with the proper law advisers of the Crown, the note which you did me the honor to communicate to me on the 5th of November last, respecting the case of Mr. Hardcastle, who was shot by a sentry in the Old Capitol prison, and it seems right and proper to state to you the final opinion of her Majesty's government on this question as expressed in a despatch recently received from her Maiesty's principal secretary of state for foreign affairs.

Her Majesty's government consider that the answer of the United States government and of their Judge Advocate General does not in the slightest degree alter the opinion entertained by them, as set forth in previous correspondence on this subject.

In that correspondence the principles of international law, applicable to the facts of this case, are given at some length, and her Majesty's government think that no advantage would result from a recapitulation of their former arguments.

The pretence that the word “safe-conduct” was used in a popular sense in the first instance, and the attempt to maintain that the safe conduct extended only to the passage between the lines of the enemy, indicate the determination of the United States government to avoid granting that compensation which it appears to her Majesty's government international justice as well as comity demand at their hands, to the relations of this much injured man, whom, without the slightest evidence, except the allegations of his jailer, as to conversations with him in prison, (which the dead man cannot contradict,) the Judge Advocate General of the United States persists in calling "a most active and dangerous enemy; an avowed enemy to the United States, and a person whose hostility and treachery had caused him to forfeit all claim to the privileges of neutrality.” Her Majesty's government cannot forbear pointing out the practical commentary upon some of the circumstances of this case which is contained in a publication recently issued and circulated by authority in the United States with reference to the treatment of United States prisoners by the government of the so-styled Confederate States.

« PreviousContinue »