Page images
PDF
EPUB

The case of the seamen of the Iroquois fell under this latter category, and the United States government when they agreed to give up the deserter from the Cuzco cannot well have supposed that desertion from a foreign vessel was an offence cognizable by the laws of Great Britain, so as to warrant the interference of any magistrate in this kingdom with the personal liberty of such a deserter, the case being clearly not provided for by the extradition treaty between the two countries.

Her Majesty's government instructed, therefore, their representative at Washington to ask for a thing which the United States government was legally competent to grant, in a matter not falling within the local jurisdiction of any court or magistrate of the United States, and the request was promptly and liberally acceded to.

I am directed, further, to state that the application to the magistrate at Dover was one which he was incompetent by law to grant; that it was made in a matter which could only be dealt with in the ordinary course of the law, and was refused, not for any want of comity towards the government of the United States, but from mere legal necessity.

It is of course for the government of the United States to judge what course is most suitable to their dignity and honor, but her Majesty's government, feeling what their conduct would be in similar circumstances, expect that when the difference of the two cases is explained, the government of the United States will consider their decision to retract the promise previously given.

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

J. HUME BURNLEY. Hon. WILLIAM H. SEWARD, &c., ., sc.

Mr. Seucard to Mr. Burnley.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE,

Washington, February 23, 1865. Sır: Referring to my notes of the 7th and 17th instant, I have the honor to enclose for the further information of the proper authorities of her Majesty's government a copy of a despatch of the 13th instant, from M. M. Jackson, esq., the United States consul at Halifax, respecting the proposed hostile expeditions against the United States from Canada. I have the honor to be, with the highest consideration, sir, your obedient servant,

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. J. Hume Burnley, Esq, fr., fr., fr.

a

Mr. Jackson to Mr. Seward.

CONSULATE OF THE UNITED STATES,

Halifax, Nova Scotia, February 13, 1865. Sir: I have the honor to inform you that since my telegrams to you I have endeavored to procure further information in relation to the designs of the rebels, now in Canada, upon our northern borders.

I have ascertained that the rebels, now scattered through several of the border towns in Canada, designed, some time since, making another raid from Canada into the United States, but their operations have been suspended to await the result of the judicial proceedings in the Canadian courts in the case of the St. Albans raiders. They aver, however, that the result of those proceedings will not defeat their plans; and that, at the earliest practicable period, they will attempt to carry them into execution.

I have been informed that one of the points to be attacked is Oswego, New York. They also make threats against Rochester.

The headquarters of these desperadoes are Toronto, Hamilton, Kingston, and the other towns upon or in the vicinity of the Canadian border.

I have no doubt they will attempt, the first favorable opportunity, to consummate their plans; their objects being both to plunder and injure the people of the loyal States, and to create trouble, if possible a war, between the United States and Great Britain. I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant,

M. M. JACKSON, U. S. Consul. Hon. WILLIAM H. SEWARD,

Secretary of State.

Mr. Seward to Mr. Burnley.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE,

Washington, February 23, 1865. My Dear Sir: I have the pleasure of acknowledging the receipt of your letter of the 20th instant, informing me that you have telegraphed to the lieutenant governor of New Brunswick concerning the detention of Linus Seely, in accordance with my wish, and to express my satisfaction with your proceeding.

With reference to your suggestion relative to the propriety of taking measures to meet the requirements of the provincial law, I have to inform you that the business is already being vigorously prosecuted. Believe me to be, my dear sir, very faithfully yours,

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

Mr. Burnley to Mr. Seward.

WASHINGTON, February 24, 1865. Sir: With reference to your note of the 8th instant, a copy of which I transmitted to the governor general of Canada, I have the honor to forward to you, herewith, copy of a despatch from his excellency, begging me to convey to you his thanks for the information respecting a reported organization at Cape Vincent, with a view to a marauding expedition upon Canadian territory.

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

J. HUME BURNLEY. Hon. WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Sc., sc., Sc.

Viscount Monck to Mr. Burnley.

QUEBEC, February 18, 1865. SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your despatch of February 9, with copy of a note from the Secretary of State of the United States respecting a reported organization, at Cape Vincent, with a view to a marauding expedition upon Canadian territory.

I shall feel much obliged if you will convey to Mr. Seward my thanks for the information and for the steps taken by the authorities of the United States to frustrate the design. I have, &c.,

MONCK J. HOME BURNLEY, Esq., &c., &c. &c.

[ocr errors]

Mr. Burnley to Mr. Seward.

WASHINGTON, February 25, 1865. Sir: With reference to your note of the 16th December last, relative to a requisition for the extradition of the St. Albans raiders on the government of New Brunswick, I beg to enclose copy of a despatch and of an enclosure from the solicitor general of the colony, which I would beg to recommend to your consideration.

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

J. HUME BURNLEY. Hon. William H. SEWARD, Sc., Sc., sc.

Mr. Gordon to Mr. Burnley.

FREDERICTON, February 18, 1865. SIR: I have the honor to inform you that I have, in compliance with the request of the Secretary of State of the United States, issued my warrant authorizing the arrest of Samuel Eugene Lackey, Squire Turner Travis, Charles Moore Swager, George Scott, Bennett H. Young, Caleb McDowall Wallace, James Alexander Doty, Joseph McGinty, Samuel Simpson Gregg, Dudley Moore, Thomas Bronsden Collins, Marcus Spurr, Alexander Pope Bruce, and William H. Hutchinson, under the provisions of the extradition treaty.

I think it right to put you in possession of the opinion with which the solicitor general, by whom the warrant was prepared, has at the same time furnished me. I have, &c.,

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

Solicitor General to the Lieutenant Governor of New Brunswick.

FREDERICTON, N. B., February 8, 1865. May it please your excellency, in obedience to your excellency's instructions I beg herewith to enclose the draught of a warrant against the parties therein named, under the imperial extradition act, 6 and 7 Vict., cap. 76. This warrant I have framed upon the requisition of the Hon. William H. Seward, addressed to the British chargé d'affaires at Washington, of date. December 19, 1864, a copy of which your excellency submitted to me for my guidance. I must, however, inform your excellency that the requisition is defective in some important particulars, inasmuch as it does not name or specify any person or persons upon whom the crimes charged in the requisition, or any of them, have been commiited, and also omits to mention the time of the commission of any of the said crimes; and, therefore, no complete offence is charged upon which a valid warrant can be based. For these reasons I am of opinion that no legal arrest of any of the parties named, for the causes alleged, can be made

upon
the papers as now submitted by the American authorities.

CHARLES WATTERS. Hon. ARTHUR H. GORDON, &c., &c., &c.

Mr. Burnley to Mr. Seward.

WASHINGTON, February 25, 1865. Sir: With reference to previous correspondence with the lieutenant governor of New Brunswick on the subject of the Chesapeake, I have the honor to enclose copy

of a despatch of the 18th instant, which I have received from Mr. Gordon, transmitting copy of a report, made to his excellency by the high sheriff of St. John's, as to the steps taken by him to secure the apprehension of the captors of this vessel.

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

J. HUME BURNLEY. Hon. William H. SEWARD, 8c., 8c., sc.

Mr. Gordon to Mr. Burnley.

FREDERICTON, February 18, 1865. SIR: I have the honor to transmit for your information a copy of a report made to me by the high sheriff of St. John's, as to the steps taken by him to secure the apprehension of the captors of the Chesapeake.

I have also the honor to inform you that since the date of the report Linus Seely, one of the parties implicated, has been arrested at St. John's, and is now awaiting examination before one of the members of the high court of admiralty. I have, &c., &c.,

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

High Sheriff of St. John's to Provincial Secretary.

SHERIFF'S OFFICE, St. John's, February 8, 1865. SIR: In reply to yours of the 7th instant, you will be kind enough to submit to his excellency the lieutenant governor ihe following, all the information I have in reference to the persons implicated in the seizure of the Chesapeake :

That when first the warrant of Mr. Justice Parker, of date March 16, 1864, was put into my hands, I called upon the chief of police of the city, requesting him to direct his men to arrest any of the parties whose names were in the warrant, which he said he would do; that on Sunday afternoon, in December last past, the American consul in St. John's called upon me, stating that George Wade, one of the parties, had arrived in the steamer running between Boston and this city some ten days previous. I immediately called on the chief of police informing him of the fact, communicated by the consul, and requesting the assistance of his force, which he aoceded to, and directed the house of his, Wade's wife, to be watched; and I personally went to Loch Lomond, in this county, where his father resides, and caused a watch to be put on it and the neighborhood.

Shortly after I heard of his being in the cars on his way to Halifax, Nova Scotia, to ship as a sailor there. The two Coxes were reported at the same time to be making shingles in the woods near the road leading to St. Andrew's, for the arrest of whom I engaged the most likely persons I knew of, but without success, and could not gain even certain information of their being there, as they are difficult of identification, being but little known here; and I beg to assure his excellency that no pains shall be spared to arrest the parties should they be within this county. I have, &c., &c.

J. A. HARDING. Honorable S. L. TILLEY.

Mr. Seward to Mr. Burnley.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE,

Washington, February 25, 1865. Sir: I have the honor now to reply to the note which you addressed to me on the 10th of January last concerning the case of the late James Hardcastle.

My communication of the 5th of November last was intended to be understood as expressing a final conviction of this government, that it could not justly be called upon to offer remuneration for the homicide of which her Majesty's government complained. Nevertheless, I have no disposition to regard with impatience the renewal of a question of so interesting a character by her Majesty's government. Earl Russell bas so far concurred with this government in the matter as to conclude that no advantage would result from recapitulating the former argument, to which my last communication was intended to be a full reply. Nevertheless, Earl Russell adheres to his first positions, and instructs you to support them by new arguments foreign from the record.

Those arguments are drawn from a late publication of the United States Sanitary Commission in regard to rebel treatment of United States prisoners of war

a

Upon statements made in that publication her Majesty's government reason that, in this matter of Hardcastle, the government of the United States justifies the shooting of prisoners by its authorities in a case identical with one in which they condemn the like practice on the part of the rebels.

I have to remark upon that point that the pamphlet of the United States Sanitary Commission, although I acknowledge it is a very important and useful publication, is, nevertheless, one which was made, not by this government, or by its authority or sanction, but by enlightened and patriotic citizens, acting privately and independently of executive authority.

Her Majesty's government find in that paper a statement made by Major General Meigs, the Quartermaster General of the United States, to the effect that he has never heard, and does not believe, that orders exist in our service for shooting prisoners who appear at the wiudows of the prisons, and a further statement that such a regulation does not exist at Fort Delaware.

Major General Meigs is admitted to be very high authority in the United States. But he has no charge of the discipline of prisoners in the army, and very good reason can be seen why a less rigorous discipline might be adopted in the prison of Fort Delaware, far removed from the theatre of war and politics, than was actually found necessary in the Old Capitol prison, which is located at the seat of government, infested with spies and continually menaced by insurgent armies.

Her Majesty's government persist in regarding the offence of James Hardcastle against the discipline of the prison as having been one of inadvertence and unconsciousness. This government, on the contrary, is of the opinion that the offence was contumacious.

Her Majesty's government regard Hardcastle as a peaceful, innocent stranger. On the contrary, the settled conviction of this government is that he was an enemy of the United States. These remarks seem sufficient to show that the United States are justified in adhering to the views concerning the case of James Hardcastle which they have heretofore expressed.

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

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. J. Hume BURNLEY, Esq., fr., Sc., dr.

Mr. Scuard to Mr. Burnley.

[ocr errors]

DEPARTMENT OF STATE,

Washington, February 27, 1865. Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your note of the 8th instant, requesting, with reference to the extradition of the St. Albans felons supposed to be lurking in the province of New Brunswick, that the United States consul at St. John's may furnish the lieutenant governor of New Brunswick with such information as will enable him to secure their apprehension, and to inform you that the suggestions of the lieutenant governor having been adopted, the United States consul at St. John's has been instructed accordingly.

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

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. J. Hume Burnley, Esq., fr., fr., c.

« PreviousContinue »