Page images
PDF
EPUB

Mr. Seward to Mr. Burnley.

a

DEPARTMENT OF STATE,

Washington, March 13, 1865. SiR : I have received your note of the 9th of March, which relates to John Warrington, a British subject, whose parents desire that he may be discharged from a voluntary enlistment in the United States military service.

A copy of a letter, signed by B. Adderly, accompanies your note, and tenders his personal guarantee for the performance of certain conditions proposed therein. The letter shows that it is this person Adderly who is engaged in moving her Majesty's government for their good offices in this case.

Among those British subjects who were the first to institute a contraband trade with the insurgents, in violation of our laws, and in contempt of the Queen's proclamation, is a house established in Nassau. and Liverpool, under the name of Adderly & Co. It is presumed that the name in the present case is connected with that house. I will thank you to inquire whether this is the fact. If so, I must ask that the case be relieved of the intervention of Adderly. I cannot treat, directly or indirectly, with a person who is so vicious as to dishonor his own country and send desolation abroad through mine upon the motive of commercial gain. I desire that the British nation may understand that, since they divide in regard to the United States, we do not confound the just and the good with the unjust and depraved.

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

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. J. HUME BURNLEY, Esq., 8c., fc., fc.

Mr. Seward to Mr. Burnley.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE,

Washington, March 14, 1865. Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your note of the 7th instant, enclosing a copy of a despatch from his excellency the governor general of Canada, in regard to the steps taken by the authorities under his control to guard against the steamer Georgiana getting into the hands of parties hostile to the United States.

I will thank you to express to his excellency the satisfaction with which this government views his prompt and friendly action in the matter.

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

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

Mr. Seward to Mr. Burnley.

DEPARTMENT OF State,

Washington, March 14, 1865. SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your note of the 9th of March, with its accompaniment, namely, a copy of a letter addressed to you on the 18th of February last by the private secretary of his excellency the gov ernor of the province of Nova Scotia.

A word of explanation will clear up the difficulty to which the governor refers. Our consuls in the provinces have no political functions. A proper deference to the authority of the imperial government forbids any direct correspondence between even this government and the local authorities in the provinces, much more does it prohibit voluntary correspondence between our consuls and those authorities. Hence the circuitousness of our habitual mode of communication. The consul at Halifax addresses the department, I address you, and you, under the leave of your home government, communicate with the governor of Nova Scotia at Halifax. It is, however, competent for her Majesty's government to assent to modification of the prevailing forms under special circumstances, and I clearly see that these circumstances now exist in regard to the designs and operations of disloyal citizens and their abettors to imperil the peace of the two nations. I shall, therefore, in compliance with your expressed wish, instruct the consul at Halifax that, for the present, he will in all cases promptly and frankly make known to the governor general whatever he may learn that shall be important to be known by him in preventing hostile proceedings in the province of Nova Scotia against the United States.

I refer briefly to another subject mentioned by the governor. He thinks that Nova Scotia is in a different case from Canada with reference to the United States, and, therefore, that there is no need in the former province for such legislative action, with a view to the maintenance of neutrality, as has been so promptly and honorably taken in the province of Canada. It is true that hostile raids, like that of St. Albans, have not been and are not likely to be made into our country from Nova Scotia. But, on the other hand, Halifax has been for more than one year, and yet is, a naval station for vessels which, running the blockade, furnish supplies and munitions of war to our enemy, and it has been made a rendezvous for those piratical cruisers which come out from Liverpool and Glasgow, to destroy our commerce on the high seas, and even to carry war into the ports of the United States. Halifax is a postal and despatch station in the correspondence between the rebels at Richmond and their emissaries in Europe. Halifax merchants are known to have surreptitiously imported provisions, arms, and ammunition from our seaports, and then transshipped them to the rebels. The governor of Nova Scotia has been neutral, just, and friendly; so were the judges of the province who presided on the trial of the Chesapeake. But then it is understood that, on the other hand, merchant shippers of Halifax, and many of the people of Halifax, are willing agents and abettors of the enemies of the United States, and their hostility has proved not merely offensive but deeply injurious. When Nova Scotia ceases to abet our enemies, she will find that we cherish no memory of her past injuries. But, on the other hand, merchants of the United States must be allowed to navigate the seas in security, and our citizens at home must be allowed to pursue their avocations without interference from the port of Halifax, before this government can be reasonably expected to favor trade and intercourse with the people of Nova Scotia. I have the honor to be

your
obedient servant,

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

Mr. Burnley to Mr. Seward.

WASHINGTON, March 14, 1865. Sır: Information which has reached her Majesty's government leaves no room for doubt that an extensive conspiracy on the part of the so-called Fenian Brotherhood is being openly carried on in the United States, having for its object to promote rebellion in Ireland, and to forward from the United States assistance to the rebels in money, men, and arms.

The accounts given in the public papers of what passed in public meetings held in the United States for these avowed objects, coupled with allusions to the means by which they are to be carried out, must surely have attracted the attention of the government of the United States, and her Majesty's government might reasonably have expected that while the government of the United States so loudly protest against the proceedings of confederate agents in this country, which are conducted with the utmost secrecy, and while it imputes blame to the British government for not having put a stop to practices of which they had no previous knowledge, and for not exerting powers of repression beyond the law, the United States government should at least have shown their disapprobation of such hostile declarations against the peace and security of the Queen's dominions.

On the contrary, it is notorious that an officer of the army of the Potomac, Colonel J. H. Gleason, formerly of the Irish brigade, was recently allowed to absent himself from his military duties for a period of twenty days, by the Secretary of War, in order that he might have time to attend one of the meetings of the Fenian Brotherhood, appointed to be held at Chicago. And still more recently at New Orleans, Attorney General Lynch attended a local Fenian meeting on the 28th of January, and took an active part in its proceedings.

Whatever may be thought of these public meetings, as an unmistakable sign on the part of those who attend them of hostility to Great Britain, it might perhaps be difficult under the Constitution of the United States to prevent or to interfere with such meetings. But the attendance of persons in the military or civil employment of the general government of the United States, or of the government of any particular State of the Union, would seem to show that the government itself participates in these feelings of hostility to Great Britain.

It becomes, therefore, my duty to say that her Majesty's government trust that the attendance of military and civil officers in the employment of the United States government, and of the State governments, at the meetings of the Fenian Brotherhood, will be disapproved by the government of the United States, and will in future not be permitted.

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

J. HUME BURNLEY. Hon. WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Sc., 80., 8c.

Mr. Burnley to Mr. Seward.

WASHINGTON, March 15, 1865. Sir: With reference to the case of Bennett G. Burley, who has been given over by the Canadian authorities to the United States government under the extradition treaty, on a charge of robbery, her Majesty's government have recently had under their consideration, in communication with the proper law advisers of the Crown, a statement forwarded to them by a member of the House of Commons, at the request of Burley's father, relative to his son, from which it would seem that fears are entertained that Bennett Burley will not be tried before the United States courts on the charge of theft, but on a charge of piracy, and Mr. Burley, senior, asks for the good offices of her Majesty's government on behalf of his son, in so far as that he may not be tried on any other charge than that on which the claim was made for his extradition.

Her Majesty's government having considered this application, are of opinion that if the United States government, having obtained the extradition on the charge of robbery, do not put him on his trial upon this charge, but upon

7 D C *

a

another, viz., piracy, which, if it had been made before the Canadian authorities, they might have held not sufficiently established to warrant his extradition, this would be a breach of good faith against which her Majesty's government might justly remonstrate.

Her Majesty's government are therefore willing, should the grounds upon which Burley is to be tried take the above turn, to comply so far with the application of Mr. Burley, senior, as to instruct me to protest against any attempt to change the ground of accusation upon which Burley was surrendered in pursuance of the treaty.

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

J. HUME BURNLEY. Hon. William H. SewaRD, Sc.. fr., 8c.

Mr. Burnley to Mr. Seward.

WASHINGTON, March 15, 1865. My Dear Sir: Would you permit me to recall your attention to my note of the 28th January, enclosing copies of despatches elucidatory of Earl Russell's slave trade despatch, No. 9, of which I left you a copy, relative to the joint invitation to powers declaring slave trade piracy. Believe me to remain, my dear sir, yours, very faithfully,

J. HUME BURNLEY.

NLEY Hon. WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Jr., gr., fr.

Mr. Seward to Mr. Burnley.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE,

Washington, March 15, 1865. SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your note of the 14th instant, in regard to the alleged proceedings of a society called Fenian Brotherhood, and to inform you, in reply, that it will receive immediate attention. I have the honor to be, with high consideration, sir, your obedient servant,

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. J. Hume Burnley, Esq., &c., Sc., &c.

Mr. Seward to Mr. Burnley.

DEPARTMENT OF State,

Wnshington, March 16, 1865. My Dear Sir: Your communication of the 28th of January last, and your letter of yesterday, relative to the joint invitation to powers to declare the slave trade piracy, has been received. I regret to inform you that the pressure of business at the short session of Congress rendered it impossible to submit the papers to them. It will be taken into consideration by the President when another Congress is about to assemble. You may assure her Britannic Majesty's government that the disposition is good to effect an absolute and universal suppression of the trade in human beings. Believe me to be, my dear sir, very faithfully yours,

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

Mr. Burnley to Mr. Seward.

[Memorandum.] With reference to a note from the British legation of the 4th November, and to a reply of the 14th December last, relative to John Warrington, who was then a convalescent patient at the general hospital at Fortress Monroe, the British legation would be glad to be informed upon what terms John Warrington's discharge can be effected from the United States army, as it is stated that the parents of the young man are willing to give any sum up to fifty pounds to effect his discharge.

This legation would also be glad to he informed what his present address is, with a view of forwarding to him a letter.

BRITISH LEGATION, March 16, 1865.

Mr. Burnley to Mr. Seward.

WASHINGTON, March 16, 1865. Sır: The President's proclamation of March 14, directing all non-resident foreigners who now are or hereafter shall be found in the United States, and who have been or shall have been engaged in violating the blockade of the insurgent ports, to leave the United States within twelve days from the publication of this proclamation, has engaged very earnestly my attention, and I cannot but think that the second clause may meet with serious comment on the part of neutral powers, whose subjects may be found in the category of those who have been or are now engaged in running the blockade.

I would therefore submit for your consideration, subject of course to the approval or disapproval of her Majesty's government when the proclamation reaches them, the enclosed memorandum, embodying what seems to me the objectionable portions of it.

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

J. HUME BURNLEY. Hon. WILLIAM H. SEWARD, 80., 80., 80.

Mr. Burnley to Mr. Seward.

[Memorandum

upon the President's proclamation of March 14, 1865. ] To the first clause of the proclamation there can be no great objection by foreign powers, since its operation is restricted to citizens of the United States and domiciled aliens, the latter class being substantially, in the absence of treaty stipulations distinguishing them, treated as the citizens or subjects of the country.

But the second clause seems to be of a very grave character, and wholly inadmissible as attempting a dangerous innovation upon the established principles of international law.

The Supreme Court, in all the prize cases, has founded its judgments of “lawful prize" on the recognized existence of a war of course between two belligerents. On no other base could the decision have been maintained, and it is plainly announced in the first of them.

Trade with an enemy of the United States (excluding the case of domiciled

« PreviousContinue »