Niagara Falls, Rouse's Point, and Portland, Maine, to intercept men under suspicion. In nearly every other respect he employed the officers of the other departments and of different localities, such as the military commanders, the United States marshals, and the heads of the municipal police.

The chief places used as prisons were Fort Warren, in Boston harbor, Fort Lafayette, in New York harbor, and Fort McHenry, near Baltimore. Others, like the Capitol prison, which stood near the site of the new Congressional Library building, Forts Delaware, Hamilton, and Monroe, and some of the military camps in the West, were used for political prisoners detained for short periods.

Arrests were made for any one of many reasons: where men were suspected of having given, or intending to give, aid or comfort to the enemy in any substantial way,—as by helping in the organization of troops, by supplying arms or provisions, or selling the bonds of the states in secession; by public or private communications that opposed United States enlistments or encouraged those of the Confederacy; by expressing sympathy with the South or attacking the administration; by belonging to organizations designed to obstruct the progress of the war-in fact, for almost any act that indicated a desire to see the government fail in its effort to conquer disunion. There was, of course, a great difference in the character of the evidence in different cases. Intercepted correspondence often told of treasonable acts or purposes. Perhaps some ardent Unionist, or some one merely for personal reasons, reported that John Smith in Maryland or Michigan was holding communications with, or forwarding the letters of, Confederates in the South or in Canada; that Thomas Jones, of New Orleans, who was to arrive in a few days, was a bearer of important despatches from the Confeder

ate commissioners in Europe to their government; that Richard Brown, of Georgia, was in New York selling bonds and was on his way to negotiate a Confederate loan abroad. In not a few cases the first notice the local officer or nearest United States marshal received of the case would be something like this actual telegram:

“DEPARTMENT OF STATE, WASHINGTON, August 17, 1861. “John A. Kennedy, Superintendent of Police, New York: "Arrest Charles Kopperl, of Carroll County, Missis sippi, now in your city, and send him to Fort Lafayette. "WILLIAM H. SEWARD."1

The person suspected of disloyalty was often seized at night,, searched, borne off to the nearest fort, deprived of his valuables, and locked up in a casemate, or in a battery generally crowded with men that had had similar experiences. It was not rare for arrests regarded as political to be made by order of the Secretary of War or of some military officer; but, with only a few exceptions, these prisoners came under the control of the Secretary of State just as if he had taken the original action.

For a few days the new-comer usually varied reflection and loud denunciations of the administration. But the discomforts of his confinement soon led him to seek his freedom. When he resolved to send for friends and an attorney, he was informed that the rules forbade visitors, except in rare instances, that attorneys were entirely excluded, and the prisoner who sought their aid would greatly prejudice his case. Only unsealed letters would be forwarded, and if they contained objectionable statements they were returned to the writer or filed in the Department of State with other papers relating to the case. There still remained a possibility, it was generally assumed, of speedy relief by appeal

1 115 War Records, 485.

to the Secretary in person. Then a long narrative, describing the experiences of a man whose innocence was equaled only by his misfortunes, was addressed to the nervous, wiry, all-powerful man keeping watch over international relations, political offenders, and affairs generally. The letter was usually read by the Chief Clerk or Assistant Secretary, and then merely filed. A second, third, and fourth petition for liberation and explanations was sent to the department-but with no result save that the materials for the study of history and human nature were thereby enlarged; the Secretary was calm in the belief that the man was a plotter and could do no harm while he remained in custody.

Meantime it often happened that prisoners that had first been confined in forts west or south of New York were forwarded to Fort Lafayette or Fort Hamilton to prevent overcrowding or to take prominent men far from their homes and sympathizers. This was the case with the Marylanders. A large proportion of those who were held more than a few weeks finally reached Fort Warren.

Ere all this progress in captivity had been made, friends and relatives had strenuously attempted to get a hearing before the Secretary. Probably they had enlisted the influence of some prominent Republican or "old-line" Whig who knew Seward. From different sources came a variety of pleas: the captive was in feeble health; or if, possibly, his associations and sentiments had not been as loyal as could be wished, he had committed no act of treason; or he had an invalid wife and a family of children entirely dependent upon his support; or imprisonment made a martyr of him and was creating much opposition to the government, which would soon disappear if he were given his freedom; or the alleged offence had been too highly colored by a revengeful enemy or by a too zealous official. In

most instances from one to three months elapsed before definite action was taken by the department. If it seemed likely that the offender would resort to disloyal acts in the future, the appeals were rejected. If the Secretary became convinced that there might be some mistake, he caused a special examination to be made of the case. Where adequate punishment seemed to have been already inflicted, the prisoner was released on condition of swearing allegiance to the United States and of promising to do no act hostile to the prosecution of the war or tending to aid or encourage the Confederates. If the arrest had been made without due cause, no prerequisites of release were required.'

1 Here are copies of abstracts of a few cases taken from the Department's Record-book of "Arrests for Disloyalty":

This man [Dr. Edward Johnson] was arrested by order of General Dix and committed to Fort McHenry about July 8, 1861, and from thence transferred to Fort Lafayette by order of the Secretary of State. There are no papers on file in the Department of State showing on what charges he was arrested. An order was issued from the Department of State, dated September 13, 1861, directing LieutenantColonel Martin Burke to release Johnson on his giving his parole to do no act and to give no information hostile or injurious to the United States. He was released September 17, 1861."-115 War Records, 291.

This person [Joseph T. Ellicott] was arrested by order of General Porter, provost-marshal of Washington, and committed to the Thirteenth Street Prison August 23, 1861. There are no papers on file in the Department of State showing why or on what charges he was arrested. Urgent application having been made for his release, the Secretary of State ordered his discharge on taking the oath of allegiance and stipulating not to enter or correspond with the insurrectionary States. He was accordingly released October 10, 1861.". Ibid., 294.

"Francis M. Fisk is a native of Rhode Island, but a resident of New Orleans. He was arrested at the instance of Governor Sprague at Providence, R. I., charged with the intention of taking his son Frank south to join the rebel army, and committed to Fort Lafayette, August 26, 1861, by order of the Secretary of State, dated August 24, 1861. The charge against Mr. Fisk is supported by the affidavit of James E. Stevens that he boarded with Francis Fisk, son of Francis M. Fisk, in the family of Mrs. Mary Chamberlain; that Francis M. Fisk

Perhaps the four most famous cases and the ones for which the Secretary was then, and has since been most criticised were those of ex-Senator Gwin, ex-Governor Morehead, of Kentucky, Charles J. Faulkner, and exSenator George W. Jones, of Iowa.

It was one of the dreams of the secessionists that California and at least a part of Mexico were to be incorporated into the Confederacy. Gwin's southern antecedents, theories, sympathies, and associations caused a strong suspicion that he was enlisted in this enterprise. In October, 1861, the postmaster of San Francisco wrote to Seward that Gwin, Calhoun Benham, and J. L. Brent had sailed from that port for New York, that they were "rank traitors" and were bound for the South.' General E. V. Sumner, who was a passenger on the same ship, became convinced of the disloyalty of the three men and put them under arrest. Several witnesses gave evi

came to the house of the said Mrs. Mary Chamberlain and told her, 'I am going to take my son Frank south to put [him] in the army.' An order was issued from the Department of State, dated September 30, 1861, for the release of Fisk on his taking the oath of allegiance and giving his parole of honor to do no hostile act, etc. He was accordingly released October 2, 1861."-Ibid., 295.

"William E. Wright, of Marion County, Ky., was arrested by Colonel R. W. Johnson, of the Kentucky Home Guard, on or about the 24th of September, 1861, charged with having taken up arms against the government of the United States or otherwise aiding in the rebellion against the same. After his arrest he was sent by General Anderson to Indianapolis and then by order of the Secretary of State to Fort Lafayette, and was afterward transferred to Fort Warren. It appears by Wright's statements to some of his friends who petitioned for his discharge that he had been to Bowling Green, Ky., to sell horses, which were probably for the military service of the rebels, and that he had been in the State of Tennessee trying to make some money for his family, by what kind of traffic is not stated. On the 11th day of January, 1862, Wright was released from confinement on taking the oath of allegiance with stipulations against future misconduct.". Ibid., 303.

'The documents in these cases are printed in 115 War Records, 1009-20.