Mr. Seward to Lord Lyons.
My Lord: The undersigned, Secretary of State of the United States, has the honor to reply to the note of Lord Lyons, of the 3d of January last, in which are set forth the views now taken of the case of John J. Shaver by her Britannic Majesty’s government.
The depositions which accompany that note seem to establish with sufficient certainty the fact that the said John J. Shaver was born a British subject, and that he has not renounced his native allegiance.
The same depositions show, also, with sufficient certainty, that, in a technical sense, Shaver has retained a domicil in Canada. But they do not at all disprove the fact of continuous residence, occupation, and activity in the United States, as a citizen or resident thereof, which has been set forth by the undersigned in his previous communications on the subject. He was so residing, and engaged at Louisville, in Kentucky, at the time of his arrest. Upon this point we have the corroboration of a public advertisement for the year 1861, which was extensively distributed, and posted by Shaver himself throughout the southwestern and western States, with a view to attract travellers in those quarters to the Grand Trunk railway. This notice was specially addressed to the inhabitants of New Orleans, Memphis, Cairo, St. Louis, Louisville, Cincinnati, and Chicago. Shaver signed this advertisement as passenger agent for the southwestern States. The undersigned, upon reviewing the whole case, is of opinion that John J. Shaver, at the time of his arrest, had, for present advantage, waived and lost his domicil in Canada, and had assumed, and given out to whomsoever was concerned, that he was a resident dwelling within the United States.
Wherever born, and wherever living, Shaver owed obedience to the laws of the United States while enjoying their protection, and he had no right to engage in any seditious proceedings or practices which could endanger the public peace or safety, and he was necessarily amenable to the surveillance of the police, when it became necessary to exercise it.
The undersigned cannot regard the depositions which have been submitted to him on behalf of Shaver as sufficient in any way to discredit the testimony of Sears P. Thompson. That evidence shows that Shaver, at a critical period of the present political disturbances of the country, held forth seditious conversations at different times, and that he persisted in that course of conduct after frequent warnings. The government had found it necessary to prevent treasonable conversations and correspondence between the insurgents in insurrectionary regions and sympathisers, aiders and abettors, in the States which yet remained undisturbed. Shaver claims that in his conversation he only went to the extent of making free comment on passing events. But he cannot complain if the language he held was so indiscreet and injurious as to draw upon him the watchful suspicion of the authorities engaged in finding out and arresting agents and emissaries of the insurrection. His occupation was just such a one as enabled him to act in such a capacity with effect, and, therefore, such as to draw upon him the attention of a vigilant police. He was found frequently travelling over a known line used for secret communication by the agents of the insurrection, in violation of the executive proclamation. He had luggage which was adapted to the forbidden purpose, and his conversations brought his loyalty or his neutrality into distrust.
Lord Lyons takes notice of the fact, that in the statement of the case which has been heretofore made by the undersigned, the effect of testimony is sometimes given without specifying the sources from which it is derived. Some of the depositions [Page 507] in the case contain matters foreign from Shaver’s case, and the general form of statement which Lord Lyons has noticed was therefore adopted. I may now specify that J. H. Noyes testifies that he made the acquaintance of Shaver about the first of May, 1861, while Noyes was engaged as clerk of the Russell House at Detroit; that he knew nothing of Shaver’s history before that time; that he represented himself to be general agent for the Grand Trunk railroad; that Louisville, Kentucky, was his headquarters; that, as Noyes thinks, he saw Shaver the last time in August, 1861; he told Noyes that his next trip south would be to New Orleans, and offered to procure passes for Noyes if he would accompany Shaver. Noyes asked Shaver if there would not be difficulties in getting through to New Orleans on account of our national troubles. Shaver assured him that there would be none; that he, Shaver, was a Canadian and a neutral, and that he could easily get passes on any of the railroads of the southern (insurectionary) States. He wrote to Shaver to send him some letters to Richmond, (Virginia,) addressed to Lieutenant Parker, a prisoner there, and thinks Shaver told him he intended to visit Richmond, which is a principal seat of insurrectionary operations. Thus it appears that he was preparing, without the consent of the authorities of the United States, to visit the insurrectionary region, and even towns and ports held by the insurgents, and claiming to enjoy facilities for free and unrestricted intercourse, with facilities for travel, which were strictly prohibited; and to these suspicious outgivings he recklessly added invitations to others to join him, and the offer to carry forbidden correspondence.
Albert Davis makes a deposition, to the effect that he met Shaver in Detroit about October 16, 1861, and that they travelled thence together to Quebec. Davis says: “Between Detroit and Toronto he asked me, ‘What is your business?’ I replied, ‘I have got papers to deliver to one of our Southern Confederacy on board the steamer Norwegian.’ He replied, ‘God! I am in the same business.’ ‘The devil you are!’ I replied, ‘I thought you was the agent of the Grand Trunk railroad.’ He then said, ‘So I am, and that helps me; on that account no one would suspect me.’” Davis proceeds: When the United States vessel (I think the Anglo Saxon by name) arrived from England at Quebec, we met on board of her, and then fell in company with John Muir, of New Orleans, H. A. Nesbit, of Georgia, member of the rebel Congress, and General Magruder, of the rebel army. We also met at Montreal. Then he (Shaver) told me that he could get five thousand for delivering what he had, and that he intended to make it. I told him that he might be caught. He replied: ‘They can’t catch me; I am smarter than any Americans.’” Davis further says: “I saw him for the last time in Toronto. When he left there he had three trunks; two of them were loaded—with what, I cannot say. I asked him if he had all his fixings. He replied, “Yes, I have.”
The undersigned regards these proofs as establishing all the statements in regard to John J. Shaver contained in the note of the undersigned of the 30th day of May last, except the statement relating to Shaver’s trunk, and his avowal that he had parcels in some express office, which he expected to receive to carry South, and that the empty trunk was to be used for the purpose of packing the same. The affidavits upon which those statements were made have been mislaid, and they are not available at this moment. But Shaver admits the fact, that the trunks which he carried coming north were light, and when going south were heavy. His explanation of the matter, that he carried trunks filled with railroad tickets on each trip to Louisville, which were disposed of before his return, seems unreasonable, and does not gain credit with the undersigned. His further statement, that On every occasion of his going south these trunks were searched, if it could be believed without proof, would raise a presumption that, being searched at the military border, and found free from contraband, they were really intended to be filled up at express offices on the way, with articles of commerce.
[Page 508]In conclusion, the undersigned is obliged to regard the precautionary arrest of John J. Shaver as one which was properly made, in view of the circumstances of the case, and his complaints of undue rigor and hardship, as being without just foundation.
The undersigned avails himself of the opportunity to renew to Lord Lyons the assurances of his high consideration.
Right Hon. Lord Lyons, &c., &c., &c.
P. S.—Pursuant to his request, the deposition which accompanied Lord Lyons’s note is now returned.