Papers Relating to Foreign Affairs, Accompanying the Annual Message of the President to the First Session Thirty-eighth Congress, Part I
Mr. Stanton to Mr. Seward.
Sir: In reply to your letter of the 15th of August last, enclosing a copy of a note from Lord Lyons, in which, under instructions of his government, a representation was made concerning the circumstances attending the death of Mr. Hardcastle at the Old Capitol prison, I have the honor to transmit herewith copies of a report of Brigadier General Martindale, military governor of the District of Columbia, and an accompanying statement from the superintendent of the Old Capitol prison, together with a review of the same by the judge advocate general of the army.
While this department sincerely regrets that Mr. Hardcastle came to his death while in the custody of the United States military authorities, you will perceive that the facts elicited by the careful investigation which has been made do not require the admission of the grave representations which Lord Lyons was instructed to make, whether these representations affect the arrest and confinement of Mr. Hardcastle in the first instance, or the subsequent lamentable affair which resulted in his death.
I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant,
Hon. William H. Seward, Secretary of State.
[Untitled]
Sir: In the case of Hardcastle, a British subject, accidentally shot by a sentry while in confinement at the Carroll prison, in this city, on the 25th of May last, I have the honor to submit as follows, in response to your indorsement of reference of the 20th instant:
This case came before the War Department from the Department of State upon a communication from the British minister to Mr. Seward, of August 13 last.
In this communication Lord Lyons, after setting forth the views of her Majesty’s government with regard to the original imprisonment of Hardcastle, as well as the manner of his death, concludes as follows:
“The whole case leaves a very painful impression upon the minds of her Majesty’s government. The liberty of a British subject was (they conceive) interfered with, without any serious cause, and in apparent breach of good faith; the representations of her Majesty’s legation in his behalf did not produce his release; and in the end his life was carelessly sacrificed by the accidental [Page CXXXII] result of a rough and unmerciful system of prison discipline, excused on the ground of the unsuitableness and the overcrowded state of the United Staes military prisons.”
From the various reports and papers furnished the War Department by Brigadier General Martindale, military governor of the District of Columbia, who has evidently investigated the subject with care, the causes of the confinement of: Hardcastle, and the facts of his death, are found to be as follows:
Hardcastle was placed in confinement in the Carroll (or Old Capital) prison on the 17th of April last. He had arrived at Port Conway, below Falmouth, with a flag of truce from the rebel army, having come from Richmond under a pass from General Winder, indorsed by General Lee. On his arrival within our lines he was forwarded in arrest by General Patrick, Provost Marshal General of the army of the Potomac, to the Provost Marshal at Washington, with the papers found upon his person, describing him as a British subject, and with a communication from General Patrick calling attention to an apparent want of genuineness in these papers tending to descredit their bona fide character.
It is well remarked by General Martindale “that the effort to prevent intercommunication for improper purposes across; the lines of our armies would be abortive if the reception of persons under a flag of truce should be held to preclude detention for the purpose of further examination.”
It has accordingly been customary with this government to require this detention and examination, as a precaution, in the majority of cases, absolutely necessary to be taken against the designs of those classes of persons Lwho, by the laws and customs of war, should properly be excluded from the privilege of penetrating within our territory. That the enforcement of this rule should some times subject neutrals to temporary inconvenience is perhaps inevitable; but it has been the purpose of this government to require this detention in those cases only when the conduct, the business, or the credentials of the party are not found to furnish a sufficient guarantee that his object in seeking to enter our lines is such as may properly be had in view by a citizen of a neutral power.
In the case of Hardcastle, the facts brought to light upon his examination, (which was pending at the time of his death,) and subsequently, were such, it is believed, as to fully justify his arrest and detention, as well as the suspicion in regard to his actual character and antecedents which appear to have arisen at the time of his arrest.
It is shown that he had resided for eight years in the United States, eight months of which period had been passed by him in the southern States; that his sympathies were with the rebels; that without authority from the United States government to pass beyond our lines, he had succeeded in doing so, and had proceeded to Richmond, Charleston, and Savannah; that his profession being that of a pyrotechnist, he had visited Charleston in this capacity, and had actually rendered services as such in the construction of torpedoes for the defence of the harbor of that city. Most of these facts were made known by the prisoner himself, in statements made by him to Mr. Wood, the superintendent of the prison; but it is to be observed that these statements were made freely and voluntarily, and in a boastful manner, especially when the defences of Charleston were alluded to, the prisoner frequently vaunting their magnitude and impregnable character.
In view of these antecedents of his, and especially of the services represented by him to have been rendered the enemy in the preparation of engines of war, it is submitted that the arrest and confinement of Hardcastle were fully warranted, and that his liberty as a British subject was not interfered with without cause, or in breach of that good faith which should prevail between this government and that of a neutral power. Is not his case, indeed, more truly presented, when it is said that his acts in secretly making his way across our lines [Page CXXXIII] without any passport whatever, in defiance of the authority of the United States, and in subsequently giving important add and comfort to the rebellion after having enjoyed the protection of our laws during a residence of more than seven years, were such as to oblige our government, if not to imprison him as an enemy, at least to confine his person until the most satisfactory guarantees were tendered as to his strict neutrality in the future? It can be held in no wise a violation of the flag of truce, which had procured him safe conduct her yond the rebel lines, that be was received from it, subject to the regulations of military police which had; been adopted in our armies. May he not himself rather be deemed to have abused the privilege of the flag, in availing himself of the opportunity which it afforded him of reaching our lines, when, if his character and antecedents had been known, he would assuredly not have been received under it at all?
From the reports received in relation to the shooting of Hardcastle, the circumstances of his death are found to be these:
The prison in which he was confined, fronted directly upon a main street of Washington, and was thus so situated that communication between prisoners and persons outside could have been readily indulged in if no precautions had been taken to prevent it. That the parties in confinement should be debarred, not only from such communication, but from the view of persons passing on the street, would appear to be most desirable in a city like Washington, situated near the enemy’s lines, constantly menaced by his forces and frequented by parties in secret sympathy with the rebellion, or engaged in enterprises prohibited by the laws of war. Such parties would naturally seek to communicate, if possible, with their friends in confinement, for the purpose of advising with or assisting them, or in procuring their escape. It appears that to facilitate such. intercourse the bars of the windows have in several cases been cut through; and it was to prevent this communication as effectually as possible that screens were erected outside the windows, rising to a height of four feet above the sills, and projecting about eighteen inches beyond them towards the street. The prisoners were forbidden: to look or extend their bodies over and outside of these screens; and the guards on duty at the prison were instructed to warn prisoners making their appearance above the screens to withdraw at once, and if they persisted in disregarding this warning to fire upon them.
On the 25th of May Hardcastle and a prisoner named Pleasonton were both standing inside the screen, (and therefore outside the wall of the prison,) and were leaning over the top, in full view of the street. Their appearance in this position being in direct contravention of the rules and discipline of the prison, and calculated to excite disorder on the street, they were repeatedly and in civil language admonished by the sentry, Chapman, to withdraw. Instead of so doing they remained, and commenced to argue with the sentry as to their rights.
At this juncture Mr. Wood, the superintendent, passed by, and at once called the attention of the prisoners to the impropriety of their behavior, and urged their complying with the directions of the sentry, who, as he explained to them, had no discretion but to execute the orders which, had been given him by his, officer. Mr. Wood added, were he in the sentry’s place he should (under the circumstances of this persistent refusal to retire on the part of the prisoners) enforce his commands by firing upon them.
It is further shown that about this time the “officer of the keys,” attached to the prison, went to the door of the room in which Hardcastle and Pleasonton were confined, and admonished them of the danger to which they were subjecting themselves by their conduct.
The prisoners, notwithstanding these repeated warnings, refused or neglected to retire within the screen; whereupon the sentry discharged his piece, and Hardcastle was mortally wounded, so that he died in a few hours.
[Page CXXXIV]It would appear, though it is not certainly established, that the sentry in firing aimed his piece at Pleasonton. The latter is alleged to have used insulting language towards the sentry, and to have been particularly demonstrative in his disregard of the directions of the latter.
It further appears, that prior to the occurrence of May 25, Hardcastle had repeatedly disobeyed the orders both of Mr. Wood and his subordinates by conduct similar to that which has been described, and by communicating from above the screen with persons outside; and, moreover, that ever since the commencement of his imprisonment, he has been in the habit of disregarding the rules presented for the government of the prison. It is represented, in fact, by Mr. Wood, that Hardcastle had, in conjunction with one James, become so regardless of discipline as to render it necessary to place them both in close confinement. It was not until James had been sent to Richmond for exchange that Hardcastle was removed to the room which he occupied at the time of his death.
Under all the facts, as they appear in evidence, it is submitted that the life of Hardcastle cannot justly be held to have fallen a sacrifice to a “rough and unmerciful system of prison discipline,” but rather to have been forfeited by his persistent neglect to observe a necessary and salutary rule established in the prison, (with his full knowledge,) and after repeated warning of the probable and legitimate consequences of his behavior in this regard. And it is conceived, therefore, that neither the sentry, who in firing obeyed the orders of his officer, nor the inferior officer, who imparted these orders, nor the superior who issued them in the first instance, can be deemed responsible in any way for Hardcastle’s death.
Nor is it necessary to excuse the rule in question on the ground of the “un-suitableness or the overcrowded state of the prison.” Such rule, or a similar one, would have been found necessary in any military prison similarly situated.
It is represented that these screens allowed ample light and ventilation for the rooms, so that there could have been nothing to complain of in their erection, except on the part of prisoners who were thus more effectually prevented from holding communication with friends outside, or from gratifying their curiosity by observing what occurred beyond their prison walls.
In fine, the belief is confidently entertained that when the facts above set forth (resulting from a recent and thorough investigation of the affair) are brought to the knowledge of her Majesty’s government, the prisoner (Hardcastle) will be viewed as the victim of such a casualty as may at any time be apprehended by one who has placed himself in the wrong.
For the purposes of this inquiry, it is not deemed at all important to determine whether the shot was, in fact, aimed at Pleasonton or Hardcastle, (Since the latter, at the moment of the firing, had incurred precisely the same guilt as the former, and by placing himself defiantly in the position which he occupied must be regarded as having wantonly thrown his life away.
Respectfully submitted.
Hon. E. M. Stanton, Secretary of War.
[Untitled]
Sir: Herewith I have the honor to transmit, for your information, copies of the papers heretofore sent from these headquarters, including the report of Captain Mix, in relation to the death of John Hardcastle, a prisoner of state, confined in the Carroll prison.
[Page CXXXV]The copy of the communication of the British minister commenting on the ease is also respectfully returned with the following report:
In view of the serious charges contained in that communication, expressed in the statements “that the liberty of a British subject was interfered with, without any serious cause, and in apparent breach of good faith; that his life was care lessly sacrificed by the accidental result of a rough and unmerciful system of prison discipline,” I respectfully call your attention to the facts bearing on these points.
Captain Mix reports that the sentinels were instructed to warn all persons to keep their heads within the windows, and if the prisoners persisted in disobeying, to fire their pieces. But Captain Mix also explains that the bars of the windows had all been cut away by the prisoners, and had been replaced by plank screens, which projected eighteen inches from the sills of the windows and rose four feet above them. This arrangement, while affording light and ventilation to the prisoners, completely excluded them from the view of persons passing in the street below, and from communication with them, except when the prisoners mounted on the sills of the windows and placed their heads over the screen, a position which was quite outside of the prison walls, insecure, and calculated to excite disorder in the street. The piece of the sentinel was discharged at a prisoner who not only persisted in occupying one of those screens or boxes after repeated warning that he must retire, but was using insulting language to the sentinel. Hardcastle, as I am informed and believe, was outside of the prison walls, within the screen at the same time, which explains the fact that the shot took effect on his person.
I have already explained in a former report why it has been necessary to make temporary use of the Carroll place as a prison, and the reasons for interdicting communication between prisoners and the passengers in the street. To that report I respectfully refer. Submission to the order excluding prisoners from the screens has been, and is, indispensable to secure them in confinement, and prevent public disorder in the city, now occupied as the chief military depot in the United States. It is the enforcement of that submission by firing at an offender, in a case where resistance had been persisted in, accompanied by insult to the sentinel, for half an hour, which the British minister has presented as the accidental result of a “rough and unmerciful system of prison discipline.”
I assume that the apparent breach of good faith, alleged by the British minister, consists in detaining Hardcastle in confinement after receiving him through the rebel lines under a flag of truce.
In my report of the 15th of June, ultimo, I made no reference to the reasons for the detention of Hardcastle. No explanation on that point was required or deemed pertinent. He was received at Falmouth, Va., under a flag of truce, on or about the 16th of April, 1863, and was forwarded in arrest to the provost marshal of the army of the Potomac to the provost marshal at Washington, together with papers found on his person, describing him as a British subject, and with a communication calling attention to a fact apparent in the papers tending to discredit their genuineness. The effort to prevent intercommunication for improper purposes across the lines of our armies would be abortive if the reception of persons under a flag of truce should be held to preclude detention for the purpose of further examination.
No stronger case than Hardcastle’s can be desired to illustrate this point, for, as will appear by the report of the prison superintendent, herewith transmitted, disclosures were made during his confinement tending to show that he had penetrated, without a passport from the United States government, through our lines into the rebel States, there to engage in employment as a pyrotechnist, and had actually rendered service to the rebels in that capacity. It was during a suspension of the examination of Hardcastle, and before it was completed, that he [Page CXXXVI] Was accidentally killed. This is the detention which the British minister has presented as an “interference with the liberty of a British subject without any serious cause, and an apparent breach of good faith.”
I have the honor to be, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
Hon. E. M. Stanton, Secretary of War.
[Untitled]
Sir: Agreeably to your request of yesterday I have the honor to report in the case of the late Mr. John Hardcastle, as follows:
From the rules and usages of the prison, it has been customary for me to hold frequent communications with the prisoners on subjects connected with their confinement, which fact can be clearly established by the records of the prison. In the latter part of April or beginning of May last Mr. Hardcastle informed me that he was a British subject, residing in the United States about eight years, eight months of which he had recently spent in the rebellious States; that he was a pyrotechnist; that his sympathies were with the south, and that nearly every Englishman he had there met with regarded the southerners as of their own kindred, free from the plebeian proclivities of the conglomerated mass composing the inhabitants of the northern States; that he had run the blockade and visited Charleston, Savannah, Richmond, and other southern cities, and contributed by his knowledge and experience in the getting up of the torpedoes in Charleston harbor, and frequently boasted of the magnitude and impregnability of its defences. He stated that he left Richmond in April last, and obtained a pass from General Winder, indorsed by General Lee, to carry him to our lines, and that he had no authority from the United States government to enter or leave the Confederate States; that he came to Fort Conway, via flag of truce, and was taken to the headquarters of General Patrick, Provost Marshal General of the army of the Potomac, who forwarded him to Captain Todd, provost marshal of Washington city, by whom he was committed to my custody.
His appearance was respectable and genteel, and, as in all such cases of British subjects, I treated him with the same kindness and courtesy as that bestowed upon United States officers in my custody.
I was not long in ascertaining that Mr. Hardcastle belonged to that class of Englishmen who had been piloted through our lines by certain parties, whose headquarters are in Baltimore, and of the existence of which the detective department is fully aware, having had prisoners in my charge of the same class, among whom were Captain Winn and George A. Lawrence, stated visitors at the Baltimore club-house, the headquarters where all the preliminary arrangements are made for such persons to depart and enter our lines.
Major Turner, judge advocate of the War Department, requested me to extend extra attention to Captain Winn while in my charge, which I fully complied with, and the liberties and privileges thus bestowed upon him were taken advantage of, and he effected his escape from the prison. For the escape of this prisoner I was censured, which determined me to exercise extra precautions with that class of prisoners in future. About the time of Mr. Hardcastle’s imprisonment, a notorious character named James was also incarcerated, who together, on all occasions, openly and persistently violated the rules and discipline of the prison. You are well aware of their tenor. The health of the prisoners, the cleanliness of the apartments, and the treatment they usually receive, have been [Page CXXXVII] generally spoken of in the highest terms by all who have ever been under my care. One of your staff officers makes weekly and special inspection of the prison and the prisoners, and announced to them that all causes of complaint, no matter of what character, will be investigated and removed upon written application to the judge advocate, or other members of your staff.
The continued violation of the rules, &c, by Hardcastle and James caused them to be confined together in close confinement. James was soon after sent to Richmond for exchange, and Mr. Hardcastle removed to a front room, No. 32, one of the most pleasant and comfortable rooms in the prison.
For the purpose of ventilation a wooden frame-work was made to extend from the front windows, and of sufficient height to prevent communication with parties in the street.
In violation of frequent instructions from myself and others under me, the prisoners in this room were in the habit of extending their bodies beyond the lines of these frames and the front of the building, and communicating with parties on the outside. The negligence of the sentinel on that post, in permitting this violation, was complained of to the officer of the guard by myself but a day or two previous to Hardcastle’s death. On that morning I came from the Old Capitol prison, in company with Captain Mix, and saw the prisoners in that room protruding their heads beyond the top of the wood work, and some 18 inches beyond the line of the building. The sentinel on duty (now a prisoner in my custody) politely requested them to retire to the proper distance inward, which they disregarded, and commenced to argue with him as to their rights, &c. I called the attention of the prisoners to their impropriety, and urged them to obey the sentinel, as he (the sentinel) had no discretionary powers of delay or argument, and stated that were I on duty at his post I should certainly enforce my command by shooting at them. The officer of the keys also went to the room door and warned them of their danger. The continued disregard on the part of the prisoners of all these warnings and instructions no doubt led to the death of Mr. Hardcastle, in the manner and form already made public.
Trusting this statement meets your approbation, I have the honor to be your obedient servant,
Brig. Gen. Martindale, Military Governor.