Papers Relating to Foreign Affairs, Accompanying the Annual Message of the President to the Second Session Thirty-eighth Congress, Part I
Mr. Adams to Mr. Seward.
Sir: In regard to the subject of your despatch No. 878, of the 21st of March, the delay, at Liverpool, in the proceedings on the claim for the surrender of the pirates who seized the schooner Joseph L. Gerrity, I have the honor to report that on the very day of the date of that paper I addressed a note to Lord Russell remonstrating against the delay. A copy of the note and accompanying papers from Mr. Dudley is transmitted. A copy of his lordship’s formal acknowledgment of the same date is likewise sent. Since that, no further communication has been received from him, neither has any information been received from elsewhere.
I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant,
Hon. William H. Seward, Secretary of State, Washington, D. C,
[Enclosures.]
1. Mr. Adams to Lord Russell, March 21, 1864.
2. Mr. Dudley to Mr. Adams, March 18, 1864.
3. Same to same, March 19, 1864.
4. Lord Russell to Mr. Adams, March 21, 1864.
Mr. Adams to Earl Russell.
My Lord: I have the honor to submit to your consideration copies of two letters received from Mr. Dudley, the consul of the United States at Liverpool, in relation to the proceedings had at that place on my application for the surrender of certain persons under the treaty of extradition between Great Britain and the United States.
It is unfortunately too obvious that the intent of the magistrate is, so far as the power may rest with him, to annul the provisions of that treaty in the present instance. I trust I may be pardoned if I point out to your lordship how grave would be the consequence to the permanence of the obligations of that compact, if such an example were to be set in Great Britain for imitation in other cases when the call may be made upon the United States.
I pray your lordship to accept the assurances of the highest consideration, with which I have the honor to be, my lord, your most obedient servant,
Right Hon. Earl Russell, &c., &c., &c.
[Enclosures.]
1. Mr. Dudley to Mr. Adams, March 18, 1864.
2. Same to same, March 19, 1864.
[Page 571]Mr. Dudley to Mr. Adams.
Sir: Commencing where I left off yesterday, Mr. Squarey and myself attended court this morning. Mr. Cobb, the counsel for the prisoners in the case of the schooner Joseph L. Gerrity, asked that the case should be postponed for seven days longer to enable them to sue out a writ of habeas corpus; stated that an affidavit had been already made and presented to Judge Wells for the writ. Mr. Squarey called the magistrate’s attention to the treaty between the United States and Great Britain and the statute passed upon this subject; objected to any further postponement; stated that the case had been submitted on both sides, and that there was nothing left for the magistrate to do but to dismiss or commit the prisoners, reminding him that he had admitted, on the previous day, that the case as it stood was proved, and was one of clear piracy. The magistrate (Mr. Raffles) said, in reply, that he should not take back or deny anything that he had said on a previous occasion; that the case was undoubtedly made out, but as it was of a serious nature, he should grant the application and adjourn the case for seven days, and after that continue to adjourn it from week to week, without argument, until the middle of the next term, to give the prisoners an opportunity to have it heard by a full bench on habeas corpus, and that before finally committing the prisoners he would give their counsel a week’s notice.
Yesterday, as appears by the newspapers, they made an application for a writ. I enclose you a slip cut from the Daily Post of this morning. I have directed Mr. Squarey to retain counsel in the case. I am, sir, your obedient servant,
Hon. Charles Francis Adams, United States Minister, &c., &c., &c.
[Extract from the Liverpool Daily Post.]
Extraordinary charge of piracy.
Mr. Littler applied to his lordship for a writ of habeas corpus to bring up the three prisoners, who are remanded by Mr. Raffles, on a charge of piracy on board the Joseph L. Gerrity, before his lordship, for hearing the case or for dismissal. After stating the facts of the case, the learned counsel said that he quite understood the difficulty attending such an application, inasmuch as the persons were under remand, and were not committed; but he believed that they had been remanded from week to week for five times, in order that his lordship’s opinion might be taken.
His lordship said that he did not think that the application was a proper one for him to receive, inasmuch as it was foreign to the business which he had before him; the proper quarter in which to apply was the learned judge who was now sitting in chambers for the purpose of receiving such applications. A conversation ensued between his lordship and the learned counsel upon this point, and ultimately his lordship consented to take the affidavits and the act of Parliament for perusal, and if he still thought that he should not grant the habeas corpus, he would not do so before hearing Mr. littler upon the point, but it would not be in the public court. The court then rose.
Mr. Dudley to Mr. Adams.
Sir: Eleven o’clock to-day was the hour to which the case against the pirates of the Joseph L. Gerrity was last adjourned. I attended with Mr. Squarey. After waiting some time, Mr. Melly, who was presiding as magistrate, informed me that Mr. Raffles was on the grand jury, and had instructed him to call up the case, and to remand the prisoners for seven days longer to enable them to sue out a habeas corpus.
I told him Mr. Squarey, my legal adviser, was in the court, and that we should oppose this or any further continuance of the case. Mr. Squarey came up and informed the court that he should oppose any further adjournment of the case, and ask that the prisoners be at once delivered to the authority of the United States. The presiding magistrate said, if the continuance was to be opposed he thought it best to send for Mr. Raffles, who had heard the case. After waiting from eleven o’clock until one, and Mr. Raffles not coming, it was agreed that the matter should stand over until to-morrow.
The conduct of the stipendiary magistrate, before whom the case has been heard, is most extraordinary. On the day first fixed for hearing, myself and lawyer attended. When the prisoners appeared, Mr. Raffles, the magistrate, asked if they had a lawyer. They answered no. The policeman who stood next to them stated that they thought it not worth while to employ one. The magistrate suggested that they should be defended, and directed them to go down stairs with the women, who were represented to be their wives, and talk about it. They all went down, and after remaining for some time, came up, attended by Mr. Cobb, a lawyer, who asked that the case might be continued until the next day. This was granted. On the next day the parties all appeared; the prisoners attended by their lawyer. The case was gone into, the evidence all taken, and the lawyer heard in argument, and the case submitted to the justice on both sides. It established a clear case of piracy without the least extenuation or justification.
This was three weeks ago. At the conclusion the magistrate stated that he should defer his decision for one week. I attended with my lawyer at the time. He then informed us that he had sent up the evidence to the Home Office and was waiting for instructions, which he had not received, and should be under the necessity of postponing the case for seven days longer.
This last adjournment was this day week. Mr. Wilding, the vice-consul, in my absence, and Mr. Squarey, attended. The magistrate then informed them that he wanted further information on the case, and would remand the prisoners seven days longer to give them an opportunity of producing evidence in proof of their statement that they were acting as confederates, by confederate authority. He would not say what the legal effect of that evidence might be; it was for investigation when it was produced. As the case then stood upon the evidence before him, it was a clear case of piracy.
The last seven days are now up, no evidence is produced, and it is difficult to see upon what principle it could be introduced at this stage of the case after the evidence has all been heard and the case submitted to the magistrate for his decision, without violating every principle upon which legal proceedings are conducted; and he now proposes to adjourn the case seven days longer to enable the prisoners to sue out a writ of habeas corpus. It must be remembered that there is no evidence whatever in the case to show that the prisoners are confederates, or that they were acting under confederate authority.
With high respect, I am, sir, your obedient servant,
His Excellency Charles Francis Adams.
Earl Russell to Mr. Adams.
Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of this day’s date, enclosing copies of two letters from the United States consul at Liverpool, respecting the proceedings of the police magistrate at that port in regard to the persons whose extradition has been demanded in the case of the Joseph L. Gerrity, and I have the honor to state to you that I have lost no time in forwarding your representation to the proper department of her Majesty’s government.
I have the honor to be, with the highest consideration, sir, your most obedient, humble servant,
Charles Francis Adams, Esq., &c., &c., &c.