Mr. Burnley to Mr. Seward,.
Washington,
November 19, 1864.
Sir: With reference to Viscount Monck’s
despatch of the 26th ultimo, and to your reply of the 3d instant, with
respect to the order issued by General Dix relative to the recent
outrage at St. Albans, I have now the honor to enclose copy of a
despatch which I have received from his excellency, replying, on his
side, to the observations contained in that note.
In the sentiments expressed by his excellency, the governor general, I
fully concur. It suffices to examine the dates when the various
requisitions for extradition were received at this legation, and
despatched to Viscount Monck, to prove that, on my side, also, nothing
was left undone which could promote the wishes and anxious desires of
the American government, whether in the affair of Lake Erie, or in that
of St. Albans.
Your note of the 13th ultimo, asking for the extradition of Bell and
others, concerned in the Lake Erie occurrences, was received on the
14th, and despatched to Viscount Monck on the 16th. His excellency’s
reply of the 22d, received on the 26th, was transmitted the next day to
you.
With regard to the affair at St. Albans, your first note, of the 25th
ultimo, relative to the extradition of Wallace and others, was received
and despatched on the same day to Viscount Monck. His excellency’s
reply, of the 31st October, was received on the 3d instant, and
transmitted to you on the 4th instant. Your further note, of the 29th
ultimo, relative to the extradition of Lackey and others, was received
on the day on which it was written, and on that same day despatched to
Viscount Monck. His excellency’s reply, of the 4th instant, received at
this legation on the 11th instant, was despatched to you the same
day.
Finally, your note of the 1st instant, requesting the extradition of
Hutchinson, was again received and despatched to its destination on the
same day, and Viscount Monck’s reply of the 7th instant, received on the
12th instant, was forwarded to you on the day on which it was
received.
You will thus perceive that both Viscount Monck and myself have done all
that lay in our power to expedite the ends of justice, and that it
cannot in truth be said that requisitions for these offenders have
remained unanswered.
I have the honor to be, with the highest consideration, sir, your most
obedient, humble, servant,
For LORD LYONS,
J. HUME BURNLEY.
Hon. William H. Seward, &c., &c., &c.
[Page 783]
Viscount Monck to Lord Lyons.
Quebec,
November 12, 1864.
My Lord: I have the honor to acknowledge
the receipt of your despatch of 7th November, and the accompanying
note from Mr. Seward, dated 3d November, relative to the despatch
which I deemed it my duty to address to you on the 26th October,
calling your attention to the extract from the New York Evening
Post, which purported to give the words of an order issued by Major
General Dix, in reference to the recent outrage at St. Albans,
Vermont.
I shall transmit Mr. Seward’s note to the secretary of state for the
colonies, for the consideration of her Majesty’s government.
There is one statement, however, in Mr. Seward’s note to which I must
allude, in justice to myself and the government of Canada. The
Secretary of State for the United States says, “While this
government has been considering Earl Monck’s request, our
requisition for the offenders whose crimes were committed on Lake
Erie, and for the burglars and murderers who invaded Vermont, remain
unanswered.”
I am at a loss to account for this statement. With regard to the
first of these outrages, it occurred on the 19th September. On the
22d October a despatch was received by me from Mr. Burnley, dated
16th October, enclosing a note from the Secretary of State of the
United States, demanding the extradition of Bell and others, (the
persons supposed to have been concerned in the Lake Erie outrage.)
On the same day (22d October) I addressed a despatch to Mr. Burnley,
in which I acknowledged the receipt of his communication, and begged
him to inform Mr. Seward that “as soon as I should have been advised
that these persons, or any of them, had been arrested in Canada, and
that the proof required by the treaty had been made, the necessary
warrants should be issued for their delivery to the authorities of
the United States.”
With reference to the outrage committed at St. Albans, this affair
occurred on the 19th October. On the 31st I received from Mr.
Burnley a despatch, dated 25th October, demanding the extradition of
C. M. Wallace and twelve other persons, participators in the St.
Albans affairs.
On the same day I answered Mr. Burnley’s despatch, informing him that
when the proof required should have been made, the warrants for
extradition should be issued.
On the 4th November I received a further despatch, dated 29th
October, referring to the same persons, and stating that they were
in custody in Canada, and asking for their extradition.
This was answered on the same day, informing Mr. Burnley that the men
referred to were in custody, and that the warrants for their
extradition should issue as soon as the proofs required by the
treaty had been completed.
On the 7th of November I received from Lord Lyons a further
despatch,’ dated November 1, enclosing a demand for the extradition
of one Hutchinson, a man whose name was not included in the former
list.
This despatch was answered on the same day, and in the same terms as
the former communications. I have been thus minute in the statement
of what has occurred in these matters, because I should have felt
much annoyed if it could be supposed that your communications to me,
made at the instance of a minister of a friendly power, had been for
any cause allowed to remain unanswered.
I have, &c., &c.,
Hon. Lord Lyons, &c., &c., &c.
