Upon the most careful reflection which I have been able to give to the
whole subject as it is now presented to me on this side of the water, I
have concluded to exercise the discretion vested in me so far as to
desist from acting, at least for a little while. My reasons are
these:
The action of Judge Coursai upon the question submitted to him has led
not only to a very general expression of disapprobation here, but it has
also prompted a most unequivocal condemnation of the outrage itself.
There appears to be little difference of opinion in the public press on
this subject. I am convinced that if any repetition of it should be
attempted it will go far to stop all further open sympathy with the
rebel cause. Any penalty which may be inflicted upon the perpetrators
will be approved and justified. I have directed a copy of” The Times” to
be sent to you, containing a leader on the subject, which bears evident
marks of authority. A similar leader, even more decided in tone,
appeared simultaneously in the evening paper, “The Globe.” I may say
that public sentiment has been more nearly right on this question, than
upon any since I have held this post.
Moreover, I consider the assurances of Lord Russell, as given to me in
the conversation, a report of which I sent to you in my despatch of last
week, No. 846, as in substance containing a favorable answer to much if
not all that has been desired by the government. Since I sent that
despatch his lordship has submitted to me his report of that same
conversation as he sent it to Mr. Hume Burnley, and I find I have a
little understated the strength of his language, an error which I would
rather commit than its opposite. I send copies of the notes that passed,
in order to show that I purposely marked to him my sense of the
difference. The President’s immediate revocation of that part of General
Dix’s order to which his lordship took exception, seems to leave the
matter in the best possible condition, at least so far as the
disposition of the British government is concerned. Under these
circumstances if I were to go on making more representations just now,
it appears to me that the effect would be only to betray an offensive
doubt of the sincerity of its professions.
I shall, however, in the course of the next few weeks, seize
opportunities to communicate the substance of the information contained
in your despatch No. 1194, as they may occur. I shall, moreover, make
more occasions to meet with Lord Russell, particularly since I have
received, in a private way, intimations that in the absence of Lord
Lyons it would be convenient.
I find by a notice in this morning’s papers that Captain Corbet, the
person who took charge of the Sea King on her voyage out, has been at
last traced out and arrested by order of the government for a violation
of the enlistment law. This incident, of which his lordship’s reply to
my note of the 18th of November last on the subject held out no promise,
is another favorable symptom of the animus of the
government.
I am well aware of the extent of the irritation of the people along the
line of the boundary, very justly excited by these atrocious
enterprises. I find no disposition in the public press here to find
fault with that. If it should prove to have had the effect of
stimulating the government here to quicken its preventive action, it
will not be a matter to be regretted. But I cannot withhold the
expression of a hope that it may not so far precipitate the movements of
the representative bodies as to hazard the very event happening, which
these operations were intended to bring about—the complication of
differences with foreign powers with the efforts to suppress the
rebellion.
[Enclosures.]
1. The Times, January 4, 1865.
2. The Globe, January 2, 1865.
3. Lord Russell to Mr. Adams, January 2, 1865.
4. Lord Russell to Mr. Burnley, December 29, 1864.
5. Mr. Adams to Lord Russell, January 4, 1865.
6. The Star, January 5, 1865.
7. Lord Russell to Mr. Adams, November 19, 1864.
Earl Russell to Mr. Adams
Foreign
Office,
January 2,
1865.
Lord Russell presents his compliments to Mr. Adams, and wishing
to be quite assured of his correctness of his report of the
conversation he held with Mr. Adams on Wednesday last, the 28th
ultimo, has the honor to transmit to him the accompanying copy
of the despatch which he has addressed to Mr. Burnley, her
Majesty’s chargé d’affaires at Washington.
Earl Russell to Mr. Burnley
Foreign
Office,
December 29,
1864.
Sir: Yesterday, the 28th, Mr. Adams
called upon me, by his own desire, at the Foreign Office. He
expressed to me, by the order of his government, the great
regret felt by them at the departure of Lord Lyons, and offered
to show me a letter of Mr. Seward to Lord Lyons testifying that
regret. I told him that equal regret was felt on our side, and
that nothing but the failing health, of Lord Lyons would have
induced her Majesty’s government to consent to his temporary
departure. Mr. Adams promised to send me a copy of the letter of
Mr. Seward.
Mr. Adams then spoke to me of two or three matters of very little
importance; and finally entered on that which he said was the
chief object of his seeking an interview with me, namely, the
border raids which had been executed, or were in preparation,
from Canada. Mr. Adams said my last letter to him had contained
assurances so positive and unequivocal that he should not have
asked me for any further declarations had he not received, by
the last packet, positive injunctions to make to me certain
communications. The documents which he then put into my hands,
and of which I send you copies, consisted mainly of—
1. An intercepted letter, written by a confederate partisan from
Canada, not signed, but evidently authentic. This letter,
written before the re-election of President Lincoln, shows that
although the particular raid or foray against St. Albans was not
directed by the confederate government, yet the general plan of
burning towns and robbing banks in the frontier States of the
United States was concerted and approved by the confederate
authorities. The failure of the attempt to burn the banks and
houses of St. Albans is attributed to some defect in the
chemical preparation which had been used.
2. The next document contains evidence that the town of Windsor,
in Canada, had been fixed upon by the confederates for the
preparation and manufacture of a chemical material to be used in
setting on fire the towns and villages of the United States.
3. The third set of documents contain a letter of the Assistant
Secretary of War to Mr. Seward, enclosing, for such action as
might be considered necessary, a copy of a letter of General
Dix, in which he states that he has information on which he can
rely, that a confederate regiment, namely, Colonel Butler’s
regiment of Kentucky cavalry, was to be furloughed into Canada
for the purpose of disturbing, from that neutral position, the
frontiers of the United States.
Mr Adams, after I had read these documents, said that Mr. Seward
had directed him to put them into my hands, in order that her
Majesty’s government might take such measures as were required
by our own declarations of neutrality, and the relations of
amity subsisting between the two nations.
I said that I had already assured him, in the letter to which he
had alluded, that her Majesty’s government would adopt such
measures as may be required, and may be effective for the
maintenance of her Majesty’s declared neutrality. That one of
the measures to which I meant to refer was a direction already
sent to the governor general of Canada, to propose to his
legislature a measure similar to the United States act of
Congress of 1838. That whatever technical grounds may have been
found for delivering from custody the St. Albans raiders, all
the highest law authorities in this country concurred in
thinking, that any act done in Canada in violation of her
Majesty’s neutrality, and in disobedience to her Majesty’s
proclamation, would be illegal. That it remained for her
Majesty’s government to give such directions and adopt such
measures as might insure the punishment of persons guilty of
such illegal acts, and prevent the repetition of such acts for
the future. I said her Majesty’s government were fully aware of
their international duties, and had determined to perform
them.
[Page 77]
I then asked Mr. Adams whether he had seen the several editions
of “The Times.” Mr. Adams said he had. The paragraph to which I
meant to allude was to the following purport:
“In consequence of the discharge of the St. Albans raiders, and
preparations in Canada for the renewal of similar enterprises,
the military commanders on the frontier are directed by-General
Dix, in case of further acts of depredation, to shoot down the
perpetrators, if possible, and if necessary for their capture,
to cross the Canadian boundaries and pursue them wherever they
take refuge, and not to surrender them if captured, but send
them on to headquarters for trial by court-martial.”
Finding that Mr. Adams had read this paragraph, I said, that with
regard to the treatment of such depredators on the United States
territory I had nothing to say; but I had seen, with regret,
that orders were given to pursue such persons on her Majesty’s
Canadian territory; that such pursuit might encounter
resistance, and the relations of the two countries might be thus
endangered.
Mr. Adams said that such outrages caused so great a resentment,
it was difficult to restrain troops in pursuit of their
enemy.
I said that was very true, and that troops in pursuit, and in the
heat of blood, might not accurately respect an ill-defined
boundary. But this was a deliberate order of a general in the
military service of the United States.
Mr. Adams said he knew General Dix, who bore a high character for
sense and moderation.
I said, that might be, but we must all recollect the very just
remark of President Lincoln, that these inroads and depredations
were organized with a view to bring on a war between Great
Britain and the United States. That both governments were bound
to do everything in their power to defeat so wicked a design.
That for our parts we had nothing more at heart. Mr. Adams then
took his leave.
I am, &c., &c.,
J. H. Burnley, Esq., &c., &c., &c.
Mr. Adams to Earl Russell
Legation of the United
States,
London,
January 4,
1865.
Mr. Adams presents his compliments to Lord Russell, and
acknowledges the receipt of his note of the 2d instant, covering
a report of the conversation held with his lordship on the 28th
ultimo, which he does him the honor to submit for his
consideration. Mr. Adams is happy to be able to confirm its
substantial correctness. He begs only to observe, not without
great satisfaction, that the assurances as given by his lordship
are clothed in stronger language than he had himself ventured to
report them to his government.
Earl Russell to Mr. Adams
Foreign
Office,
November 19,
1864.
Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge
the receipt of your letter of the 18th instant, enclosing copies
of a letter from the United States consul at Liverpool, and the
depositions of two men who lately formed part of the crew of the
steamer Sea King.
I have the honor to be, with the highest consideration, sir, your
most obedient, humble servant,
Charles Francis Adams,
&c., &c., &c.
[From the
London Times of January 4,
1865.]
[Untitled]
We are now in possession of those papers from which mankind must
form their judgment as to the true nature and bearing of those
transactions in Canada which have so greatly irritated the press
and the people of the United States. For once we feel very much
inclined to sympathize with them in the first outburst of their
indignation. The outrage which had been inflicted upon them by
persons taking their departure from the neutral territory of
Canada was of the foulest description. It had nothing in it of
the nature of war, but was really robbery and murder striving to
shelter itself under that all-atoning name. The success of a
hundred such outrages as the St. Albans raid could not by any
possibility have influenced in the slightest degree the result
of the American civil war. It is not by plundering banks and
murdering clerks that the destinies of great nations struggling
for existence or independence are to be decided; and, for our
part, we shall heartily rejoice if the
[Page 78]
perpetrators shall be at last given up, to
be dealt with not as honorable enemies, but as criminals exposed
to the just vengeance of offended law. We have purposely
abstained in a matter of so much importance from offering any
opinion on the rights of this question until we had before us
the arguments of counsel and the decision of the judge; the
point at issue is one of some intricacy, but we hope we may make
it clear enough to enable our readers to judge of the question
for themselves.
By one of the clauses of the treaty of 1842, of which we have
recently had the benefit in the case of Müller, provision is
made for the extradition of criminals taking refuge in the
territories of the two contracting parties. This treaty required
an act of Parliament to give effect to its clauses, and by that
act of Parliament (the 12th Victoria) it was provided that such
fugitives might be arrested by a warrant under the hand of the
Secretary of State, or of the governor of any province; and that
if it appeared that there was sufficient evidence against him he
was to be given up to those who made the requisition. But it
being thought likely that in some cases it might be found more
expedient to leave the regulation of the details of the
execution of the treaty to be settled by local legislatures, it
was provided by the fifth section of the imperial act that, in
case a local legislature should make provision for carrying the
treaty into effect by substituting some other enactment, the
Queen in Council might suspend the operation of the imperial act
within the limits of the colony the legislature of which had
made such provision. The legislature of Canada did make this
provision by an act passed in the twelfth year of the present
Queen, and the Queen in 1850, by Order in Council, suspended the
imperial act so long as the Canadian act of the 12th Victoria
should be in force, and no longer. Had matters remained here the
thing would have been perfectly clear. By the imperial act the
fugitive must be arrested by a warrant signed either by the
secretary of state or the governor of the colony. Under the
colonial act a warrant signed by a judge of one of the courts
was sufficient. By the joint efficacy of the colonial act and of
the Order in Council, the colonial was substituted for the
imperial act, and it was not necessary to obtain the signature
of the governor general. But the matter did not stop here. The
Canadian legislature consolidated its acts in ten years
afterwards, and the manner in which the consolidation was
effected was by repealing existing acts and re-enacting them,
with or without alteration. The 12th Victoria was thus repealed
and re-enacted. From the moment of its repeal, as it seems to
us, the suspending efficacy of the Order in Council was gone for
want of something to act upon, and the imperial act, which had
been held in abeyance for ten years, revived. But the matter did
not stop even here. Two years after the act which had been
re-enacted in the consolidated acts was materially varied in its
leading provisions, so that not only had this specific act to
which the Order in Council applied ceased to exist, but its
provisions, which were at first preserved by the consolidating
act, had ceased to exist also.
The St. Albans raiders were arrested under a warrant issued by a
judge, which was valid if the colonial act was in force, but
invalid if the imperial act had revived. The judge held the
colonial act, which had been re-enacted and varied, was not in
force; and for our part we cannot conceive how he could have
possibly held otherwise. A colonial act can have no force of
itself as against an act of the imperial legislature. That force
was in this instance imparted under the special authority of an
order in council. When that order in council ceased to apply the
imperial act must clearly prevail. So far, therefore, we think
that America has no cause of complaint against us. The judge
appears to have decided according to well-recognized principles
of law, and though the point was highly technical, it appears to
have been clear enough. The fault was not in him, but, in the
first place, in the blunder of the colonial legislature, and, in
the next place, in the oversight of the legal advisers of the
Canadian executive. But, admitting that the judge was right in
his law, was it clear that the judge was bound to treat the
matter in the summary manner that he did Was he bound to
discharge the prisoner before him? And if so, was he bound to
discharge all the other prisoners whose cases he had not heard?
Of course we speak on this point with hesitation and diffidence.
The judge assumed that it was a question of jurisdiction. To us
it would seem rather a question of the process by which the
fugitives were brought before the court than of the jurisdiction
of the court. The application, as we understand it, was not on a
writ of habeas corpus. The prisoners were
brought up on the warrant of the judge, the evidence against
them was gone into, and the case was remanded to hear the other
side. Is it quite clear that after the merits of the case had
been entered upon at large it was competent to the prisoners to
take this highly technical objection to the validity of the
process which brought them there? Even supposing this view to be
incorrect, was it incumbent on the judge to give such effect to
an objection so highly technical and so easily remediable as to
discharge six prisoners accused of such heavy offences, without
even hearing what could be said in any case except one, and with
the certainty that by so doing he was entirely defeating the
ends of justice? He took time to consider his decision on a
point which he stated himself to be one of intricacy and nicety.
Would he have done wrong if he had taken for the consideration
of a question so knotty and so important a period long enough to
obtain the signature of the governor general, and thus to have
cured effectually this purely technical slip, if it should
really have been found to exist? We are not impugning the
integrity or the ability of the judge, of whose antecedents we
know nothing; but we certainly think that there was some want of
discretion in the precipitate and almost violent manner in which
he cancelled the whole proceeding, and probably enabled six
great
[Page 79]
criminals to
escape from the hands of justice. A warrant has of course been
signed by the governor general; but we fear that it is
exceedingly unlikely that these prisoners will be recaptured in
so vast, so thickly wooded, and so thinly peopled a country as
Canada, where there must be many confederate refugees who would
strain every nerve to facilitate their escape.
But we go a step further, and maintain that if the judge had no
alternative but to act in the way that he did, the authorities
of Montreal ought to have taken upon themselves the risk and the
responsibility of detaining these prisoners, even without legal
warrant, for the very brief period which would have been
required to obtain the requisite warrant signed by the governor
general. The question was one of great importance; on it might
have depended the issues of peace and war, and any one refusing
to allow the ends of justice and the very legitimate demands of
a neighboring nation to be defeated by a merely technical
objection might reckon with the utmost confidence on obtaining a
legislative indemnity for his conduct. We do not know where the
governor general was, but he probably was not beyond Quebec on
the north, or Toronto on the south, and might therefore have
been communicated with by railway and telegraph in a few hours.
We are not in possession of information sufficient to enable us
to state on whom, beyond the judge, the blame of this signal
miscarriage of justice attaches; but strong and unjustifiable as
the language of the American journals has been, we certainly
feel that they have good ground for feeling indignant at a
transaction that contrasts so unfavorably with the prompt and
efficient assistance which they gave us in the case of Müller.
We must not expect that in the heat of a tremendous civil war
persons having a legitimate subject of complaint will confine
themselves within the exact bounds of reason and justice; and we
have every reason to be satisfied with the decision of the
American President, which has so opportunely checked a
fermentation the results of which no man could foresee. At the
same time we would point out that the executive government is
not responsible for the miscarriage of a judge, and that one of
the principal objects of the institutions under which we live is
to remove our tribunals, so far as possible, from any such
influence. But nothing appears to be alleged against the
authorities of Canada beyond the timidity which prevented them
from taking a very bold and hazardous resolution, on a very
difficult question, on a very sudden occasion; and whatever
fault may be found ultimately to attach to the colonial
authorities, judicial or executive, the people and government of
this country had no power in the matter, and have no other wish
than that the provisions of the extradition treaty shall be
carried out with the utmost fairness and fullness in a spirit of
strict impartiality, neither straining the law to promote the
escape of the guilty, nor to bring the innocent within the power
of their enemies.
[From the
London Globe of January 2,
1865.]
[Untitled]
As we anticipated, President Lincoln has disavowed the order of
General Dix, so far at least as it related to the violation of
neutral territory. This is very satisfactory, as it tends to
show that the language of the presidential message, so moderate
towards all foreign powers, is a fair indication of the policy
of the Washington government. To General Dix, educated,
politically, in the ranks of the old democratic party, which
boasted of its Walker and Hollins, its Harney and Pickett, the
language of the late “General Order” must have come naturally,
for it was in this style that the party, dominant in the Union
up to I860, were accustomed to talk and write. The disavowal of
the order by Mr. Lincoln is exactly what we looked for. It shows
that if the general spoke with the authority of Mr. Stanton, he
did not speak with the cognizance of the Executive. We do not,
however, believe that he spoke with the cognizance of the one or
the authority of the other, but that his earlier training got
the better of his judgment. If he had reflected, he would have
known that his order was a first step towards war; and that if
war broke out as a consequence, he would have been playing into
the hands of the confederates, who desire nothing better, and
frustrating the policy of his own government, who desire nothing
less. For our parts, we are as much out raged as the United
States government by the acts of these confederate marauders,
and the imperial and colonial governments alike are most anxious
to do all they can to prevent, and, where prevention fails, as
it may, to punish the delinquents. If no such anxiety existed,
if no steps were taken to prevent these incursions, then General
Dix would be warranted in trying to obtain justice by force; but
in that case we should not be long without war. Neither the
imperial nor the colonial governments are so neglectful of their
duties; neither desire war, but the contrary; and, in the very
nature of things, peace with England is obviously the interest
of the Washington government. While, therefore, we are
gratified, we are not surprised to find our anticipation of the
conduct of the President justified by the fact. Bat, in order
that peace may be maintained, Canada must do her duty, and we
have every reason to believe that she will.
[Page 80]
[From the
London Morning Star of January 5,
1865.]
Arrest of the captain of the Confederate cruiser Shenandoah by
the British government.
Captain P. S. Corbett, who commanded the confederate war cruiser
Shenandoah, when, under the name of the Sea King, she sailed
from the Thames in October last, was yesterday arrested in
Liverpool, under a warrant issued by Sir Thomas Henry, the Bow
street magistrate, upon the application of the government. The
warrant charges that Captain Corbett, being a British subject,
enlisted, or attempted to enlist, a man named Hartless, also a
British subject, in the service of a foreign state, contrary to
the provisions of the foreign enlistment act. The police have
been for some time on the look-out for Captain Corbett, and the
search has been somewhat difficult. Some days ago Inspector
Clark, of the metropolitan detective force, arrived in
Liverpool, where Captain Corbett was believed to be. Since then
he has been assisted in his search by Inspectors Carlile and
Cousens, of the Liverpool detective force. The capture resulted,
in the end, from the recognition of Mrs. Corbett, who was living
with her husband in close seclusion, but who had ventured into
the streets. Immediately upon his arrest, Captain Corbett was
conveyed to the detective office, and Inspector Clark
telegraphed to London that he should bring his prisoner up to
London by an evening train. It is understood that he will be
brought up for examination at Bow street this (Thurs day)
morning. The prosecution will be conducted by Mr. John
Greenwood, solicitor to the treasury, and Mr. Pollard,
barrister, is instructed by Mr. Greenwood; and Captain Corbett’s
solicitors are Messrs. Hull, Stone, and Fletcher, of Liverpool.
Captain Corbett is an experienced sailor, having been twenty-one
years at sea. He returned in the Calabar from Madeira, after
taking out the Shenandoah.
