Mr. Seward to Mr. Burnley
Sir: I have the honor now to reply to the note which you addressed to me on the 10th of January last concerning the case of the late James Hardcastle.
My communication of the 5th of November last was intended to he understood as expressing a final conviction of this government, that it could not justly be called upon to offer remuneration for the homicide of which her Majesty’s government complained. Nevertheless, I have no disposition to regard with impatience the renewal of a question of so interesting a character by her Majesty’s government. Earl Russell has so far concurred with this government in the matter as to conclude that no advantage would result from recapitulating the former argument, to which my last communication was intended to be a full reply. Nevertheless, Earl Russell adheres to his first positions, and instructs you to support them by new arguments foreign from the record.
Those arguments are drawn from a late publication of the United States Sanitary Commission in regard to rebel treatment of United States prisoners of war [Page 84] Upon statements made in that publication her Majesty’s government reason that, in this matter of Hardcastle, the government of the United States justifies the shooting of prisoners by its authorities in a case identical with one in which they condemn the like practice on the part of the rebels.
I have to remark upon that point that the pamphlet of the United States Sanitary Commission, although I acknowledge it is a very important and useful publication, is, nevertheless, one which was made, not by this government, or by its authority or sanction, but by enlightened and patriotic citizens, acting privately and independently of executive authority.
Her Majesty’s government find in that paper a statement made by Major General Meigs, the Quartermaster General of the United States, to the effect that he has never heard, and does not believe, that orders exist in our service for shooting prisoners who appear at the windows of the prisons, and a further statement that such a regulation does not exist at Fort Delaware.
Major General Meigs is admitted to be very high authority in the United States. But he has no charge of the discipline of prisoners in the army, and very good reason can be seen why a less rigorous discipline might be adopted in the prison of Fort Delaware, far removed from the theatre of war and politics, than was actually found necessary in the Old Capitol prison, which is located at the seat of government, infested with spies and continually menaced by insurgent armies.
Her Majesty’s government persist in regarding the offence of James Hardcastle against the discipline of the prison as having been one of inadvertence and unconsciousness. This government, on the contrary, is of the opinion that the offence was contumacious.
Her Majesty’s government regard Hardcastle as a peaceful, innocent stranger. On the contrary, the settled conviction of this government is that he was an enemy of the United States. These remarks seem sufficient to show that the United States are justified in adhering to the views concerning the case of James Hardcastle which they have heretofore expressed.
I have the honor to be, with the highest consideration, sir, your obedient servant,
J. Hume Burnley, Esq., &c., &c., &c.