From the reply of Mr. Archibald, a copy of which I have the honor to
enclose, I regret to say that the suppositions of the War Department in
this respect seem to have been but too well founded.
At the same time, in justification of Mr. Archibald, I am bound to say
that he seems to have done all that was right and proper on this
occasion. He seems throughout to have been in communication with General
Dix, to whom his suspicions were imparted; and had it not been for the
unworthy part played by Rainey in this transaction, and the false oaths
taken by the witnesses brought forward, I have no doubt that the truth
would have been arrived at. In all cases submitted, the affidavits are
forwarded as received, with the proviso that, should the statement be
found correct, or the circumstances of the case warrant the applicant’s
release, he may be liberated, and not on any other grounds.
It would be impossible for her Majesty’s consul thoroughly to sift all
the applications which are daily and hourly made at his office, more
particularly when men are found base enough to perjure themselves in the
shameless way in which these witnesses seem to have done. The machinery
at the command of the War Office enables them to do this much more
effectually, and I should be the first person to wish that a thorough
investigation should take place, in order to prevent the innocent and
guilty from being mixed up in one common doom. I
[Page 25]
regret quite as much as Mr. Archibald that these
men have regained their liberty under false pretences.
I have the honor to be, with the highest consideration, sir, your most
obedient, humble servant,
Hon. William H. Seward,
&c., &c., &c.
Mr. Archibald to Mr.
Burnley
British Consulate, New York,
December 17, 1864.
Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the
receipt of your despatch of the 15th instant, calling my serious
attention to an enclosed copy of a note addressed to you by the
Secretary of State of the United States, remarking on the
genuineness of the affidavits offered in support of the nationality
of the two Harrises, and instructing me to set on foot an inquiry,
with a view to ascertaining whether any imposition has been
practiced, and to report to you on the subject.
In reply, it is with extreme regret I have to report, that about a
week ago I first entertained suspicions, which have since been
confirmed, that an imposition had been practiced upon me in
reference to the affidavits forwarded to you in my despatch of the
31st of October. I communicated my suspicions to General Dix on the
following day, but it was unhappily then too iate to arrest the
party most guilty in the transaction, namely, William Rainey, late
purser of the Young Republic.
The circumstances of the case of the two Harrises, so far as they
came under my cognizance, are as follows: on my return from England,
these men together with Rainey were imprisoned at Fort Lafayette; I
was informed by the acting consul that they had all made affidavits
of their British nationality; but that further proof was required,
especially in regard to Frank M. Harris. I never saw either of the
Harrises until after their release from Fort Lafayette.
On the 6th October, William Rainey, the purser of the Young Republic,
was discharged. He reported himself at this office, and it was quite
manifest from his strong north-of-Ireland accent, and his
appearance, that he was a native-born British subject. He
subsequently called at this office several times, and spoke of the
hardship and injustice of detaining the two Harrises in prison,
always asserting that they were both undoubtedly British subjects,
and adding that they were suffering from ill health.
There was a frankness of manner about Rainey which led me to place
confidence in his statements. He told me he knew they could get out
by paying money, but he thought it an unjust thing that they should
have to pay for their liberty when they were legally entitled to it.
I inquired if they had net written for proof from England. He
replied, “Yes, they had; but that their letters had either
miscarried, or that some unaccountable delay had taken place; but he
said he knew there were people from the old country here who could
prove the nationality of both the Harrises, if he could but meet
with them.”
On the 31st October Rainey called upon me, accompanied by two
persons, well dressed and of respectable appearance, entire
strangers to me, and told me they were two Englishmen whom he had
fallen in with, and who both knew the Harrises, and could swear to
their nationality. I examined them on the subject. Both, I lament to
say and believe, were Englishmen. The one calling himself Cragg
undoubtedly was so. He was stout-built, respectably dressed, fully
sixty years of age, and with an unmistakable Yorkshire dialect. They
gave without hesitation their addressesthe one at Boston, the other
at Philadelphia. 1 was very busy that morning, and said I could not
further attend to the matter, but that if they could call on the
following morning I would take their affidavits on the subject. The
one calling himself Foster said he was obliged to return to
Philadelphia by the afternoon train; and Cragg said he was going
back to Boston on the next morning. I said, “Very well; if they
would call in the afternoon at three, or half past, I would attend
to the matter.” At the appointed time they returned with Rainey,
and, their statements being repeated and reduced to writing in the
form of affidavits, they respectively signed and swore to them
before me.
So far as regards the demeanor and appearance of the witnesses, who
were grave, intelligent, and respectful, I confess I had not the
least suspicion that a deception was being practiced upon me; but,
confiding in the veracity of their statements, I subsequently
pressed the case of the prisoners on your consideration.
On the first of December the two Harrises, accompanied by Rainey,
called at this office and reported that they had been discharged on
the 29th of November; that the marshal was satisfied there had been
a mistake of Frank M. Harris for some other person of the same name.
This was the first time I had ever seen either of them. They
remained but a few minutes. On Monday, the 5th instant, Frank M.
Harris again called, mentioning that he had been detained, by order
of General Dix, from sailing in the Corsica, and was at liberty on
his parole, with orders to attend at the general headquarters on the
following morning at 11 o’clock, and requested that I would send a
clerk at that hour to identify him as the Frank M. Harris who had
been liberated from Fort Lafayette. I told him that the marshal
could better do that;
[Page 26]
but,
as he repeated his request, I said I would comply with it. I then
had some conversation with him, and remarked, that had not his
nationality been so positively sworn to by himself and others, I
should certainly have taken him for an American. He persisted in
stating that he was an Englishman, and a native of Grimsby, in
Yorkshire. On my observing again that his manner and appearance were
quite American, he accounted for it by saying he had sailed out of
the States a good deal, and as a boy he had been in Charleston with
his father some ten years ago. His father, he said, was a native of
Liverpool, but that he himself really was a native of Grimsby, in
Yorkshire. He added that he had been mistaken for another person of
the same name, but that the marshal was now quite satisfied of the
mistake, and that a person who was said to be his father had
declared he knew nothing about him.
On the following day my clerk attended at General Dix’s headquarters;
but Harris, it appears, was not forthcoming. Even then my suspicions
of falsehood on the part of the witnesses were not aroused; but two
or three days afterwards, when I sent to the hotel where Rainey had
lodged to inquire of him respecting them, I found he had left New
York also. The information conveyed in Mr. Seward’s note that these
witnesses are not to be found at the addresses given by them,
leaves, I fear, no room to doubt that they have sworn falsely, and
under other names than their proper ones.
I shall not fail to use all practicable means to trace and discover
the parties who made these affidavits before me, and trust I may be
successful. I can only repeat the expression of my deep regret that
so gross a fraud has been practiced upon me. I lament it the more
since, although I have at all times endeavored to use proper
precautions in submitting for your consideration statements of facts
made by other parties, yet, through the confidence which has been
placed in the prudence as well as in the integrity of my proceedings
in this matter, this prisoner has regained his liberty, I fear, on
false pretensions.
I have, &c, &c,
J. Hume Burnley, Esq., &c., &c., &c.
