[71] *Ingersoll, district attorney, to Mr. Adams, Secretary of State.
Sir: I have the honor now to report to your Department a statement of the circumstances of the arrest and detention of several British officers in confinement at Philadelphia.
On the 27th of October, the Spanish consul brought to my office Mr. John Williams, a British subject, who, the same day, made affidavit before a magistrate that the brig Ellen, laden with a great quantity of ready-made clothing, together with arms, accouterments, appointments and equipments complete for one or more regiments of cavalry, for the revolutionary army in South America, had dropped down the river Delaware from the port of Philadelphia that day, for the purpose of sailing on the said warlike expedition; that Colonel Needham, Captain Perkins, Captain Farrier, Captain Holland, Surgeon Fry, Lieutenant George Stacey, Lieutenant Richard Stacey, Lieutenant Beaix, Lieutenant Webster, and Lieutenant Clarkes were, either on board of the Ellen or attached to her, about to depart on the said warlike expedition; that the said persons had, within the limits of the United States, been knowingly-concerned in the furnishing and fitting out the said brig Ellen, with intent to aid and co-operate in warlike measures, in the service of certain [Page 476] foreign states, colonies, and people, to wit, some *one or more of the revolted colonies of Mexico or South America, against the subjects of a state with whom the United States are at peace, to wit, Spain; and that the said persons then held commissions from some foreign government or persons, for the purpose of enabling them to wage war against Spain, and that the said persons had, within the territory and jurisdiction of the United States, been knowingly concerned in adding to the equipment, solely applicable to war, of the said brig Ellen. [72]
This affidavit, you will perceive, sir, implicated the accused in charge of having violated—
- 1.
- The third section of the act of Congress, dated the 5th of June, 1794, entitled “An act in addition to the act for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States.”
- 2.
- The fifth section of the same act of Congress.
- 3.
- The first section of the act of Congress, dated the 3d of March, 1817, entitled “An act more effectually to preserve the neutral relations of the United States.”
On this affidavit the magistrate issued his warrant in the afternoon of the 27th ultimo. All the accused were apprehended that evening, except Mr. Farrier, who escaped by flight from the pursuit of the marshal and his deputies, to *whom the service of the process was intrusted. Mr. Farrier was afterward taken, on the 29th of the month. The others enjoyed the legal opportunity of a full examination of Mr. Williams, and also another witness against them, Mr. Peter Hogan, another of their military comrades, then for the first time appearing, with both of whom the officers were confronted in the magistrate’s office during a thorough investigation of the causes of the proceeding. The result was his satisfaction in these causes, and their commitment to prison, as they declared their inability to give bail. [73]
On the morning of the 29th of October, having in the interim procured counsel, as I understood, through the agency of the British consul, they applied j by petition to the circuit court of the United States for this district, then in session, for a writ of habeas corpus, which was immediately awarded, and made returnable the same afternoon, that being the time fixed by the counsel of the applicants. At the time thus appointed the regular business of the court was suspended for two days, during which the causes of commitment were elaborately inquired into, a great many witnesses examined on both sides, and the case deliberately discussed and considered.
[74] *It appeared in evidence that the accused had openly embodied themselves, together with Messrs. Williams and Hogan, in the course of the last summer, at Brussels, as officers of a cavalry regiment to be employed in the service of the revolutionists of South America; that, not finding a direct conveyance from Antwerp, where they embarked, to any place in the neighborhood of the headquarters of General Bolivar, they sailed on board an American vessel for the United States, in order to proceed from here to the scene of warlike action; that they brought with them, each man, a complete cavalry equipment; that they continued, in the original organization of their expedition, united in a military band in this country, and this city, where they were drilled every day, at the colonel’s quarters, in military discipline; that Colonel Needham had re-enlisted Mr. Hogan in this country to serve in his regiment in South America; and that their passages were all taken and paid for, or engaged to be paid for, on board of the brig-Ellen, whose owners contracted to supply them with stores, and had constructed temporary berths for their accommodation during the voyage; [Page 477] that the brig Ellen was clandestinely loaded with large quantities of gunpowder, muskets, pistols, *cannon-balls and shot, military clothing, drums and trumpets, and with a disguised manifest cleared out, ostensibly for Surinam, but really for La Guayra, should it be found in the possession of the revolutionists. [75]
It further appeared in evidence that, while on board of the American vessel in which the accused came from Antwerp to New London, several of them, if not all, had been guilty of what our law denominates revolt on the high seas and confinement of the master of the vessel in which they were passengers.
Thus, besides the three specific charges disclosed by the affidavit on which their commitment was founded, it appeared that they were liable to indictment for—
- 1.
- A violation of the second section of the act of Congress before mentioned, dated the 5th of June, 1794.
- 2.
- A violation of the eighth section of the act of Congress dated the 30th of April, 1790, entitled an “Act for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States.”
- 3.
- A violation of the twelfth section of the last-mentioned act of Congress.
After hearing all that could be said by eminent counsel in their behalf, the court *pronounced its opinion that there was cause for the commitment, and ordered the petitioners to be remanded to prison unless they gave bail, each one in the sum of $3,000, for appearance at the time of trial. [76]
Not having been able to afford this bail, as I suppose, they have since remained in confinement. Their treatment in custody and at all times and in all things since their arrest, I have reason to believe has been marked by the liberality and indulgences which characterize the institutions and officers of this country to men in such situations, and, adverting to the severe pecuniary penalties in addition to the personal punishments with which the different sections of the violated laws are armed against the misdemeanors in question, you will not fail to observe that the bail was fixed by the court at the most moderate amount.
The President may rest assured, sir, that nothing has been or will be omitted to alleviate their predicament. Their custody is as liberal as is compatible with their detention for trial.
It happened quite unfortunately for them, as respects the period of their imprisonment, *that the grand jury was discharged a day or two before the arrest of these persons, who would, otherwise, have been put on their trial immediately. But a special court tor that particular purpose has been ordered for the 15th of December, instead of the 11th of April, when the stated session will be held; and I am informed that this unusual act of accommodation to prisoners has not been found consistent with the multifarious business of the court for the last fifteen years, nor can it now be granted without both public and private inconvenience. [77]
There are considerations of the gravest character connected with the proposed special session which may, perhaps, prevent its taking place. The circuit judge cannot attend it by reason of his indispensable engagements elsewhere as a member of the supreme court, and it is questionable whether the district judge has authority to hold a circuit court alone. It would not be proper hastily to expose the jurisdiction of this important court to such a disparagement, if it is really to be apprehended. It would answer the ends of the prisoners as little as it would those of the general administration of justice, thus to draw its permanent usefulness [Page 478] into question and controversy, *for the sake of indulging prisoners, whose case is not harder than that of most others, (particularly the needy and unprotected,) with an extraordinary trial. But the judge whose respect for his station and his duty suggests to him these anticipations, as animated on this as on all occasions, with the best disposition to administer justice with the mercy of promptitude; and he will, no doubt, undertake alone the laborious and responsible functions of the special session, unless, in his deliberate judgment, there should be satisfactory reasons for referring this case, like all others that have been tried in this district for the last fifteen years, to the regular and stated session of the court, constituted as heretofore. [78]
I have the honor to remain, sir, with great consideration, your obedient servant,
Hon. John Quincy Adams,
Secretary of the Department of State.