Affidavit of S. P. Lord.
I, Samuel Perkins Lord, of Collins Street west, in the city of Melbourne, in the colony of Victoria, merchant, make oath and say as follows, that is to say:
- 1.
- In compliance with a request from Mr. William Blanchard, then
consul in the said colony for the United States of America, made
to me by him on the twentieth day of February, one thousand
eight hundred and sixty-five, that I would give him in writing
an account of my interview held in Mr. Blanchard’s presence with
Mr. Gurner, who then, as now, occupied the position of Crown
solicitor in the said colony, I wrote and sent to Mr. Blanchard,
on the said twentieth day of February, one thousand eight
hundred and sixty-five, a letter of which the following is a
copy:
Melbourne, February 20, 1865.
[711]
[712]
[713]
[714] Dear Sir: Yours of this date is received requesting me to give you an account of an interview held in my presence between you and Mr. Gurner, Crown solicitor on Friday last. In reply, you must *allow me to state the whole occurrences of the afternoon in connection with the affair of shipping men for the Shenandoah, which were simply these: While in your office about 5 o’clock p.m., a man came in out of breath, asking to see the United States consul, saying he had run most of the way from Sandridge, to report to you that there were a large number of men of his acquaintances that were about going on board the bark Maria Ross, (then lying in the bay ready to sail,) with the intention of shipping on board the Shenandoah, which vessel also was about leaving port. You stated that as the information was important and urgent, you would at once take the man to the Crown solicitor’s office, where you had previously been directed by the attorney-general to take similar information [Page 184] You at once took a conveyance, and drove to the Crown law offices. As we stopped at the gate we saw Mr. Garner, with one of the employés of the office, coming down the yard from the door. He, on seeing us, turned partly around, and gave in an undertone some directions to this employé, which I did not hear; on our entering the gate, Mr. Gurner and his employ stopped half way down the yard, and on our attempting to pass them to go into the building were accosted by the clerk, who said there was no one in, or some*thing to that effect. When I said we should then have to trouble Mr. Gurner, as the business was urgent, and introduced you as the United States consul to Mr. Gurner, the Crown solicitor, he, without noticing or acknowledging you, said very tartly that he was going to his dinner and could not be detained, when you replied, “I come as the representative of the United States, with evidence to lay before you, the Crown solicitor, of a large number of men about violating the neutrality laws of the country;” at which he replied, in a sneering and most insulting manner, “I don’t care; I want my dinner, and I am going to have it; there are plenty of magistrates round town; go to them.” When I, seeing that you felt bitterly the insulting manner of Mr. Gurner and wishing to spare you a continuation of it, said, “Let us then go and see the attorney-general.” Mr. Gurner turned his back on us and walked off. When outside the gate and about a dozen paces down Collins street, he turned and hallooed out. “My dinner, my dinner, Lord, that is what I want.” We left, and went first to the office of chief commissioner of police, and not finding either him or Mr. Lytleton in, we drove to the house of parliament, and on sending your name to the attorney-general, he at once came out and asked us into the side room. He patiently listened to all you had to say, *and then suggested that if you would place the matter in the shape of an affidavit he would lay it before his colleagues; that a verbal statement was not sufficient for the government to proceed upon. We then left, and drove to the office of the detective police and saw Mr. Nicholson, the chief, who heard the man’s statement in full, but, as he could not act without a warrant, advised us to: go to the police and magistrate, Mr. Sturt, and get a warrant, then he would at once act upon it. Leaving there we went to the residence of Mr. Sturt in Spencer street, who received you very politely, listened to what you had to say, examined the man, but stated that he could not take the responsibility of granting a warrant on the evidence of this man alone, and advised your going to Williamstown to McCall, who would perhaps be in possession of corroborative testimony through the water police. We then left, and it being about half past seven, and you finding such a disinclination in any one to act in the matter, decided to take the deposition yourself and send it to the attorney-general, leaving it to the government to take such action on it as it might deem proper. Going to your consulate the deposition was taken, and a copy inclosed to the attorney-general with a request for me to deliver it. I took it to the house of parliament, which I found closed, and it being *then late, about nine, I decided it was too late to stop the shipment of the men, as we understood the vessel was to leave at five, and I went home and returned you the letter to you on Saturday morning. Previous to going home, however, I again went to the detective office, saw Mr. Nicholson, and told him how you had been prevented from getting the evidence before the government in the shape they required it. He expressed his regret, but could not act in so important a matter without a warrant. I have thus given you, as near as I can recollect, the occurrences as they took place at the time you mention, and, as I believe, nearly word for word as they were uttered.I remain, dear sir, yours, respectfully,
SAMUEL P. LORD.
William Blanchard, Esq.,
United States Consul, Melbourne. - 2.
- [715] The whole of the facts narrated or referred to in my said letter to Mr. Blanchard as having taken place, did actually take place in my own presence, and in the order and manner and at the times there detailed, and the person or functionaries there named respectively then held the offices in my said letter mentioned as having been held by them, and the whole of the statements contained in my said letter are true in every particular.
- 3.
- The exhibit or volume now produced to me and marked A, and which purports to be the “The Victorian Hansard, containing the debates and proceedings of the legislative council and assembly of the colony of Victoria, Friday, December 23, 1864, to Thursday, March 2, 1865,” and to have been published at Melbourne aforesaid by “Wilson and Mackinnon,” was so published by Wilson and Mackinnon under the direction of the government of the said colony of Victoria, and was [Page 185] the only publication of the debates and proceedings of the said legislative council and assembly authorized by the said government.
SAMUEL P. LORD.
Sworn at Melbourne, in the colony of Victoria, this twenty-fifth day of September, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and seventy-one, before me.
W. ATTENBOROUGH,
A Commissioner of the
Supreme Court of the Colony of Victoria for taking
Affidavits.
[716] To all to whom these presents shall come: I, Henry Penketh Fergie, notary public by royal authority, duly authorized, admitted, and sworn, residing and practicing in the city of Melbourne, in the colony of Victoria, do hereby certify that Winfield Attenborough, before whom the affidavit on the *other side written purports to have been sworn, is a commissioner of the supreme court of the said colony of Victoria for taking affidavits, duly appointed in that behalf, and that the name W. Attenborough thereto subscribed, and to the exhibit thereto annexed, is of the proper handwriting of the said Winfield Attenborough, and that to all acts by him, the said Winfield Attenborough, done in his said capacity or office, full faith and credit are due in judicature and thereout.
[seal.]
Notary Public, Melbourne.