No. 113.
Mr. Lowell
to Mr. Frelinghuysen.
[Extract.]
Legation of
the United States,
London, March 14, 1882.
(Received March 27.)
No. 331.]Sir: Referring to Mr. Davis’ Nos. 316 and 317 of
the 10th of February last, and my No. 322 of the 24th of that month, I have
the honor to acquaint you that as I stated in that dispatch the information
required by the resolution of the House of Representatives is so
comprehensive
[Page 202]
that it will be
impossible to furnish it with any degree of completeness until after
considerable delay.
* * * * * * *
I presume, however, that what is chiefly desired by the House is information
as to the arrest and imprisonment of American citizens in Ireland under what
is commonly called the “coercion act.” And I propose in this dispatch to
transmit so much of this information as has come to my knowledge with a copy
of the correspondence on the subject.
The act entitled “An act for the better protection of person and property in
Ireland,” became a law on the 2d day of March 1881. Its most important
provision is contained in the first paragraph of the first section, which
enacts that:
Any person who is declared by warrant of the lord lieutenant to be
reasonably suspected of having at any time since the 30th day of
September, 1880, been guilty, as principal or accessory, of high
treason, treason-felony, or treasonable practices wherever
committed, or of any crime punishable by law committed at any time
since the 30th day of September, 1880, in a prescribed district,
being an act of violence or intimidation, or the inciting to an act
of violence or intimidation, and tending to interfere with or
disturb the maintenance of law and order, may be arrested in any
part of Ireland and legally detained during the continuance of this
act in such prison in Ireland as may, from time to time, be directed
by the lord lieutenant, without bail or main-prize; and shall not be
discharged or tried by any court without the direction of the lord
lieutenant, and every such warrant shall, for the purposes of this
act, be conclusive evidence of all matters therein contained, and of
the jurisdiction to issue and execute such warrant, and of the
legality of the arrest and detention of the person mentioned in such
warrant.
The remaining paragraphs and sections relate to the form of the warrant, the
treatment of arrested persons, and other particulars for carrying out the
provisions of the act and limiting its operation to the 30th day of
September, 1882.
It is unnecessary to show that this law is arbitrary and severe and contrary
to the spirit and fundamental principles of the British constitution. This
is admitted by all, and by none more readily than by the government which
framed it and the large majority in Parliament which enacted it. But they
assert that the condition of Ireland was such that nothing short of an
extreme measure like this could meet the difficulty.
* * * * * * *
I proceed now to give an account of all the cases of arrests in Ireland, in
respect to which my intervention has been requested.
As early as the 12th of February, 1881, before the “coercion act” became a
law, Mr. M. B. Fogarty, of Knockelly, addressed to me a letter stating he
had been imprisoned for two months and fined because, as he averred, he
chanced to be in the house of his cousin the previous May, when the sheriff
came to evict her. He had then been released. I wrote him on the 15th of
February, 1881, requesting him to send me his naturalization papers and the
report of his trial. On the 22d he sent me his naturalization papers and
certain extracts from newspapers, but no report of his trial at the
assizes.
It appeared from the magisterial investigation that Fogarty with others was
in the house “at Kilburry, resisting the retaking of possession by the
sheriff.”
I wrote him on the 24th that his being an American citizen did not protect
him from the consequences of breaking the laws of the country in which he
was residing and that the right to a “mixed jury” which he had suggested, if
any such institution existed in Ireland, did not apply to his case. I stated
also I should not intervene except under
[Page 203]
the directions of the Department of State. I inclose a
copy of this letter.
On the 6th of March, 1881, I received a further letter from Mr. Fogarty
inquiring what would be my action in case of his arrest under the “coercion
act.” I replied to him on the 8th of March that whenever this contingency
should arise I should give the matter my best attention, but that it would
be impossible for me to state my opinion upon a hypothetical case. I also
forward a copy of this letter. This is the last communication I have had
from this gentleman.
The next case was that of Mr. Michael Boyton, about which I have given full
information to the Department of State in my Nos. 140, of the 12th of March;
144, of the 21st of March; 147, of the 25th of March; and 154, of the 7th of
April, 1881, forwarding a copy of all the correspondence.
My action in this case was fully approved by the Department in its Nos. 138,
of the 31st of March, and 166, of the 26th of May, 1881.
The case that followed was that of Mr. Joseph B. Walsh, which was first
presented to me by Mr. Barrows, the consul at Dublin, on the 21st of April,
1881, and afterwards by the Department of State. My proceedings and
correspondence in this matter were fully reported in my dispatches Nos. 193,
of the 4th of June; 205, of 18th of June, and 218, of 15th of July,
1881.
Mr. Hoppin’s dispatch, No. 220, of the 14th November, 1881, announced the
release of Mr. Walsh, and forwarded a copy of his discharge.
On the 26th of May, 1881, the Department of State, by a telegram, called my
attention to the case of Joseph D’Alton, or Dalton, and afterwards by Mr.
Blaine’s dispatch, No. 168, of the 27th of May, 1881. I communicated my
action in this matter in my dispatches Nos. 193, of the 4th of June; 205, of
the 18th of June, and 218, of the 15th of July, 1881.
On the 8th of June, 1881, Mr. William Simms, the vice-consul at Belfast,
wrote to me in relation to Daniel McSweeney, or Sweeney, who was confined in
Dundalk prison, inclosing a letter from Mr. John Cormick, another from
McSweeney, and the latter’s naturalization certificate. I received these
documents on the 10th of June, and on the same day I wrote to Mr. Sims,
requesting him to “examine closely into the grounds” of Sweeney’s arrest,
and if it should appear to him that he was innocent of the charge, to make a
representation to the authorities and request his release or immediate
trial. On the same day I wrote to Lord Granville, requesting to be informed
of the particulars of the charge against McSweeney, and stating the latter’s
assertion of his entire innocence.
On the 17th of June Lord Granville informed me that this case had been
referred to the proper department of Her Majesty’s Government. On the 21st
of June Mr. Sims sent to me a letter from Mr. Burke, the under-secretary at
Dublin castle, stating the grounds of McSweeney’s arrest. I acknowledged the
receipt of this on the 24th of June.
On the 28th of June Lord Granville informed me that Her Majesty’s Government,
in McSweeney’s case as well as in that of Mr. Walsh, above mentioned, could
not recognize any distinction between the liability of foreign citizens and
British subjects in respect of unlawful acts committed within the limits of
British jurisdiction. I sent a copy of this letter in my dispatch No. 218 of
the 15th of July, with the correspondence relating to Walsh’s case.
On the 14th of July McSweeney wrote me a further communication
[Page 204]
from Dundalk jail, which Mr. Simms
forwarded to me in his letter of the 16th, and which I received on the 18th
of that month. Immediately upon the reception of this I addressed a private
and unofficial communication to a gentleman connected with Her Majesty’s
Government, upon whose intelligence and sense of justice I could entirely
rely, repeating McSweeney’s assertion, that so far from using language
inciting to riot, he had always advised the people whom he addressed to keep
within the limits of the law, and I inquired whether if this were true it
would not be possible to give a favorable consideration to his case. In
answer to this I was confidentially advised that McSweeney’s conduct had
clearly brought him within the provisions of the “coercion act,” and that it
was not in the power of Her Majesty’s Government to grant his release.
On the 17th of September, McSweeney wrote me again, demanding my intervention
in his behalf. As I had received no information from the vice-consul, whom I
had desired to examine closely into the grounds of his arrest, confirming
his own statements of his innocence, and as it seemed to me clear, from the
best examination I had been able to give to the matter, and even from his
own admissions, that his case was not an exceptional one, but that it
resembled, in its essential particulars, that of the majority of British
subjects arrested under the act, I wrote him on the 22d of September,
declining to interfere further in his favor. He wrote me another letter on
the 27th of September, to which I replied, and another on the 13th of
October last, to which I did not think proper to make any answer. I herewith
inclose a copy of this correspondence.
On the 17th day of June, 1881, Consul-General Badeau sent me a communication
from Mr. E. P. Brooks, the consul at Cork, dated on the 15th of that month,
covering a letter from Mr. Henry O’Mahoney, of Bally-dehob, in the county of
Cork, of the 12th of June, stating his imprisonment at Limerick jail, under
the “coercion act,” and requesting intervention to procure his release as a
naturalized citizen of the United States, a certificate of such
naturalization being forwarded with the papers.
On the 22d of June, Mr. Brooks wrote to the consul-general additional facts
in relation to this case; and on the 15th of July, Mr. O’Mahoney addressed
me directly, asking my intervention in his favor. On the 19th of July, the
day of the receipt of this letter, I sent my answer, stating my views,
generally, in respect to the rights of American citizens arrested under the
“coercion act.”
On the 21st of July, Mr. Brooks and Mr. O’Mahoney both wrote again, repeating
the latter’s request for my intervention.
On the 3d of August, I wrote to Mr. Brooks, the consul at Cork, referring in
particular to the case of Mr. McEnery, to be afterwards mentioned, but by
implication to this request of Mr. O’Mahoney, and stating my inability to
grant the desired favor.
A copy of this letter was sent to the Department of State with my dispatch
No. 235, of the 11th of August, 1881. I inclose herewith a copy of the other
letters relating to this case of Mr. O’Mahoney.
In the matter of Mr. McEnery, above alluded to, Mr. Brooks, the consul at
Cork, wrote to me on the 30th of July, as to the imprisonment of that
gentleman in Limerick jail, inclosing his naturalization papers, and
requesting my intervention. On the 3d of August, the day this letter was
received, I sent the reply which I have hereinabove mentioned, declining to
make any application on Mr. McEnery’s behalf. I communicated this
correspondence to the Department in my No. 235 of
[Page 205]
the 11th of August last, in which I expressed the hope
that my action in this case would meet with the approbation of the
Department. I beg to say that I have not received any intimation that it was
not so approved.
On the 29th of October last Mr. J. R. Tinsley, the United States consular
agent at Limerick, addressed a letter to Mr. Barrows, the consul at Dublin,
inclosing a communication for Mr. James F. Daly, who was imprisoned in
Limerick jail under the “coercion act,” and also his certificate of
naturalization, and requesting that the minister should demand for him a
trial or speedy release. Mr. Barrows asked for instructions in this matter.
Mr. Hoppin, who was at the time in charge of the legation, wrote Mr.
Barrows, on the 2d of November last, that if Mr. Daly could show that the
acts for which he had been imprisoned were of less gravity and importance
than those for which any British subjects had been arrested, and if his
incarceration had been due to mistake or misapprehension, Mr. Hoppin would
take pleasure in bringing his case to the attention of Her Majesty’s
Government, and asking for his speedy release.
No further communication in relation to this arrest has been received at this
legation. I inclose a copy of the material part of this correspondence.
On the 9th of December last Mr. Blaine, by his dispatch No. 285, instructed
me to bring the subject of the arrest of Mr. Dennis H. O’Connor to the
attention of the foreign office, and, upon being informed as to the facts of
the case, to take such action, in my discretion, as might seem to be called
for by the circumstances.
I received this dispatch on the 23d of December, and on the same day I
addressed a note to Lord Granville, to which his lordship replied on the
30th, stating that the matter had been referred to the proper department of
the government.
On the 26th of January last Lord Granville wrote to me that the government
would consider whether O’Connor could be discharged. A copy of these notes
of the 23d of December and 26th of January was sent on the 30th of January,
1882, with my dispatch No. 300 of that date.
On the 2d of February last I received a further note from Lord Granville,
acquainting me that Mr. O’Connor could not safely be released at present. I
forwarded a copy of this communication with my No. 305 of the 4th of
February.
On the 30th of January, 1882, Mr. Barrows, the consul at Dublin, addressed me
in relation to the case of Mr. James White, and on the 31st in relation to
that of Mr. Philip O’Sullivan. I answered these letters on the 2d of
February last, and herewith forward a copy of the correspondence.
The last of these cases which have been brought to my attention was that of
Mr. Michael Hart, which was communicated to me by Mr. George B. Dawson, the
vice-consul at Queenstown, through the consul-general at London. Mr. Hart
did not at that time ask my intervention, but simply desired that the fact
of his arrest should be noted. I replied to Mr. Dawson’s letter on the 3d
day of February. On the 7th of that month Mr. Merrett transmitted to me a
formal application from Mr. Hart for my interference on his behalf. I
replied to this letter on the 10th of February.
On the 13th of February last I received your instruction, No. 313, of the 3d
of January, in relation to this arrest, and on the 14th of February I
requested Mr. Dawson, the vice-consul at Queenstown, to make particular
[Page 206]
inquiries in regard to this
matter; and on the 23d of February I received two letters from that
gentleman, dated on the 17th and 18th, accompanied by communications from
Mr. Hart himself. Mr. Dawson wrote me again on the 23d, covering a letter of
the 22d of February from Mr. Hart. I forward a copy of this
correspondence.
On the 7th of February Mr. Consul Barrows wrote to me from Dublin inquiring
as to his future action in similar cases, and asking my instructions. I
herewith transmit a copy of my reply.
On the 23d of February I received Mr. Davis’s instructions, Nos. 316 and 317,
of the 10th of that month, the first directing me to inquire into the
circumstances of Mr. McSweeney’s arrest, and the second inclosing a copy of
a resolution of the House of Representatives on the general subject.
I have already referred to these instructions, and to my action under the
same, in the beginning of the present communication, and in my dispatch No.
322.
On the 3d of the present month I received your telegram, instructing me to
report immediately in relation to the cases of Messrs. McSweeney and Hart;
and on the 4th instant I cabled my reply, stating the action I had already
taken in regard to these gentlemen.
On the 5th instant I received a further telegram from you, directing me to
say to Lord Granville that, without discussing whether the provisions of the
force act can be applied to American citizens, the President hopes the
lord-lieutenant of Ireland will be instructed to exercise the powers
intrusted to him by the first section to order early trials in the cases of
O’Connor, Hart, McSweeney, Walsh, McEnery, and Dalton, and all other cases
in which Americans may be arrested.
I immediately communicated this instruction to Lord Granville, and on the 7th
instant I received his reply, dated on the 6th, stating that the subject
should receive the immediate attention of Her Majesty’s Government. I
herewith inclose a copy of this correspondence. I have up to this date had
ho further communication from Lord Granville in relation to this matter.
* * * * * * *
In concluding this dispatch I may be permitted to add that I have had
repeated assurances from the highest authority that there would be great
reluctance in arresting a naturalized citizen of the United States were he
known to be such. But it is seldom known, and those already arrested have
acted in all respects as if they were Irishmen, sometimes engaged in trade,
sometimes in farming, and sometimes filling positions in the local
government. This, I think, is illustrated by a phrase in one of Mr. Hart’s
letters, to the effect that he never called himself an American. He
endeavors, it is true, in a subsequent letter, to explain this away as
meaning American born; but it is obviously absurd
that a man living in his native village should need to make any such
explanation. Naturalized Irishmen seem entirely to misconceive the process
through which they have passed in assuming American citizenship, looking
upon themselves as Irishmen who have acquired a right to American
protection, rather than as Americans who have renounced a claim to Irish
nationality.
Their view of the case is indicated in a question I made in a former
dispatch, No 132, of the 26th of February, 1881, from a published letter of
Mr. C. S. Parnell, in which he speaks of “the American people” and “the
Irish nation in America.”
I have, &c.,
[Page 207]
[Inclosure 1 in No. 331.]
Mr. Lowell to Lord
Granville.
Legation of the United States,
London, February 24,
1882.
My Lord: I have the honor to acquaint you that
the Acting Secretary of State has transmitted to me a resolution of the
House of Representatives, a copy of which I inclose herewith, by which
the President is requested to furnish the information therein specified
concerning the arrest and imprisonment of American citizens by the
British Government.
The Acting Secretary desires me to submit to him a full and accurate
report on the subject with as little delay as practicable.
As there are many such cases of arrest and imprisonment, of which I
cannot conveniently obtain the particulars, excepting through the kind
offices of your lordship, I respectfully ask that you will cause me to
be furnished with the information requested by the resolution so far as
the same may be properly afforded by Her Majesty’s Government.
I have, &c.,
[Inclosure 2 in No. 331.]
Lord Granville to
Mr. Lowell.
Foreign
Office, March 7,
1882.
Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the
receipt of your letter of the 24th ultimo, forwarding a copy of a
resolution of the United States House of Representatives, calling for
information concerning the arrest and imprisonment of American citizens
by the British Government.
In reply I beg leave to acquaint you that this matter has been referred
to the proper department of Her Majesty’s Government.
I have, &c.,
[Inclosure 3 in No. 331.]
Mr. Lowell to Mr.
Fogarty.
Legation of the United States,
February 24, 1881.
Sir: I have received your letter of the 22d
instant, with the certificate of naturalization, and the extracts from
the newspapers, all of which I reinclose herewith.
You do not send me any report of your trial at the assizes, but it
appears from the “magisterial investigation” that you were with others
in the house in Killbury “resisting the retaking of possession by the
subsheriff.”
The fact that you are an American citizen does not protect you from the
consequences of breaking the laws of this country, and the right to a
“mixed jury,” if any such institution still exists in Ireland, does not
apply in your case.
This is not an occasion, in my opinion, in which I can properly
intervene, excepting under instructions from the Department of
State.
I am, &c.,
[Inclosure 4 in No. 331.]
Mr. Lowell to Mr.
Fogarty.
Legation of the United States,
March 8, 1881.
Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the
receipt of your letter of the 6th of March, inquiring what my course
would be in case you should be arrested under the coercion act; I have
to say in reply that whenever such a contingency should arise, and I
should be consulted on the subject, I would give to it my best
consideration, and do whatever my duty might require. It would be
manifestly improper for me to express any opinion upon a hypothetical
case.
I am,
[Page 208]
[Inclosure 5 in No. 331.]
Mr. Simms to Mr.
Lowell.
United
States Consulate,
Belfast,
Ireland, June 8,
1881.
Sir: I have the honor to inclose you papers in
the case of one Daniel McSweeney, a citizen of the United States, who
has been arrested, and is now in prison at Dundalk, in the county of
Louth, Ireland, on a warrant issued by the lord lieutenant of Ireland,
charging the said Mr. McSweeney with inciting persons to unlawfully
assemble and to eommit riot and assault. I also inclose letter of Mr.
John Cormick, Dundalk. I would thank you to advise me at once in the
matter. In reply to Mr. Cormick’s letter, I merely stated that the whole
case had been referred to you.
I am, sir, your obedient servant,
WILLIAMS SIMMS,
Vice
Consul.
[Inclosure 6 in No. 331.]
Mr. McSweeney to
Mr. Lowell.
Dundalk
Jail, June 7,
1881.
Sir: I am an American citizen, having resided
twenty-five years in the United States, twenty of which I spent in San
Francisco, Cal. During that time I never was either charged, accused, or
even suspected of any crime, nor in fact never was accused of any crime
in my life, until on the 2d of the present month my house was surrounded
by an armed force and I was forcibly dragged from the bosom of my family
and lodged in jail.
The charge against me now is, inciting persons to unlawfully assemble and
commit riot and assault. Now, there was no unlawful assembly, no riot or
assault committed in the district from which I was arrested, neither was
there any incitement to commit such. The government kindly furnished me
with a short-hand reporter who carefully took down every word I said in
the English or Irish language, and I challenge him, or the government,
or all the landlords in Ireland, to prove that I uttered one word which
could by any possibility be construed to mean incitement to crime. On
the contrary, from every platform I advised the people to commit no
crime, to violate no law, but to carefully work within the lines of the
constitution.
Now, sir, I want a fair trial; if I am innocent, I want, as an American,
to be released; I want to know if my naturalization papers are worth
preserving; whether, when an American leaves home his mouth must be
sealed, though slavery in its worst form should exist in every country
through which he may travel.
Yours, respectfully,
[Inclosure 7 in No. 331.]
Mr. Connick to
consul at Belfast.
Quay
Street, Dundalk, June 7,
1881.
Hon. Sir: I respectfully beg leave to inclose
you the naturalization certificate of Mr. Daniel Sweeney, a citizen of
the United States, who is now lying under arrest in Dundalk jail. I also
beg to hand you his own statement, and a copy of the warrant under which
he has been arrested. He has asked me to send his papers to be forwarded
to your minister, London, in order to have his case brought to a speedy
issue, as it’s a hard matter that a respectable man should be dragged
away from his family by an armed force upon mere suspicion. He now asks
from your government that protection which every
citizen of your glorious republic is entitled to,
and only requires that if any specific charge can be brought against him
that he will be brought to trial at once and tried as an American
citizen, by a jury of half his own countrymen as well as an English
jury.
Trusting that the country for whom our sons have fought and bled in the
hour of danger won’t abandon their adopted children, and will show by
the steps they take that no government will be allowed to violate the
liberty of an American subject against whom no crime can be proved,
I have the honor to be, yours, most respectfully,
[Page 209]
[Inclosure 8 in No. 331.]
Mr. Lowell to Mr.
Simms.
Legation of the United States,
London, June 10,
1881.
Sir: I have to acknowledge the reception of
your note of the 8th instant informing me of the arrest of Mr. Daniel
McSweeney, inclosing papers in relation to his case, and asking that I
should advise you as to your proper action in the matter.
There seems to be no doubt that Mr. McSweeney is an American citizen.
Your duty will therefore be to examine closely into the grounds of his
arrest, and should it appear to you that he is innocent of the charge
which has been made against him, to represent this to the authorities
and request his discharge or immediate trial. You will, of course, do
this in respectful terms, and without any suggestion of threats. You
will please keep me informed as to your action.
I have to-day written to Lord Granville asking to be informed as to the
particulars of the charge against Mr. McSweeney. Will you please inform
Mr. McSweeney of the above facts?
I am, sir, &c.,
[Inclosure 9 in No. 331.]
Mr. Lowell to Lord
Granville.
Legation of the United States,
London, June 10,
1881.
My Lord: I have to-day received a letter from
Mr. Williams Simms, the vice-consul of the United States at Belfast,
informing me of the arrest of Mr. Daniel Sweeney, or McSweeney, an
American citizen, and inclosing papers in the case. The papers include a
copy of the warrant of arrest, a letter from Mr. Sweeney to myself, and
his certificate of citizenship. It appears that he was arrested on the
2d instant and lodged in Dundalk jail. In his letter to me Mr. Sweeney
denies that he has ever said anything which could be construed into an
incitement to riot, and asserts that, on the contrary, he has advised
against the commission of crime and violation of law. I should be glad
to be informed of the particulars of the charge against Mr. Sweeney.
I may repeat what I said in my note of the 8th instant, with regard to
the case of Mr. Walsh, that my government, though anxious not to ignore
the just claim of American citizens to protection, has no desire to
embarrass the action of a friendly government in dealing with a
difficult and delicate domestic question.
I have, &c.,
[Inclosure 10 in No. 331.]
Lord Granville to
Mr. Lowell.
Foreign
Office, June 17,
1881.
Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the
receipt of your letter of the 10th instant, requesting to be furnished
with the particulars of the charge against Daniel Sweeney or McSweeney,
who is stated to be an United States citizen, and who was arrested under
the act for the better protection of person and property in Ireland of
March 2, 1881, on the 2d instant, and lodged in Dundalk jail.
In reply, I beg leave to acquaint you that I have referred your
application to the proper department of Her Majesty’s Government.
I have, &c.,
[Inclosure 11 in No. 331.]
Mr. Simms to Mr.
Lowell.
United
States Consulate,
Belfast, June 21,
1881.
Sir: On receipt of your letter of the 10th
instant in reply to mine asking instructions in the case of Daniel
Sweeney, I wrote to Dublin requesting that the grounds
[Page 210]
for Mr. Sweeney’s arrest might he
furnished me, and to-day am in receipt of a letter from Mr. J. W. Burke,
a copy of which I inclose, which simply states that there were
reasonable grounds for suspecting Mr. Sweeney of inciting people to
unlawfully assemble together, and to commit riot and assault. I have no
means of ascertaining the justice of these charges, and would therefore
be glad if you could make any further suggestion to me in the
matter.
I am, sir, &c.,
WILLIAM S. SIMMS,
Vice-Consul.
[Inclosure 12 in No. 331.]
Mr. Burke to Mr.
Simms.
Dublin
Castle, June 20,
1881.
Sir: I am directed by the lord lieutenant to
acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 15th instant, and I am to
inform you that Daniel Sweeney, of Carrowcannon House, Falcarragh,
county Donegal, has been arrested under a warrant issued pursuant to the
act for the better protection of person and property in Ireland (1881),
being reasonably suspected of inciting persons unlawfully to assemble
together, and to commit riot and assault.
I am, sir, your obedient servant,
[Inclosure 13 in No. 331.]
Mr. Lowell to Mr.
Simms.
Legation of the United States,
London, June 24,
1881.
Sir: I have to acknowledge the reception of
your note of the 21st regarding the case of Daniel McSweeney, inclosing
a copy of a letter from Mr. J. W. Burke in answer to one of yours
requesting to be informed of the charge upon which he was arrested.
In reply, I would say that I have not yet received an answer to my note
to Lord Granville, asking to be informed of the particulars of the
charge against Mr. Sweeney.
I am, sir, &c.,
[Inclosure 14 in No. 331.]
Mr. Sweeney to Mr.
Simms.
Dundalk
Jail, July 14,
1881.
Sir: I am getting somewhat impatient awaiting
the action of my government with regard to my release or trial. You
stated in your letter of June 18 that you had instructions from Mr.
Lowell to make inquiries as to the grounds of my arrest. This could have
been done in one day, or perhaps in one hour, for surely the Castle
authorities could furnish you with the desired information, and here I
am, in jail for over six weeks.
Please answer, and be so kind as to give me Mr. Lowell’s address.
Yours, respectfully,
[Inclosure 15 in No. 331.]
Mr. Simms to Mr.
Lowell.
7 Donegal Square South, Belfast,
July 16, 1881.
Sir: Inclosed please find copy of letter from
D. Sweeney, Dundalk jail, to myself making inquiries as to the
probabilities of his speedy trial or release. I have no further
information in the matter, and beg to ask whether or not you have yet
heard from Lord Granville.
I am, sir, &c.,
WILLIAM S. SIMMS,
Vice-Consul.
[Inclosure 16 in No. 331.]
Mr. Sweeney to Mr.
Simms.
Dundalk
Jail, County Louth, Ireland,
September 17, 1881.
Hon. Sir: It is now more than three months
since I forwarded to you, through the United States consulate at
Belfast, my naturalization papers, with a protest against my illegal
arrest and detention by the British Government, and claiming, through
you, that protection from my own government which I had a right to
expect. As I am not aware that any technical point can be raised with
regard to my citizenship, and as sufficient time to have my papers sent
to San Francisco to test their genuineness has elapsed, and no action
taken in my case, I am led to believe that it was overlooked, unless,
indeed, that the delay is owing to the continued illness of our beloved
President. I am now fifteen weeks locked up in a British dungeon, and my
health is a complete wreck. I deny and defy the British Government to
show that I am guilty of any crime.
I sincerely hope that your excellency will demand my immediate release,
and urge my claim for damages for false imprisonment.
I am yours respectfully,
[Inclosure 17 in No. 331.]
Mr. Lowell to Mr.
Sweeney.
Legation of the United States,
London, September 22,
1881.
Sir: I have to acknowledge the reception of
your letter of the 17th instant.
I have not thought it proper to make any application for your release
from prison for the following reasons:
The coercion act, however exceptional and arbitrary, and contrary to the
spirit and fundamental principles of both English and American
jurisprudence, is still the law of the land, and controls all parties
domiciled in the proclaimed districts of Ireland, whether they are
British subjects or not. It would be manifestly futile to claim that
naturalized citizens of the United States should be excepted from its
operation.
The only case, in my opinion, in which I ought to intervene, would be
where an American citizen who is in Ireland attending exclusively to his
private business and taking no part whatever in public meetings or
political discussions should be arrested. Under such circumstances it
would be proper to appeal to the courtesy of the government here on the
ground of mistake or misapprehension, and ask for the release of the
prisoner.
I have communicated these views to the Department of State, and I have
received, so far, no instructions in a contrary spirit.
It does not appear to me that the reasons above given for intervention
exist in your case so far as I understand it.
I am, sir, &c.,
[Inclosure 18 in No. 331.]
Mr. Sweeney to Mr.
Lowell.
Dundalk
Jail, September 27,
1881.
Sir: A letter bearing your signature, dated
from the legation of the United States, London, of the 22d instant, is
received by me in my prison cell in Dundalk. I am unwilling to believe
that this letter is the production of an American gentleman, much less
the American gentleman representing the United States Government at the
court of St. James. I cannot believe that an American gentleman would
treat the appeal of an American citizen in prison with contempt,
therefore permit me to presume that you signed the letter in question by
mistake, but as your signature is attached to it I may be permitted to
analyze it and if possible ascertain your meaning.
The reasons which you say influence you in not making an application for
my release are not, in my opinion, good and sufficient reasons. But I
will quote your own words and leave the public on both sides of the
Atlantic to judge.
“The coercion act, however exceptional and arbitrary, and contrary to the
spirit and fundamental principles of English jurisprudence, is the law
of the land.”
[Page 212]
That the coercion act is the law of the land no one will dispute, but
many will be inclined to the belief that the absence of coercive measures would be exceptional.
“It would be manifestly futile to claim that naturalized citizens of the
United States should be excepted from its operation.”
Here we learn for the first time that there is a distinction between
naturalized and native-born American citizens regarding their right to
claim protection abroad; but. it is evident that you are laboring under
a misapprehension with regard to my claim. I did not claim to be excepted from its operations; my claim is
based on the fact that I did not violate any law.
“The only case, in my opinion, in which I ought to interfere would be
when an Americas, citizen who is in Ireland attending exclusively to his
own business and taking no part whatever in public meetings or political
discussions should be arrested, it would be proper to appeal to the
courtesy of the British Government for the release of the prisoner.”
So that, in your opinion, the only right which an American citizen could
claim abroad would be an appeal to the courtesy of the government who
might deprive him of his liberty. Bat should an American be so imprudent
as to take part in a public meeting, say a prayer-meeting, or engage in
any political discussion with a Frenchman, a German, or even a Zulu,
according to your opinion, he would forfeit ail claim not only to
protection, but even to an appeal to courtesy.
This throws new light on the question of American citizenship.
“I have communicated these views to the Department of State, and I have
received no instructions in a contrary spirit.”
Of course not; I can now understand why I and other American citizens are
suffering imprisonment for five or six months. But, sir, instead of
communicating your views to the Department of State, of my case, why not
communicate its facts, viz: That the British Government seized and cast
an American citizen into prison and sentenced him to sixteen months’
imprisonment, without trial by judge or jury; they refused to give any
reason for his arrest; that the said American had committed no crime;
that the fact of his having taken part in public meetings and political
discussions did not involve any crime, as there was no law known in
England at present, or until another coercion act was passed, which
prohibited or declared it criminal to attend and engage in such public
meetings; that the American dared the British Government to show that he
was guilty of any crime; that he demanded his release from prison and
claimed damages from the British Government for false imprisonment.
These, sir, are the facts in my case. I placed you in the possession of
these facts immediately after my arrest, and had you communicated these
facts to the authorities at Washington, and had they ignored my claim
and decided that I forfeited my right to even an appeal to the courtesy
of the British Government, the question of American citizenship was
settled once for all.
Please return my naturalization papers and copy of the warrant under
which I was arrested. I intend to preserve both as heir-looms, as,
according to your views, one is about as valuable
as the other.
Yours, truly,
P. S.—Through courtesy to an American gentlemen, premising that it
was possible there was some mistake about your signature, I refrain
from giving this correspondence to the press for a few days.
[Inclosure 19 in No. 331.]
Mr. Lowell to Mr.
Sweeney.
Legation of the United States,
London, September 30,
1881.
Sir: I have to acknowledge the reception of
your letter of the 27th instant, and in compliance with the request
therein contained, I herewith inclose the certificate of your
naturalization and the warrant of your arrest.
So far from treating your appeal for release “with contempt,” it is
proper for me to say that on the 10th of June last I addressed a note to
Lord Granville, stating your American citizenship and your denial that
you had ever incited any people in Ireland to riot, but, on the
contrary, had advised against the commission of crime and the violation
of law. I also stated that I should be glad to be informed of the
particulars of the charge against you.
Lord Granville, in his reply of the 28th of June, declined to recognize
any distinction between the liability of foreigners and British subjects
in respect of unlawful acts committed within the limits of British
jurisdiction. He added that the government
[Page 213]
had no reason to believe that there was ground to
suppose that American citizens had met with exceptional treatment.
And, in another note, dated the 8th of July last, he stated, in regard to
my request to be furnished with particulars as to the unlawful acts
alleged to have been committed by Mr. Walsh, that the government could
make no distinction between foreigners and British subjects, and that in
the case of the latter the only information that could be given was that
contained in the warrant.
Under these circumstances, and in the absence of any information showing
that your case was different from that of the great majority of others
where parties were arrested under the coercion act, I did not think it
proper to intervene any further in your behalf.
I am, sir, &c.,
[Inclosure 20 in No. 331.]
Mr. Sweeney to Mr.
Lowell.
Dundalk
Prison, October 13,
1881.
Sir: Your letter of 30th September, inclosing
my certificate of citizenship and copy of warrant of my arrest, was duly
received.
If you have not treated my appeal with contempt, permit me to believe
that your efforts for my release from prison are, in my opinion,
unsatisfactory, and your reasons for non-intervention in my behalf still
more so. From your correspondence with Lord Granville it would appear
that you did appeal to the courtesy of the
British Government, but that the government refused to be courteous. In
answer to your note of June 10 the noble lord refused to give you any
information. You stated that an American citizen was in prison in
Ireland, who denied having committed any crime, and you requested to be
informed of the charges against him. To this his lordship answered that
he could make no distinction between the liability of foreigners and
British subjects respecting unlawful acts committed within the limits of
British jurisdiction. Mark, the noble lord affects to believe that I had
committed unlawful acts. Here your efforts ceased as far as I was
concerned.
Certainly, sir, this was not a very strong effort on your part to plead
the cause of a fellow-citizen who was deprived of his liberty. You were
in possession of the facts in my case, and in my opinion you should
renew your appeal to the courtesy of the British Government. You were
aware that an American citizen was in prison and that he should be
presumed to be innocent until proved guilty. You should, also reply to
his lordship respecting the liability of foreigners committing unlawful
acts, that I had committed no unlawful act, and
that I defied the British Government to prove that I had. It would
appear that you made another appeal to the courtesy of the British
Government to obtain information respecting the particulars of the
charge against Mr. Walsh, who, I presume, is also an American citizen,
but you were equally unsuccessful.
The noble lord, in his reply of July 8, declined to give you any
information whatever beyond that contained in the warrant of his arrest.
So much for appeals to the courtesy of the British Government.
Under ordinary circumstances an accredited minister of a great and free
country should not have been discouraged at these uncourteous replies,
but rather have been stimulated to renewed exertions on behalf of his
fellow-countryman who was held in chains by a foreign power.
Surely, sir, if you believed that Americans had any rights which England
was bound to respect, you could have used stronger arguments than mild
appeals to courtesy. You appealed to the courtesy of the British
Government for the particulars of the charges against American citizens
who were in prison and condemned without trial, and the noble lord
replied in effect, and said, “We have Americans in prison in Ireland; we
refuse to give you any information respecting the charges against them;
we refuse to give them trial by judge or jury; some of our spies
suspected them, and we promply sentenced them to eighteen months’
imprisonment.”
One would naturally expect that a gentleman intrusted with the important
mission of United States minister at the English court should at least
make a dignified reply to what some gentlemen occupying a similar
position might consider an insult. But on the contrary, sir, you seem to
have given up the fight, which, in my opinion, could not have been a
very determined one, and you sent me a message to my prison cell, where
I have been confined for over four months, and where I have to pass
eighteen hours each day in a space 6 by 12, and you tell me that you
have abandoned me to my fate; that you would not intervene any further
in my behalf. It will not be clear to the public that you did intervene
very far.
In the concluding paragraph of your courteous letter you say: “Under
these circumstances,
[Page 214]
and in
the absence of any information showing that your case was different from
the great majority of others arrested under the coercion act, I did not
thikn it proper to intervene any further.”
Here, sir, we have your reasons for non-intervention; one the
circumstance of the refusal of the British Government to give you any
information respecting the charge. Now, that of itself would be hardly
considered a good reason, but looking at it from my point of view from a
British dungeon, the question in my mind is whether I am not still
justified in believing that you have treated my appeal “with contempt.”
Your other reason is the absence of information showing that my case is
different from the great majority of others arrested under the coercion
act. It is undoubtedly true, sir, that my case does not differ from that
of the great majority of others arrested under the coercion act in
Ireland. The great majority of the gentlemen in prison are as guiltless
as I am; they are gentlemen incapable of committing crime; they are not
in prison for crime, but for their political opinions. But, sir, you
must remember that they are Irishmen, and that they have no government
to appeal to for protection. My case is not exceptional. But with equal
justice you say to an American who should happen to be captured by some
savage chief of the Cannibal Islands, and sentenced to be eaten, “Oh,
sir, your case is not exceptional; there are others to be devoured as
well as you. I do not think it proper to intervene.”
British subjects took part in public meetings and political discussions
in the United States during the slave troubles. Had the American
Government cast them into prison and sentenced them to a term of
imprisonment without trial and refused to give the British minister at
Washington any information respecting the charge against them, what
would the British minister do “under these circumstances?” Fold his
arms, take the matter good-naturedly, send a message to the British
subjects in prison that he “did not think it proper to intervene,” or
demand his passport?
Yours, respectfully,
[Inclosure 21 in No. 331.]
Mr. Brooks to Mr.
Badeau.
United
States Consulate,
Cork,
Ireland, June 15,
1881.
Sir: About two weeks ago I received a
“personal” letter from Mrs. Bridget O’Mahoney, of Ballydehob, county
Cork, Ireland, informing me of the arrest of her husband, Mr. Henry
O’Mahoney, under the coercion act, and requesting interference on my
part to secure for him a speedy trial, &c., on the ground that he is
an American citizen.
I treated this communication, and several others that followed from the
same source, as personal and unofficial, and explained to Mrs. O’Mahoney
that no interference by me could possibly effect the result she sought.
At the same time I offered any assistance I could properly and legally
render in the premises. In due course she forwarded to me a certificate
of her husband’s naturalization to be a citizen of the United States, a
copy of which is inclosed herewith.
Meanwhile I made inquiries in a private way regarding O’Mahoney’s status,
from which I am led to infer that he possibly went to the United States
last year for the purpose of taking out the naturalization papers
referred to. I think it quite probable that very soon I will have
positive proof of the truth of this inference. Of course, any further
inference as to O’Mahoney’s proceedings must be based upon whatever
additional proof I may obtain regarding his intentions in renewing his
citizenship in the United States after the lapse of sixteen years since
his alleged service in the American Navy.
I add that he was one of the most popular of the Land League leaders in
his country-side, and that during the “famine” of 1880 was very
efficient in relieving the distress of his neighbors.
From this stand-point he was most assuredly a reputable person, and one
of whom every one in the locality of his “home,” as he calls it, at
Ballydehob, speaks in terms of highest praise.
On the other hand, or viewed from the stand-point of the police
authorities, he appears to have been a very violent, unscrupulous, and
dangerous agitator.
This statement is the result in brief of my personal and unofficial
investigation of the case, during which I have carefully avoided saying
or doing anything calculated to commit myself or the Government of the
United States. Now, however, I am in receipt of a letter, a copy of
which is inclosed, from Mr. O’Mahoney in person, asking an interview
with me, which I have promised to give him on Tuesday next under
permission of the authorities.
I have addressed this to you for the purpose of giving you the earliest
information in the premises, and of enabling you to apprise the legation
in London of all the facts
[Page 215]
in
the case, if in your judgment they are of sufficient importance to he
laid before Mr. Lowell.
Awaiting instructions, I am, sir, your obedient servant,
[Appendix to Inclosure 21.]
Certificate of naturalization of Henry
O’Mahoney.
State of New York,
Erie County:
——— Court.
Present, Hon. W. W. Hammond.
| —— —— |
} |
Justices of sessions. |
| —— —— |
|
Personally appeared in open court Henry O’Mahoney, late of Ireland, and
made application upon his petition to be admitted a citizen of the
United States of America; and it appearing to the satisfaction of this
court that he, the said applicant, is of the age of twenty-one years and
upwards, and that he did, on the 19th day of October, 1864, enlist as a
soldier in the Navy of the U. S., on board of the U. S. S. Sybil, in the
service of the United States of America, for the term of two years;
And it also further appearing by competent proof that on the 20th day of
August, 1885, the said applicant was honorably discharged from the
service of the United States; and this court being satisfied by the
oaths of James Moylan and John Furck, well known by this court to be
citizens of the United States, that the said applicant has resided
within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for
one year and upwards previous to his application as aforesaid;
And it further appearing to the satisfaction of this court that during
that time the said applicant has behaved as a man of good moral
character, and attached to the principles of the Constitution of the
United States of America, and well disposed to the good order and
happiness of the same; which said proof being satisfactory evidence to
this court of the said fact, they permitted the said applicant to take
and subscribe the following oath, viz:
I, Henry O’Mahoney, do solemnly swear that I will support the
Constitution of the United States of America, and that I do absolutely
and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to every
foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty whatsoever,
particularly to the Queen of Great Britain and Ireland, to whom I now
owe allegiance.
Sworn in open court, February 25th,
1880.
HENRY O’MAHONEY.
J. E. Ewell, Deputy
Clerk.
[Stamp.]
Whereupon it is ordered by the said court that the said applicant be
admitted to all the rights and privileges of a citizen of the United
States.
State of New York,
Erie County, |
} |
| ss: |
I, Charles R. Durkee, clerk of said county and of the courts thereof,
certify that the above is a true copy of the original proceedings as
recorded in the records of the courts of said county; and further,
that I have compared the same with the original, and that it is a
true transcript of the whole thereof.
In testimony whereof I have hereunto
subscribed my name and affixed the seal of said county and of
the court thereof this 25th day of February, A. D. 1880.
[
l. s.]
J. E. EWELL,
Dp. Clerk.
[Inclosure 22 in No. 331.]
Mr. O’Mahoney to
Mr. Brooks.
Limerick Prison, June 12, 1881.
Hon. Sir: As you are already aware, I was
arrested at Ballydehob, in this county, on the 4th instant, as being
reasonably suspected of shooting at with attempt to murder. The
circumstances connected with my arrest I need not detail here, as I
suppose you have seen it in the public press, and all I ask of you,
through the great government
[Page 216]
which you have the honor to represent, is an impartial trial. I ask it
as United States citizen, and only about four months after arriving
home. An early reply, or an interview, will much oblige,
Yours, &c.,
[Inclosure 23 in No. 331.]
Mr. Brooks to Mr.
Badeau.
United
States Consulate,
Cork,
Ireland, June 22,
1881.
Sir: In the matter of the application of Henry
O’Mahoney, political prisoner, now in Her Majesty’s jail at Limerick, in
this consular district, for assistance or protection based upon the
claim that he is a citizen of the United States, I have to report the
following additional facts:
On Tuesday, the 21st instant, with the permission of F. McG, Eager, esq.,
governor of the prison, I had a very lengthy interview with O’Mahoney in
the governor’s office. I had previously intimated in a personal way to
Mr. Macarthy, president magistrate at Limerick, the time and purpose of
this interview, and had invited him to be present at it as a
representative of Her Majesty’s Government. He was not present, however,
until the interview had been nearly concluded.
The purport of O’Mahoney’s statements was, in brief, as follows:
He was discharged from the United States Navy in the fall of 1865, and
had lost his discharge papers. Subsequent to his discharge he remained
in the United States, living in Kansas, Missouri, and the Mississippi
Valley until 1874, when he returned to Ireland. During this period, in
1866, he made application to the county court, Caddo Parish, Shreveport,
La., for his naturalization papers, basing his application upon his
service in the Navy. The papers were not issued; the reason for which
failure to issue he did not state.
His return to Ireland in 1874 was occasioned by the “hard times” then
prevailing in the United States, and because he had lost money by bank
failures as well as failures of contractors for whom he had worked as a
subcontractor in the erection of saw-mills. He remained in Ireland two
years, and returned again to the United States in 1876, but returned to
Ireland soon after. He was married in Ireland in 1875, and in October of
that year obtained a license under the local laws to keep a “public
house;” i. e.,, as a retailer of liquors,
spirits, &c., &c. This house and license his wife has kept and
used at Ballydehob ever since, and still keeps and enjoys the same. In
1879 he returned to the United States and went to Lockport, N. Y., and
from thence to Buffalo.
In February, 1880, he applied for and obtained naturalization papers in
Lockport, a copy of the certificate of which was forwarded inclosed in
my dispatch to you under date of June 15 instant.
In January, 1881, he returned to Ireland, for the purpose, as he most
emphatically declared, of disposing of his property in Ballydehob and
going with his family back to Lockport, where, he says, he now owns a
small property. After his last arrival at Ballydehob he took part in the
then prevailing political agitation, and being a ratepayer (tax-payer
and voter), was urged by his neighbors to stand as a candidate for poor law guardian. He objected to this, but was
finally duly nominated, elected, and qualified, after which he entered
upon and discharged the duties of his office up to the time of his
arrest and incarceration.
He added that he knew the orifice of poor law guardian was one of
important trust if not of emolument, and that the discharge of its
duties involved the assessment and levy of taxes (striking rates), and
the practical administration or execution of the laws of this
country.
To the qnestion, “What demand or claim do you wish to prefer or ask of
the United States Government?” he answered, “I demand and claim
protection the same as the British Government gave to its subjects in
New York during the draft riots in the late war. I am an American
citizen, and want to get out of this country. I want a fair trial; I
want justice and a speedy trial, and I want the protection of the
American Government to secure these things to me.”
To the further question, “Suppose the British Government were to permit
your release from prison upon condition of your immediate return to the
United States, would you accept such terms?” he replied. “I cannot
promise that, for it would take a year to close up my affairs here and
sell out my property; but I do not want to stay in this country, and am
willing and anxious to leave it as soon as I can.”
O’Mahoney further explained that the foregoing statement of dates or
years may not be technically correct, and that he gave it from memory,
to the best of his recollection and belief.
[Page 217]
In conclusion he repeated his request for the immediate interference of
the United States authorities in his behalf.
To conclude the record in O’Mahoney’s case it is necessary to state that
he stands committed under the so-called “coercion act” as a suspect, on
suspicion of having been implicated in an assault with fire-arms, with
intent to kill, upon Mr. George Henry Swanton, justice of the peace,
Gortnagrough, Ballydehob.
I have to add that before I left the prison I was informed that two or
more prisoners were anxious to see me for the purpose of preferring
claims similar to those of O’Mahoney’s. In response to this information,
I declared my willingness to take cognizance of their cases upon proper
application in due form.
As I have received no instructions up to date in O’Mahoney’s case from
the legation or other source, I shall, unless otherwise directed, permit
the matter to drop here.
I am, sir, your obedient servant,
[Inclosure 24 in No. 331.]
Mr. O’Mahoney to
Mr. Lowell.
Limerick Prison, July 15, 1881.
Dear Sir: As I am a suspect here for some time,
I forwarded my papers of citizenship about the 18th of June to Ed. P.
Brooks, United States consul at Queenstown, and demanded protection, and
he said he would attend to it; and in a note from a friend from
Queenstown to-day he (Mr. Brooks) requested that I should write to the
ministry at St. James in reference to my application for protection. I
arrived in this country about the last of January for the express
purpose of collecting a lot of money due to me here, and was fully
intended to go to the States this fall in order to get into the apple
trade. I certainly say that during my time at home previous to my arrest
I was never guilty of any offense punishable by law, and I respectfully
ask if I cannot be protected in this country long enough to collect my
debts, and by obeying the laws, such as I always have, to allow me as
many days as possible in preparing to depart for America; and although
it is very hard on me to go without collecting my debts, yet I shall
receive it as an everlasting favor done me under the circumstances. An
early reply will much oblige,
Yours, respectfully,
P. S.—The crime that I am suspected with I can furnish plenty of
evidence that I had no connection with.
[Inclosure 25 in No. 331.]
Mr. Lowell to Mr.
O’Mahoney.
Legation of the United States,
London, July 19,
1881.
Sir: I have your letter of the 15th instant. I
am waiting instructions from home before taking action in such cases as
yours.
It is my opinion, however, and in this I shall probably be sustained by
the Department of State, that the fact of being an American citizen
cannot of itself operate to exempt any one from the penalties of a law
which he had violated, and that it will be necessary to show that some
exceptional injustice had been practiced in any particular case before
the American minister can be called upon to intervene.
I am, sir, your obedient servant,
[Inclosure 26 in No. 331.]
Mr. Brooks to Mr.
Lowell.
United
States Consulate,
Queenstown, July 21,
1881.
Sir: I have recently had several personal
applications from friends of Mr. Henry O’Mahoney (political prisoner now
in Her Majesty’s jail at Limerick, and claiming to
[Page 218]
be an American citizen) for information
regarding the result of his application through me for your intervention
in his behalf. To these inquiries I have replied, promising to
communicate with you again.
O’Mahoney himself has written to me, giving a brief supplementary
statement, in effect that he is desirous of going back to America for
the purpose of engaging in the exportation of apples and other fruits to
this country.
I am, sir, your obedient servant,
[Inclosure 27 in No. 331.]
Mr. O’Mahoney to
Mr. Lowell.
Limerick Prison, July 21, 1881.
Dear Sir: I quite agree with you when you state
that an American citizen should not be exempt from the penalties of a
law which he violates and that it would be necessary to show that some
injustice had been practiced before your intervention, and I
respectfully submit the following facts for your kind consideration:
- 1st.
- That I am arrested charged with a crime.
- 2d.
- That I am detained in prison without a shadow of evidence
against me.
- 3d.
- That I am debarred of the right of proving my innocence in
connection with the crime that I am suspected of. Therefore all
the favors I ask (and I think I should claim it as a right) from
the United States Government, through you, is a trial, in order
that I may show that there is exceptional injustice practiced in
my case. Therefore I respectfully ask your intervention to grant
me a trial, and by so doing I will not only be able to prove
myself innocent of the charge that I am accused of, but of any
other crime punishable by law, except being a member of the Land
League, an organization which the prime minister himself
declared to be perfectly constitutional.
An early reply will oblige yours, respectfully,
P. S.—Kindly let me know if you can demand an impartial trial for me;
if not, I shall ask for no other favors.
[Inclosure 28 in No. 331.]
Mr. Daly to Mr.
Tinsley, consular agent at
Limerick.
Limerick County Jail,
Friday, October 28,
1881.
Sir: I beg to inform you that I, James F. Daly,
a citizen of the United States, have been arrested by the lord
lieutenant’s warrant and detained here at his will on a charge which “I
challenge him to prove against me.” Will you be so kind as to come and
see me as quickly as possible, and forward my naturalization papers to
the American minister to demand for me a trial or speedy release.
I beg to remain, yours, respectfully,
[Inclosure 29 in No. 331.]
Mr. Tinsley to Mr.
Barrows.
Consulate of the United States,
Dublin, October 29,
1881.
Sir: I received the inclosed letter this
morning and soon after called upon the writer at the county jail. I had
an interview with him, and he requested me to forward his certificate of
naturalization as an American citizen to the United States minister at
London, and to request respectfully his excellency’s interference in his
behalf.
I send inclosed his letter and certificate that you may take such action
in the matter as you may deem proper.
I have, &c.,
JOHN R. TINSLEY,
Consular
Agent.
[Inclosure 30 in No. 331.]
Mr. Barrows to Mr.
Lowell.
Consulate of the United States,
Dublin, October 31,
1881.
Sir: I have the honor to transmit herewith a
letter from United States Consular Agent Tinsley, of Limerick, relating
to the case of James F. Daly, recently arrested under the coercion act,
and now confined in Limerick jail.
I inclose Daly’s naturalization papers and his letter to Mr. Tinsley, and
respectfully ask for instructions.
I have, &c.,
[Inclosure 31 in No. 331.]
Mr. Hoppin to Mr.
Barrows.
Legation of the United States,
London, November 2,
1881.
Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the
receipt of your letter of the 31st ultimo, addressed to the minister of
the United States, covering another from J. R. Tinsley, esq., United
States consular agent at Limerick, which inclosed a communication from
Mr. James F. Daly, and his certificate of naturalization as a citizen of
the United States.
It appears that Mr. Daly has been arrested under the so-called “coercion
act,” and is now detained at Limerick jail. He desires that the minister
should demand for him a trial or speedy release, and you ask for
instructions in this matter.
Mr. Lowell went to the continent upon a leave of absence more than three
weeks since and will not return until early in December.
In a communication which was addressed to you on the 1st of September
last, in relation to the case of Mr. Walsh, Mr. Lowell stated the
reasons why, in his opinion, he should not intervene on behalf of
American citizens arrested under the coercion act, unless under
extraordinary and exceptional circumstances. I have good grounds to
believe that these reasons are not disapproved of by the Department of
State.
I fully agree with Mr. Lowell in this view of our diplomatic duties. If
no distinction has been made to the disadvantage of the prisoner on the
ground of his nationality, and if British subjects are being imprisoned
for no more illegal acts than those which he has committed, it seems
that, however arbitrary and despotic we may consider the coercion act to
be, we are nevertheless obliged to submit in silence to the action taken
under it by the authorities, even against our own fellow-citizens.
So long ago as the year 1848, when certain citizens of the United States
were arrested and confined in Newgate prison, Dublin, under the law
suspending the habeas corpus, Mr. Buchanan in his instructions to Mr.
Bancroft said, “If this law, arbitrary and despotic as it is, had been
carried into execution in the same impartial manner against the citizens
and subjects of all foreign nations this government might have submitted
in silence.” It was the fact that a distinction was made to the
disadvantage of American citizens that was the ground of intervention in
that case.
It is useless for us to apply to Her Majesty’s Government for a statement
of the dates, places, and other details of the specific acts alleged to
have been committed by Mr. Daly, upon which the warrant for his arrest
was issued. We have already asked for similar information on other
occasions, and have been told that Her Majesty’s Government consider
that no distinction can be made in these circumstances between
foreigners and British subjects, and that in the case of the latter the
only information given is that contained in the warrant. We have,
therefore, to look elsewhere for such information.
If Mr. Daly can show satisfactorily that the acts for which he has been
imprisoned are of less gravity and importance than those for which any
British subjects have been arrested; that he has been attending
exclusively to his private affairs in Ireland, without taking part in
political meetings or party disturbances, and that his incarceration is
due to mistake and misapprehension, I shall take great pleasure in
bringing his case to the attention of Her Majesty’s Government and
asking for his speedy release.
I herewith return Mr. Tinsley’s and Mr. Daly’s letters, and the latter’s
naturalization certificate.
I am, sir. &c.,
W. J. HOPPIN,
Charge d’Affaires ad
interim.
[Inclosure 32 in No. 331.]
Mr. Barrows to Mr.
Lowell.
Consulate of the United States,
Dublin, January 30,
1882.
Sir: On the 23d instant James White applied to
me by letter for protection as an American citizen, he having been
arrested under the coercion act and confined in Naas jail. I wrote White
on the 25th, asking him to produce proof that he was an American
citizen, and this morning received his naturalization paper, which I
have now the honor to transmit, together with two letters written me by
White.
Awaiting your instructions,
I have, &c.,
[Inclosure 33 in No. 831.]
Mr. Barrows to Mr.
Lowell.
Consulate of the United States,
Dublin, January 31,
1882.
Sir: I have the honor to forward a letter from
Mr. Philip O’Sullivan, dated Naas prison, 30th January, 1882, with
certificate of naturalization referred to therein, claiming protection
from the United States Government, and respectfully request I may be
favored with instructions in the matter.
I have, &c.,
[Inclosure 34 in No. 331.]
Mr. White to Mr.
Barrows.
Naas
Jail, January 23,
1882.
Sir: I hereby beg to inform you that I am at
present undergoing imprisonment in the above-named jail, under a warrant
of the lord lieutenant, issued by virtue of the powers vested in him by
the act for the better protection of person and property in Ireland,
commonly known as the coercion act.
I am a fully naturalized citizen of the United States, and now claim the
protection of my government. It is not pretended by the authorities that
I have violated the laws of this country. No attempt has been made to
prove such a violation against me. I am denied the right of a trial,
although fully conscious of my innocence. I can hardly believe that the
government of the country in which I resided for fifteen years will
permit its citizens to be cast into prison by the arbitrary will of an
English official in defiance of all constitutional and international
rights, and, therefore, claim as my right that you shall interfere to
protect my interest.
I am, sir, yours, very truly,
[Inclosure 35 in No. 331.]
Mr. White to Mr.
Barrows.
The
Jail, Naas, January 28,
1882.
Sir: As requested by yours of the 25th instant,
I herewith forward certificate of naturalization, which I have just
received from my friends.
I believe that, according to the theory even of British law, I am
illegally detained here, as the warrant under which I was arrested was
issued for John White, whereas my name is James White, and
notwithstanding I protested at the time I was arrested tinder it and
since detained.
I am, sir, your obedient servant,
[Page 221]
[Inclosure 36 in No. 331.]
Mr. O’Sullivan to
Mr. Barrows.
The
Prison, Naas, January 30,
1882.
Sir: I beg to inform you that I am a fully and
duly naturalized citizen of the United States; in testimony whereof,
please find herewith my final certificate of naturalization.
I am now and have been for the last twelve weeks confined in the
above-named prison, convicted of no crime, guilty of none, not even
charged with any offense against English law. I am merely, in the words
of the warrant under which I was arrested, “reasonably suspected of
being guilty.” My warrant was issued “by his excellency’s command,” and
signed “W. E. Foster, chief secretary to the lord lieutenant.”
I now, sir, through you, claim with confidence the protection of my
government, asking that you would demand that I be either at once sent
to trial or immediately released from my imprisonment.
I am, sir, with great respect, your obedient and faithful servant,
P. S.—Kindly return my naturalization certificate when you have no
further use of it.
[Inclosure 37 in No. 331.]
Mr. Lowell to Mr.
Barrows.
Legation of the United States,
London, February 2,
1882.
Sir: I have your letter of the 30th ultimo in
relation to the case of Mr. James White, who is confined in Naas jail
under the so-called “coercion act,” and inclosing his certificate of
naturalization and two letters written by him to you on the 23d and 28th
of January last.
I have also your letter of the 31st of January in relation to the case of
Mr. Philip O’Sullivan, who is confined in the same prison under the same
act, and inclosing his certificate of naturalization and a letter from
him to yourself, dated on the 30th ultimo.
Both of these gentlemen claim protection on the ground of being citizens
of the United States, and you ask me for instructions in their
cases.
In a communication which I addressed to you on the 1st of September last,
in relation to the case of Mr. Joseph B. Walsh, I stated my opinion to
be that the fact of being an American citizen confers upon a person no
immunity from arrest and imprisonment under the “coercion act,” and that
the only occasions on which I could properly intervene in behalf of such
persons would be:
- First. Where such person, being in Ireland in the prosecution
of his lawful private business, and taking no part in political
meetings or partisan disturbances, has been arrested by obvious
mistake; and
- Secondly. Where a distinction has been made to the
disadvantage of the prisoner on the ground of his American
nationality.
If British subjects are being arrested for no more illegal acts than
those which the prisoner is charged with having committed, or of the
intention to commit which he is justly suspected, it seems that, however
arbitrary and despotic we may consider the “coercion act” to be, we are,
nevertheless, bound to submit in silence to the action taken under it by
the authorities even against our own fellow-citizens.
It should be observed that this act is a law of the British Parliament,
the legitimate source and final arbiter of all law in these realms, and
that, as it would be manifestly futile to ask the government here to
make an exception on behalf of an American who had brought himself
within the provisions of any law thus sanctioned, so it would be
manifestly unbecoming in a diplomatic representative, unless by express
direction of his superiors, to enter upon an argument with the
government to which he is accredited as to the policy of such a law or
the necessarily arbitrary nature of its enforcement.
I must repeat, therefore, in the cases of Messrs. White and O’Sullivan,
the substance of what I wrote to you in the case of Mr. Walsh, that
unless these gentlemen can produce to me satisfactory proof that they
have been arrested under an evident mistake of the facts, or have been
treated with exceptional severity on account of their being American
citizens, I must decline to intervene on their behalf.
I herewith return their certificates of naturalization and the
accompanying letters.
I am, sir, &c.,
[Page 222]
[Inclosure 38 in No. 331.]
Mr. Dawson to
Consul-General Merritt.
United
States Consulate,
Queenstown, January 28,
1882.
Sir: Mr. I. Hart, of Carrigtwohill, near
Queenstown, called on me to-day and stated as follows:
His brother, Michael Hart, is at present under arrest in Clonmel jail
under the inclosed warrant. He is a naturalized citizen of the United
States, and has sent me his certificate of naturalization for
inspection.
I. Hart is anxious to have his brother released, and asked for my advice.
I recommended him to get his brother to write to the chief secretary,
Dublin Castle, stating that he is a citizen of the United States, and
that if freed from arrest that he will conduct himself properly and
peaceably while in this country and will conform to its laws. Hart
thought it advisable to notify the nearest consul of his being in jail,
in consequence of having seen a paragraph in a newspaper that the
President of the United States had been requested to ascertain the
number of Americans under arrest in Ireland.
I am, sir, your obedient servant,
GEO. B. DAWSON,
Vice-Consul
[Inclosure 39 in No. 331]
Mr. Lowell to
Consul-General Merritt.
Legation of the United States,
London, February 3,
1882.
Sir: I have to acknowledge the receipt of your
letter of the 1st of February instant, covering two communications from
B. H. Barrows, esq., the United States consul at Dublin, addressed to
me, and also a letter to yourself from G. B. Dawson, esq., the
vice-consul at Queenstown, the letter in relation to the case of Michael
Hart, who is imprisoned in Clonmel jail under a warrant which
accompanied Mr. Dawson’s letter.
I herewith inclose my reply to Mr. Barrows’s letters, with the request
that you will be kind enough to transmit it to that gentleman.
In regard to Mr. Hart’s case neither he nor the vice-consul asks for any
intervention by me on his behalf. They address you in order that the
fact of Mr. Hart’s being an American under arrest in Ireland may be
communicated to the Government of the United States. In case I shall be
directed to send a list of such persons I shall not fail to include Mr.
Hart’s name.
I consider the advice given to him by Mr. Dawson most just and
proper.
I herewith return Mr. Dawson’s letter with the warrant for Hart’s
arrest.
I am, sir, &c.,
[Inclosure 40 in No. 331.]
Mr. Dawson to
Consul-General Merritt.
Consulate of the United States,
Queenstown, February 7,
1882.
Sir: I duly received your favor of 4th instant,
informing me that you had sent my letter with copy of warrant in
reference to Mr. Michael Hart to his excellency the United States
minister at London.
I beg to inclose a note received from Michael Hart this morning. I also
send his certificate of citizenship.
I am, sir, your obedient servant,
GEORGE B. DAWSON,
Deputy and
Vice-Consul
[Inclosure 41 in No. 331.]
Mr. Lowell to
Consul-General Merritt.
Legation of the United States,
London, February 10,
1882.
Sir: I have to acknowledge the reception of
your letter of the 8th instant, in relation to the case of Michael Hart,
now imprisoned in Clonmel jail, and its inclosures, viz, a letter from
Mr. Dawson, United States vice-consul at Queenstown; one from Mr. Hart
to Mr. Dawson, and Mr. Hart’s certificate of naturalization.
Mr. Hart has been arrested under the so-called “coercion act,” and he
appears to think that the fact of his being an American citizen entitles
him to immediate release.
This is not, however, my opinion. The principles upon which I have based
my action in all cases of applications like that of Mr. Hart’s are those
upon which our government has acted and in case of need would act
again.
I think it important that all such persons should be made to understand
distinctly that they cannot be Irishmen and Americans at the same time,
as they seem to suppose, and that they are subject to the operation of
the laws of the country in which they choose to live.
The vice-consul at Queenstown should inform himself of the facts in Mr.
Hart’s case, and ascertain whether there be any peculiar hardship in it
which would make it an exception, calling for immediate and energetic
protest. In that case it would be necessary for him to send me a full
statement of the case, with whatever confirmatory or illustrative
evidence it is possible to obtain. But if his case is like that of the
ordinary “suspects,” I see no reason why I should intervene.
I return Mr. Hart’s and Mr. Dawson’s letters, and Mr. Hart’s certificate
of naturalization.
I am, sir, your obedient servant,
[Inclosure 42 in No. 331.]
Mr. Lowell to Mr.
Dawson.
Legation of the United States,
London, February 14,
1882.
Sir: You will have received from Mr. Merritt a
copy of my letter to him upon the subject of Mr. Michael Hart’s
imprisonment in Clonmel jail. Since the date of that letter I have
instructions in relation to this case which make it desirable that I
should ascertain the particular facts and circumstances which led to his
arrest. Will you, therefore, be kind enough to inquire and report to me
what you can learn about this matter? Has Hart been conspicuous in any
way in using his influence to prevent the payment of rent? What has he
done that he should be selected for arrest? It is hardly possible that
it was a purely arbitrary proceeding. It is unnecessary for me to
suggest that these inquiries should be conducted with all proper
discretion.
I am, sir, &c.,
[Inclosure 43 in No. 331.]
Mr. Dawson to Mr.
Lowell.
Consulate of the United States,
Queenstown (Cork),
February 17, 1882.
Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge receipt of
your dispatch dated February 14.
I proceeded this morning by car to Carrigtwohill, which is distant from
here about six miles, and called on the head constable at the police
station. He said that it would be contrary to rules to give me any
information as to the cause of Michael Hart’s arrest, and advised me to
see the sub-inspector of police at Middleton, four miles beyond
Carrigtwohill. I then drove to Middleton and had an interview with Mr.
Creagh, sub-inspector of the district. I told him my object in calling
was to get some information about Michael Hart, who was arrested by him
at Ballintubber, near Carrigtwohill; that Hart had applied to me for
advice and protection, and in consequence I wished to know the cause of
his arrest. Mr. Creagh said it was not his duty to give any information
on such a subject. I replied that I did not want or expect him to put me
in possession of any facts that would be improper or injudicious to
give, but it was my duty when a citizen of the United States applies for
advice or protection to inquire
[Page 224]
fully into the circumstances. I then mentioned that I had already
advised Mr. Hart to give an undertaking to conduct himself in conformity
with the laws if released. I asked Mr. Creagh if Hart had taken a
prominent part at land-league meetings, or if he had been inciting
people not to pay rents. I also mentioned that I had received from Mr.
Hart a copy of the warrant under which he was arrested, also his
certificate of citizenship, and had sent both to you, and that it was
your desire to be made aware, as far as possible, of the actual causes
which led to Hart’s arrest.
He then told me that Hart had been the cause of much trouble in the
neighborhood of Ballintubber by inciting people to withhold rents, and
that he seemed to be under the impression, because of his being an
American citizen, that he might advise and incite his neighbors to
disobey the laws of this country. He further said that Hart would not
have been arrested unless sufficient proof had been given that he was
guilty of the charges specified in the warrant.
I then asked if he thought the authorities would grant Hart’s release
provided he would give the undertaking which I have previously
mentioned. He replied that the district is now quiet and the farmers are
paying their rents, and he fears that Hart’s return may again cause
trouble, but if he would give a proper undertaking for his good conduct,
or return to the United States, that the police authorities would not
put any impediment in the way of his release.
Mr. Creagh considers Hart to be a worthless, troublesome, and dangerous
person. He is also of opinion that Hart has been concerned in other
matters of perhaps even a more serious nature than that for which he is
now imprisoned.
I called upon the parish priest of Carrigtwohill, but he was unable to
give me any further information.
I am, sir, your obedient servant,
GEO. B. DAWSON,
Deputy and
Vice-Consul.
[Inclosure 44 in No. 331.]
Mr. Datvson to Mr.
Lowell.
United
States Consulate,
Cork (Queenstown), February 18, 1882.
Sir: I have the honor to inclose a copy of a
letter received to-day from Mr. Michael Hart. I also send copy of a
second letter, which, I presume, is intended as a supplement to the
first.
I am, sir, your obedient servant,
GEO. B. DAWSON,
Deputy and
Vice-Consul.
[Inclosure 45 in No. 331.]
Mr. Hart to Mr.
Dawson.
Clonmel, February 16,
1882.
Sir: I received your letter of the 14th
instant, together with my certificate and copy of letter for his
excellency, and you want to know is there any special or peculiar
hardship in my case. Well, I maintain that my conduct was always
peaceable and in accordance with the laws of the country, and I think no
greater hardship could be done to me than to ram me into prison without
showing cause for same. Because a certain man in my neighborhood did not
get as much rent-money as formerly, he satisfies himself by taking my
liberty away and sending me to goal.
I think Mr. Lowell mistakes when he says I can’t be an Irishman and:
American at the same time. I never pretended to be an American, and I am
not ashamed to be born in Ireland. I do think the main cause of the
majority of suspects is for taking part or being members of an
association called the Land League, which was proclaimed illegal here
some time ago, and I want Mr. Lowell distinctly to understand that I
never became a member of that assiociation, neither did I ever
contribute one penny towards it, and until it is proved in some shape or
form that I at any time did do any act contrary to the law of the
country I am living in, I will maintain that a greater injustice was
never done to any man.
If Mr. Lowell thinks he has no right to intervene in my case he is at his
own option to do so. As far as my humble opinion is, the charge laid
against me in warrant is not a charge punishable by the law of his
country. When the constitution was suspended here in Ireland, I was not
surprised to get an order from Dublin Castle, for I knew perfectly well
some of the landlord class in this country have a terrible hatred
towards America, or any one who had ever been there, and I had no
alternative but to
[Page 225]
sacrifice
my expenditure and business, and clear out to America or be at their
mercy, and I choose the latter rather than show cowardice, and am
prepared to sacrifice my prospects and health in preference to my
principles. I am, sir, your obedient servant,
[Inclosure 46 in No. 331.]
Mr. Hart to Mr.
Dawson.
Sir: I think it useless for you to be
forwarding any statement of mine. It’s hardship enough to be imprisoned
without showing cause for same, and not be going into detail about
special hardship. In my estimation the United States minister do think
we are after committing some great breach of the law, and I really think
if the truth of his mind was known he have very little sympathy for me
or any one like me. However, I leave the matter in your hands and to
your own discretion.
I am, sir, your obedient servant,
[Inclosure 47 in No. 331.]
Mr. Dawson to Mr.
Lowell.
Consulate of the United States,
Queenstown, February 23,
1882.
Sir: I have the honor to inclose a copy of a
letter received to-day from Mr. Michael Hart.
On Sunday last Mr. Hart, of Carrigtohill, brother of Michael Hart, called
on me. I Informed him of the fact of my having had an interview with the
chief of police at Mi die ton, and that I was under the impression his
brother would be released provided he would sign the undertaking which I
advised him to offer.
From what I could gather, Michael Hart is not disposed to sign any such
undertaking. He evidently values the opinions of his friends in this
country more than his liberty, and he also “thinks it would be cowardly
to sign any pledge for his future conduct or to accept release, except
unconditionally.
I am, sir, your obedient servant,
G. B. DAWSON,
Deputy and
Vice-Consul.
[Inclosure 48 in No. 331.]
Mr. Hart to Mr.
Dawson.
Clonmel
Gaol, February 22,
1882.
Sir: In a letter from my brother he tells me
you don’t understand my letter or know what I am going to do. If I have
said in my letter to you that I was not an American, and did not mean to
be one, I was referring to the copy of his excellency’s, where he said
he wanted me to understand that I could not be an Irishman and an
American at the same time, and perhaps that is how I said I did not mean
or pretend to be an American, and my motive in making that remark was I
never meant to be an American born, or went under the pretense of being
one, and that I was not ashamed to be born in Ireland. But, though being
a foreign-born citizen of the United States, I think I have a right to
claim all the rights and protection while in a foreign country which is
accorded to native-born citizens; and as to informing you what I was
going to do I don’t know that myself. If my health will permit, when
released from here, my stay will be very short in this country, and I
think it’s hardship enough to be put behind bar and halt in an English
prison when pursuing my daily avocations in a law-abiding manner,
without showing further causes of hardship.
I return you my sincere thanks for the interest you are taking and the
trouble you have given yourself in my case.
Your obedient servant,
[Page 226]
[Inclosure 49 in No. 331.]
Mr. Lowell to Mr.
Barrows.
Legation of the United States,
London, February 8,
1882.
Sir: The principles upon which I have based my
action in all cases of applications to me from naturalized citizens now
imprisoned in Ireland under the coercion act are those upon which our
government has acted, and in case of need would act again. I think it
important that all such persons should be made to understand distinctly
that they cannot be Irishmen and Americans at the same time, as they now
seem to suppose, and that they are subject to the operation of the laws
of the country in which they choose to live.
You should inform yourself of the facts in each case as it arises, and
ascertain whether there be any peculiar hardship in it which would make
it an exception calling for immediate and energetic protest. In that
event it would, of course, be necessary to send me a full statement of
the case, with whatever confirmatory or illustrative evidence it was
possible to obtain. In all other cases, it would be enough if you report
to me names, dates, and charges in each case, and guide yourself in your
answer to applications for protection by the instructions already
received from this legation, being careful always not to vary from the
language therein employed.
I am, sir, &c.,
[Inclosure 50 in No. 331.]
Mr. Lowell to Lord
Granville.
Legation of the United States,
London, March 6,
1882.
My Lord: I have the honor to acquaint you that
I received yesterday from Mr. Frelinghuysen a cable dispatch, of which
the following is a translation:
“Referring to the cases of O’Connor, Hart, McSweeney, Walsh, McEnery, and
Dalton, American citizens imprisoned in Ireland, say to Lord Granville
that, without discussing whether the provisions of the force act can be
applied to American citizens, the President hopes that the lord
lieutenant of Ireland will be instructed to exercise the powers
intrusted to him by the first section, to order early trials in their
and all other cases in which Americans may be arrested.”
In transmiting this dispatch to your lordship, I venture to hope that,
considering the importance of the matters to which it refers, it may
receive the early attention of Her Majesty’s Government.
I have, &c.,
[Inclosure 51 in No. 331.]
Lord Granvilte to
Mr. Lowell.
Foreign
Office, March 6,
1882.
Immediate.]Sir: I have the honor to state to you that I
have lost no time in communicating to the proper department of Her
Majesty’s Government the letter you have addressed to me this day,
communicating a telegram you have received from your government relative
to the case of citizens of the United States who have been arrested
under tho protection of person and property (Ireland) act, 1881.
In reply, I beg leave to assure you that this matter will receive the
immediate attention of Her Majesty’s Government.
I have, &c.,
