Office of the Historian

No. 24.
Mr. West to Earl Granville.

[Extract.]
Washington, February 15, 1882. (Received March 4.)

With reference to my dispatch of the 1st instant, I have the honor to inform your lordship that the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives having reported adversely a further resolution offered by Mr. Robinson, of New York, respecting the arrest of American citizens in Ireland, it was “tabled” (tantamount to its death-blow) by a majority of 117 to 102. This resolution was to the following effect:

“Resolved, That the Attorney-General of the United States is hereby directed to communicate to this House his opinion, in writing, on the following question:

“If Joseph Warren Keifer, Speaker of this House, or Alonzo B. Cornell, governor of the State of New York, or Charles Carroll, a laborer in the department of public works in the city of New York, being a citizen of the United States, visit any part of the British Empire, and should there be arrested without having committed any crime, and without any definite charge of crime being alleged against him, could the English Government, by suspending the habeas corpus, or otherwise, lawfully detain him indefinitely on suspicion, without trial, or without any right in our government to demand his release? Also, his opinion on the application of the law of the 29th July, 1868, to such cases, and the President’s duty under it.”

Another resolution was then reported back to the House with a recommendation that it should likewise be tabled. The terms were:

“Resolved, That the President of the United States, if not incompatible with the public service, be requested to communicate to this House all correspondence with the British Government on file in the State Department with reference to the case of D. H. O’Connor, a citizen of the United States, now imprisoned in Ireland.”

The House, however, refused by 79 to 71 to do so, and a long discussion ensued upon it. The chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs having stated that he had not understood that this resolution had been considered by the committee, a point of order was raised on the ground that the resolution was not a report of the committee, and Mr. Cox, of New York, then moved to recommit it, and to insert therein the names of Michael Hart, H. O’Mahoney, and John McEnery, and to add a clause requesting the President to demand of the British Government the prompt trial of those citizens or their prompt release, whereupon Mr. Orth, of Indiana, the reporter of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, stated that he had no objection to such action being taken, and the resolution was accordingly recommitted with instructions as above stated.

The only real point of interest in the discussion was the production of a letter from ex-Secretary Blaine to the brother of Denis O’Connor, in which, in speaking of the action of the British Government, he “reminds him that the act of Parliament under which O’Conner is held is a law of Great Britain, and it is an elementary principle of public law that in such case the government of that country, in the exercise of its varied functions, judicial and executive, administers and interprets the law in question. The right of every government in this respect is absolute and sovereign, and every person who voluntarily brings himself within the jurisdiction of the country, whether permanently or temporarily, is subject to the operation of its laws, whether he be a citizen or mere resident. In stating this familiar principle, no more is conceded to Great Britain than every country may of right demand, and it is one of the sovereign rights which the Government of the United States has always insisted upon and maintained for itself.”

A letter from the United States minister in London to the United States consul at Cork was also quoted, in which that minister says:

“The coercion act, so called, is an exceptional and arbitrary measure. * * * Its very substance and main purpose are to deprive suspected persons of the speedy trial they desire. This law is of course contrary to the spirit and foundation principles of both English and American jurisprudence. But it is the law of the land, and it controls all persons domiciled in the proclaimed districts of Ireland, whether they are [Page 252] British subjects or not, and it is manifestly entirely futile to claim that naturalized citizens of the United States should be exempted from its operation.

“Unless I am instructed to the contrary by the Department of State, I must take this view of my duties.”