Mr. Uhl to Mr.
Bayard.
Department of State,
Washington, May 8,
1895.
No. 693.]Sir: I inclose for your information copies of
two letters, one addressed to the President on February 15, 1895, the
other to the Department on the 25th ultimo, by Mr. Hugh J. Carroll, of
Pawtucket, R. I. They both refer to the case of John Curtin Kent, an
American citizen, who is undergoing life sentence at Chatham, England,
upon conviction under the treason-felony act in June, 1883.
I add also a copy of Department’s reply to Mr. Carroll, of the 8th
instant.
You are no doubt familiar with the Department’s previous instructions
upon this general subject, and the case of Mr. Kent is committed to you
for such action in his behalf as you may find it possible to take
through such discreet and proper inquiries as may suggest themselves to
your mind.
* * * * * * *
I am, etc.,
Edwin F. Uhl, Acting
Secretary.
[Inclosure 1 in No.
693.]
Mr. Carroll to
the President.
Pawtucket, R. I., February 15, 1895.
Dear Sir: The British Government having the
other day refused the request of the Irish members to reopen the
cases of political prisoners, I must again appeal to you and the
State Department in behalf
[Page 727]
of John Curtin Kent, an American citizen imprisoned in Chatham
Prison, England.
During your last Administration the State Department, through
Consul-General Waller, investigated and Governor Waller reported
that he found that prisoner was convicted on very slight and faulty
evidence and owing evidently to popular clamor.
I would respectfully ask now that more forcible representations be
made by our Government. I speak for a large number of friends of the
prisoner who acted under me while I was president of the
Irish-American Democratic Union during the last Presidential
campaign. But I do not ask it as any favor to them, as they did
their work without any idea of favors to be received. I simply ask
as a citizen representing interested friends.
Respectfully,
[Inclosure 2 in No.
693.]
Mr. Carroll to
Mr. Gresham.
Pawtucket, R. I., April 25, 1895.
Dear Sir: I wrote to the President recently
to inquire if anything further could be done for John Curtin Kent,
American citizen in jail at Chatham, England. I am informed that my
letter was referred to the State Department, but have received no
further intimation in the premises from Washington. During Governor
Waller’s term of office at London I began to have the matter looked
into, and represent the friends of the prisoner in New York.
Can you inform me if anything further has been done or is
proposed?
I would be pleased to furnish anything possible.
* * * * * * *
Respectfully,
[Inclosure 3 in No.
693.]
Mr. Uhl to Mr.
Carroll.
Department of State,
Washington, May 8,
1895.
Sir: The President has caused to be
referred to this Department your letter to him of February 15 last,
relative to the case of John Curtin Kent, an American citizen, who
is undergoing life sentence at Chatham, England, upon conviction
under the treason-felony act, in June, 1883. In this connection I
also acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 25th ultimo upon
that subject.
You are no doubt familiar with the strenuous but ineffectual efforts
put forth during the former Administration of President Cleveland to
obtain executive clemency for Mr. Kent and his fellow prisoners in
the Queen’s jubilee year, 1887. These were renewed under President
Harrison’s Administration with a like result, and again in 1893,
when the question of commuting the sentences of the chief
conspirators was under consideration in the House of Commons.
At that time the present honorable secretary, Mr. Asquith, was
unalterably opposed to any act looking to executive clemency, as a
perusal
[Page 728]
of the debates
conclusively show, and the measure was defeated by the decisive vote
of 399 to 83.
Under these circumstances, although I can assure you that the
President is animated by the same kindly feeling that actuated his
previous action in behalf of Mr. Kent, and the other unfortunate
men, the Department’s judgment is that until a more conciliatory
feeling prevails in England, no different result seems possible
through diplomatic intervention in the premises.
Still, in order that all doubt may be resolved, and that Mr. Bayard,
the United States ambassador, may be able to take advantage of any
favorable change in the situation, I shall send him copies of your
two letters, with an appropriate instruction. Mr. Bayard being upon
the spot and fully aware of the nature of the Department’s previous
instructions will not hesitate to actively intervene in Mr. Kent’s
behalf, should that course be found prudent. In this Mr. Bayard will
have the cordial approval and sympathy of the Department.
I am, etc.,
Edwin F. Uhl,
Acting Secretary.
