Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

government a crime enumerated in the treaty. On this complaint a warrant is issued for the apprehension of the accused.

2. On the accused being brought before the magistrate, such evidence můst be presented as would be deemed sufficient by that officer to commit him for trial if the crime had been committed here.

This evidence may consist of parol testimony or copies of the depositions and other papers, upon which an original warrant may bave been granted in France, legally authenticated, so as to entitle them to be received for similar purposes in that country.

3. The parol evidence of a witness who can identify the accused.

Written depositions may be admitted in evidence, without parol evidence, where their authentication is attested, as provided by the act of Congress approved June 22, 1860. (12 Stat at Large, p. 84, sec. I.)

There is nothing, however, in the statute to prevent their attestation by parol.

The commissioners whom I have consulted do not consider that the extradition treaty with France would warrant them in giving up escaped convicts who had been convicted either after trial or par contumace, merely, on the record of their conviction. They would require the same evidence in such cases as if the accused had not been convicted.

In this view of the law I concur with the commissioners, nor would I deem it good policy for the government to include the return of such persons within the provisions of an extradition treaty on any other basis.

The return of persons whose presence for other reasons might be desired in a foreign country, could be secured with much ease if the record of a conviction par contumace was sufficient for that purpose. I have the honor to be, sir, your most obedint servant,

D. S. DICKINSON,

United States District Attorney. Hon. WILLIAM H. SEWARD,

Secretary of State.

Mr. Seward to Sir F. Bruce,

Department of State,

Washington, March 6, 1866. Sir: Referring to your note of the 16th ultimo, and to my reply of the 21st of the same month, on the subject of suppressing piracy in the Chinese waters, I have the honor to state that this' department is informed, by a letter of yesterday's date from the Secretary of the Navy, that Acting Rear-Admiral Henry M. Bell, commanding the East India squadron, has been instructed to act in concert with other powers to the end proposed, consulting with the United States minister to China, and the commander of her Britannic Majesty's forces in Chinese waters, on the subject. I have the honor to be, with high consideration, sir, your obedient servant,

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. The Hon. Sir Frederick W. A. Bruce, 8c., fc., fr.

Sir F. Bruce to Mr. Seward.

WASHINGTON, March 7, 1866. SIR : Her Majesty's consul for the State of Maryland has forwarded to me copies of a correspondence between himself and the United States district attorney at Baltimore, on the jurisdiction which can be exercised by the authorities of the United States in cases of mutinies occurring on board British merchant ships in American waters.

The circumstances, which unfortunately are of frequent occurrence, which led to Mr. Bernal's application, are the following:

The British bark Campsie cleared from Baltimore on November 16, 1865, and dropping down Chesapeake bay, came to an anchor about ninety miles below. The following morning the men refused to weigh the anchors, and declared they would not go to sea in the vessel. They had no specific complaint to make, or reason to give for their refusal, but they had shipped for the run across at forty dollars a month, and had received fifty dollars advance.

The captain hailed a passing steamer and came up to Baltimore to apply to Mr. Bernal for assistance to enable him to overpower and iron the men, and get his anchors weighed, as then, with the assistance of the mates, he could set his sails and get out to sea, when the sailors would have to turn to their work.

Mr. Bernal's first application was to the custom-house, but their revenue cutter was absent. He then sent to the United States marshal, who consulted the district attorn«y, and the latter sent him word that he should have assistance if he could show him “any treaty.” The municipal police could give no aid, since it was entirely out of their jurisdiction, even if they were disposed to interfere. Mr. Bernal therefore counselled the captain to go down to Fortress Monroe and see if the naval authorities would help him. He, however, returned to his vessel, and a revenue cutter coming in sight be signalled for assistance, and an armed boat's crew was sent on board. Mr. Bernal subsequently met the lieutenant who was sent, and who told him he never saw such a set of ruf. fians. They broke seventeen pairs of irons before he could secure them, and they tried to seize his boat. He took the vessel into Norfolk, and the nine mutineers were put in jail. The vessel lay there some days, but finding there was no chance of the men being put on trial, the master sailed for Ireland. Four of the men becoming penitent, and sailors being extremely scarce, he took them on board, shipping fresh men in place of the five he left behind, for whom he left sufficient money to pay their jail fees for ten more days. At the ex. piration of that time, the judge of the circuit being absent, the men were set at liberty. The United States district attorney at Norfolk has since informed Mr. Vice-Consul Myers that Judge Underhill has given his opinion that he would have had no power to try these men.

On the 26th ultimo the bark Kathleen cleared from Baltimore, and after proceeding about fifteen miles the very same thing occurred. The ringleader in this instance was also the ring leader of the mutiny on the Campsie, and one of the five men left in jail at Norfolk.

It appears that there is an organized gang of men who practice their old game of bounty.jumping" by shipping as sailors, receiving their advance, and then deserting or refusing to work.

The application for redress was made fruitlessly as before, and finally the master shipped a new crew and procured some strong police irons in order to carry the worst of the mutineers over to England.

Mr. Jones, in his letter to the consul, dated January 18, 1866, seems inelined to hold that the United States authorities in such cases might interfere at the request of the consul, but he suggests that the point should be referred to Washington, and accordingly I have the honor to call your attention to the question stated in Mr. Bernal's letter of the 4th January, as to the remedy or protection existing in the event of a mutiny occurring on board a British merchant vessel in American waters.

From the reports of various consular officers it appears that the evil is one of considerable magnitude and injurious to commerce, and that it is most desirable that seamen should not be allowed to commit these mutinous acts with impunity.

I have the honor to be, with the highest consideration, sir, your most obedient, humble servant,

FREDERICK W. A. BRUCE. Hon. WILLIAM H. SEWARD, $c., Sc., fr.

Mr. Bernal to Mr. Jones.

BRITISH CONSULATE FOR THE STATE OF MARYLAND,

Baltimore, December 29, 1865. SIR : Repeated cases are occurring of mutiny on board British merchant vessels clearing from this port. A set of men are making a business of shipping themselves, receiving their advance, and then obstinately refusing to do their duty as sailors.

They count on the inability of captains to remain here to prosecute them, and on the chance of their consequently escaping unpunished. I need not point out to you that not only is a serious loss and injury indicted on these particular vessels, but the whole shipping community are likely to become sufferers by an evil which is sure to increase in proportion to the impunity which may attend its progress. Some weeks ago a mutiny occurred in Chesapeake bay on board the British bark Campsie, and was only quelled by the most determined measures taken by the captain of a United States revenue cutter which fortu. dately bappened to come up. On my applying, in the early stage of the affair, to the United States marsbal for assistance to enable the captain to overpower the mutineers, I received word, as I understood, from you that it should be given if I could show that it was provided for in the treaty. I believe that international comity requires no treaty in cases of this kind. Be this as it may, my present object is to ask you to be good enough to inform me if I can look to the United States officials for assistance should I unfortunately require it at any future time for a similar purpose, and also, when the captain of the vessel cannot remain to prosecute, whether there would be any means of getting such mutineers punished. I have, &c.,

FREDERICK BERNAL. W. J. Jones, Esq., United States District Attorney, Baltimore.

Mr. Jones to Mr. Bernal.

SIR : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your communication of the 29th ulti mo in reference to mutineers upon British ships clearing from this port.

I shall take very great pleasure in rendering every assistance in my power, and which I am authorized to render by the acts of Congress.

I refer you to the act of Congress approved June 11, 1864, chapter cxvi, page 121, 13 Statutes at Large, for the law regulating the subject. I am, &c.,

W. J. JONES,

United States District Attorney for Maryland. FREDERICK BERNAL, Esq.

Mr. Bernal to Mr. Jones.

BRITISH CONSULATE FOR THE STATE OF MARYLAND,

Baltimore, January 4, 1866. SIR : I beg to thank you for your communication and for the expression of your willingness to do all the law empowers you in regard to mutinies occurring on board British mer. chant vessels. I have examined the act of Congress of June, 1864, referred to by you, and find that it is almost a repetition of the act of March 2, 1829. There is no special consular convention between Great Britain and the United States, but the enclosed paragraph taken from Wilmer & Smith's European Times relative to the proceedings with regard to sailors on board American vessels in the port of Liverpool will show you that the absence of a convention does not prevent American shipping interests from receiving due protection in England. The point on which I want you to be good enough to inform me in your position as a legal official of the United States is this : In the absence of an express consular convention between our two countries, and in view of the act of Congress of June, 1864; what remedy or protection exists in the event of a mutiny occurring on board a British merchant vessel while in American waters. I have, &c.,

FREDERICK BERNAL. W. J. JONES, Esq., United States District Attorney, Baltimore.

P. S.-I would particularly draw your attention to the second of the two enclosed cases.

Mr. Jones to Mr. Bernal.

BALTIMORE, January 18, 1865. SIR: I regret that your communication of the 4th instant has remained so long unanswered, owing to my professional engagements and severe illness in my family.

But now in reply thereto I say that I should hesitate seriously before I would direct the officers of the court to enter upon a British vessel. I admit that the request of the representative of the British government would seem to justify such action, and to estop that gov. ernment from making any complaint, but as a measure of prudence I suggest that the matter to your minister at Washington, so that he may bring it to the attention of the Department of State. I am, &c.,

W. J. JONES,

United States District Attorney for Maryland. FREDERICK BERNAL, Esq.

you refer

Mr. Seward to Sir F. Bruce.

DEPARTMENT OF State,

Washington, March 16, 1866. SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your communication of the 7th instant, relative to the question stated in its accompanying copy of a letter of the 4th of January last, addressed by her Majesty's consul for the State of Maryland to the United States district attorney at Baltimore, as to the remedy of protection existing in the event of a mutiny occurring on board a British merchant vessel in American waters.

With regard to the circumstance which gave rise to Mr. Bernal's application, as described in your communication, I have the honor in reply to state that there is no doubt of the jurisdiction of our officers and tribunals to interfere in the way of prevention or of punishment in breaches of the peace occurring in American waters upon foreign vessels. There is no reason why our police, civil or naval, should hesitate to board a British vessel for the purpose of quelling a mutiny, attended with assaults upon the officers or violent resistance to the exercise of their legitimate authority—or subjecting refractory seamen to temporary confinement. The difficulty, however, is supposed to arise in cases where seamen simply refuse to work, and where confinement of them would reduce the vessel to a floating jail, without the power of motion. The remedy that is supposed to be wanted is a compulsion upon the men to do their duty; in other words, to enforce a specific obligation of their contract. No officer or tribunal of the United States has the capacity to apply such a remedy, except in execution of a treaty or convention, which seems necessary as the basis of laws of Congress regulating the mode of proceeding. A treaty is also necessary to justify the detention here of a foreign seaman upou the order of his consul, or otherwise than as a criminal offender.

For any intervention beyond the limit thus indicated an agreement between the two governments would seem to be requisite. I have to remark, however, that the question which I have discussed is purely a legal one, upon wbich I ought to reserve myself for consultation with the Attorney General. Giving you the opinions now entertained by me, I will at any time request the opinion of the law officer, if a practical case shall arise.

I have the honor to be, with the highest consideration, sir, your obedient servant,

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. The Hon. Sir Frederick W. A. Bruce, Sc., 80., 8c.

Mr. Seward to Sir F. Bruce.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE,

Washington, March 21, 1866. Sir: With reference to your communication of the 5th of January last, in regard to the shooting of George Holmes, a native of Jamaica, by the sentinel of the United States gunboat James Adger, while she was lying alongside one of the wharves at Colon, I have the honor to enclose for

your

information a copy of a letter of the 15th instant, and its accompaniments from the Navy Department.

I have the honor to be, sir, with the highest consideration, your obedient servant,

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. The Hon. Sir FREDERICK W. A. BRUCE, 8C., Sc., St.

[ocr errors][merged small]

NAVY DEPARTMENT,

Washington, March 15, 1866. Sir: I have the honor to transmit herewith a copy of the finding of the material facts by a naval court of inquiry in regard to the killing of George Holmes, colored, said to be a British subject, at Aspinwali, United States of Colombia, on the 10th day of November, 1865. I also return herewith all the papers transmitted by the Department of State relative to the affair. Very respectfully, your obedient servant.

GIDEON WELLES, Secretary of the Nary. Hon. W. H. SEWARD,

Secretary of State, Washington, D. C.

The naval court of inquiry convened on board the United States steamship James Adger at Aspinwall, United States of Colombia, on the 20th of February, 1866, by order of the Secretary of the Navy of the United States, to investigate the shooting and killing of George Holmes, (colored,) was in the words following:

The court, after maturely considering the evidence adduced in the case, find the following facts established :

That the United States steamer James Adger, on the night of November 10, 1865, was lying alongside the Central wharf at Aspinwall, United States of Colombia, having bauled in for coal and stores.

That two sentries from the marine guard of the James Adger were posted on the wharf, inside the gates, to protect the property of the United States on the wharf, and to prevent desertions from the ship.

That to land marines from United States ships of war for such duty, and for other purposes, has been and still is usual at Aspinwall and Panama.

That James Kinsilla was one of the sentries on that Central wharf on the night of November 10, 1865, and that the orders for his post were "To allow no one to pass through the gate except officers of the United States steamship James Adger."

That the post of Kipsilla was No. 1, and that the other sentry, Gallagher, was post No. 2, being at the side of the wharf opposite to No. 1 post, and divided from it by a raised platform with stores upon it and by railroad cars. T'he post of Kinsilla, post No. 1, being the

only one with means of entrance to and exit from the wharf-the gate by Gallagher's post, • post No. 2, being closed.

That several negroes had been allowed in the early part of the evening to pass in at Kinsilla's post, post No. 1, by special permission of Acting Volunteer Lieutenant Commander John MacDearmid, commanding the United States steamship James Adger, to sleep upon the wharf, and that others who had been employed upon the wharf during the day had been permitted to remain there after working hours, to sleep, and that all these negroes had been made to lie down near the ship and not allowed to remain near the gate, nor near the centre of the wharf where the United States stores were.

That on the night in question the space from the gate where Kinsilla was posted to the ship was well lighted with ship's lanterns.

« AnteriorContinuar »