Mr. Burnley to Mr. Seward. WASHINGTON, February 25, 1865. SIR With reference to your note of the 16th December last, relative to a requisition for the extradition of the St. Albans raiders on the government of New Brunswick, I beg to enclose copy of a despatch and of an enclosure from the solicitor general of the colony, which I would beg to recommend to your consideration. I have the honor to be, with the highest consideration, sir, your most obedient, humble servant, Hon. WILLIAM H. SEWARD, &c., &c., &c. Mr. Gordon to Mr. Burnley. J. HUME BURNLEY. FREDERICTON, February 18, 1865.. SIR: I have the honor to inform you that I have, in compliance with the request of the Secretary of State of the United States, issued my warrant authorizing the arrest of Samuel Eugene Lackey, Squire Turner Travis, Charles Moore Swager, George Scott, Bennett H. Young, Caleb McDowall Wallace, James Alexander Doty, Joseph McGinty, Samuel Simpson Gregg, Dudley Moore, Thomas Bronsden Collins, Marcus Spurr, Alexander Pope Bruce, and William H. Hutchinson, under the provisions of the extradition treaty. I think it right to put you in possession of the opinion with which the solicitor general, by whom the warrant was prepared, has at the same time furnished me. I have, &c., J. HUME BURNLEY, Esq., &c., &c., &c. ARTHUR H. GORDON. Solicitor General to the Lieutenant Governor of New Brunswick. FREDERICTON, N. B., February 8, 1865. May it please your excellency, in obedience to your excellency's instructions I beg herewith to enclose the draught of a warrant against the parties therein named, under the imperial extradition act, 6 and 7 Vict., cap. 76. This warrant I have framed upon the requisition of the Hon. William H. Seward, addressed to the British chargé d'affaires at Washington, of date December 19, 1864, a copy of which your excellency submitted to me for my guidance. I must, however, inform your excellency that the requisition is defective in some important particulars, inasmuch as it does not name or specify any person or persons upon whom the crimes charged in the requisition, or any of them, have been committed, and also omits to mention the time of the commission of any of the said crimes; and, therefore, no complete offence is charged upon which a valid warrant can be based. For these reasons I am of opinion that no legal arrest of any of the parties named, for the causes alleged, can be made upon the papers as now submitted by the American authorities. CHARLES WATTERS. Hon. ARTHUR H. GORDON, &c., &c., &c. Mr. Burnley to Mr. Seward. WASHINGTON, February 25, 1865. SIR: With reference to previous correspondence with the lieutenant governor of New Brunswick on the subject of the Chesapeake, I have the honor to enclose copy of a despatch of the 18th instant, which I have received from Mr. Gordon, transmitting copy of a report, made to his excellency by the high sheriff of St. John's, as to the steps taken by him to secure the apprehension of the captors of this vessel. I have the honor to be, with the highest consideration, sir, your most obedient, humble servant, Hon. WILLIAM H. SEWARD, &c., &c., &c. J. HUME BURNLEY. Mr. Gordon to Mr. Burnley. FREDERICTON, February 18, 1865. SIR: I have the honor to transmit for your information a copy of a report made to me by the high sheriff of St. John's, as to the steps taken by him to secure the apprehension of the captors of the Chesapeake. I have also the honor to inform you that since the date of the report Linus Seely, one of the parties implicated, has been arrested at St. John's, and is now awaiting examination before one of the members of the high court of admiralty. I have, &c., &c., J. H. BURNLEY, Esq., &c., &c., &c. A. H. GORDON. High Sheriff of St. John's to Provincial Secretary. SHERIFF'S OFFICE, St. John's, February 8, 1865. SIR: In reply to yours of the 7th instant, you will be kind enough to submit to his excellency the lieutenant governor the following, all the information I have in reference to the persons implicated in the seizure of the Chesapeake: That when first the warrant of Mr. Justice Parker, of date March 16, 1864, was put into my hands, I called upon the chief of police of the city, requesting him to direct his men to arrest any of the parties whose names were in the warrant, which he said he would do; that on Sunday afternoon, in December last past, the American consul in St. John's called upon me, stating that George Wade, one of the parties, had arrived in the steamer running between Boston and this city some ten days previous. I immediately called on the chief of police informing him of the fact, communicated by the consul, and requesting the assistance of his force, which he acceded to, and directed the house of his, Wade's wife, to be watched ; and I personally went to Loch Lomond, in this county, where his father resides, and caused a watch to be put on it and the neighborhood. Shortly after I heard of his being in the cars on his way to Halifax, Nova Scotia, to ship as a sailor there. The two Coxes were reported at the same time to be making shingles in the woods near the road leading to St. Andrew's, for the arrest of whom I engaged the most likely persons I knew of, but without success, and could not gain even certain information of their being there, as they are difficult of identification, being but little known here; and I beg to assure his excellency that no pains shall be spared to arrest the parties should they be within this county. I have, &c., &c. Honorable S. L. TILLEY. J. A. HARDING. Mr. Seward to Mr. Burnley. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, February 25, 1865. SIR: I have the honor now to reply to the note which you addressed to me on the 10th of January last concerning the case of the late James Hardcastle. My communication of the 5th of November last was intended to be understood as expressing a final conviction of this government, that it could not justly be called upon to offer remuneration for the homicide of which her Majesty's government complained. Nevertheless, I have no disposition to regard with impatience the renewal of a question of so interesting a character by her Majesty's government. Earl Russell has so far concurred with this government in the matter as to conclude that no advantage would result from recapitulating the former argument, to which my last communication was intended to be a full reply. Nevertheless, Earl Russell adheres to his first positions, and instructs you to support them by new arguments foreign from the record. Those arguments are drawn from a late publication of the United States Sanitary Commission in regard to rebel treatment of United States prisoners of war Upon statements made in that publication her Majesty's government reason that, in this matter of Hardcastle, the government of the United States justifies the shooting of prisoners by its authorities in a case identical with one in which they condemn the like practice on the part of the rebels. I have to remark upon that point that the pamphlet of the United States Sanitary Commission, although I acknowledge it is a very important and useful publication, is, nevertheless, one which was made, not by this government, or by its authority or sanction, but by enlightened and patriotic citizens, acting privately and independently of executive authority. Her Majesty's government find in that paper a statement made by Major General Meigs, the Quartermaster General of the United States, to the effect that he has never heard, and does not believe, that orders exist in our service for shooting prisoners who appear at the windows of the prisons, and a further statement that such a regulation does not exist at Fort Delaware. Major General Meigs is admitted to be very high authority in the United States. But he has no charge of the discipline of prisoners in the army, and very good reason can be seen why a less rigorous discipline might be adopted in the prison of Fort Delaware, far removed from the theatre of war and politics, than was actually found necessary in the Old Capitol prison, which is located at the seat of government, infested with spies and continually menaced by insurgent armies. Her Majesty's government persist in regarding the offence of James Hardcastle against the discipline of the prison as having been one of inadvertence and unconsciousness. This government, on the contrary, is of the opinion that the offence was contumacious. Her Majesty's government regard Hardcastle as a peaceful, innocent stranger. On the contrary, the settled conviction of this government is that he was an enemy of the United States. These remarks seem sufficient to show that the United States are justified in adhering to the views concerning the case of James Hardcastle which they have heretofore expressed. I have the honor to be, with the highest consideration, sir, your obedient ser vant, J. HUME BURNLEY, Esq., &c., &c., sx. WILLIAM H. SEWARD. Mr. Seward to Mr. Burnley. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, February 27, 1865. SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your note of the 8th instant, requesting, with reference to the extradition of the St. Albans felons supposed to be lurking in the province of New Brunswick, that the United States consul at St. John's may furnish the lieutenant governor of New Brunswick with such information as will enable him to secure their apprehension, and to inform you that the suggestions of the lieutenant governor having been adopted, the United States consul at St. John's has been instructed accordingly. I have the honor to be, with the highest consideration, sir, your obedient serWILLIAM H. SEWARD. vant, J. HUME BURNLEY, Esq., &c., &c., &c. Mr. Burnley to Mr. Seward. WASHINGTON, February 28, 1865. SIR: Her Majesty's government have had under their consideration the note which I did myself the honor of addressing to you on the 23d ultimo, relative to the cotton owned by British subjects at Savannah, and it seems proper at the present juncture that the views of her Majesty's government should be made perfectly clear to the United States government on this important question; a question which may engage the attention of her Majesty's representative here as southern towns successively fall into the hands of the Union forces. Her Majesty's government observe in the outset that it is an uncontroverted proposition of international law that if a neutral subject has a just title to property found by a belligerent in a town which he has obtained by conquest from the enemy, such property is not liable to confiscation, and that this principle is simple and intelligible. War gives the belligerent a perfect right to capture the goods of his enemy, but none to capture the goods of his friend. That the principle does not depend upon the element on which the goods of the neutral happen to be in company with the goods of the enemy. That the obligation to restore to the neutral owner his goods is equally binding upon the belligerent, whether he captures them in the ship or in the town of his enemy. Such are the general principles of law applicable to the case. It is for the claimants to give clear proof that the goods in question are bona fide the property of the neutral, and that the neutral has not so conducted himself during the war as to have impressed upon himself the character of an enemy. In cases of real doubt and uncertainty, the belligerent would be justified in submitting the question of property to the investigation of the proper authority at home; but it would be, in the opinion of her Majesty's government, a great hardship imposed on the neutral owner to send the cotton from Savannah to New York for this purpose, and the act would be an unfriendly one on the part of the United States Executive, unless there were a real and well-founded apprehension that the cotton might be subject to recapture by the enemy at Savannah while the question as to its ownership was pending and undecided; but if, on the other hand, there be really no doubt that these bales of cotton do belong to a neutral owner, and that they can be distinguishable on the spot by ordinary measures, the arbitrary transfer of the cotton to New York would be a subject of legitimate complaint on the part of the government of the neutral owner. In the note which I had the honor to address to you on the 7th instant, I then took occasion to remark that the action of the military authorities at Savannah was prejudicial to the rights of the owners, and that I did not clearly see how such owners were to make out their case, even before a proper court, if hindrances were placed in their way towards registering those claims. I must, therefore, pending further instructions from her Majesty's government, and information as to the actual transfer of cotton to New York, protest as directed against any compulsory sale of that which is claimed by British owners. I have the honor to be, with the highest consideration, sir, your most obedient, humble servant, Hon. WILLIAM H. SEWARD, &c., &c., &c. J. HUME BURNLEY. Mr. Seward to Mr. Burnley. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, March 1, 1865. SIR: I have the honor to enclose for the information of his excellency, Viscount Monck, a copy of a communication of the 25th ultimo from M. esquire, of Cincinnati, Ohio, indicating parties who would be likely to give important evidence in regard to the plots and hostile expeditions in Canada against the peace of the United States. I must request that the name of the person furnishing the information may be regarded as confidential. I have the honor to be, with the highest consideration, sir, your vant, obedient ser SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your note of the 25th ultimo, which is accompanied by a copy of a communication of the 18th ultimo from the lieutenant governor of New Brunswick, respecting the impediments in the way of the extradition in that province of Samuel Eugene Lackey and others, who were engaged in the St. Albans outrages, and whose extradition was requested in my note of the 19th of December last. When that note was addressed to you it was supposed that the felons who were the subjects of it had fled to New Brunswick, but it subsequently appeared that they were in Canada, and their re-arrest was effected. This state of facts renders it unnecessary to provide evidence in the case; but I would recall your attention to the fact that even if it had been necessary according to past usage, I referred you for such evidence, at the conclusion of my note of the 19th of December last, to the papers which were enclosed in my previous note of the 21st of November, namely, the certified copies of complaints and warrants issued in the courts of Vermont, which gave all of the facts and charges in due legal form, and which are understood to have been forwarded by you to the authorities in Canada, where it is presumed legalized copies of them could have been obtained by the authorities of New Brunswick. I have the honor to be, with the highest consideration, sir, your obedient servant, WILLIAM H. SEWARD. J. HUME BURNLEY, Esq., &c., &c., &c. Mr. Seward to Mr. Burnley. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, SIR: I have the honor to enclose herewith a copy of a despatch of the 24th ultimo, from the consul general of the United States at Havana, relative to the movements of a schooner called the Gypsy, which vessel, upon arriving at Nassau, it is supposed, will be fitted out by insurgent agents to depredate upon American commerce. I beg to request that you will, without loss of time, call the attention of the proper authorities at Nassau to the matter. I have the honor to be, with high consideration, sir, your obedient servant, WILLIAM H. SEWARD. J. HUME BURNLEY, Esq., &c., &c., &c. |