Page images
PDF
EPUB

government. After the verdict had been returned against him, and before sentence had been pronounced. Gould stated that he was a citizen of the United States of America, and if Charles Francis Adams had done his duty towards him, as he was paid for doing, he would _ not be in that dock answering questions. Shore declared that, “as an American citizen, he had of course expected to receive the protection of the ambassador of his own government." Warren, on being indicted before the commission court at Dublin, applied through his counsel for a ury composed in part of American citizens, on the ground that his allegiance had been transferred to the United States. The lord chief baron rejected the application promptly and decisively, “the law of England being clear, and administered without variation from the earliest times—-that the man who was once a British subject, as the prisoner admitted that lid was, remained so forever.” Warren thereupon protested against being arraigned, tried, or judged by any British subject, instructed his counsel to withdraw from the casefiand added: “I now place it in the hands of the United States; which has now become the principal.” Though cautioned by the court, he adhered to this resolution, and a gentleman presently appeared to watch the proceedings on behalf of the United States consul. The ief baron very properly declined to allow so irregular a course, but treated the prisoner wi h great consideration, and took care that his cause should not suffer for want of professional advocacy. He was convicted, however; and one of our Irish contemporaries, in commenting upon the case, has thought fit to impugn the decision of the lord chief baron on the legal question, whether he was entitled to “ignore the 'urisdiction of the court," or to claim a jury do medietale, as a foreigner. Upon the spirit an intent of the article headed “Only an American citizen,” in which this point is urged, we forbear to make any remark, but the point itself is one of real importance, and calculated ii) mislead unlearned persons, unless placed in its true light. The writer maintains that, if the chief baron’s ruling be sustained, George Washington, Franklin, and all the other early heroes of independence, remained to the last days of their lives subjects of Great Britain ”—“irnpenitent rebels”— “at any time liable to be hung by the neck, if caught, and not entitled to the rights of prisoners of war.” “The question is,” as he states it, “ whether an American'citizen has any right to the privilege accorded by law to every other alien,” and, in particular. to that of being tried by a jury half composed of aliens ; and upon this question, as he represents, “the two countries are now face to face.” We have yet to learn the authority for this last assertion, if it be meant that any claim of this kind has been preferred or sanctioned by the government of the United States. Its validity, however, does not depend on whether it has bgen pressed or hot, and admits of being determined pn principles which are well ascertaine .

Very few propositions of international law are better established or more familiar than the axiom, that a natural-born-subject cannot transfer his allegiance from one sovereign to another at pleasure. How far he may be enabled to do so by the laws of his native or of his adopted country cannot be laid down with equal precision, inasmuch as there is no definite and comprehensive maxim on the subject universally adopted by the municipal legislation of all civilized countries. But no doubt whatever exists as to the doctrine of our own law, which is here identical with that of the United States In the words of Lord Stowell, a person born in England, but naturalized in a foreign state. “is subject to all the obligations imposed on him by his nativityi He cannot shake off his allegiance to his native country or divest himself altogether of his British character by a voluntary transfer ot' himself to another country,” even for the purpose of trading in contraband goods with an enemy of Great Britain. In the words of Chancellor Kent, “from an historical review of the principal decisions in the federal courts, the better opinion would seem to' be that a citizen cannot renounce his allegiance to the United States without the permission of government, to be declared by law, and that, as there is no existing regulation on the case, the rule of the English common law remains unaltered.” General Halleck, one of the highest and latest American authorities on international law, fully embraces the consequences of this rule, and, as he observes, even those writers who are in favor of limiting it, allow that “ the renunciation of nationality does not release him who avails himself of it from any of the obligations which he owes either to his country or to his countrymen, nor can it ever be appealed to as a mask to cover crime.” Mr. Webster, in one instance, went still further, and granted that France, which, like England and the United States, does not permit her citizens to renounce their allegiance, might lawfully claim the services of a Frenchman naturalized in America, “ when found withip French jurisdiction.” The resistance of the United States to the impressment of naturalized seamen by Great Britain in the early part of this century is in-no degree inconsistcnt with this position, since it was founded not on a denial of our right to claim their services, but on a denial of our right to enforce that claim by search. Indeed, whatever differences may be found in the codes of different nations with respect to the power of citi zens to shake off the duties with the privileges of allegiance, we believe the annals of criminal justice may be searched in vain for a precedent in favor of the right asserted by our contemporary—that is, the right of a natural-born subject, indicted for treason or murder in this country, to plead naturalization in America, and to be tried. if at all, as an alien. It was assuredly not for the benefit of persons thus circumstanced that Edward I allowed forelgn merchants, presumed to be ignorant of our language, the doubtful advantage of a mixed jury, coupled, as history tells us, with the hardship of a mutual liability for each other’s

crimes. It is, perhaps, scarcely worthwhile to consider how a court of law would have dealt with Franklin or Washington, had they beenindicted as “ impenitent rebels” after the war of independence. Sutfice it to say that, for obvious reasons, afiirmed and explained in a memorable judgment on this very subject, all ties of natural allegiance are severed by a treaty of peace wherein the Crown expressly relinquishes its authority over a seceding colony. '

The moral aspect of the claims so presumptnously advanced is too clear to admit of a moment's doubt. If there be one class of Fenian conspirators rather than another which deserves no mercy at the. hands of the government, it is a class of American filibusters who have long infested Dublin, and are beginning to infest our own great cities. It is possible to feel some compassion for the silly Irish youths who are first seduced into playing at sedition, and then led on by appeals to their pride and their fears into overt acts of treason. It is even possible to feel compassion-for an educated Irishman who becomes a Fenian with his eyes open, taking his life in his hand, under the influence of a patriotic hallucination. For the restless adventurers whom the close of the American war has let loose upon the world, and who fancy they can here perpetrate with impunity deeds for which they would be hanged at home, with or without law, we can feel no compassion at all, on whichever side of the Atlantic they may have been born. There were peculiar reasons which justified the government in sparing more than one of them on a former occasion, but those reasons exist no longer. We must deal with them as the government whose protection they invoke would deal with ruflians guilty of like outrages in the streets of New York. They have already had fair warning, and they may he assured that if they should fall into the hands of justice no American minister will lntercede for them, and no English minister will venture to reprieve them. ~

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

No. 2087.] DEPARTMENT or STATE, . Washington, November 5, 1867.

SIR : I have to acknowledge the receipt of your despatch of the 23d of October, No. 1467. .

Having carefully read the papers which accompany that communication, I have now to observe that it will be impossible for this government to acquiesce in the practice which has obtained of ‘an indefinite suspension of the kabeas corpus in the time of peace and with no declared insurrection in Ireland, while the privileges of the writ remain undisturbed in England and Scotland. The practice especially operates to discriminate dangerously against one class of citizens of the. United States when sojourning abroad under the protection of a mutual treaty, that class being one that, though discriminated against in Great Britain, has received special guarantees of protection from the United States.

It is certain that the course of proceeding which has been pursued in Ireland hitherto has induced the consul there to answer citizens of the United States detained under arbitrary arrest that he could not lend his good ofiices to them unless they should produce passports, which no public law or military order in force in that country requires a foreigner to carry while sojourning there.

It is easy to see how the studied reservations in the correspondence of the Irish local government with the consul has obliged him to give to arrested prisoners such replies as are complained of. It ought not to be diflicult for her Majesty’s government to perceive how such replies may serve to excite and inflame popular opinion in the United States.

For these reasons the President desires that you will earnestly renew your appeal to the British government to adopt either the measure which was suggested in my despatch No. 2049, or some other measure which will not leave it doubtful that every citizen of the United States arrested in Ireland without authority of law enjoys the same attention and measure of protection at the hands of this government that every British subject'is allowed to claim from his own government under parallel circumstances when arrested or detained in the United States. '

I am, sir, your obedient servant,
' WILLIAM SEWARD.

Casrmss FRANCIS Aosms, Esq., Qu, dc, 8;v. '

[ocr errors]

Mr. Adams to lllr. Seward.

No. 1478.] LEG-A'l‘l0N.0F THE UNITED STATES, London, November 9, 1867.

SIR: Apart from the events taking place in Italy, there has been no incident of interest this week. The trials of persons implicated in the rescue at Manchester have resulted in the acquittal of a number, the release of others, and the condemnation of three more.

At Dublin the trial of Costello has terminated in the discharge of the jury on

account of dif1"erence of opinion. This was mainly brought about by the very

skilful management of the case by his counsel, Mr. Heron. Had Captain Wa1'- .

ren consented to accept the same aid, instead of assuming the position he did, and attempting to manage his own case afterwards, it is no_t unlikely the same result might have followed.

The next caseis that of William Halpin, who appears to allege citizenship from naturalization, but he has never thought proper to make any claim on this legation, from whiéh.I infer that he has not the evidence in his possession.

The charges made by the lawyers employed to defend Colonel Nagle,and—

Captain Warren are, as I anticipated, very heavy. The other prisoners, I have reason to believe, are protected, when they prefer that course, at much less cost and with quite as much efficiency. I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. Hon. VVILLIAM H. Snwnno, _ Secretary of State, lVas7zingt0n, D. G.

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

No. 2091.] DEPARTMENT or STATE, ' ' Was/zington, November 15, 1867.

SIR ; You will have received a telegram from this department of the present date instructing you to obtain from her Majesty’s government an order for suspension or delay of judgment or execution in the case of Captain John Wari'en, recently tried for treason-felony in Dublin, Ireland.

Your particular attention is further directed to this subject in order that time may be afforded the government of the United States to examine the subject fully and determine what,measures to take in the premises.

I am,'sir, your obedient servant,

[ocr errors]

Mr. Scwarcl to Mr. Adams.

No. 2093.] DEPARTMENT or STATE, Washington, November 16, 1867.

SIR: Recurring to your despatch of November 2d, No. 1474, I remark that we are not uninformed that even Mr. Bright and his political associates look unfavorably upon our claim, to hold the British government responsible in the case of the Alabama for its unnecessary and ungenerous recognition of the insurgents as belligerents. This, although a source of regret, is not one of surprise or special complaint. With all their virtue, Mr. Bright and his associates are not citizens of the United States, but British subjects. In regard to the position held by this government, I can only say that the sentiment of the American people is,as unanimolfs as Lord Stanley finds that the opposing sentiment is unanimous in Great Britain. It may be well, therefore, to let it be understood that we are not at all likely to yield the attitude we have hitherto maintained.

I am, sir, your obedient servant,
‘WILLIAM H. SEWARD.

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS, Esq., t'§~c., <§~c., &'c.

[ocr errors]

-No. 1481.] LsoA'rio,N or THE UNITED STATES, London, November 16, 1867.

SIR: I have to acknowledge the receipt of despatches from the department, numbered 2085 and 2086; also, of a telegram by the cable, dated yesterday, the 15th instant, desiring me to delay judgment or execution in Warren’s case.

This seems to have been sent under a partial knowledge of the facts attend

ing this trial. At the close of it the court did not give judgment, but simply.

ordered the prisoner to stand aside, probably with an intention to reserve judgment until the other cases had been disposed of.

Moreover, the offence of treason-felony, as it is defined by statute, is not one involving a. penalty of life, so that, in any event, there is no prospect of the execution of the prisoner. Under these circumstances, I do not quite perceive what I can do at present that will promote the object designated in the telegram.

The government has determined upon another effort to convict Costello, it being understood that in the last jury there were only one or two .dissentients. Tlre trial is now going on at Dublin. The reports are furnished to you from Dublin by my direction, as I learn from the consul at that place.

I have received a long letter from Shore or Shaw, one of_the five men con. demned to death for the attempt -to rescue two prisoners at Manchester, afiirming his citizenship under the name of Edward Q’.\_leagher Condon, and asking my interposition to prevent the execution of the penalty. It is much to be regretted that he should not have made his application to me previously to the trial, when possibly a better defence might have been prepared for him.

From a. careful review of the evidence, it appears pretty clear that he was present and actively engaged in the attack upon the prison van, but that, unlike the other three, he was without fire-arms or any other weapon than stones. I have written to Mr. Lord, the consul at Manchester, to see the prisoner if possible, and to report whether anything can be done for him; but I fear the nature of the assault, and the general feeling of panic which it has spread far and wide over the place and vicinity, will render it useless to approach the government with any plea in mitigation of the sentence.

I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant.

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. Hon. WVILLIAM H. SEW/\'RD, Secretary of State, Washington, D. C’.

[ocr errors]

Mr. Adams to 1111-. Seward.

No. 1482.] LEGATION or THE UNITED STATES, London, November 18, 1867.

SIR: Since writing my despa.tch No. 1481, of the 16th of November, I have received intelligence from Dublin of another change of plan on the part of the government.

On that same day the trial of Costello terminated in a verdict of guilty, and the solicitor of Ireland announced an intention to transfer the persons remaining in custody to be tried in the county of Sligo in March next. As a consequence the court, being about to adjourn, proceeded at once to judgment. Captain Warren was then sentenced to fifteen years and Costello to twelve years of penal servitude. '

I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant. ' CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. Hon. WILLIAM H. SEWARD, ' Secretary of State, Washington, D. C.

llfr. Seward lo Zlfr. Adams.
' [Telegram per cable.]

DEPARTMENT or STATE,
IVas7tington, November 19, 1867.

QH'ARLEs FRANCIS Anmus, Esq., 8pc., Qu, Solicit clemency for O’Brien and McCondon, sentenced at Manchester. WILLIAM H. SEWARD.

Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams.

No. 2096.] DEPARTMENT or STATE,
IVas/zington, November 21', 1867.

SIR : I have toacknowledge the receipt of your despatch of the 9th of November, No. 1478. ' s

The occurrences at Manchester must be regarded as unfortunate. It is not to be denied that the case involved a great crime against municipal law. At the same time, the nature of that crime is liable to be overlooked in this country in the political character which the Fenian proceedings everywhere assume. There is a period in the history of every popular cause when severity loses its restraining efl'ect, and terror lends strength to the revolutionists. Under this view of the subject, I instructed you on the 19th instant to solicit clemency for Michael O’Brien and Edward O. McCondon, convicted at Manchester.

The proceedings in the case of Colonel Warren, at Dublin, are the subject of even more serious concern. The court on the trial of Wa1'ren pronounced British allegiance indefeasible, and claimed, by virtue of that indefeasibility, to hold the prisoner amenable, as a British subject, to that court for acts done in the United States which are not forbidden by our own laws or by international law, and for which, even by British law, they do not claim he would be responsible if not a subject of Great Britian. The United States hold, on the contrary, that in such case he, being a naturalized citizen of the United States, is not amenable to the courts of Great Britain or any foreign tribunal. I regret, exceedingly, that such an issue has been raised between the two countries. I

[ocr errors]
« PreviousContinue »