Page images
PDF
EPUB

for acts committed during the war, for the purpose of passing upon which this commission was instituted.

On the part of the defence it was maintained by Her Majesty's counsel that the proofs in the case showed no state of facts importing any lack of care or diligence on the part of the authorities of Canada in the maintenance of their international obligations. That the persons who committed the acts complained of at Saint Albans did not enter the States from Canada in a body, nor with any military array or equipment; that they passed over the lines from Canada individually or in small parties, with the appearance and in the manner of ordinary travellers; that the authorities of Canada had no reason to suppose them engaged in a hostile expedition against the United States, and that no grounds existed for their arrest or detention by those authorities; that there was nothing in their appearance or movements to excite suspicion; that the Government of the United States had, in 1862, voluntarily annulled its own passport regulations which had previous to that time required. all persons coming from Canada into the United States to be provided with passports countersigned by the United States consul general at Montreal; and that from that time until after the Saint Albans raid there was no regulation interfering with the free and ordinary passage of travellers across the line. That the degree of diligence contended for by the counsel for the claimants would have required of the Canadian authorities a careful examination of every person travelling from Canada to the States as to his character and objects, and would, in effect, have abolished the free intercourse between the provinces and the States which had existed under the full assent and approval of both governments. That from the diplomatic correspondence between the two governments it appeared that the United States had never preferred a claim of pecuniary liability against Great Britain on account of this raid; but, on the contrary, the American Secretary of State, Mr. Seward, had on different occasions expressed his satisfaction with the action of the Canadian authorities, and had particularly expressed through the British legation his thanks to Lord Monck, the governor-general, for the assistance rendered by the Canadian authori ties toward the detection and arrest of the offenders. That in the protocols to the treaty, in the four preliminary notes between Mr. Secretary Fish and Sir Edward Thornton, on the subject of the formation of the Joint High Commission which framed the treaty, and by the confidential memorandum or brief sent by Secretary Fish to General Schenck of that commission for the information and guidance of himself and colleagues, there was no allusion to the Saint Albans raid, much less to any claims on the part of the United States growing out of the acts committed or omitted by the British government in relation thereto. That the only explanation that could be given of this omission was that the Government of the United States did not consider itself entitled to make any international demands in the premises. That in fact the

proofs failed to show that the raid was organized in Canada; that the raiders procured arms or ammunition there, or did any other act within Her Majesty's dominions in violation of her just neutrality, which was known to, or with due diligence might have been known to, the Canadian authorities. That, on the contrary, the evidence strongly tended to show that the raid was in fact organized within the United States, and that no act compromising British neutrality was committed by the raiders. That no liability was shown by the evidence, and none was claimed by the claimants' counsel to exist against Great Britain by reason of the omission alleged in the memorials of the Canadian authorities to surrender the raiders under the extradition treaty. That the acts of the raiders were belligerent acts, and as such afforded no ground for extradition.

Her Majesty's counsel cited the opinion of Count Sclopis in the tribunal at Geneva; also, 1 Phillimore, 230 to 232.

The commission unanimously disallowed all the claims.

Mr. Commissioner Frazer read an opinion, in which I am advised that the majority of the commission concurred, as follows:

I may not be prepared to say that Great Britain used that diligence to prevent hostile expeditions from Canada against the United States which should be exercised by a neutral and friendly neighbor; but in the view which I take of these claims this question is not important, and need not, therefore, be decided.

The raid upon Saint Albans was by a small body of men, who entered that place from Canada without anything to indicate a hostile purpose. They came not in an organized form, so as to attract attention, but apparently as peaceable individuals travelling by railroad and not in company, and stopped at the village hotels. That there was a preconcerted hostile purpose is unquestionable, but this was so quietly formed, as it could easily be, that even at this day the evidence does not disclose the place, the time, nor the manner. The Government of the United States was at the time diligent, by means of its detectives, to know what mischievous expedition might be organized by rebels in Canada, but it failed to discover this one until after it had done its work. Such was the secrecy with which this particular affair was planned, that I cannot say it escaped the knowledge of Her Majesty's officers in Canada because of any want of diligence on their part which may possibly have existed. I think rather it was because no care which one nation may reasonably require of another in such cases would have been sufficient to discover it. At least the evidence does not satisfy me otherwise.

The Lake Erie raid.

Walter Oliver Ashley vs. Great Britain, No. 19.

This case was, in general character, and in most of the circumstances accompanying it, analogous to the cases growing out of the Saint Albans raid above reported. The evidence on each side in the Saint Albans raid cases was invoked into this case; and the case was argued, submitted, and decided in connection with those cases.

The memorial alleged that some months prior to September, 1861, confederate refugees, domiciled or commorant in the provinces of Canada, there planned and organized a warlike enterprise of forcibly appro

priating steamers of the United States on Lake Erie, and using them for the capture of the United States war-steamer Michigan, then sta. tioned on Lake Erie. That by such capture, the plan contemplated the release of some 3,000 confederate prisoners confined on Johnson's Island, in Lake Erie, near the American shore; and also to obtain control of the lakes and power to destroy and pillage the cities of the United States bordering thereon. That the existence of the plan for such expedition was known to the Canadian authorities for many months before September, 1864, and that such knowledge was communicated by the governor-general of Canada, in November, 1863, to Her Majesty's minister at Washington, who communicated it to the War Department of the United States, but that no steps were taken by Her Majesty's gov ernment for said provinces to prevent the execution of the plan.

'That on the 19th of Septem ber, 1864, about thirty confederate soldiers came on board the steamer Philo Parsons, a private freight and passenger vessel of the United States, at certain Canadian ports, with concealed weapons shipped as freight, the vessel being then on her regular trip from Canadian ports to Sandusky, Ohio. That immediately after the vessel had crossed the boundary-line between the Canadian provinces and the States, this party rose with arms upon the crew, took forcible and armed possession of the vessel, making prisoners the officers and crew, threw overboard and destroyed a large quantity of the cargo, seized the money of the claimant, an officer and part owner of the vessel, shaped the course of the vessel for the war-steamer Michi gan, and on their way overhauled, seized, and sunk in American waters another private steamer of the United States, the Island Queen, but, failing to receive expected signals, abandoned their project of capturing the Michigan, raised the confederate flag upon the Philo Parsons, changed her course, and proceeded toward Sandwich, in Canada. That on arriving at Sandwich on the 20th of September, they plundered the Philo Parsons while lying in British waters, landed their booty in the province of Canada, sunk or partially sunk the steamer, and retreated in a body within the province of Canada with the plundered property taken from the vessel.

The memorial contained allegations similar to those contained in the memorials in the Saint Albans cases as to the asylum afforded by Canada to the retreating raiders; as to the negligence of the Canadian authorities in failing to prevent the expedition, and also in failing to take proper steps in apprehending the raiders and surrendering them under the extradition treaty, and in restoring the property captured and carried off by them.

The claimant claimed himself the assignee of all the other owners and claimed damages in the premises, $16,093.

The evidence in the case sustained the allegations in the memorial as to the circumstances of the capture and destruction of the vessels

named, and the seizure of the property alleged, and as to the assignment of the claims of other owners to the claimant.

Upon the question of due diligence by the Canadian authorities, the claim was rested on both sides substantially on the evidence taken in the Saint Albans cases, and the arguments of the respective counsel upon this question were substantially those urged in the Saint Albans cases, with the additional point, urged on behalf of the defence, that the Canadian government had promptly given notice to the Government of the United States of the information received by them as to the contemplated raid, thereby putting the United States Government fully upon its guard.

The claim was unanimously disallowed.

The Calcutta saltpetre cases.

Frederick T. Bush and others vs. Great Britain, No. 11.
Thomas B. Wales and others vs. same, No. 12.
Richard P. Buck and others vs. same, No. 16.
Curtis & Peabody vs. same, No. 18.

These claims were all of substantially the same character, arising on the same state of facts, and were heard on the same proofs and arguments.

The claimants in No. 11 were the owners of the American ship Daring; those in No. 12, of the American ship Templar; those in No. 16, of the American bark Patmos, and those in No. 18, of a portion of the cargo of the Daring, consisting of linseed, saltpetre, jute, and gunnybags.

The three vessels above named were, on the 27th December, 1861, in the port of Calcutta, in British India. The Daring had at that date taken on board a quantity of saltpetre, as part of her cargo, obtained a clearance therefor, and had paid the export duty thereon. After that date she completed the taking in of the remainder of her cargo, consisting of linseed, jute, &c., but including no saltpetre, and was completely laden on the 3d January, 1862.

The Templar had her cargo all on board, including a quantity of saltpetre, on the 27th December.

The Patmos also was fully laden, including 2,000 bags of saltpetre, on the 27th December,

On the 30th November, 1861, the following proclamation was issued by Her Britannic Majesty:

BY THE QUEEN-A PROCLAMATION.
VICTORIA R.

Whereas in and by a certain statute made and passed in the Parliament held in the sixteenth and seventeenth years of our reign, and intituled "The Customs Consolidation Act, 1853," it is, amongst other things, declared and enacted as follows; that is to say:

"The following goods may, by proclamation or order in council, be prohibited either to be exported or carried coast wise: Arms, ammunition, and gunpowder, military and naval stores, and any articles which Her Majesty shall judge capable of being converted into or made useful in increasing the quantity of military or naval stores, provisions, or any sort of victual which may be used as food by man; and if any goods so prohibited shall be exported from the United Kingdom or carried coastwise, or be waterborne to be so exported or carried, they shall be forfeited."

And whereas we have thought fit, by and with the advice of our privy council, to prohibit either to be exported or carried coastwise the articles hereinafter mentioned, (being articles which we judge capable of being converted into or made useful in increasing the quantity of military or naval stores,) we, therefore, by and with the advice of our privy council, and by this our royal proclamation, do order and direct that, from and after the date hereof, all gunpowder, saltpetre, nitrate of soda, and brimstone, shall be, and the same are hereby, prohibited either to be exported from the United Kingdom or carried coastwise.

Given at our court, at Windsor, this thirtieth day of November, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-one, and in the twenty-fifth year of our reign.

God save the Queen.

On the 27th December, 1861, the following ordinance was promulgated by the governor-general of India:

LEGISLATIVE.

The following ordinance, passed by the governor-general of India on this date; is hereby promulgated for general information:

ORDINANCE.

AN ORDINANCE to prohibit the exportation of saltpetre, except in British vessels bound to the ports of London or Liverpool, passed by the governor-general of India, under the provisions of 24 and 25 Vic., cap. 67, on the 27th December, 1861.

Whereas information has reached the governor-general by public telegraph that the exportation of saltpetre from the United Kingdom has been interdicted by royal proc-lamation, and it is, therefore, expedient that the exportation of saltpetre from India, except in British vessels bound to the port of London or to the port of Liverpool, should be prohibited: It is ordered as follows:

I. Until the governor-general, in council, shall otherwise order, it shall not be lawful for any person to export saltpetre from any port of Her Majesty's territories in India, except in a British vessel bound either to the port of London or to the port of Liverpool.

II. If any person shall attempt to export saltpetre, contrary to the provisions of this ordinance, the same shall be seized and confiscated.

III. No collector or other officer of the customs shall after this date grant a pass or permit for the exportation, or shipment for exportation, of saltpetre from any port of the said territories, except in a British vessel bound for the port of London or for the port of Liverpool.

IV. Nothing in this ordinance shall extend to any saltpetre shipped prior to this date, or to any saltpetre for the exportation or shipment whereof a permit or pass has been granted on or before this date.

W. GREY, Secretary to Governor of India.

« PreviousContinue »