« EdellinenJatka »
Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams. No. 2108.]
DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
Washington, December 14, 1867. SIR: Your dispatch of the 29th of November, No. 1485, has been received. I thank you for your attention in furnishing me copies of the British statutes on treason-felony. When I shall have received expected copies of the indictments of citizens of the United States who have been tried and are to be tried under these statutes, I shall have occasion to give you at large the President's views concerning the conflict which exists between the United States and Great Britain in regard to the just rights of naturalized citizens under prosecution for offenses committed in Great Britain.
I have read the letter which Colonel Nagle addressed to you on the 220 November, and which you have transmitted at his request. I have been advised by the consul at Dublin that Colonel Nagle, subsequently to writing that letter, applied to the court, in the customary form of law, for an immediate trial or for his discharge from imprisonment; that the court denied the application, and that the trial stands postponed, to take place at Sligo in March next. You will take care that he be defended by proper counsel, at the expense of the United States.
Her Majesty's government determines for itself upon the policy of rigorous criminal prosecution in these frequent cases, which I have had more than one occasion to say are popularly regarded in the United States as incidents of popular movements for political reform. It would be un becoming on my part to speculate upon the effects which this pol. icy secures in Great Britain. Charged, however, as I am with the duty of extending legal protection under treaties and the law of nations to the citizens of the United States sojourning abroad, and with the duty also of preserving good and favorable relations between the United States and foreign countries, I have constantly thought it right to let her Majesty's government know, in every proper way, that the practice of exceptionable severity in these cases produces in the United States consequences very unfavorable to the interests of Great Britain. It was with a very clear foresight of these results that, under the President's direction, I so earnestly and so frequently urged the discharge of Colonels Nagle and Warren before their prosecution, upon a full understanding with the lamented Sir Frederick Bruce of his approval and concurrence in that proceeding. Similar. motives induced the President . to recommend clemency to the United States citizens recently convicted at Manchester. If I may judge from the tone of popular and legislative sentiments in the United States, the policy of these recommendations has been fully vindicated. It is my deliberate conviction that, so far as our own coumtry is concerned, it would be an act of wisdom on the part of the British government to dismiss its prosecution against Colonel Nagle, and to discharge Colonel Warren and the prisoner Costello from penal imprisonment.
You will please communicate the substance of this dispatch to Lord Stanley, and give him a copy thereof if he shall request it. I am, sir, your obedient servant,
WILLIAM H. SEWARD. CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS, Esq., &c., &c., &c.
Mr. Adams to Mr. Seward.
LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES,
London, December 21, 1867. SIR: It will doubtless be remembered by you that at the commencement of the present administration I solicited, wholly for private rea sons, to be relieved from longer service at this post. It being, however, thought at that time by the President that my continuance here for a further period was advisable on public grounds, I very cheerfully acquiesced in what could not but be construed by me to be as flattering as it was an imperative necessity.
Nearly three years have since passed away, and matters have become so far simplified in the interval that I am led to the hope that the public considerations which then prevailed to prompt my stay have, in a good measure, lost their force, whilst, on the other hand, the private reasons weighing upon myself have much increased in strength. I am, therefore, encouraged once more to ask of you the favor on my behalf most respectfully to tender to the President this resignation of my place, to take effect, if consistent with his convenience, on or about the first of April next.
For the uniform and steady confidence and support accorded to me during the term of my mission-among the longest in duration of those heretofore sent to this kingdom-I shall ever entertain the most grateful sentiments, as well in regard to the present as to the late President. To yourself, who have been more directly their organ of communication with me, I shall equally retain the strongest sense of my obligations for the unvarying friendliness of spirit in which my efforts to execute the duties imposed upon me have been ever both received and accepted. I have the honor, to be, sir, your obedient servant,
CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. Hon. WILLIAM H. SEWARD,
Secretary of State, Washington, D.O.
Mr. Adams to Afr. Seward. No. 1500.]
LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES,
London, December 21, 1867. SIR: In connection with your dispatch No. 2105, of the 2d instant, I have the honor to report the receipt from Mr. West of an official copy of the report of Colonel Warren's trial, obtained by him, under my directions, from the authorities in Ireland. I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant,
CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. Hon. WILLIAM H. SEWARD,
Secretary of State, Washington, D. C.
Note by the Department of State. The following report having been published in pamphlet form, and it being advisable for future reference to preserve intact the paging of the same, the words “Page of report No. 1,” “ Page of report No. 2," &c.,
will be understood to correspond with pages 1, 2, &c., of the original
REPORT OF THE TRIAL OF JOHN WARREN FOR TREASON-FELONY, AT
THE COUNTY DUBLIN COMMISSION, HELD AT THE COURT-HOUSE,
Presiding judges. The right honorable the Lord Chief Baron Pigot; the right honor-
Sheriffs.- High sheriff, Malachi Strong Hussey, esq., J. P.; sub-sheriff, William
Counsel for the Crown.-The right honorable Robert Richard Warren, M. P., her
Croin solicitor.-Matthew Anderson, esq.
Counsel for the prisoner.* -Denis Caulfield Heron, esq., Q. C.; Richard Dowso, esq.,
Atiorney for the prisoner. -John Talbot Scallan, esq.
Queen vs. John Warren.
OCTOBER 30, 1867.-Application to arraign prisoners—Plea in abatement-Demurrer
OCTOBER 31, 1867.-Witnesses: Janiel J. Buckley examined; recalled and examined
NOVEMBER 1, 1867.-Witnesses : Head Constable James Patten, Killybegs, examined;
NOVEMBER 16, 1867.-Sentence.
(Page of report No. 1.)
COUNTY DUBLIN COMMISSION.-OCTOBER, 1867.
WEDNESDAY, October 30.
Prosecution for treason-felony.
JOHN WARREN was placed at the bar.
Mr. HERON. May it please your lordships, I appear here on behalf of the prisoners
* Counsel and attorney for the prisoner withdrew during the progress of the caso.
the court would be that those prisoners be both now arraigned. The reason is that an application will be made on behalf of Nagle, who is an American citizen; of course you can see at once what that application will be. He is anxious that his trial should not be delayed beyond this cominission.
The ATTORNEY GENERAL. I do not see how the purposes of justice, as regards Warren, can be attected one way or the other by calling on Nagle to plead now, and I must, therefore, decline to accede to the application.
Mr. Heron. I don't do it for the purpose of pleading. My request is that Nagle may be now arraigned, in order that an application may be made to your lordships with reference to his trial during the present commission.
The ATTORNEY GENERAL. It will be quite time enough to do that when he is called upon to plead.
Mr. HERON. I really cannot see why this should be refused. Nagle would have been arraigned on Saturday, only I informed your lordships that a question would arise on the arraignment. I thought they were to be arraigned together.
The ATTORNEY GENERAL. I never said that the two prisoners would be arraigned together. When the present prisoner, Warren, has pleaded, I must be allowed to take my own course as to whom I will arraign next.
"The CHIEF BARon. If you have any application to make on the part of any prisoner against whom a bill of indictment has been found, there is nothing to prevent your making it.
(Page of report No. 2.) Mr. HERON. My application on behalf of Nagle cannot be legally made until he has pleaded, and that is the reason I ask him to be arraigned. If he is arraigned now, he will plead “not guilty" without any delay.
The CHIEF BARON. Do you see any reason, Mr. Attorney General, for not arraigning him now?
The ATTORNEY GENERAL. I see no objection to it, my lord, except that it will delay the proceedings.
The CHIEF BARON. It cannot affect the proceeding against Warren; for, supposing we arraigu Nagle now, of course we are not called upon to proceed with his trial.
The ATTORNEY GENERAL. I am aware of that, my lord; but putting forward Nagle now would cause considerable delay to the present trial.
The CHIEF BARON. If questions are likely to arise on the arraignment of Nagle that would involve delay, that would be a good reason for not arraigning him now; but if not, I see no reason why we should not accede to the application.
The ATTORNEY GENERAL. My lord, I respectfully say we are not bound, on behalf of the Crown, to put forward any prisoner except the prisoner with whose trial we, acting for the Crown, think it desirable to proceed.
The CHIEF BARON. I think you are not called upon to proceed with the trial of any prisoner, Mr. Attorney, except the prisoner whom you deem it desirable should be tried.
The ATTORNEY GENERAL Nor to put forward any prisoner, unless we think it desirable on behalf of the Crown to do so.
The Cuer Baron. I think there should be no objection to arraigning the other prisoner now.
The ATTORNEY GENERAL. If your lordships rule that you have the right so to direct, of course I must submit; but on behalf of the Crown I respectfully object to your doing so.
The CHIEF BARON. We will proceed with the arraignment of the prisoner now before Mr. HERON. Then, my lords, on behalf of that prisoner I respectfully ask to see the indictment, in order that I may see the list of witnesses indorsed on the back of it, before he pleads.
The ATTORNEY GENERAL. The prisoner has already got a copy of the indictment. Mr. HERON. But I want to see the original.
The ATTORNEY GENERAL. I submit that all he is entitled to is a copy of the document.
Mr. Heron. My lords, there is express authority in support of my application. I quote from 3 Cox's Criminal Cases, page 517, which says that “a prisoner indicted for felony is not entitled to a copy of the names and addresses of the witnesses appearing on the back of the indictment, but he will be allowed to inspect the indictment for the purpose of seeing the names of such witnesses.” That has always been the law in England.
The indictment was then handed to Mr. Heron. Mr. HERON. My lord, we put in a plea in abatement, which will be verified by the prisoner's affidavit.
[Page of report No. 3.) The usual affidavit in support of the plea was then sworn by the prisoner. Mr. Heron read the plea in abatement as follows:
* And the said John Warren, in his own proper person, cometh into court here, and having heard the said indictment read, saith that it does not appear by any entry, statement, or indorsement upon the back of the said indictment, or upon any part thereof, that the witnesses whose names are indorsed upon the back of the said indictment by the clerk of the Crown, pursuant to the statute in such case made and provided, were, or that any of the said witnesses were sworn or affirmed by the said Alexander Ferrier, foreman, or any other member of the said grand jury, previous to this on his examination, or at all before the said grand jury, as appears by the record of the said indictment; and the said John Warren further saith that the said Alexander Ferrier, foreman, has not, nor has any other member of the said grand jury, stated and authenticated the same by his signature or initials upon the back of the said indictinent or upon any other part thereof, that any of the said witnesses, upon whose testimony
the said bill of indictment was found and returned a true bill by the said jurors, was • sworn or affirmed previous to such witness or witnesses having been examined, or giving bis or their evidence before the said jurors; and the said John Warren further saith that it does not appear by the record of the said indictment, or otherwise, that the Baid bill of indictment was found and returned a true bill by the said jurors, upon the evidence of any witness or witnesses who were sworn or affirmed by said foreman, or any member of the said grand jury. And this he, the said John Warren, is ready to verify; whereupon he prays judgment, and that the said indictment may be quashed."
Mr. Herox. My lords, the point of this plea in abatement is founded on the act lst and 2d Victoria, cap. 37, sec. 1.
The attorney general demurred as follows:
* And thereupon the Right Hon. Robert R. Warren, attorney general for our said lady the Queen, who now prosecutes here for her Majesty, in this behalf saith that the said plea, above pleaded by the said John Warren, and the matters therein contained, in manner and form as the same are above pleaded and set forth, are not sufficient in law to prevent the said John Warren from being now compelled to answer the said indiet ment; and the said Robert R. Warren, for our lady the Queen, prays judgment, and that the said John Warren may be compelled now to answer the said indictment."
Mr. HERON. We join in demurrer for the prisoner. . This is our joinder in demurrer:
" And thereupon the said John Warren saith that the said plea above pleaded by him, and the matters therein contained, in manner and form as the same are above pleaded and set forth, are sufficient in law to prevent the said John Warren from being now compelled to answer the said indictment, and are sufficient in law to preclude our said lady the Queen from prosecuting the said indictment against him, the said John WarTen; and the said John Warren is ready to verify and prove the same, as the said court here shall direct and award.” The ATTORNEY GENERAL. I respectfully submit that demurrer must be allowed. The
[Page of report No. 4.) plea which the prisoner has put into the indictment avers that it does not appear upon the back of the indictment that certain witnesses were sworn, and that it does not appear that Mr. Alexander Ferrier, the foreman, or any other member of the grand jury, by his signature or initials upon the back of the bill authenticated the swearing of the witnesses by whom this bill was found. This plea is stated to be founded upon tho statute 1st and 2d Victoria, cap. 37, sec 1, by which act of Parliament the former law under which witnesses were sworn in open court was repealed, as was decided in the case of the Queen 18. O'Connell, and in lieu of that mode of swearing witnesses, it provided that the foreman or other member of the grand jury should have the power of administering an oath, and it then proceeds to say: "The foreman or other member of the grand jury who shall have administered such oath shall, upon the back of the bill, state the names of the witnesses, and authenticate the same by his signature or initials." Now the matter of fact which is admitted by our demurrer is that in the present caso the foreman has not authenticated the swearing of the witnesses by his name or signature. We say that is not sufficient ground for a plea in abatement. In the case of the Queen is. O'Connell and others, a similar plea was put in by one of the prisoners, Thomas Steele. (See 11th Clark and Fennelly's Reports, page 252.) I shall read to you lordships what Chief Justice Tyndal says, in his judgment given to the House of Lords on this question, in that case. He says:
“As to the ninth question, the errors in fact assigned in the writs of error coram nobis by each of the defendants-except Thomas Steele-were the same, viz: That the bill of indictment was found and returned a true bill by the grand jury upon the evidence of divers witnesses, whose names are enumerated, and of no other persons; and that these
itueeses, previous to their examination before the grand jury, were not sworn in the eurt of Queen's Bench, as required by 56 Geo. III, c. 87, now lawfully bound by aitirmation or declaration to give true evidence before the said grand jury. In the case of the writ of error coram nobis brought by the defendant, Thomas Steele, the error assigned was this: That the indictment was not found in the manner required by tho