be discharged at a place nearer to the prison wherein he was last detained. (7.) "Prescribed district" means any part of Ireland in that behalf specified by an order of the lord lieutenant for the time being in force, and the lord lieutenant, by and with the advice of the Privy Council in Ireland, may from time to time make, and when made, revoke and alter any such order. Grant of out-door re 44 Vict., c. 14. 2. The enactments contained in the third section of the lief. 43 Vict., c. 4. 43 & relief of distress (Ireland) act, 1880, as amended by the ninth section of the relief of distress (Ireland) amendment act, 1880, shall, so far as relates to the families of persons for the time being detained under this act, continue in force during the continuance of this act. Supplemental provis 3. (1.) Any warrant or order of the lord lieutenant unions as to warrants, &c. der this act may be signified under his hand or the hand of the chief secretary to the lord lieutenant, and a copy of every warrant under this act shall, within seven days after the execution thereof, be transmitted to the clerk of the Crown for the county in which was the last known place of abode of the person arrested under such warrant, and be filed by the said clerk of the Crown in his public office in said county; and a further copy of every such warrant shall, within seven days after the execution thereof, be transmitted to the clerk of the Crown for the county of the city of Dublin, and be filed by him in his public office in that city; and each such clerk of the Crown shall furnish a copy of such warrant free of charge, certified under his hand to be a true copy, on demand, to any relative of the person arrested under such warrant or his solicitor. (2.) The lord lieutenant, by and with the advice of the Privy Council in Ireland, may from time to time make, and when made revoke and alter, an order prescribing the forms of warrants for the purposes of this act, and any forms so prescribed shall when used be valid in law. (3.) If any member of either House of Parliament be arrested under this act the fact shall be immediately communicated to the House of which he is a member, if Parliament be sitting at the time, or if Parliament be not sitting, then immediately after Parliament reassembles, in like manner as if he were arrested on a criminal charge. (4.) Every order under this act shall be published in the Dublin Gazette, and the production of a printed copy of the Dublin Gazette purporting to be printed and published by the Queen's authority, containing the publication of any order under this act, shall be conclusive evidence of the contents of such order, and of the date thereof, and of the same having been duly made. (5.) The expression "lord lieutenant" means the lord lieutenant of Ireland or other chief governor or governors of Ireland for the time being. 4. This act shall continue in force until the thirtieth day of September, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-two, and no longer. Continuance of act No. 138.] No. 2. Mr. Blaine to Mr. Lowell. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, SIR: I have received your dispatch No. 140, of the 12th instant, in relation to the arrest of Mr. Michael P. Boyton, and his application for protection as an American citizen. Your action thereon, in connection with your previous action on Mr. Boyton's application for a new passport, receives the entire commendation of the Department as discreet and proper. The facts so far elicited show the wisdom and importance of a careful examination of cases giving rise to international complaints; and while it is most desirable to omit no steps, or take no positive action which might result in unduly embarrassing an American citizen in the assertion of his personal rights, or hindering his immediate protection in case of urgent need, it is, on the other hand, equally desirable that you should be (as you appear to have been) watchful to guard against introducing any avoidable element of uncertainty or contradiction into the discussion of questions of such intrinsic gravity between the two governments. In the case of Mr. Boyton, as in any other which may arise, I have every confidence in your discretion equally with your zeal in the protection of American rights. I am, &c., No. 3. JAMES G. BLAINE. No. 166.] Mr. Blaine to Mr. Lowell. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, SIR: Since my instruction of the 31st of March last, in reply to your No. 140 of the 12th of that month, touching the case of Mr. Michael P. Boyton, I have received your Nós. 144 of March 21, 147 of March 25, and 154 of April 7, all relating to the same subject. The prudence you have shown in dealing with Mr. Boyton's claim of citizenship is commendable, and the statements as to the law in his case, made in your letters to him, are in full accord with the interpretation of this Department. In answer to a resolution of the Senate, calling for the facts and correspondence in the matter, I laid before the President a full report, which was communicated to the Senate on the 20th instant. In that 'report I showed that the evidence presented by Mr. Boyton himself, and by his friends here in his behalf, was not such as to prove his claim to citizenship under our laws. Had his citizenship been established, I should not have hesitated to do for him all which I could properly do for an American citizen accused of offending against British law in British jurisdiction. How far such protection would avail to relieve an American citizen from the operation of a British law, is a pomt I am not prepared to express an opinion upon, in view especially of the fact that a copy of the so-called "coercion act," under which the Boyton proceedings were had, has not yet been sent to me. From its tenor, as described by the press, it contains provisions giving a latitude of action to the British authorities which this government would be loath to see insisted upon in the case of an American citizen. For example, upon reasonable suspicion of the commission, within a fixed time prior to the passage of the law, an act therein defined as giving cause for arrest, the authorities are understood to be empowered to decree the detention of any person, and his imprison ment for a prolonged period without the obligation of speedy trial, or the production of proof of criminality. While in some sense an ex post facto enactment it is in others a conferment of arbitrary and irresponsible power, and, in either view, repugnant to the principles of civil liberty and personal rights, which are the common glory of British and American jurisprudence. That the fact of American citizenship could, of itself, operate to exempt any one from the penalties of a law which he had violated is, of course, an untenable proposition. Conversely, however, the proposi tion that a retroactive law, suspending at will the simplest operations of justice, could be applied without question to an American citizen, is one to which this government would not give anticipatory assent. In the specific case of Mr. Boyton, it is inferred from your statement of the facts that the act complained of, the incitement of divers persons to murder divers other persons, was committed subsequently to the passage of the protection act. Had Mr. Boyton's American citizenship been established, we could not, in view of this, have pleaded the retroactive application of the law. Neither could we have decently protested against the application of some process of law where so grave an offense was charged against a foreigner while a guest in the dominions of a friendly state. The alle gation that such an act was done by an alien and a guest, while throwing upon the country to which the offender owes allegiance no duty to defend him or disprove his crime, on the other hand does not absolve the justice of the country, where the commission of the act is alleged, from the burden of proving the guilt of the criminal, by due course of law within a reasonable time, or, in default of prompt and lawful proof, from the obligation of releasing him. Immunity would not be asked, but prompt and certain justice under the usual and unstrained operation of law would be certainly expected. I have set these views before you hypothetically, as suggested by Mr. Boyton's case, not as applicable thereto. It is not desired that you should communicate them to Her Majesty's Government in advance of any case warranting our intervention, but you will bear them in mind if a contingency should unhappily arise calling for your interposition. I am, &c., No. 4. JAMES G. BLAINE. Mr. Blaine to Mr. Lowell. [Telegram.] MAY 26, 1881. Evidence of Joseph D'Alton's American birth said to have been sent to Consul Barrows. If reasonably satisfactory, say to Lord Granville that if charges lie against D'Alton warranting legal process we expect no less than a speedy and impartial trial, or, if not tried, his prompt release. BLAINE, No. 167.] No. 5. Mr. Blaine to Mr. Lowell. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, SIR: I transmit herewith, for your information, an advance copy of my report on the Boyton case, which was laid before the Senate by the President on the 20th instant. I am, &c., JAMES G. BLAINE. [Inclosure in No. 167.] [Senate Ex. Doc. No. 5, special session.] Message from the President of the United States, transmitting a report of the Secretary of State in reference to Senate resolution of the 12th ultimo touching the case of Michael P. Boyton. MAY 20, 1881.-Read and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations and ordered to be printed. To the Senate of the United States: I transmit here with a report of the Secretary of State, with accompanying papers, submitted in response to the Senate resolution of the 12th ultimo, touching the case of Michael P. Boyton. EXECUTIVE MANSION, JAMES A. GARFIELD. Washington, May 20, 1881. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, May 20, 1881. To the PRESIDENT: The Secretary of State, to whom was referred the resolution of the Senate of the United States of the 12th ultimo, requesting the President, "if in his judgment not incompatible with the public interest, to communicate to the Senate any information in possession of the government touching the alleged arrest and imprisonment of Michael P. Boyton, who claims to be a citizen of the United States, by the authorities of Great Britain," has the honor to report as follows: Mr. Michael P. Boyton, to whom the resolution refers, was one of the defendants or traversers" in the state prosecutions at Dublin, which were held in December and January last. He was proceeded against in common with prominent members of Parliament from Ireland and officers of the Irish Land League. In the "criminal information," filed as a form of indictment in the Crown Office on the 2d of November, 1880, he was described as "Mr. Michael Boyton, paid agent of the Land League.' The proceedings began on the 28th of December, 1880, and were terminated on the 25th of January, 1881, by the disagreement of the jury. In this trial no claim of American citizenship was presented in behalf of Mr. Boyton. Mr. Boyton, however, visited the United States consulate in Dublin on or about the 9th of November, 1880, and produced a passport, No. 28820, issued to him by the State Department under date of November 20, 1866, requesting its visa. Mr. Barrows, the consul, through a misapprehension of his official duty in the premises, declined to attach the desired visa, on the ground that Mr. Boyton was one of the traversers in the pending state trial, and thereupon reported his action and asked the Department to instruct him as to his course in case Mr. Boyton should apply to him for protection as an American citizen. The Department answered Mr. Barrows, postponing instructions as to any future application Mr. Boyton might make for protection until the case should arise, but approving his refusal to grant a visa, not on the ground which Mr. Barrows had alleged, but because of a long-standing executive order requiring that a passport, in order to render it available, must be renewed at the end of two years. In the instructions to Mr. Barrows the Assistant Secretary stated for the consul's informa tion that the passport was regularly issued, inasmuch as Mr. Boyton appeared, by the records of the Department, to be a native-born citizen of the United States, having been born in the State of New York. Early in February last Mr. Boyton made application to the consulate at Dublin for a new passport, which application was, under the rules, transmitted with the old passport to the United States legation at London, where alone passports can be issued to American citizens in Great Britain. In his letter of communication, Mr. Barrows conveyed to Mr. Lowell the impression that the Department had approved his refusal to attach a visa to the passport, on the ground that Mr. Boyton was one of the "traversers" in the state trial; whereupon Mr. Lowell asked for the correspondence in the case, and at the same time suggested Mr. Boyton's direct application to the legation. Mr. Barrows, on the 14th of February, sent to Mr. Lowell the correspondence had with the Department on the subject, and mentioned the circumstance that Mr. Boyton had told him that he was not a native-born citizen, having been born in Ireland, but taken to America when he was a child. This statement being in conflict with that in Mr. Assistant Secretary Hay's dispatch to the consul, that Mr. Boyton, shown by the Department records to have been born in the State of New York, attracted the attention of Mr. Lowell, who duly instructed Mr. Barrows that the possession of an old passport, if erroneously issued, as would now appear, would not, of itself, entitle Mr. Boyton to a new one; but that if, as he declared, he was born in Ireland and taken to America when a child, it would be necessary for him to prove that his father was naturalized there. Mr. Boyton seems to have taken no further action in the premises until some weeks later, when he was arrested. On the 2d of March last, the British Parliament passed the measure commonly known as the coercion act," giving to the government fuller powers than it had previously possessed in connection with proceedings for sedition and inciting to unlawful acts. Under that statute a warrant for the arrest of "Michael P. Boyton, of Kildare," was issued March 7, 1881, and Mr. Boyton was arrested on the 8th. He at once telegraphed to Mr. Lowell, demanding the protection of the Government of the United States. Mr. Lowell thereupon had several interviews with the British secretary of state for foreign affairs in regard to Mr. Boyton's complaint, and also promptly instructed Mr. Barrows to visit the prisoner in Kilmainham jail and obtain the proofs in relation to his American citizenship, and, if the fact of such citizenship were satisfactorily ascertained, to take energetic steps for his protection. Mr. Barrows, on the 11th of March, on receiving Mr. Lowell's instructions, visited Mr. Boyton in Kilmainham jail, and received from him circumstantial declarations that he was born in Ireland in September, 1846; that his father, with his ten children, of whom Michael was the eldest, emigrated to the United States in 1859, and settled at Pittsburg, Pa., where he was naturalized, as stated, in 1860 (although this statement was afterwards qualified), and that he (the son) had served in the United States Navy in 1864 and 1865. Mr. Barrows reported these declarations to Mr. Lowell, with a written protest of Mr. Boyton against his arrest and imprisonment. Thereupon Mr. Lowell endeavored to remove the doubts naturally suggested by the discrepancies between Mr. Boyton's statements and the State Department's record in the matter of his application for a passport, and to this end wrote directly to the prisoner on the 17th of March, asking explanations. Mr. Boyton responded the next day, by making a verbal statement to Mr. Consul Barrows, denying the record in regard to his passport, alleging his father's full naturalization, but without assigning any date to that act, and reasserting his claim to American citizenship by reason of his father's naturalization while he, Michael P. Boyton, was still a minor. Before Mr. Lowell could take any action on this prima facie assertion of citizenship, he received from Mr. Boyton a letter under date of March 22, offering to make oath that the record of the State Department in the matter of his passport was entirely erroneous, reiterating his statement of his father's naturalization, and advancing a new claim to citizenship in his own behalf on the ground that he had become ipso facto a citizen by service in the United States Navy during the war of the rebellion. In support of this latter claim he referred to "the bill passed by Congress naturalizing the soldiers and sailors of the war." To this Mr. Lowell replied, correcting the mistaken impression of the law entertained by Mr. Boyton, by showing that it could not of itself create him a citizen; but, even if applicable to the case of a person serving in the Navy during the rebellion, would still require personal application to the courts under specified conditions of residence, &c., which in the present case was not alleged to have been made. Mr. Boyton's rejoiner, dated 31st March, denied the construction of the law given by the minister, and asked Mr. Lowell to inform him definitely whether he declined to accept the State Department's passport of 1866 as evidence of his American citizenship. The minister's reply, April 2, for reasons sufficiently appearing in the preceding correspondence, declined to accept that passport as evidence. Meanwhile the Department had given to Mr. Boyton's case the urgent and solicitous |