« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »
clude a copy of the warrant of arrest, a letter from Mr. Sweeney to inyself, and his certificate of citizenship. It appears tbat be was arrested on the 2d instant and lodged in Duudalk jail. In his letter to me Mr. Sweeney denies that he has ever said anything which could be construed into an incitement to riot, and asserts that, on the contrary, hebas advised against the commission of crime and the violation of law. I should be glad to be informed of the particulars of the charge against Mr. Sweeney.
I may repeat what I said in my note of the sth instant, with regard to the case of Mr. Walsh, that my government, though anxious not to ignore the just claim of American citizens to protection, has no desire to embarrass the action of a friendly government in dealing with a difficult and delicate domestic question. I have, &c.,
J. R. LOWELL.
(Inclosure 10 in No. 331.)
Lord Granrille to Jr. Lowell,
June 17, 1881. Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 10th instant, Tequesting to be furnished with the particulars of the charge against Daniel Sweeney or McSweeney, who is stated to be an United States citizen, and who was arrested under the act for the better protection of person and property in Ireland of March 2, 1881, on the 2d instant, and lodged in Dundalk jail.
In reply, I beg leave to acquaint you that I have referred your application to the proper department of Her Majesty's Government. I have, &c.,
(Inclosure 11 in No. 331.]
Mr. Simms to Ur. Lowell.
UNITED STATES CONSULATE,
Belfast, June 21, 1881. Sir: On receipt of your letter of the 10th instant in reply to mine asking instructions in the case of Daniel McSweeney, I wrote to Dublin requesting that the grounds for Mr. McSweeney's arrest might be furnished me, and to-day am in receipt of a letter from Mr. J. W. Burke, a copy of which I inclose, which simply states that there were reasonable grounds for suspecting Mr. McSweeney of inciting people to unlawfully assemble together, and to commit riot and assault. I have no means of ascertaining the justice of these charges, and would therefore be glad if you could make any further suggestion to me in the matter. I am, sir, &c.,
[Inclosure 12 in No. 331.)
Mr. Burke to Ur, Simms.
DUBLIN CASTLE, June 20, 1881. SIR : I am directed by the lord lieutenant to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 15th instant, and I am to inform you that Daniel McSweeney, of Carrowcannon House, Falcarragb, county Donegal, has been arrested under a warrant issued pursuant to the act for the better protection of person and property in Ireland (1881), being reasonably suspected of incitiug persons unlawfully to assemble together, and to commit riot and assault. I am, sir, your obedient servant,
J. W, BURKE.
(Inclosure 13 in No. 331.]
Mr. Lowell to Mr. Simms.
LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES,
London, June 24, 1881. Sir: I bave to acknowledge the reception of your vote of the 21st, regarding the case of Daniel McSweeney, inclosing a copy of a letter from Mr.J. W. Burke in answer to one of yours requesting to be informed of the charge upon wbich he was arrested.
In reply, I would say that I have not yet received an answer to my note to Lord Granville, asking to be informed of the particulars of the charge against Mr. McSweeney. I am, sir, &c.,
J. R. LOWELL.
(Inclosure 14 in No. 331. ]
Mr. Sweeney to Mr. Simms.
DUNDALK JAIL, July 14, 1881. Sır: I am getting somewhat impatient awaiting the action of my government with regard to my release or trial. You stated in your letter of June 18 that you had instructions from Mr. Lowell to make inquiries as to the grounds of my arrest. This could have been done in one day, or perhaps in one hour, for surely the Castle authorities could furnish you with the desired information, and bere I am, in jail for over sis weeks. Please answer, and be so kind as to give me Mr. Lowell's address. Yours, respectfully,
(Inclosure 15 in No. 331.)
Mr. Simms to Mr. Lowell.
7 DONEGAL SQUARE SOUTH, BELFAST,
July 16, 1881. Sir: Inclosed please find copy of letter from D. Sweeney, Dundalk jail, to myself, making inquiries as to the probabilities of his speedy trial or release. I have no further information in the matter, and beg to ask whether or not you have yet heard from Lord Granville. I am, sir, &c.,
(Inclosure 16 in No. 331.)
Mr. Sweeney to Mr. Simms.
September 17, 1881. Hon. Sir: It is now more than three months since I forwarded to you, through the United States consulate at Belfast, my naturalization papers, with a protest against my illegal arrest and detention by the British Government, and claiming, through you, that protection from my own government which I had a rigbt to expect. As I am not aware that any technical point can be raised with regard to my citizenship, and as sufficient time to have my papers sent to San Francisco to test their genuineness has elapsed, and no action taken in my case, I am led to believe that it was overlooked, unless indeed, that the delay is owing to the continued illness of our beloved President. I am now fifteen weeks locked up in a British dungeon, and my health is a complete wreck. I deny and defy the British Government to show that I am guilty of any crime.
I sincerely hope that your excellency will demand my immediate release, and urge my claim for damages for false imprisonment. I am, yours, respectfully,
(Inclosure 17 in No. 331.)
Mr. Lowell'to Mr. Sweeney.
LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES,
London, September 22, 1881. SIR: I have to acknowledge the reception of your letter of the 17th instant.
I have not thought it proper to make any application for your release from prison for the following reasons :
The coercion act, however exceptional and arbitrary, and contrary to the spirit and fundamental principles of both English and American jurisprudence, is still the law of the land, and controls all parties domiciled in the proclaimed districts of Ireland, whether they are British subjects or not. It would be manifestly futile to claim that Dataralized citizens of the United States should be excepted from its operation.
The only case, in my opinion, in which I ought to intervene, would be where an American citizen wbo is in Ireland attending exclusively to bis private business and taking po part whatever in public meetings or political discussions should be arrested. Under such circumstances it would be proper to appeal to the courtesy of the government here on the ground of mistake or misapprehension, and ask for the release of the prisover.
I have communicated these views to the Department of State, and I have received, so far, no instructions in a contrary spirit.
It does not appear to me that the reasons above given for intervention exist in your case so far as I understand it. I am, sir, &c.,
J. R. LOWELL.
(Inclosure 18 in No. 331.)
Mr. Sweeney to Mr. Lowell.
DUNDALK Jail, September 27, 1881. Sir: A letter bearing your signature, dated from the Legation of the United States, London, of the 22d instant, is received by me in my prison cell in Dundalk. I am unwilling to believe that this letter is the production of an Ainerican gentleman, much less the American gentleman representing the United States Government at the court of St. James. I cannot believe that an American gentleman would treat the appeal of an American citizen in prison with contempt, therefore permit me to presume that you signed the letter in question by mistake, but as your signature is attached to it 1 may be permitted to analyze it and if possible ascertain your meaning.
The reasons which you say influence you in not making an application for my release are not, in my opinion, good and sufficient reasons. But I will quote your own Fords aod leave the public on both sides of the Atlantic to judge.
" The coercion act, however exceptional and arbitrary, and contrary to the spirit and fondamental principles of English jurisprudence, is the law of the land.”
That the coercion act is the law of the land no one will dispute, but many will be inclined to the belief that the absence of coercive measures would be exceptional.
" It would be manifestly futile to claim that naturalized citizens of the United States should be excepted froin its operation."
Here we learn for the first time that there is a distinction between naturalized and bative-born American citizens regarding their right to claim protection abroad; but it is evident that you are laboring under a misapprehension with regard to my claim. I did not claim to be excepted from its operations; my claim is based on the fact that I did not violate any law.
" The only case, in my opinion, in which I ought to interfere would be when an American citizen who is in Ireland attending exclusively to his own business and taking no part whatever in public meetings or political discussions should be arrested, it would be proper to appeal to the courtesy of the British Government for the release of the prisoner."
So that, in your opinion, the only right which an American citizen could claim abroad would be an appeal to the courtesy of the government who might deprive him of his liberty. But should an American be so imprudent as to take part in a public meeting, say a prayer-meeting, or engage in any political discussion with a Frenchman, a German, or even a Zulu, according to your opinion, he would forfeit all claim not only to protection, but even to an appeal to courtesy. This throws new light on the question of American citizenship.
"I have communicated these views to the Department of State, and I have received po instructions in a contrary spirit.”
Of course pot; I can now understand why I and other American citizens are suffering imprisonment for five or six months. But, sir, instead of communicating your views to the Department of State, of my case, wby bot communicate its tacts, viz: That the British Government seized and cast an American citizen into prison and sentenced him to sixteen months' imprisonment, without trial by judge or jury; they refused to give any reason for his arrest; that the said American had committed no crime; that the fact of his having taken part in public meetings and political discussions did not involve any crime, as there was no law known in England at present, or until avother coercion act was passed, which probibited or declared it criminal to attend and engage in such public meetings; that the American dared the British Government to show that he was guilty of any crime; that be demanded his release from prison and claimed damages from the British Government for false imprisonment.
These, sir, are the facts in my case. I placed you in the possession of these facts immediately after my arrest, and had you commupicated these facts to the authorities at Washington, and had they ignored my claim and decided that I forfeited my right to even an appeal to the courtesy of the B..tish Government, the question of American citizenship was settled once for all.
Please return my naturalization papers and copy of the warrant under which I was arrested. I intend to preserve both as heir-looms, as, according to your rieus, one is about as valuable as the other. Yours, truly,
DANIEL SWEENEY. P. S.—Through courtesy to an American gentleman, premising that it was possible there was some mistake about your signature, I refrain from giving this correspondence to the press for a few days.
(Inclosure 19 in No. 331.]
Mr. Lowell to Mr. Sweeney.
LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES,
London, September 30, 1881. Sir: I have to acknowledge the reception of your letter of the 27th instant, and in compliance with tbe request therein contained, I herewith inclose the certificate of your paturalization and the warrant of your arrest.
So far from treating your appeal for release "with contempt," it is proper for me to say that on the 10th of June last I addressed a note to Lord Granville, stating your American citizenship and your denial that you had ever incited any people in Ireland to riot, but, on the contrary, had advised against the commission of crime and the violation of law. I also stated that I should be glad to be informed of the particulars of the charge against you.
Lord Granville, in his reply of the 28th of June, declined to recognize any distinction between the liability of foreigners and British subjects in respect of unlawful acts committed within the limits of British jurisdiction. He added that the government had no reason to believe that there was ground to suppose that American citizens had met with exceptional treatment.
And, in another note, dated the 8th of July last, be stated, in regard to my request to be furnished with particulars as to the unlawful acts alleged to bave been committed by Mr. Walsh, tbat the government could make no distinction between foreigners and British subjects, and that in the case of the latter the only information that could be given was that contained in the warrant.
Uuder these circumstances, and in the absence of any information showing that your case was different from that of the great majority of others where parties were arrested under the coercion act, I did not think it proper to intervene any further in your bebalf. I am, sir, &c.,
J. R. LOWELL.
(Inclosure 20 in No. 331.)
Mr. Sweeney to Mr. Louell.
DUNDALK Prison, October 13, 1881. Sir: Your letter of 30th September, inclosing my certificate of citizenship and copy of warrant of my arrest, was duly received
If you have not treated my appeal with contempt, permit me to believe that your efforts for my release from prison are, in my opinion, unsatisfactory, and your reasons for pon-intervention in my behalf still more so. From your correspondence with Lord Granville it would appear that you did appeal to the courtesy of the British Government, but that the government refused to be courteous. In answer to your pote of June 10 the poble lord refused to give you any information. You stated that an American citizep was in prison in Ireland, who denied having committed any crime, and you requested to be informed of the charges against him. To this his lordsbip answered that he could make no distinction between the liability of foreiguers and British subjects respecting unlawful acts committed within the limits of British jurisdiction. Mark, the noble lord affects to believe that I had committed unlawful acts. Here your efforts ceased as far as I was concerned.
Certainly, sir, this was not a very strong effort on your part to plead the cause of a fellow-citizen who was deprived of his liberty. You were in possession of the facts in my case, and in my opinion you should renew your appeal to the courtesy of the British Gorernment. You were aware that an American citizen was in prison and that he should be presumed to be innocent until proved guilty. You should also reply to his lordship respecting the liability of foreigners committing unlawful acts, that I had committed no unlawful act, and that I defied the British Government to prove that I had. It would appear that you made another appeal to the courtesy of the British Government to obtain information respecting the particulars of the charge against Mr. Walsh, who, I presume, is also an American citizen, but you were equally unsuccessful.
The noble lord, in his reply of July 8, declined to give you any information whatever beyond that contained in the warrant of his arrest. So much for appeals to the courtesy of the British Governnient.
Under ordinary circumstances an accredited minister of a great and free country should not have been discouraged at these uncourteous replies, but rather have been stimolated to renewed exertions on behalf of his fellow-countryman who was held in ebains by a foreign power.
Surely, sir, if you believed that Americans had any rights which England was bound to respect, you could have used stronger argumenis than mild appeals to courtesy. You appealed to the courtesy of the British Government for the particulars of the charges against American citizens who were in prison and condemned without trial, and the noble lord replied in effect, and said, “ We bave Americans in prison in Ireland; we refuse to give you any information respecting the charges against them; we refuse to give them trial by judge or jury; some of our spies suspected them, and we promptly sentenced them to eighteen months' imprisonment.”.
One would naturally expect that a gentleman intrusted with the important mission of Coited States minister at the English court should at least make a dignified reply to what some gentlemen occupying a similar position might consider an insult. But on the contrary, sir, you seem to have given up the fight, which, in my opinion, could pot bave been a very determined one, and you sent me a message to my prison cell, where I have been confined for over four months, aod where I have to pass eighteen hours each day in a space 6 by 12, and you tell me that you have abandoned me to my fate; that you would not intervene any further in my bebalf. It will not be clear to the public that you did intervene very far.
Io tbe concluding paragraph of your courteous letter you say: "Under these circumstances, and in the absence of any information showing that your case was different from the great majority of others arrested under the coercion act, I did not think it proper to intervene any further."
Here, sir, we have your reasons for non-intervention ; one the circumstance of the refusal of the British Government to give you any information respecting the charge. Now, that of itself would be hardly considered a good reason, but looking at it from my point of view from a British dungeon, the question in my mind is whether I am not still justified in believing that yon have treated my appeal " with contempt.” Your other reason is the absence of information showing that my case is different from the great majority of others arrested ander the coercion act. It is undoubtedly true, sir, that my case does not differ from that of the great majority of others arrested under the coercion act in Ireland. The great majority of the gentlemen in prison are as guiltless as I am; they are gentlemen incapable of committing crime; they are not in prison for crime, but for their political opinions. But, sir, you must remember that they are Irishmen, and that they bave no government to appeal to for protection. My