« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »
last. It contained all the correspondence which could then be communicated without injury to the public interest, either in the form of textual copies or of paraphrases containing the exact substance and meaning of cipher telegrams which could not be published textually without disclosing the cipher of the department to officials of other governments, through whose bands the cipher messages passed.
In that report the Secretary stated that negotiations were still in progress, and that it was confidently hoped that results would be reached satisfactory to both governments. When that report was prepared a telegram had just been dispatched to London, dated the 3d April, expressing the gratification of the President at the release of the American prisoners who had been discharged in consequence of the representation made by his direction, and his hope that the remaining prisoners might be discharged without question.
The Secretary of State upon the 10th of April instructed Mr. Lowell to urge upon Lord Gran ville to release the remaining prisoners; to which Mr. Lowell answered on the 12th that he did not think he could possibly obtain the release of the remaining American prisoners except upon the condition that they should leave the country, not to return so long as the exceptional legislation should remain in force.
Thereupon on the same day the Secretary of State instructed Mr. Lowell to send a report by cable of the names of the remaining prisoners and of all facts and information respecting them which had not yet been communicated to the department, and which in his judgment might be necessary for a complete understanding of their cases.
On the 13th of April Mr. Lowell answered, promisiug the desired information as soon as it could be obtained.
On the 19th April Mr. Lowell cabled that he had received the names of four persons still in prison who were understood to be Americans. These were O'Mahoney, McSweeny, McInnery, and Slattery. The minister stated that two others, named Brophy and Gannon, of whom he had not before heard, had asked him to intervene. He added that he had delayed answering in order to obtain all the desired additional information. On the 20th of April a further cable was received from Mr. Lowell on the same subject, and on the 21st of the same month he cabled that the Irish secretary would release five prisoners-excluding Gannon for the present, about whose citizenship there was some doubt-on condition that they would return to the United States, and that he had answered that he was instructed not to consent to any conditions.
In a previous instruction Mr. Lowell bad been authorized by the Secretary of State, if requisite, to draw on the Department of State for two hundred dollars per man for all such American citizens as might be released and might need the means of reaching home. In the same telegram of the 21st April Mr. Lowell said that he would cause suspects to be informed that each should receive forty pounds on release and promise to return. On the 22d of April the Secretary of State cabled Mr. Lowell that he was right in his disclaimer of authority to consent to the conditions imposed upon the release of the prisoners. He was also told that the authority to draw money had been given him in case of need, in order that persons released might have the means to reach their homes; that the government could properly do this, but that it could not authorize money to be offered to induce persons to leave, but nevertheless any expense he had already incurred would be recognized.
On the 28th April Mr. Lowell reported by cable that the money offers had been withdrawn in all cases; that O?Mahoney was undecided, and
that the other four prisoners would not accept release offered on condition of return to the United States.
The Secretary of State incloses a copy of an instruction from Lord Granville to Mr. West, which was handed to the Secretary by Mr. West under instructions; and also a copy of an instruction from this department to Mr. Lowell, dated April 25, 1882. Three dispatches from Mr. Lowell, dated May 3, 4, and 6, respectively, are also appended as conveying information in certain of the pending cases up to the latest advices. Respectfully submitted.
FRED'K T. FRELINGHUYSEN. DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
Washington, May 22, 1882.
LIST OF ACCOMPANYING PAPERS.
No. 1.-Earl Granville to Mr. West. London, April 6, 1882.
No. 3.-Mr. Lowell to Mr. Frelinghuysen. No. 349. London, May 3, 1882 (with appendices).
No. 4.—Mr. Lowell to Mr. Frelingbuysen. No. 350. London, May 4, 1882 (with appendices).
No.5.-Mr. Lowell to Mr. Frelinghuysen. No. 351. London, May 6, 1882 (with appendices).
Earl Granville to Mr. West.
FOREIGN OFFICE, April 6, 1882. SIR: With reference to my dispatch of the 31st ultimo, I have now to inform you that Her Majesty's Government have carefully considered the representations that have been made to them by Mr. Lowell, on the part of the Government of the United States, concerning the arrest and imprisonment of certain American citizens in Ireland, and the hope expressed by the President that the American citizens so detained may be brought to an early trial.
The persons at present detained in prison in Ireland under the provisions of the protection of person and property act of 1881 have been, and are, all of them, either ordinarily resident in Ireland or persons who have visited Ireland under the present circumstances of that country, and to whom full knowledge of those circumstances, and of the laws passed in the last session of Parliament to arm the government there with extraordinary powers, must be imputed.
In the use of these extraordinary powers, for the purpose of preventing incentives to outrage and crime, and breaches of public order in Ireland, no general distinction can be made between those persons, for the time being in Ireland, who may have come there from the United States or any other foreign countries in which they may have rights of citizenship, and others; nor have Her Majesty's Government generally any means of knowing whether such persons are native Irish.
men who have not renounced their British nationality, or Irish emi. grants who may have obtained rights of citizenship in the United States or elsewhere. The statute of last session under which these prisoners are
detained was passed (like all other acts for the suspension of the habeas corpus, whether in England or in the United States) under circumstances of exceptional political necessity, for the express purpose of superseding and dispensing with trial; and the reference, in the first clause of the act, to the authority of the lord lieutenant of Ireland was not for the purpose of enabling him to direct a trial (which could only take place upon a charge regularly made in the ordinary course of law), but for the contrary purpose.
The British legislature, in passing that act, declared the necessity of such a suspension of trial under certain circumstances. This necessity applies, within those conditions, alike to aliens and to British subjects in Ireland; and Her Majesty's government are compelled to consider that the necessity which led to the passing of the act still subsists.
It is impossible either for Her Majesty's government or for the Government of the United States to be ignorant that the present disorders in Ireland have been, and are still, to a great extent fomented by Irish emigrants in the United States, and by subscriptions of money and publications hostile to British rule proceeding from that source. As you are aware, Her Majesty's government found it necessary last year to address a friendly representation on this subject to the Government of the United States, and Her Majesty's Government cannot doubt that the President and his ministers must be desirous of discouraging all such proceedings to the best of their power. Under such circumstances, it is obvious that the efforts of Her Majesty's Government and of the British Parliament for the vindication of law and the restoration of order in Ireland would be liable to be frustrated if aliens in Ireland (whatsoever nationality they might claim) were in any respect treated as exempt from the operation of laws which Parliament has found it necessary to enact for that purpose, or from the extraordinary powers conferred upon the executive government of Ireland by those laws.
The principle that in such cases no distinction can be made in favor of aliens was maintained by the Government of the United States on the suspension of the habeas corpus act in the Northern States during the civil war. On that occasion, complaints having been made of arbitrary and illegal arrests of certain British subjects, Mr. Seward, in a note dated the 14th October, 1861, to Lord Lyons, then Her Majesty's minister at Washington, after vindicating the legality of the proceedings complained of, expressed himself as follows:
In every case subjects of Her Majesty residing in the United States, and under their protection, are treated during the present troubles in the same manner, and with no greater or less rigor, than American citizens.
Subsequently, in 1866, when the habeas corpus act was suspended in Ireland, a correspondence took place between the two governments as to the right of Irish-born naturalized citizens of America then sojourning in Ireland to American protection. That particular question has since been disposed of by the naturalization act, 1870, whereby British subjects becoming voluntarily naturalized in a foreign state forfeit their British nationality. But the following extract from a dis . patch, dated the 10th March, 1866, addressed by Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams, then minister of the United States in London, and published in the diplomatic correspondence presented to Congress with the President's
message for that year, deserves particular notice, as the instructions to the United States minister, which it contains, entirely accord with the views of Her Majesty's Government in relation to the treatment of American citizens during the present troubles in Ireland.
In those instructions Mr. Seward used the following language: It may be expected that some of our Irish-born naturalized citizens who are now sojourning or traveling in Ireland will be arrested upon complaints of complicity in seditious proceedings. It may also be expected that some who will be thus accused will be innocent, while others will be guilty. The situation will, for a time, necessarily become inconvenient and embarrassing. I know of no way in which you can meet it more properly than by pursuing the course which you have indicated.
Americans, whether native-born or naturalized, owe submission to the same laws in Great Britain as British subjects while residing there and enjoying the protection of that government. We applied the converse of this principle to British subjects who were sojourning or traveling in the United States during the late rebellion.
In a further dispatch, dated the 9th June, 1866, Mr. Seward instructed Mr. Adams:
To soggest to Lord Clarendon the expediency of the exercise of clemency to the extent at least of releasing all of the American citizens, native or naturalized, who are in confinement, upon the condition of their returning to the United States.
As no difference of opinion would appear to exist with respect to the principle so clearly enunciated in the extracts above cited, Her Majesty's Government are in some doubt as to whether they have correctly apprehended the grounds on which the Government of the United States found their present representations in favor of those American citizens in Ireland who have brought themselves under the operation of the protection of person and property act, and it is un. necessary to pursue the subject further at present.
I only desire to add that the imprisonment of suspects under the act is not a measure of punishment, but .of prevention. The Irish Government have in many instances released prisoners upon a reasonable belief that it could be done without risk to the public safety, and I need hardly say that Her Majesty's Government are not desirous of detaining unnecessarily in prison any persons from whom no danger to the public peace is to be apprehended.
They will therefore be prepared to consider the circumstances of any citizens of the United States now detained who may be willing to engage forth with to leave the United Kingdom.
I have to instruct you to read this dispatch to Mr. Frelinghuysen, and to leave a copy of it with him if he should so desire. I am, &c.,
Mr. Frelinghuysen to Mr. Lowell.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
Washington, April 25, 1882. SIR: From the tenor of your telegram of the 20th instant, I learn that six American suspects are still detained in prison. Of these six cases three, viz, O'Mahony, McSweeny, and McEnery, had been previously made known to the department. The cases of Slattery, Brophy, and Gannon are now made known to us for the first time.
It appears from documents on file in this department, that O'Mahony in 1866 made application in Louisiana for naturalization under the soldiers' act (Revised Statutes, section 2166) and was refused, for what cause is not stated. He then returned to Ireland, where he remained. In October, 1875, he went into business as a keeper of a public house and retailer of liquors, at a place called Ballydehob. This business has been carried on in his name since 1875. In 1878 he came to the United States of America, and obtained naturalization there in February, 1880, without stopping his business in Ballydehob. He then returned to Ireland, where be was and still is a rate-payer, tax-payer, and voter, and offered himself as a candidate for poor-law guardian. He was elected, qualified, and entered upon the discharge of the duties of the office, and was discharging them when arrested. His imprisonment under his present arrest dates from November last.
On this statement it cannot be denied that O'Mahony is a citizen of the United States. The assurance which the ordinary processes of nat. uralization give to the United States that its citizenship is sought with a purpose of forming part of its population, and contributing to its wealth and its strength, are waived in this statute, and that great prir. ilege is conferred for the sole consideration of a year's service in its military forces. And although that alleged service had been rendered fifteen years before the naturalization, and although the person seeking the naturalization had abandoned the country and was in business in a foreign land, and holding office there with every apparent purpose of remaining there permanently, the language of the act seemed to leave the court no discretion to refuse the decree when it was once proved that the applicant had enlisted in the armies of the United States, that he had been honorably discharged therefrom, and that he had resided more that one year in the United States previous to his application.
In this statement I make no account of the fact that O'Mahony informed the consul at Cork that his alleged service was in the Navy. If his statement to the consul was correct, his alleged naturalization was fraudulent and in violation of law under the settled rulings of this government. This precise point has been decided by the district court of the United States for the district of Oregon. (In re Bailey, 2 Sawyer's Reports, 200.)
Assuming, however, that the naturalization was within the letter of the law, the President is of the opinion that it was only just within the letter, and that it was wholly outside the spirit and intent of the naturalization laws. We generously welcome aliens within our folds with the expectation that they are really to become bone of our bone and flesh of our flesh; that they are to cast their lots in with us, and that the fruits of their industry are to form part of our national wealth. But when an alien is at the very time of his naturalization, and for years before has been, a resident and office-holder in the country of his origin, when after his naturalization he puts his certificate in his pocket and returns to the country of his origin, and continues to reside there in business and holding office, the President feels it to be his duty to afford to such a citizen only the measure of protection demanded by the strictest construction of duty, namely, that he shall receive from the hands of the government under which he is holding office the meas. ure of protection which it affords to its own citizens or subjects.
Mr. McSweeny was naturalized many years since and resided in San Francisco, engaged in the cattle trade. About six years ago he returned with his family to Ireland and purchased some property there.