Lord Lyons to Mr.
Seward.
Washington,
May 10, 1864.
Sir: I have the honor to ask you to take into
consideration the enclosed copy of a letter which has been addressed to
me by a Mr. Lewis Packham, who states that certain British subjects at
Cincinnati, in Ohio, are compelled either to find substitutes or to
serve in the corps formed under the recent call for “100-day men,” in
consequence of having enrolled their names in militia corps for the
protection of their homes, at a time two years ago, when the city was
threatened.
I shall be much obliged if you will furnish me with such information on
this matter as may enable me to give proper advice to those of my
countrymen at Cincinnati who are thus circumstanced. If, as would appear
at first sight, they have not, in fact, done anything to forfeit their
claim as British subjects to exemption from military service, I trust
that orders will be sent without delay to the authorities at Cincinnati
to admit and respect their claim.
I have the honor to be, with the highest consideration, sir, your most
obedient, humble servant,
Hon. William H. Seward, &c., &c., &c.
Mr. Packham to Lord Lyons.
My Lord: I wish, for the benefit of my
fellow-countrymen in this city, to ask a few questions in regard to
the status we occupy under the call of the
governors for one-hundred-days men.
During the Kirby Smith raid, so-called, two years ago this July, a
great many of our countrymen put their names down in militia
organizations as members for the protection of their homes, and for
duty on the fortifications; that was under the old militia law. When
the elections of officers for the militia took place last year, the
majority of the officers elected were democrats, and the governor
ignored the elections, and did not give or issue commissions. But
the legislature amended the law and formed the national guard, who
are now called into service for the one hundred days. Now the
officers of the national guards claim all those men who put their
names down in the first organization, and had compelled them either
to serve or find a substitute. Can they avoid doing so? In several
cases the persons have refused, when the national guard was formed,
[Page 606]
to meet with them or
to pay fines that were imposed upon them for non-attendance, and
also refused to accept clothing which, when the guard was formed,
was given to them---in fact, have ignored the organization
altogether, and have never been molested; but now the officers have
compelled them to do duty or find a substitute. Does the signing of
their names to defend the city deprive them of the protection of the
home government, or compel them to serve in the guard on duty away
from the city?
An early answer is respectfully asked.
I am, &c.,
Lord Lyons, &c.,
&c., &c.
Please address me, care of Hinde & Porter, Cincinnati,
Ohio.
