Mr. Adams to Mr. Seward
Sir: In connection with my despatches Nos. 1428 and 1429, of last week relating to particular instances of arrest of persons in Ireland, I deem it proper now to add to them a more general report of the course which has been adopted in regard to other cases in which intervention has been required.
The presentation to Parliament of the petition of John McCafferty, referred to in my despatch No. 1401, of the 5th July, was delayed some time on account of objections raised by Lord Westbury, to whom a copy had been intrusted, on account of some portions of the language used. The consequence was, that a new draft was prepared, but, for some reason unknown, even that was kept back until the very last day of the session of Parliament, when it was presented in the House of Commons by Mr. Taylor. Of course no action could then be taken upon it, and the matter goes over to next year.
In an interview which I had with Lord Stanley some time since, I called his attention to the facts of the case, as well as to this movement about to be made on behalf of McCafferty, and expressed a hope that no objection would be raised on the part of the government. I added that the doubt as to the validity of the judicial construction of law under which he was condemned had been so strongly felt by a portion of the judges that it seemed to justify an attempt to obtain a revisai of the decision. This had been likewise felt by my government, so that I had been authorized to assume the expense that might be incurred in the proceeding.
His lordship took a note of my statement, and manifested a disposition not unfavorable, but owing, I presume, to the delay of the presentation of the petition, no occasion has occurred for any action upon it.
So in the case of John McClure, referred to in your despatch No. 1996, of the 4th June, I seized the same occasion to say a word in his behalf. I referred to his extreme youth, to his frank manner in which he had admitted his offence at the trial, and to the fact that no real injury to persons or property had been committed by him, as circumstances which I hoped might induce the government presently to remit the remainder of the penalty inflicted upon him. His lordship seemed to take so much interest in the statement that I have little doubt that so soon as the government feels itself in a situation to act, this individual will be among the first to be relieved.
My attention has been called by Mr. West to another case, the representation respecting which seems to have been made by the department directly to him and not through me. I refer to that of Lieutenant Joseph H. Lawler. As there was no evidence furnished by the department that Mr. Lawler was a citizen of the United States, Mr. West very naturally declined the responsibility of making a representation without consulting me. Mr. Lawler, when arrested last year, on being appealed to, promised, but proved unable then, to supply this evidence. The nature of his present situation was aggravated by the fact that he had been released under a distinct intimation that if he should return be would render himself liable to be seized again.
Under these circumstances I have advised Mr. West, nevertheless, to make on behalf of this man such a representation as the nature of his case will bear.
The case of Patrick Kane, or Carr, referred to in your despatch No. 2017, of the 13th of July, has been acted upon, but as yet the authorities decline to liberate him. A similar representation in behalf of James Lawless has met with a similar answer. It is, however, to be observed that the language used in the official replies almost uniformly implies that there is no intention of keeping these persons in custody longer than considerations of immediate security [Page 132] will require. The fact that a number of them have violated their engagements made last year, and have appeared again in the midst of the late excitement, has contributed to weaken the confidence felt in the value of any similar promises in future. Were it not for this obstacle, I have little doubt that nearly all would have been released before this. The attempt to keep up the agitation in America, too, the newspaper reports of which are constantly transferred to the Dublin journals, contributes to delay their liberation. Even as it is, however, many are quietly released, and are finding their way back to America. I doubt not that the authorities here are quite as desirous to get clear of them as they are to go.
One serions difficulty is experienced here from the very vague ideas many of them have of their citizenship. They construe residence, military service, or a declaration of intention, as giving them a right to protection. Neither do the friends of the parties in America take sufficient care in their representations to the department to be accurate in regard to these points. They frequently write to these prisoners, raising their hopes of interference merely on the fact that they have made such representations. It might, perhaps, be well that they should be made aware that the first and most indispensable step is clear proof of birth or naturalization. After which it might not be amiss to add as much evidence as practicable of freedom from participation in hostile movements.
I may be permitted to express the belief that no case which has been presented, either by the department or directly by the parties in Ireland, giving reasonable proof of national character, has thus far failed to receive every practicable attention.
I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant,
Hon. William H. Seward, Secretary of State, Washington, D, C.