Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams
Sir: Mr. West, our consul at Dublin, has recently transmitted another instalment of his correspondence with the local authorities in Ireland, concerning citizens of the United States held in custody, under the suspension of the habeas corpus.
I observe that in the ease of Robert Kelly, the lord lieutenant informs the consul that the prisoner came to Ireland as one of an expedition, the object of which was to land men and arms in Ireland, in aid of an intended insurrectionary movement in connection with the Fenian conspiracy.
In the case of Augustine E. Costello, the lord lieutenant informs the consul that he is in possession of abundant evidence that the prisoner came to Ireland with other persons for the purpose of taking an active part in the Fenian conspiracy; and that, consequently, his excellency refuses to order his discharge.
In the case of Joseph H. Lawler, the lord lieutenant informs the consul that in February, 1866, this man was arrested in Dublin, in consequence of information having been received of his being actively engaged in the Fenian conspiracy. He was detained in custody until September, 1866, when he was discharged on condition of returning to America, and with the caution that if he should again be found in Ireland he would be re-arrested. The lord lieutenant further states that he was informed the object of the prisoner’s return to that country in the beginning of the present year was to take part in the intended insurrection; and, under these circumstances, it does not appear to his excellency that he ought, at present, to take a favorable view of the case.
In the case of John Rooney, the lord lieutenant says he has been informed that the prisoner came to that country as one of an armed expedition, whose object was to assist the conspirators there in attempting the insurrectionary movement. He does not think that it would be consistent with his duty to allow his discharge at present.
In the case of Andrew Leonard, the lord lieutenant states that he is possessed of abundant evidence that the prisoner came to Ireland as one of an armed Fenian expedition, whose object was to join in furthering the designs of the conspirators there. His excellency does not think that it would be consistent with his duty to allow the prisoner’s discharge at present.
In the case of Morgan Burke, his excellency informs the consul that this prisoner’s complicity with the conspiracy is established by information received from several independent sources, and his excellency, though desirous of being able to comply with the consul’s application for the prisoner’s discharge, could not feel justified in acceding to it at present.
The lord lieutenant’s answers in these cases are substantially the same as the replies before given by him in answer to inquiries in behalf of many other citizens of the United States.
The President is not unaware of the embarrassments resulting from what appear to be repressed insurrectionary or seditious movements in Ireland. He indulges no desire to aggravate those embarrassments, but, on the contrary, he carefully endeavors to avoid listening to any unnecessary and unreasonable complaint of citizens of the United States in connection with those proceedings. A time, however, has arrived when some explanations seem to the people of the United States necessary. The habeas corpus has been suspended in Ireland for the long period of twenty months. Frequent arrests and long detentions of citizens of the United States have occurred, who earnestly insist that they have committed no offence and attempted no proceeding inconsistent with a submission to the laws of Great Britain. The arbitrary and indefinite [Page 157] imprisonment of these citizens naturally, I may also say justly, excites profound concern and sympathy in the United States. That sympathy is not effectually relieved by such general assurances, on the part of the lord lieutenant of Ireland, as we are favored with, that he has evidence sufficient to justify their arrest under suspension of the habeas corpus, while this evidence is neither produced nor described. Even though an insurrection or rebellion may still continue a subject of apprehension in Ireland, that fact would seem insufficient to excuse or to justify indiscriminate arrests and long detentions of citizens of the United States sojourning in that country, without some examination or form of trial.
Will you seek an opportunity to confer upon this subject with Lord Stanley, in a friendly spirit, and inquire whether in his opinion we may entertain an expectation, either of the restoration of the writ of habeas corpus, or of the adoption of such discriminating proceedings as may be calculated to assure the safety of innocent and unoffending citizens of the United States.
I am, sir, your obedient servant,
Charles Francis Adams, Esq., &c., &c., &c.