Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams.
Sir: A despatch, No. 145, has been received from William B. West, esq., United States consul at Dublin, from which it appears that he, on the 20th of February last, opened a correspondence with her Majesty’s attorney general for Ireland. In that correspondence he set forth the fact that a large number of the citizens of the United States have recently been arrested and thrown into prison in Ireland, without any information against them, or the slightest allegation of their guilt. That many alleged cases of great hardship and unjustifiable harshness have been brought before the consul, in the execution of the law by which the habeas corpus act was suddenly suspended in that country. That in other cases American citizens may be imprisoned, who, although there may be some grounds of suspicion against them, are nevertheless free from complicity in any designs against the peace and safety of the realm.
Upon these statements the consul would think it his duty to report to this government all cases of arrest of American citizens, with a view that proper proceedings might be taken for an inquiry into the causes of their arrest and detention.
In reply to this note, the secretary of the lord lieutenant informed the consul that he would be expected by his excellency to furnish him with the names of such American citizens as he had referred to, and to state any facts tending to establish their innocence of the treasonable designs of which they are suspected.
It was further stated by the secretary that directions have been given by the lord lieutenant for an investigation into the cases of all subjects or citizens of foreign states who have been arrested, with a view to their liberation, if the circumstances rendered it possible.
On the 21st of February the consul replied to the under-secretary of the lord [Page 87] lieutenant that he had been refused permission to visit certain prisoners, understood to be American citizens, who were detained at Kilmainham, although he had been permitted to see others who were charged with treason and felony.
On the 22d of February the same under-secretary wrote to the consul that it was impossible for the lord lieutenant to give to the consul a general permission to visit the prisoners, but no impediment would be thrown in the way of their communicating in writing.
The secretary further stated that permission would be given to the consul to see any prisoner who he had good reason to believe was a citizen of the United States and not a subject of the Queen.
On the 24th of February the consul wrote to the secretary that two gentlemen, named John H. Gleason and Joseph Gleason, were then prisoners in the Neuagh jail, who had documentary proof of their being citizens of the United States by naturalization. In regard to these persons the consul asked to be furnished with copies of any information that might have been sworn against them to justify their arrest.
In the same letter the consul asked of the lord lieutenant permission to visit Bernard McDermott, who was a prisoner in Kilmainham jail, and who also was citizen of the United States, as appeared by documents of naturalization.
On the 27th of February the consul again wrote to the secretary, begging leave to draw the attention of the lord lieutenant to the cases of Michael O’Brien and Michael Duffy, who were confined in the Kilmainham jail, and whose evidence of United States citizenship was then before the consul; and in their behalf the consul asked permission to visit them, and also to be furnished with a copy of the evidence or information upon which they were deprived of their liberty.
On the 28th of February the secretary communicated to the consul the answer of the lord lieutenant, which is this:
“John H. and Joseph Gleason and Bernard McDermott are Irish-born subjects of her Majesty the Queen, and, notwithstanding any course which they may have pursued in the United States of America, they still in Ireland must be regarded as ordinary subjects of her Majesty, bound by the allegiance which they owe to their sovereign, and they must be dealt with accordingly. His excellency cannot recognize any right on his part, or on the part of the consul, as consul of the United States, to interfere in respect to the prisoners intrusted to his care, on the ground of their being citizens of the United States.”
It is well understood that there is a conflict between the laws of Great Britain, as expounded by her legal authorities, and the laws of the United States, as understood by this government, with regard to the effect of naturalization. It is understood that the British government has not heretofore conceded that a native subject of the British realm divests himself of his allegiance by renouncing that allegiance, and transferring his allegiance under our laws to the United States. On the other hand, there has been no reservation on the part of the United States in regard to the principle that the process of naturalization in this country completely absolves the person complying with it from foreign allegiance, whoever may have been his sovereign, and invests him with the right equally with native-born citizens to such protection and care of the government of the United States as it can, in conformity with treaties and the law of nations, extend over him, wherever he may sojourn, whether in the land of his nativity or in any other foreign country. Of course the United States do not claim or hold that any such naturalized citizen, when transiently travelling or sojourning for a longer or shorter period in a foreign country, can refuse submission to the sovereign authority and obedience to the laws in the country of his temporary residence. All citizens of the United States, when passing through or dwelling in foreign countries, owe obedience and submission to the laws of those countries.
Hitherto each party has adhered to its own position in this conflict of laws; but, through what may be deemed to have been a fortunate [Page 88] and prudence, it has happened that occasions for collision upon the question in debate have not arisen. Indeed, it has seemed to be passing within the domain of those disputes which, in process of time, become harmless abstractions.
From the very nature of the conflict, however, it is one which, when once practically raised, finds a friendly adjustment only by concession on one side or the other, or both, in the form of a treaty, or of mutual legislation, or through some form of arbitrament. The answer of the lord lieutenant to the American consul, if it shall be adopted by her Majesty’s government, must bring the question up for immediate solution. The lord lieutenant admits the right of the consul of the United States to visit and lend good offices to the prisoner under arrest upon a charge of treason, where he is a native-born citizen of the United States. The lord lieutenant denies the same privileges to the consul in the case of a native of Great Britain, who has been naturalized by the laws of the United States. But he concedes to the consul the privilege of corresponding with the accused in both cases.
It will hardly be necessary to inform her Majesty’s government that among these naturalized citizens of the United States, in whose behalf the good offices of this government are thus discriminated against by the lord lieutenant, are some who have borne arms in the defence of the United States in a war with public enemies. Her Majesty’s government can conceive how impossible it would be for the government of the United States to agree to a denial or abridgment of their right to extend to them the same natural protection and care which the United States extend to native-born citizens of the United States in similar cases.
Practically there would seem to be no sufficient ground for the discrimination. Why should not the consul be allowed to visit an accused party with whom he is allowed to correspond? Why should not the United States consul be allowed to use his good offices in having the claim of the offender, based upon his naturalization in the United States, brought to the consideration of the judiciary of Great Britain? What danger to her Britannic Majesty’s government can be apprehended from allowing the right of visitation in the one case, and not in the other? The government of the United States is in one case, equally with the other, responsible for the good faith and loyal conduct of the consul.
Under the existing circumstances, the insisting, by the British government, upon the discrimination mentioned, could not but be regarded as manifesting a willingness to join issue with the government of the United States upon the main question involved in the conflict. What advantage would result from this precipitancy, and would it serve to disarm, or weaken, or disperse the class of persons who are understood to be seeking to produce sedition and civil war in Ireland, to have it known that a serious debate has arisen upon it between the United States and Great Britain, without any good prospect of a peaceful and friendly settlement? It is for her Majesty’s government to consider whether the occasion which brings up the question is the most suitable one, and whether the present time is the very conjuncture which ought to be chosen for joining that issue; or whether some other occasion and time might not be more convenient for treating the question, upon a good hope of its adjustment.
You will submit these views to the Earl of Clarendon, and ask for the decision of her Majesty’s government at as early a day as may be convenient. In doing so you will, in a most respectful manner, give his lordship to understand that the United States will find themselves entirely unable to acquiesce in the course which is indicated by the lord lieutenant’s decision in the case of John H. and Joseph Gleason and other British-born but naturalized citizens of the United States.
You may use this despatch either openly or confidentially, as you think best.
I am, sir, your obedient servant
Charles Francis Adams, Esq., &c., &c., &c.