IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1.0 I.I 150 ■^~ «tuu 11.25 i 1.4 2.5 2.2 2.0 1.6 Photographic Sciences Corporation 23 WIST MAIN STRUT WEBSTER, N.Y. USM (716) •72-4503 '^'^- ■<* %^ ^ CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHM/ICIVIH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques Technical and Bibliographic Notaa/Notas tachniquaa at bibliographiquaa The inatitute haa attempted to obtain the beat original copy available for filming. Featurea of thia copy which may be bibliographically unique, which may alter any of the imagea in the reproduction, or which may aignificantly change the uaual method of filming, are checked below. k/ D D D D D D D D D Coloured covera/ Couverture de couleur Covera damaged/ Couverture endommagte Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaur^ et/ou peiliculie Cover title miasing/ Le titre de couverture manque I I Coloured maps/ Cartes g^ographiques en couleur Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) Coloured platea and/or illuatrationa/ Planchea et/ou illuatrationa en couleur Bound with other material/ Relii avec d'autrea documents Tight binding may cauae shadowa or diatortion along interior margin/ La re iiure serrie peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distortion le long de la marge intArieure Blank leaves added during reatoration may appear within the text. Whenever poaaibie, theae have been omitted from filming/ II se peut que certainea pages blanchea ajouttea lore d'une restauration apparaissent dana ie texte, mais, lorsque cela Atait poaaibie, ces pages n'ont pas 6t6 filmtos. Additional commenta:/ Commantairea suppi^mentairea; L'Inatitut a microfilm* le meilleur exemplaire qu'il lul a Ati poaaibie de ae procurer. Lea details de cat exemplaire qui aont peut-Atre uniques du point de vue bibliographique. qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dana la mAthode normale de filmage aont indiquAa ci-deaaoua. D D n D D D D D Thia item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est film* au taux de reduction indiquA ci-deaaoua. Coloured pagea/ Pagea de couleur Pagea damaged/ Pagea endommagAes Pages restored and/or laminated/ Pages restauriea et/ou peiliculAes Pagea diacoloured, atained or foxnd/ Pagea dAcolorAas. tachatAea ou piquies Pages detached/ Pages d^tachias Shovvthrough/ Transparence Quality of print varies/ Qualit* inAgale de I'impreaaion Includes supplementary material/ Comprend du matAriel suppMmertaire Only edition available/ Seule Mition disponible Pagea wholly or partially obacured by errata alipa, tissues, etc have been rof limed to enaura the best poaaibie image/ Lea pagea totaiement ou partiellement obacurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, etc., ont M filmdes A nouveau de fapon A obtenir la meilleure image possible. 10X 14X 18X 22X 2ex 30X J 12X 16X 20X 24X 28X 32X m 'm The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks to the generosity of: National Library of Canada L'exemplaire filmA fut reproduit grAce d la ginArositA de: BibliothAque nationale du Canada The images appearing here are the best quality possible considering the condition and legibility of the original copy and In keeping with the filming contract specificatiors. Las Images suivantes ont AtA reproduites avec le plus grand soin, compta tenu de la condition et de la nettet6 de l'exemplaire f ilm6, et en conformity avec les corditions du contrat de fllmage. Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed beginning with the front cover and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All other original copies are filmed beginning on the first page with a printed or illustrated Impres- sion, and ending on the last page with a printed or Illustrated impression. Les exemoiaires originaux dont la couverturo en papier est imprimte sont filmte en commenpant par le premier plat et en tern;inant soit par la dernldre page qui comporte une empreinte d'Impression ou d'lllustration, soit par le second plat, salon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires originaux sont filmte en commenpant par la premiere page qui comporte une empreinte d'Impression ou d'lllustration et en terminant par la dernlAre page qui comporte une telle empreinte. The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall contain the symbol ^^ (meaning "CON- TINUED"), or the symbol y (meaning "END"), whichever applies. Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at different reduction ratios. Those too large to be entirely included In one exposure are filmed beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to right and top to bottom, as many frames as required. The following diagrams illustrate the method: Un des symboles suivants apparaltra sur ia derniAre image da cheque microfiche, selon le cas: le symbols — ► signifie "A SUIVRE ", le symbols ▼ signifie "FIN". Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent Atre filmfo A des taux de reduction diffArents. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour Atre reproduit en un seul ciichA, 11 est filmA A partir de Tangle supArieur gauche, de gauche A droite, et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre d'images nAcessaire. Les diagrammes suivants illustrent la mAthode. 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 '-?^':'%^' ii^m^'^-Me: RETURN To an Address of tho House of Commons, dated 15th November 1867; for copies of all documents in relation to tho Extradition of La- mirandc. By Command. HECTOR L. LANGEVIN, Secretarij of Slate, Department of the Secretary of State, Ottawa, nth March, 1868. It Province op Canada, | To the Right Houorablc Charles Stanley, Viscount Monck Dittrict of Montreal. ) Baron Monck of Ballytnimmon, in tho County of Wexford, Governor General of British North America, &c., &o., and Captain General and Governor in Chief in and over tho Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and the Island of Prince Edward, and Vice Admiral of the same, &o., &c. The Petition of F^liz Gastier, arrested under tho name of Ernest S. Lamirandc, now detained in the common jail of the District of 3Iontrea], respectfully represents : That on Wednesday, tho first August instant, your petitioner was arrested at Laprairic by the police of Montreal, without any writtea warrant, at the request, it is said, of some representatives of the French Government, and, as the Petitioner has been informed, upon the charge of embezzling money belonging to the Bank of France where the said pretended Lamirandc was cashier, and the Petitioner also understands that the said representatives of the French Government are about to apply for a writ of Extradition, in order to have him, tho Petitioner, sent back to France. * That as the offence styled " embezzlement" with which the said Petitioner is charged is not mentioned in the treaty between England and France, if any such treaty is still in force, and does yet exist between the two countries, and as therefore it is impossible for them to obtain his extradition, they have resolved upon employing subornation, force and violence^ unlawfully and without any right, to kidnap tlio Petitionci, and without any authority to send him to the United States or France. The Petitioner has come to that conclusion from tho fact that the Police Officers who arrested the Petitioner have been offered several thousand dollars, if they would kidnap him and bring him to tho United States, which the said Police Officers, in the full sense of their duty, «teruly refused to do ; and also, from tho fact that the parties directing the prosecution against the Petitionee have boasted that they would have the Petitioner unyhow, whether lawfully or unlawfully, that they were bound to havo him, and that they would have him, no matter by what means. / UpoD Buoh a state of facts, th« Petitioner, knowing how jealous Your Excellenoy ia of the honor of England, here appeals to Your Excellenoy in order that in this case, due ftreoautions be ordered to be taken, so that no unlawful not be committed and that the aw bo strictly observed and impartially administered. And your Petitioner, as in duty bound, will over pray. For the Petitioner, Montreal, August 3rd, 1866. Doutre Ik, Doutre, Attorneys. Province of Canada, ) To His Ezoellency the Right Honorable Charles Stanley, District of Montreal. J Viscount Monck, Governor General of British North America, and Captain General and Governor in Chief of the Provinces of Canada, Now Bruns- wick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, &c., &o. The Petition of Ernest Sureau Lamirande, at present confined in the Common Jail of the District of Montreal, respectfully sheweth : That your Petitioner has been confined in the said jail since the Ist instant, in virtue of an order issued under the (ignature of Wm. H. Br4haut, Esq., Police Magistrate, in ^vhioh order it is stated that the said Wm. H. Brchaut, Esq., issued the said order to con- fonn to a warrant issued under the signature of Your Excellency, from whom it would appear that the extradition of your Petitioner has been solicited by some person claiming to uct in the name of the Government of the Emperor of the French, upon the pretext of vour Petitioner's having committed in France the crime of forgery. That among other reasons, the enumeration whereof would be superfluous here, your Petitioner cannot be surrendered : 1. Because the Treaty signed at London on the 13th February, 1843, between England mid France had ceased to exist from and after the fourth day of June lacd that the hiqh contraotin); parties should, on requisition niado in their niimu tlirnugh thn inidium of their respeetivu agents, deliver vip to justice pcrsoDB who doiii;; neoufed of the oritncs of murder, Ibrgory or fraudiilout bankruptcy couiuiittcd within tlie jn^i^diutiun of the requiring party, should sctk un nsyluni or should bo found within the territories of the other." " In order to carry the oonvcntion into effect, the liritiuh Parliament, on tho 22nd of August, 1843, passed tho Act 6 and 7 Victoria, c. 75, in which after reciting Ae conven- tion, it is enacted that in case requisition bn made pursuant to tho couvention to deliver up to justice any person who, being accused of having eommittod, after the ratification of tlio convention, any of tho above crimes, within tho territories and jurisdiotion of His Majesty tho Emperor of the French, shall bo found wiihin tho dominions of Her Majesty, it Bhall be lawful for one of Ilor Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State, or in Ireland for the Chief Secretary of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, and in any of Her Majesty's < 'olonies or Possessions abroad for the Officer administering tho Government of any such Colony or Possessions, by warrant under his hand and seal, to signify that such requisition hiiH been so made, and to require all Justices of tho Peaco and other Magistrates and OiUcers of Justice, within their several jurisdictions, to govern themselves accordingly and to aid in apf rehending tho persons so accused, and C9mniitting such persons to gaol for the purpose of being delivered up to Justice according to tho provisions of the said oon- vcntion." " It shall bo lawful for ono of Her Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State, or in Ireland, for the Chief Secretary of tho Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, and in any of Her Majesty's Colonies or Possessions abroad, for tho Officer administering tho Government of any such Colony or Possession, by warrant, &c., to deliver up oiTondora to the authorities of France." I therefore take tho liberty. Sir, of requesting you to bo pleased to apply to His Ez- oellency the Governor General, in virtue of tho powers conferred upon him ]>y tho aforesaid convention, for the necessary warrant for tho apprehension and subsequent extradition of the before-mentioned Ernest Sureau Lamiraiide. I shall be obliged if you will cause the warrant to be sent to me at the earliest possible period. I consider it expedient to enclose herewith the warrant of arrest issued by the civil tribunal of Poitiers, and duly legalized by Her Itritannic Majesty's Consul at Paris. I have to request that you will bo pleased to return mo this document with the Governor General's warrant. I take this opportunity, Sir, of tendering to you tho assurance of my most distinguished consideration. Fred. Gautieb, The Honorable William MoDougall, Consul General of France. Provincial Secretary, Ottawa. i $ 4 \ PnoviNOE OF Canada. By His Excellency, &c. To all and singular the Justices of the Peace, and other Magistrates and Officers of Jusiioo within their several jurisdictions in the Province of Canada. Grketino: Whereas one Ernest Sureau Lamirande, late of Poitiers, in tho French Empire, stands accused of the crime of forgery, by having, in his capacity of Cashier of the Branch of the Bank of France at Poitiers, made false entries in the books of the said Bank, and thereby defrauded the said Bank of the sum of seven hundred thousand francs; and whereas a requisition has been made to me by tho Consul General of France in the Provinces of British North America, pursuant to the terms of a convention, between Her Majesty thn Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and His Majesty the King of France, signed at London on the thirteenth day of February, in the year of Our Lord one thousand eight hundred and forty three, to issue my warrant for the apprehension of the said Ernest Sureau Lamirande ; Now know ye that I, Charles Stanley, Viscount Monok, boiDg (ioTcrnor Gonoral ot'tho said I'roviooo ofOanadn, under tiiu authority in ino vostod liy tho provisionn of tho Statute passed by the Legislature of the IFnitod Kiu^dom uf (iront Hritain uiiJ Ireland, in the Session thereof hald in the sixth and Heventh yoarH of llur Majesty'H roi^n, intituled, " An Act for giving oflfoot to n eonvention botwoou Her MnjcHty and the Kin;;; of tho French for the npprohonsion of eortain olFcndcrH," do by tiii.M my warnmt require you, und oaeh of you, the Justices of the I'enee, aod Muf^istrntcH and OBiccra of Justieo witliin your Novcriil JurindiutionA in the Huid Province of Claniida, to aid in itpprchcudini; tho suid Krncst Suroau Lamiraude so accused, and eouimitting him to uny one of the ^aols within tho said Province of Canada, for tho purpose of being delivered up to justice, according to tho provisiooH of the said convention. Given, ko. This is my draft. Geo. Kt. Cautirh, Attorney Ocucral, L. C. OtUwn,July 26th, 1806. Ottawa, let August, 1866. Sir, — I bavo the honor to inclose to you a warrant for the apprehension and extradi- tion of the individual named Ernest Surcau Lamiraude, accused ot forgery, »h requested by you in your letter of tho 18th July Inst. 1 have tho honor to be, Sir, Your obedient sorvant, E. Parent. M. Fr6d. Gautier, Consul General of France, (jucbec. Ottawa, yrd August, 1866. Sir, — In transmitting to you the warrant of extradition in tho case cf tho individual named Ernest Sureau Lamiraude, the warrant of arrest issued by the civil tribunal of Poitiers was inadvertently not returned to you, as requested by your letter of tho 18th ultimo. I now supply the omission. * I have, &e. M. Frdd. Gautier, E. Parent. Consul General of France, Quebec. Ottawa, 6th Aug. ISfifi. By Telegraph from Montreal, To Eticnne Parent, Prov. See's. Office. Lamirande is being extended (sic) in Court here, pray send to Mr. Kamsay the papers I sent you with my request for warrant per return of mail. P. Gautier. Ottawa, Gth August, 1866. Sir, — In compliance with a telegraphic despatch from Mr. Gautier, Consul General of France, I enclose the only paper sent with his application for the extradition of Lami- rande which has not yet been returned to him. The mandat d'arrct iasued at Poitiers was sent to him at Quebec on the 3rd, and cur Warrant of Extradition on the first instant. Be pleoscd to return the enclosed deposition or a certified copy thereof, when tho ease is disposed of. I have, &o., E. Paeent. T. K. Ramsay, Esquire, Advocate, Montreal. MoNTRKAt., 7th AuptiiHt, 18ntt. Sir, — I liovn to ncknowlcilgo rceci|tt of your latter of tlio fltli, cnnlonin;; iiic, at the rc<|uest oC IMr. (JnutiiT, Oonsul (ionoral nl' Krnnco, tho Hflidayit of Mr. iNJclin in tlio matter of Suvonu Jianiinindo, wlioso extradition in required on tlio putt of tho French (lovornuicnt. Tho ntndnvit will lie returned, ho »40on nx the proucedin^a aro HUCceRMfuily tiirniinntcd. 1 havo tho houor to bo, Hir, Your most ubediont itervant, To E. Parent, Ksquiio, T. K. Kamhay. Asst. I'rov. Hoo'y, Ottawa. Police Office, Montreal, I'Und August, 18(56. Kir, — I havo ti.o linnor to trauomit herewith tho depositions and other docunionts in the eiiRo of l. Deposition of Edmo Justin Melin, at Montreal, 14tb Augult, 1K(5G. (5. Document marked C — Deposition of Henri Mario du IJois de Janeigny, dated at Poitiers, 2nd April, ISUO. 7. Deposition of Abel FVcderic Gauticr, afc Montreal, 14tli August, 18(5(5. 8. Document marked D — Procds Verbal de Saisio, by Jolly, Jugo d'lnstruction, at Poitiers, 2Uth April, 18(5(5. 0. Voluntary Statement of Ernest Surcau Lamirande, at Montreal, 15tli August, 1866. 10. Document oflForing Reward of $2,000 (no date.) 11. Deposition of Charles L. Spilthorn,at Montreal, 20th and 2lst August, 18()(5. 12. Deposition of Emilo D. Morel, at Montreal, 22nd August, 18r)(>. 13. Copy of Warrant of Commitment of Ernest Suvcau Lamirande at .Montreal, 22nd August, 1806. * pire,l Poitl of F| Province op Canada, "| District of Montreal. )■ Police Office. , The information and complaint of Edmo Justin Melin, City of Montreal. ) hmpccteur principal de police, of the City of Paris, in tho Prench Empire, now in tho City of Montreal, in the District of Montreal, taken under oath, this sixth day of August, in tho year of Our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-six, bjr the undersigned, William II. Brehaut, Esquire, Police Magistrate in and for the Dis- trict of Montreal, which complainant saith : — On the seventeenth day of March last I was directed by the Prefect of Police of the City of Paris aforesaid to seek out aad apprehend an individual named Ernest Sureau Lamirande, Cashier of tho Broneh of the Bank of Franco at Poitiers in the French Em- < ^1 ^iiMt, I8fl»;. >'A iiic, at I ho ivlin in tlio P tlio French r turininntcj. AMRAV. (, 1866. icuiucntfi in I'. JI. gust, isr>(). liiy, 186(5. y, dated at ruction, ut I August, 86t;. real, 22nd a Mclin, French )iitli, this jixty-six, the Bis- ce of the t Sureau nob Em- fire, who woa liable to arrest under a warrant of arroxt iiiued by the Juiji'. amount aforosiiid, und ho even often told mo tho moans ho adopted to get tho money out of tho liaok. After tho arrival ot tho indiotmout at New York, I uotilied him of it, telling him that ho was further accused of forgery of commoreial dooumonts by his balaneo sheet, and he answered mo, " It is true, I know it well." IIo has several times sinco mado the same admission to me, and all his admissions to nio respecting tho ofl'unecs of which ho was aecuHod were spontaneous and voluntary on hitt part, and without any promise or threat on my part to obtain them. While thu Huit fur his extradition wim in process at New York, tho said Ernest ijuroau Lamirande csoipcd. He has sinco buon arrested in tho Province of Canada. I huvo soon him in tho common gaol of tlio District ot Montreal; I perfectly recogni/.3d him aa being tho said Lamirande, und I huvo no doubt whatever as to his identity. Ho even had on the same clothes that ho wore on the day of his escape. The said Ernest Surouu Lamirande is now a prisoner at the Polico Oflicu of tho said City of Montreal, where I mako this deposition. At New York tho said Lamirundo took tho name of Dyhors, from Belgium, but after his apprehension und ut my second visit he acknowledged that ho was indeed Lamirando. [ was then accompanying the Consul Gen- eral Oauldr^e lioiloau. I therefore demand justioo and havo signed after reading. (Signed,) K. J. MthlN. Sworn bcibrn me, at Montreal, ) thi.s ()th August, 180)5. ) (Signed,) VV. H. HrC-haut, P.M. The foregoing deposition having been read in the presence of tho pri.soner Ernest Sureau Lamirande, he was asked whether he wished to put any questions to the deponent, and he replied that ho wished to put to the witness tho following questions by his Counsel, Mr. Doutrc. Question. — Besides tho calling which you have ascribed to yourself, do you not also hold that of spy of tho secret police, that is to say, — of paid spy? (Mr. llamsay, on behalf of tho Crown, objected to tho question. Objection sustained.) Question. — According to tho French law, is it not the case that tlio paid spy in the service of the secret police, or in other words tho accuser pecuniarily recompensed by law, cannot be a witness in cases in which ho acts in that capacity '! (Same objection. Objection sustained.) Question. — Is it not true that by Article 32U of tho Code of Criminal Instruction of France, paragraph 6, tho depositions of accusers, whose accusation is pecuniarily recom- pensed by law, cannot bo received ? (Same objection.. Objection sustained.) 1^ 8 Question. — By whom wore you employed to follow the traces of the prisoner ? Ans. By the Prefect of Police. Question. — What salary do you receive for the duties which you perform at present ia America, and especially ia Canada ? Ans. My lixed salary is tho same as if I was at Paris. I have in the United States a credit opened with a banker ; I expend what I require, and at my return to France I shall render an account of my expenses to the pre- fecture, as is always done. Question. — ^What difference will there bo in your emolumonts if you succeed or do not succeed in taking the prisoner back to Franco ? Ans. None. Question. — Whore was the prisoner in New York when you paid him the visits men- tioned in your examination in chief? Ans. In tho Ludlow Jail. Question.— -Was the prisoner aware at the time in what capacity you wore acting in New York ? Ans. Yes. Question. — Had you ever known the prisoner before going to New York in search of him? Ans. No. Question. — Is it not true that the prisoner has objected, and at present objects to your evic! once ? (Objected to on behalf of the Grown. Objection sustained.) Question. — Is there any person now here holding a warrant of arrest issued by any Court or Tribunal in France ? (Same objection. Objection sustained.) Question. — Had you at Now York in your possesssion, or had any other person, in tlie interest of the French Government, in his possession, a warrant of arrest or other equivalent judicial document issued by a Judge, or by competent authority in France, and if so state of what offence the prisoner was accused ? Ans. I was the bearer of a telegraphic despatch from the Procureur Impirial, at Poitiers, to the Prefect of Police at Paris, which is oquivalont to a warrant of arrest, but I was besides the bearer of a warrant of arrest issued by M. Jolly, Juge d' Instruction at Poitiers, where Lamiraudo was ancuscd of embezzlement of funds to the prejudice of tho Bank of France. Only that accus.ttion appeared on the warrant which I held. Subsequently an indictraeut {arret de renvoi) arrived by which Lamirandn was accused of forgery. Question. — What lias become of those documents ? Ans. Those documents remained ia the United States. Question. — During the visits which you paid to Lamirande at New York, did you tell him that his father iind his brother had been arrested in coiisequoncc of the matters of which Lamirande was accused, and for which ho had been arrested at New York ? Ans. I told him that I had learned that his father and his brother had been arrested. Question. — What truth was there in what you told him in relation to his father and his brother ? -.4ms. I had been told it on leaving France, but I did not vouch for it in speaking to Lamirande. I have since heard that the brother only was arrested. Question. — When did you learn that the brother had not been arrested ? Ans. I have never learned that the brother was not arrested. Question. — Do you stato that nothing destroyed your belief tiiat the father had been arrested ? Ans. Nothing destroyed my belief. Question. — From what you know through your correspou'lenco with Poitiers, or any other part of France, do you mean to ,«ay tint nothing affected the information of which you speak above as having been communicated to you before your departure from France, in relation to the apprehension of the father and the brother of Lamirande ? Ans. I was never oEBcially informed of the arrest or of the release. Question. — Did you not subsequently say to Lamirande that neither his father nor his brother hnd been arrested? Ans. No. Question. — Were you ever the holder of a warrant of arrest issued under tho autho- rity of the Procureur Impirial of Poitiers, or have you seen such a warrant? Ans. I have not had any documents other than those which I have mentioned above. Question. — How long before the date at which you say that Jjamirande escaped, did you receive the indictment ? Ans. I do not know. Question. — When do you assert that the prisoner escaped from New York ? Ans. \ think that it was on tho third of July. d isoner ? Ant, trm at present as if I TTos at cpend what I ics to the pre- succccd or do be visits raen- rore acting in k in search of lent objects to issued by any person, ia the ler equivalent ind if so state a telegraphic t Paris, which rrant of arrest [US aocused of lat accusation rCt lie renvoi) cnts remained :, did you tell ihe matters of York ? Ans. ed. lis father and ouch for it in ed. ed ? Ans. I ler had been titiers, or any tion of which from France, Ans. I was iS father nor i!r the autho- An.^, I have escaped, did rk? Ans, I QuettioH. — What knowledge have you of the process (initruction) which preceded the issue of tho indictment ? Ans, None. Question. — In the course of the visits which you paid to Lamirande at New York, did you speak to him of what the Consul would do tor him if he returned to France. Aiis. The Consul General, on the oouaaion when wc first went together to see Lamirande, and when he was recognised as being indeed Lamirande, told him that if he would return voluntarily to Franco, he would write to his judges to interest them in his behalf, and he gave his ivord of honor that he would go. I myself often spoke to him to the same effect, and I advised him to return to France. I told him that if he returned voluntarily as ho promised, the Consul General would write what he had said he would, and that 1 in my oral evidence at Poitiers, before the Court of Assize, would be favorable to him. These conversations took place ten, twelve, fifteen, or twenty times. The day following, or pos- sibly the very day of his arrest, conversations of the nature which I have just described took place between Lamirande and myself. At a certain period after the suit for extra- dition had commenced I continued to see Lamirande, and one day he said to me : "I can no longer speak with you about my aifair, let us talk of something else," and accordingly we talked of other matters. During that suit I one day entirely ceased to visit him. I no longer saw him, except at Court, where I had no conversation with him. Question. — How long before his escape did you cease to visit him '! Aus. I cannot say. Question. — Could there have been a month au well as a week between the time when you ceased to visit him and the time of his escape ? Ans. I oannot say ; it may have been a fortnight, or it may have been u week j I oannot state exactly. Question. — When you had ceased to visit him, had tho question ever been raised a& to his being accused of forgery, and how ? Ans. \es, I had told him in prison that ho had been accused of forgery through his balance sheet, as stated in the indictment, and he coincided with it, and even endeavored to givo an explanation as to the interpretation of tho word forgery (faux). Question. — Be good enough to state as exactly as possible what Lamirande said to you in relation to his balance sheet ? Ans. There was no discussion between us as to his balance sheet. I said to him, " You are accused of tho forgery of commercial documents." " In what way, of forgery ?" replied he. I then said to him : " By your false balance sheet, which you signed on the day of your departure." He then said to me, " that is not a forgery in the eye of the law." This is tho substance of the conven?ition that I had with Lamirande. Question. Did you tell him in what respect it was maintained that his balance sheet was false and untrue ? Ans. In bearing upon the face of it that there was in the safe of Ibe bank a sum of seven hundred thousand francs which he carried off with him. This is what was told me about it, and what I repeated to Lamirande. I did not see his balance sheet. Question. — Did that conversation take place before or after the arrival of the indict- ment ? Atxs. The question was probably raised before, but it certainly was aflerwards. I bad received letters giving me the information, that is to say, of his being accused of forgery. Question. — Did not the Consul General of Franof at New York say to Lamirande in your presence that there was no accusation of forgery against him, and that no punishment except imprisonment could be inflicted upon him f Ant. When I saw Lamirande with the Consul General, it was on the day after his apprehension, and it was evident that we were not aware that an accusation of forgery against him existed ; therefore no mention could be made of it, and I do not recollect that the Consul General spoke of imprison- ment. Qmttion. — Do you know Whether in the statement made by Lamirande's director, of the matters of which Lamirande is a^cised, the question of accusing the latter of forgery is raised ? Ans, I have not read that document, nor have I heard it read. Question. — From what Lamirande told you, would his balance sheet have been true and exact, if Lamirande had not carried off seven hundred thousand francs ? Ans. I oan- not answer that question, bat if the seven hundred thousand francs had remained whero they were, he would not have run awsy, and w* should not hart raa after kirn. I\ 10 Quettion. — From what Lamiraode told you, what ought the balance sheet to have eontiiaed in order not to bo false and untrue ? Ans. The question was never raised be- tween us. Queilion, — Of what commoroial documents were you talking to Lamirande when you told him that he was aoousod of forgery ? Ans. I told him he war accused of forgery in that he had falsified his writings and made up a false balance sheet. Question. — In what respect did you toll him that ho had falsified his writings ? Ann. I simply told him that he had falsified hiH writings without telling him in what respect ho had falsified them, because I had roooivod no further information. Quettion. — What did Lamirando say to that? Ans. I should find it very difficult to say ; I do not remember. Quettion. — Did Lamirando ever aoknowlodgo before you' anything other than what resulted from the fact of the sum of seven hundred thousand francs which he had abstracted, being entered upon his balance sheet as being in the safe of the Bank, and which was not there, he having abstracted it '{ Anx, When I told him he was accused of forgery he coin- cided with that view. Quettion. — What did ho acknowledge ? Am. When I said to him that he was accused of forgery through his balance sheet, ho answered, " I know it well." Quettion. — In what respect did his balance sheet shew him to be guilty of forgery, aeeording to what you told him ? Am, I do uot know. I knew but of one thing, the accusation against him, and I gave him iuformation of it. Quettion. — From the information which you had received and which you had com- municated to Lamirande, was there question of uny other matters besides tho abstraction of the sum of seven hundred thousand francs of which you havo spoken ? Ans, Yes, there was question as to the accusation of forgery. Quettion. — Did that accusation of forgery refer to that sum of money ? Ans. It is a separate crime. Question. — Has tho sum of money in question any reference more or less direct to that aeousation ? Ans. So far as I seo, one results from the other. Question, — From the information by wliioh you have been guided throughout tlii^ affair, would the balance sheet put in by Lamirande at the tiuio of his departure bo false if tho sum of seven hundred thousand fruncs was replaced in the safe of tho Bank at Poitiers ? (Objected to on behalf of tho Crown. Objection overruled.) Am. Though the moucy were replaced in the safe, the iorgcry would atili exist not- withstanding. Question. — Of what then does tho forgery coosist ? ^n.^. In my view and according to the information which I had received, it eouslstod of causiiig to appear on his balance sheet, which he signed and which is an official >locument, a sum as being present in the safe, and in the vaults, which was not there present. Question. — Is that what Lamirande acknowledged before you, or was it something else ? Ans. In my view Lamirando acknowledged having committed forgery. Que«(ton.«— Was there anything said between Lamirande'and you when you spoke of forgery, about anything else than causing to appear on his balance sheet a sum as being present in tho safe and in the vaults which was not then present ? Ans. Yes, we con- versed about the registers also. Question. — What was said about the registers'!' Ans. 1 told him that he was accused of ft'sifioation of writings in addition to his halance sheet. Qu«j/tbn.— What writings were in question 7 Ans. I was never furnished with details. I know but of tho accusation. Question. — What was said between J^amirande and you in relation to those writings 1* Ans. I shall but repeat the sumo thing : we spokn only of tho accusation. I could not give him details, I knew none. lie acknowledged it. By consent, this ease is continued until to-morrtfw at eleven o'clock in the forenoon, for the further cross-examination of the witness by the prisoner. MoBtreal; 6th August, 1866. (Signed,) Wm. H. BKiKAUT, P.M. 11 leet to have sr raised be- le when you (f forgery ia ings ? ^718. t respect ho f difficult to : than what i abstracted, lich was not ;ery he coin- ;hat he was of forgery, B thing, the )u had corn- abstraction Aiis. Yes, Ans. It is a irect to that tughout thi» leparturo be the Bank at ill ttzist not- id according his balance escnt in the t something ^ou spoke of iim as being lei, we con- was accused Dished with 90 writings ? I could not ^e forenoon, r, P.M. On the seventh day of August in the year of Our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-sia o above named and described deponent again appeared before the undersigned, Wiiiir.r . !Rrdhaut, Esq., Police Magistrate, in and for the District of Montreal, and being a^' ^•^ sworn in the presence of the prisoner, Ernest Sureau Lamirande, the cross- examination of the said deponent was continued as follows : Question. — When you spoke of the falsification of writings to Lamirande, was it question of writings oonnocted with the sum of money which was missing from the safe of the Bank after his departure ? Aiif. 1 am of opinion that that was what was in question. Question. — According to the information which you communicated to Lamirande after having received it yourself was the registoi- kept by Lamirande stated to contain the same irregularity aa his balance sheet, or something different i* Ans. I have already stated that I had no details as to tho manner in which Lamirande proceeded, that I had only been told of falsification of writings and forgery of commercial documents by his balance sheet. Question. — Did you ever say to Lamirande that he was accused of alteration of writings or of figures, either in the registers or in his balance sheet ? Ans. As I understand it, alteration and falsification mean the same thing. I may have used both words in my con- versation with him. Question. — Be good enough to state precisely what Lamirande acknowledged before you and the terms that he made use of in so doing ? Ans. When I said to Lamirande that he was accused, in addition to tho embezzlement of funds, of forgery of commercial documents, he replied ; " It is true, I know it well." Question. — To what did Lamirande's words, " It is true, I know it well," apply ? Ans. For my part I am morally convinced that the moaning of that reply was that he acknowledged himself to be guilty of the deed. Question, — State in what terms Lamirandu discussed with you the nature of the offence which might be the result of the facts of which ho was accused. Ans. Lamirande maintained that the forgery of which he was accused was not that described by the law as such. Question. — Of what arguments did he mnko use to disprove the nature of forgery as applied to his acts ? Ans. I do not think we discussed the point. I only remember that Lamirande maintained that the forgery of which he was accused was not that laid down as such by the law. Question. — What reason did he give for stating that his acts did not constitute forgery as laid down by the law ? Ans. I think, but I cannot state positively, that Lamirande maintained that forgery was a false signature, whereas his was a true one. Question. — Have you, either at New York or at Montreal, had consultation with those who were conducting the prosecution, as to the nature of the accusation whioh was to be preferred against Lamirande f Ans. At New York, yes ; but at Montreal, no. But at New York the question of forgery was never spoken of, because embezzlement was included in the treaty ; although the indictment which was placed in the possession of Mr. Judge Commissioner Betts contains that accusation. '' Question. — Have you, in Montreal, held any conversations in which tho reasons were explained to you why the accusation was not the same here as at New York ? Ans. It was useless to explain it to mo ; I knew it. At Loudon, in England, where I have often been on extradition business, I became acquainted with the treaty existing between France and that Power and her Colonies. The whole Lamirande business was discussed between the advocates for the prosecution and myself; we read the treaty existing between England and France, and I had 'no need to have it explained to me for I knew it well beforehand. Question.— W&B there any discussion between you as to the means to be adopted to give the facts the color of a forgery ? Ans. No. Question. — Did not the advocates for the prosecution tell you that there was no way in this country of basing an accusation of forgery on the facts of whioh Lamirande was accused ? Ans. Before seeing tho Montreal advocates I went to Quebec, where, without any one's advice, I made an affidavit accusing Lamirande of forgery ; consequently, I know what was to be done before seeing the Montreal advocates. The advocates for the prose- Otttion at Montreal did not tell me that there was no way in this country of basing an aocu- BBtion of forgery, on the facts of whioh Lamirande was accused. Question. — Why was not the accusation of forgery adduced in New York, since the ■\\ u indictment contained it? Am. Probably beoauso thoaoouAtion of embezzlement of money was sufficient. QueatioH. — Was not the accusation of forgery abandoned at New York upon the advice of Counsel who declared it to be inoompatiblo with the facrs, nod was not that declared by Coumiissioner Betts ? Ans. I never heard any thing said about that. Qnextion, — Qive the substance of what you declared in the affidavit which you say you made at Quebec ? Ana. In the affidavit I stated that Lamirando, a fugitive from French justice and from American justice, had, according to inforn-ation of which I was in posses- sion, taken refuge on Canadian soil ; that in France he was accused of tho embezzlement of a sum of 700,000 francs to the prejudice of the Bank of Franco at Poitiers ; that further- more, he was accused of falsification of writings and of forgery of commercial documents by his balance sheet. Question. — If the sum of seven hundred thousand francs had been carried off from the Bank of Poitiers by any other person than Lamirande, did any othor circumstance exist which would have justified you in declaring that his Balance sheet was false ? Am. Yen, the indictment inculpated him. Question. — Was there any thing in Lamirando's conduct which might have led you to doubt the correctness of his balance sheet, if the money had been taken by another person ? Ans. I do not know that there was. Question. — From your knowledge of tho Treaty between France and KnQ;land are you able to state what was its intended duration, and how it could bo abrogated '( Ans. In consequence of some circumstance with which I am not acquainted, tho Imperial Oovern- uient notified that of England that the Treaty would terminate on the first of Juno, eighteen hundred and sixty-six; but the English Government requested that it might continue in operation until a new Treaty could be concluded. Question.— According to French Law which is tho heaviest form of crime : tho em- bezzlement of money or forgery ; and which of them involves tho severest paaishment ? Ans. Forgery beyond doubt. Question. — In your conversation with Laruirnnde, which did he acknowledge to bo false — his balance sheet, or tho cash ? Ans. I think he acknowledged that both the entries were false, and his balance sheet also. The prisoner declares by his Counsel, iMr. Duutrc, that he has no more questions to put to the witness. Mr. Pominville for the prosecution, re-examines the witness by putting th« following question : — Question. — In the cross-examination which you have undergone on the part of tho prisoner, you spoke of a conversation which the Consul-General had with the prisoner, in which he stated that if he (the prisoner) returned to Franco of his free will, he would writo to the Judges in his behalf, and that pnsoncr gave his word of honor that he would set out. Have the goodness to state what conversation between the Consul-General and tho prisoner led the former to speak in that manner '{ Ajis. When we arrived at tho prison at Ludlow, — I, the Consul-General, and Mr. BiSraoger the Vice-Consul — we were conducted into a small room, to which the individual in question was also brought. The Consul- General thus addressed him, « Are you Lamirande ?" " Yes, sir." " You were the Cashier at Poitiers ?" " Yes, sir, and I am fully aware of my position ; ray intention is not to resist the laws of my country.'' The Consul General then said to him, " This is not an official visit which I am now making; it is a friendly one ; as Consul General I feel bound to care for all my fellow-countrymen, and as you do not intend to offer any resistance, write me a few words, placing yourself at my disposal ; I shall then write to your Judges to enlist their feelings in your favor, for as far as I can learn from Mr. Mclin your family is res- pectable and respected." The Counsel for the prosecution declares that he has no other questions to ask in re-examination, the examination is therefore closed and the witness has signed. (Signed,) E. J. Melin. (True^Copy) Taken and acknowledged before me at Montreal, the ) seveDth of August, eighteen hundred and sixty-six. j (Signed,) W. H. Br6haut, P.M W. H. BatiHATTT, P.M. 18 lent of money on tbe advioe dcdlarod by 1 jou say you Vom Frenoli na in posses- lezgslement of that further- looumenta by 1 oiT from the iBtanoe exist An$. Yes, ive led yoa to ther person ? ;Iand are you 1 ? Ant. In ■rial Govern - uno, eighteen t continue in nc : the em- pnaishment ? rledge to bo th the entries estions to pat b« folloiring part of the prisoner, in B would writo le would set ral and the t the prison re oonduoted The Consul- ) the Cashier J not to resist 9t an official ound to care write me a o;es to enlist mily is res- IS to ask in i. MEtm. r, P.M. Pkovinoe of Canada, ) District of Montreal, j POHOE Offiox. The deposition of Louis L6once Coudert, Esquire, Advocate, of the City of New York, in the State of New York, one of the United States of America, at present in the City of iMontrcal in the District of Montreal, t9>en under oath this seventh day of August, in tho year of Our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-six, in the Police Office, in the Court House, in the City of Montreal, in the Diatrict of Montreal aforesaid, by ihn under- signed. William II. lir(ihaut, Esquire, Police Magistrate in and for the District of iilont- treal, in presence of Ernest Sureau Lamirande, late of Poitiers, in the Empire of France, who now stands accused, by complaint under oath before me, under the provisions of the treaty between Her Majesty the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ire- land, and His Majesty the King of the French, and of the Statutes made and provided therefor, of having committed at Poitiers, in tho Empire of France, the crime mentioned and predicated by the said Treaty between Her Majesty the Queen and the said King of the French ; that is to say, That the said Ernest Surcau Lamirande did commit the crime of forgery by having in his capacity as Cashier of the Branch of the Bank of France, at Poitiers, made false entries in the books of the said Bank, and by so doing defrauded tho said Bank of the sum of seven hundred thousand francs. The deponent, Louis L^once Coudert, deposcth and saith as follows : — I have been acquainted with the prisoner for several months past. I caused him to be arrested first as Surcau Lamirande, although he had passed first under the name of Thibault, and afterwards under that of Dyliers. I oomiuonced proceedings against him under the Treaty and brought him before Commissioner Betls, under a warrant issued by the President of tho United States, on the requisition of tho French Government. On the day of his appearance before Mr. BettB,in answer to the preliminary interrogatories, he, or rather his advocate for him, and in his presence, declared that his name was Sureau La- mirande, his age, I believe, either forty or forty-two years ; I am not exactly certain of his age. I instituted also a civil action against him under the name of Sureau Lamirande. His first name was Ernest, and he had perhaps others. The object of tho civil action was to recover the sum embezzled to the amount of two hundred thousand dollars. He was sworn personally by tho name of Sureau Lamirande, and in obedience to that summons he appeared by his advocate, and entered a plea in defence; the whole before a court of com- petent jurisdiction, and in the cause he was condemned, after hearing, to pay two hundred thousand dollars, as being truly Sureau Lamirande. I saw him also several times person- ally ; the first time on the ninth day of April one thousand eight hundred and sixty-six, being the day of his arrest, first at the Metropolitan Hotel. There I did not speak to him, but afterwards in Ludlow street Gaol, in the City of New York, on which occasion he re- peatedly acknowledged to mo his identity. He tovcral times promised that he would vol- untarily return to France, and entreated mo not to enter an action to procure his extra- dition ; saying, th3 Bank has lost enough by mo without my causing a further loss. The first time of my speaking to him was on the day of his arrest. I had traced him person- ally myself from Portland to New York. At first be told me that he did not know what I was talking about, but while talking with him I mentioned what either the Consul Gen- eral or Mr. Melin had told me — that his father was arrestod. He made answer that it was not true, that it could not be, that he had remained at New York longer than he intended, with the hope of seeing some French newspapers from which he might learn the particu- lars of tho affair and discover whether they had found his family. That appeared to shook him extremely. He even shed tears, and at last acknowledged to me that he was really the person whom I was in search of, that is to eay, Sureau Lamirande, cashier of the Bank of France, .at Poitiers. I told him also that I had found at Quebec a Mr. Valin to whom he had delivered six thousand francs of the stolon money, and that the said Mr. Valin was exceedingly vexed at being in possession of those funds. He told me thitt Mr. Valin was not aware where the money came from; that he only was the guilty man. I have to add that I caused to be seized also in New York, in the course of tho civil suit and in virtue of the judgment given against him, in favor of the Bank of France, about one hundred and thirty-five thousand francs. I think that is the exact sum. Moreover, I often saw him when he came into court, and hia identity was never called in question. He acknowledged 14 I' 1^ IV at least a hundred times that he was the accused party'.in the Bank of Poitiers affair. The investigation during the suit for the extradition of the prisoner Instcd nearly three months, and he appeared before the court sometimes once, sometimes twice and oven tiireo times in the week. It was at our office, that is to say, that of my brothers and myself, under the firm of Coudert Brothers, who conducted the suit before the court, in virtue of orders given by the Consul General of France at New York, besides which I bold n special Power of Attorney from the Bank of France in my own name. The prisoner was assisted by several advocates of New York. During the progress of the Oivil suit, in which he was defended by advocates of New York, wo received two copies of documents, served on us by the advo- oates of the prisoner in the course of the defence. Those copies wore signed " Lamirande." I make oath that the prisoner now here beforo ma is the person named Sureau Lamirande, against whom I instituted a suit in New York, and who, during the investigation made at New York fur his extradition, pleaded adversely. Since I saw him at Now York, he has cut off his mustaohios and part of his beard ; but if he will open his mouth it will be found that ho has one tooth wanting on the left side of the upper jaw, which tooth is de- cayed ard partly broken. He disappeared from New York and I have seen him again hero at Montreal. When he escaped from New York he was in custody of tho United Status Marshal, but in the immediate charge of Mr. Deputy Marshal Greene. Immediately after the escape of the prisoner we, that is the house 'of Coudert Brothers, had a certain number of hand bills printed, one of whioh'is now produced and marked with tho letter A. The extradition of the prisoner was demanded at New York on the strength of a first document which made no mention, I think, of any thing but embeizlement of money. TItat docu- ment was sent before tho instruction in France was completed. When tho insi action was completed, depositions and an indictment were transmitted to us, which chargi.d him with embezzlement and forgery. At the time when the latter documents were transmitted to us the first steps for the procuring of the extradition of the prisoner were already taken on the ground of embezzlement of funds. Under the treaty with tHe United States we were as well entitled to demand his extradition for embezzlement as forgery, and it was perfectly futile to change the proceeding already commenced on the ground of embezzlement. And further the Deponent saith not, and the above being first read, has signed. (Signed,) Sworn before me, at Montreal, the seventh day of August, one thousand eight hundred and sixty-six (Signed,) W. H. Br4haut, P.M. Louis L^oncb Coudert. The foregoing deposition having been made and read in presence of the prisoner, Ernest Sureau Lamirande, he was asked whether he desired to put any questions to the witness, and he answered that he desired to put to him the following questions by his Counsel, Mr. Doutre. Q%iettion. — Was it by your instruction and under your direction that the arrest of the prisoner was effected in Canada. Mr. Ramsay objects to the question on behalf of the Crown, inasmuch as it has no reference to the preliminary examination, the arrest of the prisoner having been ordered by a warrant under the hand of His Excellency the Governor General. (Objection sustained.) Question. — How long a time elapsed between the commencement of the proceedings for extradition at New York, and the arrival of the individual above mentioned from France ? A)is. I cannot tell you. I do not recollect. The affair went on slowly after the formal institution of the proceedings to obtain extradition, because Lamirande entreated that it might not be hurried on, stating that he would return to France of his own accord. The indictment reached us between two and four weeks before the escape of the prisoner. Question. — Was the addition of the charge of forgery to that of en^bezzlement in the indictment made in consequence of suggestions from you, or from those persons with whom you acted at New York to the French authorities ? Ant. By no me&ns. Question. — Did you take p&rt at Montreal in the oonsultations relative to the manner of claiming the extradition of tho prisoner in Canada ? i > 16 Poitiors affair. i nearly tbreo tnd oven tareo 1 lujaelf, under irtue of orders apeoial Power 8ted by several as defended by IS by the advo- " Lnmirande." au Lamirando, stigation made iJow York, he lUth it will be ch tooth is de- him again hero United States iiediatcly after certain number etter A. The first document '. That docu- tiisl action was irgcd him with msmittcd to us ly taken on the tcs we were as was perfectly ilement. And /OUDERT. the prisoner, lestions to the icstions by his Q arrest of the ih as it hns no been ordered e proceedings from France ? ter the formal treated that it accord. The prisoner, lement in the Ds with whom to the manner (Objected to on behalf of the Crown. Objection sustained^ Question — What did the several documents received from Franco at New York rela- tive to the claim for extradition consist of'/ Ans. As nearly as I can recollect, they were, a warrant of arrest, depositions, and an iud'stment, in the way of documents. Question. — What became of all those documents ? Am. I believe they were all deposited in the hands of Mr. Betts, the Commissioner, before whom the proceedings to procure the extradition of the prisoner took piaoe. The first document was the warrant of arrest. I think that hitherto wo have called this an order of arrest. This was the docu- ment in which the prisoner was charged with embezzlement. Next was the cnquete or instruction. As the depositions taken in the course of the inquiry (instruction') proved an embezzlement of money and an act of forgery, the document founded on them, that ia to say, the indictment, alleges him to be guilty of both crimes. I think wo received these documents in the following order : first, tho warrant of arrest, next the depositions, and afterwards tho indictment. The arrttde renvoi corresponds nearly with the indictment in this country. Question. — Among those depositions was there one made by the Director or Principal Officer of the Branch of the Bank of France at Po*'! rs, Mr. Adolpho Bailly ? Ans. Personally, I was not charged with the management of .he process instituted against Mr. Lamirande. I think, however, that there was a deposition mado by a Mr. Bailly, but [ do nbt know what was his official quality. Question. — Can you explain why the prisoner is isharged hero with forgory only ? Ans. Because no other charge was necessary to procure his extradition. Question. — Has the identity of the prisoner as Ernest Sureau Lamirande, charged with embezzlement or forgery on the Bank of Franco in its branch at Poitiers, ever becu affirmed by any person who knew him in France, except himself? Ans. No, we con- cluded that he must know himself, and tho description which we received from France perfectly agreed with his appearance. • Question. — Whether was the description in words or photograph ? Atis. Both. The prisoner declaring that he bad no more questions to put to tho witness, tho examination was closed, and the deponent has signed. (Signed,) Louis L:£onoe Coudert. Taken and acknowledged before me, at Montreal, this seventh \ day of Augusf , one thousand eight hundred and sixty-sir.:. ) (.Signed,) W. H. Brihaut, P.M. A true Copy. W. H. Brdhaut, P. M. PftoviNCE OF Canada, > Police OFriOE. District of Montreal. | The deposition of Fr4d6rio R. Coudert, Esquire, Advooato, of tho City of New York, in the State of Now York, one of the United States of America, now present in the City of Montreal, in tho District of Montreal, taken under oaih this fourteenth day of August, in the year of Our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty- six, at the Office of Police, in the Court House, in the City of Montreal, in the District of Montreal aforesaid, by the undersigned, William H. Brehaut, Esquire, Police Magis- trate in and for the District of Montreid, ia prtsbnoc of Ernest Sureau Lamirande, late of Poitiers, in the Empire of France, who now stands charged before me on a complaint brought before me under oath in virtue of the provisions of the treaty between Her Ma- jesty the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and His Majesty the King of the Fi ench, and of the Statutes made and provided therefor, of having com- mitted at Poitiers, in the Empire of Franco, the crime hereinafter mentioned, thu same being specified and predicated by the said Treaty between Her Majesty the Queen and the said King of the French : that is to say, that he, the said Ernest Sureau Lamirande did commit the crime of forgery, having in his capacity of Cashier of the Branch of the Bank of France at Poitiers made false entries in tho books of the said Bank, and thereby defrauded the said Bank of the sum of seven hundred thousand francs. The deponent, Fr4d4rio B. Coudert, deposeth and saith as follows : 16 I am an advocate practising at Now York siuce one thousand eight hundred and fifty- two. I was employed ns counsel in the proceedings instituted against the prisoner Lami- rande at New York. Tba prisoner, M. Lnruiraude, was arrested and brought before tlic Court presided over by Mr. Commissioner Botts. Wo had n grcnt many aossions, in whicJi the firm or partnership of Coudert Brothers represented the French Guvornmcnt, mut several advocates, (among them Mr. Spiithorne here present,) represented tho prisonor Lamirande. These sessions continued till the third of July last. At that last aussion or meeting, or at tho one next preceding it, I cannot affirm which, Mr. Spilthoruo prayed leave ef the Commissioner to carry away with him a document written in the French lan- guage, which came from France, and whioh we term tho arrit dc reiivui ('Indictment.) This document had been proved by us to be authentic, and admitted to bo so by the .Tudgu Commissioner. We had also proved in like manner a translation of tho same document into the English language, made in my office, and tho correctness of which I am able to certify. This translation had been also received by the Judge, and marked by him with his initials ; it is now in my possession. When Mr. Spilthorne prayed Icavo to carry nway this document with him, he said that he would bring it back at tho following session. I mado no objection to the granting of this request of Mr. Spilthoroo's, but my brother, who was associated with mo in the management of the proceedings mado tho remark that he would not entrust a document of such value to Mr. Spilthorne, that probably I should never see it (tho document) again. Since that day, I have never set oyes on that document again, although I have made search for it among all Mr. Betts' papers. Not finding it, I went to Mr. Spilihornc's office. I reminded him that he had carried away the document in question. He acknowledged that bo had taken it, but declared that ho did not know whether he had returned it or not. That in order to satisfy his mind respecting it, he must look for it among his paper6,which were at his dwelling house, and he swore to me that if he could find tho paper in question, I should have it at my ofBce the following da/ (Wednesday) at nine o'clock. I told Mr. Spilthorne that tho case was one of urgent important; and that he would render me a personal servico if ho would go at once to his house, that I would pay for a carriage in order that he mic;ht lose tho less time, but T could not get him to do th?t. Nest morning, about ten o'clock, ua I had received no com- munication from Mr. Spilthorne I sent one of my clerks to him, with a letter requesting that he would send mo the indictment. Uo returned me no answer, and I have never sot eyes on the paper since. I do not know that there is a French copy of the document, and I do not believe that there is one. Question. — Have you in your possession the English translation of the Indictment which was made use of before Mr. Commissioner Betts, at New York ? Ans, Yes Sir, I have that document. Here it is. Mr. Bftmsay, representing the Crown, moved that that document should be received and fyled by the Court. Mr. Boutre, Counsel for the prisoner, objected to the motion and to the production of the document, inasmuch us it possessed none of tho characters re- quired by the Statute 6 and 7 Vic, c. 75, section 3. The Court overruled the objection, and the document was fyled and marked with the letter B. The deponent continued ai follows : — The translation is one compared by myself with the paper proved in evidence before Mr. Betts, which translation has been submitted to the opposite parties, and against which I never heard a word of objection. Further, the deponent saith not and this deposition being first read, declares that it contains the truth, in which he pereisto and hath signed. Sworn before me, at Montreal, this "^ fourteenth day of August, one thou- [■ and eight hundred and sixty-six. ) (Signed,) W. H. Brdhaut, P.M. (Signed,) F. R. Coudert. IT rod and fifty- risoner Lami- ht before tlic ons, in which ■eminent, mul the prisoner last session or thoruo prayed ,0 French lan- (Indiotment.) by the Judge me documcut \i I am able to 1 by him with I to carry away ug session. I at my brother, 10 remark that bably I should that document ot finding it, I the document ) did not know ispocting it, he ,e swore to me the following i one of urgent go at once to less time, but I ceived no com- ittcr requesting lave uovor set the document, 10 Indictment ln». Yes Sir, I uld be received the motion and characters re- jarked with the evidence before 1 against which declares that it OUDERT. The foregoing deposition havhg been mado and road in presence of the prisoner, Ernest Surcau Lamirandc, he is asked whether he has any questions to put to the witness, and he makes answer that he desires to put the following questions by his counsel, Mr. Doutrc. Question. — Was it under the indictment which you have boon talking of that tlio prisoner was arrested in the United States ? Arts. No. Question. — How, and for what reason, was that indictment brought forward in t]w. proceedings instituted at New York. Ans. As a proof in confirmation of the charge offered on the part of the prosecuting party. Question. — For what crime was the prisoner arrested in the United States ? Ann. For what wo term the crime of embezzlement. Question. — When the prisoner was arrested was the party who arrested liim provided with a warrant from tho French authorities ? Ans. I believe he was ; cither then or a short timo afterwards we were furnished with one; we made no use of it in causing him to bo arrested. Question. — What has become of tho warrant under which tho prisoner was in custody at New York with a view to his extradition ? And why is thnt document not in the hands of the parties who are prosecuting tho extradition of tho prisoner '( Ans. The only war- rant in virtue of which tho prisoner was arrested is that of Mr. Commissioner lietts, which is of course in his office, I presume. If you mean the warrant signed by M. Jolly, tho Juge d' Instruction, immediately after the flight of M. Lamirande, and before any charge was produced against him, I think that dooamont is in the hands of Messrs. Pominville and B^tournay. Question. — With what crime is the prisoner chargod in tho warrant issued in Franco and which is in the hands of Messrs. Pominville and B^tournay 7 Question objected to by Mr. B^tournay, on behalf of the prosecution, and tho objection sustained. - Question. — Did Mr. Commissioner Betta hold any sitting on the accusation brought against tho prisoner at Now York, after the indictment which you say has disappeared ha eight hundred and sixty-six. ) (Signed,) W. H. Brfihaut, P.M. A true copy. W. H. Brchaut, P.M. B. NAPOIiiON, iy the Grace of God and the will of the People, Emperor of the Frenchf fo all to whom these presents shall come, Grkxtino : (May 29, 1860.) Sureau Delamirando, alias Lamirandc, Ernest Charles Constant, accused of thefts, qualifiis breaches of trust, gunlifiea forgeries in commercial or banking accounts, and of haying made use of forged documents (jnices). The Imperial Court of Poitiers has, iu the Chamhre des Misca en Accusation, rendered the following decree : — Assizes of the Department of the Vienne, Afler hearing the report made to-day, in the name of the Procureur Giniral ("Diatriot Attorney), by Mr. Duvergor, his substitute, of the criminal proceedings institutea before the Tribunal of the District of Poitiers (Viouac), against Sureau Delamirande, alias Lamirande, Buest Charles Constant, former cashier of tho Branch of the Bank of Franee in Poitiers, 42 years of age, born on tho 29th October, 1828, at Corra (Vienne), residing latterly at Poitiers, and who has since absconded, charged with thefts, qualifiis breaches of trust, qualifiis forgeries in commercial or banking accounts, and of having made use of forged documents. Having seen all tho papers and proceedings in the case, having seen also the ri^uisi- toire (requisition) of the Procureiir Giniral, under date of this day, written and signed by Mr. Duverger, his substitute, and which reads as follows : — Having seen the articles 379, 886, 408, 147, 148 and 164, of the penal code and the article 217, and those following of the Code d' Instruction Criminelle. Whereas, from the judicial examination of the charges and evidence of guilty result, there appear sofficient grounds to arraign the accused on his trial for tho offences which are charged to him, and which being qualified crimes are punished with afflictive aud ignominious penalties by the aforequoted articles of tho penal code. Whereas, in fact, on tho twelfth of March, 1866, Sureau Delamirande, who was only known under the name of Lamirande, which he always used to sign, Cs shier at the Branch of the Bank of France at Poitiers, since the month of August, one thotuand eight hundred and fifty eigLt, has absconded, carrying with hina the key of the upper compartment of the 20 t > 1 1 : 1 1! ■afo for (luily una, of which ho waa tho only nocouatant, and of wliioh ho had tho handling in \m nfurosaid capacity, in which compartment worn oontniniMl a larn^o amount of funda uml bills uf thu Hunk of Franco, and that tho uxuminntion of tl>:it iiafc hus shown that pruviuu.s to his departure, 8uroau Dulamirando ombr/jslod from Nuid M.ifo, uud appropriated to lii^ own iiRO four hundred and oighty-fivo thou,«taud two liundrcd ond Huvi'nty-uno frnnun, aixty-fiiur centimes in apocio mid bank bills, bcton^iii^ tn tho Huiik of Kranoe. AVhorcus^ in order to ascertain the whole amount of thu uinbozzlemout or subtraction of which the cashier had been guilty, there had boon imtlituted an immediate a"'* minute examination of all tho valuables, which should have been in tho 'osorve of the Bank, which is called vault or cellar, and in which is deposited tho spooii. which is taken from thu sufo for daily use in proportion as the latter contains too much of it, but which is no longer at tho personal and exclusive disposition of tho cashier, for one can only enter that vault or cellar by means of two different Keys, one of which is in tho hands of tho Director ; and that it ho* been established, according to the accounts, that there was there a defi- ciency of two hundred and nineteen thousand four francs und thirty oontimes, either by tlie impairing of a large number of bags of gold and silver, pruotiued by tho canhicr, or by tiiu subtraction of gold bags, which it was easy for the latter to abstract in tho cellar or vault wheru he was superintending tho deposits and tho shipments of funds, when ho was alone, by tukiog advantage of tho absence of tho Director und the cmploi/et of tho bank, i.bo had chai'go of tho transfer of tho bags. Whercuu, it is then proven that Sureau Delamirandu has embezzled or fr'vdulcu'y abstracted to tho prejudice of the Bank of Tranoo, while ho was the paid Cash ti l^oreof, n total amount of seven hundred and four thousand two hundred and soventy livu tranos, uincty-four centimes. Whereas, Sureau Dolamirando, in his capacity of Cashier, hud to furnish tho JMrcotor of the Bank, every evening, with a statement (lordirettu tie »ituntion) signud by him, uud in which ho certified the state of tho several safes of the Bauk, indicating by their several values tho sums contained in each of them, that is to say, in the Hafe for daily use, in n second safe called auxiliary safe and in tho vault. That ho has made that bordereau or daily balance sheet on the twelfth of March, 1860, a few hours previous to his departure, that thus, by handing on that said day, to tho Director of tho Bank a balance sheet ocr- titied true and signed by him, attesting that the totality of the cash of tho Bauk of Poitiers amounted to eleven millions, four hundred forty-throe thousand, five hundred and sixty-six francs, eighty-four centimes, while in reality tho cash was lessened by tho amounts embez- zled or abstracted by him, he hiin l^^en guilty of forgery in commoroial or banking accounts, by fraudulently altering in the naid balanco sheet the declarations and facts which it was to contain and establish, and has besides knowingly made uso of said forged statomont by handing it to tho Director, all in order to conceal tho fraudulent subtractions and tho embezzlement he had perpetrated. Whereas, the said thefts and embezzlement couimencod nt a period long prior to tho 12th March, 1866, Sureau Lamirande, in order to conceal them has constantly since then up to this lest date of the 12th March, inserted in the daily balance sheets, made up and bunded by him to the Director, tae false declaration, that there was in cash a superior amount to that which was really there, which multiples tho forgeries which lie has perpetrated. The Frocurcur G6nira1 requests that it please tho Court to declare that there is rea- son to arraign said Sureau Dolamirando, alias Lamirande, I'jrncst Charles Constant, 42 years of age, former Cashier of the Branch of tho Bank of Fr nice in Poitiers. 1. For having within ten years, at Poitiers, frauaulcutlj abjtracted sundry amounts I specie in gold or silver, in the vaults or cellar of the TSrauch of t^e Bank of I'mnce, and ai the prejudice of that establishment. For having perpetrated these fraudulent subtractions with the circumstance that he WPS the hired \salarii') Cashier, or hired employee (Jiomme de service il gages') of that said Bank of France. 2. For having at Poitiers, within ten years, and namely on the 12th of March, 1866, r i",bei '■led or made away with, to the prejudice of the Bank of France, who was the owner th^':>c.f, funds and bills placed in the safe for daily use of the Branch of Poitiers, which jiad ot iy bi .' handed over and entrusted to him in trust, or by way of mandate, upon co/i iivi .ranos, ah tho J>ircotor siRDud by hiiu, icating by their fc for dnily use, 1 that bordereau oliis departure, luncu sheet ocr- Sauk of Poitiers ed and 8ixty-,six imnuuts enibez- nking accounts, its which it wuM d sttttomont by 'actions and tho >ng prior to the intly since then :», made up and Dash a superior which ho has at there is rca- istant, 42 years undry aiuouDfs of I'l^uce, and istanoe that he gages') of that ; March, 1866, was the owner Poitiers, which mandate, upon ;ld be dinoted. For having purpotratnd tho embexiilflmoit hero akovo speciflnj, under the cirouin> atanon that ho wax the Oaahiur or hired Clerk of tho said Bank of Franco. •'I. With having uf I'oiticrH, on tho 12th of March, 186'l, fraudulently ioacrtod on the balaneo sheot f^lKiioil by iiii i. which it wns his duty to oatablish and to certify every dar in bis capacity of CoAhier oi I he Branch of the Bunk of France, in order to statu tho cash nucount ofHiii'! Branch, thu IuIao JoelarationM that tho cnsh account on said duy, amounted tu eleven iiiiliioiiH four Iiumlrod aiul lorFy-Mireo thousand, f!vo hundred and flfty-eiz francs, nnd eighty-fuur ecntiiuos, wliii ' Wfi» iu rculiiy inferior to that amount, by all tho sums abstraotod or onibc/./.lc'il l)y him, ,.* snt of that ch lishueut on the 12th of March, 18CG. 5, For having at Poitiers, within ton year; nd previn'isly to tho 12th du of March, lfi66, fraudulently inserted in several balaneo sli ts nifjued by him, which it was his duty to establish and to certify every day in his capaoiij of (!aslii r of tho Branch of tho Bt. ik of Franco, in order to state tho cosh account of saiii Hranch, the false declaration that tho jaah aocouDt amounted to a sum superior to thut whi' t) really existed, which was inferior to the Gguro indicated, by all the sums extracted or embezzled by him, and having thus Traudu- lently falsified the declarations and facts which those balance shoots wore to contn and to establish. 6. For having at the name period and at the same laco made use of those forged documents, icnowing that they were forged, when handing them over to the director oi the branch of the Bank of France, in Poitiers, in order to estabjish.thc balance sheet of that establishment on the days indicated. Said documents and riquisiloire having been road by thi> Hourt in the presence of the substitute of the l\ocureur G6niral and of tho clerk, have bo( i left on tho desk. The substitute of tho Procurcur Gcniral and the clerk Iiiving withdrawn. Tho Court having deliberated thereon without leaving the court room, and without comiuunicating with nny one. Whereas tho acts in question are provided for and lyialifir ' crimes by the Articles 379, 386, 408, 147, 148, and 164 of tho Code Penal, and that fro i the prooeedin;..'s result charg^ and indications of culpability sufficient to cause tho aocu ed to bo arraigned and sent before tho assizes. Adoptinif, moreover, the facts and motives enumerated in tho riqumtoire of the Pro- curcur Oiniral hereabovo transcribed. Declares that there is cause to arraign Ernest Charles Constant Hureau Delamirande, has demanded Mabrot. ial order of the lization of the FORTOUL. )f the Imperial BOUNIT, Imperial Court of Poitiers. Examined by us, Jean Fortun6 Fortoul, Knight of the Imperial order of the legion of honor, first President of tho Imperial Court of Poitiers, for legalisation of the signature of Mr. Bounet, President de Ohambre in said Court. Poitiers, May 31, 1866. [L.S.] Imperial Court, First Presidence, Poitiers. Transmitted tho present arraignment to His Excellency tho Keeper of the Seals, Minister of Justice and of Worship, by us, Proourenr G6ndra1, near the Imperial Court of Poitiers. The Prooureur Q6n6ra.\, Damay. Poitiers, May 31, 1866. [L.S.] Imperial Court vf Poitiers, Proatreur General. Seen for authentication of the above signature of Messrs. Bounet, Fortoul and Damay. Parii, June 2nd, 1866. By delegation of the Keeper of the Seals, Minister of Justice and Worship. [L.S.] The chief clerk. Keeper of the Seals, Minister Cn. Maurat-Larocue. of Justice arid Worship. The Minister of Foreign Affairs certifies as genuine the signature of Mr. Maurat- Larochc. Paris, June 2nd, 1866. []..S.] Seal of Foreign Office. By authorization of the Minister, for the Sub-Direetor Chief of the Chancellor's office. Dubois. Examined at the Legation of the United States of America at Paris, June 4, 1866. The signature of Mr. Dubois duly legalised. John Hay. [L.S.] Secretary of Legation. Legation of the United States of America in France A true copy, ' W. H. Brehaut, P.M. Province of Canada, ) District of Montreal. ) PotiCE Office. The deposition of Edme Justin Melin, Inspecteur Principal dc Police of the City of Paris, in tho Empire of France, now resident in the City of Montreal, in tho District of Montreal, taken under oath this fourteenth day of August, in the year of Our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-six, at the Police Office in tho Court House, in '.be City of Montreal aforesaid, by the undersigned, William H. Br6haut, Esquire, Police Magistrate in and for the District of Montreal, in the presence of Ernest Sureau Lami- rande, late of Poitiers, in the Empire of France, who is charged before me in a complaint brought before me under oath, in virtue of the provisions of a treaty between Her Majesty tho Queen of the United Kingdom of Groat Britain and Ireland, and His Majesty tho King of tho French, and of the Statutes made a«d provided for that effect, of having com- M mitted at Poitiers, in the Empire of Franco, the orimo following, mentioned and predicated in the said treatv between Hor Majesty tho Quoon and the said King of the French ; that is to Bay : That ho tho said Ernest Suroau Lamirande did commit tho crime of forgory by having, in his capacity as cashier of the Branch of the Bank of Franco at Poitiers, madu false entries in the books of tho said Bank, and thereby defrauded tho said Bank of the sum of seven hundred thousand francs. Thu deponent, Edmo Justin Mclin, doth depose and say as follows : — I produce the deposition of Henri Marie d« Boi-s do Jansigny, Inspector of tho Bank of France, residing at Paris, in tho Empire of France, taken at the tribunal of I'oitiers, in the office of the tfiige d'Jnttruction on the second day of April, one thousand eight hun- dred and sixty-six. This deposition is marked with the letter C. I know the signature of Monsieur Dubois, Principal Officer of the Court of Chancery, that of Monsieur l^aroche. Minister of Justice in Frauco ; that of M. Drouyn dc I'Huy.s, Minister for Foreign Affairs in France. Tho signatures affixed to the documents produced as aforesaid are certainly the signatures of the said Dubois, Baroche and Drouyn do I'Huys. I am familiar with tho signature of Mr, Dubois, as I have often seen him write in my {resenco. I make oath that the signature affixed to the document is his. As to tho others, never saw them write thoir names, but I have often had in my hands documents and official writings signed by them. And further the deponent saith not, and the foregoing being read to him, hath signed. (Signed,) E. J. Melin. Sworn before me at Montreal, this four- 1 teenth day of August, one thousand ^ eight hundred and sixty-six. ) (Signed,) W. II. Brbhaut, P.M. The foregoing deposition having been made and read in the presence of the prisoner, Ernest Sureau Lamirande, he was asked whether ho had any questions to put the witness, and he made answer, by his Counsel, Mr. Doutre, that he had none, (Signed,) W. II. BrI^haut, P.M. Montreal, 14th August, 18GG. A true Copy. W. H. Br6haut, P.M. 0. TmiBONAL OF PoTTiKRS, ) The sccoud day of April, one thousand eight Office of the Juije d'lnitruction. j hundred and sixty six. Before me, Alexandre Henri Jolly, Jugo d'Instruction of ihc arrondissement of Poitiers, Department of Vienne, in my office at tho Palais do Justice of Poitiers, assisted by Qustave Ponein, sworn Clerk. Appeared, at my invitation, tho witness hereinafter named, to whom T communicated the facts in relation to which he wus called upoEi to testify. The said witness having been introduced, out of tho presence of the accused, and hav- ing been sworn to tell tho whole truth iind nothing but the truth, and required by me to state his name, age, profession and place of reaidence, whether he was a servant, relative or connection of the accused and in what degree, made answer and deposed as follows ; — DuBois do Jancigny, Henri Marie, ngod 3 1 years, Inspector of the Bunk of Frauco, residing at Paris, I was sent by the Governor of tho Bank of France to enijuire into tho facts notified by the Director of the Poitiers Hnmch, in his despatches of tlie evening of the 13th March. These despatches notified tho Bank Managers of tho flight of Laminiiulc, cashier of the said Branch, and of a deficit in Mpecio of tlic value at the first moment of 190,000 francs. I reached Poitiers on Wednesday 14th March, at 5 P.M., and at once went to the offices of the Branch Bank, wlicro Mr. Bailly, the Director, Mr. DeGrctry, one of the Inspectors, and several of the adminutrateun were comple%g tho examination of the specie safe and 25 I and predicated ic FroDcli ; that ao of forgery by ; Poitiers, mado vid liank of tiio lin, dotli depose tor of the Eauk il of J'oitiers, in lud eight hun- irt of Chancery, luyn do I'fluys, ments produced ouyn do I'Huya. ioi write in my \s to the others, documents and m, liath signed. J. Melin. of the prisoner, mt the witness, AUT, P.M. lousand eight ent of Poitiers, ted by Gustavo communicated iscd, and hav- red by me to rvant, relative IS follows ; — ik of Franco, iucts notified ! lath Jlarch. ashier of tlie 90,000 francs, to the offices he Inspectors, )eoie safe uid auxiliary cash, commenced the evening before. All attention was at that moment centred on the current cash, from which the Cashier drew at will for the requirements of the business, and the only division of which he has entire control, inasmuch as the Director has no key for that division. ■(.aides the outer doors which protect it, this iron safe is divided into three compart- meuis, one above the other, and each closed by a little shutter also of iron, and furnished with a special losk. Thus ynu have the principal keys, namely, those of the outer doors, and three different keys fcr each of the outer compartments. Now Lamirande, when 8tarting,|had taken care to leave with Mr. Queyriauz, book-keeper of the Branch, the keys required to open two of these compartments ; the middle one containing a supply ot notes of all denominations and specie sufficient to meet the needs of the business, and the lower one used for keeping securities upon which advances had been made, and commercial paper constituting the portfolio of the Branch. But the most essential key. that of the upper compartment containing the bulk of the notes and 17 bags of gold of 20,000 francs each, had not been found. This was certainly a very serious point as matters then stood, and gave rise to painful surmises in the minds of all. Fears increased as the extent of the specie deficit became known. For my own part, from the moment when I arrived and found that Lamirande had been forty-eight hours gone andthathehad taken the precaution to leave all the keys except that of the very compartment containing the reserve notes amounting as they should to little short of 500,000 francs, I was convinced that the reserve had disappeared, and that Lamirande had taken all he could. I had the door of the compartment forced open before the Director and the majority of the administrateurs, and we found that in truth all had disappeared save 40,000 fraucs, in notes of 100 francs, and the 17 bags of gold of 20,000 francs which appeared to be intact. Thereupon resuming the work commenced by the Director, assisted by the Ministers of his Council, I engaged in an examination of the specie safe, the auxiliary cash and the current cash. This examination was minutely conducted by me in presence of the Director, and with the assistance of the porters who weighed before my eyes all the gold and silver specie contained in the safe, as well in the auxiliary as in the current cash. I, myself, counted all the notes. The balance sheet of the evening of the 12th March, the last Lamirande made and which is signed by him, could no longer tally with the cash in hand at the moment of my arrival on the evening of the 14th, inasmuch as notes and specie had been paid out and received during the days of the 13th and 14th. In order to ascertain rationally and with certainty the amount of the deficit, I was therefore compelled to take account of the business done on those two days, and found that, on the evening of the 14th the safes should have con- tained eleven millions two hundred and sixty-one thousand five hundred and thirty-three francs nine centimes, whereas in reality the sums I had found in notes, gold, silver and copper, the whole belonging to the Bank of France, amounted only to ten million five hun- dred and fifty-seven thousand two hundred and fifty-seven francs fifteen centimes, wiiioh constituted a total deficit of seven hundred and four thousand two hundred and seventy-five francs ninety-four centimes ; namely, 219,004 francs, 30 centimes, missing in specie in the safe, and 485,271 francs, 64 centimes, missing in the current cash, the latter sum almost all in notes. Question. — The questions about to be put to you are certainly not caused by any sus- picion attaching to the Director ; Mr. Queyriaux, the chief accountant, also enjoys an unblemished reputation ; but you have j ust said what is easily understood, that you were not able to make out the state of the cash except as it was the moment of your arrival ; now during the days of the loth and 14th, Mr. Queyriaux mixed the funds he received with the funds he took from the deficient cash of the Cashier Lamirande ; moreover, the two keys of the safe appear to have been from the evening of the 13th until the 14th at 4 o'clock, in the same hands, contrary to the rules ; if the accused were present could he not throw back upon others a portion of the responsibility now laid upon him, and could you furnish us with the means of meeting that line of defence? Answer. — The plea would have no value whatsoever in my opinion. I admit that, strictly speaking, it.is possible to say that, on the morning of the 13th, Mr. Queyriaux availing himself of the funds placed at hit disposal by delegation of the Cashier, may have li m Ji ! ;! .uiti 4 ;||1 26 abstracted from the said funds some notes of one hundred and fifty franos, inasmuch as it vras ho alone who checked that portion of the current cash which Lamirande left him. But I meet this suspicion first; by Mr. Quoyriaux's well-known honorable character, and next by the fact of the danger to which he would have exposed himself by diverting any of the cash. The Cashier had announced his return to make up his cash, and every one expected it. It was not until after four o'clock, that is to say, when business had ceased, that the conviction gained ground that Lamirande had fled. Moreover, the essential thing in such cases is to have an exact starting point to serve as the basis of all operations, whatever may be their importance or their duration. I can- not assure you that Mr. Queyriaux counted all the notes and all his specie on the morning of the 13th, inasmuch as I was not there, but I can state that that officer handed me a state- ment, dated on the morning of the 13th, with details of the different denominations of notes, and shewing also the number of bags of gold and silver, as well as the gold and silver change in rouleaux and loose. Therefore, in my opinion, the examination of the moneys left at Mr. Queyriaux's disposal was made by him, if not rigorously, at least on a very close approximation, and while it may be true that the funds used in the operations of the 13th and 14th were drawn from or paid into a deficient cash, it is wrong to fancy that there could have been any difficulty or confusion whatsoever in the handling of the funds, inas- much as the payments and receipts arc set forth in the most concise and the clearest mannr.r in authentic entries. As regards the keys, the objection seems to me to be no better founded. I ascer- tained what occurred with reference to the duplicate key which opens the auxiliary cash and the safe, and I found by the evidence of Mr. Bailly, of Mr. Queyriaux, and of the por- ters of the Branch, that on Tuesday evening the key of the door leading to the auxiliary cash and to the safe had been looked up by Mr. Bailly, in the lower compartments of the current cosh of which Mr. Queyriaux, Cashier ad interim, had taken the key, and that Mr. Bailly the holder of the other key which opens the auxiliary cash and the safe, had moreover shut the outer doors which cover all the compartments of the current cash and had kept the second key. In this way, Mr. Queyriaux had one of the keys of the three divisions of the cash and Mr. Bailly the others. The rule had therefore been strictly observed. Question — You know that more than 400 bags of 1000 francs were found tampered with in the safe. Pieces of silver had also been substituted in the sacks of gold ; state your opinion as to the manner in which the change was effected. ATiswer. — It is impossible for me to admit that the alterations in the money bags were effected in the safe. It was necessary to have the bags a long time at one's dirposul in order to empty them partially and clip them, and Lamirande was never left long euough alone in the safe to perform that operation. All the frauds must have been perpetrr.ted in the cash-room, where Lamirande breakfasted every day. Ho had then full time to prepare his bags, as the book-keeper went out to breakfast at the same hour, and the porters never returned before one P.M. The Director's office is separated from the cash-room by two large apartments, he could therefore hear the Director coming and hide. He was also warned by the noise of footsteps, and of the entrance door which it was necessary to open when any one went to his cash-room to pay or receive. There was there- fore nothing to prevent him from making these substitutions in his cash-room. I believe, moreover, that it was easy for him to have the bags so tampered with removed to the safe or to the auxiliary cash. He often helped in carrying the bags, which was the exclusive duty of the porters. It was also in his power while transacting business in the safe, to put in his pocket a bag prepared beforehand, and containing siher coin, and substitute it in the sate for an untouched bag containing 10,000 francs in gold. I convinced myself jf the possibility of this by going down into the safe with a bag in my pocket and going back with another containing 10,000 francs in gold. As regards the date of the embezzlements to which you call my attention, I believe that the embezzlements of silver are far anterior to those of the gold. Thus the altered bags were in the sack., which had not been used for several years for the transmission of funds. The cloth was rotten, and it was impossible to open them and make them up again. Probably the bags of gold were tampered with by him only when he found it was ■j {■\> ^%, 27 inasmuch as it ande left him. character, and diverting any and every one kss had ceased, point to serve 'atioD. I can- n the morning ded mo a state- lominations of the gold and aination of the least on a very erations of the ncy that there le funds, inas- earest mannr.r ded. I asoer- auxiliary cash .nd of the por- the auxiliary rtments of the key, and that the safe, had 'rent cash and of the cash and lund tampered of gold J state le money bags one's dirposbl ft long enough perpetrr.ted in I full time to ind the porters lents, he could r which it was ere was there- in. tampered with le bags, which ,cting business g sil7er coin, ics in gold. I h a bag in my ition, I believe us the altered ,ransmission of make them up e found it was no longer possible to tamper with the silver. The bags of silver wore the first tampered with, and probably four years ago. It is not nearly so long since the bags of gold were first tampered with. Question. — Wore the books kept by Lamirando regular and up to date ? Ans. There was great disorder in all his accounts, I mean in an administrative sense, for the irrcgu- larities are only of a formal character. Lamirande should have kept a book intituled, " Journal de Oaisse," of which the pages are numbered and signed, and which should bo checked every evening, or at latest on the following morning. Cashiers usually keep a blotter, which is simply a provisional cash book, and which they afterwards copy into the Journal, iu order that the latter may be more neat. Now it was Lamirande's duty to make this copy every evening, and he had not done it since the month of October lost, the date of the inspector's visit. What I have stated shews that the misappropriations of which Lamirande is accused cover a period of tiiree or four years. He must each day, during these three or four years have furnished a false statement, each statement being attested by his signature, which seems to constitute so many forgeries in bank entries. The above having been read, witness persisteth therein, and hath signed with us and the clerk. The present copy transcribed on eight pages, and certified exact by us, the under- signed, Juge d'Instruction of the Arrondissement de Poitiers. Poitiers, 27th April, 1866. (Signed,) Jolly. [Seal.] Examined for the legalization of the signature of M. Jolly, above. Paris, 30th April, 1866. [Seal.] By delegation of the Keeper of the Seals, Minister of Justice, and Worship. Le Chef de Bureau, (Signed,) Ch. Maurat-Laboche. The Minister of Foreign Affairs certifies as genuine the signature of M. Ch. Maurat- Laroohe. Paris, 30th April, 1866. [Seal.] By authority of the Minister for the Sous-Directeur, Chef de la Chancelloric. (Signed,) Dubois. [Seal] Examined at the United States Legation at Paris, 1st May, 1866. Good for the legalization of the signature M. Dubois hereunto. (Signed,) John Hay, Secretary of Legation. res IT JO [Seal.] We, Keeper of the Seals, Minister, Secretary of State, of Justice and Worship, certify to be true the signature of M. Jolly, Juge d'Instruction of the Tribunal of Poitiers, the said judge being empowered, under the laws of the Empire, to receive depositions and administer oaths to deponents. Paris, 26th June, 1866. (Signed,) V. Baboche. [Seal.] We, Minister, Secretary of State, Department of Foreign Affairs of France, certify as genuine the signature of Monsieur Baroohe, Minister, Secretary of State, at the Depart- ment of Justice and Worship of France. Palis, 28th June, 1866. The Minister, Secretary of State, Department of Foreign Affairs of France. (Signed,) Dboutn de L'Hoys. 28 Legation of the United States, Paris, Empire of France, 29th June, 1866. I, John Bigclow, Envoy Extraordinary and Miniutcr Plenipotentiary of the United States to the Empire of France, do hereby certify that the foregoing deposition is legally and properly authenticated, so as to entitle it to be received as evidence by the tribunals of this country, as preHoribed by the Act of Congress, approved June 22, IS60. [Seal,] (Signed,) John BiOEtOW. True copy W. H. Brehaut, P.M. Province of Canada, ) DUtrict of Montreal. ) Police Office. The Deposition of Abel Frederic Gautier, Consul General of France for the British Provinces of North America, residing at the City of Quebec, in the District of Quebec, taken under oath this 14th August, 1866, at the Police Office in the Court House in the City of Montreal, in the District of Montreal aforesaid, by the undersigned, William H. Brehaut, Esquire, Police Magistrate in and for the District of Montreal, ia presence of Ernost Sureau Lamirande, late of Poitiers, in the French Empire, who now stands accused before me upon a complaint made before me under oath, under the pro- visions oK the treaty between Her Majesty the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and His Majesty the King of the French, and of the Statutes in such case made and provided, of having committed at Poitiers, in the French Empire, the following crime, mentioned and provided for by the said treaty between Her Majesty the Queen and the said King of the French, namely : — That the said E. S. Lamirande did commit the crime of forgtry, in that, in his capacity as Cashier of the Branch of the Bank of France at Poitiers, he did make false entries in the books of the said Bank, and by that means defrauded the said Bank of the sum of seven hundred thousand francs. The deponent, Abel Frederic Gautier, deposcth and saith : I am the sole agent of the French Government in the five British Provinces of North America. Having examined the document marked C, I declare that the signature Drouyn de L'Huys is that of the Minister of Foreign Afifairs of France, head of the department with which I am connected. Judicial documents generally are not signed by the Minister himself, it is an exception, and in order to give it additional importance, that the Minister of Foreign Affairs has signed this document. The signature of Mr. Dubois is also quite familiar to me, and all our foreign agents are instructed to legalise it. I know the signature of Mr. Bigelow, Minister of the United States in France. I now produce a document marked D, at foot of which is affixed the signature of Mr. Dubois. I acknowledge it to be perfectly authentic, and I am prepared to certify to the signature of Mr. Drouyn de L'Huys and to that of Mr. Dubois, officially, and to affix my seal thereto. The foregoing relates to the two documents produced." And further deponent saith not and hath signed, the foregoing deposition having been previously read to him. (Signed,) Fred. Gautier. Sworn before me, at Montreal, | this 14th August, 1866. j (Signed,) W. H. Brehaut, P.M. The foregoing deposition having been made and read in the presence of the prisoner' Ernest Sureau Lamirande, he was asked whether he had any questions to put to the witness ? And he made answer that he desired to put to him the following questions by his Counsel, Mr. Doutre : — Ques'ion. — Where and how are the functions you discharge in Canada defined ? Ans. They are defined by hundreds of dispatches, instructions and circulars transmitted to me by my Department. those ( relatio just BC with I mereb reside agent in th' Ans. Govei Ans. Magii Quel learm invill whic Fran chief deL to it the c ml P' si tl C I c ( •^K^ >r^ 29 une, 1866, of tho United itiou is legally ■he tribunuls of 0. BlGEtOW. for tho British ict of Quebec, Court House ! undersigned, ' of Blontreal, ipiro, who now under tho pro- ,'doDi of Great atutos in such 1 Empire, the r Majesty the n his capacity 'alse entries in of the sum of nccs of North laturo Drouyn 10 department T the Minister ; the Minister ?n agents are Df the United is aflSxed the am prepared ois, officially, 'duced.* having been TIER. ho prisoner^ put to the [uestions by ined? Ans. litted to lao Question. — What difference is there between thn functions of a Consul General and those of a diplomatic Agent ? Ans. Diplomatic agents ure charged with the political relations between two countries. It is tbcy who conclude and sign treaties, and as I have just said everything connected with tho political relutioiiH of the country where they reside with France. Consuls General have nothing to d.t with such questions, their duty is merely to keep their government advised of the state of affairs in the country where they reside, and to lend the aid of their official position to French interests. Question. — After what you have stated do you consider that you are here a diplomatic agent of the French Government 'I Ans. No, and I have never assumed that title. Question, — Do you know at whoso instance the Governor General issued the warrant in the hands of tho Police Magistrate before whom we are proceeding at this moment ? Ans. At mine. Question. — Was the extradition of the prisoner demanded of His Exoellenoy the Governor General by any representative of the French Government other than yourself? Ans. No, not to my knowledge. Question. — How did His Kxcellency's warrant reach W; H. Brehaut, Esq., Police Magistrate, beforo whom we are proceeding ? Ans. The warrant was addressed to me to Quebec by the Provincial Secretary. I received it on tho 3rd August, and as I had then learned the arrest of the prisoner I brought it to Montreal myself and gave it to Mr. Pom- inville to use it as he might think proper. The warrant now shewn me is precisely that which was sent me by the Provincial Secretary. Q«esow in the "d, W. H. eenth day ie, on the f forgery, ers, made I Bank of 'ing been Q Melin, sen inter- JJows ;■ — n? You say will ipon the ling." Taken before mo at the City of Montreal, ) (Signed,) tho day and year hereinabove named. (Signed,) W. II. BnfiiiAUT, P.M. A true copy, W. H. BrC'haut, P.M. 62,000 REWARD Will be paid for tho ro-arrest of one Ernest Suroau Lamirande, who escaped from tho custody of a Deputy Marshal of the United States, on tho 8rd of July, instant. He is of a dark bilious complexion, about fivo feet six inches high, slight build, very darV eyes, black hair, slightly touched with gray; had one tooth decayed and partly - on tho left side of the upper jaw; wore a full beard at the time of his escape, and was I .esaed in bluck ; speaks no English, Apply to Coudert Brothers, No. 49, Wall Street, New Y-^rk. A true copy, W. H. BrC'haut, P.M. Province op Canada, ) Defence. District of Montreal. J POLICE Ofmce. The Deposition of Charles L. Spilthorne, Esquire, Advocate, of the City of New York, in tho State of New York, one of the United States of America, now in the City of Montreal, in the District of Montreal, taken under oath this 20th day of August, A.D., 1866, at the Police Office, in Court House, in the City of Montreal aforesaid, by the undersigned, William H. Brchaut, Esquire, Police Magistrate, in and for the district of Montreal, in presence of Ernest Sureau Lamirande, late of Poitiers, in the French Empire, who is now accused before me on an information laid before me on oath, in virtue of the provisions of the Convention made between Her Majesty tho Queen of Great Britain and Ireland, and His Majesty the King of the French, and of the Statutes in such case made and provided, of having committed at Poitiers, in the French Empire, tho following crime, mentioned and provided for in the said Convention between Her Majesty the Queen and the said King of the French, namely : — That the said Ernest S. Lamirande did commit the crime of forgery, in that in his capacity of Cashier of the Branch Bank of France, at Poitiers, he made false entries in the books of the said Bank, and by that means defrauded the said Bank of the sum of seven hundred thousand francs. Deponent, Charles Spilthorne, dcposeth and saith as follows : — I was employed as one of the advocates of the prisoner at New York, when his extra- dition was there demanded, from the commencement of proceedings for his extradition in April last, until the date of his departure from New York, which I understood to be the 3rd July last. The document produced, marked B, being shewn to me, I cannot well say whether I saw that document in New York, amongst the papers produced before Commis- sioner Betts, before whom proceedings for the extradition of tho prisoner were being had. Question. — Have you seen the document of which the paper marked B purports to be a translation ? Ans. I saw a document on the table near which Mr. Betts the Commis- sioner sat, relating to the matter, which it was pretended was a copy sent from Poitiers in France, of a pretended writ, from the Board of Indictment of Poitiers. The document was written in French. It was, I think, then called I'Acte (T Accusation, indictment in English, So far as I can remember it must have been an indictment (arrit de renvoi). It is very 11 '' \^' difficult to Ray whothor it was tho same dooumont which haa been designated nrrSl dn renvoi before this Court, and of which it has boon prctondcd that the document B was a translation. There was but odu document of this kind produced before GommisaionRr Betts at New York, and that must bo tho one of which it has bten pretended that document B was a translation. Quetlion — Was that indictment — that in the French language— admitted nt New York by tho Commissioner, as authentic conformably to tho French law or to tite lilxtru- dition Treaty ? (Objected to on part of the Grown. Objection sustained.) Question. — State what you know of dooumont B, and of tho document of which it purports to be a translation ? Anaioer. — It had been announced that there were to bo communicated to Mr. Betts, to be produced before Mr. Betts' Court, a certain number of documents, amongst which was said to bo this protended indictment, of which translations wore said to have been made, these documents were marked by Mr. Betts, ne varietur, for I must explain, that although a judge marks a document, it is not a proof of its reception, and it is in fact the habit in Now York to havo them marked before t'lcy arc offered in evidence. There was a pretended translation of the said indietment, in which translation wore several blnnks, and it was remarked that that translation could not bo received, inasmuch ns it was not intelligible. The prisoner's Counsel then objected to tho admission of those documents on the part of Commissioner Betts, and thereupon it was decided by the Commissioner that the docu- ment should remain in the Court, saving any subsequent objection, for verification. Wo then asked for delay, and as the prosecution were anxious to push on the proceedings, Mr. Betts offered to let me take the pretended indictment and let me e '.mine it well so as to compare it with the translation. I do not very woll remember whether I took t!:o docu- ment with mo or not. At the next hearing Mr. Lamirande had left ; nothing more was then said, but nouo of then documents there produced, the pretendr d indietment and tho pretended translation included, were definitively admitted or received as duly authenti- cated evidence by Mr. Betts. Mr. Betts had already previously rejected the copy of tha deposition of the Director of the Bank of PoHiers as not being duly authenticated, and the indietment as well as the other documents produced, were authenticated exactly as the document which had been rejected. Thus tho copy of the indictment received from France as well as the pretended translation were not admitted as evidence, the translation was declared by tho defence incorrect, owing to tho blanks found in it, and other terms which appeared to be incorrect. Speaking of tho ) !.. iks, Mr. Coudert then said he had left the blanks because he had been unable to translate the French terms. No expert was examined for the verification of tho translation, as is usually done in New York. As Lamirande was gone, and the affair postponed by .Mr. Betts until the :^nd of September fol- lowing, in the event of his being re-taken, I did not take any further steps in tho prison- er's case until I came here. Tjn or twelve days ago Mr. Guudert came to my office ; ho told me he had been to Mr. Betts' office to see if he could not find the pretended indict- ment which he had sought for in his own papers, and that he had not found it ; that he came to see if it were not in my fyles. I told him I was on tho point of reipoving, and that I had put my papers into truriks at home, where Lamirande's papers were. I told him I did not well know whethrr I had had the document, but that my impression was that I no longer had it in any case, because it seemed to me I had seen it at the Court at the last hearing. Mr. Coudert usked me to go at once to my house to see. I could not do so, as I had several clients cunic to consult mo, who were hurried. I said that I would Bee, that I would examine my papers and I would tell him the result on the following day, and that if I found the document .tud could hand it over to him I would do so. I added that he would do well to go to the house of Mr. Betts himself, who was in the country, who had already several times taken the papers with him to his house, and that if I did not find it it must be there. Mr. Coudert answered me that he had no time, and that ho was convinced I should find it. I made search everywhere and did not find the document. On the following day I went to sec off a Judge of the Superior Court who was going to England, and I sent word to Mr. Coudert by one of my clerks that I had not found the document, that I would made a further search, and that I would hand it to Mr. Betts, to whom alone I could give it, for Mr. Coudert had no authority, and had shewn me none for 01 Sutyl he wj shoulj not ' tho and over I Mr. modd Paril whctf Fret 88 osignnted arrSl dn looument B was a ore Commissionfir on pretended that ■adiuitted at New or to tliu Kxtra- "ucnt of which it 'ted to Mr. Betts, jiongst which was nave been made in, that although fact the habitin was a protended nnks, aod it was not intelligible. ^ oa the part of r that the doou- cation. Wo then •rooeedings, Mr. > it well so as to took t!io doeu- ithing more wag ictffiont and the s dulj authenti. the copy of the ihentioated, and i exactly as the received from the translation ind other torma en said he had No expert was ewYork. As September fol- in the prison- my offioo ; he tended indict- >dit; that he 'cqioving, and were. I told npressioB was t at the Court I could not that I would bllowing day, so. I added the country, that if I did and that ho document, as going to >t found the fr. Betts, to va me none for obtaining the docuincnt in ca»c 1 should tind it. 1 ithuuld have >««i wanlio); every ^uty in banding ii over to hiui. I wont of my own motion to fti Bttta' Cour- i hcc if he were there, and to a.«k him if ho liui the document, and in ciM' I found what I should do with it. IIo wa.s not there, it was said that lie was in the country irjU wouil not be back before .September next. 3Ir. ('oudcrt manifestod the intention ot btiii;;ini; the document here to iMoatrcal, and of tliu i takin;:; it from tlic Court to which it bolonLjcd, and I should have rendered myHclf, iu cuso I had it, an accomplice in crime, by hauiiiuir over for tiiat purpose the document to Mr. (Joudcrt. I could give it up to no one but Mr. Betts, if it had been in my pcsHcssion. Qiifxtion. — Do you know French law in poncral, and Hpccially in so Var as regards the mode of authenticating documents in I'mncu / Objected to by the Crown. Objection cverruled, Answer, — Yes. I am a Frenchman by birth, I made part of my course of law in Paris. I have acted in many cases in France. I was admitted to the bar iu Belj,'iuni, where I practised for over twenty years ns on Advoiatc. AVitli some few exceptions, the French and Belgian codes are the 6iumo. Question. — Is the document marked ]3 so authenticated as to justify the arrest of the delinquent therein named in France, on the same accusation ^ A us. In Franco delin- quents are arrested solely on tlio originals. If the orijrinals arc wanting, there is a clause in the code of criminal indictment wliicli provides for the ease. These provisions aro contained iu articles 521, and Arlielo 5lil contains the following,' provi- sions : " Whenever, by the cflocts of a iiro, of an inundation, or of any other extraordinary *' cause, the originals of writs issued in criminal or correctional matters and not yet " executed, or in proccsKua as yet undecided, shall have been removed, carried off or lost, " and it shall not have been posniMc to recover them, the matter shall be proceeded witli " as follows : " Article 522. — If a duplicate or autHcntio copy of the writ exist, it shall bo deemed " an original, and in consecjucnce placed in tlio place set apart for the deposit and conser- " vation of writs. To that end any publio oflJctr, or any individual being the dcpo.«itary "of a duplieato or authentic copy of such wrif, in bound under pain of arrest to return tht,> '•'same iuto the Court whence it issued, oi. biuug ordered so to do by the President of the "said Court; Such order fhall serve him as-i di.sehargc as to parties having interest in " the document. The depositary of such duflicafe or authentic copy of the original des- •' troyed, removed or lost, shall be entitled, o.i returning the same into the place of public " deposit, to receive a auplicate thereof without cost. ^* Article 523. — When in any criminal matter there shall no longer exist a duplicate " or authentic copy of the writ, if the dc; ision of the jury still exist in the original or an " authentic copy, after a declaTation to that eflect, the Court shall proceed to a new judg- ^' ment. " Article 524 — When the dcclaralion of tlic jury cannot bo presented, or when the "case shall have been judged witlioub a jury, and no other, in writing, exists, the Ins- *' truction shall be rc-.!ommcuced from the point at wlucli the documents shall be found to *' be wanting as to the originals, duplicates aud authentic copies." Queslio7i, — How must the depositions of witnesses bo signed in order to possess any value in France y Objected to by Crown. Objection ov.'rruled. Anstcer. — Under Articles 75 and 70 of tl.o Code of Criminal Instruction, the following formalities are requi! I ' A 84 " being hcnril, sbull present tlio summons Bcvvi'd on or doliverod to thorn to deliver their " tCNtiiuony, and moution ^hllll bo made thereof in the proicn-vfrbal." 1 ought to add that the witncsacH hero raount aro those luvud bot'oro thoJudgo of Instruction. QiirMlon. — Aecordini; to your ktiowloiJKCol' French law, could abaililV or other offtoer of the 0X0 utivo j;ow«r nnost ii deliuf|Uont in Traucc, in virtue of a document nuoh nn that marked ]>. Objootcd to by the ('rowii ProHeculoi, and his objection sustained. Qnrstion. — Will you cite the text of Aiticlo 147 of tho Penal Codo of IVunco men- tioned in the dtcuniiMit ]i'{ Ann. Article 117 of tho Tonnl Codo of Franco Hays : " .\ll •'other persotu who shall huvo committed forgery in anthentic or publio documoats in "writiiiji, or iu comnurcial nr Unnk transaction.-, either by counterfeiting or altering " writings or signaiurco, by ;'»bric:ition of !n;rcetiients, provinionB, obligations, or diaohargns " ihortilrom, or by tlie inst'rtioii thcrnof aftm- elocution of suoh Acts, or by the addition or " altcratioa of claiisis, duclaratiou.s, or inntron) of fact, intended to bo admitted und recorded " in biu'h Acts, shull bo puni8';cd by hard labor for n term." Arilde. '48.~ln all tho cnsea nieiiti.>nfid in this paragraph, the porsou who mako* iiBO of forged documents shall bo punished by hard labor for a term. Question. — Do articlon 370, o8tl, 408, and 1G4 of the Penal Codo of France relato to the crime of forgery ? A as. No, Article ;{71) relates to theft ; artiole 38G also rolatCH to thtft, with aggravating circumstanccH. Article 408 relates to embezzlement, article KM n'lati's to an accessory puni^huicut tor the crime of forgery. Qui'ntinH. — Accordiug to your knowled;;u uf Frencli law, does tho crimo of forgery result Irom the fact- recorded as follows in tho document II. page 73, '• With having at " Puitiers, on tho I2th of ^'ar^h, 18(30, fraudulently inserted on tho balanco sheet signed '■ by him, whicii it whs his duty lo citablish und to certify every day in hi;< capacity of " iJui-bi:;' of the lirauch of tho Bank of Frnncc, in order to state tho cash account of said *> jiranch the iuhe declaration that the cash account on said day amounted to eleven inil- "lidus, iour hundred and lorty thousand, livo liundred and fifty-six francs, eighty-four con- " times, wh: o it was in reality inferior to that amount by all the suras ab-ttracted or cui- '• bfzzled by him, and thus fraudulently altered tho declaration and facts w'ich this balanco " sheet was to contain and establish V Question. — Have you had with Mr. Edmo Justin Mclin, Agent of Police, who nmde a deposition in this matter, any oouversation relative to tho converoations held by him with the prisoner at Now York on the subject of tho charge of forgery brought against tiio prisoner? If you have, repeat what he said to you? Aiis. Yes, I had, this is what 1 know relative to that. Mr. Melin, 1 mj'solf, and Mr. JJetts were together at Pclraonico's, I remarked to Mr. Melin that tho prisoner had done wrong in leaving England, a,s being thcro he could not havo been delivered up ^or any crime but murder, forgery, and fraudulent bankruptcy, nnd that certainly he lould not bo charged with any of those. Mr. Melin H:iid that in fact nona of these charges could exist against the pririouoi, bat that hu wtiuid havo found a way to got Mr. Lamirande iu England, that ho knfiW his trade pretty well, that he was a man-catcher, that he would follow hi. game by lH kind.s of uieHus, and that ho woald bring it to the spit (jm'iV le mrrn- f/i--(nt) meaning by that, that ho would got his reward. Mr. Lamirande loudly protested thu' ha had n^ver crnnoiltfed an ar.t of forgery. When tho charge of forgery was first b'l, ached in 'Jourt b» lore Mr. iiuft.v, Mr. Lmt imnde protesttd iu the most energetic manner th it it was in.amou'', that ho had never committed forgery, and that it could never he i.rovfcd ^!8ciicf; of Mr. Molin and many others. Whon t'.ui prcten'Jcd indictment was protiucod, Mr. Lamirando loudly declared that he conk! not believe bi-- eve.', aud I for my part added, that I did not think there existed in France magisrrates canublc of finding an act of lorgcry iu tho whole affair, quite tho con- trary, unless the lutoutiou vras to play in this Lamirande business tho same trick which was played nine years betbm in the matter of Carpenter, (Jrelet, Parrot and others, in which [ was counsel, and Mr. IJctts, Commissioner, in which Vii i>eing able to obtain extradition on the cuarge of hurqlary, tin^ prisoners had been ohargv^d with forgery in order to obtain their extradition witli greater certainty, whereupon the extradition of Grolefc had been secured, though he had never bctn cither accused or couvieted of forgery in Franoe; but oouvicted of a breach si confidence, which was uo ground of extradition. I ' 1 u deliver their t to add tha't other officer i^uoli BS that •luiice inou- Hays: "All cutuoatH ill <)<■ 'ilteriup tliochargoM addition or id recorded who makoj CO rolnto to > roIatCH to artiole 1(5-1 ot" forgery haviug at loet signed mpacity of «ut of said cloven mil. ^^'our edi- ted or eui- >is baiaiKo lice, wlio ions held y brought 3, I had, together Q loaviD!^ murder, ;ed with 'i against England, d follow le man- irotesteJ Tas first norgetio Id never others, that he isted in [le con- which lera, in obtain ?ory in Grolei jery in on, I requested Mr. Jistts to pay |iartioular .illuntiou to this point, it' this chiinto vnu brought betbro him, the mure uspuciully, J Hiiid to ^Ir. Unltn, m thu churgo of uinbexzloiiicnt on iho ground of whiuh the extradition uf .Mr. Lnuiiuiidu wa^ dctnandcd, was iu the eyes of Amerioan law, uo ground of extradition of u porn'm iu Mr. Latuiiuudo'H ponitioii. 'I ocre- upou Mr. Coudi't't, who hnn uiudc ii dopoi(>, ;uid who wa.-* fliu priiiiipitl 'ounnnl iu tiio luanagoiuuQt of tlie afl'air, declared tliul ho uiulcriitood my nKiiuio;;, und [}\\\ it wax by no uioauH his intuntion to claim tln! oxtradilioL uf Mr. LnmlnuiiJii on thu oliin-i'd of forgery, nud cvon that ho oxpr«s>ily ixiioiincud kucIi u pln.i it ^:ih uiiuur.Uuod that n; mention should bu inaJo of forgery. Mr. .'^iilwi wais pruscat und hoard the inotc^tt cf M. Lamirando. \ij ox attoruoy of ilic li'ruiioli Kin^' wu.h pro.Hi'iit. ■lud gave hi.) o.i'lince in the alfair on I m tiart of thu dcfeiiou, and duularod lliat In; could nm undiMUnud how niicii a Ucoision uoiild nave been eomo to by Frcnnh luugistratis in o ci: ur a c'i' uo forgery iu the businnsH. Qu ftion.—Aro you aware that after the i-apy of the indictment of which tliu paper U is assumed to bo a translation, arrived at Now York, Mr. Meliu had any conversation in the prison with the prisoner, and do you kuow thai the prisoucr may u.ivo hid such con vci- nation with ftjr. Mclin un the subject of forgery, after the conversation whioh you have ju<)t repeated? Ans. As to the possibility, lean say nothing, but lut to the moral meaning of what passed I can explain. When proccediugn wcru couimunccd before Mr. Belts in the luoatb of April, there was no question of un iudlotmont iur forgoiy, nor oi' forgoiy at all ; no one had uttered u word about it. Ho far from it that iu the dopoiiition of tiio Director of the Bank at Poitiers (who was with M. Lumir.iude at Mr. Botts' with a warrant aseribi-d tn Jolly, Judge of Instruotion at Poitiers, us also in a complaint cntorcd before tho Procii- rcur Imperial at Poitiers, and iu a complaint ol tho [''runch Consul General at New York, uU lodged with Mr. JJetts for tho arrest of IMr, Lamirande, it was expressly declared that though tho Bank might be defrauded by tic nilcratinn ot writing, tuch wus not thu chmo with Lamirando. In tho warrant issued by the said Judge of luHtructiou, as h'-m in thu uomplaint entered before tho Prooureur Imperial, not a word was ,;uid about forgery, but tho arrest of Mr. Lamiraudo was ordered on tho mere charge of embezzlement of money, citing articles 379 and 408 of the Penal Code of Franco which relates only t) thoft and embezzlement of money. IFp to that time notliing had bucn said to Mr. Lamirando about forgery, for nobody had any knowledge of it. I .ucan till the time when Mr. Lamirando first £»ppcared before Mr. Commissioner Betts. I and thn other logal advisers ot iMr. Lam- irando then prohibited him from receiving Mr. Meliu any uioio, or speaking to him in private. Mr. Meliu himself has declared that Mr. Lamirando refused lo receive him again, and our refusal was founded on tho faot that Mr. Melin by promises and insinuations iiad endeavored to draw from Mr. Lamirando admissions unlavorable to his poaiticu. Mr. Mclin himself admitted to mc that ho had told Lamirando that it ho would confess every- thing and go baci: (to Franco), he would bu punished more lightly; that his father and his relations were iu prison at Poitiers; but Mr. Molin added, that ho said this out of kindness towards tho prisoner. The deponent saith nothing further for the pro.^^ent. His dopositiou is discontinued till to-morrow at eleven o'clock forenoon, and tho I'oregoing being read hath signed. (Signed,) C L. Spilthobn. Sworn, taken and acknowledged before ma at *^ Montreal, thi.s twentieth day of August, ^ one thousand eight hundred and sixty -six. ) (Signed,) W. H. Breiiaut, P.M. On this day, being the twenty-first of August in the year of our Lord one thoui'and eight hundred and sixty-six, again appeared the above named deponent, before the under- signed, W. H. Brehaut, Esquire, Police Magistrate in and for the Dibtrict of Montreal, and being sworn in presence of the prisoner, Ernest Bureau Lamirande, his deposition was xegamed and continued as follows : — I declare, moreover, as I have before stated and now depose, that it is not true that I Uare sworn and told the witness Coudert that I would restore the document termed the 86 -:g.- ' ."a i -^-zs^ \' lu^ \i inJictmout if I found it. I novcr make use offiich expressions. This Is what I said to liiii; atid this only ; namely, what I deposed yesterday. Neither is it true, as the same ]ini:-;oii, Mr. Coudert, deposed, that I asked >lr. Bcttsfor the said document to carry it away with iiic, and if I did take it away with mc. which I do not remember very exactly to have rloncs it was Mr. Botts liimself who dclivc.-od it 'o me voluntarily. So far was I from ask- in;; for it or taking it away, that in order to ■<. crily the pi'0'..cnded translation, oflercd by Mr. Cuudert, Mr. Clinton and myself prayed tiiat the matter might bo postponed, in order to verify the said translation as also t"ic o Jior traasiations oiTered with the documents which it was alleged had come from Franoc, iajluding the pretended indictment in Mr. Betts' office, and it was on that occasion uud lor that reason, that on Mr. Coudort's urging tlie prosecution of the afl'air in order not to lo.'so any time, Mr. Betts, unasked, offered mo the document to take it homo with me, and neither is it true, as Mr. Coudert has alleged in this place, that cither he or his brother marlc the least objection, and I said that I would even prefer a great deal to verify the document,? iu 5Ir. Betts' oiSce. Queslion. — Iu the case of a charge of lorgcry in Franco, is it necessary, in order to sustain it, that the document alleged to be forged should be produced ? Objected to on the part of the Crown, and the objection sustained. Qiie. "3 the same I to carry it away \ exactly to have ■was I from ask- lion, offered by ^ postponed, in ■ the doouments bfcment in Mr. Hort's urging >ecl, offered mo irt has alleged lid that I would *ry, in order to )Osition ho bad what ho said ? I, toll you that ( orlc ? to put to the who affirms its ■n/ruoRN. I;'rncst Sureau is desirous of at JVew York, Bused party ? you retained ire, and even ocollcct that Ited by him. 't first in the money, and Vance, from oudert were "uirando in nd that the ras arrested had been »3 arrested 3 by civil thus incar- ^iow to his embezzle- ment of money, and in the process for the extradition of tlio accused that you acted as Counsel in his defence ? Ans. I acted as his Counsel both in the civil process, and also in the proceeding for his extradition. Question.— 'iHcM us in how long time aficr tho arrest of Lamirandc you ^;aw him for tlio first time ? Ans. Ho had been under arrest by civil process ibr some time, when I saw him, and was consulted by him for the first time. Perhaps eight, ten, or fifteen days after [his arrest], perhaps more, perhaps less, I cannot exactly say. Question. — Is it not true that the demand foi' tho extradition ul' tiic accused Lami- randc, at New York, was founded on the embezzlement of moneys of the Lank of Poitiers, and on the crime of embezzlement, and on that only ? Ans. I know of no other [ground of a] demand for extradition against Mi'. Lamirandc, than that of embezzlement, and I cannot term here, not having done it at New York, the alleged embezzlement, in the French language, a crime cither in France or in the United States, but simply an offence in the case of Lamirandc. Question. — How long did the proceedings for the extradition of the accused, Lamirandc, continue before Mr. Commissioner Betts ? Ans. I cannot exactly stale the day of the month of April that the proceedings commenced, but it was in thu month of April, and they continued to the fifth of July, after the escape of the accar.od. (>««;sn-o of the accused, Lamirande, in relation to the applieation for hid extradition ? Ans. Yes, 1 furnished some. Tho advocate for tho prosecution doelareu that he has no further questions to put to tlio witness, this examination is cloaed, and after reading the deponent hath signed. C. L. Spilthorn. Taken and acknowledged boforo m«, at Mouti'Miil,'^ this twenty-first day of August, one thousand >■ eight hundred and sixty-six. 1 W. H. Br<5haut, I'.M. A true copy, W. H. Brihaut, P.m. PROVI Diiti in bil entri^ sum t^ss^esm^^ )r '*" J renaenibor J^eh«Jf of the amitted beforu JaJegaliaation ^**risprudence ■ >' sofficient as scution of the ' very exactly t^famined, ho ^ whioh theu =• roplios wore ivo committed Nt doubts a8 »JOt true that intted before %alized in point, but I 'Ota could be l^ted only as ^ev York, »f Joy reeol- r Betts, bad sen raiged ? >wnji8siou8f Jt; with mo >udort aud ' next day, "; ^orJc, in wis affair ? ^ork, did ou to the rnditioD ? '0 put to )d. A, I Police Office. U. Province of Canada District of Montreal. Defence. The deposition of Emile B. Morel, Esquire, Advocate, of the City of New York, iu the State of New York, oue of the United Statea of America, now iu the City of Montreal, in the District of Montreal, taken under oath on the twenty-second day of August, in the year of Our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-six, at tho Police Office, in the Court House, iu tho City of Montreal, in the District of Montreal aforesaid, by the under- signed, William 11. Br^haut, Esquire, Police Magistrate, in and for the District of Montreal, in the presence of Ernest Sureau Lamirande, late of Poitiers, iu tho Empire of France, who now stands accused by complaint under oath before me, under tho provisions of tho treaty between Her Majesty the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and His Majesty the King of the French, and of the Statutes made and provided therefor, of having committed at Poitiers, in the Empire of France, the crime mentioned and predicated by the said treaty between Her Majesty the Queen ar.tl the said King of the French, that is tvt say : That the said Ernest SurcriTi Lamirande did commit the crirno of I'oi j^eiy by having, in his capacity as Cashier of the Branch of the Bank of Franco at Poitier;, ui ide false entries in the books of the said Bank, and bj' so doing defrauded the snid B;;;ik of tlu! sum of seven hundred thousand francs. Tho deponent Emile B. Morel deposetk and saith as follows : — Question. — Were yon in any way connected with the prosecution instituted at New York for tho extradition of the prisoner, in April, JJ.iy and Juno Inst 7 .4?(,>!. I was Mr. Lamirande's private advocate at New York, but I did not appear iu name as one of his defenders before Commissioner Betts. He consulted mo about his extradition aflfnir and about other afi'airs generally. I was pre«ent at nearly all the sittings which were held before Commissioner Betts. especially 1 was present nt one sitting. 1 do not remember if it was the last sitting, or tho last but one, before the flight of Lamirande, and at that sitting IMr. Coudert, the Advocate for tho progeeution produced a deed, or a pretended copy of a pretended indictment {arrSt d« rmvot) together with a pretended translation of the .said copy. The defenders of the aeeused opposed the reception of these documents : first, because tho pretended copy of the pr«t«nd«d indictment was not duly leg.ilized; and second, they opposed the reception of the translation because it contained many blanks and was otherwise incorrect and unintelligible. Mr. Botts decided that ho would not definitely admit tho documents, that he reserved his judgment in that respect. The Counsel for the accused asked for time to examine the said documents and to compare tho translation made by Mr. Coudert. Mr. Botts thea replied that, as he waiD desirous not further tu prolong the affair by postponements, ho requested Mr. Spilthorn to take the document with him, and that in that way the documents could be e:saminod between that time and the follow- ing sitting. I did not observe whether Mr. tJjiilthorn carried away the document or whetiier he did not. When that pretended indictment assuming to accuse Mr. Lamirande of forgery was produced a universal ery arosd on all sides at the absurdity of &uoh an aeensation. Question.— Will you state whether the document produced before Mr Bctt.s as :i translation of the pretended indictment was the same as tho document B produced hr^ro, and if it was the same whether it wu then in the condition in which you find the document B now to be ? Ant, I state that I clearly henrd Mr. Clinton declare that there wore many words untranslated and loft blank in the said translation made by Mr. Coudert, with whicli assertion Mr. Coudert coineided and attributed the circumstance to the impossibility of his translating those words beoauso he did not understand them exactly, and beeauHo hi; could not appreciate their exact value. But with regard to tho document B .1 cannot assert that I have seen it ; consequently, I know not whether it is the samo or not. I cannot stato positively whether there was p sitting after that at which Mr. Spilthorn wiis required to take away the translation in order to compare it, but I think there was not. I know that there was a meeting, but there wa.s no sitting in consequence of the illuci^s of one of the advocates. I state nothing positively iu this respect. Quettioiu—Htna Mr. Edino Justiu Melin expressed, iu your presence, what he know or what be thought of the aoeuMtioB of forgery, either at New York or here 'I Ans. Mr. 40 Mclin, like every one else, saw the absurdity of sueh an accusation ; he said that extra tlition for forgery could not bo had ; that tlicrc was no forgery there. Here, at Montreal on several occasions, ho has acknowledged bo^'ore other Jpersona that all that Mr. Spilthorn had said hero was true, and that he had never Intended to state in his evidence th^t Mr. Laniirande had acknowledged himself (o lie guilty of forgery, that he had only acknow- ledged himself that he had been accused of lorgery. Question. — Was Mr. I^Ielin a witness at New York '/ Am. Not that I remember. 1 do not consider as evidence any affidavit.^ that he may have made, and 1 do not know whether ho did make any. I speak only of oral evidence. QdcHion, — Was the prisoner accused of forgery at New York, either in the proceedings for his extradition or iu the depositions which served as tho basis of those proceedings ':" Ans. JJetorc the production of tho pretended copy of the pretended indictment, nothing had ever been said about forgery. I have read several depositions, or pretended deposi- tions which were deposited iu court, and aiiicng others, the deposition of Mr. Bailly, one of the directors, I believe, of the Branch iiaak at Poitiers, in which deposition Mr. JJailly stated that embezzlement of money could bo cfTocted by means of forgery or ah oration in tho books, and that such was not the case with regard to Mr. Lamirande. I nowhere saw anything mentioned about false balance-sheets or even, I think, false entries. It is to be distinctly understood that I speak of the documents tyled at the court in New York, before the production of the pretended co])y of the pretended indictment, for I should not wish it to be said that T contradicted myself. When the pretended copy of the pretended indict- ment was produced before Commissioner lietts, the prisoner exclaimed aloud that he did not acknowledge himself guilty of forgery, that there was no forgery, and the Messrs. Cou- dert themselves agreed that there was no ground for a charge of forgery, and abandoned all prosecution in that respect. Question. — Are you suffi^-fntly acquainted with the conditions oj the extradition treaties between France and the United States to say whether forgery is one of tho crimes for which extradition can be demanded between those two Powers rcspeetiv 'j ? Objected to on bohalf of the Crown. Objection over-ruled. Ausirtr. — Yes, forgery is one of the crimes euumerated in those treaties. The Counsel for the prieoncr declares that he has no fuither questions to put to tho witness produced, and the deponent, after reading, declares that his deposition contains the truth, persists tlierein, and hath signed. EuiiiE B. MouEL. Swofn, taken and acknowledged before me at ^ J\iontreal, this twenty-second day of August, ^ eighteen handved and sixty-six. ) W. II. Br<:d)aut, P.M. ' ■4 ■ The foregoing depositiun having been made and read iu the presence of tho prisoner, Ernest Sureau Lamirande, Jlr. Pominviilc, counsel for the prosecution, declared his desire to put the following questions, iu rebuttal. Qwmtion. — How long have you been an advocate ? Ana. Since ISGO. Question. — liincc Larairande's arrest have you not been his adviser, and is it not you who have furnished tlioadvocate who is defending him with all information in relation to this aflair? Ans. I nin one of Lamirande's counsel hero. We have held consultation with Mr. Dontrc in relation to his case. Queftion. — Is Mr. Spilthorn, a witness also examined for the defence, also counsel for the accused? Ans. 1 do not know how i'r Mr. Spilthorn considers him.self counsel i'or the accused. Question. — What degree of relationshif) is there between Mr. Spilthorno and you '! Ans. Mr. Spilthorn is my uncle ; I ;uudicd 'aw under him, wo practice iu tho same office. (Jiiesiion- — Ara T to understand you arc in partnership with Mr. Spilthorn. ^4?i."!. Yes, and nr.. (Jti(s-i;„,i — (u y)\ir examination inchicfyuu state that you acted as Lamirande's special advocate ; toll u's what you mean by that ? Ans. It means that Mr. Lamirande consulted me on his all'airs in general, apart from the other advooates. 41 10 said that extra lere, at Montreal lat Mr. Spilthorn videuco Ihit Mr. lad only aokuow- ; I romembcr. I 1 do not know the proceedings 336 proceedings r* ctment, nothing •retended deposi- Mr. Bailly, ono iition Mr. JJailly ' or al, oration in I nowhero saw •ies. It is to be ew York, bol'ore lould not \7ish it )reteuded indict- oud that ho did the Messrs. Cou- and ab.indoncd tbc extradition ac of tho crimes u» to put to tho coition contains B. MoHEr.. )f tho prisoner, lared his desire Qd is it not you Q relation to this tation with 3Ir, ic, also counsel limself counsel mruo and you ? the same office, rn. Ans. V^es, irande's special ande consulted Que:tion.-~Uovi long was it after Jiamirando's arrest in New York, that you saw him for the first time ? Ans. I do not know v.hether it was two weeks or three, but I am not prepared to answer with certainty. Question. — At what time wcro proceedings commenced at New York for the extradi- tion of Lamirande ? Ans. I think'it wos in the course of tho month of May. Extradition was demanded for tho crimo of embezzlement, there was then no question whatever of a charge of forgery, that I know of. The prooe \ling for the extradition of the accused con- tinued up to the flight of the prisoner. L heard it stated that he fled on the 3rd July. Proceedings for tho extradition of tho prisoner were then drawing to a close. Question. — How long before the flic;ht of the prisoner was the indictment produced before Commissioner Betts '/ Ans, I state that I was not altogether certain, but that I thought it was at the last or second lust .:>ittiug. Question, — Did you read the indictment produced before Commissioner Betts ? Ans, I do not remember having read it, QursOon. — Did you read the translation which was made of itii' Ans. I do aot re- member. Question. — Did you see tlic initials of Commi.^siovier Betts on the documents and papers laid before him in the Lamiraudo affiir '! Ans. I do not remember. Question. — Were tho objections made by the advocates of the accused, with roforcQco to the dociiments produced, set forth in writing ? Ans. I think so, for it is habitually done. Question. — Docs Mr. Clinton, one of the advocates of the accused, speak French '/ Ans. I do not know. Question. — Did you see in Mr. .Spilthorn's office or in ^our own, the indictment of which you have already spoken '/ Ans. No. Question. — Is it not true that, when you say in your examination in chief, " A uni- versal cry was hcud on all sides as to tho ab.^urdity of the charge of forgery," you mean to speak only of the advocates of tho arcused 'i* Ans. 1 mean to speak also of Mr. Catois, a highly distinguished advocate from France, who said he did not understand how French Magistrates could prostitute themselves to so infamous an act as thus unduly to accuse au individual of forgery, knowing that there was no forgery possible under the French laws. I said that all, except those interested in the prosecution found the thing incredible and absurd. Question, — Was not thir, 3Ir. Ualois one of the advocates consulted by the defence ? Ans. No, he was not, for on the contrary I always heard Mr. Catois say that he did not come forward to approve the faults tl'.c prisoner might have committed, but simply to depose before and inform the judge of wijat tlje statutes, law and justice were in Franco, that he knew it better than any person in Nov/ York, for matters of this kind, because he himself bad been I'rucurcur da JCoi in I'ranoc for many years. Question. — How many persons were present in court when tho indictment was pro- duced ? Ans. I did not count them. Question, — Apart from the advocates for the prosecution and tho defence, yourself included, were there more than five persons ? Ans, I know there were several persons, but I cannot an.swcr otherwise witli ccrtaintj. Question. — AVerc there more than six persons ? Ans. I know nothing of it. Question. — Wcto there more than three '( Ans. I do not remember, or rather I know nothing of it, but think there were. Question. — Is it not true that the person named Melin, of whom you speak in your examination in chief, alv. uys told you that he did not accuse Lamirande, that ho was accused in the French Courts, and that in conscc'uenfto he believed the charge to be well founded, and did he not add also that tho answer J^amiraude made to him concerning the forgery, indicated impli ;'My that ho admitted himself guilty '( Ans. No, if I remember aright ho always told mo il-j contrary- Ho told mc he could not accuse Lamirande of having ad- mitted himself guilty of forgery inasmuch as he had never acknowledged himself guilty j that is what he told me. Question. — When did he tell yru that r* A)ts. He said it to me yesterday again, at the door of tho Court, and I heard him say it at different times besides, even hero and etaewhere, where we reside at the Jacques Cartier Hotel. 6 it i M I I I 11 I 48 Question. — Who invited Mr. Melin to the Jacquea Cartier Hotel, and why was he invited to go there ? Ans. I do not remember whether he came there of his own motion or whether ho was invited there. T nm not sure. Question.— Stvtto the exact words used by Mr. Melin, when he spoke to you of the charge of forgery brought against the accused. Am. I think I recollect that Lo used tho terms, or very much the terms already mentioned by me. I cannot give exactly word for word the expressions be used. Question,— On tho oath you have taken, is it not true that Mr. Melin said to you, on the occasion in question, that when he had spoken to Lamirande about the indictment charging him with forgery, Lamirande answered " Yes, it is true, I know it." Ans. I do not remember. I am morally certain > the contrary. Question.— la it not true that Melin told you that for himself personally he could not accuse Lamirande of forgery, but that Lamirande's answer in speaking to him of tliat orimOj " I know it well," indicated implicitly, in Mclin's judgment, that Lamirande admitted his guilt? Ans. £ do not remember that Melin ever told me that. Question. — On the oath you have taken, give the expressions used by Melin. Trhea ho spoke to you of the forgery matter ? Ans. 1 have already said I cannot state word for word the expressions he used, but I can say that the expressions he used and tho tenor of tho expressions he used, and which ha did almost literally, if not literally use, were these : " I cannot accuse Lamirande of having admitted his guilt to mo, inasmuch na he never to lae admitted himself to be guilty of forgery." Question. — Was Melin under oath when ho spoke thus to you 't Ans. I should like the learned advocate to explain what he means by being under oath ? Quention. — Do you know whether you are under oath, and that you have given youv deposition under oath? Jns. Yes, I know that, (&o., as in qucs.) Question. — Did you assist or participate in the escape of Lamirande from Now York .■' Ans. I refuse to answer that question be'sauso it is improper, impertinent, indecent, filthy, and unworthy of nn advocate ; and if I had more epithets at my command, I would pro- sent them in my answer. The counsel for tho prosecution, Mr. Pominvillc, declared that ho has no further question to put to witness, and this examination is closed, and the foregoing having been read, deponent hath signed. (Signed,) Emite B. Morel. Taken and certified before me at Montreal, ) this 22Dd day of August, 186G. j (Signed,) W. H. Brehaut, P.M. A true eopv, W."H. Brehaut, P.m. Pkovinuu of Canada, ~) District of Jloittrcn/. '- Police Ofiice. ^'/ Montreal. !- To all or any of the Constables or other Peace Officers in City of Montreal. \ the said District of Montreal, and to the Keeper of the Common Gaol at the said City of Montreal, in the said District of Montreal. Whereas Ernest Sureau Lamirande, late of Poitiers in the French Empire, now pre- sent in the said City of Montreal, in the District of Montreal aforesaid, was this day charged before me, William H. Brehaut, Esquire, Police Magistrate in and for the District of Montreal, on tho oath of Edme Justin Melin and others, with the crime of forgery, by havinir, in his capacity of Cashier of the Branch of the Bank of France at Poitiers, on the 12th duy of March, one thousand eight hundred and sixty-six made false entries in the books of the ua'd Bank, and thereby dcfiaudcd the said Bank of the sum of Seven hundred thousand francs. And whereas a requisition has been made to His Excellency the Governor General of this Province by the Consul General of France in the Provinces of British North America, purs: jut to tho terms of the convention between Hnr Majesty the Queen of tho United Kingdom of Gre.it Britain and Ireland, and His Majesty the King of the French, signed at London, on the thirteenth day of February, in the year of Our Lord one thotuand eight hundred and forty-three, and the acta of the Parliament of the United Kingdom of G-reat Britsio aud Ireland passed to give effect to the said oonyeotion, to issoe his warrant 43 md why was he his own motion [0 to you of tho that Lo used the |exactly word for said to you, od the iadiotment lit." Am. I do lly he could not Im of that crime, pde admitted his Mcliu. ^hen bo »t etata word for and the tenor of uie, wero these : 1 its he never to li. 1 should like have given your •om Now Vork 'f indcceut, filthy, id, I would pro- Las no further ing having beou B. MORKL. eace Officers in of the Common ipiro, now pro- was this day for the District of forgery, by Poitiers, on the entries in the Seven hundred nor General of orth America, of the United ''reach, signed one thousand i Kingdom of 10 his wftrroat for the apprehension of the said Ernest Sureau Lamirando, accused of havin<:; committed (he crime aforesaid after the ratification of the said convention. And whereas, in compliance with the said requisition His EzocUcuuy the Governor Goueral has by warrant under his hand and seal, bearing date at Ottawa, iu tho said Pro- vinoo, the twenty-sixth day of July in tho year of Our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-six, required each and every tho Justices of tho Peace and other Magistrates and Officers of Justice, within their several jurisaictions in the said Province of Canada, to aid in apprehending and ^omuitting him, tho said Ernest 8ureau Laniirandc, to any one of the gaols within the said Provinco of Canada, for the purpose of being delivered up to justice, aooording to the provisions of the f\\i Convention and tho Acts to give effect thereto. And whereas it appears to the said Police Magistrate that the nets charged against the Eupposed offender are clearly set forth in a warrant of arrest, or other e(|uivalent judi- cial document, issued by a competent magistrate in France. And wliercus divers persons have been examined upon oath before me touching tho truth of the said c1i:irgo, and whereas copy of a deposition taken in Franco touching the said charge, duly authenticiUcd has been produced and fyled before me ; And whereas such evidence would be according to the laws of Canada sufficient to justify the apprehension and committal of the enid Ernest Snreau Lamirande, if the offence of which he is accused had been committed in Canada ; and whereas the said Ernest Sureau Lamirando by himself and his counsel has had full opportunity to cross-examine the said witnesses and to adduce such evidence as he deemed advisable in his own defence ; and whereas the said Ernest Sureau Larairnnde has not shewn any good cause why ho should not be committed for exti adition according to tho requirements of the said Convention and the laws passed to give effect thereto. These are therefore to command you, the said Constables or Peace Officers, or any of you, to take tho said Ernest Sureau Lamirando, and him safely convey to the commou gaol at the City of Montreal aforesaid, and there deliver 1 im to tho keeper thereof — toge- ther with this precept, and I do hereby command you, the ^aid keeper of the said Common Qttol to reeeivo the said Ernest Sureau Lamirando into your custody in the said Common 0«ol, and tb<"'8 safely to keep him until he is delivered pursuant to tho requisition afore- said, or by ]>>/ooe88 of Law. Given under my hand and seal this twenty-second day of August in the year of Our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sizty-six, at tho said City of Montreal, in the Dis- trict aforesaid. (Signed,) W. H. Bbeiiact, True copy. P.M. liouis Payette, Gaoler, Montreal Teleobapu Company. Ottawa, 12th Oct., 1866, By telegraph from Montreal. To Geo. Fatvoye, Esq. Send by mail to-day, if possible, to Schiller, all documents transmitted by Br^haut iu Lamiraude Case. Seod them by mail to-morrow if you cannot send them to-day. Answer. G. E. Cartier. 13th October, 1866. To C. E. SdhiUer, Esq. Don't allow the papers in Lamirande's case to go out of your bands, and 8cnd them baok as soon as done with. By order of the Secretary. (Signed,) E. Parent. Crown Law Department, Quebec, 23rd August, 1866. In rv. ) riio undersigned is of opinion that Ernest Sureau Lami- Ernest Sureau Lamirande. \ rando having been arrested in accordance with the Warrant issued at Ottawo, on the 2Gth July last, by His Excellency the Governor General, and 4] *M J " ! I' .,/i i • 6 fl I" i I 44 linvius been ninoo committed to the Comuion .hiil at the City of Montreal, by Mr. Br6haut, I'olici! Magistrate, to be there kept until he i.^ delivered, pursuant to the requisition made to His Ext-ellency by the Consul General ni' Fnncc in the Provinces of British North America, or by process of law, the said ];n?st Sureau Lamirando bo delivered to such person or persons as may be authorized, in the iiatuc end on behalf of the French Empire, to receive the same, and that the necessary warrant do issue aecordingly. Uectob L. Langevin, Sol. Oon., L.C. Ottawa, 2;)rd August, 186G. T. Bouthillier, Esq., Sheriff, Montreal. Sir, — I Lnvo the honor to transmit to you, herewith, an 1 nstrument to deliver to such person or persons as may be authorized by the French Empire to receive the body of Ernest Sureau Lamirandc, now detained in the Jail under your charge. I have, &c., E. Parent. Province of |^ Canaikt. j {Recorded, 2'<\rd Auf/ii?t, ISGG.) moncj:. ViCTOUT^, iji/ the Grace of Cod, of llir, Uaib'd Kingdom of Greof Britain find freland, QuEKN, Defender of the Faith, t'-c, t(r., liticrs. As such he had considerable sums to receive and to pay, and, consequently, ii deposit of a hirj;o amount was continually in his hands. The gold is tied up iu bags coatainioj; a certain number of Napoleons, which are liable to be visited from time to time by the lusp ctors, who open them and see that their contents are correct; but these Inspectors generally content them- selves by opening one or two bags, and by weighing some of the others. Lamirande seems to have been in ihu habit of taking a few Napoleons t,t a time from some of these bags, which he took care should never come into circulation, giving them the proper weight by the addition of lead, and placing them where thero would bo tho least chance of their be- ing opened. His books at tho same time were kept as if tho proper amount of money was in his hands. Something having occurred to excite suspicion, Lamirande determined to abscond, taking with him a largo sum of money in addition to those already stolen. I have, &c., (Signed,) Cowlky. The Lord Stanley, &c., ttc, &c, ' »SiV J. Michel to Lord Carimnon. (No. 10.) MoNTBEAr;, December 15, 18GG. My Lord, — I have tho honor to acknowledge the receipt of your Lordship's Despatch, No. 113, of the 30th November, enclosing a copy of a note from Her Majesty's Ambas- sador at Paris to Lord Stanley, in which some particulars are given respecting the charges on which Lamirande was to be tried on tho 3rd instant. I have, &c., (Signed,) J. Michel. 'I tii M ' ,[■•• :l» i II f y CORRESi^ONDENCE WITH THE (iOVERNOR GENERAL OF €ANyVJ)A, RESPECTINf; THE EXTRADITION OF M. LAMIUANDK. I'i'cxfnteil to lioik llotma of J'uilinmcnf, h;/ rommam/ of llfv Afitjcft,'/, Mar-k )S07. SCHKPULi:. KF.Sl'ATniKS FIUlM TIIi: liOVKUNua flKNKIlAI,. No. No. llfttc. 1.5.') Out. fl, 18«fi, 164; 174 ir;. 182 IDS'Nrv IS, •' 25, •■ O ^ (1 2.', - .•11. '• lO, •' ;■., iscT. Smj.lF,CT. 67 84 no SC1..22, ISfiB, •' '>7. •> Oct. Nov. 2t. " lunoc.n, " TrnQamittiDi; Aililrosa to Her MnjoHt)' from cortain inhabitniilH of tlio City of Mon- tronl, iir.-iying tbot u priioiitr uamod JiamiraDdc, Inloly (klivorcd lo tlio Fronch • Jovornmcnt, under tho Kxtraditiou Treaty, may lie ret.irnud to Jloiiti-enl to Iiavo lii.s caiio inveetigatcd tlicra before tlio Omrl nt Qin'cri'ii licncli, dii writ of hahittt rorpiix. Purniahiog the lleport ontlilg cine, an callod for \outrc, tho (,'oiinsi'l t'ur Liiiuiiand':. Inclosing a further letter from Mr. Doiitro with copice of docuiucnt.i. IncUming eopy of Aflidnvit of IM. Melin. 'iViiiii'mitting letter from Mr. Kanuay, tho Crown Trosocutor, to Mr. (lodley. Ackuowledging Lord t'arnarvon'.H despatch anuounciii;; tlmi l-iuiiiiaiido had liooti iricd in Frimoo and scntpnced to ten ycnrn rooliifioii. UESrATCHES Fl'DM THE BKOUKTAl'.V OK .STATi;. Tranfimittiug copy of a dpfipalnh from Her Majosty'K Auib.Tssador at Pari?, accom- panied by a Lottor from 31. Ijttmirando, eumplainin;' of lii< extradition, and calling for a report on the case. Stating that Hor Mnjcsfy's Amba?nador at Tarin had been instructed to address ,i rupresuntation to tho Frnnch Oovernmont on tlio i^iilijcct. Acknowledging Lord Monck's des|.atoh (No. 15.^) of Iho lllh October, 1860. cxplnin- iug tho ciraumstanoos under which Laa.irande was dolivercd by tbo Cunadiaii authorities to the French Toliou. i Views of Her Miyestjr'a Oovernmont rospectiiijf tho cuiir^o which Iih.! Iilumi alopt^d by tho Canadian authoriticK in thi^ oase. 'Announcing that Lamirande had been tried in France and found ,i.'\iilty cf forgery, ( fiiux.) and santeueod to ten years' rcelusion, and that from tbit< dooisiou be had appealed to tho Court of C;n-'s.itioD. N.B. — Such Documents referred to in the above Schedule, as tire wanting will be found nniongst the papcr.f«,| '"y '1' forgorv, JcciMou he had '°K will be above. /'^ /i,j,y ^^• 18(3G. 1 AJiircsfi «»■ named es of t.'io ^c^-tigatcfl ^ C. and t of Mr. s corpus. avits, as It iH ti'uu tbut L isUtuil to Mr. Spiltlioro, wheu be proBentod a petition to me on the Hubjcut at Ottinva, that time ahould be all'orded to the prisouci- to apply lor a Writ of liitlii:a» -: llmt tho oflficor who hns Iho custody of my deal mn at Ottown, whereas I wan nt Quebec. I have, ko„ (Sipncil,) MoNCK. The lliglit llouorulilo the Kuil ul I'avnarvou, (Inclosuro 1 in No. 1.) Mr. D'Hiln III ihr K'lil ii/ (.'itrntnvo)!. AloNTREiVr,, October I, 18(5(J. I^Iy lidim,— r liiivo ilie honor lo inclo.^o a jictition to Her Maje.<(ty from oitizous of vJanada, atul e.specinlly I'roin Moutrcal, eoncorniup; what is described as the fraudulent removul of !•]. S. liamirnndc from the jurisiliition of the Court of Qucen'n ]Jonch at iMont- rcal, and prayin,« Her Majesty to usoller f'ufiiority for restoring tlic said liamirande to tlie jurisdictiou olthe naill (Jourt. Vour Lorilf-hip will oblige by laying it before llir Majesty, and inform the .si-ners through m^! cf its result. Mossv!?. Mackenzie, 'i'lohcrne and Trinden, Solicitors of London, iii:iy bo r\pi;lird to for further information if required. I have, \c., (Signed,) JosKi'H J)ouTnK, Q. V. To liOnl (Jarnnrvon, < Secretary of ."^tate for the Colonics, London. (Inclosuro - in No. L) PuoviNCR OK Canada, I To Her Moat Gracious Majesty Victoria, by the C race District (>/' Moniicuf. )of(iod, of I'm I'nifcd Kingdom of (treat Uritain and Ireland, (iuccn, J)efendcr of the Taitli. The I'ctition of the undersigned, humble .sulijceta of Your Majesty, most respectfully represents, llmt from lacts of public notoriety, in this part of the Vrnviueo of Canada, it is manifest that Ilrnest .Sureau liaTniranJe, claimed by Franco under the Kxtradition Ticaty of February, ISI!!. on a cliargo of forgery, was fraudulently removed during the night of ihe 24th-'ijth Augu - last, irom the jurisdiction of the Judges of tiio Court of Quuen'.s Bench, sitting in. Montreal, while proceedings were pending for hi.i release, in virtue of Your Majesty's writ oi' /lal'can (c.-piis ; hueh removal being resorted to in order toprevcnt the said );. S. Lamirando from obtaining the benefit of the said writ. That previcms (n Iho .-^aid H. S. !/iniiiande being thus removed from the jurisdiction of the said Court, the Hon. \t. T. I)rummoi)d,ono of the Judges thereof, before whom the proceedings for /ifj/irnn (•oy/ius wi'rc pending for his release, intimated to the (Jounsel en- gaged on Ixjliiilf of the ( !rn\vii, tlie private prosecutor, and the pri.soner, that he was of opinion thatl!u'|;e w:\^: no cause or law to authorize tlic extradition of the said Lamirandu, and ndjourneil the ease to the next morning lor the purpose of ordering the issue of the writ oi' lialtinti KirptiA and the eonsequcnt ifleaso of the prisoner. That (41 the morning of the L'oth A ugust last, the writ of /uibfa.f rurpiis was ordered to issue and issued accordingly, but that tin; return tiiereto wis that the prisoner had boou delivered over to the Agent of the French Government in the course of the previous night. That by such fraudulent removal, the said Court has been set at dctiauce, to the evil example and .'leandal ol' Your l^Iajcstys diuit''il .subjects. Wherefore, your J'etitiniicrs most re.^pectl'uily pray that Your Majesty bo pleased to use your authority for restoring tin- suid Ernc-t iSureau Lamirando to iho jurisdiction of the Court of Queen's Hencii. itti _; at Montreal, so that the said Jjauiir sdc bo there dealt with according to lav m., i a manner worthy of Your Majeaty'ss "rowu and dignity. And your I'ctitior.ei.- *i!! erpi.iy. (Signed,) C. f^. CiiERitiKi!, g. C. (and 7!i others.) Montreal; HepMaiher S^ MMi. i«<»»»M*f*4i. '" nt Quobof, I'novtNCE 01' (Janada, ', JS(J(J. '/» cifizoos (.(• 'Wiudulent nch nt iMonf. 'amirnndu to _ before ]l^.^. .'J'( 'i'lolicrnc '' required. ZIf, 'f:. g. Cf. ''y'liod'racv '''■'tain and ro.speodulJv naiida, if j^ 't'on 'I'loafy ''0 liight of of QucL-n'.s " virtue of fr toprovcnt jurisdictiou ' whom the .'ouDsel on- ' w^ opinion ^ando, and ' fhe writ ordered t„ had boon JUS night o the evil leased to iction of ''0 (here y..) DUlricf of Mnutt'ful, (Ij.S.) ) relativo 'tlio(!ityor L.S.)\ (IncIoHuro H in No. 1.) In (l»o Petition of (>. S (!hnrrior, Q.C., and othcrn, the cxtrailition of Krncst Kuruau Ijaminindo. Montreal, Ksqniro, '^ucen'a CoiuihoI, being duly nworn, •ToHeph l>outro, of (loth depOMo and any : That th(! deponent in practiHln;^' before all Her Mnje^ty'H Courts iu thii* part of Oanadu, eonHtitutinj5 heretofore the I'roviucu of Lower Canada, aa Attorney, Advocate, I'roctor, Kolii'itor and Barrister, Hincn the year 1S47^ and hnn been oommissioned aa odo of Ker Majesty 'h Cininscl. That on the evening of the Ist day of August last, the deponent's servieca wore rutaiuiMl oti behalf of Kmest Surcau liaiuirande, formerly a French subject, arrested the aanio day in purHuanoe of a warrant issued under the signature of His Kxcclioucy the Governor (Jnn- eral of Canada, on a charge qualified as followa in the said warrant : Whereas, one Krnest Surcau Lamirando, lato of I'oitiors, in tho French lOnipiru, stands accused of tho crime of forgtry, by having, in his capacity of Cashier of the Itranoh of tho liank of France at Poitiers, madn false entries in the books of tho said Dank, and thereby dofraude'i tho said Bank of tho s.im of 700,000 francs, &c. That from tho beginning of tho prooeodinj^js tending to tho extradition of the prisoner, tho dcpoDcnt anticipated that tho t:aid prisoner would be arbitrarily and illegally dealt with by the Magistrate and tho Officers prosecuting his extradition, and the deponent felt bound to take unusual precautions to protect tho prisoner ; that this oxpeotation on tho part of the dcpoDcnt was grounded on tno following facts : — Tho ordinary Judicial Ofiicer before whom these proseedinga should have taken place, having obtained a leave of absence, a temporary Magistrate of Pclicc had been appointed to till the vacancy; tho Magistrate so temporarily appointed, William H. Brebaut, Itisquire, had been already dismissed from office aa Clerk of tiie Crown for malversation, and had been rc-appointod to a public office without having ever attempted to remove the causes of his dismissal, and he owed his re-appointment to the exclusive political iuiluonco of the actual Attorney General fur Canada I'last ; the Advocate representing tho Attorney General East in the prosecution of crime on behalf of the Crown, T. K. Ramsay, Ksquire, had also been dismissed from office for insubordination towar'ls his superior officers, tho political ad- versaries of the actual Attorney General; he also had been re-appointed to a public office through the exclusive political influence of tho said Attorney General, and his zealous advocacy of the extradition of tho prisoner was such, that the private prosecution often leiib tho entire matter in his hands. Tho Deputy Clerk of tho Crown, C. l*i. Schiller, whose participation in the proceedings complained of shall hereafter be shown, had also been dis- missed from the same office for malversation, and had also been ro-appointed, without hav- ing ever attempted * > tuove .^o causes of his dismissal, and through the exclusive political influence of the snivi Attorney General. Tho private prosecutor, the Bank of France, had selected for thi ' .losel Messrs. Pominvillo and lidtournay, the partners in business of tho said Attor^.s^v < .ucrul, tho latter and his said partnera practising in Montreal, under tho name and iir««i of i artier, Pominville and fi^tournay. That titc panics eugaged in prosecuting the extradition of tho prisoner, revealed 80 manifcatlv their determination to carry away tho prisoner, that nothing short of the fair and im|i«(tial dealings of Uis Excellency tho Governor General could prevent them from aocotuWiskng their object. "nM since many years a rulo of practice has obtained in this district, in matters of habtemt corpus, requiring a notice of twenty-four hours to be given to the Attorney roprc- soortittg the Attorney General before presenting tho petition for obtaining the writ. That the arbitrary mauDcr in which tho proceedings were carried on against the pri- sooer, induced the deponent to suspect, that whenever tho prisoner would bo committed i^r extradition, this delay of twenty-four hours would be employed by the private- prosecu- tor in obtaining the warrant of extradition from his Exoellenoy tho Governor General, and and ift executing such warrant with sufficient despatch to outrun the proceedings on hahea,, corpus, and thus frustrate tho prisoner from the benefit thereof. That Oft tho 15th of August last, after the close of the investigation on tho part of the pi irate prosiecutor, and before entering on the defence of the prisoner, the deponent ad- dresK'-d to His Excellency the Governor General, in the name of the prisoner, a petition in 7 Mi. ih 50 which he exposed that none of the provisions of the Treaty, and of the Statute G and 7 Vic., cap 75, had been complied with, and that even if they had, the facts charged on the prisoner did not constitute the prime of forgery ; that notwithstanding the illegality of the detention of the prisoner, ho had reason to suspect that he would be committed, and that an attempt would be made to surprise the good faith and sense of justice of His Excellency, in order to obtain from His Excellency a warrant of extradition, before the prisoner could submit his case to a higher tribunal under a writ oi' habeas corjmn, and finally praying His Excel- lency not to give an order for the surrender of the prisoner without allowing him the necessary time to submit his case under a writ o( habeas cot'ims ; and not to leave any room to accidents, the deponent requested Charles L. Spilthorn, Esquire, to proceed to Ottawa and present the petition personally to His Excellency, and bring back an answer ; that on his return to Montreal the said C. L. Spilthorn reported to the deponent that he had received both from His Excellency the Governor General, and from the Attorney General a formal promise, that ample time would be allowed to the prisoner to apply for a writ of habeas corpus. That on the 22nd day of August last, the proceedings before the Police Magistrate were brought to a close, and a decision rendered at half-past seven in the evening, com- mitting the prisoner for extradition j that on the late hour at which the above decision of the Police Magistrate was rendered, it was impossible to give a legal notice to the Crown Prosecutor for the next night ; that on the next morning, the 23rd day of August, the deponent caused to be served on the Crown Prosecutor, a copy of the petition of the prisoner for a writ of habeas corpus, with a notice, that such petition would be presented in Chambers, to any of the Judges of the Court of Queen's Bench, then present on the following day, 24th August, twenty-four hours after such service. That at the appointed hour on the lavter day, the said petition was presented to the Honorable L. T. Drummond, one of the Judges of the said Court of Queen's Bench, in the presence of the said T. K. Ramsay, Esq., Crown Prosecutor, who argued as a preliminary point, that as the Crown was not the only party interested, the twenty-four hours' notice was insufficient, and requested longer delay to answer the petition ; that on this demand the deponent answered, that although the notice was that required by the practice of the Court, he had no objec- tion to grant even three or four days' delay for arguing the case, provided that the writ should immediately issue, and that the prisoner be, by that means, placed under the exclusive control of the Court ; the deponent adding, that although he could not substan- tiate his apprehensions, and those of the prisoner, by affidavits, he had strong suspicions that by some means or other the 'prisoner would not be dealt with fairly and according to law ; that on the mention of these apprehensions and suspicions, the Crown Prosecutor replied that it was a calumny against the institutions of the country, to suppose that the prisoner could be exposed to any unfair treatment ; that the Honorable Judge having decided that the notice was sufficient, the case was argued by deponent on behalf of the prisoner, by the said T. K. Kamsay, on behalf of the Crown, and by F. P. Pominville for the private prosecutor ; Mr. llamsay arguing the points of law, and Mr. Pominville the tacts of the case ; that the deponent, having been prevented from entering in the facts, by the said Judge, for the reason that the mind of the said Judge was, as he expressed, sufficiently made up on the points of law. Mr. Pominville was also interrupted for the same cause, the Honorable Judge clearly expressing his opinion that he thought there was no cause for the extradition of the prisoner, and adding that, as the questions raised were important, on account of their international character, he would take until the next morn- ing for preparing his judgment, and consequently adjourned the case to the next day. That on the evening of the same day, 24th August, between half-past 8 and o'clock, the deponent was called upon by parties, who informed him that they had credible information that the prisoner was to be carried away within a short time the same night ; that deponent answered, that the prisoner could not be taken away upon any authority other than that of the Governor General, who had promised to allow the prisoner the necessary time for obtaining a writ of habeas corpus, adding that if he was taken away, it must be with the forged signature of the Governor General ; that he (the deponent) had no means to protect his client against forgeries; that although disbelieving such information, the deponent immediately repaired to the residence of the said Judge, to lay it before him, which he did, by an affidavit, stating the facts; that on this information of the deponent the said Age ■Hi 61 atuto C and 7 Vic., gctl on the prisoner ty oftho detention od that an attempt xcollcncy, in order ionor could submit )rayinj» His Excel- t allowing him the i to leave any room proceed to Ottawa n answer; that on nent that ho had Attorney General 'Pply for a writ of Police Magistrate he evening, corn- above decision of tice to the Crown Y of August, the e petition of the )uld bo presented hen present on t at the appointed J. T. Drummond, f the said T. K. at as the Crown insufficient, and pon en t answered, he had no objec- led that tho writ laced under the uld not substan- itrong suspicions ind according to rown Prosecutor uppose that the ? Judge having I behalf of the . Pominville for Pominville the ig in the facts, ' he expressed, rupted for the )ught there was ons raised were the next morn- ! next day. » and 9 o'clock, ble information ; that deponent er than that of issary time for It be with the cans to protect the deponent lim, which he )nent the said Judge accompanied the deponent to the Grand Trunk Railway Station where a Train was to leave at ten minutes after ten o'clock tho same night for Quebec, with the object of commanding any person that might be engaged in taking away the prisoner, to desist from doing so, aa the prisoner was then under his jurisdiction ; that tho presence at the Railway Station of the French Detective Melin, the High Constable Bissouette, and of Sipling, a Montreal Constable, giving some substance to the information conveyed to the deponent j the Baid Judge, after stating to the High Constable that he had information under oath, of a threatened attempt to take away the prisoner, started for the gaol, where he left a written order commanding the gaoler not to deliver the prisoner on the authority of whom- soever, as he was then under the jurisdiction of the said Judge ; that the deponent, conceiv- ing that his mission as an interpreter of tho law did not impose upon him the duty of resorting to other means of defense, he left the matter in this state until the next morniug ; that on tho 25th August, the writ of habeas corpus was ordered to issue, and accordingly issued, and tho gaoler's return to it was that the prisoner had been delivered over to an Agent of the French Government during the previous night, on the warrant of the Deputy SheriflF, founded on the warrant of tho Governor General, dated the 23rd day of the same month ; that on this Return the Honorable Judge called upon the Deputy Sheriff to give an account of his conduct, in the presence of the deponent; that tho Deputy Sheriff then stated, that he had given his warrant on the demand of Mr. lietournay, one of the Attorney General's partners in business, and in official ignorance of the proceedings for habeas corpus ; that the Deputy Sheriff having received orders to produce the Governor General's warrant, it appeared that the said warrant was in the hand writing of tho above named C. E. Schiller, Deputy Clerk of the Crown, who being asked how it happened that that document was in his hand writing, answered that some time before the decision of the Police Magis- trate, he had received from the Crown Prosecutor, the said T. K. Ramsay, a draft of the said warrant, with a request to him, Schiller, to write it on parchment and have it ready for use, when need be ; that, in the presence of the said C. E. Schiller, the gaoler was asked by the said Judge when and where he had received the warrant of tho Deputy Sheriff, and he answered that he had received it during the night of the 24th August, at the residence of the Deputy Sheriff, where he had gone for some other pressing business connected with his official duties (which was true), and where he had seen, occupied with the obtaining of a warrant for taking away Lamirande, the said Mr. Bdtournay, C. E. Schiller, High Constable Bissonette, French Detective Melin, and Constable Sipling ; that the deponent desiring to exhaust all means of preventing the illegal surrender of the prisoner, called upon the Governor General at Quebec, on the 29th of August, accom- panied by C. L. Spilthorn, Esq., who had presented tho petition above referred to, of tho prisoner, at Ottawa, on the 17th August, and had obtained the promise also above referred to, from His Excellency and the Attorney General ; that in that interview His Excellency fully acknowledged that he had made that promise ; that tho deponent and tho said 0. L. Spilthorn, having written >a joint report of that interview with the Governor General, and that report being communicated to the Governor General, His Excellency, by a let- ter addressed to the deponent by his Secretary, Denis Godley, Esquire, under date of the 12th September, instant, acknowledged in the following terms the correctness of its contents: — '•' I have the honor to inform you that I have laid the paper which you enclosed to me in your letter of the 11th instant, before the Governor General, and I am to acquaint you that it is therein correctly stated His Excellency told Mr. Spilthorn that ample time would bo allowed to Lamirande to obtain a writ of habeas corpus, before the execution of the warrant for his extradition." That in this interview His Excellency explained that when he had signed tho warrant of extradition, he had done so at the request of Solicitor General Langevin, under tho express understanding that it would in no way interfere with the proceedings adopted, or to be adopted, by the prisoner fcr obtaining a writ of habeas corpus, that having been deceived in tho execution of that understanding, he felt more grieved than any one for having been instrumental in committing a grave wrong towards the prisoner, and he would do anything practicable to redress that wrong ; that it was then and there understood that His Excellency would telegraph through the cable to tho Hon- orable tho Secretary of State for the Colonies to support in the measure of his powers the proceedings which would be adopted by the Counsellors to whom the deponent was to ^i ' I I' I M It [^ 1 »" li! W. 1 .1. hih P|: i 58 telegraph for obtainiag a writ oihabma corpus in England, and for that object His Excel- lency requested the deponent to coinmunicato to him the names of the Counsellors the deponent intended to employ in London ; that the deponent haviug returned to Montreal on the night of the 29th August, ho telegraphed on the 30th to His Excellency that he would entrust Messrs. Mackenzie, Trohorno, and Triadcn, Solicitors, of London, with the duty of applying for a writ of habeas corpus ; and the satr.e day the deponent telegraphed through the Atlantic Cable to thnt legal firm in the following terms : — " See Lord Carnar- von. E. S. Lamirando, kidnapped by E. Justin Melin and Joseph Sipling, on Steam Ship Damascus, S. Watts, captain, duo Londonderry, 8rd September. JJae habeas corpus." That from the conTorsntions of the deponent with Uis Excellency, the deponent was led to bolioTO thnt the promised telegram of His Excellency would make up for the insuffi- ciency of information convoyed by the telegram of the deponent, which impression was confirmed by a letter of the Secretary of tho Qovernor General, addressed to the deponent under date the 10th September last, in following terms : — " In reply to your request that the telegram of tho G ovcrnor General to tho Secretary of State for the (volonies should bo oommunioated to you, I am to acquaint you that His Excellency in his message to Lord Carnarvon, expressed his desire that his warrant for Lamirando's extradition should not bo any obstacle to the prisoner's obtaining a writ of habeas corpus in England, as His Excellency understood that an application fur that purpose would be made in the English Courts.'^ That on the 25th August lust, judgment was rendered, ordering the issuing of the Mtrit o{ habeas corpus ; that in return thereto the gaoler stated, that during the night of the 24th and 25th August, he had delivered over the prisoner to E. J. Melin, agent of the French Government, on the warrant of the Deputy SheriflP, founded on the warrant of the Governor General, that on this return the Judge seeiug that an order for the discharge of tho prisoner would bo of no avail, adjourned to another day the receding of his judg- ment, wh'ch was afterwards recorded in tho tjruis of the accompanying record. And further deponent saith not, and hath signed. (Signed,) Joseph Doutbe. Sworn and aeknowledgcd before me, at Montreal, the 4th October, 18GG. (Signed,) Ciiaules Mondelet, Jun. Charles ]j. Spilthorn, of the City of Now York, Attorney and CounscHcr-at-Law, being duly sworn, doth depose and say, that having taken communication of the foregoing affi- davit; ho may and do declare that all and every the facts therein contained arc personally known to him, and are true, and hath signed. (Signed,) C. L. Spilthorn. Sworn and aoknowlcdgod before me, this 4th day of October, 1866. (Signed,) Chaeles Mondelet, Jun. (Inclosure 4 in No. 1.) Pbovinoe op Canada,) District of Montreal, ) (//.A'.) In the matter of Ernest Sureau Lamirande. Charles L. Spilthorn, of tho City of New York, Attorney and Counsollor-at-Law, being duly sworn on tho Holy I'vangolists, doth depose and say as follows: — I have assisted at the examination and trial of the said Lamirande, at Montreal, before the Police Magistrate ])r6haut, and am well acquainted with the case. On the 15th of August, 1866, 1 was solioitod by Joseph Doutre, Esquire, Counsel for Lamirande, to go to Ottawa, in order to present personally to Ilis Excellency the Governor General, a petition which Mr. Doutre had hastily prepared in tho name and in the interest of Lamirando; in that petition it was exposed to His Excellency that there was no ground to extradite Lamirando ; that none of tho formalities provided by law had been fulfilled, and that oven if thoy wore, there was not in tho whole matter the shadow of the crime for which his extradition was demanded ; that, notwithstanding all thie, there was reason to suspect that some attempt would be made to surprise the good faith and sense of justice of His Exoelloney, in order to obtain from him a warrant of extradition, without giving timo to the prisoner to apply to tho regular tribunals of tho country, and submit his case for examination ; the petition concluded by praying His Excellency not to warrant tho surren- 58 'bjeot His Excel- CouDsellora the rned to Montreal oellency that he .ondon, with the pent telegraphed ice Lord Carnar- >'ing, on Steam ^ habeas corpxis." eponent was led p for the insuffi. impression was to the deponent our request that Colonies should snessagc to Lord tion should not ingland, as His in the English issuing of the g the night of Melin, agent of the warrant of >r the discharge g of his judg. pord. DOUTRE. m. ••at-Law, being foregoing affi- arc personally [LTHOUN. ET, JuD. ande. 3ollQr-at-Law, at Montreal, »sc. On the r Lamirande, >r General, a 3 interest of IS no ground con fulfilled, ho crime i\,r as reason to of justice of giving time his case for t the surren- der of the prisoner in haste, and to give him time to have his case carefully considered by the legal authority. Having been one of the Counsel of Lamirande in New fork, and seeing that the ground of his extradition was a manifest false pretence, I could not decline to act as Mr. Doutre requested me to do, and I started the evening of the same day for Ottawa. After reaching this place, I presented, on the 16th of August, the petition of Lamirande to the Governor General, through Denis Godley, Esq., Private Secretary of His Excellency; on the same day, in the afternoon, Mr. Godley informed me that the petition had been referred to the Honorable the Attorney General Gartier. On the 17th I was received by His Excellency, who told me spontaneously that he knew the object of my visit, that ho had seen and read the petition of Lamirande, and that there was no occasion to entertain any fear, that nothing would be dono hurriedly nor without the fullest consideration ; that Lamirande would be allowed all the time required I'or applying by habeas coipus, or other legal means to all competent Courts of Her Majesty ; then a general conversation followed about the facts of the case. I explained to His Excellency the case of Windsor, decided in London, in the spring of 1865, when the same question was decided by the highest and most distinguished Judges of England, by which decision it was established that, admitting all the facts alleged in the caso of Lamirande, there was no ground for extradition. I mentioned, that when this case had been cited before the Police Magistrate, the Crown Prosecutor had laughed at the decision of those English Judge?, as being no authority. His Excellency expressed the high respect he entertained for the opinion of tho Judges of the Court of Queen's Bench, which besides being the highest Court, was presided over by the most eminent and learned Judges of England. After repeating tho assurance that the prisoner would bo allowed the most ample time and opportunity of having his caso fully examined by all competent (jourts, not excluding the Courts of England, as I had alluded to the possibility of rcsort- ': them. His Excellency advised me to see the Honorable Attorney General Mr. !^ , and ordered one of his officers to introduce me to him. After some conversation f ohe ease and other matters, .Mr. Gartier told me that there would and could be no precipitation in tho decision of tho Governor ; that all the papers must be submitted to the Executive and personally to the Governor, after the commitment, if there were any ; that these proceedings would necessarily take several days, and that His Excellency would not decide except after mature deliberation and according to his own judgment. Ho added that he did not see any occasion for hurrying the matter ; that we should have all the time required for habeas corpus, and finally, that I might have the fullest confidence in the word of the Governor General, whose promise I had communicated to him. We then parted in the most friendly way. On the 22nd of August, the argument being closed before the Police Magistrate at G o'clock, P. M., ho rendered his judgment at half-past 11, notwithstanding the prayer of Mr. Doutrc to postpone it to the following day for better consideration. His Excellency was then passing through Montreal from Ottawa to Quebec, and it was rumoured that ho would stop an hour at Montreal. Everything was so much hurried up that this circum- stance looked very suspicious to the prisoner, as he communicated to his Counsel. As soon as possible an application was made for a writ of habeas corpus. I was present in Chambers, Court of Queen's Bench, on the 24th of August, when ^Ir. Ramsay, the Crown prosecutor, complained ot the short notice of tv/cnty-ibur hours he had received of the petition for habeas corpus. Although the Judge decided tha't tho notice was suflScient, Mr. Doutre offered to allow two or three days to answer it, provided the writ should issue ininiedintely so as to place the prisoner more expressly under tho ex- clusive control of the Honorable Judge and Court. Mr. llamsay having declined to ac- cept that offer, Mr. Doutrc, after 8onie argument of the case, .stated that ho felt bound to make himself the echo of his client's mind, and to express the deep apprehension of foul play under which ho laboured. Mr. Ramsay protested against such insinuations and, as ho said, calumniations of the institutions of the country, tho Governor General being the only persou under whose warrant tho prisoner could be extradited, and he was fully pro- tected against any illegal processes. His Honor the Judge said that the question being of high importance, and the prisoner being from this moment under the control of ,.rr w p 54 ■f: i •'!! -Ill k ;- * :^ the Court, he would take to the L^ext day to mature his judgment. The Counsel for the French Government was also present and heard on their behalf. On the same night, 24th of August, at about half past 8, 1 was at Mr. Doutro's house, when he told me that persons who wished not to be seen had at that moment assured him that Lamirande was to be spirited away that night. We could not believe it ; notwith- standing Mr. Doutre went to the Louse of the Judge to consult him, and I went to the Ucnaventurc Station, where all trains leave. At about half-past Mr. Doutre, in company of the Judge, Mr. Drummond, before whom the application for habeas corpus was made, came there also. Then the Judge meeting High Constable Bissonnf^tte, told him that an uiHdavit had been made before him to the effect that some attempt was to bs made dur- ing night to remove the priboner Lamirande i'roni his jurisdiction. i>ir. Bissonucttc answered that he know nothing thereof, and had received no order to that effect. Mr. Justice Drummond then told Mr. Bissonne, to that he gave hii.' notice thereof, aid that if any such thing should happen he would hold him responsible. Immediately after this Mr. Bissonnetteaud the French detective Mclin, who was iu Bissonnette'sc ompany,]diE- appeareJ, when Judge Drummond said that having suiBcicnt evidence that there was some- thing on foot, ho would go to the gaol. A few minutes after, the Quebec train being iu motion, Mr. Doutre advised me to go down to Quebec, and do as circumstances would require. I did so ; but the train stopped at Point St. Charles and wo were all detained there until 1 o'clock A. M. During that interval I walked up and down, and saw that the train was divided in tw ) parts, some three or four cars having been leftsome distance behind. About one or two minutes before the final de|iarture of the train the two parts were coupled together. Having more than suspicions about what was going on, I t<^ed to look into tlios' ears. One of them was a baggage car, having a kind of balcony passage. Seeing light in that car, I went in the passage and saw Lamir- ande through the window. The door was locked. Around Lamirande I saw High Con- stable Bissonnette, the French detective j\[elin, and one or two others I did not know. I called Lamirande by his name, and he made a move towards me but was immediately brought down by force, and the light inside was blown out. I did not see him any more before reaching Point Levi, near Quebec, on the morning of the 25th of August. On the way down I prepared two telegrams, one addressed to the Governor General, the other to Lawyers of Quebec. I applied to five stations to have my telegrams sent to their desti- nation. In two of them I found no operator ; iu two others I was told that they were not in working order ; and iu the last objection was made to my telegrams because they were written in pencil. We arrived at Point Levi about 10 o'clock. I met Lamirande at the ferryboat. I asked his guardians under what authority they were conve,V'ng him. They aiiswered at fir.st thaf they had noaecount to give, but at last they said that they had thoGo- vernor's warrant. I reminded Bissonnette of what had been told him by Mr. Justice Drum- mond in my presence. He answered that vihen he had the Governor's warrant he laughed Judges' orders. Bissonnette's assistants were saying the same ; this all amidst threats of violence and arrest against me if I said any thing more. All the while the ferry boat was directed towards the Steamer Damascus, laying at tho Quebec wharf, and waiting for the ferry under steam. Lamirande was immediately transferred on the steamer which left a few minutes afterwards. My mission was t!;en at an end. I could not do anything more for Lamirandp, and I returned. When I came back to Montreal the Judge had given his dcei.sion, allowed the writ of habeas corj^ns and pronounced his opinion for dis* charging the'prisoner. The other facts connected with this affair being related in an affidavit of Joseph Doutre, Esquire, are omitted in the present deposition to avoid repetition. And further deponent says not, and his depo.^ition being reud to him, he declares it contains the truth, and has signed. (Sigued,) C. S. SPir^TiiottN. Sworn and acknowledged before me at idontrcal, this Ith day. of October, 18G6. (Signed,) CiiARr.KS Mondelet, Jun. 55 Counsel for the |r- Doutro's house, pent assured him [love it ; notwith- PJ I went to the tutre, in company tcorpiis was made, yo, told him that to ba made dur- kceivcd no order jotico thereof, aid Immediately after to'sc ompany,;diE. there was some - »dv!sed me to go ho train stopped ^J- During that >ai'tfl, some throe s before the final suspicions about ?age car, having and saw Lamir- saw High Con- iJ not know. I Tas immediately 3 him any more "fjuat. On the ra', the other (o to their dpsti. that they were 19 because they 'oiirandc at the 'S Iiim. They ley had the Go- Justice Drum- in t he laughed idst threats of ;hc ferry boat d waiting for teamer which ' do anything e Judge had inion for dis« it of Joseph And further IS the truth, riionN. , 1866. in. (Inclosuro 5 in No. 1.) Province op Canada, | In Chambers. — Tuesday, August 28, 1SG6. District of Montreal, ) (L.S.) l?«fore the Honorable Mr. Justice Drummond. In the mutter ol" Ernest 8 uroau Larairande, for writ oi' habeas corpus. The Ilonorablo Mr. Justice Drummond pronounced the ibllowing judgment: — On the 26th July last, a document under the signature of His Excellency the gov- ernor General, purportii-g to be a warrant foi' the extradition of the petitioner, issued umJcr the authority vested in His Execlleur^ \>y the provisions of the Statute passed by the Legislature of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, in the sixth and seventh years of Her Majesty's Reign, intituled, " An Act to give effect to a Convention between Her Majesty and the King of the French, for the apprehension of certain offenders," setting forth that the said petitioner stood accused of the crime of " forgery," for having in his capacity of Cashier of the Branch of the Bank of France, at Poitiers, made falne entries in the books of the said Bank, and thereby defrauded the said Bank of the sum of seven hundred thousand francs j" that a requisition had been made to His Excellency by the Consul General of France in the Provinces of British North America, to issue his warrant for the apprehension of the said petitioner, and requiring all Justices of ^he Peace and other Magistrates and Officers of justice within their several jurisdictions to aid in appre- hending the petitioner and committing him to gaol. Under this document the prisoner was arrested, and after examination before William H. Br^haut, E.sq., Police Magistrate and Justice of the Peace, was fully committed to the common gaol of this district on the 22nd day of the current month of August. On the following day, between the hours of 11 and 12 o'clock in the forenoon, notice was given in due form by the prisoner's Counsel to the Counsel charged with the criminal prosecutions in this district, that he (the said Counsel for the prisoner) would present a petition to any one of the Judges of the Court of Queen's Bench, who might bo present in Chambers at 1 o'clock in the afteruoon of the following day (the 24th), praying for a writ of habeas corpus and the discharge of the prisoner. At the time appointed this petition was submitted to me. Mr. J. Doutre appeared for the petitioner, Mr. T. K. llamsay for the Crown, and Mr. Pominville for the private prosecutor. A preliminary objection, raised on the ground of insufficient notice, was overruled. Mr. Doutre then set forth his client's case in a manner so lucid that I .< oon convinced myself, after perusing the statute cited in the warrant of extradition, that the warrant itself, the pretended warrant of arrest alleged to have been issued in France, {arret de renvoi), and all the proceedings taken with a view to obtain the extradition of the petitioner, were unauthorized by the above cited Statute, illegal, null and void, and that the petitioner was therefore entitled to his discharge from imprisonment But as Mr. Pominville, whom I supposed to be acting as Counsel for the Bank of France, wished to be hoard, I adjourned the discussion of the case until the following morning. I would have issued the writ before adjourning had the Counsel for the prisoner insifited upon it ; but that gentleman was, no doubt, lulled into a sense of false security by the indignation displayed by the Counsel for the Crown, when Mr. Doutre signified to me his .pprehension that a, coujide ma in was in contemplation to carry off the petitioner before •his case had been decided. On the following morning, Saturday the 25th of this month, I ordered the issuifig of a writ of habeas corpus to bring the petitioner before me with a view to his immediate discharge. My decision to discharge him was founded upon the reasons following : — 1. Provided by the 1st section of the Act of the British Parliament, to give effect to a convention between Her Majesty and the King of the French for the apprehension of certain offenders, (6 and 7 Vic, cap. 75,) that every requisition to deliver up to Justice any fugitive accused of any of tlie crimes enumerated in the said Act, shall be made by an Ambassador of the Government of France, or by an accredited Diplomatic Agent, whereas the requisitioci made to deliver up the petitioner to justice, has been made by Abel Frederic Gauthier, Consul General of France in the ProviQces of British North America, iil ! I '1 1 1 ii It i-.i I .1 66 wbo is neither an Ambassador of the Government of Franco, nor an accredited Diplomatic Agent of that Government, according to his own avowal upon oath. 2. Because by the -"rd section of the said Statute it is provided that no Justice of the Peace or any other person shall issue his warrant for any such supposed offender, until it shall have been proved to him upon oath or affidavit, that the person applying for such warrant is the bearer of a warrant of arrest, or other equivalent judicial document, issued by a Judge or competent Magistrate in Franco, authenticated in such manner as would justify the arrest of the supposed offender in France upon the same charge, or unless it shall appear to him that the act charged against the supposed offender, is clearly sot forth in such warrant of arrest or other judicial document; whereas, the Justice of the Peace who issued I'.is wa:rant against the petitioner, issued the same without having any such proof before hir ' o only document produced before him, as well as before me, in lieu of such warrant ci est or equivalent judicial dooumout, being a pnpcr-writing, alleged to bo a transktio' -lu English of a French document, made by some unknown or unauthorized person, in the office of Counsel for the prosecutor at New York, and bearing no authen- ticity whatever. 3. Because, supposing the said document, purporting to be a translation of an ucte d'accusation or indictment, accompanied by a pretended warrant for arrest, and designated us an arret de renvoi to be authentic, it does not contain the designation of any crime comprised in the number of the various crimes, for or by reason of tho alleged commission of which any fugitive can be extradited under the said Statute. 4. Because, by tho 1st section of the said Act, it is provided that no Justice of the Peace shall commit any person accused of any of tho crimes mentioned, in tho said Act (to wit : murder, attempt to commit murder, forgery, and fraudulent bankruptcy,) unless upon such evidence aa according to the laws of that part of Her Majesty's Dominions in >Thich tho supposed offender shall be found, would justify the apprehension and committal for trial of the person so accused, if the crime of which he shall be accused hod been Lherc committed. Whereas, the evidence produced against the petitioner, upon the accusation of forgery brought against him before the committing Magistrate, would not have justified him in apprehending or committing the petitioner for the crime of forgery, had the acts charged against him been committed in that part of Ilcr Majesty's Dominions whero the petitioner was found, to wit : in Lower Canada. 5. liecause, the said warrant for the extradition of the prisoner, as well as the war- rant for hi.'s appichcnsion, does not charge him with tho commission of any one of the crimes for which a warrant of extradition can be issued under this Statute, inasmuch, as in both of the suid warrants the alleged offence is charged agaiD< the petitioner oil as the war- any ono of the , inasmuch, as petitioner as of France at the said bank crime of for- ords of Judge D and Judge Bench, AJay, 'ioh it ia not; not the niak- 3ontaina false writing." Jred over the the night of )orn. Deputy ' General. ■0, Ih now on was acoused as I am ore- raa bound in Jided by the It is evident that His Escellenoyhui been taken by surprise, for the document signed by him is a false record, purporting to I'.acing buoa signed on the 23rd instant, at Oitiura, while his Excellency was at Quebec, aud luisoly certified to have been recorded at OUawa, beforo it had been signed by tho Governor U^eneral. In so far as tho petitioner is coacoiofi'i, 1 have no further order to make, for ho whom I was called upon to bring before mo h -idw probably on the high seas, swept uway by one the most audacious and hitherto successful attempts to frustrate tho ends of justice which has yet been heard of in Canada. Tho only action I can take, in so far as ho is concerned, is to order a Copy of this Judgment to bo transmitted by the Cleric of the Crown to the Governor General, for tlio adoption of such measures as His Excciljuey may be advised to take to maintain that re- spect which is due to tho Courts of iJanuJa, and to the laws of England. As to the public olEcers who havo boon coaueoted with this matter, if any proceed- ings are to bo adopted against them, they will bo informed thereof on Monday, tlio 24th day of September next, in the Court of Qaccn's Lunch, holding criminal juridiotion, to which day I adjourn this cacc for further eon^^ldoratiou. Wc, tho Honorable Louis Antoino boisHaulL'S and William Ermatingcr. Esquire, Clerk of the Crov.-n for the D'sttict of Moi'trofii, do hereby certify, that the foregoing is a Copy of the Judgment rendered by tho Honorable Lewis Thomas Drummond, ono of the Justices of tho Court of Queen's Dench for Lower Canada, at Montreal, on the 28th day of August, 18G(J, upon tho petition of the s^iid Ernest bureau Lamirande for a writ oi habeas cnrpun. (Signed,) DsssAULLEs and Ermatinoer, Clerk of the Crown, District of Montreal. Crown Office, Muutreal, October -Ith, 18'J(3. No. 2. — Cop)/ of a Despatch from Viscount Munch to the Right Honorable th« Earl of Carnarvon. (No. 1G4.— llcceived November 1, ISOG.^ . Quebec, October 18, 186G. My Lord. — i have the honor to aekno'.Tlcdge the receipt of your Lordship's Despatch, No. 61, of September 22, transmitting a copy of a Despatch from Her Majesty's Ambas- sador at Paris to the Sccertary of Stato for Foreign Affairs, accompanied by a letter from a French subject named Lamirande, complaining of his having been given up to the French Government under tho l<]xtraditiou Trcj'ty, and more especially of the manner in which ho was removed from Canada, wbilj his case was still under consideration of a Judge of the Court of Queen's Bench. I have also the honor to iieknowloilj.^0 tlie reeeipt of your Despatch, No. 67, of September 27, in which ^^ou inform me that Her l^Lijesty's Ambassador had been in- structed to request a delay in the legal proceedings aj^ainst Lamirande until authentic information about his case had been rect vcdfrom Canada. I had hoped to been able, in conformity with your Lordship's instructions, to have sent my report of this case by last week's mail ; but owing to the fact that the ship which brought your first Despatch was delayed much beyond the usual time of arrival, I found it impossible to get all the information ready in time. I have now the honor to transmit the ;5evcral dou.\ments connected with the extra- dition of Lamirande y"^ aud also beg leave to refer Your Lordship to my Despatch on this subject, No. 155, of the 6th instant, and the papers, inclosed in it. This case seems to divide itself naturally into three heads : — 1st. Tho legal grounds which exist lor the extradition of tho prisoner. 2nd. The manner of his extradition. 3rd. The conduct of the different pcr.sous connected with tho Government who took any part in the proceedings. I shall endeavor to cxpre.«a to your Jjordship my views on tho subject in this order. The first and most important quoati.n to bo resolved is, whether this prisoner has •The Attorney General for Lower Canada to Lord Monck, Octobar 17. 1S66 ; T. K. Eamsay Eiq.i to the Hon. Attorney General for Lower Canada ; Depoiitioni, AS I-': I ??• M ' i- -> ! ! 1 committed any act for which his sun'eudcr could bo demanded under the Exttaditfon Treaty with Frauco. The crime alleged ngninst him is that of "forgery," by having in the cnphcity of Cashier of the Branch of tha Bank of Franco at Poitiers, made false entries in the books of the Bank, and thereby defrauded the said Bank of the sum of 700,000 francs. In the French version of the Trer.ty the word used in treating of crimes of this description is fovx, which, in the English version, — I presume for want of an equivalent English word, — is rendered by the word " forgery." Now, I believe it is true that, according to the English law, th« falsification of entries in a banker's book does not constitute the crime of " forgery." But it is equally true that, under this Trcnty, prisoners may bo surrendered to th« French authorities for nets which .!.•> not coguijiftblo by tho eriCAinal law of England. It is only necessary to state, in order to prove this, that " fraudulent bankruptcy" ia one of the acts for which a prisoner may he fiurrendcrcd, and that this act is notoriously not punishable criminally in England. In order, thevcl'oro, to asccrtsun whcthor this prisoner has committed an offence for which hi might be legally surrendered under the Treaty, it is necessary to discor.r what meaning the Frc'ioh criiuioai law attaches to tho '..ord faux On referring to . — "Ii->s Codes Fran^ais collationnfis suv Ir'n Testes Offieiels, par Louis'Tripior, Seieit^mo udition, Paris, 1S65 ; Code P6nal, livro iii, chapitie 3 ; Crimes ct D<5lits centre la Piix Publique, section promifiio uu Faiir.." I find that the word faitx includes a great variety of acts which, I presume, would n(;t bo " forgery " under British Jaw. Section 3 of this chapter is licaded " Dcs faux en dcriturc publiquo ou authcntique, et dc Commerce ou do Banque." Article 3 of this section, page SoS, roads as follows: — " Scront punics dc travaux forc^is k temps loutes autres persouoes qui auront coumi.'i un faux en ^criture authcntique et publique ou en ^'crituro de commerce ou de banque, " Soit par contrefagon or alteration d'ccritures ou do signatures. " Soit par fabrication do conventions, dispositions, obligations ou d<5eharges, ou |-ar luur iutj^rtion apris coup dans Ics actcs." From this, I think, it is apparent that the act for which the extradition of the prisoner was demanded is a crime by the laws of France, and ia included under the general designa- tion faux, used in the French version of the Treaty. Theso considerations appear to me to dispose of the question as to whether the pri- soner has committed any act for which his extradition could bo demanded under tha Treaty, with France. The next point of dispute in the case is ar. to tho authority of the French ofBoial who made tho demand for the surrender of tho prisoner, namely tho Consul General of France in British North America. I confess that when tho subject camo before me for my decision, my, own opinion concurred with that of tho Ijaw Officers of the Crown in Canida, that the Consul General who resided amongst us as the rocogniced Agent of the French Foreign Office, was clothed with sufficient powers to put tho Treaty and Statute in operation. The only ot. cr question, as it i'.ppears to mo, connected with this branch of the case, refers to the legal docmuents which the Statute requires to bo given in evidence before the Magistrate on the preliminary investigation. Tho objection to tho extradition of the prisoner in this respect, seems to rest principally on the non-production of a legal document from the French Court, colled an " arrit dc renvoi." In order to explain the bearing of this objection, it is necessary to state that this prisoner originally esicaped from Franco to New York, whore an application was made for his extradition under the provisions of the Treaty between France and tho United States of America. On the investigation of this application before the Magistrate at Now York, Lamirande wan represented by .Mr. Spilthorn, who was also one of his counsel at Montreal. The arrU tre Ja P^ix unie, would ithcQti(jije, bnt commis l>anqnc, ges. ou I ar le prisoner ftl desigoa- •r the pri- under the fioial who 'f France decision, > that (he I Foreign )n. the case, e before Dcipallj 'rrit ffc ■ lat this lado for States lirande t NeW ert, ao adv^pate residing ut New York, that the document wan abstracted by Sir. ijpiltborn, and that the pjroBcoutors have never since been ablo to recover possession of it. L^mirando eiTepted his escape from jail at Now York bei'oro judgmoDt was (;ivcu there pn the applicatio!! for his extradition, came to Canada, and the u'pplioatiou for his ostradi- tiou was made here. On the proof of the facts which I have above dotalloJ, to uicount lor the absence of the " arret de renvoi" at the trial at Montreal, the luuf^Lstrate adniittod secondary cvidcnco of its contents to be given. I vruf) advised that it was conj^pctcut for him to da ho, and I. think Your Lordsliip will pc^eo with piu that, os^uminr; that this advice was sound in liiw, the ease was not muo iti ,}^iph I yfaa.callod on to depart from the strict letter of the hi.v in favor of the prisoner. I think I hav« now given Your Lordship the impression produced on my mind by the coD^ideir&tion of all the points raised as to the grounds whiidi existed for the surrender of LafDimide. You iiirill find t,l^em dealt with elaborately and in a more technical form in the accom- panying reports from tha Attorney General and Mr, Ramsay, tlio counsel who roprcNcnted the ^ttoKuey General in the investigatiou at Montreal. I. now some to the oonsidcratioQ of the manner iu which this priHoner wom taken uut of the jurisdiotion of the Canadian Courtn. By the 6th and 7th Vic., chap. 75 (the Statute passed for giving efloct to the Extra- dition Treaty with Franco), the publio functionaries nam2d iu the Act, amongst them, iu, Colonics, the Governor, are required, on being uotifiod tl'at a pcrao'i who is accused ol' having committed within French Territory any of tlic crimci? enumerated in the statute, to iesue thoir warrant for his apprehension. X\x\6 was done by me in tho case of Lumirando. The next Rtep required bj" the Statute is the examination of the charge on outh before a Justice of tho Peace. This proceeding also took place, and on tlic 22iid August tlio prisoner wan duly com- mitted by tho Justice " to jail, there to remain until delivered, pursuant to such requisition." In the meantiuie, and while the invcHtigatio-. bci'oi the Jastico of the J^oace was pjo^ecding, I think about the 16th or 17ih oi' 'August, a petition wan pioscnted to me, stating, tliat apprehensions were entertained that this prisoner would be carried out of the juriisdictioa of the Canadian Courts, without having time allowed him to make an applica- tion for a writ of habeas roi'jnis. On that occasiai I saw Mr. Spilthoro, one of the Coun- sel for the prisoner, and I told him that time for making such au application should bo allowed. On the 22nd August I left Ottawa for Quebec, arriving there on the morning of the 23rd. Lato in tho forenoon of the 24th, Mr. Langovin, Sdicitor (leneral for Lower Canada, called upon mo with tho warrant of extradition (bearing dato the J.Srd, oa which day it was sealed at Ottawa, where tho officer who has charge of my seal resides), aud gave me his opinion in writing that, in point of law, tho case came within tho provisions of tho Extradition Treaty, and that tho warrant should issue. Seeing that the case involved no question of public policy, and was one the decision of which rested on legal points, I determined to act on the opinion of the Solicitor General. I then looked at th« date of tho committal (the 22nd), and us two days appeared to have elapsed since the prisoner had been committed to jail, it seemed to mo that ample time had been allowed to enable him to obtain a writ of habeas corjnis. I then asked the Solicitor G enoral whether, supposing a writ of habi:as corpus had been sued out, the signing of the Warrant of Extradition would prevent tho prisoner from obtaining tho benefit of it. To this Mr. Langevia replied that it would not. Having satisfied mysejf on these points, I signed the warrant of extradition, which I am informed was sent to Montreal by the ordinary train from Quebec, and arrived there Jato. in the eiT«oing of the same day. It ia.ji«iiir<]ely necessary for mo to add that when I signed the warrant of extradition I .woa QQt.ftitare^ And I am assured by him that neither was the Solioitor. General, that any application had been made for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of the prisoner. i I I Ml 4i Ik I' .)• : GO Tlic?o oro the facts m far as thoy oamo wif-hin my owu knowlcJgo j and it appears to nic warrant of extradition with so much hnsto that sufficient time was not allowed to the tirlsc-ncr to obtain the writ ot lnO Court, and if tradition could lu) justified in <"y«*, and in ent out of tho "ison, and for- it is scaroeJj 'i, instead of, atircly extra- ' disobojinpf, »nd authonti- f't-h so much (i^'raa corput, the miaoar- luct of those vcr Canada ; roprcsentcd ity ClorJc of ! every step c 'liscusscd the Crown, prised into lier nb/o or 10 opinion ,'al rights, latter was investign. lot think tradition ido more ;s in the g on the Uj, that the writ i by tho I have not honrd any insinuation against the conduct of Mr. Dr/'haut in the matter, nor do I believe it ia impugned. Mr. Ilamsay's connection with tho ease h detailed ut length in his own report, and I ciiunot Bco that he has laid himself opou to any charge. \our Lordship will ob.serTo that ho explains tho statement in Mr. .lustico Drunmiond'N (ibscrvaticns, by flcying that his indignation wan excited, nnd expressed at tho iipplication by Mr. Dotttro of the t; rm " kidnapping" to tho regular ox«cation (iravulidlegiil warrant, :uul that he pi .ntcdiy told both tho Judge aud tho Counsel for tho prisoner, that the (iovcrror's "Warrant of Extradition wa'^ tho only means ]iy which Lamirando could be removed. I do not understand that tho conduct of Mr. Schiller, (iie Deputy Clerk of the Ciown, has been impugned. I have thus endeavoured to lay before Vour Jionlfihip, with ms iniirh cloanicss and conciseness as I can command, an account of tho facts of this cuiic. I have to express my regret that any prisoner shculil apjicar to biivc liocn removed IVom tho Province, tho uffairB of which I have tho hoiinr to admiuinttr, withcjut having secured the benefit of every privilege which our law could ulford liim. I must, however, call Your Lordship's attention (n IIk^ l.ict, that uo oiu' step has been taken in thiS case which, assuming the legal ground for oxtrmlitiiia to exist, is not in strict conformity with the law. Before Your Lordship shall decide on the merits of tho share which I have liad per- sonally in this transaction, I desire to bring bcforr your notice somo general considerations affecting tho duties which my position casts upon mc i'l reference to such cnacs. T assume that Extradition Treaties arc b:i«ed on the principle that all men have a common interest in the suppression of tho criiiiL's wbieh arc; made the subjcct.s of tlicso international contract".. This being assumed, i* follows, in my opinion, llic.t persons aceunnl cif crimes under Treaties of P]xtradition arc entitled to no favor or iiululgciicc at the hands of pulilic officers entrusted with tho execution of tho law. They arc entitled to every right which tlie pvuvisiii;is ol'oiirluw, stritlly adminisiernd, allows them, but to nothing more. Some atress has been laid on what is called my " promi.'-'i" tu the prisoner's Counsel, when he saw mo at Ottawa, that time should be allowctl him for irmking his application for a writ of liabeaa corpus. The " promise" alluded to consisted merely of a declaration tliut time was always allowed for such a purpose, and that his case woald not bo treated diil'i^roatly from that of .)thcr prisoners io similar circumstances. Had I made tlie prisoner's Counsel a promise that any unusual favor should bo shown to him, or that tho ordinary routine should in his oai-'o be changed, I .should, according to my ideas, have violated my public duty. I also wish to call Your Lordship'.s attention to the nature of tho writ oi' habeas rorpus, aud the mode in which that writ is brought to bear on the oxeciitiou of the lawt:. Tho ij-sue of the writ of 7ia/""as ror^)i/.! is not a sitep in the ordinary routine of the administration of justice. The right lo obtain this writ is an extraordinary power, conferred by Statute on a prisoner, by means of which he can arrest the ivnal course of tho administration of tho law, and test the validity of tho proceedings adopted against him. But until tho writ is issued, and the ordinary course of the law thereby suspended, ihe machine of legal administiation continues to mr,ve on, and if a prisoner noLlccts to avail himself with proper diligence of the privileges which the Statute confers upon him, he has no right to complain if his interests suffer. I have endeavoured to show that in this case sufhcient time wa.s allowed by me to this prisoner to assert his legal rights. If I had allc i him more than this, T think I should not have performed my duty, and the prisoner having neglected to take advantage of the opportunity afforded him, cannot, I think, reasonably charge mo with blame for tho results of tho supineness of himself or his counsel. If those results were produced by tho improper conduct of any persons representing i' % 'J''> 'fis Kj (IncJosiire I /„ iV„. g) 'Jrccllpiu'v dm »; i . rr ' ' '^ yflWHU. ifij 08 [y. '•'••'*;»()u«iLi„ (•„- .1, l!"'K, witli Mr I, •Si, Al «»M'(v. '■"'"• ''''•'U'r„|„( ■ •' I^Py../ all „,„■ c , r •"■""" "'"'^^ '" ^' "-> ••"Hi Unvr '. ''''iio.forO'cmnl ''Oil firi.,!i( . ''- '■•.•;■•'' ;-OM-h-„„ £■■ ■'!^"v-»y. ((,0 'f "<-•'-• or ,vi,;,.|, '■»'■«<•'>•, aooord. '';'"'J'""i,' to tC ■''. '.''<» Iau,y of I"f'ioii, lo,,,!,.,. "; ^'"'f or its ''V f/if „pxf ^••'•'^0 StricJly ^' "'t' illitittjy '"lOliJ it ,^y^ "■^ cvidouco, St tlio G'ov- i tlift case ; ^"ich took ''^nei", late Friday ni^ht i'ullowinj?, uiuplo time and upportunity wore aiiordcd to obtain the |rit of luihfitu corpus. Thus tho prisoner v/as IJy no luoiins dcprivcil ol" the priviloKcs Ituolied to tlic obtaining of tliat writ. Tlio prcctcdinj^s in matters of /ki/m/h cotjuik imuhI |p promp* and sumuiRry. By tho tth aeotion of ehnptor 1*5 of tho Consolidated Stututos It' Lower ('anrida (:Mtli Geo. [II., cap. l,i'i:i.', '.i),t\i whom tliu request for iti is^U'j in niado ; Ind the .In l^'o is, witbin forty-cijjht houi.-t (Iwo days), after the party is brouglic beforo |iim. bound to '.^ivc bi.-i decision whctlier tho i.ri.s'mcr has to be discharucd or not. The jiriHoiier had thus iiiuro time to ciaini npd proearo tho iHsoio of tho writ than i^ ^ivon by jaw to tiic .)ud;.'C to deeido on tho inoritM of tiio case. JksI1 actin;; iMi bidialt' of tlio Kr"neh (lovi'nm'jnt; and that, JuJjju Druranmnd lias "tited that if the counsel of the prinonei" had moved for tlie is.iue ol the writ on i hat day, ho would have granted it. Thus, if any bluuio o.'-.i.sts for tho n .'i-i.ssuin;^- of tho wr;^ it attaehes either to tho.)udp;e, if he llioue,ht it eorr<-;t t » is-mu tiie ^vrif, or tt tlie prisoner'-" counsel who did not move for its issue. As the departure of the steamship on tlio following SatuvJny nfl>rded (he rcadie.>t way of I'onveyin;; the prisoner out of Her M:J'..sty's doniinio'is, it became necessary to use f»reat diligence after tho emninituient to have ihe warrant ol uxtradii- u oi.-'CUt'- ' in tiiuit (0 enable tho uflie,;r who was to tako cliur-e of tiio prisoner to avail himself of tl ■' convey- ance. These facts bein;; known to the prisortr's counsel, it was his duty nl.'^' t, i.avc used dilij;ence in any proecedings to bo taken by him, which dili^jeneo doea not njipiar to havo been used. Vour E.tccUcney's warrant once issued, iliere were no me'in o( etar'lin^ its oper" lion, and in its immediate execution the Sheriff, or Lis deputy, ap^ ears in liavo done no more than his duty. Jlorcovcr, 1 consider that if tho prisoner had been liberated under ivny writ of liiiftrus coijiUK, for the reason.^ given in Mr. Justico Jiramniond's extra-judicial opinion alluded to in i^Ir. Ilami.'iy's report, a failarc of justice would havo taken place, and that tho French tiovcniment v.ould have been in a position vifhtly to complain that tiio Treaty had not been carried out in this case. (Signed,) (Ieoruk 11. (-'Aurrr.u, Attorney Ceneral for Lower Canada. Ottawa, October 17, ISfii;. (Inelogure 2 in No. 2.) Jilr. HaniBay to the AH< '•ney Henerul. Ctv;?T House, lAIoNTUEAr, October If), ISfJO. Kir, — 1 have tho honor to rc-inoloae you Mr. Godley's letter and the extract from Mr: .lustice Drummond's judgment in the case of l.amiranda whieh accompanied that letter. In order that you may bo enabled to convey tolIisExcoIloncy complete information as to the position 1 assumed, I shall trouble you with a narrative of my whole connection with tho matter. On Friday, the ord ol' August hist, 1 was informed of the arrest of Lamirando under a demand for extradition by the Frenoh Government for the crime of forgery. As I was awaro of the anxiety created in P^ngland by the notice given to Her Majesty's Government of tho intention of .the French Government to put an end to tho Extradition Treaty, owing to the failure on the part of tho English authorities to give it cftcct, and also of tho steps taken in England to induce France to abandon this resolve, although I had no special instructions from you in the matter, 1 thought it my duty to notify tho Magistrate uf my intention to watch the proceedings on the part of the Crown. Some little time after, £ I j'l* I 64 f 'I! met 3Ir. rominvillc, who informed lue that ho was retained on the part of the FreDcL Government, and he introduced me to a Mr. Coudert, who had conducted the proceedings on the part of the French Government in the United States, where Lamirandc had been arrested previously, and from which he li;td escaped. We had soiuo conversation as to the accusation, and to the sort of proof that I should consider necessary to enable wo to take conclusions for the extradition of the prisoner. On tho Gth, the inquiry began bcforii tlio Magistrate and was continued till th^; loth, when the prosecution was closed. Durin;;' the taking of the evidence I took little or no interest in the matter, and, indeed, was rarely present, as 1 did not oouceivc the Crown 1 ad anything to do with the means the private prosecutor took to make out his case. When, however, the case for tho prosecution was closed, and the Couu.scl for the prisoner moved for liis discharge, I opposed his application and maintained that a case within the Treaty had been made out. After a long argument the Police 3Ia;;istrate refused to disehaige the prisoner, and his Counsel then prayed to be allowed to adduce cv-idcncc lor tho dcfouct'. Although it is partly discretionary with the Magistrate to hear evidence or not for tho defence, and that the ordinary practice here is to decline to admit it, I at once astscutod to the delay being accorded, and said that 1 considered extradition cases to be so csccptloual in their character that evidence for the defence, when ollered, should never bo relumed. Tlic Magistrate then adjourned the case to the 20th. On the 20th, the prisoner w.is again brought up for examination, and the evidence suggested on his part was terminated on Wednesday, the 22nd, at what time I do not know, as I was not present when the evidence was closed. The Magistrate then heard the parties by their Counsel, but I took no part iu the hearing as I had been heard on tho 15th, and as I did not consider the new evidence had in any way altered the position of tho ease. After the argument, for which I did not remain, the Magistrate adjourned for an hour or an liour and a half to prepare his judgment. On his return he fully committed tho prisoner for extradition. Immediately, on the termination of inquiry before the Magistrate, I believe (ho private prosecutor made preparations to obtain the Governor's warrant, authorizing the extradition. And here it is necessary to sity a few words. An erroneous opinion has taken largely possesssion of the public mind, that the prisoner to he extradited has a iight to some sort of an appeal, and that the G overuor General is to supervise the decision of the committing Magistrate. It is impossible to conceive a greater blunder. The action of the Governor General is not judicial, but executive. The reason he is called upon to do the last act of extradition is not that he may decide whether the evidence is sufficient, or whether the Magistrate has given a good or a bad judgment, but because tlie Act of J^nrliament may be terminated by the rupture of the Treaty, of which a Court of Justice might not have cognizance, and of which the Governor must necessarily have the earliest information, as ibr instance, in the case of war, which break:- all Treaties. Again, tho examination of the coinn-itment under a Wiit of habeas corpus, is not in tho nature of an appeal; it is not a necessary incident to extradition, and therefore there was no call upon the prosecution, or on the Kxeeutive to ^ive any delay at all for a proceeding which might or which might not be taken, and which is not contemplated in the Act giving effect to the Treaty. On the morning of the lilird, 1 got notice from Mr. Doutre that he would apply for a \vt\t of habeas corpus on the 24th, at 1 p.m. i went to Chambers, and met both Mr. Justice Drummond and Mr. Justice Jlcndelet. As the latter had already had cognisance of the affair, and as he had iuformod me, one day I met him in a railway train, that ho was going into town ou purpose to be ready to hoar any application that might be made in the Lamirandc case, I told h'm that a writ was then to be demanded. With a slight air of embarrassment, they botli told me that Mr. Justice Drummond would take tho case; some little time after Mr. Doiitre came in and made his application, to which I interposed an objection that the notice was short, stating my reason for makinii; the objection, that as I did not represent tho i'r.'nch Government f could not waive any right. Mr. Justice Drummond tlieii interrupted me very ruu(ly, saying that he \Yould nn, ji.iss the whole afternoon with suuh ([uibbling. From that moment I began to suspect tfiat '\c liberation of Lamiramle was a luregone conclusion, and l!iat Mr. Justice Drummoud's appearance in Chambers that day — a most unusual oircnmr,! ancti, for I had not seen him there once dur- ing tho vacation — was not unpremeditated, and I soon became convinced that a portioa of H nor l>i> m that plan was to compel ma to silence. Shortly afterwards some allusion being made to a fact in the record, Mr. Doutro asked if the papers had been sent up, I asked him if ho had given notice to the Magistrate, to whioh ho answered he had not. This, again, called forth some expression of irritability from the Judge, who declared he would not bo trifled with, and he sei ' for the Deputy Clerk ot the Crown. On the arrival of the Clerk he stated that the record had not been yet sent to the Crown OflSco by the Magistrate, and that the Magistrate was not then there, but that he should be sent for. It is only due to the Deputy Clerk of the Crown to say, that however intemperately given, the directions of the Judge were carried out with the utmost celerity, and in less than an hour i.io papers were procured from the 3Iagistrate and brought into Chambers ; and here, it may be as well to state, that we have an express enactment declaring that the Magistrate must have notice to send up his papers, and, furthermore, before the issue of the writ the Judge had uo authority over the record at all. But our Statute, copied from the old Statute of Charles, on an application for a writ of habeas corpus, the Judge in vacation, under a penalty of £500 in case of contravention, is obliged to issue the writ " upon view of the copy of the warrant of commitment," un- less first, the commitment be for treason or felony plainly expressed in the warrant ; or secondly, that the prisoner be in execution. The prisoner Lamirande was in neither cate- gory, and it was, therefore, the imperative duty of the Judge to issue his order for the writ forthwith. Had he acted as the law directs, all the difficulties which ensued would have been avoided ; and the Sheriff refusing to deliver up Lamirande on the demand of the French officer, would have been wiUiin the reservation contained in His Excellency's warrant, and the responsibility of surren'lering or discharging Lamirande would then have been with the Judge, upon whom it ought to rest, and not on the officers of the Executive. To relieve the Judge of the imputation of irregularity a miserable quibble has been advanced. It has been said the writ of hahra^ corpus is a writ of right, but not of course. Now what do those words signify ? Simply this, that there are two exceptions, those I have enumerated, wherein he is not obliged to issue the writ on view of the copy of the warrant of commitment, to neither of which, however, did the case in point belong. Having made the mistake of taking the argument on the petition, the prisoner remained during the whole time it lasted subject to being extradited by a warrant from the Grover- nor ; which, being directed to the Sheriff, would be acted on by him,perhap3 even in igno- rance of the petition for a writ ; but whether ii^ ill ' 1 1 ft i f ■ \ F . ,i: :| i! M ■ill OG adjourn, &o.") ; and al'tcv tlio nunouncouicnt that tlio Judge would sit late, this took us nut a littlo by Rurpriuo lor it woh hardly live o'clock, and I had mado arrangomentn with the Deputy Clerk ol' the Crown, Mr. Sohillsr, that ho should not go so long as the Judge sat, in ordor that no delay should ouour in issuing the writ if ordered. Within halT-an- hour ailor the adjournment I left the Court House, and heard nothing of the proceedings till next morning about ton, when I learned that Lamirande had been removed during the night under a warrant from the (Jovornor General. I was just going to write to the Judge to tell him that this put an end to the case, when I got a message from him to say ho wanted to sec me. I found him laboring under quite as much irritability as on the duy before, and as ho seemed desirous ul (iuding fault with some one, and at a loss to know with whom he ought to find fault, I thought it right to tell him that had I been asked by the Sheriff, the night before, whether Lamiraudo ought to be given up, there being no other cause of detainer in the Sheriff's hands, f should have told him to obey the Gover- nor's warrant immediately. [ added, however, that I had not had an opportunity of giving this advice, as I had never seen the Sheriff or his deputy on the subject. It is perhaps, however, right forme to state hero, that the Sheriff was not at all likely to ask my advice, for in a similar case in Juno I had telegraphed in, for the guidance of the Shcrifi', to say that the Governor'a warrant timst bo oboycd according to its tenor, at all hazards, and tlieri! is but one exception to the (Jovornor's warrant, namely, that the prisoner be not detained " for any other cause, matter or tiling." This answer seemed at the time to .satisfy Mr. Drummond, and a few minutes after ho even came to my Chambers, without there bein<;- anything in his manner indicative of violent feeling. It was therefore, a ncv/ surprise for me, when on the return of the habras corpnn, which, be it observed, he issued after he was well aware of the removal of the pri.^ionor, ho indulged in a most unmeasured attack on llio officer of justice who had conducted tlie prosecution. As a report of this attack got into the newspapers, I thought it my duty to reply in ;i letter addressed to the " Monlrml (Sn'.ctle," a copy of which is appended, murkcd "A," ho that these most injurious and libellous aocnsatlons should not go abroad uncontradicted. On the '27th, Mr. Justice Drummond having determined to give a judgment in tin; ease, although there was no prisoner, and no order could be mado, actuiiily took posscpsion of the Court of Appeals, where ho has oaly a right to sit as one of five Judges, and tliore, before a great concourse of people, read a judgment, and made observations, which I am informed, for I had declined to be present, were correctly reported iu the Ilcrahl of the li9th. It is from this report, tlie extract inclosed in Mr. Godley's letter is taken. I was not present when the words mentioned in the inclosed extract were used ; but so soon as I saw tho report, I replied to the renewed attack by a letter in the Gazette, " B," and in that letter is to be found my answer to the portion of the Judge's remarks, adverted to by Mr. Godley, The indignation 1 expressed was at tho use of the word " kidnap" by Mr. J>outre, and I at once told him that it wns idle to tiilk of kidnapping, for that the prisoner could only be removed by one process, that is on the warrant of the Governor General. Had tho distinctions thus established before the extradition, been observed afterw.ards, much foolish deelamatiou would havo been avoided, and much ill-feeling prevented. To affirm that a man removed by proecws of law is kidnapped is nonsense ; and to affirm that Lamirando was kidnapped is to beg the (question. Having recapitulated the main liiets of tlic ease in order to give you a full idea of tho position I took, it only remains for me to rufcr to the legal considerations whieli induced me to regard the case aa coming within the Treaty. Tho only question that gave rise to any solicitude on my part was the question of whether, the offence not being forgery by our law, Lamirando could bo extradited for for- gery by the law of Franco, and, if ho, whether wo should take the law of France, as stated in the arret tie renvoi and tho Fronoli affidavit, or oblige tho prosecution to make further proof of tho constituontfl of forgery by the law of France. It would probably have been agreeable to tho proaocution had I adopted the view that the offence charged was forgery by our law, or even had I left my opinion as to tho nature of the offence doubtful ; indeed, one of them, Mr. W. Cnudort, battled long and earnestly to bring me to the conclusion that it was, but I unhesitatingly stated my opinion, on tho 15th, when tho case for the Crown waa closed, that forgery by the law of England, had not been brought bom« to the prisoner, and til lorgcrl was nl waste! wbctll the V| not nj the e| couW tlio el ccoO ■in 67 m 'ate, this took us rangements with Pff as the Jiid.ro IWuhinhaJf.at- , t'lo procoedin&s \ovcd during ti.o ••tetothoJudoo " nim to say ho .'J as on tho duv [t /« Joss to know ^ ween asked l)v .there being ii„ fey tJie Gover. tunity of giving , tt IS perhaps, ask my advice, Sheriff, to say artls, and then- ' not detained to satisfy HJr. ut there hein<-' W surprise f„r li after ho was attaek on (he r to reply in a irked " A,", ,0 >ufradieted. ■jnient in (hi; *ok posscpsioii '«» and f|„i,.,. which I an,' '"■rt^-/ of the •en. I was ;^so soon as anJ in that il to i)y i\i,., ^fi'. /)outre, 'oner could afterwards. Hod. '} and to Jca of the > induced estion of 1 ibr for- as stated further ve been forgery indeed, iclusion JCrowB ri'sooer, and that the question to be decided was, whether he could be extradited on the proof of Ibrgcry according to the law of France. Tho issue was thus narrowed down to a very small point, and, as I have said, there was no equivocation as to tho view of the case taken by me. It is true mucli time was wasted in the discussion of whether the demand by the French Consul was legal, and as to whether the evidence was sufficient to maintain the accusation. It was also pretended that the French detective ought to be actually in possession of a French warrant of arrest. The whole of this part of the discussion appeared to me idle in tho extreme. It is not necessary to be a lawyer to know that the authority of the French Consul to demand flic extradition was an executive, and not a judicial question, and one in which the prisoner could not have any legitimate interest. It is a stipulation in favor of the power from which tho extradition is sought, and not in favor of the prisoner. Again, as to tho evidence of the falsification, nothing could be more complete, and it was not even seriously denied. As I found myself under the necessity of answering pub- licly, on the first of September, Mr. Justice Drummond's extra-judicial opinions expressed on the 29th in the Court of Appeals, I shall now repeat the argument I then used. Before doing so, however, there is one point to which I liave not there adverted ; and it is whether that any true pro- file prosecution was bound to prove the foreign law by testimony. I think not, and it is not competent for the Judge here to go behind the French warrant. IJut, at rate, this was not insisted upon seriously at the time, and, besides, it is not strictly that there is no evidence of the French law, for the French deposition on which the ccodings in France were based, after setting up the facts, calls it forgery. l\Jr. Justice Drummond said : — " My decision to discharge him was founded on the reasons following : — " First, because it is provided by the first section of the Act of the British Parliament to give eflfect to a convention between Her Majesty and the King of the French, for tho apprehension of certain olfenders (0 and 7 Vic, cap. 75); that every requisition to deliver up to '"stice any fugitive accused of any of the crimes enumerated in the said Act, shall be made by aa Ambassador of the Government of France, or by an accredited Diplomatic Agent , whereas, the requisition made to deliver up the petitioner to justice has been made by Abel Frederic Gautier, Consul General of France in the Provinces of IJritish North America, who is neither an Ambassador of the Government of France nor an accredited Diplomatic Agent of that Government, according to his own avowal upon oath." In the first place, it is evident that, if the requisition must be made by an Ambas- sador, and it must be this the Judge means, it renders the Treaty inapplicable in all tlic Colonies. In the nest place, the Statute docs not use the term employed by the tfudge. It is not said a requisition "shall bo made." In the Statute there is nothing imperative ; the form is purely directory. It says : — " That, in case requisition be duly made, pursuant to the said Convention, in the name of His Majesty the King of the French, by his Ambassador or other accredited Diplomatic Agents, &c., it shall be lawful," ko. Now, everyone knows that, in the interpretation of Statutes, there is a wide diflfer- encc between what is directory and what is imperative (2 Dcvarris, page 713) ; aad it is often a question of great nicety to decide whether a particular clause is the one or the other. But technically, the question stands thus : On the part of the prisoner it was pre- tended tiiat the requisition by an Ambassador was a condition precedent imperatively fixed by Statute, without which the Governor's warrant was a nullity. On the part of the prosecution it was maintained that the words were purely directory; that the necessity of a requisition was established in favor of tho power called upou to extradite, and that oonseciuently it was for tho Executive of that power to decide whether a sufficient requisition had been made, and that it was in no way competent for the Court to go behind the Governor's warrant, directing all Justices to aid in the apprehension of the prisoner. It was further mentioned, that this intcrpretatit i was not only agreeable to the gen- eral objects of the Statute, and conformable to the principle of interpretation already laid down, but that it also appeared, by other words in the Statute, which goes on to say thiit, this requisition being made, the Governor is authorized " by warrant under bis hand and seal to signify that such requisition has bccH so made, and to require all Justices, &e." < li.Fl i'i il r .!•'- jkii M d-^ ^ 1 ■ i *■ '■ 'l G8 Besides, if this question wore not to be settled by tbe sij^nilication ot the Govornor, how is it to be established iu any ease that the rccjuisition was iiiiido by a ' Diplomatic Agent." 'I'iic warrant cannot contain the proof othorwi- 3 thau by tho declaration it containn; will it, then, bo pretended that, being denied on the part of the piisniier, tlic Ambassador or other Diplomatic Agent will be oblifjed to file his crcocsnotthe sciude all doubt » ^ar, that Mr. Jus! > never pretended id tliat no Justice offender, until it iPP'JiDg for such Hoeument, issued such luapncr as caargc; or, un- «er 18 clearly set » Justico of the lout having an 7 in lieu of such ■ff'Sod to Lo a a "tiaathorizod •itj' wJiatever." icr undorstand- e, which are as sue his warrant proved to him, 's the hearer f^dgQ or corn- "'fy tht) arrest 'y'i'ertr (o him ■ft warrant of U3t be au affi- s this French »e alternative "ate shall not > either until 0^' a French aistrate that '^Jr. Justice 'n^' without even when have to d„ as but one mployed in a strained d to adopt a substi- required ; prisoner's im. The arrest; or other judioii document, and therefore, under the ezpreis words of the Statute, justified the Police Mbgistrate in acting. Mr, Drummond continues : — " 3rd. Because, supposing the said document purporting to bo a translation, an ac*(i d'nfcusationov indictment, accompanied by a pretended warrant of arrest, and designated as orrel tie renvoi, to bo authentic, it docs not contain the designation of any crime comprised iu the number of the various crimen for or by reason of the alleged commission of which nuy fugitive can be extradited under the tStatute. *' 4tb. Because, by the first section of the said Act it is provided that uo Justice of the I'caue shall commit any person accused of any of the crimes mentioned in the said Act, (to wit, murder, attempt to commit murder, forgery, or fraudulent bankruptcy), unless upon such evidence as, according to the lawa of chat part of Her Majesty's Dominions in wl'ioh the supposed offender shall be found, would justify the apprehension and committal for trial of the person so accused, if the crime of which he shall be accused had been then committed. Whereas, the evidence produced against the petitioner upon the accusation uf forgery brought against him before tho committing Magistrate, would not have justified hiui in apprehending or committing the petitioner tor the crime of forgery, had the acts charged against him been committed in that part of Her Majesty's Dominions where the petitioner was found, to wit, in Lower Canada. " 5th. Because the said warrant for the oxtradition of the petitioner, as well as the warrant for his rpprehcnsion, does not charge him with tho commission of any one of the crimes for which a warrant of extradition can be issued under this Statute, inasmuch as in both of the said warrants the alleged off'cncu is charged against the petitioner as " for- gery," by having, in the capacity of cashier of the Branch of the Bank of Franco at Poi- tiers, made false entries in the books of tho Bank, and thereby defrauded the said Bank of the mia of 700,000 francs ; whereas the said offence, as thus designated, docs not constitute the crime of forgery according to the laws of England and Lower Canada, for, to use the words of Judge Blackburn when he pronounced judgment concurrently with Chief Justice Cockburn and Judge Slieo in a ci^se analogous to this (^ Ex jnirte Ohaxlottc Windsor, Court of Queen's Bench, May, 1865), 'Forgery is the false making of an instrument purporting to be that which it is not; it is not the making o.f an instrument purporting to bo that which it is ; it is not the making of an instrument which purports to be what it really is, but which contains false statenents. T<)Iling a lie does not become a forgery because it is reduced to writing.'" Those three paragraphs raally contain the great rjucstion of this case. Tu enumerating the offences for which an accused person may be extradited, must wo look for tho consti- tuents of the offence to the law of the country violated, or to that in which the extradition is demanded 'i Much is to be said on both sides of this question ; and there ctm be no doubt that in dealing with tho American Treaty, and particularly so long as slavery existed 'n that country, it was necessary for the great commdn law felonies, such as murder and manslaughter, to iook to the common law of England as a guide. And of this the Ameri- cans could not, a.'. J cannot complain, for they take their common law from us ; and there- fore, in using an Eii.;lish common law term, they iwust be supposed to uso it with the common law signification. This was the view taken in the Anderson case, and rightly. We would not tolerate that the people of a Southern State of the Union should convert manslaughter into murder by the existence oi a system, condemned, long previous to the Treaty, by the public morality of the Empire. About the intention too of this law, giving effect to the Americau Treaty, there was no doubt. It had been fully discussed in Parlia- ment, when the bill vas passed, and distinctly admitted on all hands that, in. a case such as Anderson's, the fu£;itive would not be delivered up. With regard to the French Treaty the question is totally different. There is no common origin for the two laws ; and, consequently, when tho term does not express the oame offence in both countries, there is no reason for making the definition according to the law of the one rather than of the other. But, in addition to this, it i.^ perfectly clear that in the English Statute the law of France was not ignored, but to make this apparent to the general reader, we must proceed to details. Tlie crimes enumerated, for which extraditions may be sought, may bo divided into three categories for the purpose of this examination : — iii in. Id \ i Itp i 4 lid I i 70 1. Murder, for wWch the equivalent is distinctly set up in the Statute; it compro hcndw the terms, " sssa -iaation, parricid«. infanticide, and poisoning." -. Frnui5ulcnt bankruptcy, which has no equivalent is the criminal law of England at all. <3. Forgery, which h such crime known to our laws ; nn- ' w •■ ' .liovc tli it th^ i <.] .um was acted upon in several i istanccs. On the other hand, it uiu?t W said that, tiu i. n.^nt case in England, u idcr tho Treaty, is I'ov tin; cxtraiVtion of ■<■ frauiiiii' rt Ijc'lvrupt ; Jix partf. Wkhmann, ] i the Wookly Notes of tliO 'JOtli .luuc, o) i-iis y:^v). it is tlu.,. |.taiii, that in Eoglan-J, it is not isculcd that ti-c olf' ace mii.it bo one iwidcr the laws ol' Kiii.^liiml, The same argument will apply to forgi^i-y; if not !o the sane degree, at :tll events, in a very great, extent. Forgciy tu l'>anoe nii 1 forgery in iilugland uro pcifoctly dili'orcul, and this is V(n'y uiitural. \ mere misdemeaiKi,' at common law, JV-rgory, has bucii .so ali' veil that now almost every forp,cry I'j .\ I'elony, and many thiof^s wliich were no. ^ni ii. -i arc now forgeries. The same thinf, h:is taken place in Franci-, xo Huif. (j refuse to givv' up ;i niuii accused of a particular kind of forgo y, because iu was not <;omnioa tu 1 ■)•''•' i:iw.', would ]w almost to auuui the Treaty iu .-^o I'ar as regards that o loncc. !iut it .s suid ticit the Statute is injperativo; they rely on this passage: "•'pon such ovi 'once an, .iccording to iho law.s o' iliat part of ilcr Majesty's Domipions, vould justily the apprehension ami conimittJ . ir Irijii of the pcwon ao accused if the crimo of which ho or she shall be sm accused hj •. rboco "•".umitt'id, t shall be lawful for such Justice of the i'oacc, or otlun' person havini; powfci to ooiumit as aforc.<«aid, to issue his warrant for the apprelicn.sion of Huoh person, xj'i 'il^o to coiuiuit the person so accused to gaol, there to remain until dolivorcd, pursuiUj' to such requisition as aforesaid." Now this >;!ausc doc? not bear out the pretension, and jI' tt did, it would be applicable to fi'iudulciit bankruptcy as well as to forgery, and Mr. IHmbtir Koss' opinion, when Solicitor Oeiinral, would be correct. ]?nt this, w; see by the WTidcuiann case, is not the view now taken in England. To make ^ir. .Tvistiec Drunimoiid's dictum agree with the Widcmanu case, we .should iciiun to make ;i rcheii.sioii and '■ «''c «hiill ho ,s„ J'i-'»cc, or otJu,.,' apprehension of to rcnain until ''^ '-'c applic-ibl,; opinion, when L'a.sc, wc should 'o_ unnecessary ^'t l,\c noil f/,.s- i^i'uiunion,!';, 'lerc inuHt ho 'Cn auollenee tr«to to deal llcgcd criuKi one, almost "'•imc here, ° wubjcet oC the bill was n ii' it had it certainly ' ''iiJ been f' tloes not •^ give the i f he «r>-e/ one of the 'ce JMagi.s. The only n- the ex.. tradition, and it tlicrcforo only remaias to enquire whether tliat iIooiHion was curried out in a iatvf'ul manucr or not. I am quite ready to admit, with the raoat violent of the pupcr.s here, that the act was one which if not legal was kidnapping, but 1 thinu it has been made suHiciently clear that the act of the Sheriff in giving him up was not only justifiable, but the only course he could lawfully pursue. Tiie absurdity of the pretension that notice of an application for a writ eih'ihcatt <-or- inia served upon uio, was to have the same effect as a writ served upon the gaoler, is too transparent to deserve comment. But it lias been said there wa.s indecent haste, and that the (Jovernor (J onoral had promised time to apply for a writ (\\' habeas corpus, as Mr. Doutre somewluit untcchnieally calls it, time to bring the case before higher tribunals. A.s lor matter of baste, it is cxproHsly injoincd in the statute giving effect to the TrSaty (d and 7 Vie., (Jap. 7;"), sec. 4, that the prisoner is to be removed out of Her Majesty'.s dominions in the readiest way. Now the readiest way and the only w.'\y of sending Lami- rando out of Canada was by the river, and as the steamer was to sail on the morning of Saturday, the 'J.^'ith, it was obviously incumbent on those representing the I'Vencb authorities to lose no time in procuring the Qovcrnor's warrant, so as to take advantage of that mode of conveyance. The escape of Lamiraudc from custody in the United States, the day bcfme the Jl^oinmi.saioner was to pronounce judgment upon his case, and tlio presence here oC his (Jouu.scI, Mr. Hpilthorn, whose extraordinary procvcrnor (^in tliu Colonics) issues his warrant, charging all Justices and officers of Justice to aid lu the capture of the fugitive. On his apprehension lie is brought before a Magistrate, who deals with the charge, or who ought to deal with it, precisely as if the offence had been committed here, this being done, the prisoner it) either fully committed, or ho is discharged. If committed, the papers arc forwarded to the Government, and the Governor issues his warrant for the extradition of the prisoner, who is at once delivered up, provided there bo no other cause (<*. e. criminal cause) for his detention. It is an error to suppose that there is any right of appeal from the decision of the Governor ; but if application is made in proper time a writ of habeas corpus may be procured, which would have the oflFect of bringing the prisoner before the Court or Judge to examine into the cause of his deten- tion. In Lamirandc's case no such writ was cither granted or issued, and therefore it is positively untrue that the prisoner was in the hands of the Court or Judge, as Mr. Drummond said. Without this writ there was no power known to the law to stop the execution of the Governor's warrant, and this I at once explained to Mr. Justice Drum- mond, in Chambers, on Saturday morning, when he first spoke to mo on the subject. I then told him that had the Sheriff consulted me, which he did not, I should have advised him to obey the warrant without a moment's loss of time. So unanswerable was this, that Mr. Drummond, shifting his ground, said he had put in a commitment before the removal of the prisoner ; but I afterwards found that what ho was pleased to call a commitmcDt was no commitment at all, but an order not to deliver Lamirande up on any warrant what- ever. What renders this proceeding doubly ludicrous is, that Mr. Justice Drummond was the person most terribly severe upoa Mr. Justico Mondelct, for his order in the Blossom ease ; yet when Mr. Mondelet gave that order he was sitting at the Court of Queen's Bench, whereas, when Mr. Drummond gave his ho was prowling about the town nt night without any official character whatever, but that of a Justice of the Peace. On Saturday afternoon Mr. Justice Drummond again shifted his ground, and lie was pleased to tell ine that it was my duty to intcrf'f ro in some way or another, and prevent the Governor's warrant taking effect. For Mr. Ju.sticc Drummond's infovmution, let me say that when I seek a guide as to duty I shall endeavour to select some oue more immaculate than him ; but, in so far as regards the present case, I may add that I was very unlikely to commit an illegality to prevent the extradition, inasmuch as I highly approved of it. And now, one word as to the prisoner. Lamirande was cashier of the Bank of France, at Poitier,?, and he there robbed his employers of 700,000 francs (28,000A sterling), falsified books and entries (forged as the French Court calls it), and fled to the United States. Being arrested there and about to be extradited, he managed to drug his guard and escaped to Canada, while his lawyer stole the c? -st de renvoi, or French indict' nient, which formed part of the record before the Comm" -ioner. And this is the person i'or whom Mr. Justice Drummond felt so lively a personal interest as to induce him to iibandon the retirement of his home and endure the fatigues of sitting in Ciiambcrs, for, I believe, almost the first time since the beginning of vacation. While talking of conspiracy it would be, however, interesting to fearn from Mr. Drummond, at whose invitsition ho undertook to adjudicate in Lamirandc's ease ? The effort was not impromcditatcd, for the interesting fact was duly heralded on Friday morning. Your obedient servant. Montreal, August 27th, 1866. (Signed,) T. K. Ramsay. I ll l> to give Mr. Cup. titudc of purpose JJut my object t'leso tirades. I "n|nStohii)itIi-it PP'H;?, iH Nimpiv y state, how „„;i "' the outcry df which wo agreo 'i-'edure is this • 'vornor (in the '': aid m the ■»gistrato, who ffuDce had beeu ois disohnrged. rnor issues his vidod there bo pose that there 'u is made in B the effect of of his doten- nereforo it i,s "%e, as Mr. w to stop the ustice Drum- B subject. I liavo advised i^a-* this, that t'>e removal uomiuitmoDt arrant vrhat- i>rummond rder in the 'e Court of '' tlie town Peace, On was pleased prevent the p_ let me say immaculate ry unlikely cJ of it. ■ > Bank of (28,000/. d to the » drug his Bh indict. he person liim to irs, for, I Vom Mr. s? The Morniog, (o (B.) To the Editor of the " Montreal Gazette." Sir, — In this morning's i8.sue of tlio " Herald," I find the following sentence : — " That he (the Judge) did not do so (i.«»uc the writ of habeas eorpus at once), there- fore, was plainly duo to a representation by the advocates for the prosecution, one of thcui roprcBonting the Attorney General, which if not false in word was fabo in intention, and had all the effect of falsehood upon the Court, whom these gentlemen were bound to assist instead of deceive." It is of course of very little importance to me what gloss it may bo convenient for the editors of the " Herald" to give to a very simple transaction j but it is, perhaps, as well the public should know that Mr. Kirby, one of the editors of tho " Herald," was present in Chambers on {Saturday afternoon, when Mr. Justice Drummond made tho utterly unfounded statement that anything wa.s said by me to give Mr. Doutre to under.stam} that the prisoner would not bo given up on the arrival of the Governor's AVurrant. I then immediately rose and contradicted Mr. Justice Drummond's statement in the most pointed manner; an''., moreov( , L repeated the conversation which took place, which was to this effect, and ns nearly as I recollect in these words : — I said, " it was idle to talk of kid- napping (tho expression used by Mr. Doutre), for the prisoner could only bo removed by one process, that is, on the warrant of the Governor General." I thus pointed out specially to the Judge and Mr. Doutre, the single peril to which tho prisoner was exposed, and Mr. Drummond did not venture in my presence to contradict my statement of the facts, ft i.s, therefore, gross bad faith on his part, and on that of tho writer in the " Herald," to renew an accusation which the Judge could not stand to the head of when first mndc and denied. The fact is, Mr. Justice Drummond and Mr. Dcutre arc anxious to throw on my shoulders the responsibility of their own blunder. Tlicy had the means, or at least the Judge had, to stop tho extradition without the interference of any ouc, and now ho is furious because the gaoler, or I, or some one else, did not ru.;h in to accept no cud of responsibility to cover over his lachen. In one place Mr. Justice Drummond suggests that " tho gaoler might have waited till morning;" in another, " that it was my duty to inform the Gover- nor that a writ of habeas corpus was demanded ! ! " and after all this bombast, even after the delivery of the judgment, which ordered nothing, this is all that can be said. — Some- body might have done Tor Mr. Drummond what he ought to have done for himself. It is not my intention at present to dwell on the extra-judicial opinions expressed by Mr. Justice Drummond yesterday. Witli the public they will probably be differently estimated ; but he is reported to have made one statement which I cannot pass over in silence. Ho says, " in fact, some persons engaged in tho prosecution of this man for for- gery have themselves been instrumental in a fiilsificatiou of one of the most solemn documents that can be issued by tbc Governor Goncnil." In answer to this I must state, without the least reserve, that this is the most audacious calumny \ ever heard of in ray life, for it impugns the authenticity of the Goveruoi's signature, and of the Great Seal of the I'rovincc. No man knows better than Mr Drummond that wlicu the Governor is absent from the Seat of Government, ofhcial docuincnts are recorded, sealed and dated at the Seat of Government, and forwarded to him for his signature. This was the practice when Mr. Drummond was Attorney General, and c 'C which was followed during the absence of the Governor last winter when the Government was administered by Sir John Michel, who lived at Montreal. In leaving this discussion to tho arbitrament of the public, I shall permit myself to prophecy that no further proceedings of any kind will be taken in this matter, and for this very good reason that there is no room for any. Had there been anything wrong that could be taken hold of, will any one believe that Mr. Justice Drummond would have vacillated so many days between declarations of its not being for him to take the initiative, and threats of terrible measures for tho 'ZA\\\. Your obedient servant. (Signed,) T, K. Eamsay. Montreal; August 20th; 1866. ^i! 10 74 1$ i^ ^ ,.' , it M M (Inolosuro li io No. 2.) Mi; lirehmU to the Honorable thn Provincial Secrclari/. Police Offick, MoNTiiKAii, August 22, 1800. Sm,--T have the honor to transmit h«rewith, tho depositions and other doouiucnts iu || the case of Krncit Kurcau Lawiraodo, ibr extradition. I have, &c., (Signed,) W. IL Breiiaut. Police iMagistratc. Tho Honorable tho Provincial Secretary, Ottawa. S2)ccial Sessious of the Peace. (Translation.) IJeforo William II. IMiaut, Esquire, Police Magistrate; Ta the case of Ernest S. Lamirandc, for extradition. Tho prosecution iiaving declared that it has no other evidence than that contained in the record, the prisoner reserving the right of adducing evidence if the present application \h not jiranted, deuiand.s his release, a,s there is nothing to justify his further detention. (Signed,) JosRi'ii Doutue, Advocate for the prisoner. Montreal, l.'ith August, 18llti. (A'b. 3.) — Copj/ ('/ a JJoipatcli from VincoHut Monck to the Jiii/ht Ilonorallr the Eitif c/ Oarnari'on. (JUEBKC, October 25, IStlO. (No. ITo. — lleceivud, November 7, ISdl!.) JMv Loiu>, — Keicrring to my despatches, No. Ifti'), of the 0th October, and No. 104, of tiu) ISth October, I have tho honor to transmit, ibr your Lordship's information, three extracts from the Montreal Herald of September 2f)th, October I8th, and October 22nd, containing reports of what took place on those days in the Court of Queen's Bench at IMontroul, respecting tho necessity for notice in applications lor the writ of haiiax lorpas. I have, &e., (Signed), The Kight Honorable the Earl of Carnarvon, &c., kc, &c. Monck. to the I not rol| SpiHhl (loverl Surcail (Inclosure in No, o.) (Krtrarts from the jVontrral Herald.) (The Lamiraude Case — Court of Queen's Bench.) This morning (September 25), before the Judge (Mr. Justice Drummond) took his hcat, the Court was crowded with professional men and others, attracted by the expectation of a lively discussion respecting the Lamirandc case, Mr. Doutre, tj. C, said there was a reference in the charge to the Grand Jury in the Lamirandc case. All the diihculty in this case had arisen from the practice of requiring twenty-lour hours' notice in an application for writ of habeas corpus. In order to show tho working of that rule and the necessity for its abrogation, he would communicate to tho Court documents which would make it manifest that as long as that rule existed there was no human moans of protecting the liberty of a person claimed under Extradition Treaties. While the proceedings were going on before the Police Magistrate, it was easily seen that, law or no law, Lamirandc would be committed for extradition. In these circumstances and in view of the present rule, it was felt that there would be a surprise attempted, and, to guard against this, a petition was presented to His Excellency pointing out the facts of the case, and an aoknowledgmeut was received stating that the petition had been referred 75 (?u,st 22, 1800. Jflier ilooiiuienfs in po Jlagistratc. that contained in resent application ner detention. 'or the prisooer. '•aJ) took his expectation Jury in the of requiring 'Jer to show aicato to tJie ;d there was »n Treaties. J^ seen that, "cumstances opted, and, the facts of en referred to the Attorney-General Kast'n Dcpnrtincnt. To eonlinc liinisolfto written documontH and not rofcrrinR to what took place at ' »wa, ho would read the Ibllowinc; report,; — "On the 2t)th August, 18(U,, ,iio undcrsijjincd, .Fosopli Doutrc, (.J. C, :ind ('. \i. Hpilthorn, Attorney and Oounscllor-iit-Iiaw, had|the honor of mrctin;^ His Kxcell<;nny the (tovornor (lonoral of Canada, ito., at Quebec, in relation to tlie oxtriidition ol" l-rnnst Surcau Lamirande, claimed by Krnnco an a fu,!;itiv« criniiual. "In that interview, His Kxcollcncy acknowlodgnd thiit ftlr. Spiltlioru, oiu; rd' tlic undcrsij;ned, having presented a petition from the suid lianiinindo to ills Mxfrllcncy aboiii. the 17th of August, 18(i(), in Ottawa, praying His Kxccllciicy tlnit in lase lie (Liiniiramlo) should bo committed for extradition by the Police Muu;i«trati! tiicii itivoMti^atitijc the mutter, ho (Lamirande) should bo allowed the noceswiry tinu; fo sulunit \\\n case to higher tribunals for examination under a writ of A«t«i' toryi^.s. liis KxrillcrKy lunl then and there told Mr. Spilthorn that amplo time would be allowed to Lamiraiidi; liir Un' jmrposc uf Hubmitting bis case, as mentioned in the ttaid petition." (Signed,) ".Io;- 'Ii. vc wn.iM K) nny chnnps in tlie nili!, cxoept after duo cousidcrntion by iil' llio .Tiidgos ( ; '.i *'ourt From t/ir " Monlreal Ucrnlil," >■/ rpti!<. Tfis Honour said that, seeing Mr. Doutro In Court, he wished to iuforni him that tiiey nil oppeorcd to have boon uudor a inistalio rcgardint,' this matter, the petition statin;; tliat there was a rule of practice which ho wishi d altered. There was, ho found, no rule of practice in issuing; these writs. After consultation witli \m coUoaj-iiOB, ho would now say, that while there wan no rule, yot that tlio .Fudges would follow tbo course hitherto pursued unless whore a ca.se wa.s shown requirin,.; hnsto, in which case the writ would at once i.i.suo, due notice being given to the Attonuy (Jcneral as usual before nny decision would bo given. Mr. iJoutre said he had stated there was a pnictioe which hnd the I'orco ot a rule. Ho would wish to bo heard before nny doeision on the pelitiou was given, Mr. llamsay said, we do not care about notice befDre the issue of the writ. lie had always advoc.ited the issuing of the writ iinincdi;itc. Tliero was ti finnncial vmhod for the thrown desiring this ifo. 'i.—Copj/ of a Despatch /mm Vlscotiut Munfh ;■> llir. I'liflu Itonnrahlc the J'hrl of Cunutriuii. Qii;i»KC, October -JS, 1866. (No. 174. — Kcoeivcd, November 7, ISOO.) Mv Lord, — I have the honor to transmit to Your Lordship a copy of a letter which I have received from Mr. Doutre, who was couusil i'or Jjainirandc in the legal proceedings that have lately taken place, together with a cony of the reply which I caused to bo re- turned to it. All the documents in Larairandc's ea-o are easily accessible to Mr. Doutre, except the opinions and reports of the Law officers of tlic Crown ; and in declining to couimunicato to him those opinionsjand reports, I believe that 1 have followed the invari- able prnetiec under similar circumstances, both in England and Canada. I have, ike, To the liiglit Hon. the Earl of Carnarvon, Sec, &c., &c. (Signed,) 3I0NCK. (Inclcsuro 1 in No. 4.) Mr. Doutre to Viscount Jioncfc, • Montreal, October 24, 1860. My Lord, — Since my letter of the 22nd imtant, I have received through my ageots in London an oflBcial notice of the request made to Your Excellency by the Secretary of State for the Colonies, concerning ♦.he Larairando extradition case. The absence of xny client imposes upon mc the duty of adopting incasurcs of protection both in England and Coitrl of Qucrn'i lieiir/i, Scplcm/jrr Term. Present : — Their Honours Justices Hrummond, liai1;';ley, uud Moudolet. October 'JO, 1SC.6. I'ractioo in Ilahc^..^ Corpiis. .Mr. Doutre, Q.C., applied to have a decision rendercil on liis petition to chango the rule of proceeding in application for a writ oi' imliK at curpiis. 'I heir Honours severally stated that no rule esisUul on the subject, further than that th(! writ might issue at once or notice be previously ;ivi'ti, in the discretion of the Judge before whom affidavits wore laid. The practice of giving notice to the Crown had always been in existence, but whether the notice should lie given before or after the issuing of the writ was, in all cases, matter for cansideration. l-ndi case must be judged by its mcritt. Mr. Doutre would therefore take nothing by hi-; inotion. I'tancc procure I.l" StatI nHking I {^octota l.iuiel ol the To Ui| it letter ptcpa may obta'u copies Orow* .1. W Copn (No. a ^c bc\i opii wit nisi da' wl an ^&kR>. 77 m rr., ,1 I.. •'•. "l* •I'l ».,) I'tirr ItD. ""y chnnp. I OS, bo wouJd now I tbo course hitherfo Horo any doci,io„ '■'"•(•c 0/ a rule. JJo '""' iWsoD /br tl,„ "^'* -", ism. " ''-» t^^liau-o tJio •"•t'-er Mian that •" «1 tlU! Judf^o ••owa lincl alwaV« 'tho issuing o,. cd l>y itH merit.,. -5, 186G. a letter which al procccdin-'s used to bo re- ' Mr. Doutre declining to' -" the invari- MONCK. 186G. ™y ageDta loretary of ice of my gland and France; and I feci that I am quite inodeqaato to the diaohargo uf that duty if I do not proouro copies of the official dooumeuts which arc sent or about to bo Nont to the Hccretary (if State for tho Colonies. It will bo obTiou#to Vour Kzcollonuy that I have no idea of iiHking copies of any remarks, reports or communications from Your Kxcolloncy to tho .Secretary ot State ; but I humbly submit that it would bo an nut of juHticn to my client to lit mo have copies of tho other documents sent to England, iu complianoo with tho request III' the Secretary of State for tho Colonies. I hare, kc, (Signed,) J. DouTiiE. To His ExooUcnoy tho Governor Oancral of Canada, Quebec. (Inoloiuro 2 in No. 4.) Mr. Oodlty tn Mr. Ihiifri: QiiEBKr, October 2"), IH(50. Sir, — I am directed by the Governor (icnoral to acknowledge tho receipt of your letter of yestorday'H date, and in reply I am to inform you that Ilia Ezeclloney 'm quito prepared to forward to tho Secretary of State for the Colonies any statement which you limy dosiro to place before him. Tho documents in tho cose of Lamirandu, which nrc records of tho court, can bo obtained by you without any intorvention, but tho (jovernor General must decline to givu copies of any opinion given to His Excellency, or reports made by tho Law Officers of the < Office, . knowledging the receipt of Petition No. 14 above. 16. Deposition and cross-examination of C. L. Spilthorn, before the said Police Ma- Depositiou and ii'o.'',s-cxamiuation of E. B. Morel, before the aamc. Voluntary examination of the prisoner. Demak'h'. d'chirfjiss^cmcnt " of release" by prisoner, l;)th August, ISfK). Commitment of E. i^. Lamirande for extradition, by Police Magistrate, dated 22n(l gistrate. 17. IS. P.). 20. August, 1800. 21. Petition of E. y. Lamirande, for Art6e«,s co»y«. dated L'ord ma. 0", and sent le last da,(. "ctter,iVo. views with '"cy, with. ind letter. the oijen- »Dd Jury. 79 08. Presentment of the Grand Jury to the same Court, on the lOtli October, 186G, with papers accompanying said presentment. 39. Motion of E. S. Lamirande by J. Doutre, his Counsel, to obtain copies of papers accompanying said presentment, vith affidavit of J. Doutre, in support of that motion. I do not mention in the above list the petition of G. 8. Cherrier, Esq., and othern, to Her Majesty, and the papers accompanying it, as I suppose they have reached Your Lordship in due time. I have, &c., (Signed,) .Iosepii Doutre. Lord Carnarvon, Secretary of State for the Colonies, London. N.B. — Such documents referred to in the above Schedule, as are wanting, will be found amongst the papers supplied by Mr. Brehaut, the Police Magistrate, as above. No. 3.— Warrant of Police Matfistrafc. Province of Canada, "^ police office. District 0/ Montreal, > To all or any of the Constables or other Peace Officers in the City of Montreal, j District of Montreal. Whereas, Ernest Sureau Lamirande, late of Poitiers, in the French Empire, now present in the City of Montreal, hath this day been charged upon oath before the under- signed, William H. lirehaut, Esq., Police Magistrate in and for the District of Montreal, with the crime of forgery, by having, in his capacity of Cashier of the JJranch of the Bank of France, at Poitiers, made false entries in the books of the said bank, and thereby defrauded the said bank of the sum of 700,000 francs ; and whereas a requisition ba.s been made to His Excellency the Governor General of this Province, by the Consul General of France in the Provinces of British Nojth America, pursuant to the terms of the Conven- tion between Her Majesty the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ire- land, and His Majesty the King of the French, signed at London, 011 the loth day of February, in the year of Our Lord 1843, and the Acts of the Parliament of the United Kingdom of (Jreat Britain and Ireland, passed to give etTect to the said Convention, to insue his warrant for the apprehension of the said Ernest Sureau Lamirande, accused of having committed the crime aforesaid after the ratification of the (-aid Convention ; and whereas, in eoiupliance with the said requisition. His Excellency the (Jovernor General ha.s, by warrant under his hand and seal, bearing date at Ottawa, in the said I'rovineo, the 2t>th day ol" July, in the year of Our Lord, 1860, required each and every the Justices of the Peace, and other Magistrates and Officers of Justice within their .several -Jurisdictions in the said Province of Canada, to aid in apprehending and coromittiuL, him, the said i']rne.>>t Sureau L.amiraude, to any one of the gaols within the said Province of Canada, lor the purpose of being delivered up to Justice, according to the provisions oi' the naid Conven- tion and the Acts to give effect thereto. These are therefore to command you, in Her Majesty's name, forthwith to appre- hend the said Ernest Sureau Lamirande, and to bring him before mo, or .some other of Her Majesty's Justices of the Peace in and for the said district, to answer unto the said charge, and to be dealt with according to law. Given under my hand and .seal at the sdid Police Office, in Monlroal, in tlie Koid di.-j- trict, this Gth day of August, in the year of Our Lord, 18G(5. (Signed,) W. H. Bueiiaut, l^lice JMagistrate. I, the undersigned Nazairc Caron, Constable, duly appointed in and for the district of Montreal, do hereby return, under my oath of office, that on the 7th day of August, 18GG, in obedience to the within warrant to mc delivered, I did, at the City of Montreal, in the District of Montreal, apprehend the within named Ernest Sureau Lamirande, an;! brought him before William Henry Brehaut, Esq., Police Magistrate in and for the Dis- trict of Montreal, from whence he was committed to gaol for further examination. (Signed,) >i. Caron, Montreal, August 7, 1866. JOBstablc. ii :' M| !.!' ;'i1 1 .11; '1 80 No, b-^Mr. Godley to Mr. Doutre. Ottawa, August 4, 1866. Sir, — 1 am directed by the Governor General to acknowledge the receipt of the petition, dated the 3rd of August, of I'^lix Gustier, arrested under the name of Lami- rande, and now detained in the the gaol of tho District of Montreal. I have, &c., (Signed, Denjs Godley, Joseph Doutro, Esq., Governor's Secretary. &{!., &.O., ike., Montreal. (iVos. G to 1,3, inclusivef icill he /ound printed as indosures to Lord Monch's Despatch No. 104 of the Uth of October.) \Nu. 15.— J/r. //. Cotton, to Messrs. Doutre and Daoust. GovEUNOK General's Secretart's Office, Ottawa, August 17, 1866. Sir, — I am directed by His lOxccl'oncy the Governor General to acknowledge the receipt of the Petition of Ernest Sureau Lamirando, 15th August, and to inform you that it has been transferred to tho Attorney General for Lower Canada. (Signed,) H. Cotton. For the Governor's Secretary. Messrs. l>outro and Daoust, Montreal. (^Nos. 1(» to 11), incfiistvc will In: found printed as tnclosurcs to Lord Monck's Despatch No. 104, of the ISlh October, 1860.) (Tr.inslation.) iNo. Ul, — Pelition of /:'. *S'. Lainirande,for Habeas Corpus. I'ROViNrE oil' CanaiiA, ) To tlio Honorable the Justices of the Court of Queen's Bench District istrict of Montreal. The petition oi" Ernest Sureau Lamiraudc, now a prisoner in the Common Gaol of the District of Montreal, respectfully shewetli : That your petitioner is now a prisoner in the Common Gaol of this District, under and by virtue of tho order of William H. Urohaut, Esquire, Police Magistrate, a copy of which order is hereto attached, and by wliich it appears that your petitioner is detained upon the applieation whioli has been ujudc lor hia extradition, upon the pretext of your petitioncr'.s having eomniittcd in France the crime of forgery. That tho detention of your petitioner is illej^al and arbitrary for the fnllcwin^ rewons among others : — 1. 13coause the tr-saty entered into on the Kith February, '84o, between the Govern- ments of France and England, and p"i«trict, under ■^te, a copy of >er ia detained reteit of your =win^' rewocs 1 the Govern- d 7 Victoria, cation to the to the same, I said treaty. 1 demanded T petitioner ^>on of the 'ent, issued »n of tha oent, such pet'iloner 5. liecause, granting that such warrant or order of arrest had been proved to be in the possession of those who arc prouecdin};; for the extradition of the prisoner, and that it was authenticated in manner to justily the arrest of the petitioner in Franco, t'.io com- mittal of the prisoner with a view to his extradition cannot be legally ordered, unless there be adduoed before tho Magistrate or Justice of the Peace ordering such committal, sufli- cient proof to justify tho apprehension and committal or imprisonment of the petitioner, to undergo bis trial, if the crime of which he is accused had been committed in Canada ; and because no such proof has been adduced. 6. Because io the absence of the evidence of witnesses having personal knowlcilgo ol' the facta, the said law (6 and 7 Victoria, chap. 75) authorises the receiving in evidouue oi" depositions or copies of depositions taken in France, if they are proved to be true copies by tho person producing them, and because there was produced uo witness having personal knowledge of tho facts of which the petitioner is accused, nor any deposition ccrtitled by tho judge who issued such warrant, if such warrant exists, which the petitioner dcnio.-f, nor certified, nor proved to be a true co[;_v by the person producing such deposition. 7. Because, granting that tho extradition of your petitioner had been demanded by a diplomatic agent, and that all fornuilitic' of law had been complied with, which your petitioner denies, the facts charged UijiiinsL j'our petitioner would not constitute and can- not constitute the oflcnce or crime of forgery, and because those tacts were only diisignated as forgery in order to obtain, under fictitious prelLiLt^, the extradition of tho petitioner, the law of Franco, of England, and of Canada in no way defining such iaats as constituting forgery. Wherefore your petitioner pray-' that it may plea.sc your Honors, or some ono of your Honors, to order that under tlio authority of your Honors, or some one of your Honors, a writ of /(nfira.s cor///(s may be issued, instructing tho gaoler of the common gaol of this district to produce before you the body of your petitioner, to the end that he may l)e released and set at liberty. And in so doing you will do justice. (Signed,) Joseph Doijtre, Advocate for tho petitioner, Montreal, 23rd August, ISGtJ. To T. K. Jiamsa//, Es'i., rcprtacnting the Attorney GrneraL Sir, — Vou are notified that the foregoing petition will be presented in Chambers to such Judges of the Court of t^ucen's Bench as may be then and there present, ou the 24th day of August instant, at one o'clock in tho afternoon, at the Court House at Montreal. (."•'igned,) Joseph Uoutric, Advocate for the petitioner. Montreal, 2ord August, iHlni. Let Her Majesty's Most Gracious Writ of hi diatelv at the Judge's Chambers l)efore nio. («igaed.) ,s corpiiK isiuo, returnable iiiime- LEWr.S T. J.)RIJ.M.M0K0, J. Q. B. Judge's Chamoors, * Montreal, August 25, 1861!. I, the undersigned, one of the sworn Bailiff? of Her JIajesty's Court of Queen's Bench for liower Canada, appointed and acting in and for tho District of Montreal, do hereby, under my oath of office, certify and return that I did, ou the i;3rd day of August, 1866, between the hours of 11 and 12 of the clock in the forenoon, serve the within original rcqiift.e (tad avix on 'J'. K. Bamsay, Ksquiic, reprffaentaut lo Procureur G(5n6rul, by speaking to and leaving true and certified copies thereof with Alfred Do Beaumont, I'isriuire, Deputy Clerk of the Crown, at the Office of liie Clerk of tho Crown, in tho Court House of the City of Montreal, where the said T. K. Kamsay, Esquire, keeps his office for the purpose of the object of the said reqiietc. Montreal, 23rd August, 186{). (Signed,) Jou.n" Hoolahan, Bailiif, Queeu'a Bench. 11 I r n PllOVl (Seal of Court of Quccn'.s lii'iicli, Low(.'i' CnnAila.) Uv virUio of the "Oon^oliilaleil Statutes tor hnnvv Cunaila, and/"/' slalnlnm Iriri^hii" l.KWIS T. N'o. 22. — Tt'/vV of Habeas Carpus. 'iNt'K Of Canada, \ \'ictoria, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom ol" Dhtrict ol' Montreal. ) (iretit Britain and Ireland, Queen, Defender of the Faith. 'i the Keeper of our Common Gaol, for the Distriet ol' Montreal, ov to his Deputy or Deputies', and to each of them. Greeting : Wo command you that you have, befovu the Hononihlo Lewis Thomas Drummond, one of the Justices of our Court of Queen's IJench for Lower Canada, at his Chambers ii the Court House, in our City of Montreal, immediately alter Ihe receipt of this writ, the body of Ernest Suretiu Laniirande, being committed and detained in our prison, under your custody (as it is saidV together with the day and cause of the taking and detaining of the said Krucsst Suvciiu Ltimiraudo, by whatever name the said Ernest Sureau Lamirandc be called in the nai. .!. to undergo and roeeive till and singular, such things as our said Justice shall then and there consider of him iu that behalf, and that you have then and there this writ. In witness whereof we have caused the seal of our Court of Queen's Bench for Lower Ciiiiada, to be licreunto atiixed a', our City of Montreal, this 25th day of August, in the thirtieth year of our Uei^n. (.Siu'ned,) C. E. ScinLLER, D. E., Clerk of the Crown. The lleturn to the within writ appears by the Schedule hereunto auncxod. Montreal (iaol, this 2fitu day of August, 18G6. (Signed,) Louis rAYETTi;, (laoler. DnuMMoxii, J. y. II., (l.nic .SVo.'i/).) I'lioviNCK OP Canada, ) Honorable Lewis T. Drummond, one of llir Majesty's Judges Pixln'rt of Mmitrml. ) of the Court of (^)neeu's JJciicli. In answer to the AVrit of I [or Majesty the Q'ueen, of this 2;Jth day of August, eom- iiiandiug me to bring before your honor tiie body of Ernest Sureaii Lamirande ; 1 beg to utato that the above named prisoner was by me delivered over to Edme Justin Sleliu, /nsj'crleur J'lincipul ilc Pollic of Paris, last night, at twelve o'clock, by virtue of an order ,is Chambers ,i; ;aJ, immediately lirnest Surcau »n our prison, Wifh the day 10 said Ernest ^e called in the tico shall then this writ, ench for Lower 'August, in th lie EB, Jie Crown. xod. ^•aolor. j«sty'.s Judi,,.^ August, com- if; 'vei' to Edmo 'c o'clock, by n instrument Dg, viz :— real, 'INU .— . t'uneral, do such person J'^'mpirc, to iiDiier date deliver the « Police jf "■ «o other HI the -aid 6G. Eh, leriff. ^, eriff. (Translation.) No, 2i.—Aj)idai;U of Mr. IhnUrc. In the matter of ErnoAt Kurcau Lamirandc, committed for extradition. Province of Canada, ) Joseph Doutrc, Esquir., Advocate and QueonV Counsel, bcinf; DHrict of Montreal. \ sworn, dcposcth and saith : That in the course of the present evening, about half-past eight o'clock, two persons came to the deponent and iuformed him tliat facts, which they considered as certain, and consisting of preparations for the depar- ture of Justin Edmo E. Melin, officer of the police of I'aris, and of declarations on the part of the latter, had convinced thcui ! ■•; the said Ernest Sureuu Lamirandc was to be inkcn this same evening, by the sjiid J. E. Jlelin, by the Grand 'L'runk Railway to Quebec, and thence on board the steamer to sail to-morrow for .lOuropc ; that tlio release of the said prisonerhasalreadybccn applied for to the Honorable Justices i>i'tlic (V)urt of Queen's JJench on various grounds, setting forth the illcgf liiy of the committal of tlic said prisoner, and that such application is pending before the Honorable L. T. ])ruaimoad, one of the naid Hon- orable Justices ; that if the said prisoner is removed at this time from the custody of tho gaoler of tho Montreal gaol, the deponent is convinced that it is being done by means of an illegal proceeding, and with the view of preventing justice being dono the said prisoner. Wherefore the deponent requests tho intervention of the judicial authorities to prevent the removal of tl c said prisoner out of the jurisdiction of tho justices having cognizance of the aiTair ; and hath signed, after reading. (Signed,) .Ioseimi J^ouvue. Sworn before me at Montreal, this 'J 1th August, 1800. (Signed,) Lewis T. Drum.mond J. Q. 13. No. 'lb.~— Order of •fiidi/c Ihuinmond. To iho Gaalcr of the (!ity of Montreal : I hereby require and order you to give no obedience to any warrant or order which may be given to you by any Justice of the I'cacc, o' any other authority, to deliver up or release from custody the prisoner Ernest Surcau Lumirande, until I shall have giveu my decision upon the demand for a writ of habeas corjutu now pending before me in relation to tho above named prisoner. Montreal, August !:i4th, 18(50. (Signed,) Lewis. T. Dhusimonu, J. Q. B. No. 1j6. — Warrant oj Surrriukr l»j /he Dcimh/ Sfirr(ij'. To Louis I'aycttc, Gaoler of the Common <^iaol of the District of Montreal, GREKTlNfi : — By virtue of an instrument granted by His Excellency *ho Governor General to deliver Ernest Surcau Lamirandc, now confined in '.'le said common gaol, to such person w per- sons as may be authorized in the name and on the behalf of the French Kmpiro to receive the same, and addressed to the Sherifi'of the said District of Montreal, under date of the 'J3rd day of August, instant. You arc hereby commanded and x*equired to deliver the said Ernest Bureau Jiamirande to Edme Justin Melin, Inspecteur Principal de Police of Paris, as being so authorized to receive the same, taking his receipt, provided always that the said Ernest Surcau Lamirandc bo detained for no other cause, matter, or thing, than the crime of forgery committed by him at Poitiers, in the said French Empire, as specified in the said instrument ; hereof liiil not at your peril. Giveu at Montreal, this 24th day of Augurt, in the year of our Lord 1806. (Signed,) T. Boutiiillieu, Sheriff. " M. H. Sanp.orn, Deputy Sheriff. I ^1 ;|! . f .in ii> ' ' '■ ] :i ,:\ il l:U 84 No. 27. — Jiuhjmrnt of Jmlijr Dninniwiiif. l'i;nviN('E OP Canada, ) In ChambcrH, — Friday, August -I, IHGti; before tlie Di.lrlct of Montreal. \ Honnniblo Mr. .lattice J)rumu»oml. In tlio matter of Ernest Sureau LamirauJ,', for a writ of luihras ntrpnA. — Mr. Doutre, on behalf of Ernest Sureau Laniirniulc jiro.-oiitH a petition lor Iler iMa- jetty's must j^racious writ of habeas corpus, and is Iicard. Mr. llainsay on behalf of the Crown is hear J. This case is adjourned until the hour of eleven in the forenoon, to-morrow. SATUUitAy, September 25, 1866. licforo the Hon. Mr. Justice Drummond, in the matter of Ernest Sureau Lamirande. On motion of Mr. Doutre, writ of habms corpus issued, rctarnablo in Chambers immediately. At o o'clock P.M., Mr. I'ayottc, the Gaoler, makes his return, which is received and filed. 3Ir. i^chiller, Deputy Clerk of the Crown, reads the writ of habeas corpus and return, likewise an order given to the keeper of the Common Claol by the Honorable Mr. Justice i>iunnuond, before the warrant of the Sherifi' founded upon the last warrant of nxtradition bail iji'on tcrved upon him, and before auv knowlodj- thereof had been t;iven to the Jud-o. This ca.^e stands until .^fonday at the hour of eleven in llie forenoon. MoNDAv. Au-ast27, 1St)r). Rci'ore the Hon. Mr. Justice Drummond, in the matter o!' Ernest Sureau Lamirande. This case stands adjourned until the hour of eleven in tho foicnoon to-morrow. Tuesday, Au-^ust 2S, 1860. Uofore til? Hon. Mi. Justice Drummond, in the matter of Ernest Sureau Lamirande. Tho Honorable Mr. Justit<3 Drummond p.-onoaneed the following Judgment : — On the 26th July last, a document undr-r tli?si;:naturc of His Excellency the Governor General, purporting to be a warrant for tlic ext aultion of the petitioner, issued under tho authority vested in His Excellency )"y the provisiciis of the Statute passed by tho Legis- lature of the United Kingdom of Great Britain an:i Ivuiand, in the six^h and seventh years of Her Majesty's reign, intituled, " An Act to 'ive cfl'oet to a Convention between Her Jlajesty and the King of the French, for the ii|ijn-chension of certain oifendcrs," setting forth that tho said petitioner stood accused of the crime of " forgery, by i nving, ;n his capacity of Cashier of tho Branch of tlie Bmk of Frauco at Poitiers, made false entries ill the books of the said bank, and thoreby dei'-auded the said bank cf 700,000 francs ;" that a requisition had been made t) llh Ej.celioncy l)y the Consul General of France in tiie Provinces of British North Ameri la, to issue his warrant i'or tho apprehension of tho said petitioner, and requiring all ijuati(cs of the Peace and otlier Magistrates and Officers 01 Justice within their several jUiisuiciicns, to aid in apprehending tho petitioner, and committing him to Gaol. Under this document the prisoner was arrested, and after examination before William If. l?r<'l)aut, E,:.q., Polioo Magistntc and Justicj of the I'eaco, was fully committed to tho t'onnnun Gaol of the Pi 'rict c the 2llnd day of tlic current month of August. On tho following day between tho hour^ of li and J.2 o'clock in the forenoon, notice was ,i;ivoa in due form by the prisoner's Cou.iocl to tho Counsel charged with tho criminal lirt)sccutions in this district, that lie (the said Counsel for the prisoner) would present a jietition to any one of the Judges of the Court of Queen's Bench who might be present in Chambers at 1 o'clock in the afternoon of the 1 allowing day (the 24th), praying for a writ of hfi/)"as corpus and the discharge of the priscnor. At the time appointed this petition was submitted to mo. Mr. J. Doutre appeared lor the petitioner, Mr. T. K. Ramsay tor the Crown, and Mr. Pominville for the private prosecutor. A preliminary objection, raised on the ground of insuHicient notice, was overruled. Mr. Doutre then set forth his client's ease in a manner so lucid, that I soon convinced .. &., 85 ii^ll I86t) ■ |ion(]. bef( ore the }itioii I'or Ifer 3Ja. Iiorrow. t>er 2b, 1866. lureau Lamirande, l»l*Io ia Chambers [li is received and oypus aud return, rable Mr. Justice Jilt of ox tradition ««^n given totlio •■'t 1'7, iSOfi. "cau Laniiraude. o-iiiorrow. ■"t lis, KS66. ireau Lamirande. dgmcnt : — 'cy the Governor ssucd under the J by tho Lcgis- iJ fcventh joars )n between Ilcr 'ndcrs," .setting ; ' ■'ving, in hi';^ 10 false entries ),000 francs;" 1 of France in pprehension ol' lugistrates and tho petitioner, )cfore William miiifted to the 1st. •enoon, notico • the criminal ilJ prefsent a 'e present in Qg for a writ yitL, and Mr. >verruled. >n convinced myself, after perusing the statute cited in warrant of extradition that the warrant it.tclf, tlio pretended warrant of arrest alleged to have been issued in France, nrreldc renvoi, and all the proceoding.s taken with a view to obtain tlio extradition of tho petitioner, were un- ;iuthori/ed by thr abovj cited statute, illegal, null lad void, and that the petitioner was therefore entitled to his discharge from imprisonment. But as Mr. Pominville, whom T supposed to bo acting as (Jouusol for the Hank of France, wished to be iicard, I adjourned I lio discussion of the case until the following morning. 1 would have issued the writ bcloro iuljourning had tho Counsel I'or the prisoner "'isisted upon it. But that gentleman was, 110 doubt, lulled into a sense of lalse security by tho indignation di.splaycd by the Counsel Idf tho Crown, when Mr. Doutrc signified to mo \\\n apprehension that a coup (.'<; ni«//i was iu contemplation to carry off the petitioner before his case had boon decided. On the following morning (Saturday, tlic l.'5tli of this month), I ordered the issuing of n writ oi habeas cmp'is to bring the petitioner before mi;, with :i, view to his immediate discharge. My decision to discharge him was IbuuJed upon tho reasons following: — 1st. Because it is provided by the first section of the Act of tho Britlsli Parliament, til give effect to a Convention between Her Majesty and tho King ot the Kvonoh, for thf !i pprehension of certain offenders (6 and 7 Vic, cap. To), that every rc(iuisilion to deliver up to justice any fugitive accused of any of the crimes cnuiiicr.ucHl in the said Act, shall Ir' made by an Ambassador of the (lovornment of France, or by an aocrcditcd dijilomatic. agent; whereas the requisition made to deliver up the pctilionur to justice has beon made i)y Abel Frederic Gauticr, Consul General of Franco iu tlic Provinces of liriti^h North America, who is neither an Ambassador of the Govorniiiont of France, nor an accredited diplomatic agent of tliat Government, according tj his own avowal upon oath. LJnd, Bccauso, by the third section of tin- said statute, it i.s provided that no dusticc of the Peace or any other person, shall iysuo his warniut for any f-uch supposed offender until it shall have been proved to him, upon oath or affidavit, that the person applying for such warrant is the bearer of a warrant of arrest or equivalent judicial dotiument, issued by fi .ludgc or competent Magistrate in France, authenticated mi .■^ui'h manner as would justify tho arrest of the supposed offender in J'raiioe upon the r;ami! charno. or unless it iiliall appear to ! 'm that tho act charged against tlu; supposed offender is e!i ..cly set fortli in such warrant of arrest or other judicial document ; wh' rcas, the .lustico ol'tlui Peaeewho issued his warrant against the petitioner, Lstued the same without having any such proof before him, tho only document produced before him, as well as before me, in lieu of such warrant of arrest or ' - alent judicial document, heing a paper-writing alleged to be a translation into I'lOgh. of a French document made by some unknown and unautiiorizcd person iu tlio office of Consul for the prosecutni* at New Vork, and bearing no authenticity whatever. 3rd. Bcc.'iusc, supposing tho said docun.'^ul purporting to be a translation of an (tele- il'dccumtioii, or indictment, accompanied by u piL.ctidcd warr.ant for arrest, and designated as an artef 77, G'rcshnni Ootrt-nf. 30, i8(i(;. >"•• Kxcellcnc- Atlantic Cabl,., >tl, 1SC(J. on '^teaiashii) "» by /^a6tv/ 87 iNI). JiO —Tiln/rttm from Mr, Doutn: to Ilin Exctlhuc;/ the Governor General. '■ MoNTKKAT,, Auj!;ust ;J0, lS(i(). " Mr. Doutvo haH the honor to rsk Vour Mxcollency to have the following worcln aiMed lit the end of liis toloj^rani to Mnckonzlo & Co., in cmc it should l»c transmitted as a'»kcd by previous telr^rnm : " See liord Carnarvon. " (8if:;ned,) .TosKPit DovrnE." PI A'", ol. — Tfffi/rmn /mm Mr. (lodleij to Mr. Doutrc. QuF.r.Kc, Auoust nO, ISGO. Sill, — Lord Monciv cannot send MesKa;^o at publio expcnae. lie has already notilied the Colonial Secretary by telej^raplu (Signed), l»K\is tfODLKV. (A'o. —Mr: JJontrt: to Mr Godlci/.) MoNTREAi,, September S, ISlJii. Sir, — Enclosed you will find the joint report of Messrs. ('outre and Spillhorn, of their interviews with His Exccllcney on the 'J."!rd August last, at <,'iicbce. You will oblige by submitting it to His Excellency for remarks, if necessary. I intend sending u ilupiicate of that report to England, and to publish it in Canada, as some ncwspaj)era persist in qualifying as a fabrication the report made by Mr. Spilthorn of His Excellency's promise in Ottawa of allowing to J.amiraude the time necessary for applying to higher tribunals. Considering that Lamirandc might suffer from the doubts expressed by soma newspapers about that promise, you will please submit to His Jlxcellency that 1 cannot, lor the sake of minor considerations, let my client suifer from my silence. I intend sending that report to Knglaud on Wednesday next. If I do not receive any observations upon it before then, 1 will consider that there are none to expect. If there was no objection to communicate to me the telegram of His Kxcellency to the Colonial Secretary, in relation to Lamirandc, I would be exceedingly obliged for it, T have, &.O., (Signed,) Josei'H Doutuu. Denis Godlcy, Esq., ke., fee, tie., tjuebcc. Joint Report from M<\isra../. Douire, Q.C.,an(( C. L. Sptlthont, Attornei/ and Oounsellrtr- at-Law, of thci'r Jnterviciv.'s with His KrrrUciir^ the Gonrnor Cieiifra/ of Canadit oit, the 'I'Jth of Aiujmt, 1806, in Quehee. MoNTttKAii, August ;l(), ISCitj. The 2'Jth of August, 1800, being a very stormy day, and thsre being no probability that His Excellency would come to his oftic3 in town, where ifessrs. Doutre and Spilthoru had enquired for him in the morning, Mc-^'.^rs. Doutre and Spilthorn started for Spencer Wood, where they wero received by His Excellency about I'J o'clock. On meeting them, His Excellency said that he understood the object of their visit, that no man had felt more aggrieved than himself at the wrong he had been instrumental in inilictiug upon Lamirandc. Mr. Doutre then observed, that if the warrant of His Excellency surrendering Lami- randc to France, had been the result of deliberation on the part of His .lixcelleney, there would have been an immediate end to the interview, as their object in coming I'r m Mon- treal was neither to blame His Excellency nor to discuss his action in the matter. But in such case be, Mr. Doutre, would bo in the painful ncce.ssity of doubting the word if Mr. Spilthorn, when he reported that His Excellency had given him the verbal promise of allowing to Lamirandc the time required for submitting his case on habena eorpun to higher tribunals. His Excellency there interrupted, to say that Mr. Spilthorn had correctly reported the result of their interview in Ottawa, and that His Ezoellency had really promised to act aa required in the petition of Lamirande. Il m h\ 'i ii \ 1 u ';i' :|*i '1 1 :| 1 I: . 1 n. 88 " Then," contiuucil Mr. Doutrc, " I will feci ut liberty to statn tlic .sr i u's olTactn winch linvc iuduc'cd mo ml my companion lo ilisturli Your Excellency it; liis private r. •sulci! m, Wo Ik'.vo come i'ioi;i Montreal ti> hi-o il" there would bo any nieniiH of redressing,' iIm '..ilVi,'!' ol' the o:i.ecuLion ol' Your Kxccllency's warnint, which hud hron^ht a d^'plnrnhlo conilic; between the executive and judicial powers nl' the State. '• I saw ^liat 'iHt late, unfortunately," said llis l''xccllcni.'y, " to prevent that eonfliit, but it was far IVii.i heini; premeditated on my part. 1 \\ "i 'ell jou, IVunkly. how 'li> thinj,' hap])eneJ. Alllioui^h th" matter rested almost onii>'ih with me, you understand that I would not undertake to decide upon a matti r of law :itliout aelinij^ under the advicv of my constitutional lc,i:al advisers. On the 'J^'Ird day of this month, Mr. Solicitor vJenerul Lnnd sueu Mr. Solicitor Geut lul Languvin, and that ii; justice to liiin he desired lo oommunieatu to us the explanation ho had given of his conduct. •• Mr. Solicitor (ireneral Langovin says," continued Ilis Excellency, '' that wlieii I asked him if my warrant would mterfero with tho proceedings on habeas rorpuf," he undor.«tood me to ask him " if a writ of hnhtas corpus had been iH.-iUod," and that ho answered, " no." . " Mr. Laiigevin," remark.' d Mr. Doutre, " knew than what was going on, and what. !ie was doing himrulf, an 1 whether hia '\>iplanation is true, or plausible, or not, it docs not idter the case as to the animus oi' his advice to Your Excellency, but wo have nothing to do with that." As wo were about Icaviu;:, 3lr. Duutrc observed, that as His Excellency then stood before the public, as having acted iu violation of his promise to Mr. Spilthoru, he would feel bound to explain the matter in a public way, in justice to His Excellency. " If you intend to do that, for my own .sake," said Hia Excellency, " I would rather like that you should abstain from dl)ln^' it." And H's Excellency gav« his motives for avoiding being mixed up in new.spap.'r controversy. Mr. Doutre replied, tiiat His Kxccl'oncy 8 desire would be complied with, as long as the interest of his cliont should not suffer from his silence, and we parted. (Signed,) Joseph '')ouTttJ!. C. L. Sl'lLTIIORN. Ill willing to telegraph immediately t . niin)^ him of tho illegality of Jiami- •urs all help in his power. K^t His Excellency at his oUiuc ;ii that ho was only waiting for yet determined whom wo would ^ ad their names by telegraph from No. — Mr. O'odlci/ tu Air. JJoiUre. Quebec, September 10, 18GG. Sir, — I beg to aakuowledge the receipt of your letter of the 8th instant, enclosing a '• Joint llcport from Jlcssrs. J. Doutre, 'j. C, and C. L. Spilthorn, attorneys-atdaw, of their interviews with His Excdileucy tlie Governor General of Canada, on tho 29th of August, 1S6G, at Quebec." L have laid this document before thu Governor General, and I am directed by Hi.s Excellency to inform you, that thougli ho eaiiuot restrain you from publishing atiything that you please, he entirely denies the accuracy of the report of the languago which iu your statement ho i.s made to use, and al^^o disavows tho construction which i.s put upon his conversation, as afl'ceting his relatione with the officers of the Crown. In reply to your request that the telegram of tho Governor General to the Secretary of State for the Colonics should be communicated to you, I am to acquaint you that Hia Excellency, in his message to Lord Carnarvon, exprosssd bia desire that his warrant for 12 1 I.I IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) {./ 1.0 i.i i^ 1^ 12.5 m Kii 1 2.2 i ■- lllp-^ 1.25 1.4 ||,.6 ^ 6/' ► "r ndecent assault, unless the pro- Hecutor has been bound by recognizance to appear to :t such indictments, or unless Huch indictment be preferred by the direction or w;„ii .;« consent in writing of a Judge of tho Court of Queen's Bench, or of the Superior Court, or of the Attorney Geucrul or (Solicitor General of Lower Canada, PIIOOF iiEyuniEK. No indictment should be returned as ' u true bill," and no prci-entnient should lie made without the concurrence of at least twelve jurors. No inrlietment should be returned into Court us "no bill" until all the .witnesses named in it have been heard, if present or accessible ; but you are not obligeO to hear all such witnesse.*, if you are fully convinced )jy the evidence of one or more that the accused should be put upon his trial. The safer course, however, is to examine ihem all. In the investigation of any charge, cither upon an indictment, or for the purpose of a prcsentuient, you can receive no evidence other than Kueh as is given by witnesses produced and sworn before you, or furnished by confession irale upon voluntary examination before a magistrate, or by other legal documentary evidence. No affidavits or depositions should be received by you in evidence, except such as contain dying declarations in cases of alleged murder or maushuighter. Even these should not be read as evidence belore you without previous consultation with the Counsel for the Crown, or in his absence with the Clerk of the Crown, or by permission of the Court. M 98 Mes eomraitted or |tmcnt or present- [youO boliovo tbo fchould return the ^Iio back tlicroof pso words. hed to justify a Jor "iffDoramus." |r Canada. Huirios, cither by the distinction to ei' due en(juirj, a public offence' y, apprising the I that there is a fribed has com- leb pr.'sontment. ! ncf. brought up ually followed in tbe Olcrk of the P«r to make any ort of it, Higncli of the person ceedings, would csentmcnt until iudictmeut for retences, or for unless the pro- lents, or unlcs.« ingofa Judge ley Geucnil or f-'iit should li(. Id be returned if present or illy convinced iJ- The iialer h either upon ICO other than by confession documcQton :eept such as these should msel for the e Court. You oan receive none but legal and tha belt aTidene* the eaie will admit of, to the rxclusion of « hearsay," or secondary oTidenoe. You arc not bound to hear evidence for the defence, but it is your duty to weigh all ilie evidence submitted to you, and'when you havu reason to believe that other cvidonoe within your reach may alter the characterjof the charge or Azplain it away, you should iirilur such evidence to bo produced. Vou should return " a true bill" against no man, unless upon suoli evidence as in the iij.'L'r<>gnto would, in your judgment, if unexplained or unoontradioted, warrant a oonviotion iipuD trial by a Petit Jury ; but in oases where you entertain any reasonable doubt, the protection you owe to the community would seem to require that you should allow that balance to incline against the accused which a Petit Jury, after a full investigation of the lactF, if in the same frame of mind, would reverse in his favor. An indictment for murder, where the slaying is proved against the accused, may bo returned as a " true bill" for manslaughter, if you arc fully convinced that the death involved no malice aforethought, either direct or implied ; but the safer course, in the interest of the public, is to return a true bill for murder, leaving it to the Petit Jury, under t!io direction of the Court, to discriminate between these two species of homicide. DUTIES APART TEOM INQUIRY INTO PDBLIC OFFENCES. Ill addition to the duties incumbent upon you in direct relation to public offences, you ore also bound to inquire into the condition and management of the public prisons, and into the cause of detention of every person imprisoned on any charge and not indicted. ASSISTANCE DUK. In order to enable you to perform those high fuaotions with efficiency, you are en- titled to (at all reasonable times) the advice of the Court, or of the Counsel representing tliu Crown, or in his absence, of the Clerk of the Crown, and to obtain the assistance of the latter (or of any other person deputed by him,) in the marshalling and examination of witnesses before you ; but no other person apart from the witness actually under exami- nation should be allowed to appear in the Grand Jury Room while you arc engaged in tlic performance of your duties, except the private pvosccutor, in cases not conducted by touusel, and you must allow no person whomsoever, to be present in your room while you are cxprcssini!: your opinions or giving your votes upon any matter before you. You are also entitl -d to free access, at all reasonable times, to the public prison, and to an examination, without charge, of all public records connected with the performance of your duties an Grand Jurors. • IM.MUN1TIES. Your iuimuuitics consifit principally in the protection with which the law surrounds you against all^ rtdpon.sibility, ail liability of being questioned or called to account in any way fijr anything you may say, or any vote you may give in the Grand Jury Room, relative to a matter legally pending: before you, except in the improbable event of a Grand Juror committing perjury in n aking an accusation or giving testimony to his fellow jurors, SECnKCV. r need not alluUo to the secrecy you are bound to observe as to all proceedings, I'or you liavc pledged younu'ves by the oath you have taken to keep the secrets of your fellow- jurors as well as your ovn, and that solemn pledge is binding on you, not only while you arc fulfilling your duties as Grand Jurors, but for all time thereafter. Having set forth the rules by which you are to bo guided in youi deliberations, I come to thc^consideration of the calendar of offences, which it will be your duty to inves- [{"ate; it is, I. regret to say, a heavy one, comprising some accusations of a most heinous chiiracter. The instructions t;iveu to you above will, 1 trust, assist you m your enquiry, and you uiay rely upon the determination of the Court to award adequate punishment to all who .shall be found };;nilty of the violations of the law. But, apart from these vulgar crimes, 1 deem it my duty to call your attention to a startling violation of law, committed by several persons connected with the administration of justi'ec. T allude to the case of E. S. Lamirande, who, while bis petition for a writ of a I i }i 1 : 94 'll 1 ' i '•Jl hahent corput waa under consideration before cue of the Judges of tho Court, und after I His ExooUcncy the Governor General had assured him, through his oounsel, that ho would i have ample time to obtain a decision upon his case by this Court before any warrant of] extradition should issue, was forcibly and illegally carried off beyond its jurisdiction. I A crime of this character, inyolTing a flagrant contempt of the judiciary of cm I country — an insult to our gracious Sovereign in the person of her representative, our good I and noble Gofcrnor General — and a violation of tho writ of hahma corpuf, the foundation! of all our liberties as British subjects, demands of you, as tho Grand Inquest of this Dis- trict, a strict and earnest invcstigutiou. You may now retire to your Chambers, where, I have no doubt, you will perform the | arduous labors which await you, with full satisfaction to your own conscience, and to the country you represent. No. iiS. — Pretehtmcnt o/ the Grand Jury, Province of Canada, ) Court of Queen's Benoti, Crown side, September Term, 1866. District oj Montreal. \ May it please the Court. Having terminated tlic business submitted to us, before seeking our dischargo at the hands of the Court, wc beg leave to offer onr sincere thanks to his honor tho presiding Judge, for the interesting and careful charge he was pleased to deliver to us on the first day of the present term. By the luminous instrnotions given to us with regard, not only to our rights and duties, but also as to our immunities and obligations, we have been much aided in the lung and sometimes difficult investigations in which we have boon cugngcd, and wo trust tliat with the help so given we may have been enabled to dischargo our duties with advantage to the country as well as with comparative ease to ourselves. Wc cannot, however, fail to express our regret that the work thtbiirn u^oh as has boon .so heavy, antl it is impossiblo to conceal the fact that crime, and that of the most seriouH description, increases almost in proportion to the material prosperity of thit community. In particular, the jurors have seen, with some concern, tho alarming in, of female luna- commitnients; in "Hie the increase debtors' prison * ; and a woman pay, obliged to »t the only fault » seven escapes, )wn confession, ''oy fail to offer I any practical HUggestions to improve the prison. They therafore beg leave to present that I in their opinion there should be constructed forthwith a house of correction for the incar* ccration of all those convicted before the Judge of Sessions out of Sessions, and before thellecorder; and that to render the GajI more secure, the enclosure-wall should be raised at least four feet, and be furnished with a round stone coping. They also consider that the number of turnkeys and of the armed guard should be increased, and that a house lor the gaoler should be constructed in the yard, apart from the prison ; with these changes uad the addition of a house of correction, the Grand Jury believe the present Gaol may ho in(.de to meet the requirements of the district for many years to come. Among the prisoners now obnfined in the Montreal Gaol, are a certain number of those taken during the Fenian raid in Juno last. The Jurors hope that no unnecessary delay will occur in bringing these persons to trial. The Jurors have learnt with regret that the Corporation of Montreal persists in licensing houses which have been made the subjeetA of complaint by the police, aud this in violation of a bje-law of the City Council. In conclusion, the Jurors desire to express the satisfaction they feel that the excite- ment consequent upon the invasion of our Provinces in the month of Juno lost, by bands of wicked and lawless men, citizens of a neighboring country, between whose Government and ours no cause of disagreement existed, have now happily subsided. The good faith of the American Government in maintaining international obligations, together with our own watchfulness and due preparation against any attempt at a repetition of such unholy designs, it is to be hoped, will in future allow the inhabitants of this country to pursue their usual avocations in peace. The Court drew the attention of the Gr4nd Jurora to tho extradition of Ernest Bureau Lamirande. They now submit the ntfidavit of Joseph Doutre, E^q., Q.C., also their answers to a circular letter containing interrogatories for tho coiisidcration of tho Court. The whole respectfully submitted. (Signed,) J. W. Dorwin, Grand Jury Uooni, JL^reman. Montreal, October 10th, 1860. No. 39.— J/ot/ott /or Copies of Papers by Mr, Dotitre. Provincs of Canada, \ In tho Court of Queen's Bench ; Crown side. Ex parte, Ernest District of Montreal. ) Sureau Lamirandc, for AVrit of Habeas Corpus. Motion on tho part of the petitioner, that for reasons mentioned in the aflidavit now filed, and on payment of tho usual fees, he be allowed to have a copy of the papers fil«d by the Grand Jury of this district, with their presentment, and of the consultation asVed by the said Grand Jury, from the Honorable Judgo presiding over this Court, upon which eonsultation the said Honorable Judge gave the answer filed of record in this matter. (Signed,) Joseph Doutre, Attorney for tho Petitioner. Montreal, October 12th, 186G. I DA, ) In tha Court of Queen's Bench ; Crown side. Em parte, Ernest I. j Sureau Lamirande, for Habeas Corpus. Province of Canada District of Montreal. Joaepit Doutre, of the City of Montreal, Queen's Counsel, being duly sworn, doth depose and say : — That on tho first day of October, instant, the deponont has been summoned to be aud appear on the 2nd day of the said present month, before the Grand Jury then sitting in the district for the present term of this Court, the r^eponent being given to understand that he was so summoned to bo examined in relation to tho circumstances under which the said Ernest Sureau Lamirande had been removed from the jurisdiction of the Judges of this Court, while his application was pending for his discharge under a writ of haheas corpus; that tho examination of the deponent was postponed from day to day until the afternoon of tho 9th day of this month, when he was requested to attend before the said Grand Jury ; that when the deponent was examined, tho Crown Prosecutor, T. K. Ramsay, Siq., Advocate, was present in the Grand Jury Boom, under th. pretence, as expressed Mi: q r>t % iff "i: 1 'I I I! 96 by himself, of marshalliDg the evidence, to bo taken by the said Grand Jury ou llic subjcu above mentioned. That the naid T. K. Ramsay did in effect take down in writinj; tlio nvideuoo given lir the deponent, frequently interrupting the deponent, ami discussinf; tho relcvuncy ol'tlu; rvi deuce then taken down ; that after tho deponent had terminated wlint lio considered to bo ilu facts inquired into by tho Grand Jury, tho said T. K. llamsay expressed the desire of cms. examining the deponent ; that the deponent then expressed to tlm Jury that as Ion;; uh t\w facts of the case woro unknown to them, they might seo no objcetinn in the pvcHencu of tli' said T. K. Kanisay, in their room ; that since tho deponent had related lii.- tacts then writton down, it was and should be manifest to tbnm that the said T. K. I'lunisny hud been one oi't1u< prompters and accomplices in tho conspiracy which had resulted in the Iraudulcnt removal o! the said Ernest Sureau Lamirande ; and that if the said T. K. llamsay was allowed not only ti marshall tho evidence, but also to control it, as he had attempted to do ninuc the bogil)nitl^' of tho deponent's deposition, any person accused of ordinary erimcN could claim with :)> much right as tho said T. K. llamsay the privilege of marsbaliini; and controlliui; tlu evidence produced against him; that the snid T. K. llamsay then persisting in remainia^ in tho Grand Jury lloom, and taking part iu their inquest, tho Grand Jury requested botli the deponent and the said T. K. Ramsay to withdraw; and shortly after the Grand Jury uame iu Court and transmitted to tho Honorable Judge then sitting, a paper, which was presumed by the deponent to be a consultation with the Honorable Judge, by the character of the answer given in open Court by the Honorable Judge ; that after the receipt of that answer, tho deponent was again called before the Grand Jury, there ho found tho said 'W K. Ramsay still taking down the evidence given by tho deponent, and directing tht^ proceedings of the Grand Jury as heretofore ; that in the opinion uf tho deponent, foundcil on the above facts, tho proceedings of the Grand Jury were brought to nn abrupt ami unexpected termination by the persistenee of the said T. K. Ramsay, in controlling tlu> proceedings of the Grand Jury ; that the petitioner, Lamirande, has adopted proceedings in England, and petitioned Her Majesty, in order to obtain Her protection against the consequences of tho conspiracy which has resulted in tho removal of tho potitiuncr from the jurisdiction of Judges of this Court; and that the petitioner, in order to show to Her Majesty how justice is administered in this district, and the participation nf the Crown Prosecutor in defeating the ends of justice, is entitled to have copies di' tliu papers mentioned in the accompanying motion, and hath signed. (Signed), .Joseph Douthk. Sworn and acknowledged before the Court, an the 12th day uf October, 1860. (Signed,) [)es8Ai;t.leb & Eruatinqer, Clerk of the Crown. No. G. — Cnpi/ of a Despatch from Viscount Mourk tn the It lyhl Honorable the Earl of Carnarvon. (No. 182.— Received November 14, 1860.) (Answered, No. 110, November 24, 1860.) QuEiusc, October ;>1, 1866. My Loki>, — With reference to my dcspata'u, No. 175, of the 25th October, I have now the honor to transmit to Your Lordship copies of the affidavit therein alluded to. I havo, &o., (Signed,) MoNCK. The Right Hon. the Karl of Carnarvon, &c., &e., Sic. [Translation.] (Inolo.«uro in No. 6.) AffiihivU of Edme Juatm Mdin. In the City of Ciuebee, Province of Canada, District of Quebec, — Edme J ustin Mellu, Inrpectenr I'rtncipal t ■ tj*.L ir ". -;-.*y|-yft*??T' ■'^*^y*!frte*'*y^^*t*^'.fe ! ■ ^ ' .' ■ ix ' - *' - iiB^ttSSStil^WlA 7J Justin MeJin, . *no Branch autc-Vieane, Wm robbed of a Kum ol' 700,000 francs, hurl that the tobbery Was effected and commiltcd liy (?hArlos KroKtit Hurcau du Lamlrandc ilif Lamirando, Cashier of the raid Brnnrh of tli. sitid Bank of Franco ut I'oitiuru, Ilautu-Vicnno aforesaid. T hut ut ur about tho natuo time the Hiiid Obarloe Ernest >Suroau de Luiuiiundo i/// Lttiuirando csciitiud from the territory of the French Kmpire and proceeded to tho (Jity ol' Now York, in tliu Htnto of New Vork, one of tho States of the Kopublio of tho (Initetl State* of America. That on or about tiio Otli day of April last, the raid Lamirando vr&a arrested iu tlic Dttid City of Now Vork, and that while proceedings for his extradition were in progrcs:), ho Huoooedud,oa tho clrd day of July instant, in CMoaping from thq aforesaid city and from tho judicial authorition of tho Unitea States of America. That from information which is in his poNSOviion, hu has every reason to believe that the said Charles Ernest Surcau Lunii- ronuo ilit Lamirando has fled to Canada and is still concealed in some part of that Proviuoo. That, nioroovor, tho said Charles Ernest bureau de Lamirande dit Lamirando did fraudulently falsify tho books of the said Branch of the said Bank of Franco at Poitiers, Ilaute-Vieuuo aforesaid, by causing' to appear therein as being in tho safe of the said Bank Aucb sum of 700,000 francs aforesaid, which he had appropriated, and that he was further h'uilty of forgery in altering and falsifying hia balance sheet (bordereau de situation), and that no tboroforo oonicn within the provisions of tho existing treaty between England and Frano<« for tho ostradition of criminals. ThU deposition being read, the deponent persists therein, stating that it contains the truth, and huth signed. (Signed,) E. J. Melin. Sworn liidbru uic ut Quobcu, this 18th day of July, in tho year 1866. ^ (Signed,) J, T. Tasciieukau, J. ,S. C. No, "i.— Oopj/ii/ a lJf$inUch from Viscount Monck to the JRiyht Ifonorabte the. Earl of Carnarvon. (No. lua— Uocoivi'd Nov, 'Jt'.th, 18«6,) QuE0£O, November lOth, 1860. Mr Loiio,— With rcleronoe to previous correspondence respecting the case of Lami- raudo, 1 have tbo bouonr to transmit herewith, for your Lordship's information, three uopiofl of a letter and of its inolosurcs, from Mr. Ramsay, Crown Prosecutor, at Montreal. I have, &o., (Signed,) MoNCK. Kigbt lioQ. Karl of Cnrnurvon, (Inclosmo 1 in No, 7.) Mr. J!a7n8iii/ to Mr. Godley. Montreal, November 3, 180G. Slil,— At tht) request of tliu Attorney Cjcueral for Lower Canada, I have the honor to inoloHoyou tlaueoopicsof a paper tiled by me at the request of Mr. Justice Drummond, oonttluiiig certain ndu:issionB on his part which had been previously made by bim in open Court, in cuno Uim Ezcullonoy the Governor General should think it right to forward them tu Kiiglatid. Tho value of those admissions is that by my disoulpation by tho Judge, thu ullcgnd ooosplrucy fulls t4) the ground, for without conB||)irator3 there cannot bo coospiracy. N'jw, provioiisly, Mr. Justice Drummond had openly diseulpated tho Deputy Sherifi, Mr. Hebilier, uud tliu gaoler, and privately be had done as much for Messrs. Pominvillo and Bitnurnuy, >vlin were the only other persons actually employed in the extradition ot* Lami- ruude. I have, &c., (Sigavd;) T. K. Bamsay. D, Godley, K«ij., &c,; &0,, lie, Quebec' .5 li'.i -■■II: : us (lucloAuru '2 in No. 7.) PaoviNcr, oir Canada, ) (.ourt of Queen's Honoh, Crown sido, Roptonjbor Term, 1866, Dittrkt of Montreal. ) The ijuocn v$. Thoniafl Kennedy llamsay. — On rule to hhoir oauae. In oonBidcratiou ot'tlia dcclnnition made this morning iu open Court by Mr. Justice Drummond, to t)io eirect that in lii.s remark?, with relation to the cztraditini of Erneat Sureau Lamirande, in Chambern, on Saturday, the 25th day of August IsHt, and on Monday, the 27th day of August last, ho did not say nor did he intend to insinuate that the saiii Thomas Kennedy Riimsay was the party guilty of any conspiracy in the said affair, nor in the falsification uf a public document iilludcd to in the said Judge's remarks, nor of any act of a nature to oompromiMO his character, individually or personally. The said Thoman Kennedy Ramsay withdraws wlmtoTcr may be personally onensivo to Mr. Justice Drum- mond, in two certain letters, published in the " Montreal Gazette." on the 28th and SOih days of August last, and bearing the signature of him, the said Thomas Kennedy Ramsay, the said letters having been only written in answer to the remarks of the said Judge, as reported in the « Ilemhl" of the 'J7th and 29tli days uf August last ; and the said Thomas Kennedy Ramsay further rcgiotH that he should have been induced by such reports to misinterpret the words as also the intentions of the learned Judge. (Signed,) T. K. Ramsay. Montreal, November 2, ITiUU. No. 8. — Copy of a Despatch from Llfutenant General Sir J. Michel to the Right Hon, the Earl of Carnarvon. • Montreal, January U, 18C7. (No. 4 — Received January 2;'), 1807.) My Lord, — I have tlic honor to acknowledge the receipt of your Lordship's despatch No. 114, of the Uth December, informing mo that the Frenchman, Lamirandu, had been tried in France and found guilty of Forgery {Faux)^ and sentenced to ten years' reclusion. I have, &o., (Signed,) J. NiOHEl.. The Right Hon. the Earl of Carnarvon, &o., &c., &o. DESPATCHES FROM THE SECRETARY OF STATE. It'* Right Hon. Monch. the Earl of Carnarvon to Vitcount No. \.— Copy of a Despatch from the No. «1. Downing Street, September 22, 1866. My Lord, — I have the honor to transmit to you the enclosed copy of a despatch from Her Majesty's Ambassador at Paris, to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, accom- panied by a letter from a French subject, named Lamirande, oomplainiDe of his having been given up to the French Government under the Extradition Treaty, ana more especially of the manner in which he was removed from Canada whilst his case was still under the eonsideration of a Judge of the Court of Queen's Bench in the Provinoe. I received from you a telegram, stating that Lamirande had beeo delivered up under your warrant, and that ho had sailed in the Damascus, owing to delay in obtaining a habeas corpus, but the telegram contained no further particulars. The statement made by Lamirande in his present letter, and the accounts which have appeared in the public journals, give an account of the case, which demands full enquiry and explanations. I have, therefore, to request that Your Lordship will transmit to me, if you nave not done so already, a complete report upon the case. This report will show under what circumstance and upon what advice Your Lorship's warrant was issued, and also bow it happened that Lamirande was withdrawn after his case was partly heard before ro [ptonjbor Term, 1866 •—^a rule to nhoi, [?ourt b^ Mr. Ju^tj,, Pr^ and on MondaT Huato th,t the H,J' «he Mid affair, „or in ^"'"a'k*, nor 'of any Mr. JuBtioo Druo,. the 28th and 30tb Kennedy Ramsay, , *''•«■'<' Judge, M 'nj the said Th^oiS * by aaoh reports to K- Ramsay. to the Right Hon. '"""•J », 1807. Ofdship's despatch krandu, had boon "> years' reoIusioD. J- MroHEt. PB. '•22,1866. » despatch froui Affairs, aocom- ot his having nore especialll still under the ewd up under >» obtaining a to which havo » full enquiry "Dsniit to tte. Of* wiU show 'issued, and heard before a Judge of the Supremo Oourt, and whether any Officers of Justice or persons in the gtrvioe of your Government had any sliaro in that procooding, and, if so, what steps have been taken in consequonco. [ have, &c., (IJigncd,) CARNAavoN. ViNCOunt Monok, &o., Ac, Ac. (InoloBuro 1 in No. 1.) Karl Cowley to Lord Stnnlii/. (No. 249.) Paris, Heptcmbor 14, 1866. My Lord, — Maitro Laohaud, onu of tho most cniinent members of tho French Bar, addressed me a letter, of which I have tho honor to cnoloso a copy, transmitting a letter from a Frenchman named Lsmirande, who appears to havo boon given up by the Oovernment of Canada to the French Qovernment, under tho Extradition Treaty of 1842. As Lanyrande requests that his letter may bo laid before Her Majesty's Qovernment, I inolose it herewith. I havo, &o., (Signed,) Cowley. Lord Stanley, fto. ke., he. (Inolosuro 2 in No. 1.) M. Lachaud to* Lord Cowlcj, [Translation.] Parib, September 12, 1866. My Lord, — I havo the honor to transmit to Your Ezcellenoy a letter which Mr. Lamirande, formerly Cashier of the Bank of Franco at Poitiers, has sent to me for corn* munication to you. I have not seen Lamirande and I can tHerefure add nothing to tho protests which he raises, but if the facts advanced by him are truo they .havo nn importance which will doubtless strike Your Excellency, and I confiao myself to drawing your kind attention to this letter. I am, &c., (Signed,) A. Lachaud, Earl Cowley, Avocat de la Cour Jtnpiriale. &c., &o., &c. (Inolosuro 3 in No. 1.) JU. Lamirande to Earl Cowhi/. Prison op the Police Puefkcturk, [Translation.] Paris, September 11, 1866. ExoELLENOT,—- 1 have been carried off from tho Prison of Montreal, where I had been committed on an unjust sentence to await my Extradition, under euoh circumstances that in making them known to your Qovernment, I think it will perceive therein a violation of the English Law, and of the Treaty of Extradition betwcoa France and England, and that it will be able to authorise you to reclaim me from tho Emperor's Government. Tho sentence which had committed mo for the purpose of Extradition was appealed against, and the cose, already brought on and argued before a Judge of a higher rank than tho first one, was to bo concluded the next day at 11 o'clock in the morning, by tho decision of this Magistrate, when the following facts occurred : — At 11 o'clock at night, after having been present at the pretended departure of the Montreal train for Quebec, the Magistrate in question came to assure himself that I was safe in prison. Between 1 and 2 o'clock in the morning I received an order from tho Governor of the Prison to get up and depart. The French Police Officer, who was sent in pursuit of me, took posaession of me with the assistance of several other persona, by force, 100 M'lii i i I iiml williout beinp ahlo to ihow mo the order liy virtue ol' wliidi f licy wrro earrymi; inc off, I ^v.ls itlacc'l in uoarrUgo antl tkkvn to a Htntinn ot'thn .Montrfiil nnd (junlion iluilway (I iliiilv tho St. Charles SlatioDj and not to tlio IMuutrcnl rrriniiiiis. For innkini; a ItW h! an, in order to dccciivo the public nnd my ooiiii'ti'l iih well in iho .liiduc, who wiii t.i il'livcr judntneni tho rollowing nioruiof; at H n'rlnck, iind the uutlinritids ihcnisiivoft, ilic Iriiiti wiiv started nt its usuhI time, 10 o'clock, an(iver, from which place I was embarked for France. \Vhon I tell your Excellency that tho scnienco of the iirst .fudge mnketi me auswer- al'ie for the crime of forgery, which I do not ron^i'ler \ have cumuiitted, either aeoord in i; to French or English Inws ; that in tho procccuin;;,8 tiilvon against me nt New Vork, this (ount in the indictment was even abandoned, thut the (.'rowu counKcl ut Montreal himself uuknowlcdgcd that I had not committed thi^i crinio ; thitt bi.'sides I do not at all douund to bo given up to England to be sot at libi'i*ty there, but only in order that the proceedings interrupted by force at Montreal may go on, or tlmt J am ready, if it is preferred, to subuiit tliu enso to the High Court of England, or it matter.^' not to what other jurisdietiou, it iippenrs to me that tho Queen's (Jovcrnmcnt iniiv lie iniprc'i.st'J by these rcasou,s, and niny request you to reclaim me from the Government of t>io KiM)icror. I beg Your Excellency to be pleased to tninfimit my letter to the Kui^li-ih (iovciu- mcnt, and to acknowledge its receipt. 1 have, i^e., (Signed.) 1). S. liAMIRANIvr,. I'.S. — The document which those persons v,lio carried ine off did not po.sfiess, was, I iliink, that which is required by the treaty, in virtue of which I could h.tvc been legally r.rres-tc'd in France, on the chargo of tho crime lor which my extradition was demanded. 1 have just now heard that I am about to bo transfiTred to tho I'oiticrs prisou (Di- partmontof Vicnnc,) whoro I beg Your Excellency to acquaint mo with the result ot my comp'.aintfl. yiy iiumoacd suruamcs are Sureau Lumirando, Charles Constant Erue.it. I' i No. 2. — Cojjy '.I JUmlcU mo ropliml. m- orders, uud Imd' » of power, to take co^Dizaucc "•'iild bu loutnl. ">o t>C which 1 ,Jn '»■« told thc^ wrr, •• Afipr ncooror. "dittu whoacconi K«"''(.'iuoii rr tired 'Imtr.l hy rnilmy iinkuo nio auswur- <'ithcr«ccordin" t New rork, this Jloritrcal hiiuscll "tJt at all dcinan.! t ti;c proceedings ^forred, to submit i^fjurisdictiou, it roa.sous, aud tuny Ko-li«h Itovciu. t po-ssess, was, I we bt'cij lo,«j»llj, 'US domnndcJ. "8 prisou (U... '"c result ol niv t. tto VisroHnt 27, ISGG. istant, oaJlin<' our Lordship H Ambassador ff of dolnying any i'urthor judieial procoodings Kgaiust tho priiionor until Her AIujcflty'H Govurniucnt arc jD ponfl04»/i»/ nf It. ftffiiiiti fi f'lom till' Ulfjhl Hon, 'f"' Kurl »/ Cittnitrvon to Vhrottnf MiiiK I:, (No. S4. ) DoWNi.NO SriiKKT, October li7, IHCiU. Mv liOKU,— I have the lioDor to ucknuwledgu Your Jiurdsliip's Despatch, No. lo5, iit'thetith instant, explaining- tho oircuniHtanoes under which a priHoiicr, named LauiiraDdn, wM delivered bj tho (/anadian Authorities to tho Frenuh police, while hi.s cuso wiim under tho hearing of tho Court of Queoa's Uoncli ut Moutruiil, iind bcroie tho writ <>r habeas corpus was issued. I will only now say that I have read with creat concern the history of this transaction, which is enp;agiog the aiixiuuM con.'^idorattoi) of Her Majosty'u tiovornmen^ I hate, tVo,, (yigncd,) OAnNABVON. Viscount Monck, i^c., ko., fic. No. 4. — ('Opj/ of a J)eifjr)atrh from the Riffht lion, tlf Eurl -^f Curnarvoii A) VUeount AJoiirk. (No. 110.) Dow.NiNG Stbeet, November 21, 1800. My Louu, — Ucr Majcsty'H Governmcut havo had under their coDt>idoratioD your DcspatohcB, No. 155, October 6; No. 104, October 18; No. llii, October 25; No. 174, October 25; No. 176, October 25, and No. 182, October IJl, 1800, respdelin}; the case of K. S. Lamiraudo, recently surrendered to tho French au^horiticH. This person wa.i apprehended on a charge of forgery committed in (con made for a writ of habeas lorjms. Vou aid not take any steps to ascertain this point ; but as two days appeared to have elapsed since the committal of the prisoner to Gaol, you considered that ample time had been allowed to enable him to obtain that writ. Tho application in fact was mado and argued before tho Court of Queen's Iteuch at Montreal, on tho very day on which you signed your warrant at Quebec. The Judgo had reserved his decision till the following day. I\(eauwhilc, the warrant, once signed by you bad become available by those who were interested in its immediate execution. On tho evening of the 24th it was presented to the prison authorities at Montreal, who, of course, wore bound to obey it. Under its authority Lamirande was delivered over, and at once sent off to France. The next morning the Court declared him entitled to his relea.se. Various questions have been raised with reference to this surrender, which it is uu- ecssary to observe, purported to be made under authority of the Imperial Act 6 and 7 Vic, cap. 75. For the purposes of that Act (which in this respect is differently framed Irom a similar Act of tho same year, relating to the United States), I am advised that the requisition for liamirande's delivery ought to have been made, not by the Consul, but by a •^ I ■; J I ill 1 1 1: 1 ' ( i , ( 102 " Diplomatic Agent," in tho etriot sense of that phrase, and that the facts alleged against him did not constituto the crime of forgery, according to the English law, on the plea of which his surrender was claimed. These, however, arc matters on which I am not surprised that you should have guided yourself by tho advice which you received from your Solicitor General. I can only regret that his opinion, on the faith of which your warrant was signed, should havo so materially differed from that adopted by the Court of Queen's Bench in Canada, and by Her Majesty'it Ijttw Officers iu this country. The procecdint; by which tho French authorities wero enabled to obtain possession of (bo person of Lamirando, requires, I am sorry to say, more serious notice from mo. You appear to consider that, having reference to the nature of tho offences ohargod against this pcrHon, to tho general duty of contributing by all proper means to tho execution ))f Hubstautiul justice, and to the written and unwritten obligations which subsist between ItlDgiatid and France — two civilized and friendly nations — it was your duty to allow to the prisoner little more than tho smallest possible time within which it was praoticablo for him to obtain a decision on his application for the writ of Juibeas corptu. I by no means iitidervaluo the considerations by which your judgment was influenced. I need hardly Nay that 1 give you entire credit for being exclusively actuated by them. But I am obliged (o add, that I wholly dissent from tho conclusion at which you arrived. Being fully iuCormcd ol the prisoner's intention to apply to tho Supreme Court, it was your duty not to rc;;ulatc your oondact by conjectures which any accident might disturb, and which tho time required by the Judge for deliberation did in fact disturb; but to take care that tho authority which you hold from Her Majesty was not directly or indirectly abused tu frustrate tho adminiotration of justice in a matter which had been brought by legitimate means under the cognizance of a court of law, and was being effectively prosecuted by tho parties interested. You obscrro that the prisoner has no right to take advantage of big own negligence in obtaining tho writ of habeas corpus, which would have afforded him the necessary protection ; but I think that you here aHsuiue a negligence on his part which, as far as the papers before luc enable mo to judge, has had no existence. For some days ynu had had reason to antioipate that Lamirande's por^ou would be brought under tho protection of the Queen's Bench, and before you authorized his surrender to the French authorities it would have been only a proper exercise of your discretion to ascertain whether bo was or was not uoder that protection. Tho omisuion to take this precaution has led to a most unfortunate abuse of your authority. The probable, or even if it were so, the unaoubted guilt of tho prisoner cannot affect the question. A great scandal has taken place, and an insult has been passed upon tho dignity of the law and the regular administration of justice in the Canadian Courts. It is true, as you say, that a person charged with tho offences, and arrested under the circum- stances of this caso, desterves no special favor or indulgence at the hands of the authorities, but ho has a right to the protection which every accused person can claim under the Iiumaue principles of the English law, and any abridgment of that protection tends to shake the confidence of society in the execution of justice, and inflicts a wrong upon the individual, in this case, I am obliged, therefore, with whatever reluctance, to express my decided disapproval of tho course which Your Lordship was induced to adopt. With the conduct of those Canadian Officers who have taken part in this transaction I am less immediately concerned. As from the course which circumstances havo taken in this case there is no (|UC8tion of any demand made by a Foreign Power upon (rreat Britain, and no question of Imperial duty arises, it appears to mo a matter which may properly be considered as falling within the province of Canadian administration. The Subordinate Officers who have had a share in the surreptitious withdrawal of Lamirande are responsible to their Superiors, and their Superiors to the Parliament, tho constituencies, and tho public opinion of Canada. Whilst I think that the further investigation into this matter properly belongs to tho Provincial Authorities, I feel that I ahould not be discharging my duty if, after taking the best opinion at my command, I did not inform you that tho explanations hitherto afforded by your Solicitor Qeneral of his oondoot in obtaining the warrant whikt the case was actually under tho hearing- of the Judge, would not have been deemed satisfactory by Her Majesty's Government. I am not obliged to express any farther opinion on this part of the subject beyond 108 I, aotsalteged, . 'h law, on the plo. BbouJd have guided 1 can only regret dbyHerMajoBtj'; >btain posaession of Je from mo. offences charged 18 to the execution 'h subsiat between uty to allow to tho >raoticablo for bin, \byno means 1 need hardiv , ButlamobJiged ''cd. Being fully 'as your duty not •b, and which tho \kc care that tho irectly abused to ;nt by legiUmato roaecuted by tho advantage of big »ve afforded him m his part which, orsomedajsyou ler tho protection rench authorities whether bo was las led to a most itJr cannot affect passed upon tho lau Courts. It Jer the oircum. the authorities, aim under the tends to shake the individual. ss my decided lis tranaaotion have taken in (Jreat Britain, y properly bo Subordinate ■0 lesponsiblo id the public tter properly duty if, after ions hitherto ijht the case tisfactory by ject beyond what is implied in the observations which I have addressed to yourself. [ iihall have performed luy duty as tho servant of the Queen in commnnicatinjo; to Your Lordship, to whom Her Majesty's authority is delegated in one of tho mo^t important of Her Colonics, the judgment of Her Advisors respecting tho course rViCh you have adopted in this case, and the principles by which, in any future question of a similar kind, they desire you to be guided. I have, &c., il Viscount iNlouck, (Siprncd,) Cau.vahvon. &c., &u., &,c. No. 5. — Cop)/ of II Oenpatch from the Right Hon. the Earl of Carnarvon to VUconnt MotieJt. No. 114. Dow^JiNU Stbeet, December 14, 18G13, My Loku,--I have been officially inl'ormed that tho Frenchman, Lamirandc, has been tried in Franoe, and that he has been found guilty of Forgery (^Favx). He has been sentenced to ten years' reclusion, and from this decision ho has appealed to tho Court of Cassation, where the whole question will be considered. I have not yet received a full report of the proceedings on tho recent trial. I am informed that the punishment of reclusion is more severe than that of imprison- ment, and it carries with it the penalty of the loss of all civil rights. I have, &c., (Signed,) C.\bnauvon. Viscount Monck, &o., &c., <&0, :i .1 104 CORRESPONDENCE UESPECTINa THE EXTRADITION 01' M, LAMIRANDE FROM CANADA. TAI'.LK OP CONTENTS. '! i I >l 4 S 6 1 8 V 10 11 12 13 U 16 1(5 17 18 19 20 21 32 23 21 Earl Cowley To Earl Cowley. Enrl Cowlov. Do Do To Earl Cowley., Earl Cowley To Earl Cowley., Earl Cowley To Earl Cowley., Do Do D.I Do Do Earl Cowley.. Do To Earl Cowley. Earl Cowloy To Earl Cowley. Earl Cowley To Earl Cowley. 28 27 28 2U 30 31 32 Karl Cowloy.. Do Do To Adminil llarri?. Admiral Harris. To Mr. Fane..., Mr. Fane To Mr. Fsiu'. Mr. I'll 01".. To ill. Fans. Sep. ll.lSfiB. " 27, " " 27, " Oct. y, " " 2:'., " Nov. S. " " 10, " " 13, " " 15, " " 15, " " 15, " '• It), " " l(i, " " ly, " '■ 20. " " 2S, " Dec. 2. " " A, " " CORRKSPONDF T!E RESPECTING THE EXTRADITION' OF M. ^MIRANDE FROM CANADA. TABLK OP CONTENTS. — Continued. lehauU, inclosicg U-ttBr IS surrender to framu Kxtriidition Treaty. mee. Colonial Otliee To address rpprosontii- Jovernmont. Uon of Lamiraudo. Views of the Prench plaee in due courae, rmed of date of trial, sbould take plaoe. acoon26thofNovein- a view to obtain lliti L'onyersation with M. :gestion for sattling the right. is charged. M. de Mouatier. bring bim within the omorHndum snbmitte.i 1. de iMonatier. ire of ohargo against No. Date. SUBJECT. •^■^ Mr. Vano Jan. 11,1807. Has sent note to M. de Moustier. Kequests that the date may be tlio 14th of January. Copy of note from M. Treite relative to the date of Lamirando'd appeal. Extract of letter from Mr. Doutro, of Montreal, relative to cbargca :i4 Do " 15, " 3i Mr. MaokonfJt " 21t, " on which Lamirande has been tried. Request to be informed how the matter stands. .'10 To Mr. MNflkonxlo.. " ni, " Answer to the above. The ease is under consideration. Cannot give a detailed reply. a7 Mr. Fane.., ,,, Feb, 1, " Inclosing copy of article from the Gazftte ihi Tnhumux on the case of Lamirande. s» Mr. Fano " 2!>, " Inclosing copies of letters from M. Lamirande, and from his father and mother, to Lord Cowley, begging that all further action in the caso, on the part of the rier Majesty's Government, may :it) II.. Mar, a, " Inclosing copy of a despatch from M. de Moustier in reply to the applicati >B made on the part of Her Majesty's Oovornment for the surrender of M. Lamirande. 40 To Ijord (,'iiwle)' •' ao, " Her Majesty's Oovernment no longer insist on application for M. Lamiranda's release, but cannot acquiesce in the doctrine and principles on whieh the French Government justify their refusa . ■''! or trial will not bar >f M. Treite who will France, of criminal btaincd. To inquire of trial. Prfoia of > Swiss (iorernment. traco of suoh case, place in 1840. overnment ready to infraction of Extra- person improperly rs oi' case, him to rocouiinend "3 extradition case eifret the surrender iovernment would y of further nut* tier. u imSw J ■\ J ' i ^ 111' , J) i 1U(5. (No. 1.) h'arl Cowlri/ to Lord Stanley, Paris, Soptcmbor 1 kh, 1800. My Lord, — Maitre Lacliaud, ouc of the most eminent members of Iho French IJar. has addressed me a letter, of which I have the honor lo enclose a copy, transmittinf; u letter from a Frenchman named Lamirandc, who appears to have boon ;j;ivcii uj) by the Qovernment of Canada to the French (iuvernracnt, under the Extraditioi! Treaty of JS4;; Ab Lamirande requests that his letter may be laid before Her Majesty s (lovernmciit, 1 enclose it herewith. 1 have, iVc, (Signed,) OowLEV. (Inclosuro 1 in No. 1.) M. Lnchaml to I'Airl Cowley. (Translation.) Paris, September 12, 18G(). My Lord, — I have the honor to transmit to Your Excellency a letter which M. Lamirande, formerly Cashier of the Bank of France at Poitiers, has sent to mo for coui- munioatioD to you. I have not seen Lamirande, and I can therefore add nothing to the protests which ln' raises ; but if the facts advanced by him are true, they have an importance which will doubtless strike Your Excellency, and I confine myself by drawing your kind attention to tkis letter. I am, &c., (Signed,) A. l/.\('ii.\ui), Avocat de la Cour liuperiale. (Inclosure 2 in No. 1.) M. Lamirmuh to J'arl Coxcley. (Translation.) Prison op the Police I'niiriocTuiir., Paris, September U, ISGO. Excellency, — I have been carried off from the Prison of Montreal, where I h;ul been committed on an uujust seutcnce to await my extradition, under such circunistiinces that in making then known to your Government I think it will perceive therein a viola- tation of the English Law, and of the Treaty of Extradition between I'Vancoand Kngland. and that it will be able to authorize you to reclaim mc from the Emperor's (Jovcrunicnt. The sentence which had committed mc for the purpose of extradition was appealed against, and the case, already brought on and argued before a Judge of a liiglicr rank than the first one, was to be concluded the next day at 11 o'clock in the morning by the decision of this Magistrate when the following facts occurred : At 11 o'clock at night, after having been present at the pretended departure of the Montreal train for Quebec, the Magistrate in question came to assure himself that I was safe in prison. iJetwecn one and two o'clock in the morning, I received an order from the Governor of the Prison to get up and depart. The French Police Officer who was sent in pursuit of me, took possessiion of me, with the assistance of several other persons, by force, and without being able to shew me the order by virtue of which they were carrying me oil. I was placed in a carriage and taken to a station of the Montreal and Quebec llailwuy (1 think the St. Charles Station), and not to the Montreal terminus. For making a false Btart, in order to deceive the public and my counsel, as well as the Judge who was to deliver judgment the following morning at 11 o'clock, and the authorities thcmHclvcH, the train was started at its usual time, \y) o'clock, and was stopped for three or four hours at the abovo-mcntioncd sfation. I was shut up in custody of three men in a compartment reserved for the use of the servants of the Company. I saw Mr. Spilthorn, one of my New York counsel, pass by, probably the only person who had succeeded in discovering my ab- duotion. I wished to speak to him. I was prevented by force. On arriving at Quebec I was but on board the " Oauiapcus," the departure of which had been delayed, and where the ooansel of whom I have just epoken, asked by virtue of what order I was thus 107 M Ijer 1 1th, 18G0. of tho Froncli JJar copy, transmitting ., ;«;" j,;.vc,. uj, by Ti,;. K'"!! -I ;-oaty of J S4;;. 'Sty s (Jovcrnincrit 1 ') ('OMTiEV. "bcr l:>, I8G(!. !i letter wJiicJi M sent to nic for enu,; c protests which h- Jortaneo which will ir kind attention tn 3'"- Iiup,'riale. ^'cr 1], l«(JO. treal, wJiore I had uch circunistancc's ^u therein a violn- JincoandKnelaiHi, roi'K (lovcrunieiif itioi. was ai.pcaJed J"^'lier rank than "y the (Incision of .departure of thu iniHcIl'thatl was in order from tho ' who wa,s sent in crsons, by force, carrying mc ofl ?oec llailway (I ' Jnaljiijg a j;,j^p 'dge who was to t'es (hem.sclve.s, !c or four hours' •1 compartment ono of my New ovcring my ab- ^■i"? at Quebec 1 delayed, and «er I was thus carried oil', the personH who surrounded mo replied, that they had no explanation to give him, that thoy were executing thoir orders, and had no papers to show. He retired, pro- testing against this incredible abuse of power. On arriving at Liverpool whero there was no /Jagistrato competent to take cognizance (if my case, 1 was taken to London, whero I was told such a Magistrate would be found. Thuro I was taken by night to an hotel, situated in a street the name of which I do not kuow, uor yet that of the hotel. Three persons came there ; I was told they wero lawyers euj;ugcd by a despatch from M. Doutrc, my counsel at Montreal. After a conversation, at which I was not present, between thcso gentlemen and u Canadian who accomparied mo liom Montreal with the French Police Officer, these three gentlemen retired without my being able to hold any communication with them. At t) o'clock in the morning I was taken from tho hotel and conducted by railway to Dover, from which place I was embarked for France. When I tell Your Kxcellcncy that the sentence of tho first Judge makes mc answer- able for the crime of forgery, which I do not consider I have committed, cither according to French or English laws ; that ia tho proceedings taken against ine at New York this count in tho indictment was even abandoned; that the Crown Counsel at Montreal himself acknowledged that I had not committed this crime ; that besides I do not at all demand to bo given up to England to be sot at liberty there, but only in order that the proceedings interrupted by force at Montreal may go on, or that 1 am ready, if it is preferred, to sub- tuit the case to tho High Court of England, or it matters not to what other jurisdiction. It appears to mo that the Queen's Government may bo impressed by these weighty reasons, and may request you to reclaim rac from tho Government of tho Emperor. [ bog yuur Excellency to bo pleased to transmit my letter to the English Government, and to acknowledge its receipt. I have, &c.. (Signed,) E. 8. Lamirande. P.S. — The document which those persons who carried mo off did not possess, was, I think, that which is required by tho Treaty, in virtue of which I could have been legally arrested in I'^ranco on the charge of tho crime for which my extradition was demanded. I have just now heard that I am about to be transferred to tho Poitiers Prison (De- partment of Vicnnc), where I beg your Excellency to acquaint mo with tho result of my complaints. My uamo and surnames arc Sureau Lamirande, Charles Constant Ernest. (No. 2.) Lord Slanlt'i/ to Earl Cowley. Foreign Office, September 26, 1866. My Loud, — I have referred to Her Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonial Department, Your Excellency's despatch of tho Mth instant, together with tho letter therein inclosed from I\L E. S. I amirando, protesting against his arrest and surrender to Iho French police authorities at Montreal, as being unwarranted by the terms of the Ex- tradition Convention between this Country and France. f learn from the Colonial OflScc, in reply, that they are not as yet in possession of any official report from Can.ada of tho facts of this case, and that the Governor General of that Province has accordingly been requested to send home a complete report upon it. As, however, the circumstances attending Lamirandc's Extradition, if correctly stated in his protest to Your Excellency, afford ground for questioning the legality of his extra- dition, I have to instruct Your Excellency to address a representation to the French (Jovernmcnt on this subject, with the view of delaying any further judicial proceedings against the prisoner until Her Majesty's Government are in possession of more authentic information. I am, &c., (Signed,) Stanley. 1 1 t i !li 108 (No. 3.) Earl Cowleif to Lord JSlanlri/ (Jfeceived SejHemher 28). Vahih, September 27, 18G6. My Lord, — I have had th« honor to receive Your Ijcirdship's despatch of yesterday's tliitc, UD the subject of the arrest and nxtraditiou from Cnnuda of M. K. S. Lamirandc, under the provisions of the Treaty of 1813, and I enclose a copy of the note which I havi: addressed to^M.^de Lavaletta in consoquenco of Your Lordship's instructions. I have, fee., (Signed,) CowiiEY. (Inelosurc in No. 3.) £arl Cowley to M. de Lavalelte. (Extract.) Paiijs, September 27, 1866. About a fortnight ago I received a letter from M. E. S. Lamirande, who has latcl; been brought from Canada, under the provisions of the Extradition Treaty of 1843, pru- testing against his arrest and surrender to the French police authorities at Montreal, as being unwarranted by the terms of the said Treaty, and rci|uestlng me to bring his protest to the notice of Her Majesty's Government. Although no official information on this subject has as yet reached Ucr Majesty's Government there is grave reason to doubt the legality of Lamirandc's extradition, and 1 .nm instructed by Her Alajesty's Prinoipal Secretary of State for Foreign AlTairs to request Yuur Excellency to move the proper authority to dcluy further proceedings against Lami- I'undc until Her Majesty's Government shall be in possession of more iiuthcutic information on which to found a further communieation to Your Excellency. (No. 1.) Earl Cowley to Lord Stanley (Jicccivcd, September 28). Pabis, September 27, 1306. My Lobd, — I beg leave to call your Lordship's attention to the inclosed extract from yesterday's evening edition of the << Moniteur," respecting the arrest and extradition oi' Lamirandc, whose cas« was brought before your Jiordship in my despatch of the 14tli instant. I have, k and that was carried ' protest of to believe ' ought not aand as of right ; will Hny that, under these nircamstances, Her Majesty's Government hope tbut the Kronoli (lovornmont will consent to the prisoner being replaced in that position from which lip w»H iniproporly romovcd. I am, lice, (Signed,) STANr.Kr. (No. 9.) /■.'ill/ to}plei/ to Lord Stanley (lienehed November 14). Paris, Novembor in, ISOO. (Kitruul.) I Hftw M. do Moustior yesterday afternoon, on the subject of Vour Lordship's despiitoh ol'tlio loth iiiNtnnt, relating to the case of Lamirande. While carof'ully abstaining, in pursuance of Your Lordship's instructions, from niakin<.'; any dumund or claim, as of right, that Lamirande should be remitted to Canada, I nlfio avoidod nonimittinj; Ilcr Majesty's Government to the expression of any opinion that such right did not exist ; because, should the French Government be found willing to meet tlio wiHhcH of J lor Majesty's Government by the surrender of Lamirando, it might become iioooHBary, in order to justify that surrender, that some claim, ns of right, should be put fitrward by Jler Majesty's Government. 1 eonlined myself, therefore, to stating to M. do Moustiei the circumstances p.rtonding liumirundo's arrest and extradition, and the doubts which prevailed in the mind of Her Majcsty'fi (!ovi.>rnment of the legality of those proceedings; and T asked whether the rruMch (iovornmoiit would not bo disposed to meet the wish js of Her Msijcsty's Gnvcmiont, which I wiiM (Icsired to express, that Lamirando, in consoqueuco of these doubts, .should lie rcplacod in tiio position from which he had been improperly removed. M. do Moustior did not give me much encouragement to hopo that my appeal would ho favorably listened to. His Kxuellency said that ho did not sou, Lamirando being now in the hands of justice, by what process he could be delivered from them except by a trial. His Kxcol.oncy added that, although no blame could in any way attach to the French (lovornmcnt in thcHo trnnsaotions, ho was perHonally mo^t anxious to meet the wishes of Her Majesty's (ilovernmont. Ho might add that such was also the Emperor's desire. But be must eonfosM ho did not see his way to it. If, however, I would give him a written statement of tho position of Her Slajosty's Government in this matter, he w.uld see the Minister of , I uslioo upon tho subject, and bring it before the Council of Ministers at its next meeting;, Ho would also causo enquiries to bo made whether any similar case had ever ooflurrnd before, that is, whether any government with which France had an Kxtradi- tion Treaty, hud ever recovered an individual surrendered illegally, and if so, what had been the courso followed. i gave M. do Moustier a statemeut compiled from the third and I'ourth paragraphs of your Lorduhip's despatch alluded to ubove. (No. 10.) Lord Stanley to Earl Cowley. FoREiQN OFriCK, November 15, lSti(3. My Lorii, — T have received your despatch of the 13th instant, reporting a convorsa* tion with M. de Moustier, rcspeeting the case of M. Lamirande, and I h.-ivc to acquaint you that Her Majesty's Government entirely approve the language which you held on that occasion. It opponrs i'roiu what M. de Moustier said to Your Ezccllcnoy, that the French (JovornmuDt aro not disposed to replace M. Lamirando in the same position in which ho was before ho was made over to the French Police Officer in Canada; doubting, on the one hand, their power to do so, as the law stands, and hesitating, on the other, as to the eflbct which their being so might have on public opinion in France. The cusu is, indeed, beset with difficulty. It is quite clear, at least in the opinion of tho Judge in Canada, before whom the case was pending, and which is adopted and confirmed by tho Law Officers of the Grown in England, who have now had the opportunity 112 t ^ of exntnininij; ull tlio dooumcnta connootod with the transaction, that the charge un which M. Lamirando was given up did not ooino within tho provinions of the Treaty, and thnt lu therefore ought not to have been surrendered. Tho French Oovcrniucnt appear to hold that, having got tho prisoner into tlioir possession, ccrtainlv, as thoy sav, without any blame attaching to thoui in regard to th> manner in wliich thoy did so, they cannot let him go without a trial Hut your iilxceiicm v may point out to JL do Mousticr, that however froo from blame tho I'Veuch Govcrunicnt itself may bo, the l<'rench authority in Canada, who sot tho matter in motion, can li.tvillv stand acquitted of having done so without warrant, and, in fact, in excess of the Treaty engagements between England and Franco. For tho stipulation of the 1st Article uf liu' Treaty of 1843, expressly provides, that requisitions for oxiradition shall be made throujj;li the medium of a diplomatic Agout, which a Consul is not, and therefore tho application ol tho French Consul to tho Governor General in Canada, wa.s one wholly unauthorized by treaty, should never have been made by the Consul, and should never have been listcnoil to by the Governor General. Lord Monck, apparently not adverting to tho special terms of tho French Treaty, ami being doubtless anxious to meet tho requisition of tho French Consul, authorized tlic apprehension of M. Lamirando ; but His Excellonoy may probably have been led to acociK- to the requisition of the French Consul witliout strictly somtinizing the authority iindir which it was made, by imagining that the terms of the treaty between England and France on this point were identical with those of the treaty between England and tho United States, with which, from the proximity of the two countries, he was more familiar. But the two treaties are widely different in this respect. The former expressly requires the intervention of a " Diplomatic Agent," the latter stipulates in more gencnil terms that the requisitions of extradition may be made by the " Ministers, Ofliucrs, or authorities" of the contracting parties. Accordingly, the French Government may fairly be asked, in dealing with this quos- tion, as regards M. Lamirande, to conrider that their own Consul has been party to tlm error which in its results has placed that person in tho hands of French justice. Her Majesty's Government, however, would not think it right, wlulc lecjucstiug tlic French Government to redress the wrong which from inutual misapprchr^nsion of their respective authorities has unquestionably been done to M. Lamirando, to couccul from them what, however, they doubtless must be fully aware of, that tho cfl'ect of tho prisoner being remitted to Canada would most likely be that he would obtain his release, and tho same result would probably attend an application to the Courts of England in the event or his being brought to this country on his way to Canada, inasmuch as a writ of habeas corpus might be obtained from tho Courts or from a Judge in England, with a view to bin discharge from custody. It would seem, therefore, superfluous to attempt to send him to Canada, which could hardly be effected without his passing through this eountry. The circumstances of the case, however, are so peculiar that it is well deserving of the attention of the French Government whether the difficulties with which it is surround- ed may not be indirectly obviated. The French Government may not be disposed to send the prisoner back to Canada with the certainty of his being set free, not by any act of grace on their part exercised there, but by the ordinary process of law. They might be as little disposed to send him to this country, and then to apply in the usual manner through the French Embassy for his extradition, with the knowledge that the tegal authorities here consider the case not to come within the provisions of the Extradition Treaty, l^ut it may be possible for the French Government, by their own action, to place the prisoner practically in the same posi- tion in which he would have stood if tho legal proceedings in Canada had not been ,so strangely interrupted. In that case M. Lamirande would indeed have been set free, but he would not have been acquitted of the crime laid to his charge. He must have remaiued an exile from his eountry, and tlie French Government will probably not contend that such would be no real punishment, ulthougli it would not bo tho precise punishment which tho law would have awarded to him if he had been tried in France. Could not the French Government, looking to all the eireuastances of the case, waive a formal trial on the condition that M. Lamirande forthwitk quits Ffanoe never to return, 1 9 II:) nada, which could luaviDB the prosecution to stand over an a, ;:(uarantco tor hia observance uf the condition^ ur for oU soDmittinf); to a trial if ho disrc;^'ardcd it ? It appears to Ilor Majesty's Government that by pome course of this Iciud the I'Vcnch Govcromont mi^'ht set nt ro!it the question between tlio two Governments arising out. of tin- (!3.4o; and your Kzcoilency will accordingly bug^ost it for their oonsideratiou. The eniin uf justice, so far as the punishment of tho criminal is oonoerned Tsuppoalng him to l>u !4ucb), would at all events bo partially satisfied by its adoption ; while tho error, for ?.it it must bo ooDsiderud both of tho British Colonial authorities and of the French Consular aulbority would have been redressed, and tho position of tho prisoner left as ic would have been if no such error had been committed. 1 am, Ific, (Signed,) Stanley. (No. 11.) Lord Slaniu/ to Earl Cowlry. (Extroet.^ Kou^kin Office, November 15. 180G. Witn reference to my despatch of the lOtU instant, to your despatch of tho l.lth, and to my desputch of this day, and al-o my desputoh of tho 13th instant, and to your tolsgram and my reply of yesterday, I have to .state to Your Excellency that Her Majusty'n (jrovornmeiit approve of your having refrained, in conversation with M. do Mousticr, from disclatmin)^ any right to demand the surrender of M. Lamirando; but the opinion of tho Law Officers of the Crown is so decided on that point that I must, agniu caution you, without further instructions, not to advance any such claim. (No 12.) Lord Sliinlri/ In Karl Cowlei/. FoKEiON Offick, November 15, 18(50. Mv liORD,—[ should have wished to furnish Your £zoellenoy with a copy of tho " Ataiidatd' Arret" on which tho extradition of M. Lamiraudo was demanded by thu French Consul General in Canada, but as thn dooumebt does not appear to have been sent home by the Governor General, it is probable that it was returned to the Consul General aocording to his "-equcst, stated in tho enclosed copy of his letter to the Provincial Secretary. 'I'he orimi!, however, with which M. Limirande stood charged, is described by the Consul General in the same letter in tho following terms : — " Lequd" {^Emctt Sureau Lamirandc) s'cst rendu eoupahle non ieule^neni d'un vol dc '100,00i\/ranci> oil prejudice de cette surciirsafe de la Banque de. France lusinf tbnf lirauch of tho iJant o*" ^''•nnoo at PoitirrH, W oIho of tho criiuo of for^'cry, in iiuviiiK riil>«ind Mh bauk return, nnil in bnvinj thuH rcprPHcntcd tho Hfoicn Huni of 7('(),00() francs aH ntilk included in hit cai«h, a criii:. within tho purview nf tlio Hiipulations of tbo Kxtraditiou Ttcaty conoludod l)otwoen rratu'^ and En'/lond in I'Vln iiurv, ix \'l, from which I hero trantioribo an extract : — " By a ('oiiviMitioii lictwocn I Iv.r Mnjcsty t)io (juoen of Groat Britain and Ireland, anl tho then Sovercijjn of l''ranco, liiL'ned at JjoikIihi on the ^'^t\\ February, 184;{, tho ratitioi tions whereof wero cxehaii;.';iMl ni iiondoii nn tlni lUth day of March in tho snuio yciir, i; was agreed that tho hi:!;h ('Diiti'iit'lin^' parlii'H should, on requisition inado in their niiin through tho medium ot fluir iciK-ctivi* a'rciitH, deliver up to justice persons wh ■ biioi. uccuaed of the erinu's nt' niiii'dor, I'orirory or fraudulent bankruptcy, couimittnd f'tliir, Hip jurisdiction of tho rofjuiriii;,' jiavty, •idd M.'ik ati asylum or should bo fouiul withiu lii territories of the other. " In order to tarry t!i(( ('oiivt'iiliou into rtloci, tho British Parli^'uont, iti i I'-nl August, l!^4l}, passed the Ai-t, (J and 7 Vie., (\ip. 7rt, in which aftei i** 'ting the Oonvc tiou, it is enacted that in case requisition be made pursuant to the < . .>ntion to dcliwr up to justice any pcrnon v bo being accused of having committed, utfr t.'ic ratilicatiou i> tho Convention, any ot the abiivu crttnes within the territnrios and jurisdiclioM of Hi Majesty tbo Emperor of tiio l''rcnch, shull be limud within tho dominions oi Her Majcstv it shall bo lawful for one of Her Majesty's Principal Sci retaries ol State, or in Ireland 1' r tho Chief Secretary of the liord Jjieutonant of Ireland, iind in anyof Her Majesty': Coiotiii or Hosssssions abroad, lor the ofliccr administering tho (iovcrnmcnt of any sueli (Colony ir Possebsion, by warrant under bis hand and seal, to uignify that such requisition lias bren ^m made, and to require all Justices of tho Peace and other Mogistrates and Ofllecrs of Justn. within their several jurisdictions to govern themselves accordingly, and to aid in apjui bending tho persons so accused, auil committing such persons to goal for tho purpose > being delivered up to justice according to tho provisions of tho said Convention. "It shall be lawful <'i)r oncMd' Her . Majesty's Principal Secrctariesof State, or in Irelainl for the Chief Secri:t:ii, ii the Lanl M.utonant of Ireland, and in any of Her Majesty's Colonies or PossrHsinu.^ uliroad lur the oibcer adtuinistering the (iovernmont of any siicli Colony or Possession, by warrant, to deliver up oflcndors to tho Authorities of France. " I therefore tuke the liberty, Mr. Secretary, to beg that you will bo so good as t request His Kxcelleucy the (iovernor Uencrul, in virtue of tho powers conferred on bin by tho ubovo mentioned Convention, to issue tho necessary warrant for tho arrest and sub eequent extradition of the abovo mentioned lOrnrst h'urcuu Lamirande. I shall be obliged bv your sending mo the warrant as soon as possible. I think it well to inelnse herewith tlu; warrant issued by tho Civil Tribunal at Poitiers and duly legalized by Her hritanuic Majesty's Consul at Paris. Bo good enough, I be;;, to return me this document, together with the Governor General's warrant. I avail, &o., (Signed,) FuEO. Gautikb, French Consul Gt/icral. (No ' , Loril SffDi/ri/ tn Earl Coiolaj. FoREiON Offick, November 1(5, 1860. My Loud, — I thought it dc.sir.iblc that the Law Officers should be apprized of the language held to you by M. do Mousticr in tbo Lamirande case, us reported in your despatch of the 13th instant; and I have now to acquaint Your Excellency that tho Law Officers consider that it is impo.ssiblc to deny the force of M. de Moustier's reasoning. It must indeed be admitted that if the situations wore reversed, and tho restoration of a t'rooch sulif^ot, givon up under the Extradition Treaty, and about to undergo trial before <«n finglisb l''ibuQal, wore demanded or requested by the Freooh of the English Govern< liv llf) k Chief lD«pootor„,| }nt extradition of „. ' Innoo nt PoUi, ,„,?' «uil»y not only 0(1' :reti'rn,„ndi„|,„vi„,. in h., o«.I,, „ „i„- Nudo.1 botwoon |.'r„n„„ Itraot : — ■ fitain and Irolund, :i,„i |rjr, 18t;j, tho r.ifiiioK p" H«o unuio yviir r l«"a«Io in their „„'„/ Jo pcrsorjH wh . |,,:„, [omiuittod » ', It" x* foui.u \vjt;.,u . i'"'>out, .,tl ;', o.,^| "•':tin<»tho(;„nvt.i, '''"'Otion to dclivc r.t'ie rutilication ,.' .I'lnsdiciio,, oi' ijj, ""■•< or Ilcr Jiajostv "fc.orifi /roliin.l (■:,,. cr iMiijcsfj':, (;„i,„.;, f niiy ,siu.|, (Colony „r 'I'lisitioii has l.pcn ,, ndOliiccrHorjustKv "d to aid i„ ,,,^,„ ' 'f>r tlio purpcso ,. o'lvontion. f«tato,orinlrt.lan,l ' of Her Majesty's nmcat of any n,.,1, ■itiesof rrancc." l»o so good as t conferred on lijr, "1" urrost and sul,. dc. 'ribunal at Poitiers 3d enough, I be?, 'TUB, or 10, 1860. .apprized of the in your despatch 10 Law Officers noreatorationof frgo trial before 'ogiiab Govern. I nent, tho latter would bciiunHtrained to reply that thn Miooutlvo tloverniuunt hud no powor iDrcmovo a priHonor from the judicial authority to which ho iiud bouiiHubmitted, or in any wity to Htop tho oourBo of justioo with rcupcct to him, by wliutcver error on tho part of tho Kruncb Oovornment ho might ori^^mitlly liavo been piuocd within the jtiriidiction of tho I'onrt, Ilcr MajcHty'rt (Jovornmeni, '■"■•Ifini; m ihc «|Ui'.sti(iii in tWs li.uht, couhl not conitider ivoiip M. Jiiiiiiiniiiili! I's iitfcnlin^ any ground ti'M cuninuiniuiitiuii lor your private ihc vcfusal of tho Frcncli '»ovcrninc(i whatever of ofl'onco totliix country. Vour Excollcnoy will uodcrptuud that 1 luuiu iuformation only. I am (Mi(;iitJ,) [^. \NbKY. lined and cluMHcd under thu iterfciting or falsification I'orm'ry. i'].\trudition Treaty with (No. 14. 1 fjonl fjfovlri/ to J'.'urf CowUy. •''oKKKiN Ukfh'K, November 1(5, 1866. My Lord, — ThinkiDg it desirable that Vour Kxcolleney should bo iufornwd as u> vhat iH considered in thi'4 country a legal definition uf tho cnnn; of for^'cry, I ha\ uvked tho Law Officers to supply mo with it, and also to .stutn tl ' bcurin ; of that dcfioitioi in tho words as used ia tho Extradition Treaty with Kninet', iin on tlio tutcuu-uts of tho >'Vonch C'oDHul Gonoral in Canada and of thu Frooeh Tolico OlLccr Moliu, of whloh I hui t you cupicH in my despatch of yesterday, Kcltini; ibrth th <; iriiiKH of which Lamirandi; wiis accused. ' •• I have now to acquaint Your Kxccilcncy that I uui dviscd that i'orgery. by tho L'ouimon law of Knglanu, may bo defined to bn tho fruudul< n v counterfeiting any writtcu ilocumont in whole or in part, or altering or adding to il, or i ikintr it falsely to appear to ho tho genuine writing or instrument of somo othi^r pcixun, wl'li ii^lciit to defraud or pre- judice another ; and thatbyono of tho Statutes forcon.so'idatiii .llio Criminal Law, namely, the 2Uh aud 2r)th Vic, Cap. 98, a variety of cogiiato act- are (I general head of forgery^ and by various Hpeciul Htatutcs the in (if various publio actA and other documents is also dcclareil to li Tho term " forgery" in tho statute for giving cfKct to tli( Franco would, I am advised, include all tho above cusch. Itut a more false statement in writing, which docs not purpi t to be tho writing of imothor person, is not forgery ; for instance, if u uiau frauduleutl >igns tho namo of A.B., without authority to a bill of exchange it is forgery ; but if he ii udulcntly signs the bill in his owa name, "per procuration of A.13.," having no aulhority, i is only a falno state- ment and a fraud, but not a forgery, i^o, if a person makes a t'ln c entry in a banker's pass-book, as if it woro, and purporting to bo tho banker's entry, v 'ih a view to defraud, It is forgery ; but if ho makes a falso entry in his own boot. . aud purpurtiug to bo his owu entry with tho liko intent, it is a fraud, but is not a forgery. According to tho opinion of tho Court of Queen's iicnch, a fdrfjcry, to come within the French Extradition Treaty and statute, must bo what would bu eonsidcrod forgory iicoording to tho law of England as well as of Franco; but I am int'inmcd that this opinion ''<■ rather questionable. But as regards tho question now at issue, it would appear from the stutements mado in tho letter of the French Consul General and in the deposition of the French police oflicer, that Lamirando was not charged with or guilty of forgery, or counterl'eiting tho entry of any other person ; but that he was charged with embezzlement :iud with making fraudulent and false entries in his own books, which would not bo forgery according to tho law of England, within the meaning of tho Extradition Statute. I am, i&c, (Signed,) Stanley. Mt Umn,- (No. 15.) Lord Stanley to Earl Qoxdey, FoREioN Office, Jiovember 15, 1866. I bare thought it desirable to obtain the opinion of the La^ OSoera on li 116 I! .) • ■f^'i m 111') quef'tion whether the charge made against Latnirandc by the Frcml. Consul Genera! ill Caiinda, bcins that of falsifying the booka and horihreau, il" these books arc the ledgers (if the IJank of Franco intrusted to his keepinj;; and not M. Ijaniiraudc'.s private accounts, would that bring him within the accusation of fovgcry, and 1 have to state to Vour Kx. celleney that I am informed that this would not ho I'or^'ery accordini^ to the laws ui Ki)!:land. 1 am, kv. (Signed,) STANiiEv. (No. IG.) Earl Cowleif to Lord Stanley {Rcccireif, November 21). Pakis, November 20, iSGU. My Lord, — I had the honor to receive on the ItJth instant your Lordship's des- patches of the previous day, and on the 18th instant your despatches of the Itith, all re- lating to the case of Lamirande. In execution of .your Lordship's several instructions, 1 wrote a letter to 31. deMoustier na the 18th, inclosing a memorandum of the points on which exception could, in the o{pinion of Her Majesty's Government, be taken with reference to the legality of Lami- rande's arrest, and I told his Excellency that 1 was ready to wait upon him to di.seuss these tuutters with him whenever it would suit him to receive me. A copy of this memorandum is enclosed for your Lordship's iu format ion. liis Excellency appointed this afternoon to see nic, and I give your Lord-ship ilie result of our interview. M. deMoustier said, that since wc had last met he had examined thuruughly with tlio Minister of Justice the question of the possibility of surrendering Lamirande, now that he was ia the hands of justice, and that he could authorize uie to imfurui Her Majesty's Goveru- iiient that it had been decided that, inasmuch as Lmniraudc had been placed in his present po.sition by the administrative act of the Mini.'-tci- ior Foreign Affairs, that Minister couM recover him from the hands of justice, provided that he was satiiiibd of the right of ller Majcsty'.i Government to claim his surrender, and (hat this recovery might be made now or even after Lamirandc's trial, and, if found ;-uilty, alter his conviction. '.rhe question then, which ho had to con^idcr, wa.?, how far Her Majesty's Govern- ment hacjjright on their side, and for this purpose lie uiiist decide ou the two points raised in my memorandum, and ho really had not liad suiBcient time to examine them ; there certainly would not be time to discuss thcui thoroughly with iier Majesty's Government before the day lixed for Lamirandc's trial, the trial, therefore, must prooecd. fn tlu: meantime the discussion between the two Governments might go on, and he could assure me most positively that he had no other wish tli in to examine with the utmost impartiality all the bearings of the case, and should Her Majesty's Government satisfy him that the provisions of the treaty of 1843 had not been C(jmpiied with, no difficulty whatever would 1)0 made in surrendering I/amirandc, even shoald he h;ive been convicted in the mean- time. lleferring again to the points raised in my memorandum, M. de Moustier obscrveil that as at present a.lvised, he must take exception to the doctrine contained in the lir.^l point, that the French Consul (General in Canada ^vas not competent to mako the demand tiir Jiainirande's extradition. If this were the ca&c. His Kxcellcney said, if this doetiine were to hold good, the treaty would become itiOperativc in all ifer Majesty's Colonies. Moieover, according to French custom, C(jnHular agents holding under no diplomatie autiiurity, as was the case in Her Majesty's colonies, were always considered to possess the dililoiiiatic character necessary to enable them to exercise such diplomatic lunctious as the » we I fare of French subjects required. As to the other question whether the crime of which Lamirande was accused amount- ed to forgery or not, he really was not in a position at this moment to discuss it with me. If ho was to trust to those who were more conversant with the subject, he must supposo that there was good reason to believe that it would be shown that Lsmirnnde'a acts amounted to forgery according to British law. t replied that Her Majesty's Government would receive with great satisfaction the a».;unmces which M. dc Moustier had given nte of his desire to examine this matter with 117 >cnd Consul (Joncral IbookH nro the lcd,.„, IJo H private accou",,. J to state to Vour J-\' r'l'n.!,^ to (I.c h^^■,Z 21). Injbor 20, },S()(;. your Lordship's dcs- «ofthfil(Jfh;aIlr,. teV"^i-«l«Mou8ti(,. ftion could, i„ the he legality of Lami. ''Jia todi.soussthew 'luatioii . your Lord.shi|i ;lio ;liorou-hly with tlio ■rande, uow that l,c r Majesty's Govern, laced in his present, that 3Iinister couid 31. t''<^ I'glit of Ifcr "Jglit be made now I). Majesty's <;ovorn- e two points raised unino thci, ; there '>-ty a fJovornuient prooeod. fn the d ho could assure tinost impartiality tisfy liim that the y whatever would -ted in tho mcan- Joustier ohservod aiued in the lirst i:>ko tho demand I if this doctrine jcsty's (.'olonifN. '■ no Jiploniatiu' '1 to possess tlio functions as the » ccuscd amount- ass it with me. 3 must supposo mJrandc'a acts latisfaction the is matter wit}) impartiality^ r!ii I to surrender Lamirando should it be seen that his oztraditioa had been irregularly obtained. I needed hardly to assure him, on tho part of Her Majesty's Go- vcrument, that there was no desire to shield a man acousod as was Lamirande ; but they were guardians of a Treaty which had been sanctioned by Parliament, and were bound to bring any infractions of it to the notice of the French Government. As yet I had been mstructed to do no more. Tho communiqations which had passed between the two (iuvcrnnicnts might bo considered to havo amounted to an exchange of opinions only, and [ would lose uo timo in informing Your Lordship of the intentions of the Imperial Govern- incnt, and of asking for further instructions. M do Moustier rejoined that such was the light in which ho wished tlio discussion i^hould bo continued, and that it should not be made a question between Government and fiovcrnmcnt. 1 then said that with regard to Lamirandc's trial Ilcr Majesty's Government had liopcd that it might havo been dispensed with, and that Lamirande might, perhaps, havo been set at liberty without being formally surrendered to the liritish Government, under the condition of quitting France forever. M. do Jloustier replied that such :i course would lie impossible ; the trial could not bo avoided. He was, moreover, of opinion that the facts which must bo elicited at the trial, and which were now icnpcrfectly known, would throw lij;)it upon tho whole subject, and would enable the two Governments to mature their judj,'ments. It seemed to mo that, under tho instructions whioh 1 havo received from Your Lord- ship, I could not with propriety press the matter further, and 1 let it drop. I have, &c., (Signed,) CowiiEY. (Inolosuro in No. 1(5.) [Memorandum.) Iler Majesty's Government ara desirous of submitting the followiug observations for the consideration of the Imperial Government : — llcr Majesty's Government, while freely admitting that no responsibility attaches to the Imperial Government in the proceedings which have led to the present dilemma cannot but hold tho opinion that the French authority in Canada, who set the matter in motion, o;iii hardly stand acquitted of having done so without warrant, and, in fact, in excess of the Treaty engagements between England and France. For the stipulation of the Ist Article of the Treaty of 1843 expressly provides, that rc(juisitions for extradition shall be made through the medium of a Diplomatic Agent — which a Consul is not — and therefore the application of the French Consul General at Quebec to the Governor General in Canada was one wholly unauthorized by treaty, and should never have been made by the Consul General. No doubt the application of the Consul General should never havo been listened to by the Governor General of Caanada, and Her Majesty's Government do not seek to exonerate the Canadian Authorities from the responsibility which belongs to them ; but Her Majesty's Government submit that the Imperial Government may fairly be asked, in dealing with this question, to consider that their own Consul General has been party to tho error whioh, in its results, have brought Lamirando within the jurisdiction of the French Tribunals. Atcain, the crime of which Lamirande is accused is thus described in the letter of tho (lonsufGeneral to the Provincial Secretary of Quebec ; " Lequel" (speaking of Lamirande) " s'fist rendu coupahk von seidement d'vn vol de 700,000 //tines au prejudice dc la succur- salc dc la Banquc do France d Poitiers, mwis dussi du crime de faux en ecriturc en /'ahljkint ses livvfs ct kou. hordere.au de situation, etfaisant a insiji. As such he had considerable sums to receive and to pay, and consequently a deposit of u large amount was continually in his hands. The gold is tied up in bugs containitiji; :i certain number of Napoleons, which are liable to be visited from time to time by inspec- tors, who open them and see that their contents are correct ; but these inspectors generally content themselves by opening one or two bags, and by wcighii\g some of the others. Lamirande seems to have been in the habit of taking a few Napoleons at a time from soino of these bags, which ho took care should never come into eirculatioti, giving them tlic proper weight by the addition of lead, and plaeing them where there would bo tho IcuHt chance of their being opened. His books at the same time weru kept as if tho proper amount of money was in his hands. Something having occurred to excite suspicion, Lamirande determined to abscond, taking with him a large sum of money in addition tu those already stolon. I have, &c., (Signed,) Cowlev. (No. 18.) Lord Slanlcj/ to Earl Cowley. FoBEiQN Office, November 28, ISGd. Mt Loru, — As in any discussion with the French Government, which may hereafter take place on the subject of M. Lamirande's case, mnoh may turn on the precise nature uf the charge against him, and of the evidence that may be adduced in support of it, [ think it desirable that vour Excellency should employ some competent person to watch the trial and to report fully upon it ; taking care, however, in doing so not to appear to manifest any doubt as to the propriety of the manner in which the proceedings are conducted. I am, &o., (Signed,) Stanley. ^ (No. ID.) Earl Cowley to Lord Stanley (Received, December 3). Paris, December 2, 1866. My LoRD,-^In con^lianoe with the instruotions contained in your Lordship's dcg- patch of the 28th ultimo, T have desired M. Trejte to proceed to Poitiers to be present «t 119 I be tho fraud„,„ for addiDif to it ^ frietyofcog„„t |te IS a/80 declared t I* purport to bo tl,' J charged with ,„un. J that J,o ,8 char J Pnt entries into hi 'bcr 23, 1866. December. sed. Jshed at J>„iuo,,. ■"I'y a deposit of „ f«gs contaiuini. .i *^ t"»e by iuspoc Rectors gonorallr atimofromsomo' ff/png them tl.c '"'•^.,^0 tbo jcu; •^ 'f the proper '^J' Jn addition to -8, lSC(i. "lay hereafter ccise nature of f, !'' f think ">'«''• the trinj ar to uianifcst "ducted. 1866. Jship's dea- ' present Rt the trial of Lamirondo, and to report to me fall particulars for your Lordship's future ini'ormatioD. I liavo onutioucd M. Treite not to express any opinion upon the proceedings at the iriul. I have, &c. (Signed,) CovriiEY. (No. 20.) Lord Stanley to Earl Coielet/. FoBEiGN Office, December 4, 1866. My lionn, — IJcr Majesty's Qovernment have had under their consideration your I'lxoollenoy'H dcsputoh of the 20th ultimo, inclosing a copy of a memorandum which you Imd oommunioatod to the French Government, founded upon the instructions and observa- tions contained in my despatches in regard to the ponding trial of M. Lnmirando, and the ([UOHtiou (if his surrender to the British Government. Iler Majesty's Government are glad to receive the assurance of the French Govern- ment, Its reported in ^our Excellency's despatch, that the trial and its results, if such re- Hult Hliould bo a conviction, will not bar the surrender of M. Lamirandc. Ilcr Majesty's Government will await, though not without anxiety, the decision of the French Government on the representations made to them; and, in the meanwhile, they are quite content that the discussion on the subject should be carried on in the confiden- tiol lorm in which they hove hitherto been conducted. In oonolusion, I have to express to your Excellency my approval of your langua&;e to M. do Moustier, us reported in your despatch above referred to. I am, &o., (Signed,) Stanley. (No. 21.) A'ar/ Cowlei/ to Lord Stanley (^Received, December 7). Paris, December 6, 1866. Mv IiOUf), — M. Treite returned to Paris this morning from attending the trial of Laniirundt!. I had thn honor to inform your Lordship by telegraph that Lamirandc liud boun found guilty uf forgery {faux), and sentenced to ten years' rcclusion. He has nppoalcd in Caseation, and the whole question will be gone into before that Court. M. Treite will furnish me with a full report of the proceedings on the trial, but it cannot be r<>nily for u few days. I reserve all remarks until I have sent it to your Lord- tihlp. I will only observe, that the punishment of reolusion is more severe than imprison- inunt, and carries with it the penalty of the loss cf all civil rights. I have, &o., (Signed,) CowusY. (No. 22.) Lord Stanley to Earl Cowley. Foreign Office, December 7, 1866. M V liOttl),— It is stated in a daily paper that a few weeks since a criminal, whose capture or surrender had been improperly obtained in Switzerh^nd, was, after conviction and sentcnco in France, sent back to Switserland by order of the Imperial Government, «in llto ground of the antecedent irregularity. I iiavo to instruct your Excellency to mako immediate inquiry into this matter, and if the statomont is correct, you will not fail to call M. de Moustior's attcution to it, as furniiLiog a strong precedent for giving up M. Lamirandc. I am, &c., (Signed,) Stanley. V2i) I ■ i 'i III •> ■r. I ^Mi (No. 28.) /Carl Covki/ to Lord Sinnlet/ (Rccciucif, Dcccml>rr 11). (Extract.) Pari.s, December 11, 18(i(). I have the honor to enclose, herewith, copy of a letter from M. Trcitc, transinittiii;^ ; rumpte-rcndu of the trial of Lamirande, and containing observations upon the procctiJiii;i. This letter does not throw much light upon the matter. ' Tho case is certainly a curious one. Lamirando was arraigned in the ati'ui'dctns.i. tion for having stolen 700,000 francs from the Bank of France, of which ho was tlu Cashier at Poitiers, and having concealed this robbery by means of false accounts ren- dered to his superiors. At tho trial tho charge of thieft was abandoned, and Laniimndi was tried on the charge of "faux." Probably this was done with a view of bringin;.; tlw crime within the meaning of the Extradition Treaty of 1843. Your Lordship will observe that the court declared itself incompetent to decide tho question whether the extradition of Lamirande was accomplished according to the stipula- tions of that Treaty. The legality of this decision will bo disputed before tho Court ol' Cassation. (Inclosuro 1 in No. 23.) M. Treitc to Earl Cowlei/. (Translation.) Paris, November 17, 1866. My Lord, — Agreeably with tho desire expressed to me by Your Excellency, I have made very care.'ul research in works of reference and writers, in order to ascertain if I could find there any mention of a case where a government, after the surrender of u criminal, had demanded his rendition because the legal formalities had not been obscrvud in the arrest or extradition. I have found no trace of such a case, and I do not think there is one, for such a claim would be contrary to the rules which are observed in regard to the independence of different States. In fact, the State to which a criminal has been surrendered cannot be competent td appreciate the legal procedure of a foreign code, and assuredly cannot subordinate its own criminal jurisdiction to the observance ot legal forms in another country. Extradition is an act between Governments ; that which has surrenderc*Jere,Ja erimioal or iDdced casts it '^'"'oritjbutij '"om the criminal >y falsehood and '^''S the eriminal fjjS^ «o lon^jer » t"o executive J with referencJ tor the n>ht of ' ^aow through ' » position to t violating the '^''o belongs to Ji'ch may Jurt '!»niirarido will "•'0^ forward ^tradition of The English Government might be interested in learning and forming a judgment on these poiDts. Would it not bo advisable to have a lawyer present at the trial, instructed to watch the proceedings and to examine their phases and legal bearing ? This is an idea which T have taken the liberty of submitting to Your Excellency, begging yw to icoept, &c. (Signed,) TRErxK. (Translation.) 1'auis, December 10, 1800. My Loud,— -Agreeably with the desire expressed by your EYcellcncy, I went to Poitiers to attcad the trial of Lamirande, who has been brought back from Canadn uml given up to the French Govcrnicont. These proceedings, it wtis generally said, would present most interesting discussions in regard to the international right of extradition. Indeed, the defenders of the accused had prepared quite a system of attack upon the extradition of Lamirande, both as regards the facts and the law of the case. They had to show that the circumstances attending this extradition constituted acts of deceit, of fraud, of violence, and of outrages upon the English laws. They were above all to argue on the public declaration of Mr. Drummond, Judge of the Court of Queen's Bench, who bad, on the 25th of August, ISOO, declared the extradition to be illegal ; in short, it was to be pleaded that Lamirande had been stolen from the English Gdvcrnmcnt. The expression, moreover, was made use of in Court, — your Excellency will find it in the report of the proceeding which I have the honor to enclose herewith. Public attention was also much excited, but it has been altogether disappointed. lu fact the Avocat G6n6rdl, in virtue of instructions without doubt emanating iVoui the Ministry of Justice, opposed tiic admission of the motions submitted by the dcl'enilcr,'* ea the question of extradition. Thc3C motions are very explicit, the Avocat G6uC'ral maintained that the question of extradition could not be discussed before the judical authority, since the executive authority had declared that the extradition was legal and regular ; that extradition is the business of a Prince in his international relations ; relations which cannot iu any case fall within the cognizance of the judicial authority, etc., etc. [n spito of the oflbrts of tho defence, the view upheld by the Atocat General has been ratified by a decision of tho Court of Assize. This decision appears to me to be well i'ounded in law. Ilis view is, besides, in agreement with the legal opinion which 1 had the honor to submit to your Excellency on the 17th of November last, respecting the ex- tradition of Lamirande. It must, however, be said that the principles laid down by tho Lamirande decision (hy which name it always will be known) arc not utiunimously accepted in jurisprudence and in the tenets of writers. Hat tho Court of Cassation is about to be called upon to lay down a definite rule on this matter, which is so ob.=;oure, since Lamirande, it is said, has appealed to tho (.'ourt of Cassation, as lias been announced. Thus the appearance of Lamirande in a court of justice ha;i not advanced tho qncstiou of extradition between the Knglish and French Governments, with the exception that the jury Jias deciurcd Lamirande guilty of forgery agreeably to the heads of accusation tran- scribed in the indictment in Nos. o, 1, o aad 6, and which I have reported in manuscript, the newspapers not having reproduced them. We must bow to the verdict of the jury, although there may be a difierenco of opinion on the question whether the false statements made by Lamirande legally consti- tuted the French crime of falsification (/iuM,), and especially the English crime of falsi- fication called '■ forgery." On reading tho discussious, your Excellency will sec that tho rrcsidcnt of the Court of Assize asked the accused whether, although theft and abuse ot confidence might nut bo within the scopo of the Extradition Treaty of 1843, he would consent to be tried on tlicso two charges. Tho accused probably hoped for an acquittal on the charge of forgery ; lii refused to stand his trial on the two other charges, and the prosecution only relied on the crime of forgery: In my opinion, the question of tho President had a political bearing, for if the accused had consented to be tried on tho count? of theft and abuse of confidence; be would have 16 , ii, } ■ ! #1 122 M ji 1 ■! I renounced ipso facto his advantage arising from the Extradition Treaty, as the Avocat (}£n6ral pointed out. The dispute would naturally have fallen to the ground, for the Ene. lish Guvernment could no longer have to occupy itself with the reclnnmtion of an inji- vidual who had renounced the advantage arising from the Uritisli law. The declaration of Judge Drummond not having been rend at the trial, could not h} published by the French newspapers. Such a publication might have cxijoslhI tliciii to a {irosccution for inaccuracy in a report of judicial proceedings. Foreign ));i|h'is haw jnili- iabed extracts from this declaration. On the first page of the llcport, Vo-ir KxcoUemy will find an analysis of that declaration printed in a lielgian paper. Accept, &c., (Signed,) TuErri;. Tuclosuro 2 in No. 2">, (Translation.) REPORT OP THE TRIAL OK M. L.\Mt«ANUE. Analysis of the Declaration of Judge Drummond, jtii hi if.hcil hi/ a Bi h/ian 2^appr. This document not having been read during the sittings of the Laniirandc trial, h\> not been published by the French papers. IJy printing it they wotild have rcn-lrrcd thomaelves liable to prosecution for inaccuracy in the judicial reports. '' We will hero recall that somewhat strange document of .Tuilgc Drummond of Mont- real, whir'u, in fact, sums up the whole question of the extradition. " ludeed, in France wo should be at a loss to give a nainc to this document, wliicli corresponds neither in form nor in substance with our idea of a judicial sentence. 'Mn the first place, the Honorable Canadian Judge acknowlcd^Ts that he has nn further orders to give, it being impossible to bring before him the aL-cnsciI, oi rather tin' petitioner, as he calls him in deferential language, he being on the lii'^li seas, cairieil i fl by one of the most audacious and, np to this time, happy enterprises anain-t jiisticu wliic !i have ever been heard of in Canada. " Notwithstanding this somewhat candid declaration, the Ilonoraltle .ludge J)runi- niond launches forth into a long dissertation better suited to ploailim-s or jiuleii.ics than to the impartiality of a judicial document. " What results from this harangue is the rather impassionoil opinion ol' the Judue, maintaining that the extradition would never have been granted by him if the case had remained intact, and that for several reasons, which he enumerates very concisely, viz. : — "1. That the French Consul General at Montreal was not qualified to demand the Extradition, not being an accredited Diplomatic Agent, as required by the Treaty of 1S4:J "2. Because the original instramcnt of indictment against the accused was not authenticated; that in lieu of the original and regular document only a copy thereof, translated by some unknown individual, was produced (it is known tliat at New Vork the warrant was abstracted from the rest of the papers by one of lianiiramleV advocates, to whom this document had to be communicated). " 3. ]Jecauso the act imputed to the accused, Lamirande, »--'i-n,,,l .,fl '^"''^""c.'? fliai, ,0 ' f'le caso J,a,j noisoJy, viz. ._ ,," tloiiiand t]io '■eaVy thereof, ^^'"' ^'ork the ' auvocafcs, to "/'"'imputa- ivJiioh ,roulcl ' '«brica(iori '"f inlende.l n-M that J,o f ^'ans, on he J>eputy ^' Agent of lemanded, f^ JegalJy lieDij the (joveroor Gciicrul had promised, as ho waa bound to do in Louor and justioo, to give the petitioner an opportunity of having bis petition decided by tho first tribunal of tne land before ordering; his extradition.' " After these imputations levelled by a magistrate «gaiost tho Governor of the t'liuntry, one can understand tho polemical violcnoo of tho American press. It is true that iho Canadian magistrate adds, that if there is a false date in tho Governor General's var- iant, he sees thcroin a proi>f tiiat the t;ocd faith of the Governor has been abused." lUiroKT ';/' ihi: Trlitl oj l/iuHinnid<', taken from the " Gcu-.Mc des Tribunanx. " th,'. Jovnwl " Lc Droit:' ('otJIlT 01' OlU.MINAIi JUSIIOE. — AkSIZES OF VlENNE. and {SjKcia/fi/ drnvii vp Jor the Gazette des Tribunaux.) Under tho Presidency of 31. Auliugeois de la Ville du Host, Judge of the Imperial Court of Poitiers, tUttiiKj of December 3. Ill re Lamirandc, — Fraudulent Abstraction, — Embezzlement of 704,000 francs from the Branch Bank of France at Poitiers, — Forgery in Bank accounts. The name of Laiuiraudc has for some months acquired Huch a notoriety that it is Mifiicicnt to mention it to recall all the facts with which it is connected. Cashier of tho liranch Bank of Franco at Poitiers, he disappears, leaving a considerable deficit in bis cash, ill) flies — he cros.scs the seas : he first takes refuge in England j then in America. French |iolicc agents folicw on his track, have him arrested ; but before he is delivered up to them disputes arise between tho difi'ercnt authorities of America, England and Franco upon tho ({ucstion of cxtraditiuii, auu it is only lately that they ha»ro been settled, and that Lami- randc has been handed over to the justice of his country, ^ueh is tho summary, ?nucli abridged, of the long preliminaries of this serious afifair, but which it appears to us ought to be sufficient, now that it is coming to trial, to bring it to tho notico of tho public. A large concourse of people thronged the approaches of tho Palaco of Justice in the liope of being present during this important trial. It could not be otherwise in the town where the acuused has boon so long known, and where, whilst ho acquired a position of eunfidencc, he was enabled to gain the esteem of a large number of its inhabitants. Tho Magistrate's licucli was occupied by M. Ga.st, first Advocate General. The i'rocurcur Gi'ueral Damay was present. Maitrc Ijachaud was charged witli the defence of Lamirandc, who had also as couUiScl, •M. Lepetit, formerly senior advocate of tho bar at Poitiers. Upon the accused being introduced into Court, a quick movement of curiosity was apparent on all sides ; all heads were raised ; all eyes were directed towards him, and a long period elapsed before tho first burst of public curiosity subsided. Lamirandc, whose uaniage and demeanor announced him to bo a man of superior breed- ing, is of middle height, he bus brown hair, a high forehead, a palo complexion ; kiis regular features announce slircwdness and vivacity. Those of the inhabitants of Poitiers wlio ivDcw him, .vay that they can hardly recogni/e him, ho is so changed and emaciated ; never- theless, bo is not depressed and ho seems not to have lost any of his energy. After the jury bad taken their places, and the identity of the prisoner bad been proved, the warrant of arrest and the act of indictment were read by the clerk of the Court ; this last document is couched in these torms : — " On Monday, March 12, 1.866, M. Bailly, Director of the Branch Bank of France, at Poitiers, informed Lamirandc, Cashier of the same establishment, that a million in gold would have to be iauuediatcly forwarded to the Branch at Angoulcme, and that the day after, Tuesday, 51)0,000 francs in silver would have to be sent to tho same place. Lami- randc made, during the day, the necessary preparations for the despatch of a million in gold. In the evening he clandestinely left his post, took the railway, and reached the frontier, l^efore starting he had lei't a letter addressed to tho Dirsotor, M. Bailly, in which ho stated that he was unexpectedly obliged to go to Chutellerault ; that he had left his keys with M, Querieux, Chief Accountant, and that he would return soon enough to make up his caHh account. At tho same time he had written to M. Qu by taki„. ? convoyanco oT order to .o„,| Of so coDsider- uid nccj'ssnrijy V^" Which J„. •■d a return in "?» nooordinp " ^aa ceased 1^ |,i! iturrcct, nwiuK to his own cubczzlcnicut. The very Uuy of his departure ho still i,iiniiniittoJ to tiiH direutur a return of tlio stale of the liank, certified and signed by him- „lf, in which hu falxcly attested that the muu. total in the coffers of tha Bank amounted to iliii Diiiii of J l,4J!{.(J00 francs, wliilst iu reality, through hia abstr ^ns, the amount in land was dituiniMhcd by thu 7O4,0UO fruLn the recjuest of M. Pominvillc, Counsel for tho Bank of France, who was desirous of making some further observations. Judge Brummond, when about to give judgment, in consideration of the lateness of the hour (7 o'clock in the evening), postponed tho remain- der of the hcariiig and his decision till the next day, tho 25th ; • Seeing, that during tho evening of tho 24th of August, before the decision of the •ludgc, who alone was qualified to give a definitive decision, police agents dragged Lami- randc forcibly from prison, that ho was brought to Franco, and notwithstanding his protests handed over to the French police ; Seeing, that all these facts cannot be contested, that they are proved by the judgment delivered by Mr. Drummond on the 28th of August, 1866 ; That it results moreover, from this decision, that Mr. Drummond has declared that there were no grounds for an extradition, for several reasons given in his judgment, and founded cither on the form of tho demand, or on the main issue, in that the acts cited con- stituted none of tho crimes for which extradition could be granted ; Seeing, that at present the Court of Assize is called upon to judge whether the cxtraHition of Lamirando can be declared legal; That it is evident it could not bo so, since the Judge before whom tho case had been duly dared nughtl ))crior| t' aoousatiou jerics. Tlio •I, Attoraoy, to upprur lis he uouruo ui' enk in order luiupotuiu to liar niuDuer, it thiH priu- olarod that thoro was do reason for granting it ; That an act of violoDoc, for which Kngland cannot fnil to cnll her ii^'ont- ^ .' 'inf, ought not to prevail over a judicial decision, and thus malo force mul liuboruatioii .su- perior to right ; That whatever may bo tho faults and the crimes of which Lamirandn im ih'oiisihI, they can form no reason for violating tho most ordinary rules of jiMtiec ; th-.it the aim of Inter- nationul TveaticH of Kxtradition is not to give advantage to aeouHed peroons, but almve nil, to respond to the highest interests of tho reciprocal relations and liberty of nations ; Seeing, that it is in vain to object that Lamirando was handed over to the I'Vcm-h Agents of Police by virtue of an order signed on tho *J!>rd of August, 1S(J('>, by the (jlovernor of (Canada; that it results from the sentence delivered by Mr. Drummond, that tho dato borne by this order is not the real one ; that it was given after the 'JDrd of August ; that tho (lovcruor's signature could only have been obtained by underhand means ; Seeing, moreover, that tho very terms of the Treaty of 1S4!> do not permit tho (Jov- ernor General to deliver up an accused person for extradition before tlie judicial deci.'^iou has been pronounced by tho proper Judge ; that on the 24th of August the ease eamo boi'oro Judge Drummond ; that tho British Oovcrnnicnt, represented by I^lr. Ramsay, Queen'.s (younsel ; tho Bank of Franco, represented by Mr. Pominville, Advocate; Jiamirande him- self represented by Mr. Doutrc, Advocate, were heard, and that they argued tho question of the legality of tho extradition before that Magistrate ; That from that moment until after the decision of Judge Drummond, it was inipo.ssihle to dispose of Lamirando without violating at onco both law and justice ; That it may please tho Court, for these reasons and for other.s whicli it may think lit to add, to pronounce tho extradition null ; And, quite collaterally, seeing that — to suppose an impossibility — the (.'nurt should declare itself incompetent to pronounce the ostraditioD null by reason of Iho diploniatie character of that act, it cannot ignore the fact that the eircumstances attending this extradition may bo of a nature to render it null; that it would then liave to he submittod to the attcn'tivo examination of the two Governments of Franco and Great Britain, uud in that case to grant a postponement until it shall have been decided, with all reservations, by those to whom it shall belong. After the reading of these motions, M. Gast, the Avocat (jend-ral, immediately a.-kod for permission to speak in order to oppose them : — Gentlemen, ho said, against those motions, wo have to bring some interlocutory motions. We come forward to ask tho Court not to allow thcni to be argued. These motions do not take us by surprise. From his first examination the accused asserted that he could not be tried in Franco. The prisoner's honorable counsel had informed us of those uiotious, wlueli are lik>' pleadings, and tho object of which is that the Court .should dccluro itself comiietoni, lo judge of the legality of the extradition, and coUatetally grant a jjostponenicnt. [n order to discuss the competency of this Court in this respeet, we will examiiu' tin laws relating to extradition, the power of tho judicial authority, tho vlght.iof the iudividual delivered up, and the privileges of the French Government. Penal laws are exclusively territorial, this principlo is iucontestuble. ne\oiid ilio frontiers of each state penal laws are paralyzed, and this is the principle beiiind which fugitive criminals shelter themselves : consequently, these criminals cannot criticise tlii> force of tho measures which have been applied to them beyond the limits of our territory. How could French Magistrates judge of the legolity of these nets/ They could iii)t do it cither from the point of view of French law, nor iu judging of Ibreigu laws. There is another reason still more conclusive, which disposes of the questiuu of com- petency. The meosurcs taken abroad were at the request of the French GovernmeiiL ; and moreover, culpable acts committed abroad are ^uito indifferent to us, and they are quite beside our judgment. Lamiiande was so well aware of the indictment upon which tho warrant for his arrest was founded, that his American advocate has been accused of haying stolen that document, and he made no protest when the warrant was served on him. i m Tho Avocat U convontionH '(* ( )no or tho other of tlioso Govornmonts can ulone vindicate thoso rightx. As for tho individual person given up, from tho moment ho again sotH toot in his oountry ho becomes simply an aoousou man vho has to bo tried. Tho Avooit G«'n<>ral quoted in his support Dalloz ("Traits International," page 184) ; " Decree of tho Court of Coxsotion," 1852 (Morin, page r>02). nut if acts oommittod abroad are matters of indiiforoncu to i'Vonoh justice, it is other* wise with tho foreign Government. If in tho extradition thoro has beou fraud oi violation of territory, even a caittn twllf may bo tho result. Lot us suppose that n fortign Government had cause to complain of such a grievance, to whom would it apply for redress 'f To a <^ourt of Assize ? Simply to ask tho question is to answer it. Tho foreign (^uvernmcnt will come direct to tho Vronoh Governmout to ask for redress; and tako notice that this is tho only Flaintifi' which can be recognized through tho medium of his Diplomatic Agents, ejtruditiou having no kind of right. You assert that tho Treaty has been violated ; but for that you must have the Treaty interpreted. Can the Tribunals do so ? Hero is what I road in Dalloz ' ito thoHo rifj;htM. t in his country ittl," page 184) ; lie never touches on a subject without exhausting it, he adds, that in granting the right of objection, the exception taken must bo important, and of such a nature as to suspend judgment on the main points. I am afraid that Lamirande is only looked upon as tho criminal, ns a man who inspires little sympathy. What has the individual to do with the question 'I Forget the man ; instead of a crime of cupidity, to-morrow you may have to try a crime of passion, and tho position of tho Avocat-(i4n<5ral can no longer be maintained. What would it be then if a political trial were in question ? I do not wish to press my argument any further ; but do not forget, gentlemen, that in this matter everything is important; a neighbouring people, n great people, arc at this moment weighing our words; they should not find them falling shnrt of that respect wirli which they are accustomed to surround those two great bases oi" society, tin; HIk rty of all, and the law for all. I persist in my motions. Maltre Bourbeau, Advocate for the prosecution, declares that ho took tlio side of the Law Officers, and rejects the motions with regard to annulling tli(> extradition, ami with regard to the adjournment of the trial. Maitre LepeU't, one of the Counsel for the Dcfcneo, repliod, and in a warm and animated argument grounded on the opinion of M. M. Dalloz and Faustin Ileiie, and on the doctrine of the l)ecree of the Court of Cassation of 184r), maintained that tho Court, of Aisize is competent to entertain the exception as regards tho nullity of the extradition, not in the sense that the law would have the right to criticise diplomatic acts, but in the sense that it may inquire whether the forms laid down by international conventions have been observed, in other words, whether tho law has been imposed upon. The Court retired into the Council Chamber, to deliberate on the point. At half-past three the sitting was resumed. The President pronounced the decision, couched in the following terms : — " Seeing, that by a Decree of tho Imperial Court of Poitiers, Chamber of indictments, dated the 29th May, 1866, the Sieur Sureau, called Lamirande, has been sent before tho Vienue Court of Assize, under the triple accusation of aggravated theft, aggravated breach of trust, and forgery in commercial or in banking accounts ; " Seeing, that in consequence of the said decree, an indictment has been drawn up by the Procureur G6n6ral, dated September 23, 1866 ; " Seeing, that those two documents have been communicated to the accused by the summons of the 24th of September, and that on tho 24tli of the same month the said ac- cused was examined by tho President of Assizo, in conformity Avith the articles 293, 204, 295 and 296 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ; " Seeing, that from that time the case was in a proper form to be tried and has been regularly set down for trial at this session ; " Seeing, nevertheless, that the counsel for the defence of Lamirande have, by tho motions submitted at the sitting, demanded of the Court to pronounce the extradition of the accused invalid, and quite collaterally, to put off the trial of the ease until a decision be come to by competent authority as to the validity of that extradition ; " Seeing, that in the matter of fact it follows from the documents in the case, and cspei oftl char ofC 181 his man had a decision of vhich never- tho truth of answer the cli, refutinf^' ■ the accusoj lose dccrecf, thinks that )n, or to tlio austin lUUo he acknow- possibly be necessary to •jeot without taken must who inspires t the man; on, and the be then if a tlcmcu, that , arc at tlijs Mpcct with lii'ity of ail, side of the n, and with warm ami '■lie, and on ho Court of !straditioii, but in tho itions have diotmcnts, before tho ed breach iwn up by 3d by the e said ac- 293, 294. has been !, by tho dition of decision asc; and especially from the Ministerial despatch of tho 25th November, 1866, that on the demand of the French Government, Lamirande, put under arrest on an indictment comprising charges of forgery in commercial or in banking aooounts, was placed by the Government of Canada, where he bad fled for refuge, at the disposal of the BVench authorities ; Seeing, that immediately after the extradition had taken place, the Imperial Govern- ment itself delivered the accused into the hands of justice, in order that ho might answer before a comptcnt tribunal for the crimes of forgery in commercial or in banking ac- counts, the crimes upon which the demand for his extradition were founded ; '' Seeing, that iu the matter of law, Treaties of Extradition are high administrative nets, agreed upon between two Powers in tho general interest of morality and social security, that the i'ornis and couditions thereof aro regulated, not for the advantage of the persons ac- cused, who cannot, by taking refuge abroad, obtain impimity for themselves from the law of their own country, but by the consideration of tho international requirements or of the mutual observances of tho Governments ; " Seeing, that the fundamental principle of tho separation of authorities is opposed to the possibility of the French courts of Law interfering in regard to the interpretation and the application of tho Acts of the Government which gives up tho accused to their juris- diction. " Seeing, that by tho very fact of delivering an accused person into the hands of his natural judges, the Imperial Government confirms the regularity of his extradition, and that that decision, which lies within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Executive authority, cannot be tho subject of any appeal ; " For these reasons, tho Court rejects the motions, both principal and collateral, drawn up by Lamirande's counsel, and decrees that the trial be proceeded with." The President — Prisoner, you have heard what has been said. You need only answer as to the facts relating to tho forgoric?. Arc you willing to answer to all tho other charges recorded in the indictment i* Lamirande — I am ready to answer as to all the facts. M. Lachaud — I cannot allow my client to commit himself on that ground. I main- tain that the letter of the Keeper of tiie Seals could only cause Lamirande to be sent before tho assizes for the crime of forgery. No one can have the right, the Keeper of tJie Seals no more than anybody else, to violate tho ,law. The President — It is for that reason that I consulted Lamirande, leaving him hia full liberty of action. M. Lachaud — I persist in my protest, M. lo President, and, if necessary, I will make some very precise motions iu order to define it clearly. Lamirande does not under- stand the consequences of his acquiescence ; it is tho business of his Counsel to make him understand them. I ask only for a delay of five or sis minutes in order to draw up my motions. M. Lepctit — I entirely concur in and adopt tho observations of Maitro Lachaud, .ind I unite with him in asking for time to write out our motions. Alter being suspended for a few minutes, tho sitting was resumed. The President — Prisoner Lamirande, I repeat what I have already asked you, do you consent to be tried on all the charges brought against you ? Lamirande — I have neither to consent nor not to consent. M. Lachaud — Hero aro tho motions which I submit in Lamirande's name : — " Seeing that Lamirande has been remitted to the Vienne Court of Assize for trial on the triple charge of embezzlement, of aggravated theft, and of forgery in oommeroial or iu banking accounts ; " That tho Decree has boon communicated to him, and that he appears before the jury on that triple charge ; " Seeing, that it cannot bo in the power of any one to divide or to suppress a part of these several counts of indictment ; " That Lamirande has not either to consent or not to consent to bo tried for the crimes brought against him of breach of trust and aggravated theft, but that it concerns him that the jury should bo called on to settle the whole charge ; " That if it is true, as has been just laid down by tho Court, that Treaties of Extradi- tion can never be interpreted by Courts of Law ; it ia inadmissible that there should be, I. 132 on their account, the power of modifying a ohargs bclbro ,000 or 486,000 francs you took with you on your departure ? — Am. I gave 191,000 francs to my lawyers in Now York. M. LacJuiitd — Those follows are not lawyers. ITic President — New York lawyers. M. Lachand — They do not dcsorvo the name. They are accomplices iu the robbery. The President — What has become of those 191,000 francs ? — Ans. They were to keep 135,000 francs as a reserve for me, in case I had put in the plea of Extradition, or to return them to mc. They have returned 25,000 francs, and tiie rest has remained in their hands. Qitrstion. — What have you done with the remainder of the sums carried off? — Ans. 1 spent 10,000 francs amongst women. I squandered ; I gambled ; I paid heavy debts. Question. — Who robbed you ? — Am. I cdnnot say. The thieves could not be got at without affecting innocent persons. Question. — Why gamble, since you had largo sums of money at your disposal ? — Ans. It was known that I was not rich. I had largo expenses. 1 gambled iu order to induce the belief that 1 was winning a great deal, and that I found in my gains at play the means of meeting my expenses. Question. — You said that you paid your debts, and yet that they arc far Irom being got rid off? — Ans. That is true ; but if there still remain debts amounting to about 30,000 francs, 1 have paid away on this account sums of much greater amount. Question. — Do y J .icknowledge that for nearly three years, with the object of con- I'caling you defalcations, you have fulsificd the bank returns. — Ans. The returns are not incorrect. These returns would rather serve to ruin me than to disguise the truth. Question. — 1 know that ; but it is not the question I put to you. I ask you whether, un inspection of those returns, the cash deficit could be suspected ? — Ans. Certainly not. But the state of affairs shown in my returns would be correct wcro nothing missing from the coffers. My crime commenced with the defalcations, but not when 1 drew out my returns. Question. — But which, nevertheless, served to conceal your embezzlements ? — Ans. That is not my opinion. I add that, in making up these retnrus, I do not consider that I c-juiTnitted forgery either in commercial or in banking accounts. President — That is a question of law which you must leave to your Counsel. Call a witnesf;. .1/. J/iiehaud — 1 beg your pardon, M. le President. Will you allow nic to say a word. President — 1 do not think this is the right time, 31. Lachand. Jf. Lachaud — I insist, IM. le President ; it is my duty to insist. What 1 have to Hay id very important. J'resident — Your client has becu examined on a point to which be would not reply. Wo cannot allow his advocate to reply for him. -V. Lachaud — I do not wish to undertake to reply for him. What 1 have to say can do no iiarm to him or any one else. I have ho^o 110,200 francs (M. Lachaud placed before him i packet in a paper envelope.) 1 wish to give thorn up. I do give them up, and until they can reach their destination by way of restitution, I place them in the hands of M. liourbeau, counsel for the prosecution. (Applause in the body of tho ball.) M. Bourbeau — I am not empowered to receive them. They had better be placed in the hands of the Director of the Bank, who will givo a receipt for them. M. Lachaud — There is no need of a receipt. (The Director of the Bank opened tho parcel and took charge of the bank notes inclosed in it.) Th,i President to Lamirande — There is still missing about 120,000 francs. What have yon done with that sum. Lamirande — I can only give the same answer as before ; I cannot say. M. Lachaud — I should add a few words in explanation of this restitution of 110,200 i'rancs. A hint was giveo us, to M. Lepetit and to myself. We followed up the tracks of tho robbery. Every place was searched, even the house-tops. We asked liamiraqde if ho wo said h compi 135 that period. was f^oinjf vo you done departure ? he robbery, ley were to ilitioD, or to aod in their oft'? — Ans. vy debts. 3t be got at sal ? — Ans. r to induoo ' the nienos i'rom bsinj; lout 30,000 i!ct of eon- Ds are not luth. )u whether, rtainly not. issing from ew out my Its ? — Arts. ider that I b1. Call a ay a word. I have to lot reply. vo to say ud placed them up, the hands •) 10 placed k opened I. What 110,200 le tracks iraqde if he would give the name of the womaa to whom he had intrusted this sum. " No, do," said he, " I would die first. That person has herself been robbed, and I will not have her compromised." We then devoted ourselves to this object, and we recovered the 110,200 francs which I have just given up. I must add that Lamirande never had this sum in his possession ; and that if he had asked us for it, we should not have given it to him, (Sensation in Court). Tlic President.— Call a witness. EXAMINATION OP WITNESSES. The first witness examined was M. Dubois de Jancigny, Inspector of the Bank of France, the same who accompanied the workman who was sent to Poitiers for the purpose of opening the upper compartment of the current cash, the key of which Lamirande had carried off. This witness confirmed all the details given in the indictment as to the verification of the deficit discovered after the departure of Lamirande. The President — Is it obligatory on the Cashier to furnish a daily Ketum showing the state of the cash ? TT'iVncss— Nothing is more obligatory ; it is by these Branch Returns that the Bank of France fixes the rate of discount. The duplicate of thif Return is entered in a book kept at the Branch Bank. MaUre Lachaud — Are the instructions of the Bank the same for all the Branches as far as relates to making a duplicate of the daily Return ? Witness — I think they have been the saniii for the last three or four years ; formerly copying the Return into a bound book was not obligatory, although it was required by the r irectors in several Branches. The President to the Witness—It is shown by the confessions of Lamirande that your anticipations were well-founded, inasmuch as the first embezzlementsgo back for more th.n three years. Now tell us whether he could have eft'ccted tlieso embezzlements without rendering false accounts ':' Witness — It was the necessary consequence of the embezzlements; without the falsi- fied Returns it would soon have iteea discovered that there was something amiss in the cash ; there would have been an examination, the fraud would have been discovered, and Lamirande would have been arrested. Question — Lamirande pretends that the daily Returns, far from facilitating his em- bezzlements, made discoveries more easy, for, he adds, by comparing the Returns with the state of the cash, an ace<>unt might have been taken — simply weighing the money would have been suflieient. — Ans. This argument would be valid if suspicion had bfcn enter- tained ; but the Returns, by concealing the deficit, could not but aid the deception. Question — Lamirande acknowledges the embezzlement ; his reason is apparent ; hois not prosecuted upon those counts, but he denies the forgery for which he is prosecuted — his tactics are understood. — Ans. In my opinion the two facts, that of embezzlement and that of forgery, cannot be separated ; the one came to the assistance of the other. Question — Explain to us the nature of the responsibility of tbe Cashier, both as regardi^ the current cash and as regards the money in reserve ? — Ans. With regard to the current cash which is in the Cashier's ofiice, the responsibility falls personally and solely upon him. It is not the same as regards the funds in reserve (in the cellar or the safe) ; here the responsibility is divided between two persons, the Director of the Branch, who has one key, and the Cashier, who has another. Question — Is it not in consequence of that divided responsibility that the late Direc- tor, M. Bailly, has been replaced ? — Arts. Yes, M. le President. M. Bailly, who has been lor fifty-two years a landowner at Angers, late Director of tiie Branch Bank of Poitiers, was called to the bar. The President — Tell us what you know. M. Bailly — Gentlemen of the jury, on the lltl: of March last I received au order from the Bank of France to despatch to the Angouleme Branch, first 1,000,000 and then 500,000 francs. The same day I gave directions to Lamirande, my cashier, to despatcli on the next day, the 12th, the 1,000,000 francs, and to make preparation for the despatcli of the 500,000 francs on the 13th of March. The issue of these orders briugs us to the I ' 136 M 13th of March, on the morning of which day I received a letter from M. Laiuirandci iu- forming me that he had been suddenly obliged to go to Gh&tellcrault, leaving to M.Qucgriaux, chief accountant, his keys, and the duty of despatching the 500,000 franca to Angoulome. Here the witness entered into the details given in the indiotm&at, of the discovery ot the frauds perpetrated in the bags of silver destined for Angouldme, and, at a latter period, in the bags of gold. In the bags of silver 200 fraucs were uniformly missing per bug ; in the bags of gold, the weight of the abstracted coin was replac«d by an equal weight of silver coin and paper. These frauds could never have been committed cither in the ccnar or in the safe : it must neoe'^sarily have been in his office that this operation was per- formed and where the bags wv,ve thus altered, but weighing their proper weight ; the attend- ants carried them into the cellar or into the safe, and the doors once closed Lamirando was out of danger, for from that moment the responsibility was divided between him and me. I never intrusted my keys of the reserve to Lamirande, in whom, however, I had the greatest confidence. Tlie President — The cashier then was personally responsible for his current cash : and as regards the reserves you shared the responsibility with him 'i Tlie Witness — Yes, M. le President, this is the case iu all the liranch Banks. I was myself for long while cashier in a branch, and was responsible for my current cash. Question — How is it that Lamirande was able to continue his embezzlement for more than three years, which is proved in the first xustanoe by his confessions, and secondly by a cer- tain number of the bags found in the cellar being so old ? — Ans. The cashier has the superintendence of the movement of all funds. When we went down to the reserves he it was who pointed out the divisions from which the bags to be sent away were to be taken. It is quite natural that he should take care not to point out for removal the bags which had been tampered with. To have interfered with his directions suspicions must have been entertained of him. The FVesident—Piisoner, what have you to say on this deposition !* Lamirande — Nothing, M. le President ; except to express to M. Bailly my profound regret for the consequences which have been entailed upon him by my conduct. Question. — These regrets have come very late. When, on the 13th of March, you had so well prepared for your flight you did not think of the responsibilty which would fall upon him by your carrying off more than 400,000 francs from your cash ? — Ans, I did not prepare for my flight, £ yielded through necessity ; I had the choice of suicide or flight. Question.— Bat not with 400,000 irancs?— yfws. I might have taken 5,000,000. (Sensation.) Question.— So your discretion is to be praised then ? — A»s. T do not look for praise, but I wish to state that in the dire necessity in which I found myself I could not leave with empty bands ; but that if I had been a thief, I .slioiild have taken all that I could lay hands ou. M. Bailly gave evidence in confirmation tliut the fulHiticd returns of thu Etate of the cash delivered to him each day by Lamiramie, enuld not but lull hicu to confidence, and aid in the continuance of the embezzlement. Af. de Gritri/, Treasurer and Payma^trr (Jenenil nt Foitiurs — I have been Receiver at Vienne since 18C5, and Inspector (*' cen^iuo") of the Brunch Bank of Poitiers, it is in this latter character that I have had occasion to have some relations with Ijamirando. I do not know him personally, nor am I awurc ot' hi»t antecedents. On the 13th of March last, I was sent for to the bank by the director. There I was informed that, owing to the despatch of 600,000 fruncs iu silver to Angouleme,.it had been dioovered that a great number of bags did not contain the sums which they ought to have held, and that the cashier, Lamirande, had written in the morning to tho director to say that he had left suddenly for Chdtellerault, and had left the keys of the cash with M. Quegriaux, Chief Accountant ; at the same Hme begging him to undertake tho despatch of the 500,000 francs to Angouleme. I at once got M. Bailly to go and make a declaration before the Procureur Imperial, where I accompanied him. An express was also sent to the Bauk requesting them to send an inspector and a workman to open the upper compart- ment of the current cuali, the key of which Lamiiundc had carried off. The remainder of this witness's depositi'tn only refers to what is already known. n liraodc, iu- Qucgriaux, ADgoulome. discovery of atter period, )cr bag; in al weight ol' in the ccliar was pcr- the atteud* uirande was lim and me. I had the irrcnt cash : nks. I was iaah. srmore than ly bjr a eer- ier has the iserves he it to be taken, baga which I must have ly profound t. oh, you had I would fall s. I did not or flight. 5,000,000. : for praise, i not leave I could lay ;tate of the ice, and aid 3 Receiver Drs, it is in lirando. I hero I was it had been ht to have stor to say i with M. espatoh of 'eclaration so sent to ' oompart- 10 wn. 187 M. Lambert, manager (" administrateur") of the Branch at Poitiers^ foraierly a magistrate, was called to the bar. The President — Several witnesses have already deposed to the facts of which you aro called to make your declara' 'on. We request you to sum it up in as few words as possible. M. Lambert, in fact only cocSrmcd what had been said Dy the previous witnesses, an well upon ihe working of the accounts of the Branch, and the removing of funds, as upon the responsibility incumbent on the cashier, and the circumstances which led to the discovery of the frauds. The President — Have you been long manager of the Branch ? The Witnesi — Since Hs formation, M. h Pr6sident. The President — Have you sometimes verified the cash ? The Witness — Never, M. lo Prdsidont, except on the 13th of March, when I was called upon to do so after the flight of Lamirande. Question. — What aro the duties of the manager ? — Ans. Solely to assure himself of the solvency of pei-sons who present bills for discount. M. Quegriaux, late chief accountant of the Branch, banker at Poitiers, was called. TJie President — You are called before us, sir, to give us some information on the management of the accounts of the Branch. M. Quegriaux, after having referred to the facts which proceeded and followed the flight of Lamirande, added : — With regard to the accounts this was the arrangement : M. Lamirande, as cashier, gave mo the papers. I entered the accounts in my books, and in the evening I checked the balance of my account by that of his cash-book. It was necessary that the two balanoe.<) should agree, and they always did so. The President — But in order that Lat 'randc's balance should correspond with yourb, it must necessarily have been false. M. Quegriaux. — Doubtless ; but I was not a\/are of the falsity. Question, — How did Lamirande conduct hiruself at Poitiers. — Ans. I was perfectly ignor^.nt on the subject. It is only since his flight that I have become aware that he spent a great deal of money. Question. — It is said from 60,000 to 80,000 francs a year. — Ans. That is what I have heard said ; bu^ only einoe his disappearance. Question. — And of i^hat nature was his expenditure ? — Ans. I have been told that he gambled away a great deal. Question. — Sixty thousand francs, it is stated, at one time, either at AngoulSme or at Angers? Lamirande. — I have never been at Angers ; and nowhere, not even at AngoulSnie, did I ever lose 60,000 francs. M. Lachaud. — It matters little. What is certain is, that youhave played and lost a great deal. Lamirande. — I own it. M. Mar^chal, a clerk at the Branch Bank, who had to go to the railway with the 500,000 francs despatched to Angouldme, and who, on weighing the bags, found out that from 55,000 to 60^000 francs must be missing, confirmed these facts. M. Sarrault, attendant in the cash department of the Branch Bank, anu Barry, the doorkeeper, likewise went with the 500,000 francs. Both confirmed the facts stated by the clerk, Mar6ehal. Sarrault, who, besides being an attendant in the cash department was at the same time Lamirande's private servant, added that the day after Lamirande's flight, on going into his room, he remarked that papers had been burnt in the grate. The President — Lamirande, what papers were those? Lamirande — I had destroyed acknowledgments for money which I had lent. The President — I do not understand ; what I burn acknowledgments for money lent ? Lamirande — I was completely bewildered. The Prendf: * — Not so completely; all the preparations you made for your flight prove the contrary. Lamirande — I declare that I was bewildered ; the whole of my conduct after my flight leaved no doubt of it. Mattre Bourbeau, counsel for the Bank of France, was called on to speak for the proseoaticn. 18 188 3/. Bourbeau — I appear before you oa the part of the Bank of Franco, to defend great interests, interests moral and material, for vrhioli, as regards the latter, some repara- tion has been commenced. The atory of Lamirande is a sad one. You are not called upon to punish in him a more deviation, a moment of forgetfulness, but a long series of misdeeds; a persoveranoo in evil whicli might be called incorrigible ; no remorse, no twinges of conscience, over hindered him ; in tnree years he has squandered 219,000 francs, and that by means of daily tricks. How does he explain them J By his passion for play. Gambling is not an excuse, it can be but an explanation. A day arrives when ho can no longer continue his embezzlements, and he takes flight, without considering that he leaves behind him two disconaol.ito familios, his own and that of his unhappy director. Ho departs; it is not tu his own fuuiily that ho goes to bid farewell, but to two women of that town, upon whom he rains down Danao's golden shower. Let us for a moment follow him ; he loaves Poitiers ; ho goes first to England, then to Euglish America — to Canada. There ho becomes tho subject of a de- mand fi)r extradition on the part of the French Qoverumcnt. An incident happens. The Fretident — Do not touch upon the question of extradition. You are aware of the decisions passed by the Court yesterday. M. Bourbeau — I only wished to say two words. The Freaident — Not even two words, Mattro Bourbeau. Be good onough to pass tb- , over. M. Bourbeau. — Well, let us say nothing about tho extradition, lot us also bo silent on the subject of tho robberies, fraudulent abstractions, and embezzlemcuts, and since henceforth he can only be pc docutcd for iorgeries in com-.-^crcial or In banking aoojDunti, let us discuss the question of forgery. Cau there be a doubt na regards this crime after the explanations which have resulted frcm these discussions ? We do not hesitate to du< cl.Tc thut, as far as we are concerned, there cannot be the shadow of a doubt. He made false returns uf the state of his cash; that is proved and be confesses it. With what object 'i!' With tho sole intent of seeking protection from the consequences of his cmbezzlomeuts by falsifying his accounts. When, therefore, ho showed, by his accounts, the existenco of ho many bags of 1,000 francs, whilst a great number of those bags only contained 800 iVanos each, did ho not commit forgery ? ^ee him in his office, whether abstracting '200 fran'.>H from bags of 1,000 francs each, or transtorming rouleaux of gold into rouleaux of silver, und having these effects taken to tho cellar ; there is the robbery, there is the cmbezzlcmuDt, But afterwards, what does he do ? He takes his pen, and enters in his cash-book and his returns sums which exist no longer, since he has embezzled them. And shall not that bo called forgery, and why ? Is not the Bank of France a commercial Company '/ Does it not trade in tho value of gold and silver '( Was not Lamirande tho clerk of a commercial Company ? To all these queiJtions the answers can only be in the affirmative. No, it cannot bo said that for three years a cashier can have written a false account of a deficient balance on hand, and yet not be a forger. See what were the consequences for these forgeries. By the aid of these forgeries he was enabled to pass from the current cash, of which he had the sole responsibility, to the cash in reserve, the responsibility of which was divided between him and the director, a sum of more than 200,000 francs, and this is how the upright director, M. Bailly, rests morally responsible for that sum, which he never received. Entering upon the question of law, the advocate quoted a decree of the Court of Cassatiun of 1841, which declares that false enterics made by a clerk in commercial books constitutes a forgery in commercial accoucts. Tho cose cited relates to a clerk who entered as sold, in his master's books, goods which he had stolen. The Court of Cassation ruled that that constituted forgery, inasmuch as the false en- tries concealed the truth, and moreover, were calculated to mislead the merchant as to the true state of his affairs. In this cose, as well as in the one which we aro discussing, forgery is a means of concealing robbery, either committed or about to bo committed. Gentlemen, I have ended my address, and I have demonstrated the injury which may be caused by falso accounts in commercial business. Lamirande was a thief. He was necessarily obliged to become a forger. By these forgeries he has been the cause of a triple injury to the bank. First, an injury in regard to money, then a second injury^ in 189 Tf p to dei'onU somo roparu- In him a wore IraDoo in ovil Ivor hindered 1 daily triokn. IZL'USP, it OBII TbezzlemonU, |IntofoiniIioH, fmily thut ho Bwu Danao'H gocB first ti) Ijeot of n du> |tppeQM. iro aware of ugh lo pusii 'Ibo bo silent ts, and ainoo ing acojDuntt, 8 orimo after esitatfl to du* le mado fulflo what object ? zzlomouta by ciNtenoo of no id 800 francH g 200 fran'.'H ux of HJlver, ubezzlcineot. book and hiM 1 not that bu rade in tho ipany ? To be said that oe on hand, ISO forgerieN iponsibility, im and the liroctor, M, le Court of reial bookH olerk who >e false en- t as to the itted. ithich may He was cause of a injurjr^io leaving it ignorant of tho true state of the Poitiers braneh — ignorance which hindered it from apportioning itH funds where they could be of service ; and, lastly a third injury, that oausid a superior officer of tho bank, the upright M. Bailly, who, even after the loss of his ocnfldontial employment, rests under tho stroko of the moral responsibility of part of tho n isdcods of his faithless cashier. i have nooomnlished ray task. Tho provcrbi.il honesty of fair Poitiers has ex- [torieuend a 3ruel ' 'm. For three years an individual has labored secretly to inflict upon t this cruel injti.y; but as is invariably the case, justice, supported by publio opinion, has discovered tho criminal, and to-day he is handoi over to you. Gentlemen, you will do him justioo, for I know that your decision will bo guided by tho oonacienoe of tho judgt and tho indignation of the citizen. Tho sitting was postponed till the next day at half-past seven. Sitting of December 5, The sitting commenced at 11 o'clock, amid tho oxoitement caused by the incident which led to tho restitution of the sum of 110,200 francs. M. le Premier Avocnt-Geniral Gait, commenced and expressed himself as follows :— Rarely in a criminal case has the day of trial been more inxiousi/ dnsir-"!!, moio im- patiently looked for than in this one which is now submitted to your judgment. It is not that this case involves one of those atrocious crimes which spread consternation and terror through Boeioty ; yet, without possessing this fearful importance, this case has the sad privilege of having raised public indignation to the highest point. Let us statu, at once, that this indignation does honor to the human hoiirt. It is, in truth, one of those spec- taoles that arc revolting to the feelings of our nature. Public opinion has been outraged by Lamirandc's crimes, at an age when the powers of his mind had reached their full maturity. Laniirando was placed in a confidential position which intrusted immense riches to his care. The severity cf the precautions as well as tho sentiments of honor and dolioaoy which he had imbibed in hia respeotablo family, seemed to be a guartntee for the fidelity of his conduct. What has happened? Larnirajdo found himself one day hesitating between tho desire of yielding to his ignoble instincts and the duty of respecting the treasures intrusted to his oare. It so fell out that avarice prevailed over duty. Lamirnnde crossed the abyss that lay open before him, and after having laid a guilty hand upon the treasures of which he was the guardian, ho became a forger. Onoo engaged in this criminal course the accused persisted in it up to the time w'" tho extradition of Lamirande. Ah ! If to cross the frontier were sufficient., the greatest criminals might count on social impunity. Henoo the prineiple of extradition is daily gaining ground. Our most eminant statesman has said " Extradition is a reciprocal guarantee against the ubiquity of evil." You are, however, aware of the soaadal which has arisen in tho foreign eountry where ho took refuge. You know how Lamirande, by means of the gold which he had stolen from the Bank of France, was enabled to hire a whole host of instruments who set about quibbling over the conditions of the Treaty. Having taken refuge in Canada, he was at length delivered up to France, and now Lamirande awaits the just chastisement which he has incurred. We do not ask for vengeance, but for justice. You are aware that Lamirande can only be tried by you for the crime of forgery. You have been told that this criminal has been suddenly touched with the spirit of repen- tance. You are promised that if he is acquitted upon the charge of forgery, he will come and offer himself up as a holocaust on the other heads of accusation. Let us suppose that this is not a forensic stratagem ; let us suppose that he may be willing to be tried hereafter for the crimes of robbery and abuse of confidtaoe, that would be no reason for acquitting him npon the question of forgery. In fact, in our eyes, the crime of forgery is clearly proved. What ! there is no crime of forgery in this case ? Here is a cashier who every day Hl^ltirmitfi money from hi» ^asb — who daily oettifies to \i\% chief, in bit accounts, that {(11 ia M 140 m corraot ; the anousod was carrying on criminal operations in his caMli without reproducing them in his accounts. The accounts are and ought to bo a photograph of the cash. This is dictated by common sense. During yesterday's sittings you heard a magisterial dcmoDHtration uf the existence of the forgery. There is, first of all, a consideration which is of Borious importance. A criminal procedure, previously to its coming before tho'assizes, has (o undergo a double t«8t : first, the preliminary examination ; then, if the dood amounts to a crime, the proce- dure is submitted to the Imperial Court, the Chamber of Indictment. This course has been followed in Lamirande's case. After having passed in review all the different phases of the procedure, M. lo Avocat Gdnt^ral examined into the character of the forgery as regards the law, and applied its principles to the facts of the ease, lie then drew attention to the enormous injury occa- sioned to the Bank of Franco. Lawirande has precipitated his father into the depths of despair ; he has dishonored his nauio. But chastisement was not long in overtaking him. Ho received reproof even from that shameless creitnro whom ho kept, who was living by prostitution, and who, on learning bis arrest, said, "That man has no heart; I thought he loved his father and mother : ho loves no one." Never has a prisoner appeared before a jury with such an accumulation of crimes. He has accomplished these crimes with unrivalled intrepidity and assurance. His coolness never abandoned him, and everything shews the premeditation of the accused. What was his motive of action '( His motive was the most vile : a thirst for the basest enjoyments, the most ignoble lusts, not to mention the pleasures of tho chase, the excite- ment of the gaming-table was necessary to him ; ho required the rofinoments of the most Hhamclcss luxury. This finished debauchee must needs have two expensively kept mistresses. Expatiating on the circumstances attending tho restitution of the 110,200 francs, M. Ic Avocat 66n6ral said that it wan meant for theatrical effect. That restitution was the act of a thief, who, finding that he is pursued, abandons a portion of his,Booty in order to save the rest. Lamirande would fain contrive to reap the benefit of extenuating circum- stances, but the accused is unworthy of it, and tho jury will show him no pity. The crimes of the accused have resounded everywhere ; the penalty should fall on him in all its weight. You will assure to society, to public conscience, the reparation which is their due. M. Lachaud, Lamirando s Counsel, expressed himself as follows : — We, on the side of tho defence, have ever recognised the gravity of this case. A cashier who forgets his duty, and who betrays the confidence reposed in him, — nothing is more serious. Wo should not deserve lo be French advocates if wo did not agree with those who administer the laws on all that touches honor, probity, and loyalty. But in order that Justice may be impartial, she must take everything into consideration ; she must weigh everything with the greatest care. Justice is tho most important thing in the world, for it belongs to God. But, after having acknowledged the enormity of tho crime, you must take account of the accused, of his life, his weakness, his unheard-of sufferings. Unless you will take all this into account, it will bo not justice but vengeance, which M, 1' Avocat Q6n^ral desires no more than I do. The wretched man whom I defend is 42 years of age. Of his family I will say no- thing. Who is there here who does not know that everybody pities, esteems and loves his venerable father, whom God has allowed to live too long, since he witnesses tho dishonor of his name? I will not speak to you of his pious mother, nor of his brother — a most worthy man. The wretched Lamirande stands before you under the weight of a terrible accusation. Let him accept this new indignity, and let it be to him the most ineffaceable of mi&fortunes. When the storm lowered over his unhappy family, people were e msiderate towards the' ! ; I mention the lact as an honor to the country. Alas ! Lamiran le knew not how to be a son worthy of those good people. His youth ras marked by deviations, by follies, by prodigality; and when, in 1858, he was made a oastiier, he owned more than 50,000 francs. The wiph to beq«fit this vovng m^n le4 perl)' ps, tQ the commission of m ilPPru- dence. ' . struggl treasur V He did them right ' 141 I oproduoiDg aah. This xiHtoaoo of rtanoo. A ;o a double the prooo- ooursc has lo Avooat applied its ijury oooa- dishoDored proof even d who, OD father and of crimes, is oooJoess the basest the ezoite- f the most ively kept francs, M. n was the in order to >g oiroum- 7he crimes its weight. case. A lothing is gree with But in tion ; she Dg in the bo orimO| iSerings. rhich M. I say nO'- loves his dishonor hy man. in. Let tunes. towards lot how follies, 50,000 The cashier should be a man of unassuming habits, of frugal lifo. He is the moRt perfect representative— he ought to bo so — of aoouraoy and moaoHty. That man who will see open before him the treasures of tho Bank of Frunuu ; he will struggle for a long time ; when he shall suconmb you will call him n criminal. Oh, thcHO treasures ought not to have been intrusted to him. Up to 1862, Lamirande's conduct had been irreproachablo. llifl small debts iucreaHcd. He did not, indeed, indulge in tho luxury but in the disgraoo of two mi»trcssc:4. One o[ them I pity; of another I do not speak, and for her I leave to M. I'Avocut Guntirul thu right of expressing all his contempt at his case. One day, when he was harassed on all sides in the midst of hin cuga^'ouicutH, there was adefioit : he was short of 5,000 francs. That is not much in accounts sued us ibo.su of tho Bank of France.- Distressed, and not daring to impose a new aacrifieo ou bis family, ho committed a theft ; the abyss was opened. When the first stop in this path bus been takon, wiokedness strides on, evil urges us forward, wo become its slavo. That is what happened to this wretched man. After having provided for the deficit, ho paid his dcbta ; be gum- bled, he reckoned on good luck, he lost, and after having lost 100,000 francs, from fault to fault, from fall to fall, he st last took flight, as you know. This terrible affair will servo as a great example for all uaBbiurs. The fact of tbeeaao shows that Lamirande'a precautions were ridiculous. He cut open tbo ba<2;H, bo replaced gold by silver, but examination was possible ; he was at the mcroy of tbo first serious inspection. You recall to mind Lamirande's flight; going in bis uneasy conscience to seek a refuge in Canada, betraved on all sides. His sufferings were so severe, that I ask myself whether it be not preferable to stand at the bar of infamy. When bo was takou into custody in Canada, how much, think you, had be left? Eighteen francs; bo who carried off half a million. And when he wrote to those men, whom I certainly shall not call lawyers, for a small sum, he received no answer. These are the miseries which he has experienced. When he came back to Franco in rags, the Police Agent was forced to lend him clothes to enablo bim to embark on the boat which brought him into Frauoe. Alas t what a lesson ! I might speak of yesterday's incident. We might ask ourselves, my colleague and i, how we have been benefited by the restitution made in court yesterday ; if tbo counsel for the defence were not men of upright oharaeter (for which we thank nobody) there might be danger in acting as is right. ' No, no, M. I'Avocat G6und; thot, "J, for the Court of ly Counsel VDE." lis matter, 'ay I We tea. The >thers. I jury, to rill. AVe ised man will be okon the t us ; no wards so h before I, which ill share « before which ourself. ud may happy 148 child, I forgovc you from the day in which you acknowledged your error, I liavo Hutiorcd in a deeper degree than you, the miseri«'!) which are the inevitable coniici|U()iioc8 i>! your shame, and of your flisht, I shall Huffer still from the terrible penalties whioii will bo inflicted on you. I shall not vompluin if you ckd support your HufToriug with dignity, and continue in your ropentauou, " I need not tell you that we all pray that your Judge may bo indulfront, ami ^ivu you credit for an honorable life till the day in which you failed iu honor aud probity. " Uopont and God will aid yon. "Your unhappy father, (Sijjncd,) <'.S. JMMriiANitE." Lastly, Lamirande's brother wrote as follows : — Mv Poor BROTiiia, — Your past sufferings, your present sutloringH, inlinitelyNharper, fill us with oompasaion for you; but it is not on their account that wo forgive you. It is on account of your repentanoe which wo think sioocre and complete. There is your refuse ; there alone can you rooover peace with yourself. It in only by repentance that hereafter, by dintof cour'^e, pationooand denial, you can roj:;ain Holf-rcspect, Wo will support yuu with all our might in tho accomplishment of that work which in imposHiblo at prcHent, but will not always be so. Have courage, then ; our love will not fail you, if you will be firm enough to be worthy of it. It will aid you ia regaining our ostoom. (Signed,) " C. Lamirande. " P.S. — Mathilde joins in the sentiments which I cxprcas." I will add nothing to these Icttera. Lamirande is dead as regards tho world. Iu three months' time he will be condemned by tie Court of AHBi/.c ; but if men aro seTcre, God will be oompassionate to him. A future of love exists in those letters which I return tu him. His parents will still live to forgive and lovo. There stands tho case. The hour approoohcs; it is nigh at hand ; but do not without necessity violate tho law. I reckon upon you, gentlemen, because you are men of feeling and of conHcicncc, imd becauBo yuu will not strike till it is neoessary to du so. This sitting was suspended till a quarter past 2 o'clock. After the replies of tho Avoeat 06ncrmenon appealed to the Court of Cassation against this decision, and the Supreme Court, by a Decree of the 4th of September, 1840, quashed the sentence of the Coort of Dijon, because it ought to have suspended the proceedings, considering that the question was, whether the refusal of Geneva to receive the accused, amounted to a regular extradi- tion, and that the Government alone was competent to decide the point. The Executive Power, in fact, decided that Dermenon could not be tried on account of the irregularity of his extradition, and ordered him back to the frontier. As you will perceive, the principal doctrine which resnlts from these facts is, that the French Government would not allow Dermenon to be tried on charges other than those on account of which his extradition had been demanded and obUuned. The French Government has always observed this principle, of which there are nu- merous instances, amongst which may be cited that of an individual, Irho, in 1815, had been condemned for crime through contempt of court. The same individual was sabse* quently arrested for complicity in the attempt to assassinate the Doke of Wellington. The Government procured his extradition on this charge, bat he was acquitted by the jury, and was able to go abroad again. But, in the second place, it results from the Dermenon case that the French Govern- ment would not consider as regular an extradition founded merely on the refusal of a for- eign Government to receive an accused person Who already had prcvioailj found ft refUge in It is n surr Lan 0, 1, 1866. respeotiDg a a few weeks a fact which researohea, I it has been a ease exists, le precedent HOD, tried in in question, B on aooount named Der- i bankruptcy nmitment of 1 before the id breach of (tradition of the Canton ' of Jostica and breach ered on the i he most be eoeive him, anal of Cor- rhe aoonsed F^ranoe, &o. ^en back to I the Court, 9 of August prosecuted foreign ter- atry rejects le Supreme lie Court of lie question tar oztradi- on account IB, that the n those on ire are nu- 1815, had vaa subse- ton. The jury, and I OoTem- of a for- t » refuge 145 in its territory. It further results, that when the oxccutivo power finds that an cxtrailition is not aucordinp; to law, they can deolino to take advantage of it, and give up the poison surrendered. This is the sole point in which the Dcrmenon precedent affects the case ol" Lamirandc. It was to this Dcrmenon decision that the Avooat G6n6ral made allusion duvinj;; tlic Lan^randc proceedings, when ho urged that the judicial authority was altogether iucotn- pctent to decide upon thr facts of extradition, with the single exception of a case in which the extradition had been effected without intervention of the executive power, and then the Judge ought to suspend the proceedings until such time as the Government liad pro- nounced a decision on the regularity of the extradition. Kesides, this is the pvinciplo enunciated in the famous Chancery Circular of April 5, 1841, which brings clearly out all the points of extradition practice in France. Thus, if any doubt arises respecting the legality of the extrauition, the jiuliei;tl authority will grant a delay, and in order to preserve intact the distinction between tl»o judicial and executive powers, will await the decision of the latter authority, which alone can interpret international treaties. There was no occasion in the Lamirandc proceedings to grant a delay, I'or the Government had decided that the extradition was regular ami had sent the person surrendered for trial. These doctrines arc generally adopted by French publicists, but the dispute arising Irom the extradition of Lamirandc is also generally regretted. If it be true that this prisoner, regularly surrendered by the proper autliority, was si> surrendered in a manner not within the provisions of the English law, and under unusuiil circumstances, the French Government ought not to take advantage of that extradition. This would be the only means of preparing the way i'or a good treaty, which is indispensably necessary for both sides of the channel. Accept, &c. (Signed,) Treite, Avocat de la Cour Imperi'u/c. (No. 25.) £arl Cowley In Lord Stanley (^Received, December 20). Paris, December 19, 1RG6. My Lord, — In taking leave of M. de Moustier this afternoon, I recommended to his attention the last communication which I had made to him on the subject of Lamirandc's extradition. His ICxccllcncy replied that the French Government could do nothing more; that ii' Ilcr Majesty's Government had any claim to make upon the Imperial Government in con- sequence of the infraction of the Extradition Treaty, it should bo put forward officially, and supported by proofs. The Imperial Government would bo quite ready to consider a demand of the kind, and to examine it upon its merits; and he could assure mo that it' Her Majesty's Government could make out a case, Lamirandc should be surrendered to them. I observed t^iat it would be, in my opinion, preferable to make this question the sub- ject of a confidential, rather than of an official inquiry. M. do Moustier rejoined that, under any circumstances, it must partake of an official character. I have, &c., (Signed,) CowIiEy. (No. 20.) Lord Stanley to Admiral Hants. Foreign Office, December 20, 18(50. Sir, — In the second leading article of the " Daily New.s" of the 7th instant, it is ;.Liited, " It is only a few weeks since that a criminal, whose capture or surrender had been im- properly obtained in Switzerland, was, after conviction and sentence in France, sent back to Switzerland, by order of the Imperial Government, on the ground of the antecedent irregularity." 19 146 I have referred to Her Mnjesty's Ambassador at Paris on this subject, but I hav6 not been ablo to obtain any information of a case answering the abavo description, and of $o recent a date as is stated in the " Daily News." I have therefore to instruct you to furnish mo with any particulars of which you arc in possession, in explanation of the statement above referred to. I am, &c. (Signed,) Stanley (No. 27.) 'Admiral Harris to Lord Stanley, (^Rcceived, December 30), Berne, December 28, 186G. My Lord, — In accordance with the instructions contained in your Lordship's doS' patch, dated the 20th instant, I have obtained the details of a case, doubtless the ono alluded to in an article of the " Daily News" of the 7th instant, in which it is stated tliat " a criminal, whose capture and surrender had been improperly obtained in Switzerland, was, after conviction and sentence in France, scut back to Switzerland, on tho ground of the antecedent irregularity." Tho following arc the correct details supplied to me by tho Swiss Qovernmeut : — On the 25th of last June the French Ambassador demanded the extradition cf two Frenchmen, Andr6 Balmont and Ferdinand Courtis, commercial travellers, arrested at Geneva on charges of " crime dt faux ct usage de piicen fausses," in accordance with tho terms of the existing Treaty of Extradition between France and Switzerland. The Federal Council acceded to the request, and the prisoners wore handed over to the French authorities on the 5th of July. On examination before the Judge d'Instruotion at Lyons it was found that tho original charges could not be sustained ; ucvcrtheluss, they v'crc remanded to prison and summoned before the Tribunal Correctional at Lyons on a charge of " Abus de confiance ct cxcroquerie." This being in legal classification a "delit" and not a " crime," is not included in terms of the Extradition Treaty ; consequently the prisoner's counsel protested, and would not allow them to plead. They were withdrawn from the bar, but the trial proceeded and they were condemned " en contumace." They appealed through their counsel to the Swiss Clovcrnment, who instructed their Envoy at Paris, M. Kern, to make a reclamation on the subject. In a note, dated the 31st August, M. Kern informs the Federa' Council that provious to applying to tho French Minister of Foreign Afiairs he had made inquiries of tho Minintor of Justice, who informed him that instructions had already been issued, on the 23rd of August, to the authorities at Lyons to convey the two prisoncis to tho Swiss frontier and release them. The Minister of Justice further told M. Kern, that incorrect statements had boon published in a pamphlet in London, respecting this case, which would be refuted in tho " Moniteur." I have, &c., (Signed,) E. A. J. Harrih (No. 28.) Lord Stanlet/ to Mr. Fane. Foreign Office, January 9th, 1867. My Lord, — Her Majesty's Government have been awaiting with some anxiety tho observations which, as reported by Lord (Rowley, in his despatch of tho 20th of November, M. de Moustier proposed to offer, on the communication made to His Excellency by Lord Cowley, on the 18th of that month, respecting the case of M. Lamirande. M. do Moustier, in the conversation recorded in that despatch, showed a disposition to demur to the view taken by Her Majesty's Government in regard to 'lemands for extradition not being properly made by a Consular officer, and spoke of being unable then to discuss the question, whether the crime of which M. Lamirande was accused was or was not forgery. Since that conversation M. Lamirande has been tried and convicted, and ia understood to have appealed against the decision oi' the Court ; but little more has been elicited from 147 1 1 have not 1} and of eo I» you oro ill ANLEV, 1860. 'dship'H des- ess tho ono stated that witzerland, » ground of lent : — tion cf two arrested ot ce with tho over to the itruotion at cicss, thoy Lyona on a ' a "deiit" lucntly tho witlidrawn II iictod thoir it prcviouH 10 Miniator lio 2ard of ontior and had boon itod in tho IRRIH 1807. ixiety tho rovembor, ' by Lord isposition lands for able then as or was iderstood ted fVom tho French QoTernment than an expression of readiness to meet any official demand which might bo addressed to it with a view to effect the releaso of M^ Lamirandc. Although tho Law Officers of the Grown, at any earlier stage of tho discussion, oxproHsed their opinion, as stated in my despatch to Lord Cowley of tho 10th of November, that Jicr Majesty's Government could not demand, as of right, tho surrender of M, liamirando, I have, nevertheless, submitted tho question to tbem again, on tho strength of what passed between Lord Cowley and tho French Minister, as reported in His JCxoollonoy's despatches of November 13 and 20, and of the 19th of December. I havo also placed before them the case of surrender of a prisoner many years since, on account of defect in regard to his extradition, as well as tho still more recent case which occurred last summer, to which Admiral Harris refers in his despatch of tho 28th of Dooouiber, in order that they might consider whether such cases afforded any grounds on which a demand for tho release of M. Lamirandc could bo supported. I havo not yet received the opinion of the Law Officers on these later references, and I am still expecting from you the particulars respecting tho Swiss case of last year, into which you have directed M. Treite to inquire. In tho meanwhile, however, I should wish you to remind M. do Moustier of his con- versation with Lord Cowley, of November 20, and inquire whether His Excellency has so i'ully informed himself on the points then brought to his notice as to enable him to explain tho views of tho French Government. Her Majesty's Government are very anxious that any communications between tho i*Vonch Government and themselves on this question should bo brought to a close, favov- nblc, thoy trust, to M. Lamirande's release, before the meeting of Parliament, when tho coso is sure to be publicly discussed, both as regards tho proceedings of the Colonial (Government in surrendering tho prisoner, an ' the retention of him in custody by that of France. Tho latter point is tho only one to bo considered internationally, but the bearings of It on tho general question of extradition arc very important, and Her Majesty's Govern- wont ffluoh fear least, oven though tho retention of the prisoner in France may bo strictly legal, and not susceptible of any complaint being made on the ground of disregard of international obligations, or even courtesies, the possibility of such a state of things resulting from a Treaty of Extradition may influence Parliament, not only to refuse to renew the Act of last Session, but even to require the Government to put an end, at all events, to tho Treaty of 1843, if not all Extradition Treaties whatever. Such a course would be fraught with much injury to the commcroial interests of both countries, and it is in the hope that tho necessity for taking it may not arise ; that wit^iOUt waiting for tho (<^inions of the Law OfHcers, as to making a formal demand, I have to instruct you again to seo M. do Moustier on tho subject, and in tho samo confidential form in which tho question has hitherto been treated, endeavor to persuade him to recommend that M. Lamirandc should be set at liberty. I should wish to bo informed, as soon as possible, in what state M. Lamirt^nde'^ appeal now is, and when it may bo expected to be decided. I am, &c., (Signed,) Stanley, Mr. (No. 29.) Fane to Lord Shmki/ {Received, January 12). Parih, January H, 1867. My Lord,— With reference to my despatch of the 4th instant, I havo the honor to inoloio, herewith, copy of a Report addressed to mo by M. Trcito on the Franco-Swiss extra-< dition case referred to ia your Lordship's despatch of tho 31st ultimo, and on its bearings on the caao of M. Lamirandc. I have now directed M. Treite to inquire into the exact state in which M. Lamirande's appeal is, and when a decision upon it may be expected, and to furnish qie immediately with % report embodying the result of his inquiries. I effect to hay« ^o o|>|>o;tUQit^ to-q^orrow of briDging the ci^e of M. Lamiraado gitoa 148 ':i i i more before the Marquis do Moustior, in obedience to the instructions conveyed to me in your Lordship's despatch or the 9th instant. I have, &c., (Signed,) Julian Fank. (Inclosuro in No. 29.) (Translation.) M. Trcite to Mr. Fane. Paris, January 11, 1867. M. Lk Ministue, — You have been pleased to direct mo to make inquiry into a cane of Extradition between Franco and Switzerland, a case which had probably occurred during the year 18GG, and which might form a precedent for that of Lamirande. The case had remained buried among the ^ upers of the Chanceries belonging to the two countries, but, thanks to the introduction you gave me, the Minister of the llolvctic Confederation has made me oonvorsant with ho whole affair, ani hero it is. In June, 186G, two Frenchmen, Andro Balmontand Ferdinand Courtis, who had fled to Switzerland, were arrested in the Canton of Geneva and given up on the demand of the j'lcnch Ambassador at Berne. These two individuals were accused of forgery and of uttering forged papers, crimes within the purview of the Extradition Treaty. The prisoners Balmont and Court.s were arraigned before the Court of Assize of the lihono, sitting at Lyons. They were acquitted by the Jury on tlic charge of forgery. Tiic Procurcur Gdnijral wished to try them before the Tribunal of Correctional Police for swindling and breach of trust, two charges of misdemeanor of which they wcru likewise accused. l>ut they opposed the attempt -"f the Procurcur GCn^ral, and invoked the aid of both of the tSwiss Federal authorities and of the Ministry of Justice. Having refused to appear before the Tribunal of Correctional Police, they were condemned through default or through ooutempt of Court. The Federal Council wrote, on the 24th of August, to the Swiss Min- ister at Paris, desiring him to remind the French Government that as tho Extradition only referred to the crime of forgery, it was not competent to try Balmont and Courtis for other ofTcuces, unless indeed the accused gave their consent. The Swiss Minister, before applying officially to the Minister for Foreign AilairH, made .some unofficial inquiries at the Ministry of Justice, and he was told in reply that on the 2;kd of August, even before tho letter of the Federal Council was written, the Minister of Justice had of his own accord ordered tho Procurcur General of Lyons to cause Balmont and Courtis to be reconducted to the frontier. The Swiss Minister had, therefore, no further demand to make, and on the Slst of August he returned the documents to his Government. Thus, in this case, there was no diplomatic intervention, und tho " Daily News" was mistaken in mentioning this ease as a preccd'jnt for that of Lamirande. Besides, the Minister of Justice, in c^iusing j;roprto motu tho two accused persons to bo reconduotod to the frontier, only conformed to the constant rule of ^law of which 1 have already in my ])roceding communication cited examples, and which is thus laid down in a Ministerial Circular of September 5, 1841 : — '* It results from the principle that extradition cannot be granted fur a misdemeanor — {ddit) — that if an individual who has committed an act which is criminal in France is j^'iven up to the French Government to be tried for this act, and if at the same time ho is accused of a misdemeanor, he must not be tried for that misdemeanor. " The application of the principle is susceptible of some difficulties. It is clour that, if the misdcmcunor stands alone, it will be easy to try tho individual surrendered for the crime only. " But in certain cases the misdemeanor is connected ; besides, it often becomes, by roa.son of its connection, an aggravating circumstance. When these difficulties arise you will refer them to me, and I will let you know, together with my opinion, the precedent of luy Department," Such is the language held by tho Minister of Justice to tho Procurcur G(5n<)raux ; tho accused poysons can fiijy bo tried hx tljo criwcs that aro ptovidiid for 1)7 KxtwU- tion Treaties. ^'^ *'' ' ' * ' diti( 'it re Min lOtl ranc con pati uasi sur not bee pre coi Go wa hi£ La thi tic CO r( t( n a 3 149 od to me in Fank. 18G7. nto a cuNo rrcd during ing to tho ilolvotic ho had fled and of tho 3rs, crimes urt^s were acquitted oaal Polico n. likewise aid of both il to appear or through Swiss 3Iin- dition only 8 for other ;n Affairs, ?ly that ou u Minister lialmout 3 31st of rows" was sides, tho iduotcd to 3y in my linisterial demeanor France is ime ho is ilfur that, J for the omcs, by arise you 3edcnt of ioCtaax . This circular is very important. It sums up the whole practice, in matters of extra- dition, as it has ever been followed by the French Government. I have found it impossible to got a copy; l.n,, as it is very long, 1 am goiuj;' to have it reprinted, and shall have the honor of sending you a copy, as well as ono to the Swiss Minister, according to his request. I think, then, that I am not rash in persisting in the opinion which I gave on tho 10th of December last, namely, that there is no precedent applicable to the case of Lami- rande. Accept, &c., (Signed,) Treite. No. 30. Lord Stanley to 3Ir. Fann, Foreign OfiiCE, January 12, 1867. Sia, — Her Majesty's Government have given their best consideration to and have consulted the Law Officers of the Crown on Lord Cowley's report, contained in his des- patch of the 19th of December, of his conversation with M. do Moustier respecting the case of M. Lamirande, and they gather from it that unless a formal application for the surrender of M. Lamirande is made to the French Government, that object will probably not be effected. Her Majesty's Government would have much preferred that the question should have been set at rest, as it has hitherto been discussed, by informal rather than by official re- presentation on their part; but as the French Government seem to consider tho latter course preferable, I can no longer hesitate to say that although even now Her Majesty's Government arc advised that they cannot demand tho surrender of M. Lamirande as a matter of right, yet it is their desire that you should at once make an official request for his surrender. You will observe that Ilcr Majesty's Government contend that the extradition of M. Lamirande was unauthorized by tho Treaty of 1843, and by the Statute giving effect to that Treaty, on two grounds. ]<^irst, that the demand made for his extradition was not made through the interven- tion of such a Diplomatic Agent as is contemplated by the Treaty, and the British Statute confirming it, and. Secondly, that tho offence charged against M. Lamirande was not the offence of " faux" or forgery contemplated by the Treaty. As regards the first point, M. do Moustier, in his conversation with Lord Cowley, reported by the latter in his despatch of tho 20th of November, seemed disposed to con- tend that the French Consul General was, under tho circumstances, an accredited Diplo- matic Agent, within tho meaning of tho Treaty and Statute. The Governor General of Canada, by appearing to treat the French Consul General as an authorized Agent, within tho moaning of the Act, certainly made himself a party to such a construction. It is to be observed, however, that tho British Statute reproduces the term " Diplo- matic Agent"," which alone appears in the Treaty, and limits to persons so qualified the right to demand extradition under the French Treaty. If a more comprehensive signifi- cance had then been considered to bo attached to that term, there was no reasoD why it should not have been set forth in the Statute, in the same manner as in the Statute passed on the self-same day, namely, tho 22nd of August, 1843, for giving effect to the Extradi- tion Article of the Treaty with tho United Sutes of tho previous year. No mention was made of the specific character of tho officer who should make the demand for extradition, but only that tho requisition should be "made by the authority of the United States," tho Treaty specifying in general terms, " Ministers, officers, or authorities," as tho channels through which requisitions should be made, and not, as in the case of the Treaty with France, defining those ai'thorities as Diplomatic Agents. In tho absence, therefore, of a more comprehensive term than that of" Diplomatic Agents" in the British Statute, it is impossible for Her Majesty's Government to accede to M. do -Moustier's vie^v that for the purposes of demands of extradition a (Consular Agent can bo rooogqizod as a Diplomatjo Agent, mi^Qt tho TFfOty oJ 1843. 150 The Act of Congress of 1848, giving effect goaorally to Treutics of Extradition oon- eliided or to bo oonoluded with foreign Powers by tho United States, merely spooifics that requisition shall bo made by tho " proper authorities" of the foreign governments, a'ld that term would seem sufficiently lar^o to include others than Diplomatic Agents, although tho Treaty between Franco and tho United States specifics Diplomatic Agents alone as tho medium of requisition. Dut tho British Statute admits of no such comprehonsivo construction. As regards tho second point arising in tho case, Her Majesty's Government consider that tho crime with which M. Lamirando is charged does not amount to forgery according to British law, and therefore does not do so according to the mind of the British negotiator of tho Treaty, or (ho intention of tho British Legislature when giving effect to it. Tho French Government arc understood to hold that tho crime comes within tho term ''/«'r," employed in tho French version of the Treaty, as the equivalent of tho term " w ry" employed in the English version. Each government may be right in their re ."vc contentions, as to the import of terms used in the several languages, but when M nterial a difference exists botwoeu the two parties to a Treaty, it may not bo unreason- able in the party who will suffer by an adverse construction to press the other party not to insist on its own. But even admitting, witli tho French Government (which, however, Her Mojesty's Government arc by no means prepared to do), that under tho exceptional circumstances tlie requisition of a consular agent for tho surrender of a prisoner, under the Extradition Treaty may be accepted in lieu of that of a diplomatic agent. Her Majesty's Government must observe that no such exceptional circumstances can bo pleaded in the case of M. Jjnmirandc. His crime, whatever it may be, was not committed in a French colony, nor was tho warrant for his apprehension issued by a French colonial magistrate, and conveyed direct to Canada without passing through France ; but the crimo was committed in France, the warrant was issued by a magistrate in Franco, and it was probably conveyed by the person who was tho bearer of it through England, or at all events might have been so conveyed without inconvenience or sensrblo delay. There was therefore no necessity for disregard- ing, in this case, the usual practice of applying to Her Majesty's Government for tho ex- tradition of M. Lamirando, under that warrant, through tho French Diplomatic Agent in England. On all these grounds, therefore. Her Majesty's Government trust that tho French (iovernmcnt will bo disposed to view with favor the applicatiun which I have now to instruct you officially to make to them for tho surrender of M. Lamirando. I am, &c., (Signed,) Stanley. wit (No. 31.) Mi: Fane to Lord Stanley (^Received, January 14). (Extract.) Paris, January 13, 1867. I had a long conversation yesterday with tho Marqui ) de Moustier, on tho subject of tho extradition of M. Lauiirandc. The result of that conversation was a. declaration on tho part of His Excellency of tho sincere desire of the Emperor, and of tho Imperial Government, to do strict justice in this case, and to prevent its beo9ming the subject of unpleasant controversy between the two Governments. The views of Her Majesty's Government, M. do Moustier said, had hitherto been sub- mitted to the Imperial Government in too vague a form to admit of a specific reply being given to them. Ir these views, together with any application which might bo founded on them, were formally submitted in writing to the Imperial Government, they should bo considered with every desire to satisfy scrupulously the ends of justice. His Excellency added, however, that if tho release of M. Lamirando should be demanded as a matter of favor, it would be impossible for the Imperial Government^ \\^ yiow of their resjpoDsibility to the law, and to public opioion, to ftcoede to itf oru mo 161 But if it was based on claims of right and justice, these claims would be examined with every desire to satisfy them if they should prove to bo legally admiasiblc: I received this morning your Lordship's despatch of ycptorday's date, instructing mo to make an official application for the release of M. Lamirando to the Imperial Govern- ment. I have accordingly drawn up a draft of noto to M. Jo Monstier, copy of which I have the honor to inclose. I shall keep my noto to M. de Moustier in my possession till to-morrow evening, in order that your Lordship, should you desire any alteration'to be mado in it, may instruct mo to that cifeet by the telegraph. (IndoiJuro in No. 31.) Draft of Note from Mr. Fane to M. dc Moustier. Paris, January, I8G7. M. LE MiNiRTRK, — Your Excellency, in conversation with Earl Cowley and with myself, on the subject of the extradition of M. Lamirande, has expressed a desire that the views of Her Majesty's Government upon this case, and any application which may be founded upon those views, should be formr.lly addressed to the Imperial Government, in a written statement. In accordance with that desire, and in obedience to the instructions of Her Majesty's Government, I have now tho honor of submitting such a statement to Your ExccUenoy. Her Majesty's Government contend that the extradition of M. Lamirande was un- authorized by tho Treaty of 1843, and by the Statute giving efiFect to that Treaty, on two grounds. First, that the demand made for his extradition was not made through the inter- vention of such a Diplomatic Agent as is contemplated by the Treaty and the Britisli Htatuto confirming it ; and, Secondly, that tho offence charged against Lamirando was not the offence of "fau.r" or forgery, contemplated by tho Treaty. As regards the first point, Your Excellency, in your conversation with Lord Cowley, Hct.mcd disposed to contend that the French Consul General was, under the circumstances, an accredited Diplomatic Agent within the meaning of the Treaty and Statute. It is to bo obscrvod, however, that the liritish Statute reproduces the term " Diplomii- tic Agents," which aiono appears in tho Treaty, and limits to persons so qualified the right to demand extradition under tho French Treaty. If a more comprehensive significance had then been considered to be attached to that term, there wai^no reason why it should not have been set forth in tho Statute, in tho same manner as in tho Statute passed on the sclf-samo day, viz., the 22nd of August, 1843, for giving effect to the Extiadition Article of the Treaty with tho United States of the pre- vious year. No mention was mado in that Statute of tho specific character of the officer who should make tho demand for extradition, but only that the requisition she ..Id be " mado by tho authority of the United States;" the Treaty specifying in general terms, "Ministers, officers, or authorities," as the channels through which requisitions should be made, and not, as in the case of the Treaty with France, defining those authorities as Diplomatic Agents. In the absence therefore of a more comprehensive term than that of " Diplomatic Agents" in tho British Statutes, it is impossible for Her Majesty's Government to accede to Your Excellency's view that, for the purposes of demands of extradition, a Consular Agent can bo recognized as a Diplomatic Agent under the Treaty of 1843. The Act of Congress of 1848 giving effect generally to Treaties of Extradition con- cluded, or to be concluded, with Foreign Powers by the United States, merely specific* that requisitions shall be made by the *' proper authorities" of the foreign Governments, and that term would seem sufficiently large to include other than Diplomatic Agents, although the Treaty between France and the United States specifies Diplomatic Agents alone as the medium of requisition. But the British Statute admits of no such compre- hensive construction. As regards the second point arising in the case. Her Majesty's Government consider that the crime with which M. Lamirande is charged does not amount to forgery according 152 to lirilisli Law, and tbcrcforo docs not do so according to tlio mind of tlio British ncj^otintor ol' the Treaty, or tho intention of the British Logislaturo \rhcn giving effect to it. The French Covcrnmont are underHtood to hold that the crime was within tho term /uu.r, employed in the French version of tho Treaty as the equivalent of the tcTui /(>riim\ij employed in tho English version. Each (government may bo right in their respective contentions as to the import of toruiH UHcd in tho several languages, but when so material a difference exists between tho iwo partio"! to a Treaty, it may not be unreasonable in tho pnrty who will suffer by an ndvcrtiit construction, to press tho other party not to insist on its own. But even admitting with the French Government (which, however, Her Majooty'H Uovornment arc by no means prepared to do), that under exceptional circumstances tlut requisition of a Consular Agent for the surrender of a prisoner under tho Extradition Treaty may be acctpfod in lieu of that c" a Diplomatic Agent, Her Majesty's Uovernmoiit must observe that no such exceptional ciroumstanee can bo pleaded in tho case of M. J^a- mirande. His crime, whatever it may be, was not committed in a French colony, nor was the warrant for his apprehension issued by a French Colonial Magistrate and eonvoycil direct to Canada without passing through Franco ; but tho crime was committed in Franco, the warrant was issued by a Magistrate in France, and it was pv- >>ably convoyed by tho person who was the bearer of it through England, or at all events, might have been so con- voyed without any inconvouionco or sensible delay. There was, therefore, no necussity for disregarding, in this case, th? usual practice of applying to Ilor Majesty's Government lor the Extradition of M. Lamirando under that warrant through tho French Diplomatic Agent in England. On all thcso i^^rounds, therefore. Her Majesty's Government trust that the French Government will be disposed to accede to tho application which I have now tho honor of addressing to your Excellency for tho surrender of M. Lamirande. I avail, &c.; (Signed,) .luMAN Fank. (No. 32.) Lord Slanle>/ to Mr. Fane. Foreign Office, January, 14, 1SC7. [ have to acquaint you, in reply to your despatch of the 13tlt instant, that I approvi) of the note which you propose to address to M. dc Moustior respecting the case ol' M. Lamirando. I am, &c., (Signed,) , SrANliEY. Mr. Fane to Lord Stanley (^Received, Januari/f 10). (Extract.) Paris, January 14, 18G7. I had the honor of receiving, this afternoon, your Lordship's Telegram, inforntinfr, mo that the draft of note which I proposed to address to the French Government, upon the ease of M. Lamirande, was approved ; and I accordingly sent my communication to ttio Marquis dc Mousticr without delay. Vour Lordship will perhaps be good enough to direct that the date " 14th of Jan- uary," shall be attached to it. It will then bo identical with the note which I have ad- dressed to the Marquis dc Mousticr. Mr. (No. 34.) Fane to Lord iitanley (^Receivcd, Januari/ 16). Paris, January 15, 1867. My Lord, — With reference to my despatch of the 11th instant, stating that 1 bad requested M. Treitc to inquire into the exact state in which M. Lamirandc's appeal is, i have the honor to inclose, herewith, a copy of a report which I have just received from that gentleman. I have, &c., (Signed,) Juman Pane. ill negotiator it. bin the (orm term fonjerjf port ol' tonim I'pcn tlio two y an ndvcrHn or Mojooty'H iiHtanccH tlio Extradition Clovornniont sc of M. Jill- )ny, nor wan id conveyed d in Franco, Byod l>y tho boon Hooon- ueooHsity Cor oruincnt lor matio Agent tlio Frcncli tbo bonor of Fank. , 1SC7. \t I appro vo cane of M. LNLEV, 18G7. rorminp, mo t, upon tbo ktion to tlio Itb of Jan- l bnvo ttd 1867. bbat J. had appeal is, I seivod from Pane. 158 (Inclosuro in No. 34.) (Translntion.) M. Treite to Mr. Fane. M. liK MhNisTiiE, — I went yesterday to tbo oiEoo of tbo Procurcur-0U in tho demand of tho French Consul General, in the warrant originating tho proHix'Ution, or in thu warrant of extradition. It hoouih, then, that there it) a clear case for the intervention of tho British Govcrniuont. (No. m.) Air, Egcrton to Mr. AJackenxie, Foreign Office, Januory 31, 1867. tSiR, — T am directed by Lord Htanley to acknowledge tho receipt of your letter of the 2{)th instant, and its inelosurc, with reference to tho case of M. Lamirande ; and I am to Atato to you in reply, that this matter is still under tho consideration of Her Majesty's Government, and that, iu its present stage, they cannoi give you any more detailed reply to your communication. I am, &c.| (Signed,) E. C. Eueuton. (No. 37.) Mr. Fane to Lord Stanley (licccived, February 2). Paris, February I, 1867. My Lord,— I have tho honor to inclose copy of au article from tho Gaxetlo da Tribunaux, on the case of M. Lamirande, I have, &c., (Signed,) Julmn Fane, (Inolosure in No. 37.) (Translation.) llctractfiomthe Ga::ettc des Tribunaux. Extradition of Lamirande.— Wo have announced, as a rumour which has been generally spread about for sum days past, that tho English Government was about to claim from Franco the restoration of Lomirande, whose extradition had been dcovced by the judicial authority of Canada. Tho news is true. Tho ^Ministry of Justice has the English claim boforo it. And if we believe what has transpired respecting this matter, the English Government, alleging that the extradition was not regularly granted, urges two reasons in support of their demand. Tho first is, that according to the Treaty of 1843, between Franco and England, ex- tradition can only bo granted upon the demand of a diplomatic agent. Now, the demand ' ' Lamirande's extradition was made by tho French Consul General in Canida. Consuls are commercial and not^ diplomatic agents. According to tho English Government, tho demand for Lamirande's extradition should not bave been received, oq aocouht of the pharaoter of the agent transmitting it, -. ■ . :.'' 156 it» put forward by Kngland to bUow tlio irrcKulinrity of liamirandci'H acts laid tu liix ohnr^u, ovon if oonHtitutin^ tlio criiiiu of ior^ory The Hccoiid rcaso oxtnidition is that tJio uccorditifi; to l''rciicli law, do not amount to tlio Hamo oriino in Knfrc- tended slio relics, for they roposo on no solid basis, and oould not resist u sorious examina- tion. The surrender of an acouaod poraon, when claimed by a i'orcign power, is an act of (^overciguty. This) act of soToroignty can bo carried out by a government without having previously concluded a Npooial treaty with tho power claiming tho culprit. Although wo niiglit have uo treaty of extradition with 1')ngland, yet, were li'rcuch criminals to seek I'l luge in the Hnitcd Kingdom, wc could ask for their extradition, and Kngland could give tliem to us for trial in Vranoo; for tho right of granting extradition belongs to each tiovernmont by virtue of its sovereignty. It is not extradition treaties which confer upon the power of the country whoro tho culprits have taken refugo the right of surrendering tliciii to their own Government. Tho only object of these treaties is to facilitate tho rela- tions of the contracting powers, and to record that tho reciprocally bind thciiisclves to nso towards each other, in certain cases and in a certain manner, the right which belongs to them of granting c.xtraditions. IJut because a Government shall have entered into an arrangement with anotlier I'ower to surrender criminals accused of such or such crimes when claiinud in such or such mauiier, by diplomatic means for instance, it docs not follow that this (lovornment is uii- alile, should it think proper, to consent to tho extradition of a per.soii accused of a crime nut provided ior in the Treaty, even if tho application bo mado in a manner other than that iitipulatcd. Kngland h-id, therefore, full power to surrender Lamirandc even for a oriiiie not re- cognized as such by tho Knglish law, and cvon although the demaml for extradition was presented by some one not a Diplomatic Agent. When, therefore, in tho exerciso of lier right, she has granted an extradition, whether in n case provided lor by u Treaty, or whether in easo beyond the provisions of a Treaty, is it aliuwabh! ior her to rcciill tho ac- complished I'act, and modify the act of sovereignty emanating from herself, by which she has cflfeeted tho extradition? What is still moro singular in the liritish Government's •loiuand for the rendition of Lamirando is, that that domand would involve the eontradic- lion of those principles on which they rely, and of other principles appcalcil to previously by one part of tho Members of tho English Parliament, and even by some publicists of our own country. liy their demand tho English Government wishes to recall an act which emanated iVom themselves or i'rom their agents ; they wish to revise this act on tho plea that those who ordered it committed u legal error. This is for tho Royal power, tho highest representation of the administrative power, to declare that its inferior agents have been deceived, that they have taken wrong proceedings, and to wish to substitute a decision different from that which had at first been taken. If the English Diplomatic Agents, acting in tho name of tho Queen, demanded an in- dividual, surrendered by their Govcrnmont to a foreign Tower, affirming that the Queen and her Cabinet, i. c, tho Executive Power of England, regard his cxtraxlition as having been improperly granted, and that thoy have resolved to cancel it, it is because that for the English Govcrnmont itself the fact of granting, refusipg, or cancelling an extradition, is an act of sovereignty. This i? not precbol^ tho mmo doctrioo fis that hithoirito maintained by the EngUsh, tr; 167 liaiiiirandd'H ()f lor^ory ind that by (Icr porsoiiM cnuiiicrntcd tioQ in aiiy- lot uonxidur lio oriino of 1 Kullty uf b tlio oxtrii- rando. iCM to recur HcotuH tu us ill it is prc- IH cxtiiuinn- iH nn act of out having though wo lals to HOck land could IgH to Ciicll jui'cr upon rrondcrin;; the rcla- Ivcs to n.su bclonj,'s to li another :h or .such cn(. is nil- r ii crime tlicr than lie uot rc- itiou was HO ol' her roaty, ur II tlio ac- hioh shu rniuent'H )ntradic- loviousily Its of our uianatcd lose who cntntioQ cd, that 'oni that d ail in- Queen ; littv?ng that for aditiou, Ont^llBh and l>y thu cnthuHioAiio aduiinistratorH of thn conHtitulioii and laws of (>rout Uritnin. !t wttM said that umong our neighbors extradition was a judicial not, and not an u Imiiiistra. live niintsuro. In doiunnding liainirando, the KngliHh (lovornuiont would g>vo the linul blow to this doctrine; for if liaiiiirando hiis been given up in virtue of a judiiial dcoisirui, how can the aimonts '/ Does the Cabinet of Ijondon wish to protend , ■ t tho extradition ' Lamiraude has been granted in contempt of iCnglish law ; that n ilto country un>lei tho sway of tlio English Crowu extraditions can only bo granted i : oa.^os provided for by law ; that tho law which regulates this matter of extradition with respect to Franco is the liiil widch approved tho Treaty of 18 l.'J, and that this IJill doe.s not permit tho granting an extra- tion on the demand of a consul ibr u crime which the J'juglish law docs not recogni/.e as a forgery '{ To this it is ea.sy to answer, that foreign powers who demand and obtain tho extradition of criminals who have taken refugo ia England, are not obliged to trouble theiiiselvcs with tho ((ucstiou whether tho i'Jnglish authorities who decided on tho extra- ditions have observed, or not, tho special laws of their country. Tho English Mini.ster cannot, indeed, maintain that there has been a violation of the principles of international law, for Lamiraude has not been taken by violence or fraud from British soil. Wn tan understand a diplomatic demand with refercuco to an act which has been djiie against the will or in contempt of tho rights of tho power making the demand. jJut there is hardly any explanation for •• '•. mand by a government with reference to an act that emanates from itself. If tho cx.:.;adition of Lauiirando ought not to have taken place, according to English law, its consent ought not to have been given. ]Jut extradition, onco effected, it cannot possibly be retrncted. French justice has now pi nounecd sentence. It has condemned Lamirando for tho crime of forgery, if, after tiio decision of tho French jury, it should bo necessary to restore Lamiraudo to li^oiLy, to send him back to England, there to enjoy with impunity the Iruits of his misdeeds, this would bo a public scandal. It is only with great reluc- tance that the French Government can entertain the demand of England. Happily there exists in the treaties no stipulation which obliges Franco to restore Ijamirande. But if, through some impossibility, Franco found herself forced to mnkc this restitu- tion, this would bo tho most manifest condemnation of tho Treaty of lS4o. Up to tho present time this treaty had remained u dead letter. Tho French Govern- ment hud not boon able to obtain any extraditions from England. I ' pre, liovrovcr; an extradition b»s been granted, oa accouut of a cr|iuc that ha^ 168 strongly oxoitcd publio opinion. The culprit surrendered to French justice has been con- demned by a jury of his country, and now wo must restore him to England in order to hinder him from undergoing his penalty ! This Treaty of 1843, between England and France, which bus been denounced by our Government, and which h.-is since only been provisionally prolonged, six months at a time, ought to bo definitively adjudged. Even while appealing to it in eases which were expressly provided for in it, France, previous to 1866, was not able to obtain the extradi- tion of accused persons who had taken refuge in England. Matters of fact have always hindered the demands for extradition of accused persons from succeeding. Neither was it possible to obtain the extradition of persons who had taken refuge in liritish possessions, un account of a strict legal technicality, derived from the fact that the Treaty only men- tioned accused and not condemned persons. So that, whether from considerations of fact, or from considerations of law, accused and condemned were able to find impunity in iOngland. In this instance, were the demand admitted, it would bo necessary that the operation of justice should be stopped agaia on a fresh ground, for tho result would be impunity for accused persons delivered up by England, and condemned ailcr their extradition by our tribunals. Would there not, then, be occasion to acknowledge that the Treaty of 1843, has been tried long enough for tho dignity of France ? (Signed,) Cii. Duvehdy. (No. 38.) Mr. Fane to Lord Stanley Qicccwcd, February 27). (Extract.) Pabis, February 25, 1867. Tho brother of M. Lamirandc called upon mo this day, for the purpose of placing in my hands two letters addressed to Earl Cowley, copies of which I have the honor to inclose. Tho one is from M. Lamirande himself, withdrawing the application made by him to Earl Cowley, in September last, that Her Majesty's Government would demand his .surrender by the French Government; the other, which is signed by tho father and brother of M. Lamirandc, transmits his letter and approves its contents. M. Lamirando's brother, in delivering these letters to me, gave expression to the strong desire entertained by his family to put a term to tho unhappy notoriety which attached to their name, by causing all farther action in his brother's case to be abandoned. I told him that I would acquaint your Lordship with the contents of the letters he had placed in my hands. (Inclosuro 1 in No. 38.) MM. G. C, and C. S. Lamirandc to IJarl Cowley. (Translation.) Ciiatellerault, February, 1867. M. L'Ambabsadeub, — I have tho honor to transmit to you herewith a letter from my son, Ernest Lamirande, in which he withdraws the retjuest which lie had addressed, in September last, to your Excellency, with the object of his surrender being claimed by the Government of Great Britain. I am desirous myself of addressing this deelaratioa to your J*]xcellcncy, in which my family and I record with satisfaction tho desiro of my unhappy son to spare us tho con- tinuation of painful emotions by putting an end to the di.sgraceful notoriety of which our name has been the subject. Moreover, wo should with sorrow have seen him separate himself from us whoso influence over him cannot bo othcrw'sc than sa\utary. U'c should have feared that, restored to liberty, he would, perhaps, have turned it to account in such a manner as would have shut out all hope for the future of his reinstatement in his former position. It is then with our concurrcnco that ho recalls his request, and that ho, moreover, ffoo}y and auitc BOQutftoeously (I am glad to do hi^u this justioo) give^ up tho ai^vaptages ( of hi^ in ob it ex (Trai I hac indu( Gove formi void. repei put a Ikitu desps reply appli M. L surrc him. and i shoui ques cons! sumT such cxtn throi "for been and the j Her m 150 of his restoration to liberty which the Government of Great Britain might have Hucceedcd in obtaining from the French Government. My youngest son, who signs this letter with me, fully joins in the sentiments which it expresses. T. have, &c., (Signed,) C. G. Lamirande. " C. S. Lamirande, (Inclosure 2 in No. 38.) jJ/. 7v. S. Lamirande to Earl Coioley. (Translation.) Fontevrault, February 19, 1867. M. L'Ajibassadeur, — On my arrival from Canada, in the month of September last, T had the honor of addressing to your Excellency, from Paris, a request, with the view of inducing the Government of Great Britain to claim my surrender from the French Government, and have me set at liberty. Having decided to submit in every way to the judicial decision of my country, I now formally withdraw my request, and beg you to have the goodness to consider it as null and void. This determination, which I have formed after mature reflection, is dictated to me by repentance for my crime, and still more by afibotion for my family, whoso interest bids me put an end to the unhappy notoriety to which I have too long subjected their name. Have the goodness, M. I'Ambassadeur, to transmit the present declaration to Her Britannic Majesty's Government, I have, &c., (Signed,) E. S. Lamirandb. (No. 39.) Mr. Fane to Lord Stanki/ (^Received, March 4). Paris, March 3, 18G7. My Lord, — I have the honor to forward herewith to your Lordship, copy of a despatch and its inclosurcs, which I received last night from the Marquis do Moustier, in reply to the note I addressed to His Excellency on the 14th of January last, conveying an application on the part of Her Majesty's Government for the surrender of M. Lamirande: M. de Moustier commences liis despatch by recording a formal declaration made by M. Lamirande to the Imperial Government, that ho voluntarily renounces all claim to his surrender, and that he wishes to remain in France to undergo the punishment awarded to him. His Excellency transmits to me the written declarations which establish this fact, and states that Her Majesty's Government will probably consider that theso documents should put an end to the discussion of which M. Lamirande is the object. M. do Moustier is, however, of opinion that it may be useful to examine the judicial questions raised by Her Majesty's Government, and he proceeds accordingly to a categorical consideration of them. The conclusions at which Hi.s Excellency arrives ma_ bo thus summarily stated : — 1. That the omission to demand the extradition through a Diplomatic Agent, even if such a course were invariably followed, cannot bo invoked, after the fact, to annul the extradition. That such demands are in certain cases made by Great Britain herself through other than a Diplomatic Agent. 2. That, if the crime for which Larilrande was surrendered does not constitute " forgery," according to the English law, the doctrine affirming this proposition has not yet been established. 3. That the decision of Judge Br6haut argues the regular application of the Treaty, and that no aigumcntoan be sustained on the pretended right of appeal from his judgment. 4. That Lamirande, before the Court of Assize of La Vienne, accepted in principle the jurisdiction of his country. His Excellency concludes by expressing the hope of the Emperor's Government^ that Her Majesty's Government will appreciate the considerations embodied iu his despatch, 160 and will acknowledge that tlicy »rc juat in principle ; since, in point of I'uct, Lumirundo having formally declined to take advantage of the rosalta that would accrue from IiIh surrender, the question no longer possesses any but a theoretical interest. I. have, &c., (Signed,) JuLiAN Fane. (Inclosurc 1 in ^o. DO.) M. lie Momtier to M. Fane (Translation.) Paris, March 1, 1807. Sir, — Vou did mo the honor of writing to mo on the 14th of January last, to request, iu the name of the Government of the Queen, the surrender of the condemned pri,sonor Ijamirande, as having been unduly given up to French justice. When T was on the point of answering that communication, the Minister of Justice informed me that Lamirande had just written of his own accord to the Procureur-O^ini^ral of Poitiers, to declare tliat he renounced all claim to his surr< adcr.' Since then Ivo wrote to M. liaroche to renew that declaration in terms still more .implicit ; and I learn that his brother recently called at the Embassy in order to ratify ana explain to you the purport of tlie convicted prisoncr'.s declarations, of which he was the bearer. There can be no doubt, therefore, as to the formal wish of Lamirande to remain in France to undergo his sentence, and the Uritish Government will probably consider that the documents which establish that intention should put an end to the discussion of which ho is the object. Nevertheless I do not believe it useless to examine the legal questions raised by your communication. The demand of the Queen's Govenmcnt is based on two grounds : — First, That the application for Lamirande's extradition was not made through the intervention of a Diplomatic Agent, .such as is required by the Treaty, and by the IJritisli Statute giving effect to the Treaty. Sccondft/, That the crime for which Lamirande was given up did not constitute the crime of forgery ("faux") contemplated by the Treaty. In regard to the first point, we allow willingly that the text of the Treaty only men- tions Diplomatic Agents j but ought it to bo interpreted iu a sense absolutely excluding the competency of agents placed in a similar position to that of the French Consul General at Quebec Y If such an interpretation should prevail, it could only reveal a new and lamentable omission in the Treaty of 1843 ; and in regard to this I must first call to mind that in point of fact, in the present instance, the persons charged with the pursuit of Lamirande, who were the bearers of the warrant issued against him, could not have requested, on their way through England, as your letter supposes, the intervention of the French Ambassador iu London, inasmuch as at that time the accused had fled, not to JJritish territory but to the United States. Tho same persons afterwards, like the fugitive, wont over direct from Federal soil into Canada, and it was the prompt requisition alone, addressed by our Consul (Jcneral to tho Governor of that Colony, which could have made the extradition possible. That incident, on the contrary, shows how indispensable, in cases of urgency, the action of Consular Agents may be, and at the same time the necessity of an interpretation breathing, above all things, that spirit of practical conciliation which should preside over the execution of international acta. Besides, an extradition granted without a request made through a diplomatic channel has notb ig in itself opposed to the practice followed under certain circumstances by Groat Uritiiin cither towards Franco or other countries. To this day extradition is carried out in French and English Colonies on the simple request of tho Governor, without recourse having been made to a diplomatic channel, and without the British Government ever having protested against that way of proceeding. Ileccntly, in 1863, England entered into an agreement with Italy respecting Malta, whereby applications for extradition could be made by Consular Agents. Ijastly, the clause of the Anglo-American Treaty of 1842, which refers to extraditions between tlic two countries, leaves it to bo supposed, as you allow, that the power of re- questing tlio surrender of criminals is by no means limited to Diplomatic Agents, properly 161 Mio I simple lol, and inR. Malta, Hrwri that the forgeries committed by Lanii- riuido are foreseen and punished by English legislation ; but we arc justified in taking into our consideration tl'at the Government of the Queen brings to the support of its position MO reference nor any oflicial opinion originated by or emanating from a judicial u\Uhority, whilst, on tho contrary, in our opinion the decision of Judge Brt'haut is a settled I'act, creating a grave and serious presumption in favor of the legitimacy of the extradition. Moreover, in adhering to the literal meaning of tho Treaty of 181:5, Lamirande's extradition appears to us perfectly regular. What, in fact, does the Treaty say 'I That the extradition shall be carried out on the part of England, " on the report of a Judge or Magistrate duly authorized to take cogni- " /anco of tho acts charged against tho fugitive in the warrant of arrest." This report has been made by Judge Br6haut, and it is upon this report that the Governor of Canada has banded over the accaced. We were therefore within the term of tho Treaty ; it is true, that it is argued that there existed an appeal to a superior Judge. Uut, strictly, according to the letter of the Treaty, wo are justified in maintaining that this right of appeal does not exist; and, indeed, if this right does exist, is it requisite for tho Government, whicli claims an accused person irom England, to pursue him through all tho judicial steps authorized by the forms of English law? 21 Itl2 TIu» Jbsult, doubtless, is not to bo feared when it i ;i (jues-tiiri ofa oiiuiiiial destitute of resouivpp; liut Lairiirunde is the proof that a thousand ways of procedure are open to him who has found, by his crime itself, the elements of riches necessai tomcet his expenses, so that ut lust by a complete subversion of ju: .ice the chances of extradition will some time be in an inverse ratio to the magnitude of the crime. At all events, to return to the actual case, the antagonistic opinion of Judge Drum- mond cannot bo alleged in oposition to that of Judge 6r6haut, since that opinion, given too late, in the absence of the parties, wanting, moreover in impartiality, if all the reportn published on that occasion arc to be believed, cannot have the force of a decision by a Court of Appeal. Having before us the matter adjudged, the opinion of the lawyers who have been called to considrr the question could alone determine us on tho point of law, the point of fact never ha\ g been the subject uf adverse examination. It is of greater importance i'or us to be aide to discover whether the falsifications, which in France entail a criminal punishment, :..iu wf ich tho Court of Assize of Vienno has chastised by ton years of con- finement, diio no: constitute the crime of forgery according to the English law. An English Colonial authority thought himself su''\ciently justified by the requisition of our Corssul G-eueral in delivering a warrant to the proper judge. Tho latter gave ii de- cision which was executed by the same administrative authorityb* fore the appeuranco of any contrary decision of another tribunal, whose tardy proceedings have no legal value. The person thus given up remained seven days in an English vessel and three more days on English soil, between Liverpool and Ijondon, escorted by Eng1i.oh agents. Lastly, it is certain that Members of the English Cabinet were questioned by means of telegraphic despatches, and had to answer tho objections of the officials who took upon themselves to act for Lamirande. Such are the antecedents, after which the restitution of the person thus .^iven up in claimed, under the pretext of errors committed by tho Governor General of Canada or by the Judge who gave the decision. There is, moreover, occa.sion to remark, that Lamirande, who has confessed his theft and forgery, has not even appealed against the sentence inflicted on hini. Finally, Lami- rande has accepted the trial on tho charge of forgery, as appears froni a forinal declaration on his part, publicly given in tho ses.^ion of the Court of Assize. You will find annexed a copy of this document. It proves that, according to the atatem.ot of his counsel, dated December o, Lamirande accepted on the 4tli, the trial on the charge of forgery, and, even in tho case of acquittal, upon that of theft; yo that his ucquieacence would have obliged us to keep him, had he been acquitted, and to try him on those charges which respect for the Treaties prevented us from submitting to the jury from the opening of the session. To recapitulate .* The omission to make the demand through a diplomatic channel, even were it an invariable rule, could not be urged ^)osA /acto to annul the extradition. The contrary rule is, moreover, practised in certain cases by Great Britain. If the forgery for which Lamirande has been surrendered is not forirury according to English law, it is a doctrine which remains to be established. There is, on tho contrary, a decision in favor of the rtv;ular application of the Treaty, and we cannot argue on the pretended judgment of appeal. Lamirande has accepted, in principle, the jurisdiction of his country before the Court of Assize at Viennc. The Government of the Emperor has, therefore, reason to hope that the English Cabinet will appreciate these various arguments, and will acknowledge them as justified in principle; for, in fact, Lamirande having formally given up his claim to t,he '-^enefit of surrender, tho question has no longer any but a theoretical interest. I have the honor to transmit to you, herewith, a certified copy of the letter addressed on February 10th, by Lamirande, to the Procureur G (Signed,) E. S. Lamirande. (Inclosure 4 in No. 39.) M. E. S. Lamirande to the Keeper of the Seals, Minister of Justice. (Translation.) Fontevrault, February 19, 1867. iM. LE MiNiSTRi': — I have the honor to inform you that I renounce, beforehand, and iu the moat .""ormal manner, the liberty which the demand, framed by the English Govern- ment for the surrender of my penson, if it were successful, might restore to me. Tho motives of my renunciation are the interest in my family, for whom I wisli to :ivoid the continuance of a publicity very painful to them, and the sincere and complete rtpeutanco by which I wish to try and expiate my crime. This determination on my part is perfectly free and deliberate. ft is, then, by my own deed, independently of any iufluence, that I declare my sub- mission to the decisions of French justice, and acceptance, without reserve and without (iniire pensefi, of n.ll its consequences. (Signed,) E. S. Lamirande. (Inclosure 5 iu No. 39.) MAf. V. G. and V. S. Lamirande to the Keeper of the Seals, Minister of Justice. (Translation.) Chatellebault, February 20, 1807. M. LE MiNLSTR':, — I havo the honor to address to you the enclosed letter from my son, J']incst Lamirande, by which he gives up, in anticipation, all claim to the benefits of the demand by the English Government for the surrender of his person. If anything could repair the harm which this unhappy son has done to mo as well as to my family, it would be his repentance. Therefore we regard with satisfaction this determination, which I hasten to transmit to your Excellency. It will have a result to which we attach great value — that of putting a stop at least to the reports which have been circulated in connection with our name. 164 In addition, it indicates a rotnrn to proper feclin<», since it possesses the merit of b inj; spontaneous, ami of being inspired by interest in his family and by a sincere desire for exj 'ation. I vontmo to iupe, M. le iMinistre, that the repentance of which my unhappy sou now gives a proof will create for him, at some futiiro time, a claim on the indulgence of His Majesty the Emperor. My youngest son, who signs this letter with mo. shares all the sentiments which are expressed therein. (Signed,) 0. O. T^vJUiiANDE, ex-Mayia(rate. (No. 40.) Lord Stanlei/ to Eari Oindci/, iUarclx 26. 1807. My Lord,— Mr. Fano transmittn 1 to mc in las desi atch of the 25th of February, two letters from M. Laniirande and frdrn his fauiiiy, wit.i'irawing the application that the former had made, in bi^f letter of tl.t; Uth of S»ptcmbcr last, for the interdprcnce of Her Majesty's Government to obtain his : ^loasc as having be:\ whose behalf tlic controversy was commenced urgently entreats that it should be abandoned. At tho same time, however. Her Majesty's Government must guard themselves from appearing to acquiesce in the doctrine and principlc-i on which the French Government justify their refusal to set M. Lamirando at liberty ) and I have accordingly to instruct your Excellency, in acquainting M. do Moustier that iler Majesty's Government no longer insist upon their application for his release, to .idd,tltat their abstaining from doing i!a must not be construed into an admission on their ]>art that there were not .sufficient grounds for insisting upon it. I am, &c., (Signed,) Stanley. I ^ M