IMAGE EVALUATION
TEST TARGET (MT-3)

1.0

1.1

itt I&2

■ 2.2

IIS I
lU I

lit

Wuu

ifi 12.0

m 1^ ii4

< 6"

►

Photographic

Sciences

Corporalion

23 WiST MAIN STRUT

WnSTIR.N.Y. MStO

(716)t7a-4S03

:/.

CIHM/ICMH

Microfiche

Series.

CIHIVI/ICIViH
Collection de
microfiches.

Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiquos

Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques

The Institute has attempted to obtain the best
original copy available for filming. Features of this
copy which may be bibliographicaily unique,
which may alter any of the images in the
reproduction, or which may significantly change
the usual method of filming, are checked below.

Coloured covers/
Couverture de couleur

I I Covers damaged/

Couverture endommagte

Covers restored and/or laminated/
Couverture restaurie et/ou pellicula

Cover title missing/

Le titre de couverture manque

Coloured maps/

Cartes gAographiques en couleur

Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/
Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire)

Coloured plates and/or illustrations/
Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur

Bound with other material/
Reli* avec d'autres documents

rr^ Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion

along interior margin/

La re liure serr6e peut causer de I'ombre ou de la

distortion le long de la marge int^rieure

Blank leaves added during restoration may
appear within the text. Whenever possible, these
have been omitted from filming/
II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajout^es
lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte.
mais. lorsque cela itait possible, ces pages n'ont
pas 6t4 filmAes.

Additional comments:/
Commentaires 8uppl6mentaires:

L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire
qu'ii lui a «t« possible de se procurer. Les d«talis
de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-Atre uniques du
point de vue bibliographique. qui peuvent modifier
une image reproduite. ou qui peuvent exiger une
modification dans la methods normale de filmage
sont indiquto ci-dessous.

D
D
D
D
D

D
D
D

Coloured pages/
Pages de couleur

Pages damaged/
Pages endommag^es

Pages restored and/or laminated/
Pages restaur6es et/ou pellicul^es

Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/
Pages d6color6es, tacheties ou piqudes

Pages detached/
Pages d^tachdes

Showthrough/
Transparence

Quality of print varies/
Qualit^ in^gale de I'impression

Includes supplementary material/
Comprend du materiel suppKmentaire

Only edition available/
Seule Edition disponlble

Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata
slips, tissues, etc.. have been refilmed to
ensure the best possible image/
Les pages totalement ou partiellement
obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure,
etc.. ont M film6es i nouveau de fapon d
obtenir la meilleure image possible.

P<
o1
fil

Oi
bi
th
si(
ot
fir
si<
or

Th
sh
Tl

M
d\\
en
be
rig
rei
mi

This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/

Ce document est film* au taux de rMuction indiqu* ci-dessous.

10X 14X 18X 22X

12X

16X

aox

26X

aox

24X

28X

32X

The copy filmed hare hat baan raproducad thanks
to tha ganarosity of:

Univanity of Toronto Library

L'axamplaira film* fut raproduit grica A la
gAnArositA da:

University of Toronto Library

Tha imagas appaaring hara ara tha bast quality
possibia considaring tha condition and lagibility
of tha original copy and in kaaping with tha
filming contract spacifications.

Original copias in printad papar covars ara filmad
beginning with tha front covar and anding on
tha last paga with a printad or illustratad impras-
sion, or tha back covar whan appropriata. All
othar original copias ara filmad beginning on tha
first paga with a printad or illustrated impres-
sion, and ending on the last page with a printed
or illustrated impression.

The last recorded frame on each microfiche
shall contain the symbol — ^- (meaning "CON-
TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"),
whichever applies.

Les imagas suivantas ont At6 reproduites avec le
plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition at
da la nattetA de I'exemplaire film«, et en
conformity avec les conditions du contrat de
filmage.

Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en
papier est imprimte sont filmte en commenpant
par le premier plat at an tarminant soit par la
dernidre page qui comporte une empreinte
d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second
plat, salon la cas. Tous les autras exemplaires
originaux sont film6s en commen9ant par la
pramlAre page qui comporte une empreinte
d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par
la derniAre page qui comporte une telle
empreinte.

Un des symboles suivants appsraltra sur la
dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le
cas: le symbols — ► signifie "A SUIVRE", le
symbols y signifie "FIN".

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:

Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent Atre
filmte A des taux de reduction diff Arents.
Lorsque le document est trop grand pour Atre
reproduit en un seul clichA, il est film* A partir
de I'angle supArieur gauche, de gauche A droite,
et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre
d'images nteessaira. Les diagrammes suivants
illustrent la mithoda.

I,. ^

^.l

mi.p»ww ,

Ql'- Br\V. Fortio-iv OffiCt

COBHESPOKDENGE

BISFBOnifO THl

EXTRADITION OF M. LAMIMNDE

IBOK

CANADA.

iScuAei u!irt\;

Pretented to both Hou$es of Porliament by Command of Her Majttty.

1867.

'\l'

f- \y

,24s 0^-

LONDON :
•BINTID BT HABBISON AND SONS.

TABLE OF CONTENTS.

« <

No.
It Earl Cowley . .

3. To Earl Cowley

3. Earl Cowley . .

6. To Earl Cowley

7. Earl Cowley .

8. To Earl Cowley

9. Earl Cowley .

10. To Earl Cowley

13. I) ■>

14. fi >i

15. „ „

16. Earl Cowley .

17. )i )t •

18. To Earl Cowley

19. Earl Cowley .
aO. To Earl Cowley

21. Earl Cowley..

23. To Earl Cowley

23. Earl Cowley. .

24. ,. *• . •

3*. i» »i * •
36. To Admiral Harris

27. Admiral Harris

38. To Mr. Fane. .

39. Mr. Fane . .

30. To Mr. Fane. .

31. Mr. Fane ..

Date.
Sept. 14, 1866

26,

27,
27,

Oct. 9,

25,

Nov. H,

10,

13,

15,

15,
15,
16,

16,
19,

20,

23,

28,
Dec. 2,

6,
7.

II.
13,

19,

20,

38
Jan. 9,' 1867

11,
12,
13,

Subject.

Trinmiittinff copy of letter fnim Mailro Laihaud. inrloiinfr

letter from M. I>aniirandp, protesting; n),'uinit liis mir-

reniler to France liy the Goveromcnt of Canada undur

the Ext nidition Treaty
Has rt'fcrrocl the above to the Colonial Offite. Colonial

Office not in possession of facts of csre. To address

representation to French Government . .

Inclosing copy of note addressed to Frencli (iovcrnnicnt . .
Extract from " Monitcur" relative to the extradition of

Lamirande . , . . . . , .

Inclosing copy of note from M. de Moustier. Views of

French (jovcmment. Lamirandc's trial to take place

in due course . . . . . .

Her Majesty's Government wish to be informed of date of

trill. Desirable that as much delay as possible should

take place
Note from .M. de .\ioustl«r. Trial will take place on 26th

of November
Instructions as to coursi; to be taken with a view to obtain

liberation of M, Lmnirandc
Reports huving carried out instructions. Conversation

with M. de Moustier
Approving language to M. de Moustier. Suggestions for

settling the question
Not to claim surrender of M. Lamirande as of right
Statement of crime with which M. Lamirande is charged . .
Law Officers' opinion of the language held by M. de

Moustier
Legal definition of the crime of forgery
Charge made against Lamirande does not bring him within

the accusation of forgery . .
Reports execution of instructions. Copy of Memorandum

submitted to French Government. Interview with M. de

Moustier . . . .

Trial fixed for 3rd December. Precise natirre of charge

against Lamirande . . . . . .

To employ competent person to watch the trial . .

M. Trcite instructed to attend the trial

Approving language. Satisfaction that result of trial will

not bar the surrender of Lamirande
Lamirande found guilty of forgery. Return of M. Treite,

who will furnish report
Reported surrender to Swiss Governmeiit, by France, of

criminal whose extradition had been improperly obtained.

To inquire into truth of statement . . . .

Letter from M. Treite, with " complc-ren<iu " of trial.

Precis of case . .
As to reported ease of surrender of crimiinal to Swiss

Government, Letter from M. Treite, wh o can find no

trace of such case. Considers that it refers to a caae

which took place iu 1 840 . .
Conversatiou with M. de Moustier. French Oovemment

ready to consider claim of British Government for infrac-
tion of Extradition Treaty, if put forvrnrd officially
As to alleged case of return to Switzerlund of person

improperly surrendered to France. To rep art particulars

of case . . . . . .

Report as to above case

Recapitulating state of the case, and insti-ucting him to

recommend that M. Lamirande should be set at liberty . .
Inclosing M. Treite's Report on the Franco-S wis extradition

case . . . . . . . . . . . .

Grounds on which Her Majesty's Govcrnmi mt regret the

surrender of M. Lamirande
Conversation with M. de Moustier. French Government

would consider a formal demand. Incloses copy of

furtlier note w'.iich he proposes to addi»ss to M. de

Moustier . .

Page

7
7

10
10

15
16
16

17
17

63
63

TABLE or CONTIMTa.

No.

32. To Mr, Fane

33. Mr. i'ane

34. „

35. .Mr. .'^lackpi r e

36. To Mr. Maikrniiu

37. Mr. line ..

38. .Mr. Faiic . .

40. To Liird Cowley

.'an.

Feb,

D.ite.

4,
14,

13.

;ii.
I.

ir)C7

Mnr. 3,

ao,

SOBJICT. Pfegt

Approving note to M. da tlouitier . ,. ..70

Ha< >eiit note U If. de .Mouitier. Hequeits that the date

iiiJiy bp the 14tli of .lanii.iry ..70

C'niiy cit' null' from M. Troitc rcl.itivo to the date of M.

Ijiiiinaixii'M .ippi'al . .. .. ..71

Kxtrait 111 Iti;. ,• i.on. Mr. I)i);itri'. <if Mniilri il, rt'I:.tivc to
rli.iriii'i on which Laminimlc has beontriei'. Itequestto
he inrnrmod how tho matter standi . . ., ..73

Aoiwer to the above. The caie ii under coniideration.
Cannot f;ivv a detailed reply . . . . • ■ 74

IncloiiMj; copy nf article from the " Gaiette det Tribunaux "
on the case of Lamirandc . . . . . • 74

Inrliiiiini,' copies of Irtlerii from M. Lamirandc and from
his I'uthor iinil mu.licr, to Lord Cowley, begging that
all further action in the casi* on the part of Her
.■Miijesty'ii (iovemnicnt may cease .. ., ..79

Inclosing' copy of a despatch from M. de .Moiistier in reply
tu the application made on the part ot Her .Majesty's
GovemiiKiit for tlie surrender of .M, Lamlrande .. 81

Hit Mnjcsl;, j Government no longer insist nn application
fur M. I.ii.i irauiK'.i release, but cannot acquiesce in the
ilc.ctriii.' nil. I principles o;i which the French Gorernroent
ji:>:il\ tliiir rc!■ll^:ll ,. .. .. ..89

Correspondence respecting tlie Extradition of M. Lamirande

from Canada.

No. 1.

Earl Cowley to Lord Stanley.— {Received September 15.)

My Lord, Paris, September 14, 1866.

MAITRE LACHAUD, one of the most eminent members of the French bar, has
addressed me a letter, of which I have the honour to inclose a co|)y, transmitting a letter
from a Frenchman named Ijamirande, who appears to have been given up by the Gorem-
mcnt of Canada to the French Government, under the Extradition Treaty of 1843. As
Lamirande requests that his letter may be laid before Her Majesty's Government, I
inclose it herewith.

I have, &c.
(Signed) COWLEY.

IncloBure 1 in No. 1.
M. Lachaud to Earl Cowley.

Milord, Paris, le 12 Septembre. 1866.

J'AI I'honneur de faire parvenir k votre Excellence une Icltre que M. Lamirande,
ancien caissier de la Banque de France k Poitiers, m'a envoy^c pour lui £tre remise.

Je n'ai pas vu Lamirande, et je ne sanrai deslors rien ajouter aux protestations qn'il
61dve ; mais si les faits avanc6s par lui etaient vrais, ils auraicnt une gravite qui frapperait
assur^ment votre Excellence, et je dois me bomer k appeler sur cette lettre sa bienveillante
attention.

Je suis, &c.
(Sign^) A. LACHAUD,

Avocat de la Cour ImpAiale.

(Translation.)

My Lord, Paris, Septemter 12, 1866. '51

I HAVE the honour to transmit to your Excellency a letter which M. Lamirande,

formerly cashier of the Bank of France at Poitiers, has sent to me for communication to

you- -J'^SEil • '' r'-"^^

I have not seen Lamirande, and I can therefore add nothing to the protests which he
raises ; but if the facts advanced by him are true, they have an importance which will
doubtless strike your Excellency, and I confine myself to drawing your kind attention to
this letter.

I am, &c.
(Signed) A. LACHAUD,

Avocat de la Cour ImpMait,

[681 .„,.- B

IncloBurc 2 in No. 1.

M. Lamirande to Earl Cowley.

Paris, Prifon de la Preffdiirr df Police,
Exccllunrc, le 11 Heptembtr, IHt{t5.

J'AI M- ciilrvi' df la prison de Montr(^al, ou j'ftvaiN t'te f(iiiiiiii» par unc sentence
injoflte, pour .y «tt<ii(lro inoii oxtrwiiiion, dans dcs conditions toiler que jo croin qu'eii les
faisant (•(iimiiKri- 1: votrc (Jouvt-rnemcnt, ii J vorra une violation dcs lois Anu'lnises, i-t du
Traitr d'K\iriiiliiioii oiitri' la rnince et I'Angleterre, I't qu'il ptmrra vouh autoriser h me
r^clanuT an (iouvcriioiiR'iit de I'Knipercur.

]m scnltiKc i|ui iira>ait coniniis pour IVxtraditiun etait Irappt- d'appel. et lo proems,
instruit i-t dcia iilnidc ilcvant un Ju^e d'un di-jfri' suiKTicurau iirnniir, «ii'\ait so ti-nnincr
le lendimain a 1 1 iHiiri-s du matin par la dicision de ee Mafji^trat, (juand hc passercnt
lc8 i'aits MiivantH.

A II iuiiits du soir, aprt's avoir assistiJ au dc^jwrt simulu du train de Montreal d
Queljee. le Ma^M^trat en «|ueHtion vint H'atwiurcr lui-tn^tne que j'etais Men i\ la priHon.
Entre 1 lieure el L' lieures du matin, ,je rc<;u.s I'ordrc du Directtur de la Prison de me
lever etde partir. L'Ajient de la Police Franeai.se envoys h ma poursuite s'empara de
moi Avec l'ai«lu de plusieurs autres personnes, oeln de force, ut sans pouvoir me montrcr
I'erdre en vertu duquel on m'entrainait. On tat plaqt dans one voiture, et on me condinait
k ime Htation du clicmin de fer de Monti^ a Quebec (la atatioa St. Charles, je croia),
et non h la f^are de iMontrtel. Car aimiilani un depart, pour troniper tout le monde et
men defenuvur, et le Jngc, qui le lendemain matin ^11 heures devait prononeer n
sentence, et I'autorite elle-m^me, on avait fait partir Ic train il son heure habitueUe,
10 heurcH, et on I'avait arnMe pendant trois ou quatrc heures 5 ia st^iticm dont jc i)arle
plus haut. On m'cnferma, sous la garde de trois horames, dans un coiiijMirtcment reserv6
aux employes de la (Jom|)agnie. Je vis passer un de mes avocats a New York, Mr. Spil-
thorn, la seule persoiine probablemcnt qui ait pu r(5usslras'apercevoirde mon enlevement.
Je voulus lui parler ; on m'a cmpecba par la force. Arrive* a Quebec, jo fus plac£
\ bord du " Damascus," dont on avait retards le depart, et oii I'avocat, dont je viens de
parler, dcmanda en vcrtu de ((ucl (urdre on m'enlevait ainsi. Les personnes qui m'entouraient
r^pondirent ((u'ellcs n'avaicnt pas de comptes h. lui rendre; qu'clles executaient des
ordres, et n'avaicnt aacune piece ^ montrer : il sc retira, en protestant contre cet incrojnaUe
abas de la force.

Arrivd k Liverpool, ou ne se trouvait paa de Magietrat competent pour eonm^tae
de mon affaire, on me dirigea eur Londrea, eik je derais, diaait-on, trouver ce Ma^strat.
IA on me conduisit de nuit k un hotel, situ^ dMS une rue dont j 'ignore le nom, ainsi «pti
celtti de I'hotel. Trois parsonnea y viarent ; on me dit que c'6taient dee avocats pr^venM

Ear une d^peche de M. Doutre, mon d^fenseur k Montreal. Apr^s une conTenBtuBy
ors de ma presence, entre oes messieurs ct un Canadien qui m'accompagnait depois
Montreal, avec I'Agcnt de la Police Fran^aise, ces trois personnes se'retirdrent, sans que
je puasc avoir aucuue comnumication avec elles. A 6 heures du matin on me fit sortir
de I'hotel, et on me conduisit au chemin de fer pour Douvres, d'oil on m'embarqua pour la
France.

Quand j'aurai dit k votre Excellence que la sentence du premier Juge m'inculpe dn
crime de foux que je crois n'ayoir commis, ni selon les lois Fran^aises ni selon les l<n»
Anglaises ; que dans le procds intents contre moi & New York on avait m6me abandonn^
ce chef d'accusation ; que Tavocat de la Gonronne k Montreal a reconnu lui-meme que
je n'avais pas commis ce crime ; que, d'ailleurs, je ne demande point k etre rendu k
I'Angleterre pour y etre mis en liberty, mais seulement pour que le proc^ interrompul
Montr^l par la force continue, ou que je suis prfet, si on le pr(5tl&re, k le subir devaat
la Haute Oour d'Angleterrc, ou n'importe quelle autre juridiction, il me semble que le
Gouvemement de la Reine pourra etre touche de ces graves motifs, et vous priera de me
t^clamer au Gouvemement de I'Empereur.

Je prie votre Excellence de vouloir bien transmettre ma lettre au Gouvemement
Angfms, et dc m'en accuser r^eption.

J'aiy &c.
(Sign^) E. S. LAMIRANDE.

P.8. — La pi^ce qui munquait aux personnes qui m'enlevaient dtait, je crois, cette
exig^e par le Traits, en vertu de laquelle j'aurais pu etre arrfitd r^guli^rement en France
sous I'inculpation du crime pour lequel on demandait mon extradition.

Je riem d'lipprendre i nnttant qa*Dn derait tno inntffret domain \ h Praon 4e
Poitien (D(<pnrteinent dc la Viennc), oit jc pri'c rntrc Eirdlencc df mo fnirc coniwttre
le rtsultat do mes r^-clamntions.

MeH nom» ct pr^noma 8ont, Surrean Lamirandc, Charles Conntant Krnest.

(

)

Excellency, Paris, Pri-ion of the Police Prefecture, Sepfemher 1 1, 1866.

I HAVE been carried off from the prison of Montreal, where I lind lieen committed
on an Tmjii».l sentence to await my cxtmiition, under such cirriiinst inrcj that in making
them known to your Government I think it will perceive therein a violiitimi nt'tlic Kn^lish
law, and of the Treaty of Extradition between France and Kni;iund, and 'that it viU be
able tu authorize you to reclaim mc from the Emperor's Government.

The sentence which bad committed me for the purpose of extradition wiui appealed
•f^imt, and the cuoc, already brou^ on and argued before a Judirc nf a hii;her rank than
the lar^t one, was to be concluded the next day at 1 1 o'clock in the muming by the
decision of this Ma!j;i>trnte, when tlie following facts occurred :—

At 1 1 o'clock at night, after having been pn-sent at the preteiidid departure of the
Ifontreal train for Quebec, the Magistrate in question c:ime to assure hiniseit that I wan safe
in prison. Between 1 and 2 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 \\.i.', sent in purmiit of
me, took possession of me with the aasistaace of several other pt rsons, by force, and
without being able to show mc the order by virtue of whieh they weir carryin>; mc off. I
was placed in a carriage, and taken to a station of the Montreal und Qm bcc Railway (I
think the St. Charles Station), and not to tlte Montreal terminus. For, making; a false start,
in order to deceive the pnblic and my counsel, as well as the Judge who wiis to deliver
judgment tlic following morning at 1 1 o'clock, and the authorities tlicniselves, the tnan
was started at its usual time, 10 o'clock, and was stopped for three or four hours at the
above-mentioned station. I was shut up in custody of three men in a c()rn|)artment
reserved for the use of the servants of the Company. I saw Mr. Spilt horn, one of my Ni'w
York counsel pass by, probably the only person who had succccdiil in discovering my
abduction. I wislied to s])eak to him ; I was prevented by force. On arriving at (Quebec
I was put on board the " Damascus," the departure of which had bee n delayeii, and where
the counsel of whom 1 have just spoken, asked by virtue of what nnitr 1 was tlius carried
off; the persons who surrounded me replied, that they had no cxpliiiKitions to give him;
that they were executing their orders, and bad no papers to show, lie retired, protesting
against this incredible abuse of power.

On arriving at Liverpool, where there was no Magistrate competent to take cognizance
of my case, I was taken to London, where I was told such a Magii^tntc would be found.
There I was taken by night to an hotel situated in a street the natnr; of which I do not
know, nor yet that of the hotel. Three persons came there ; I was tuld they were lawyers
engaged by a despatch from M. Doutre, my counsel at Montreal. After a conversiition,
at which I was not present, between these gentlemen and a Canadian who accompanied me
from Montreal with the French police officer, these tliree gentlemen retired without my
being able to hold any communication with tbeoi. At 6 o'clock in the morning I was
taken from the hotel and conducted by railway to Dover, iu <" whicii place I was embarked
for France.

When I tell your Excellency that the sentence of the first Judge makes me answerable
for the crime of forgery which 1 do not consider I have committed, cither according to
French or English laws ; that in the proceedings taken against me at New York this count
in the indictment was even abandoned ; that the Grown Counsel at Montreal himself
acknowledged that I had not committed this crime ; that besides I do not at all demand
to be given up to England to be set at liberty there, but only in order that the proceedings
interrupted by force at Montreal may go on, or that I am ready, if it is preferred, to
ambmit the case to the High Court of Bngland, or it matterB not to what other jurisdiction,
it appears to me that the Queen's Gorrernment may be impressed by these weighty icasou,
■id may request you to reclaim me from the Government of the Emperor.

I beg your Excellency to be pleMod to tnmsmit my letter to the EagUsh Oovenuaent
tmi to acknowledge its receipt.

I base, ftcu
(Signed) £. S. LAMIRANDE.

P.S. — The document which those persons who carried me off did not possess, was I

1 think (hat which ia required by the Treaty, in virtue of which I could have been legally
arrested in Frana; on the cliarKc of the crime for which my extradition was demanded.

I have jiiKt now heard thnt I am about to be tronHfcrrcd to the Poitien prison
(Department of Vienne), where I bog your Excellency to acquaint me with the result of
my complaints.

My name and itumamcfi arc Surreau Lamirande, Charles Constant Krncst.

So, 2.

Lord Stanley to Earl Cowiey,

Mj Lord, Forrign Office, Septrmhrr 20, 1806.

I HAVK referred to Her Majesty's Secretary of State for the ('olonial Dejjart-
ment your Kxcelleney'N deMiatch of the 14th inHtiint, together with the letter therein
inclosed from M. G. S. Lamirundc, protesting against his arrest and surrender to the
French |>olicc authorities at Montreal, as being unwarranted by the terms of the
Extradition Convention between this eountrr and France.

I learn from tlic Colonial Office, in reply, that they arc not as yet in possession of
any official reiH)rt from Canada of the facts of this case, and that the Governor-General
of that province has accordingly been requested to scud home a coUipletc report
upon it.

As, however, the circumstances attending Lamirande's extradition, if correctly
stated in his protest to your Excellency, alford ground for questioning the legality of his
extradition, I have to instruct your Excellency to address a representation to the French
Government on this subject, with the view of delaying any further judicial proceedings
against the prisoner until Her Majesty's Government arc in possession of more authentic
information.

I am, &c.
(Signed) STANLEY.

No. 3.

Earl Cowley to Lord Stanley, — (Received September 28.)

My Lord, Paris, September 27, 1866.

I HAVE had the honour to receive your Lordship's despatch of yesterday's date, on
the subject of the arrest end extradition from Canada of M. E. S. Lamirande, under
the provisions of the Treaty of 1843, and I inclose a copy of the note which I have
addressed to M. de Lavalette in consequence of your Lordship's instructions.

I have, &c.
(Signed) COWLEY.

Indoeure in No. 3.

Barl Cowley to M. de LaoaUtU.

(Extract.) Paris, September 27, 1866.

ABOUT a fortnight ago I received a letter from M. E. S. Lamirande, who has
lately been brought from Canada under the provisions of the Extradition Treaty of 1843,
protesting against his arrest and surrender to the French police authorities at MontreaJ,
as being unwarranted by the terms of the said Treaty, and requesting me to bring his
protest to the notice of Her Majesty's Government.

1 Although no official information on this subject has as yet reached Her Majesty's
€k>Temment, there is grave reason to doubt the leg^ity of Lamirande's extradition, and
I am instructed by Her Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to
request your Ex^cellency to move the proper authority to delay further proceedings
'against Lamirande until Her Majesty's Government shall be in possession of more
Aathenlic information on which to found a further communication to your Excellency.

No. 4.

Earl Cnulry to Lord Stanley.— {Retrivnl Sfptrmher 2H.)

My Ijord, Paris, Seplrmh>r_27, 186fl.

I HEO lonro in mil jour LonlHhip'H attention to the inflowd »xtrnct frrnn vrstor-
dty'H t'vi'iiinjir «Mlitioii of'tho " Monitfur," resjH'ctinK tlio nrn-st uiiil i-xlratlition of Ijivni-
ramie, whom' tomo wiix l)roiiglit ln-t'oro vour I^ordMhip in niv il(><<))ntcli of tho ! Itlt inxtHiit.

I have, kc.
(Signed) roWLKY.

IncloRurc in No. 4.

Extnirtfrom the " Monitrur" of Sepli-mhn- 2(1, IHfiO.

fiES jnurnstix du rniindn ont cnRngc' unt; iioK'tiiiqiie nsni'z vivo, a prniios dc
IVxtrndition d'un onisNii-r inlidt'It- dp In Hiiiii|uc do Franoo, (|ui s'otait irfu>;io <latm cc
pays. On »nit <iue toutoH los f()rninlit(''s jiroscritos par la loi ont ot*'; oltscrvos on cclto
circonHtanco. Apros entini't«« et dociwion du .Ingo oompotont, I'ordrc dc livrcr Ic
prisonnior a oto r<''j(uiioroniont donno jmr Ic Gouvornour-uonornl dos provinces Hiitnn-
niqiics. L'emotion (jui s'?st produite autouroette aifaircet (|ui s'attnohe i\ dos inoidontH
do procedure 80ulev<?s < a temps inopportun par les avocnts du provonu, soinble avoir pris
naissancc dans un ord' • do considerations otrangor A In question en eilenu'*n»e. Lch
points essentiels ont 1 1<5 exposes avec autorit)'> dans une lettre adrossoe nux piincipales
fcuillcs du Canada par Ic jurisconsulte qui rcpn''sentait devant le triltunal do Muntrt^l la
Couronno Britanniquc.

(Translation.)

THE newspapers of Canada have begun a somewhat lively discussion respecting the
extradition of a fraudulent cashier of the Bank of France who had escaped to that country.
It is well known that all the forms prescribed by law have been observed in this matter.
After an inquiry and decision by a competent Judge, the order to surrender the prisoner
was regularly issued by the Govemor-General of the British Provinces. The excitement

t reduced about this case, and which attaches to points of procedure raised inopportunely
y the prisoner's lawyers, would appear to originate in a chain of considerations foreign to
the question itself. The essential points of the case have been stated with authority
in a letter addressed to the principal papers of Canada by the lawyer who represented the
British Crown before the tribunal of Montreal.

No. 5.
Earl Cowley to Jjord Stanley. — {Received October 10.)

My Lord, Paris, October % 1866.

I HAVE the honour to transmit herewith copy of a note which I have received
from M. de Mcustier on the subject of ttt<i extradition from Canada of M. £. S. Lami.
rande, in reply to the one which I addrcsse-l on the 27th ultimo to M. de Laval^tte, a
copy of which was inclosed in my despatch of the same date. '"

M. de Moustier states that the case has been carefully examined by the Minister of
Justice, who considers that there exists no irregularity which coidd invalidate the extra-
dition of Lamirande, and that it would therefore be desirable that Her Majesty's Govern-
ment should, before coming to any decision upon the subject, communicate to the French
Oovernment the facts complained of. HH

M. Baroche adds, further, that the trial of Lamirande must take place in due course,
but that no measure has been taken to hasten it.

I have, &c.
(Signed) OOWLEY.

Inclosore in No. 5.
M. d9 Mmmtier to Earl Cowlm/.

M. IAinl*«B*<k!ur, Ptri.", It S Ortnlirr, I860.

V(JTRJ*4 Exct'llencc, en annnn^uit le 27 Se^itcntbre dcmicr 4 M. le Miiriitiis 4e Lava-
Icttc q«e Ic noniiD<^ I^Aniirandu urufeeHUutcoutrc sou extradition au Canada, a demande qu'il
Hoit auntis aux poumikcH dirigccs contre cat accus^> juM|u'a oc que le Gouvfmement de la
Reinc ait obu-nu let* itiformationH jironros ik la mettrc en mcsure d'adrcsHcr une comma-
nicatioa ult^rii-ure au Guuverncmont dc rRmporcur.

M. Ic Miiii«lri' dc In Justice, k qui M. le Marquis «!o TiBvalctto s'etait empress^ dc
faire part du dt'sir oxprinu' par voire Kxcellonce, a fXaniin('' aver soin les divorses phases
di" cottt- artairc" ct lu- pcnse pas (ju'il exist" aucune irngularite do nature a invalider
Textrndition de eet aciust-.

Dans cct tint de eliosos il sorait desirable que le Gouvememont do Sa Majesty
Hritaiiiii(|ue, avant do prendre aueuno deciMion, nous fit connaitre les >rriofs <|u'()n allegue,
et quo dos explioations loyalos foront sans doute disparnitre. M. Haroclio ajoute, du
reste, que, quant au jugoniont de Luniirande, aucune mesuro n'a (?to jiriso pour en avancer
Topoque. Rlais voire Kxoollonce Bait trop bien que e'est pour Tautorite judiciaire un
devoir dc se cout'orinor aux regies qui lui sent tracees. Hans y rien modifier arbitrairement,

(tour ne pas eouiprondre que le moment approche ou il deviendra necos>sairc de laisser la
oi Kuivro son cours. J'appelle ogalenient I'attention de votrc Excellence sur ce qu'il y
aurait d'auormal do la ))art du Gouvemcment Itritauniquo, aux voeux duquel nous sommes
toujours ddsireux de pouvoir def<':rcr, k remettre en question une proct'-dure dont le
r<5fultat pourrait d'autant moins etre contc8t<5 qu'il s'agit d'un homme place sous Ic coup
d'unc accusation si publiquc qu'U j a en quelqoc sortc flagrant delit.

Agr^z, &c.
(Signi) MOUSTIER.

(Translation.)

M. I'An.bassadeur, Pans, October 8, 1866.

YOUR Excellency, in announcing on the 27th of September last to the Marquis de
Laralette that one Lamirande protested against his extradition from Canada, requested
that the proceedings instituted against the accused might be delayed until the GoTernment
of Her Majesty were in possession of snch information as would enable them to address
a further communication to the Government of the Emperor.

The Minister of Justice, to whom the Marquis de Lavalette hastened to communicate
the wish expressed by your Excellency, has carefully examined the different bearings of
the case, and does not think that there is any irregularity of a nature to invalidate tbe
extradition of the accused.

In this state of things it would be desirable that the Government of Her Britannic
Majesty should, before coming to any decision, communicate to us the alleged grievances
which, upon frank explanations, will doubtless disappear. M. Baroche adds, however, t Jat no
step has been taken to hasten Lamirande's trial. But your Excellency knows too well
that is it the duty of the judicial authority to conform to the rules which are laid down for
its ohscrva!!c-c without any arbitary modification thereof, not to understand that the time
is drawng near wlien it will become necessary to allow the law to take its course.

I ikewisc call to your Excellency's attention what an anomalous course it would be
on the part of the British Government, to whose views we are always anxious to be able
to defier, to bring again in question proceedings of which the result could the less be
contested, as they relate to a man who lies under a charge so public that it is in some
measure a case fia^rante delicto.

Accept, &c.
(Signed) MOUSTIER.

No. 6.

Lord Stmdey to Earl Cowley.

My Lord, Foreign Office, October 25, 1866.

HER Majesty's Qovemment are desirous of knowing, as soon as p.s8ible, whether
the French Government propose that Lamirande should be brought to tnal, and when.
;r^Lord Carnarvon has not rBce i f ed from Lord Monck the particulars of the case,
which he has been called upon to supply; and it is, therefore, only upon very meagre

infon <ation that I am able to consult the Law Officers, as to the propriety of making anj
fi>nnal communication to the f rendt Oovcrament.

It in unilor thcHO circumstanceM vcrj desirable that as mach ilclaj a«« possible should
take place in bringing the caMS on for trial

I am, &c.
(Signed) STANLEY.

No. 7.

Earl Cowley to Lord Slanley.-~{Rfri'ived Sninnher 9 )

My Lord, Paris, Sornnliir B, 1 868.

WITH reference to your Lordship's despatch to me, of the L'.'ith ultimo,
and to my teleijrnm of 2*25 a.m. yesteniuy morninjj. reliitive to the dato to \>v tixi-d for
the trial of Lainirnnde, 1 have the hownir to inclose herewith copy of a iiote whidi I hare
received from .M. do iMoustier, in which his Kxceiloncy informs nw that the Assizes at
which this trial will take place commence upon the L'<Uh of tliis nioiitii.

1 have, &c.
(Signed) COWLEY.

Inclosure in No. 7.

M. de Moustier to Earl Cowley.

M. I'Ambas 'adeur, Paris, le 6 Novembre, 1866.

VOTRE Excellence, dans sa lettre do 28 Octobre dernier, ma exprim*^ le d^sir do
Oonvemement dc la Heine d'etre inform^ de I'epoque 4 laquelle doit avoir lieu le
jugement de Lamirande.

M. le Ministre de la Justice me fait connattre que la session des Assises do la Vienne,
0^ doit ^tre port4e I'affaire de cet accuse, s'ouTfira le 2C de ce mois.

Agr^z, &c.
(Sign^) MOUSTIER.

(Translation.)
M. rAmbassadeur, ParU, November 6, 1866.

IN your letter of the 28th of October last your Excellency expressed to me the with
of Her Majesty's Government to be informed of the date when the trial of Lamirande was
to take place.

. The Minister of Justice acquaints me that the session of the Vienne Assizes, before
which the case of the accused is to be brought, will open on the 26th of this month.

Accept, &c.
(Signed) MOUSTIER.

5o. 8.
Lord Stanley to Earl Cowley.

My Lord, Foreim Office, Nmemher 10, 1868.

IT has not been in my po^er before to^ay to furnish your Excellency with inatruc^
tions respecting the case of M. Lamirande's forcible extradition from Canada. The papen
Mccessively received from the Colonial Office on the subject are so voluminous that even
aow the Law Officers of the Crown, to whom they have necessarily been referred, have
been unable to consider them so fully as to admit of their forming a decided opinion on
the ccmdact of the Colonial authorities in the transaction.

But, as regards the question as it a£Pects M. Lamirande personally, I am advised
that although Her Majesty's Government could not demand, or claim as of right, that he
should be remitted to Canada in order that the question of his liability to extradition
might be there legally decided, yet the ciioaoMrtances of the case are so peculiar that Her
Majesty's Government may fairly make a friendly representation to the French Govern-
ment on his behalf.

I have accordingly to instruct your Excellency to say to M. de Moustier that Her
Majesty's Government hare ascertwned that the warrant for M. Lamirande's extradition
was iaraed by the Govemor-Oenend of Canada in ignorance that the pwoner bad apj^cd

to the proper tribun; I to order hiH diticharf^e on the fcrouod that the caMC wa'^ not within
the provlHionR of tht- Treaty. It ap|R'arH that while this ptfint wu.s actually under discus-
Hion In-fore the Judfj^e, who had adjourned the case to the following; morning, tb« warrant
wan oblaint'd from the (Joveriior-CieiiiTal, who was wholly uninformed of these facta,
and who would not have ixNUed the warrant if ho had been aware of them.

Your Excellency will further say that, in the opinitm of the Judge before whom the
matter was pending, the case did not come within the provisions of the Treaty, and that
the priHoner ought not to be delivered up ; and, moreover, that the prisoner was carried
•way under the warrant of the (lovernor-General notwithst^inding the personal protest of
the Judge. Her Majesty's Government are advised t!,iat there is good rea^^on to believe
that the opinion of the Judge was well founded in law, and that the prisoner ought not
to have been surrendered.

Your Excellency, while carefully abstaining from making any claim or demand as of
right, will say that, under these <rireumstances, Her Majesty's Government hojie tliat the
French Government will consent (o the prisoner being replaced in that position from which
Jip was improperly removed.

I am, &c.
(Signed) STANLEY.

No. 9.
Earl Cowley to Lord Stanley.— {Received November 14.)

(Extract.) Paris, November 13, 1866,

I SAW M. de Moustier yesterday afternoon, on the subject of your Lordship'
despatch of the 1 0th instant, relating to the case of Lamirande.

While carefully abstaining, in pursuance of yonr Lordship's instructions, from
making any demand or claim as of right that Lamirande should be remitted to Canada, I
also avoided committing Her 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
the wishes of Her Majesty's Government by the surrender of Lamirande, it might become
necessary, in order to justify that surrender, that some claim as of right should be put
forward by Her Majesty's Government.

I confined myself, therefore, to stating to M. de Moustier the circumstances attend-
ing Lamirande's arrest and extradition, and the doubts which prevailed in the mind of
Her Majesty's Government of the legality of those proceedings ; and I asked whether the
French Government would not be disposed to meet the wishes of Her Majesty's Govern-
ment, which I was desired to express, that T^amirande, in consequence of these doubts,
should be replaced in the position from which he had been improperly removed.

M. de Moustier did not give me much encouragement to hope that my appeal would
be favourably listened to. His Excellency said that he did not sec, Lamirande being
now in the hands of justice, by what process he could be delivered from them except by
a trial.

His Excellency added that although no blame could in any way attach to the
French Government in these transactions, he was personally most anxious to meet the
wishes of Her Majesty's Government. He might add that such was also the Emperor's
desire. But he must confess he did not see his way to it. If, however, I would give him
a written statement of the position of Her Majesty's Government in this matter, lie would
sec the Minister of Justice upon the subject, and bring it before the Council of Ministers
at its next meeting. He would also cause inquiries to be made whether any similar case
had ever occurred before, that is, whether any Government with which France had an
Extradition Treaty, had ever recovered an individual surrendered illegally, and, if so,
what had been the course followed.

I gave M. de Moustier a statement compiled from the third and fourth paragraphs
of your Lordship's despatch alluded to above.

No. 10.

Lord Stanley to Earl Cowley.

My Lord, Foreign Office, November 15, 1866.

I^ HAVE received your despatch of the 13th instant, reporting a converse
tion with M. de Moustier respecting the case of M. Lamirande ; and I have to acquaint

you that Her Majc!«ty'H Govcmracnt ontircly ap|trovi- the language which you held on
that occaHion.

It apjH^ars from what M. tie Moustier saiil to your Excellcney that the French
Government arc nut ilisposed to replaru M. I^iiiiiriiiuli' in the Mtnic |M)sition in nliich he
was het'orc he was made over to tlie French Police Otticor in Canada; doiihting, on the
one hand, their power to do ho. ns the law stands, and liesitatinfj, on the other, as to the
effect which their doin;; so might have on public opinion in France.

The case is, indeed, beset with difficulty. It is ()uitc clear, nl least in the opinion of
the Judge in tJanada before whom the case was j»ending, and «hicli is adopted and
contirmed by the La»v Officers of the Crown in ICngland, who have now had the oppor-
tunity of examining all the documents connected with the transaction, that the charge on
which M. I^miraiide was given up did not come within the provisions of the Treaty, and
that he therefore ou<;ht not to have been surrendered.

The French Government appear to hold that haviny- got the prisoner into their
possession, certainly, as they say, without any blame attaching to them in regard to the
manner in which they did so, they cannot let him go without a trial, lint your Excel-
lency nmy point out to M. de Moustier that however free from blame the French Govern-
ment itself may be, the French authority in Canada, nlio set the matter in motion, can
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 1st Article
of the Treaty of 1843 opressly provides that requisitions for extradition shall be made
through the medium of a Diplomatic Agent, «hich a Consul is not. and therefore the
application of the French Consul to tiie Governor-General in Canada was one wholly
unauthorized by Treaty, should never have been made by the Consul, and should never
have been listened to by the Governor-General.

Lord Monck, apparently not adverting to the special terms of the French Treaty,
and being doubtless anxious to meet the requisition of the French Consul, authorized the
apprehension of M. Lamirandc ; but his Excellency may probably have been led to accede
to the requisition of the French Consul without strictly scrutinizing the authority under
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 the
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 nuire general
terms that the requisitions of extradition may be made by the "Ministers, officers, or
authorities" of the Contracting Parties.

Accordingly, the French Government may fairly he asked, in dealing with this
question as regards ^I. Lamirande, to consider that their own Consul has been party to
the error which in its results has placed that person in the hands of French justice.

Her Majesty's Government, however, would not think it right, while requesting the
French Government to redress the wrong which, from mutual misa])prehensfon of their
respective authorities, has unquestionably been done to M. Lamirande,to conceal from them,
what, however, they doubtless must be fully aware of, that the effect of the prisoner being
remitted to Canada would most likely be that he would obtain his release ; and the same
result would probably attend an application to the Courts of England in the event of his
being brought to this country on his way to Canada, inasmuch as a writ of habeas
corpus might be obtained from the Courts or from a Judge in England, with a view to his
dbcharge from custody.

It would seem, therefore, superfluous to attempt to send him to Canada, which could
hardly be effected without his passing through this country.

The circumstances of the case, however, arc so peculiar that it is well deserving of
the attention of the French ( Jovemment whether the difficulties with which it is surrounded
may not be indirectly obviated.

The French Government may not be disposed to send the prisoner back to Canada
with the cert^iiiity of his being set free, not by any act of grace on their part exercised
there, hut 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 legal authorities here consider the case not
to come within the provisions of the Extradition Treaty. But it may be possible for the
French Government, by their own action, to place the prisoner practically in the same
position in which he would have stood if the legal proceedings in Canada had not been so
strangely interrupted. In that case M. Lamirande would indeed have been set free, but
be would not have been acquitted of the crime laid to his charge. He must hare

[68]

remained an exile from hi'^ country, and the French (lovcrnmcnt will probahly not
contend that such would be no real punishment, although it would not he the precise
punishment which the law would have awardod to him if he had been tried in France.

Could not the French Government, looking to all the circumstances of the case,
waive ii formal trial, on the condition that M. Lamirande forthwith (luiis France never to
return, Icavin^^ the prosecution to stand over ns a guarantee for his observance of the
condition, or for hi* submitting to a trial if he disregarded it ?

It appears to Her Majesty's Government that by some course of this kind the French
Government might set at rest the question between the two Governments arising out of
the case ; and your Excellency will accordingly suggest it for their consideratitm. The
ends of justice, so far as the punishment of the criminal is concerned (supposing him to
be such), would at all events be partially satisfied by its adoption ; while the error, for so it
must be considered, both of the llritish Colonial authorities and of the French Consular
authority, would have been redressed, and the position of the prisoner left as it would
have been if no such error had been committed.

I am, &c.
(Signed) STANLEY.

No. 11.

Lord IStanley to Earl Cowley,

(Elxtract.) Foreign Office, November 15, 1866.

WITH reference to mv despatch of the 10th instant, to your despatch of the 13th,
and to my despatch of this day, and also to my despatch of the 13th instant, and to your
telegram and my reply of yesterday, I have to state to your Excellency that Her Majesty's
Government approve of your having refrained, in conversation with M. de Mou.stier,
from disclaiming any right to demand the surrender of M. Lamirande ; but the opinion
of tho Law Officers of the Crown ib so decided on that point that I must again cautioa
you, without further instructions, not to advance any such claim.

No. 12.
Lord Stanley to Earl Cowley.

My Lord, Foreign Office, November 15, 1866.

I SHOULD have wished to furnish your Excellency witn a copy of the " Mandat
d' Arret" on which the extradition of M. Lamirande was demanded by the French Consul-
General in Canada, but as the document docs not appear to have been sent home by the
Governor-General, it is probable that it was returned to the Consul-General according to
his request, stated in the inclosed copy of his letter to the Provincial Secretary.

The crime, however, with which M. Lamirande stood charged, is described by the
Consul-General in the same letter in the following terms : —

"Lequel" (Ernest Surreau Lamirande) "s'est rendu coupable non seulement d'un
vol de 700,000 francs au pr(Sjudice de cette succursalc de la Banque de France <\ Poitiers,
mais aussi du crime de faux en ecriture en falsifiant ses livres et son bordereau de
situation, et faisant ainsi figurer comme prdsente dans la ..^isse la somme vol^e de
700,000 francs, crime pr^vu par los dispositions du Traite d'Extradition conclu entre la
France et I'Angleterre en F6vrier 1843, dont je transcris ici une partie."

To the same effect, Melin, the French police officer charged with the Execution of
the warrant, deposes on the 18th of July : —

" Que de plus le dit Charles Surreau de Lamirande, dit Lamirande, a falsifie fraudu-
Icusement les livres de comptabilite de la dite succursale de la ditc Banque de France ii
Poitiers, Haute Yienne susdit, en y faisant figurer comme presente dans la caisse dc la
banque cette somme de 700,000 francs susdits qu"il s'etait appropriee, et qu'il s'est aussi
rendu coupable d'un faux en chargeant et falsifiant son bordereau dc situation, et qu'ainsi
il tombc sous dispositions du Traite existant entre I'Angleterre et la France pour I'extra-
dition des criminels."

I am, &c.
(Signed) STANLEY.

bably not
he precise
ranee,
the case,
c never to
ICC of the

the French
in<; out of
Lion. The
ng him to
>r, for so it
h Consular
us it would

INLET.

5, 1866.
F the 13th,
id to your
r Majesty's
Moustier,
the opinion
in caution

5, 1866.
" Mandat
ch Consul-
ime by the
cording to

)ed by the

ment d'un
i\ Poitiers,
dereau de
! volee de
u entre la

ecution of

fie fraudu-
e France h
lissc de la
s'cst aussi
ct qu'ainsi
ur I'extra-

lNLEY.

Inclosure in No. 12.

}f. Gauiin to Mr. Mc Dougall.

Monsieur, Qtiehrr, le IS Juillft, 18f>fi.

J'.M I'bonncur de vous adrcsscr ci-inolus un nflidnvit fait pardovant M. Ic JuKO
Tnschei call, de lu Cour Supi rieuri' a Qii('l)ec, ])ar Ic Sicu- K'hiu' .Justin Mi-lin, lii>-pocti ur
Principal de Polici" (i Pari.s, a It-Uct d'oiitoiiir ram^tation i-t 1 extradition ensuite tiu
noniniO Krnost Surrcau Laniirandc. C'ai..sior de In SucruiMile df la Knnijue ilo France ;■>
Poitiers, Departcnicnt de la Ifaiao Vioiine, Empire Fran(;ais, K'(|uel s'est rendu eoiipalde
non seulcment d'un vol de 700,000 francs nu jirejudice d*- oette !-uccur>ale de la Uanque
de France & Poitiers, mais aussi du crime de fau.\ en eeriture en faUifiant ses livres et
son bordereau de situation, et faisant ninsi fiffiirer coninif presente dans sa caisse la sonimc
voice de 7t'0,000 francs, crime prt'vu parks dispositions du Traite d'Kxlraditiou conelu
entre la France et TAn^jlcterre en IVvrier ISi:^. dont je transcris ici uno partie :

" By a Convention between Her Majesty the <,fueen of (Jreat Uritnin and Ireland
and the then Sovereign of France, signed at London on the J.'Wh February, Is t.'^ the
ratifications whereof were e.xclianjjed at Ijondun on the LUh day of March in the same
year, it was a^jreed that the Hifrh Contraetinfj Parties should, on re(|uisition nuule in
tlieir name through the medium of their respective A<^ents, deliver up to justieo jiersoiis
who being accused of tiie crimes of murder, forgery or fraudulent bankruptcy, cotnuiitted
within the jurisdiction of the re«]uiring party, should seek an asylum or should be found
within the territories of the other.

" In order to carry the Convention into effect, the British Parliament, on the 22nd
Augu-st, 1843, passed the Act G and 7 Viet.caji. 75, in which, after reciting the
Convention, it is enacted that in case requisition be made pursuant to the Convention
to deliver up to justice any person who being accused of liavin<r coiumitted, after the
ratification of the Convention, any of the above crimes, within the territories and
jurisdiction of His Majesty the Emperor of the French, shall be found within the dominions
of Her Majesty, it shall be lawful for one of Her 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 Colonies or Possessions abroad for the officer administering the f Jovernment
of any such Colony or Possession, by warrant under his hand and seal to signify that
such requisition has been so made, and to require all .Justices of the Peace and other
Magistrates and officers of justice within their several jurisdictions to govern themselves
accordingly, and to aid in apprehending the persons so accused and comniiiting such
persons to gaol for the purpose of being delivered up to justice according to the provisions
of the said Convention.

" It shall be lawful for one of Her 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 Colonies or Possessions abroad for the officer administering the Government of
any such Colony or Possession, by warrant, to deliver up offenders to the authorities of
France."

Je prcnds done la libcrte, M. le Secretaire Provincial, de vous prier de vouloir
bien requerir de son Excellence M. le Gouverneur-General, en vertu des pouvoirs que
lui confere la susdite Convention, le warrant nt>cet>sairc pour arreter et extradcr
ensuite le susnommi? Ernest Surreau Lamirande.

Je vous serai oblige de me faire parvenir ce warrant le plus tot possible.

Je crois utile de joindre ici le mandat d'arret emane du tribunal civil de Poitiers, et
dument l^galis^ par le Consul de Sa Majesty Britannique il Paris. Veuillez, je vousprie,
me renvoyer cette piece avec le warrant du Gouvemeur-G^n^ral.

Je saisis, &c.
Le Consul-G^n^ral de France,
(8ign6) FRED. GAUTIER.

(Translation.)

Sir, Quebec, Juiy 18, 1866.

I HAVE the honour to inclose to you herewith, an affidavit made before Judge
Tascbereau, of the Superior Court of Quebec, by Edme Justin Melin, Chief Inspector of
PoUce at Paris, with the object of obtaining the arrest and subsequent extradition of one
Ernest Surreau Lamirande, cashier of the Branch of the Bank of France at Poitiers, in
the Department of Haute Yienne, in the French Empire, who has been guilty not only of
a robbery of 700,000 francs to the loss of that Branch of the Bank of France at Poitiers,
but also of the crime of forgery, in having falsified bis books and his bpnk return, and ia

C 2

Ijaving thtw rfpn-scnted the stolon Rum of 7<>0.00(» francs n« still included in his cash, a
crime witliiu the purview i>i the stipulations ol lli. I ,;rii i;tu>.i I'mity rnncluded between
France and Knpland in February. 1843, trora which 1 here transcribe an extract :—

" Bv a (.'(invention." &c.

I tiicri'ftJH' take the liberty, Mr. Secretary, to bci? tlint you will bo so jrood as to
request bis Excellency I he Governor-General, in virtue of tlie powers conferred on bim by
the above-mentioned' Convention, to issue the necessiiiy warrant for the arrest and
subsequent extradition of the above-mentioned Ernest Surreau Lamirande.

I shall be oblieed by your scndini; me the warrant as soon ns possible.

I think it well to inclose herewith the warrant issued by the Civil Tribunal at
Poitiers, and dulv legalized by Her Britannic Majesty's Consul at Paris. Be good enough,
I beg. to return ine this document, together with the Governor-General's warrant.

I avail, &c.
(Signed) FRED. GAUTIER,

French Consul-Gerteral.

No. 13.
Lord Stnnlet/ to Earl Coirlrij.

My Lord, Foreiyn Office, November 10, 1860.

I THOUGHT it desirable that the Law Officers should be apprized of the language
held to you by M. de Aloustier in the Lamirande ca.se, as reported in your despatch
of the 13th instant; and i have now to acquaint your Excellency that the Ijaw Officer
consider that it is impossible to deny the force of M. de IMoustier's reasoning.

It must indeed be admitted that if the situations were reversed, and the restoration
of a French subject, given up under the Extradition Treaty, and about to undergo trial
before an English Tribunal, were demanded or requested by the French of the English
Government, the latter would be constrained to reply that the Executive Government had
no power to remove a prisoner from the judicial authority to which he bad been
submitted, or in any way to stop the course of justice with respect to him, by whatever
error on the part of the French Government he might originally have been placed within
the jurisdiction of the Court.

Her Majesty's Government, looking at the question in this light, could not consider
the refusal of the French Government to give up M. Lamirande as atfording any ground
whatever of offence to this country.

Your Excellency will understand that I make this communication for your private
information only.

1 am, &c.
(Signed) STANLEY.

No. 14.
Lord Stanley to Earl Cowley.

My Lord, Foreign Office, November 16, 1866.

THINKING it desirable that your Excellency should be informed as to what is
considered in this country a legal definition of the crime of forgery, I have asked the
Law Officers to supply me with it, and also to state the bearing of that de6nition on the
words as used in the Extradition Treaty with France, and on the statements of the
French Consai-General in Canada and of the French police officer Melin, of which I
sent you copies in my despatch of yesterday, setting forth the crimes of which
Lamirande was accused.

I have now to acquaint j'our Excellency that I am advised that forgery, by the
common law of England, may be defined to be the fraudulently counterfeiting any
written document in whole or in part, or altering or adding to it, or making it falsely to
appear to be the genuine writing or instrument of some other person, with intent to
defraud or prejudice another; and that by one of the statutes for consolidating the
Criminal Law, namely, the 24 and 25 Vict., cap. 98, a variety of cognate acts are
defined and classed under the general head of forgery ; and by various special statutes
the counterfeiting or falsification of various public acts and other documents is also
declared to be forgery.

n his cash, h
ided between
cl:—

o ffood as to
I'd on liiin by
e arrest and

Tribunal at
good enough,
rant.

ER,

mi-General.

r 10, 1860.
the language
our despatch
Law Officers

r
>•

le restoration
undergo trial
" the English
remment had
ie bad been
by whatever
placed within

1 not consider
g any ground

• your private

The term "forpicry " in tlu' .<.lat»t>' for giving fll'oct to tln< Extradition TroiUy with
France would, 1 am advised, inrlutlo all tbi> ul)o\ e oum's.

But a mere i'aUe stAteincnt in writing, which doc* not purport to be the writing of
another person, is not forgery : for instance, if a man fraud ulently >i>rns tlie name of
A. B., without authority, to a bill of exrhange. it is forgery ; but if he frumlulently signs
the bill in his own name, "per procuration of A. B.," having no authority, it is only a
false statement and a fraud, but not a forgery. 8o, if a ]K'rson makes a false entry in a
banker's i)ass book, as if it were, and purporting to be, the banker's entry, with a view
to defraud, it is forgery; but if he makes a false entry in his own book, and pur|M)rting
to be his own entry, with the like intent, it is a fraud, but is not n forgery.

According to the opinion of the Court of Queen's Bench, a forgery, to come within
the French Extradition Treaty and Statute, must be what would be considered forgery
according to the law of England na well as of France; but I am informed that this
opinion is rather questionable.

But as regards the question now ut issue, it would appear from the statements made
in the letter of the French Consul-General and in the deposition of the French police
officer, that Lamirande was not charged with or guilty of forgery, or counterfeiting the
entry of any other person; but that be was charged with embezzlement and with making
fraudulent and false entries in his own books, which would not be forgery according to
the law of England within the meaning of the Extradition Statute.

I am, &c.
(Signed) STAJJLEY.

No. 1

Lord Stanlt-y to Earl (Jon ley.

My Lord, Foreign Office, November 19, 1866.

I HAVE thought it desirable to obtain the opinion of the Law Officers on the
question whether the charge made against Lamirande by the French Consul-General in
Canada, being that of falsifying his books and bordereau, if these books are the ledgers of
the Bank of France entrusted to his keeping and not M. Lamirandc's private accounts,
would that bring him within the accusation of forgery ; and I have to state to your
Excellency that I am informed that this would not be forgery according to the laws of
England.

I <tm, &c.
(Signed) STANLEY.

TANLEY.

No. 16.

r 16, 1866.
IS to what is
Eivc asked the
inition on the
ments of the
a, of which I
les of which

gery, by the
erfeiting any
g it falsely to
vith intent to
solidating the
nate acts are
}ccial statutes
ments is also

Earl Cowlei/ to Lord Stanley. — {Received November 21.)

My Lord, Paris, November 20, 1866.

I HAD the honour to receive on the 16th instant your Lordship's despatches of the
previous day, and on the 18th instant your despatches of the 10th, nil relating to the
case of Lamirande.

In execution of your Lordship's several instructions, I wrote a letter to M. de
Moustier on the 18th, inclosing a Memorandum of the points on which exception
could, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, be taken with reference to the
legality of Lamirande's arrest, and I toM his Excellency that I was ready to wait upon
him to discuss these matters with him whenever it would suit him to receive me.

A copy of this Memorandum va inclosed, for your Lordship's information.

His Excellency appointed this afternoon to see me, and I give your Lordship the
result of our interview.

M. de Moustier said, that since we bad last met he had examined thoroughly with the
Minister of Justice the question of the possibility of surrendering Lamirande now that he was
in the hands of justice, and that he could authorise me to inform Her Majesty's Government
that it had been decided that, inasmuch as Lamirande had beei) placed in his present
position by the administrative act ot the Minister for Foreign Affairs, that Minister could
recover him from the hands of justice, provided that he was satisfied of the right of Her
Majesty's Government to claim his surrender, and this recovery might be made now or
even after Lamirande's trial, and, if found guilty, after his conviction.

The question, then, which he had to consider wm, how far Her Majo«ty'« Govern-
ment had riRht on tlioir side, and for this jiurpoHo he miut deride on the two points
raised in my Memorandum, and he rcallj had not had xufticient time to examine them ;
there certainly would not he time todisruns them thoroughly with Her MujeHty's (i«»vem.
ncnt before the day fixed for Tiaminindo's trial ; the trial, therefore, muni proceed. In
the meantime the dismHsioii hotwci'n tlu' two novernmonts mielit ffo on, and he could
assure me most positively that he hnd no other wish than to examine with the utmost
impartiality all the hearings of the case, and Hhoiild Her Majesty's Ooveniment satiMfj
him that the provimons of the Treaty of 1H4.T had not been complied with, no ditlicultj
whatever would he made in surrendering Lamirande, even should he have boon convicted
in the meantime.

Referring again to the points raised in my Memorandum M. de Moustier obHcnred
that, as at present advised, he must take exception to the doctrine contained in the first

Soint; that the French Consul-Oenerul in Canada was not competent to make the
emand for Laniirande's extradition. If this were the case, his Excellency said, if this
doctrine were to hold pood, the Treaty would become inoperative in all Her Majesty's
colonies; moreover, accord in? to French custom, Consular Agents holding under no
diplomatic authority, as was the case in Her Majesty's colonies, were always considered
to possess the diplomatic character necessary to enable them to exercise such diplomatic
functions as the welfare of French subjects required.

As to the other (luestion whether the crime of which Lamirande was accused
amounted to forgery or not, he renlly was not in a ])osition at this moment to discuss it
with me. If he was to trust to those who wi re more conversant with the subject, he
must suppose that there was good reason to iHlicvc that it would be shown that Lami-
rande's acts amounted to forgery according to British law.

I replied that Her jSInjesfy's (Jovcrnnient would receive with great satisfaction the
assurances which M. de Moustier had given me of his desire to examine this matter with
impartiality, and to surrender Lamirande should it be seen that his extradition had been
irregularly obtained. I needed hardly to assure him, on the part of Her Majesty's
Government, that there was no desire to shield a man accused 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 instructed to do no more. The communications which had passed between the
two Governments might be considered to have amounted to an exchange of 0])inions only,
and I would lose no time in informing your Lordship of the intentions of the Imperial
Government, and of asking for further instructions.

M. de Moustier rejoined that such was the light in which he wished the discussion
should be continued, and that it should not be made a question between Government and
Government.

I then said that with regard to Lamirande's trial Her Majesty's Government had
hoped that it might have been dispensed with, and that Lamirande might, perhaps, have
been set at liberty without being formally surrendered to the British Government, under
the condition of quitting France for ever. M. de Moustier replied that such a course
would be impossible ; the trial could not be avoided. He was, moreover, of opinion that
the facts which must be elicited at the trial, and which were now imperfectly known,
would throw light upon the whole subject, and would enable the two Governments to
mature their judgments.

It seemed to me that under the instructions which I have received from your Lord-
ship, I could not with propriety press the matter further, and I let it drop.

I have, 8cc.
(Signed) COWLEY.

IndoBure in No. 16.

Memorandum.

HER Majesty's Government are desirous of submitting the following observations for
the consideration of the Imperial Government : —

Her Majesty's Government, while freely admitting that no vesponsibility attaches to
the Imperial Government in the proceedings which have led to the present dilemma,
cannot but hold the opinion that the French authority in Canada, who set the matter in
motion, can hardly stand acquitted of having done so without warrant, and, in fact, in
excess of the Treaty engagements between England and France,

1ft

?rty'8 Govcrn-
the two points
xamino thorn ;
CHty's (lovern-
t proct'cd. In
, «ih1 lie could
ith tho utmost
-iimcnt HAtiHfj
I), no (lirticultj
joon convicted

istior obHcrred
cd in tho first
to make the
?y said, if this
Her Mnji'sty's
in<; under no
\yn considered
ich diplomatic

was accused
; to discuss it
;ie suhjcet, he
(vn that Lami-

itisfaction the
s matter with
ion liad hcen
ier Majesty's
mirnnde ; but
ent, and were
nt. As yet I

between the
opinions only,

the Imperial

he discussion
iTcrnment and

ernment had
)erhaps, have
[iment, under
uch a course
opinion that
ectly known,
rernments to

I yotir Lord-

OWLET.

enrations for

r attaches to
nt dilemma,
le matter in
in &ct, in

For the stipulation of the Ist Artii-lc of the Treaty of 184,1 exprensly provides that
requisitions for extnulition shall lie mndf through tlic imdium of ii [)iplomatic Ajjent,—
which a Consul is not, — and therefore the applieution of the l-'rencli Coiisul-tSineral at
Quel>oc to the GoviTiior-CSeiuTul in Ciiimda uas one wholly uimuthori/ed Ity Treaty, and
should never have been uiude by the Con-iil-Citneral.

Nu doubt the application of the (.'unMul-fii^nirul oliould never have been lixtened to
by the (iovcrnor-tienerul of ('ana<la, anti Her Maji'>ty\ Govirinnent do not (teek to
exonerate tlio Canadian authorities from the responsibility wliicii belonKH tu them; but
Ilur Majesty'ii Uovernment Kubmit that the Imperial (Sovernnunt may fairly be asked, in
dealing with tliii< (ptestiuu, to eonsider that their own Conhul-Ciencral has been party to
the error, which in its results! have brought Lamirande within the jurisdiction of French
Tribunals.

Again, the crime of which Lamirnnde is aecusetl is thus described in the letter of tho
ronsul-(Jeneral to the Provincial Sirntary of (Quebec: — " Leiiml "i speakin;; of fjimi-
rande) " s'est rendu coupable non-sculement dun vol dc ""O.ottO frnncs an prejudice de
la suecursttle dc la Hanijue de France a Poitiers, nniis uus>i du crime de faux en ecriture
en liilsitiant ses livres et son bordereau de situation, et faisant ainsi lij;urer commo
presente dans sa caisse la somnjc voice dc ""I'lOdn tranes, erime prevu iMir les dis|)ositiou8
du Traite d'Extradition conclu cntre la France et I'Angleterre en Fevricr 1843."

It would appear, then, by this letter, that the oifenee with which Lamirande is
charged is one of embezzlement, and making false entries in his books, and it is supposed
that the ConsiU-General assumes that these otTcnces come within the legal meaning of
the term "forgery," the only crime mentioned in the Treaty of 184;$ at all applicable to
the present case.

It may be as well to state here the definition of " forgery," according to tho
common law of England.

Forgery by the common law of England may be defined to be the fraudulently
counterleiting any written document, in whole or in part, or altering or adding to it, or
making it falsely to appear to be the genuine writing or the statement of some other
person, with intent to defraud or prejudice another.

By one of the statutes for consolidating the criminal law, a variety of cognate acts
are defined and classed untler the head of forgery, and by various siM?eial statutes the
counterfeiting or falsification of various ]iublic acts and other documents is also declared
to be forgery. But a mere false statement in writing, which does not purport to be the
writing of another person, is not forgery.

As regards the question at issue, it does not appear Lamirande is charged with
counterfcitmg the entry of any other person, which would be forgery, but that he is
charged, as nas been stated abrve, with embezzlement, and with making fraudulent
entries into his own books, which would not be forgery according to the law of
England.

No. 17.
Earl Cowley to Lord Stanley. -^Received November 24.)

My Lord, Paris, November 23, 1866.

THE trial of Lamirande is fixed for Monday, the 3rd December.

Your Lordship may like to know more precisely of what he is accused.

Lamirande was cashier to the branch of the Bank of France established at Poitiers.
As such he had considerable sums to receive and to pay, and consequently a deposit of a
large amount was continually in his hands. The gold is tied up in bags containing a
certain number of napoleons, which are liable to be visited from time to time by inspectors,
who open them and see that their contents arc correct ; but these inspectors generally
content themselves by opening one or two bags, and by weighing some of the others.
Liimiraudc seems to have been in tho habit of taking a few napoleons nt 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 there would be the
least chance of their being opened. His books at the same time were kept as if the
the 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 to those already stolen.

I hayc, &c.
(Signed) COWLEY.

No. 18:

l^rd Stanley to Karl Cowlty.

My liord. Fortign Office, Sovemher -'H, 186C.

A8 in nny diHcuHHion with tho Frenrh Oovemment which may hereafU-r take place on
the Hubjcct of .M, Finniirantlc's case much may turn on the precipe nature of the charge
against him. niid of the evidence that may be adduced in support of it. I think it
desirable that your Excellency hhould employ Home com|>etent jwrwrn to watch the trial
and to report fullv up«m it ; taking care, however, in doing so not to appear to manifest
any doubt ax to tde propriety of the manner in whicii the proccedingH are conducted.

I am, &c.
(Signed) STANLEY.

I it

No. 19.
Earl Coiriri/ to Lord Stanleii. — (Received December 3.)

My Lord. Parin, December 'J, 1866.

IN compliance with the iuHtructions contained in your Lordship's despatch
of the •'c'tli ultimo, 1 have desired M. Treite to pru'^ecd to PoilierH to be present at the
trial of I.nmirande. nnd to report to me full pnrticulaiH for your Lordship's future infor-
mation.

I have cautioned M. 'I'reitu not to express any opinion upon the proceedings ai the
trial.

1 llttVC, &c.

(Signed) COWLEY.

No. 20.
Lord Stanley to Earl Cowley.

My Lord. Foreign Office, December 4, 1866.

HER Majesty's Government have had under their consideration your Excellency's
despatch of the 20th ultimo, inclosing a copy of a memorandum which you had
communicated to the French Government, founded upon the instructions and observa-
tions contained in my despntchcs in regard to the pending trial of M. Lamirande, and
the question of his surrender to the British Government.

Her Majesty's Government are glad to receive the assurance of the French Govern-
ment as reported in your Excellency's despatch, that the trial and its result, if such
result should be a conviction, will not bar the surrender of M. Lamirande.

Her 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 discussions on the subject should be carried on in the
confidential form in which they have hitherto been conducted.

In conclusion I have to express to your Excellency my approval of your language to
M. de Moustier, as reported in your despatch above referred to.

1 am, &c.
(Signed) STANLEY.

No. 21.
Earl Cowley to Lord Stanley.— (Received December 7.)

My Lord, Paris, December 6, 1866.

M. TREITE returned to Paris this morning from attending the trial of Lamirande.
1 had the honour to inform your Lordship by telegraph that lamirande had been found
guilty of forgery (" faux ") and sentenced to ten years' reclusion. He has appealed in
Cassation, 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

takr place on
>f the charge
it. I think it
ratch the trial
ir to manifest
)nducted.

iTANLEY.

bn 'J, 1866.
lip's (lesiwtch
present at the
K future infor-

leding's ai the

8(c.
COWLEY.

ier 4, 1866.
r Excellency's
lich you had
and observa-
mirande, and

ench Govern-
-esult, if such

le decision of
he meanwhile
ried on in the

r language to

TANLEY.

ter 6, 1866.

Lamirande.
d been found
IS appealed in

cannot be ready for a tew days. I reserve all remarks until I hvre sent it to your
Lordship.

I will only obRcr^o that the punishment of rerlusion is more severe than imprison-
ment, and carries with it the penalty of the loss of all civil rights.

I have, Ac.
(Signed) COWLEY.

No. 22.
Lord Stanley to Enrl Cowley.

My Lord, Foreign ()^re, Derrmbrr 7, 1806.

IT is stated in a daily paper that a few weeks since a cnniinni whose capture or
surrender had been impro|ierIy obtained in Switzerland, was, nfler conviction and setitencc
in France, sent back to Switzerland by order of the Ini|ierial (iovcrnment, on the ground
of the antecedent irregularity.

I have to instruct your Kxcellency to make immediate inquiry into this matter, and,
if the statement is correct, you will not fail to call M. de Moustier's attention to it as
furnishini; a strong precedent for giving up Al. fittmirande.

I am, &c.
(Signed, STANLEY.

No. 23.
Em! Cowley to Lord Stnnley. — {Received December 14.)

(Extract.) Pnri», December 11, 1806.

1 HAVE the honour to inclose herewith copy of a letter from M. Trcite. transmitting
a comptc-rendu of the trial of Lamirande, and containing observations upon the
proceedings. This letter does not throw much light upon the matter.

The case is certainly a curious one. Jjamirande was arraigned in the actc d'accu-
sation for having stolen 700,000 francs from the Bank of France, of which he was the
cashier at Poitiers, and of having concealed this robbery by means of false accounts
rendered to his superiors. At the trial the charge of theft was abandoned, and
Lamirande was tried on the charge of "faux." Probably this was done with a view of
bringing the crime within the meaning of the Extradition Treaty of 184:<.

Your Lordship will observe that the Court declared itself incompetent to decide the
question whether the extradition of Lamirande was accomplished according to the
stipulations of that Treaty. The legality of this decision will be disputed before the
Court of Cassation.

e trial, but it

Inclosurc 1 in No. 23.
M. Treite to Earl Cowley.

Milord, Parix, ce 10 D^cembre, 1866.

CONFORMEMENT au ddsir exprim6 par votre Excellence, je suis all(5 a Poitiers,
assister aux d^bats du proces de Lamirande, ramene du Canada, et livre au Gouvemement
Fran^ais.

Ces d^bats, disait-on g^>n^ralement, presenteraient les plus int^ressantcs discussions
au point de vue du droit international de I'extradition.

EfTectivement, les d^fenseurs de I'accus^ avaient prepare tout un systdmc d'attaques
centre I'extradition de Lamirande, en fait et en droit ; ils devaicnt dt^montrer que les
circonstances qui ont accompagnd cette extradition constituaient des actes de surprise,
de fraude, de violence, et d'outrages aux lois Anglaises. L'on devait surtout argumenter
de la d6claration publique de M. Dnimmond, Jugc ^ la Cour du Banc de la Reine, lequel
avait, le 25 Aodt, 1866, d^clar^ I'extradition ill^gale; bref, on devait plaider que
Lamirande avait 6t6 vol6 au Gouvemement Anglais. Le mot du reste a et^ dit k
I'audience ; votre Excellence le trouvera k la page 7 da compte-rendu* desd^bat8,quej'ai

* Pk(re27.
[681 r^ ^ ^

''hontuMir ill' Jiii nmitirr ri jnint. Aiissi. Pnttcntion |iuMi(|tic rtnil illc vivcnicnt i-xriti^!;
nitti^ flic a <li loiaU'iiiiiil tii»m|Kc.

Kii rffit. r AvniMt-CSciicriil. en vi-itu (I'inHtnirtions imluliilaliKninit riimiuVs du
MiiiiHti'ic (ir l.i ,lii lie I , ■•'(■-t i'|i|i(i-c a riulnii»i(in ih'N coiH'lii-iiiii iki-.V'. imr Irs lU-fcn-
8t.'uri»Ui !u (lUi -lidii il iNliuililliiii. Ci". ciuulu-ioiio (iiam- ."< du riiiii|i|i-niii(ii*i soul tr«'M-
expiicitt .^ ; rA\<>iMt-(M ntrul a MHitiiiu (|Ui' la i|U('>tiun (I'lXliaiiitKin m- |i<iuvait \tiis
Hrt' (li-xiilii- (livaiit !<• jHMivttir jmliti'iirL', ilt's <jut' If iioiivoir »'\tciitir avait ilrclun' (jue
I'cxtrailili'iti < lait Kuulc i-t I'li liiiiitic lorme ; t|iR' I'uxtrailition ('tait If tail du |iriiiiv danit
HL's rt'latiiiii-i ititciii^ iiniialo, rclutidiis qui lu' iM.u\t'Ut, en auiiiii <'a>. tutiilifr rioun
ra|i|ir(riali<iii <\c raulnrit<' Juiliciairr, S,c., &c. Li'-. di'-Ni l((|i|MinfhtN dniiiu's a la
di-«'u— >i<iii ill- iTttc i|Ui^ti<iti dauh li-n pluidoirii'tt .>utit aux |ia;;f> .*> ci •) dii cciiiiiitf-rcndu.f

.\!al;{r( Ks illnrt.-- di' In diffiiM', lu ilortrinc bouliiiui' jinr M. rAvncnl-dtiiiral n ('•Uj
conMU'tcc jinr un urn't lio la ('our trA>>i«i'.s. ('ft arrt'i iiic jiaraii liirn I'lindf fii droit.
Hadoctiiiii c.'^t du iiiU- ( iii;toriiii' u luvi;! ii'Kul (|ue j'ui lU lliouni ur di- Houiinitri' u vutrc
Excflk'iu'u le 17 Nox inLrc deriiii-r toucLanl luxtriuiitioii dc l^tniiraiidi'.|

• V»gv 124. + I'agp 25.

J 3t. Treile lu Lord Cotelfi/.

Milnn), i'liit. If 17 .\«iri„l„f. 1K6G.

CONFOIIMKMI'.NT .111 dr»if i)iir in'* I'Jprimu voir* Etci'llfiicr. j'ni tuli iu» ncin rilim tu - iniiintiruiM

(Uiin lei n nit iN 1 1 li » niiiiiir* | r \iiir nil ii'v lUiit lau t{Ur>ii<in li'iili cm oil un dniuirni iiii iii. .'i|>ri'- ,i*(iir

rxtrmif ini < riiiiiiii'l, iiiiniit il' iii.iiiili' c|i.c (■!■ rrimiml liii fi'it rrnlii ; .if li' iiiotil (|i r li - linnu » Ity.ili'j n'mimiptlt
pat i'tr (iti-irto < lor^ rii' {'.'ini-.t'iimi on ilc rixtrnilllhui.

■Ir ii'iil triiiivi' .'iiii'iini' tiviri' dun ('»> siinlililili' I't jc ilnutr qn'il in iiintr, cur iiix' |iiir< iili' ri'i'l.iiimtHiii lorait
contriiirr iinx ri'.'!i'- qui |ni- i.'.nit ii I iiiilt'i'tii'laiii't' ry«|)i'ctive ili'S l.lali«.

Kii ilfri. \'[-.\:ii .iiiiiiic. nil iriniiiii'l a (•!<• livrr w Kiiiiniit ('in' coni|u'ifMl |Miur iip|in- i< r W* fufim-"
priKiilnniTi s ill' la Ini i lr:ini;i re, el 111' Miiirait surtuiit Miimirtlri' >a ptiiprr jiir ilii Inn i riinii • IN ii Inti"! rvution
dt'» tnriiiii li};.ili'o i-\.ft iiin iiiitri' imllnii.

I.'i'Xiriniiiiiiii 1 '•I un ;ii'ii' ili (imiti'rni'iucnt it Oouvi'rnt'iiU'nt : ri'liii (|iii ii I vir nn rrlnilnil I'li ililmr* ilea
rorni("> pi'olir'i'lri'^ ill III liii, rniiiiirl iilir rri-pnli^uliililt' nil liicli In ri jitli' niir crux ilr oi!. ii|ti iit> i|iii oiil null' In loi
I't nit'nir \vi I'll |iiiiiit ; ninn< il nn niirnni' ri'iliiiiintion u ailri'i^rr, u ir prnpna, nn (<■ iiMrin iiiriil a i|iil li oiiinlni'l
a I'll' livr^, 11 nioiii;. i|iii' I'l'MiMiiiiinn n'nil cii Inn pnr >iiili' ili' liit'iii'ini^r<i nii ili' iiiniiirinri'i' frninliilinwii.

Ce (lirnicr (iouTrrni}iiH'iil I'lirci' nun ilmit ili> nouvcraint'tt' I'li ({arduiit Ir rrinuinl i|ui n infrriot Im Wi
du p>yi>

l)'nilli'iir«, ili'n ijiii' li rriniini'l c-t ri ntrij »ur h torritiiire. il n'a]ipartiriil plun au (iouviriiumPDt, mait au
poUTuir juiliriniro, rtoiii lariiii:! I'M iiiri<5priidaiili' du pmiTuir I'xfpntif.

L)' piiii\iiir cxi'i'iitit' n'a pas Ir drnit dp imi'pvndrp Ip count de la jufticp Tiii>!t'Vi« il'iin indiTldn pourium ; il nt
|Nnt qup i'airc griii'i' nitit lu coiidaniBaliua, eaf W droit d'unuiati* inditiiliii'lli' avant le jugprnrnt eat deni^
•u Priiicv.

r,ii npplii|unnt ci'S priiuipps ii Vnffnirp I.jimiraD(U', qup jp lie connaiK quo p.ir li :< nrit- ili's jourtiaux, je crois
que le Gouvrrnrnipnt AiitlaiK ii'i'«t pus on droit dp deiiiandpr la rpstilutinn di- I'ri linninii'

Lc (louveriicnipiit I'rnniyniK la ri fusprait ^ cmip lAr, car il nioina dp vioirr U-s ilioitK du pouToir judiciaire il ne
pent paa uii'mp liispinrr n'liii nccusp, qui n'apparticnt qua la jiialicp.

N'ayuiit VII uiu'uii iliH'uuii'iit iiflicii'l, j'iguorc Ipa coiuplicjitions que I'lifrnirp Lnniirnnilp peut ripi'ler, mail ie
m'cmprcssp d'nit'omicr votre Etcellpiicp que Lamirande va procliaiiipnient ciiniparnitre dpTant la Cour de
Poitiprs.

Devnn* la ('our d'.Aasit'Pt, Ira d^enseun aouleTeroot probablemcnt dca incidenti et dea ditScult^ rvlatifi a
I'arrpatalion ct a IVxtradlliun dp I'urruae.

II est dc pes inciileiit!i ipip le (iinivcrnpmcnt Anglais pourrnit iMre interessO a ('niinniiri' et a fnire i>ppr£eier.

Np serail-ee pas le las de i'aire asaister a I'audlcncp un lt'^;i^tp, ilnrpc ile siiivre hi procedure pt d'pn
examinpr les plinses et In porlip li'iiule f Cost unc reflection que j'ai pris la liberli' de soumettrp a TOtre
Excellence cii lu priant d'ugr^er niou reipectueux et eomplpt dCvoumcnt.

(Signe) TREITE.

(TranilatioD.)
My Lord, Parh, November 17, 1866.

AGKEEABLY with tlip desire expreaapd to me by your Excellency, I liave made very careful research in
worka of reference and writers in order to ascertain if I could find tliere any mention of a caae where m
Government, after the surrender of a criminal, had demauded bis rendition becuu&e the legal formalitiea had not
been ohaerveil in the arri'st or extradition.

I have fbund no irnce of aiich a caac and I do not think there is one, for snrh a claim would be contrary to
th erulea whieli are olisi'rveil in repard to the independence of different Statea.

In fact, tliu ijlate to which a criminal has been surrendered cannot be conipctent to appreciate the legal

{irocediire of a foreign code, and assuredly cannot subordinate its own crin<inal jurisdiction to the observance of
ejfal forms in aimther country.

Eatradiiion is an act between Governmpnts ; that which has sarrendered a criminal without regard 'to the
pMcauiionary forms of law incur* a responsibility, or indeed casts it upon those of its agents who have brslieil
the law, and even punishes them for it; but it has no claim whatever to make, on this account, to the Government
to whom Uie criminal has bieu surrendered, unless the extradition has beeu bruu<:lit abmit by falsehood and
nwrfiilent manceuvrv^.

This latter Government exorcises its right* of sovereignty by retaining the cr-u moii who has infringed the
Ims of tin laid.

Moreover, as soon as the convict has returned into the territory, he belonj^^ no longer to the GovemmeiU,
but to the judicial power, whose action is independent of the executive.

The etecutive powei *<ss not th« rif bt of auipending' the course of jmtioe with reference to the indivMoal
prosecuted ; it can only grant pardon after conTiction, for the right of pardoning au individual before trial is
denied to the Prince.

it i\rit^;

iiiiimVh (111

Ics ilt'frn-

>oiit trt'j.-

oiitait \tan

•'•I'lart' (jm-

iiiiici- (Iau8

nilirr moua

nm> a la

ii-niiilu.t

IK ml n ('■tc

til droit.

tif a voire

iiihir, l(»6t).

- IliillillU'UlM
il. .iprr- afdir
mIi'k ii'miraipnt

l.iiimtion ioniit

il r leu furinca
il I'oti-i rvution

('II (li'liur* ilea
iiiit Mule la loi
i|iii II niminel

■iiHn*.

nfrrJDt let loii

leiiU'Dt, mail au

imuraiiiri ; il nt
'iD«'iit eat denit-

lurtiaiix, je croii

r jiuliciaire il nr

rtci'ltT, mail je
nt la Cour de

icult^i rrlitifi *

lire apprC'i'ier.
ocediirp ct d'cn
iini'ttro a Totrc

TREITE.

ber 17, 1866.
eful research in
1 caae where a
nalitii'S bad not

i be contrary to

eciatR the legal
10 observance of

t regard 'to the
lo have broken
lie Government
y falsehood and

» infringed the

ic Govemmenl,

> the indivUUwl
I before trial ii

II taut (•<'|M'mliiiil liin- (|iif K"« priiicipcx posrs par • i'arri l-l.iiMiir.iinlf" (Vc lunti lui
reitcral m- tout jwi-- accitirx uimiiiniciiicnt tlaii- In jiiri«|iruiifiii'' tt l« diHtrinc Act
autfiirs. Mai^ l.i f"''iir (if ('iw-ation vn iirofliaitit'imiit Ttrc api'i l''i' a t'linnirtr un
aiT^l-|irin(i|i«' sur rrltc matit'Tf si |m'II »'dftiroio. iiui.^nuc Laiiilraiu]''. ilii-i>ii, •*»• jHUirvtiit on
CaHMitioii, uitisi (|iu< cila a itc atinonci!''.

Aiiisi la i-<>iii|iariiliiiii do lianiiraiidi' en jiistiti' n a pas fait avaticcr la i|U(««tinn
dVxtraditioii i-ntrf \v> iliiix (lOUviTm-au'ntH Anylai-* ol Kiain, lis ?.i re nVst (|ii(' Icliiry a
dtk'lut't'- Liiiiiraiidc cDiiiNklilo de faux, coiifonnt'iixnt aiix flu'l's d'ai-i-UHatioti, traiiMoritii
dans I'acto d'ni-cii-'atiiiii vnis Ics nunirros 3, \, r>, et •'», i-l i|iu' j'ai n |i(iit(?> iiianu^orits iiux
pngCH lU vl JO (III I'omplc-iviidii,* lo<« joiiniaiix tn- li'» av.iiii pa- ripm liiiis.

II faut s'iiii-liiuM- dcvaiit It' verdict dii 'liirv, i|iiiiiipril y aii di\cru'i'ncc dnns
Ipsnpinioiw siir la ([Ui'ttioii dc »avoir si Ich ecritiirc-i iiiciiscinjjiTcs (jiic faisiiil {iiiiriicllciiient
Ijaniiiaiide cniisliluaicnl It'galonu'iit I" criiiu' ilc tnux l-'raiKi-ai-*, ct ^iirtmit Ic crime de
fnux Anylais, dit fnnjirii.

Par III lecture (lc«. di'-hnts, .otre Kxcellencc verra ipic Ic l'r''>iilent dc In ('our
d'Assiscs a dciiiiindi- u I'accuse si, (|U(iii|UC le vol ct I'aliu-i dc cciiiliaiu'e iic t'ii--.ciit jmis
rnnipris dans le Trailc d'Kxtmdition <le IS l.i, il cotiMMitnit a etrc Jii;;i iirres dcu\ chefs.
L'aecusc I'pcrail pinlialilcmeiit rtre •iniuitte sur le chef di- t'aiix. ct il a rcfii-c il'ctrc
jugC' bur Ics deu\ autrcs chefs, et laccusntion n'a plus portc (pic sur le crime dc faux.

Dans iiiori (>|)iiiiiiii. la demaridc dc M. Ic President avail uiie purlcc i)nlili(|iic, rnr,

si I'nccuH*'- avail (oiiscnti a ('tre \\igv sur Ics chefs dc vul et d'-iln^ di iitiaMce, il

renon(;ait insn fdrlu i sc prcvaloir du 'l'rait(' d'Kxtradition, ain.si ipic Ten a avcrti I'Avoeat-
Ooneral. L,- eoullit t 'iiiltait de lui-nieme, ear le (lou^erncmciil Aiiuluis na\ait plus A
9'oeeupcr de la n'clamaUoii d'tiu iiidividu (pii avail reiuuae u sc pn'-valoir dc la loi
nritanni(pie.

Ln (h'cliiratidii du .iuj^e Drummond n'nyant pas et('' luc u rnndiciier' n'a pu etrc pulili^'c
par Ics jdiiriiaux IVancais. Cctte puliiication cut pu h s cxpoxr A iKs puur-iiilc'. pour
intid(5lili; d.iii> Ics coiiiples-rendus des dt'liuts judiciaircs ; Ics fciiillcs ('traii;;i res out
puhliee ectlc decluratioii par extraits. Sur la premi(Te t'cuillc ducniniitc reiulut ci-anuexc
votre Kxeellenee en tiouvera unc analyse, imprimee dans uue fcuiilc llcli^c.

Ay;r('ez, \-c.
(?\iiiw) THFCITE.

(Translation.)

My Lord, Parii, Deremlier U>. IHtiti.

A(il{KK.\IJLY with the desire expressed by your Kxcclleney. I went lo I'oiiiers to
attend the trial of Lamiraiide, who has been brought back from Canada and gi>cn up to
the French trovorniuent.

These proeeediuf^s. it was generally said, would present most interesting discussions
in regard to the international right of extradition.

Indeed, the (Urendirs of the accused had prcjiared quite n s\~l(^ni of attacks upon
the extraditi(m of Lamiraude, both as regards the facts and the law of the case.

They had lo show that the circumstanceB attending this extradition constituted acts
of deceit, of fraud, of vi((letice, and of outrages on the English laws. They were above all to
argue on the public declaration of Mr. Drummond, Judge of the ( "ourt of t^ueens Uench. who
had, on the 'J'Ah of August, ISGii, declared the extradition to l)e il]e<,'al ; n short, it was
to be pleaded that Lainirande bad been stolen tiom the Knulisli (Joveriinicnt, The
expression, moreover, was made use of in Court; your Kxeellency will find it at page 7{
of the Report of the proceedings which 1 have the honour to inclose herewith. I'ublic
attention was also much excited, but it has been altogether disappointed.

In fact the Avocnt-G(5neral, in virtue of instructions wiMiout doubt emanating
from the Ministry of Justice, opposed the admission of the motions submitted by the

On applying the^e principles to the case of Lnmiramle, which I only know ihr();ii.'li the lu'w^p.-iper repurU, I
think that the tn^lish CiDvcrnment is not in a position to licm.iinl the n-iiir.-iiioii of ill''* igan.

The Freonh Government would most certainly refuse it, for without .'ijlatiii); the right of the judiriiil power,
it cannot even ilispose of un aeniseil person who belongs to justice alone.

Having seen no olHeial <lociiment, I am ignorant of the coin plications which nny lurk in ilie case of
Larairaiule, but I hasten to inform your Excellency that Lamiraude will shortly upjii-ar before tlm Court of
Poitiers.

Before \\ii- Court of As«ize, the Counsel for the defencx; will prob.ilily brini; forward tome circumstances and
raise some dilBcullies relative to the arrest and the extradition of the ueciLseii.

The Ijijjlisb Oovei-iiniiMit niiyht be interested in learning and forming a jtidirment on tliese ]ioiuts.

Would it not he advisable to have a lawver present at the tri il, instnu-ted to watch the proceedings and to
emminc their phases and lei;al bearing? I'hit is an idea which I have taken the lilwrty of submitting to
your Bxcellency, begging yuu lo accept, tec.

(Signed) I'll LITE.

Page 23.

t l':'ffc 20.

X Page 47.

D 2

defcndrrij on the f|ucstion of extradition. These motions (pnge 3 of the lleport*) arc
vcrv explicit ; the Advocat-ritniriil maintained that the question of extradition
could Dot he diseussetl lief'ore the judiciul authority, since the executive authority had
dechired tlmt the extradition was legal and regular; that extradition is the business of a
Prince in liis i'-ternational relations ; relations which cannot in any ease fall within the
cogniziinte of the judicial autliority, &c. &c. The arguments adduced in the discussion
of this (|iK'>tion in the i-leadings are in pages 5 and G of the Ileport.f

In spite of the elforts of the defence the view uplield by the Ailrocat-General has
been ratified by a decision of the Court of Assize. This decision ajtpears to me to be
well founded in law. His view is, besides, in agreement with tlie lenai opii^ion which I
had the honour to submit to your Kxcelleiicy on the 17th of November last, respecting
the extradition of Lamiraudc.

ll must, however, be said that the principles laid down by the Lamirande decision
(by which name it will ahvay- be known arc not unanimously accepted in Jurisprudence
and in the tenets of writers. But the Court of Cassation is about to bo called upon to
lay down a definite rule on this matter, which is so obscure, since Lamirande, it is said,
has appealed to the Court of Cassation, as has been announced.

Thus the a])pearance of Lamirande in a Court of Justice has not advanced the ques-
tion of extradition between the Knglish and French Governments, with the exception that
tlie jury has declared liamirande guilty of forgery agreeably to the heads of accusation
transcribed in the indictment in Nos. 3, 4, .>, and G, and which I have reported in
manuscript at pages 19 and 30 of the Report,} the newspapers not having reproduced
them.

We must bow to the verdict of the jury, although there may be a difTcrence of
opinion on the questiim whether the false statements made by Lamirande legally consti-
tuted the French crime of falsification (•' faux"), and especially the English crime of
falsification called " forgery."

On reading the discussions, your Excellency will see that the President of the Court
of Assize asked the accused whether, although theft and abuse of confidence might not
be within the scope of the Extradition Treaty of 1843, he would consent to be tried on
these two charges. The accused probably hoped for an acquittal on the charge of
forgery : he 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 the President had a political bearing, for if the
accused had consented to be tried on the counts of theft and abuse of confidence, he
would have renounced ipso facto his advantage arising from the Extradition Treaty, as
the Advocate-General pointed out. The dispute would naturally have fallen to the
ground, for the English Government could no longer have to occupy itself with the
reclamation of an individual who had renounced the advantage arising fron> the British
law.

The declaration of Judge Drummond not having been read at the trial, could not be
published by the French newspapers. Such a publication might have exposed them to a
prosecution for inaccuracy in a report of judicial proceedings. Foreign papers have

{mblished extracts from this declaration. On the first page of the Report§ your Excel*
ency will find an analysis of that declaration printed in a Belgian paper.

Accept, &c.
iSigned) TREITE.

Inclosure 2 in No. 23.
Report of the Trial of M. Lamirande.

Analyse de la DMaration du Juge Drummond, publi/e par un Journal Beige.

CE document n*ayant pas 6ti lu k I'audience du proces Lamirande n'a pas ^te public
par Ics feuilles Fran^aises. Celles-ci en I'imprimant, s'exposaicnt h des poursuites pour
infid^lit^ dans les comptes-rendus judiciaires.

" Nous rappellerons ici ce document un pen bizarre du Juge Drummond de Montreal.
Cc document precise en effet toute la question relative k I'extradition.

" En France, nous ne saurions, it vrai dire, quel nom donner & ce document qui ne
ressemble ni par \ forme ni par le fond k I'id^e que nous nous faisons d'une sentence
juridique D'aboi l I'honorablc Juge Canadien reconnait que I'accus^— ou plutdt le

* Phw 44. t Page 4S. t ?«?« *3- i Page 40.

oport*) are
extradition
thority had
sincss of a
nitliin the
! discussion

cneml has
> iiic ti) be
on which I

respecting

ie decision

risprudence

d upon to

it is said,

d tiie ques-

•ption that

uccusation

reported in

reproduced

iflference of
ally consti-
jb crime of

f the Court
might not
be tried on
I charge of
cution only

:, for if the
]fidence, he
Treaty, as
lien to the
;lf with the
1 the British

;ould not be
d them to a
papers have
your Excel-

cc.
FREITE.

ilge.

Ls ^t^ publie
rsuites pour

e Montreal.

lent qui ne
le sentence
u plutdt le

!4U.

p^titioniiairc, commc il l'api)elle dans un laiijrngo plcin dc deference, ne jHuivant etrc
amene dernnt liii etant en [ileine nier. enlevi' jmr uiie d('> phn audaeitiisi's et iuM|u'a
present lieureuses entrejirij-es cfiitre la justice linnl on ail iHiiiHi!< i iitiiidii [Mtrler nu
Canndn. ii n'a plus dordonnance a rciidre.

" Malirre celte declaration (pielqiic pen caiidide. I'lionoralile .lin;e Dniiniiiotid se
livro a une tn's-lonjruo dissertation cpii ticnt plus du plaidoyer cii di- la pol<'iiiii|Uc (|ue
de rausteriti' dun document iuridii|ue.

"Ce (|ui ressort de ce jilaidoyer c'est I'opinion un i)eu irritec du .lum' souteiiaiit t|iic
I'cxtradition n'aurait pas ete nc('onl(?e par lui, si la eau'«c fnt rtstif cinuri. tt ccla par
plusicurs iiii'tifs (jifil enoncc fort compi'iidieuseiiu'iit, ii ^avoir: 1. Que le Ctnisiilti, ueral
do France h .Montreal n'avait jia-; (iiialite pour ro((U('Tir I extradition, n'i-tant pa- a:;ent
diploniati(|ne accredite, coiniuo I'exi^e le Traite de 184"p: '2. Vimv <|u'on lie iu^tilie |)as
un ncte aut'icntique de la niise en accusation de I'accuse ; ipi'aii lieu <lu titre original et
rt'fjulier on ne |iroiiuit (|Ue la eopic traduile diidit tlocunient et faite par un inconnii (on
salt (|u'a New York I'arret de renvoi i'ut detourne du dossier par run de-, avoeats de
Laniirande. aii(|uel ec document avait di'i etre coniniuni(|iii' : ."5 I'nree que le fait impute
ii I'nccuse Laniirande ne contient pas I'imiiutalion d'nn des acte> (|ualitii'> crimes par les
lois An^lai-es et devnnt, aux termes du Traite, autoriser I'extradition.

En etl'et. en Aiipleterre, le crime de faux n'est, on realit*'-, «iue datis la fabrication
infidele dun document destine a etre co (pi'il n'est jias; co n'est pas la falirication d'un
document ilestiue A etre ce (jii'll est. Kn termes autres et plus clairs, un mensonjie par
^crit n'est pas un faux.

"Puis le Jupe Drummond rniipelle qu'il a donne I'ordrc d'amener dovant lui le
p^titionnaire (I..amirande), et il ajoute : —

" ' La rcjionse du jioolier a mon ordonimnce d'habcas corpus fut (|u'il avait rcmis le
prisonnicr a Kdme-.Justin Melin, Insjiecleur do Police A Paris, dans la nuit du 1.'4 courant,
a minuit, en vortu d'un ordre signe par le Depute SheriH' .sur un document sigiie par
>L le Gouverneur General.

" ' II parait, dit-il encore, (juc le petitionnaire ainsi Hvre h un agent de police Fran^ais,
est maintonant on route pour la France, (|Uoi(pic son extradition fut illogaleinent
deniandee, ijuoiqu'il ne fiit accuse d'aucun des crimes pour lesquols il ^iit pu 6tro legalc-
mcnt Iivr6 et maljjro (pie jo fusse informe d'uuo maniere certaiue (|uc son KxcoUonco le
Gouvcrnour-General avait promis — commc il y ctait tenu par lionneur ot par Justice — do
donner au petitionnaire une occasion de faire juger de sa petition par le premier tribimai
du pays avant tl'ordonner son extradition.'

" D'apres cos imputations dirigees par un Magistrat contro lo (Jouvcrneur du ymys,
on pent s'oxpliquer la violence des polomiques dans lesquelles la presse Americaine s'est
cngagce. II est vrai que le Magistrat Canadien ajoute que s'il y a une faussc date dans
I'arrfit du Gouverneur du Canada, il voit Ik la preuve que la religion du Gouverneur a ^t^
surprise."

Compte- Rendu rfi/ Proces Lamirande, tirade la "Gazette des Tribunaux," et du Journal

"Le Droit."

Justice Ckiminelle. — Cour d' Assises de la Viknne.

(Redaction particuli^rc de la " Gazette des Tribunaux.")

Presidencc de M. Aubugeois de la Ville du Bost, Conseiller a la Cour Imp^r'ale

de Poitiers.

Audience du 3 D/cembre.

AflFaire Lamirande. — Soustraction Frauduleusc. — Detoumement de 704,000 francs de
Caisse de la Succursale de ]» Banque de France a Poitiers. — Faux en Ecriture de
Banque.

LE nom de Lamirande a, dcpuis quelqu^s mois, acquis une telle notori(5t^ (ju'il suffit
de le rappeler pour remettre en m^moire tous les faits qui s'y rattachent. Caissier t\ la
succursale dc la Banque dc France de Poitiers, il disparait, laissant dans sa caisse un
deficit considerable ; il fuit, il traverse les mers ; il se refugie d'abord en Angleterre, puia
en Amerique. Des agents Fran9ais le suivent k la piste, le font arretcr, mais avant qu'il
leur soit livr^. des conilits s'elevent entre les diverses autorit^s d'Amerique, d'Angleterrc,
et de France sur la question d'extradition, et ce n'est que lecemment qu'ils ont 6t6 videb
et que Lamirande a et^ rendu k la justice de son pays. Tel est le sommaire, bien ahrigi,

f-»Wpi

'12

dcR loiiffK pr^JlirniiiftireH de c»Uc grave affaire, lufli^ qui, cc nous seniblv, doit suffirc, au
moineiit on U-n ilelmts hVn)r«;;eiit. |»our la signaler ii raltciition puliliciuc.

I'liu loiile ediiiiiltralile se prosse a»x al)ords du Palais de .lu^tiec. dans I'espoir
(i'nssistcr 11 I'cs trravi's (l('!iat>. II ne pouvait en etre autr.njeiit dans la ville nii TaeeuHd
a ('•U' si lon:;teinps I'onnii, ft oil. en nit'nie temps qu'il avail eonciuis uue po«ili«in touto dc
confianee, il avail sii ;:ajrner I't'stinie d'un grand nonibri- de ses luiltitaiiti.

Le >i(;;i' till . .iiii^tere Pul)lic c-t (>i'eii])e par M. Uant, preniitfr avoeat geiu'-ral.
M. le I'roeureur-Gf'MM'Tal Dauiav assiole a I'audiencc.

Me. Luliaud v-t charge de la defense de I^niirandc, (jui a an>si pour avocat
Mc. Fx'petit. ancieii bitonnier du barreau do Poitiers.

An moment oil I'aecuse est intnKiuit dans le ttalle d'audience. un viiniouvement de
curiositi? He inanif"<'sle dans tontes le- parties de I'ttuditoirc ; toutes Its tites se dressent,
tfuiM les regards ie clierclunt, et un long temps s'ecoule avaut (jue soil ealnie ee premier
61an de la curioMte ])ubli<|ue.

Lamirande, tiont la tournur*- et les manieres annoneent un honime distingue, e.-t de
taille moyenne; il a les eheveux bruns, le front haut. le teint pale ; ses traits reguliers
annoneent la tinesse et l.i vivaeite. (Jeux des babitant> de Poitiers qui I'ont coiiini. disent
avoir de la peine a le reconnaitre, tant ils le trouvont ebange et uniaigri ; cependant il
u'cst pas abaitu et i! siniMe n'avoir rien perdu de son tinergie.

ApriiH que le jury a pris siege et (|ue I'idcntite de laccus^ a ete eonstatec, lectu e
est donnee, par le greffier de la Cour, dc I'arret de renvoi et dc I'aete d'accu^ation ; ce
dernier doeument est ainsi eonyu : —

" Le lundi. 1- Mars 18<i<j, M. llailly. Dirocteur de la Succursjile de la Bancjue de
Franee a Poitiers, j)revint Lamirande, caissicr du m^me etablissement. qu'un miiiion en
or devait etre immediatemeut exjiedie k la succursale d'Angoulenie, et que le leiideniain,
Mardi, .')(MI,000 francs en especes d'argent devaient etre envoyes a la meme destination.
Lamirande fit, dans la journee, les pri'^jiaratifs necessaircs pour renvoi d"un million en or,
Le soir, il (piitta furtivement son poste, monta en cliemiu dc fer, ct gagna cnsuite la
frontiOre. Avant de partir, il avait laisse une lettre i» I'adresse de M. le Directeur Haillj,
dans laquelle il annon^ait qu'il ttait oblige d'aller si ChatellcrauU in(i))inement, ([u'il
laissait sos clefs au Sieur Queyrieux, Chef tie Comptabilite, et qu"il serait do rctour assez
t6t pour faire la caisse. En mt?me temps, il avait ecrit au Sieur Queyrieux, ((u'etant forc^
de partir pour Chiitellerault, il le priat de tcnir la caisse le lendemain ct dc i'aire op<;rcr
renvoi d'argent jwir les gardens de la Banque ; il ajoutait qu'il arriverait ii temps pour
faire la situation. Cc billet fut remis par un commissionnaire au Sieur Queyrieux, avec
les clefs qui ouvraient les coraiMirtimcnts inferieurs dc la caisse courantc.

" Le dejKirt subit de Liimirande ne put pas paraitre tout d'abord suspect, puisqu'il
avait eu la i)recaution d'annoncer mensongerement, a. diverscs pcrsonnes, (juc son ncveu
dtait tr^s nialade ii C'hatellerault, et que I'etat de cet enfant lui inspirait lea plus vives
inquietudes.

" Le 13 Mars, les employes de la banque procedi'rent a lenlevement des tp(l(),000
francs qu'il fallait e: pedier ii Angouleme. Les sacoches etaient pretes ; on les reniplit
au nombre de cinquante, en retirant de la cave 500 sacs dc 1,000 francs, et les cini|uante
sacoches, qui devaient peser chacune 50 kilogrammes, furent placees sur ur camion,
acconips'gne d'un employe ct d'un gar^on, ct transportees au Bureau des Mcssagcrics. L^,
ellcs furent pesees, ct aussitot, on constata ijue le plupart d'cntre cllcs avaicnt un poids
infcrieur indiquant un deficit d'environ 2,000 francs par sacochc. M. le Directeur en fut
informe ; il lit rcntrer sur-le-ehamp I'expedition ii la banque, ouvrit les sacoches, en tira
les sacs et les compta. On en trouva 310 auxquels il manquait uniformcment 200 francs,
k une pii'ce de cinq francs pres,,

" L'un des ccnscurs, M. Gretry, et I'un des administrateurs, M. Pavie, furent avertis ;
ils dcsccndirent dans la cave d'oii avaient ete extraits les sacs alt^res, et ils reconnurent
que la meme alteration cxistaitsur un grand nombre dautres sacs d'argent. lis reconnu-
rent, en outre, que plnsieurs sacs, qui devaient contenir chacun 10,000 francs en ])i(^ceB
d'or de 20 francs, nc contenaient, sous ic meme volume, que des pieces dc 2 francs, et
de 50 centimes. Enfin, par la verification qui fut operee le 13 Mars et les jours suivants,
on constata que les sonwies soustraites dans la cave s'd-lcvaient au chifl're de 21<J,000
francs.

"Cependant, Jjamirandc n'avait pas fait remcttre au Sieur Queyrieux la clef qui
ouvrait le corapartiment suiierieur dc la caisse courantc ; or, ce compartiment devait
contenir une somme tris considerable, soit en billets, soit en or. Un ouvrier, mande de
Paris, arriva le lendemain avec un inspecteur de la Banque, et pratiqua rouverture du
compartiment. Tous les billets de 1,000 francs avaient dLsparu; il ne restait que
400 billets de 100 francs, dont la liasse avait paru sans doute trop volumineuse pour

I suffirc, au

ans ICspoir
nil Tai'diri^
III touto (Ic

!at ^'eiit-ral.

pour avdcat

)iiveniont de
hc (Iri'sscnt,
i<- iiruiiiier

ifjui'. f>t dc
its n'yiilicrs
iiiinii. (iisent
cc'pendant il

t('(', U'ctu e
I'U-ation ; ce

liatKjiu' de

11 iiiiliion en

3 kiuk'niain,

destination.

lillion t'li or.

la cnsuite la

■cteur Haillj,

anient, ([u'il

rctoiir a!-ficz

ju'c'tant forc^

[> f'aiic op(';rcr

i temps pour

cyiioux, avec

ect, puisqu'il
lie son nevcu
lea plus vives

(los cVlO.OOO
n les reni])lit
les ciiujuante
ur camion,
mgeries. L^,
lent un poids
ecteiir en lut
Dches, en tira
til 200 francs,

irent avertis ;
i reconnurent
lis reoonnu-
les en pieces
3 2 francs, et
ours Buivants,
2 do 21l),000

s la clef qui
;iment devait
er, maiide de
ouverture du
restait que
nineusc pour

etre enlcvic. On ciin-tata. dc plus, IVxistcnce de deux sacs jmraissaiit icirp)i> dc pitVe*
d'or, et ctiquelcs •jo.itod francs; inais on nc tarda pas a s'lipercevoir ipic Ics rouleaux
de pieces d'or aviiicnt etc iiiiipiacct-s. dans Ic fond tics sics, p:ir des ciirtunclu's tU- pii-ces
de - fi;iiic> cl lie .On cciitiims, i'!iveloppcc> d'alionl d>- [Kipicr l>ianc ct in>iiilc dc |).ipier
bleu, dc iiianiire a avoir un poids parfaitcnicnt c;.mI, .i un ccntiirramnu' pn'-. a cclui il'une
sominc dc 2"i.i>ii0 franc> en nioiiiiaie d'or. I'nc vcriiicalion exacle et niiniitieu.se
dj-moiilra que le.i dctouriicments opi'res dans In caLsse s'elevaient a la soiiinic ile
4H5,OiM( fiaiic-..

■' Aiiisi doiii', soit dans la cave, soit dans la caisse, en espoccs nlctalliqlle^ ou
billet--, uuc soiiiiiic totale dc 7"l,*""t francs avail I'tc -oustraitt au I'lijuilicc d»' !a liaiif|Ue.

■' IXvaiit ces con>tatatiii!is, aucun iloutc u'ctait possiMe ; la fuite du caissier
<5tai1 ia pieiivc di' sa culpabiliie.

"II etait d'aillcurs manifesto quo le cais-^ier seul avait ]iu conimctln' cvtt" immense
spoliation. |)'uii'' part. Lamirandc avait cxclusivcnieiit la :ri'>ti'in dc la ca'i->i' cMiirante.
qui avail cf<' video (lans la iournce dn 12 Mars; d'autie |)ari, iui scul avait pu (qirrcr,
soit 1 alteration d'un jjrand nombrc de sacs d'arjrent. soil reidevenicnt des sacs d'tir.
II Iui etait facile dc les sou-traire dans la eave, ou il prc->idail aux d< pots et aux envois d«
fonils, pendant qu'il s'y trouvait seul, eu protitant de I'absenee du diroeteur et desemployui
cliarjurcs du trani]»ort (les sacs.

" La fuiu lie liamiraiidc fut tout a coup piecipiiee par I'ordrc iinpr^'vu d'exiK'dicr
600,000 francs a Anfroulcnic, car il dcviiit evidiiit jiour Iui que I'envoi d'uue soiiimc uussi
forte, eiitamant l-s reserves en e-speccs d'arfrent (lejio-e'cs dans la cave, devait iicees-saire*
ment comiircndre les sacs alteres et amener la dccouverte de Li fraudc.

'• Ijamiraiide n'a pas a repondrc seulement dcvanl la justice des soustraetious ciiomics
dont il s"e-t rendu coupalile. Scs fonctions de caissier lOltlijjeaient a reniettre cliaque
jour a la dirci-tion un bordereau de situation dans le(|uel il certifiait I'etat des diverses
caisses do la Itauipic, en indiquant, par raturc de valiurs, les sommes ou les etl'i ts qui s'y
trouvaicnt deposes. U a commis une serie quotidienne dc faux, en eiionyant elia(iue jour
dans Ic bordereau une situation qui avait cesse d'etre exactc par suite do scs proprcB
detournements. Le jour memo de son depart, il remettail encore ii son dirccteur un
bordereau de siiuation eertifie et si<ifiie par Iui, dans lequel il atte4ait niensongcrement,
que la totalite ile I'encaisse s'elevait a la somme de ll,44:3,000 francs, tandiscprcn realite,
par les soustractions qu'il avait accomplies, cet encaisse <;tait diminue dc 7U4,OitO francs
dont il s'etait empar6.

" Lamirande a commis aussi des faux en Venture dc banque et il a fait usage, scicm-
mcnt, de pieces fausses en remettant des bordereaux de situation qui dissimulaient les
aoustractiotis frauduleuses et les detournements dont il s'etait rendu coupable.

" En consequence Lamirande est accus(5 : —

" 1 . D'avoir depuis moins de dix ans a Poitiers, soustrait frauduleusement diverscs
sommes en especcs d'or ou d'argent dans la serrc ou cave de la succursale de la Ban(|uc
de France, et au prejudice de cet etablissement. D'avoir commis ces soustractions
frauduleuses, avec cettc circonstancc qu'il etait alors caissier salarie ou homme dc services
k gages de la dite Banque de France.

" 2. D'avoir a Poitiers, depuis moins de dix ans, et notamment le 12 Mars, 18C6,
detourne ou dissipe au prtjudice de la Banque de France qui en etait proprietaire dee
fonds et billets places dans la caisse courante ou dc service de la succursale de Poitiers,
qui ne Iui avaient 6te remis et confi^s qu'^ litre dc depot ou de mandat, it la charge de
les rendrc ou de les rcpresenter ou d'en faire un usage ou un em|iloi detennine. D'avoir
commis les ddtourncments ci-dcssus specifies avec cette circonstancc qu'il ('jtait alors
caissier, ou commis salarie de la dite Ban(|ue de France.

"3. D'avoir a Poitiers, le 12 Mars, 18d6, sur le bordereau de situation sign^ |mr Iui,
qu'il etait charg^- de dresser et dc ccrtifter chaque jour en sa quality de caissier de la
succursale de la Banque de France, jwur constater I'encaisse de la ilitc succursale, fraudu-
leusement insere la fausse declaration, que I'encaisse etait le ditjuur, de 11,443,606 francs
84 centimes, tandis qu'il etait en realitt inferieur a ce chiffre de toutes les sommes par
Iti soustraites ou d6toum^cs et d'avoir ainsi frauduleusement alt^r6 les declarations et
les fails quo ce bordereau de situation avait poiu* objet de recevoir et dc constater.

" 4. D'avoir le meme jour, au nidme lieu, fait usage de cette piece fausse, sachnnt
quelle etait fausse, ea la remett-^nt an Directeur de la Huccursale de la Banijue de Fraace
k Poitiers, pour etablir la situation de la caisse de cet etablissement au 12 Nlars, 186G.

" 5. D'avoir k Poitiers, depius moins de dix ans et anterieuremeut au 12 Mars, 18GG,
dans dirers bordereaux de situotioD sign^s par Iui qn'il etait obarge de dresser et de

Cfrhfior chaqup Jour en sa qualiti- de Caissicr «lc la Succursale do la Ranquc tie France,
pour constater Pentaisse de la ditc sueeursalo, frauduleuNemcnt inwTo la fausso declara-
tion (jue I'encnisHC sY-levait a uno soninic su|K-rieure a celie qui existait en rt'-alili'', laqiicllc
^tait inferieure nu rhittre indique. t-t dc f outes les sonimes par iui soiistraites on detoum^'CS,
et d'avoir ainsi frauduleuHcment altert' !os declarationn et les faits que ce bordereau de
situation avail jM>ur objet de recevoir et de constater.

" »}. D'avoir nux ni<*mcs «!!poques et au nit-mc lieu fait usage de cos pit'-pcs fausses,
saohant (|u'i'llos t'taient fau.-wes. en les reniettant au Dirccteur <le la Suocur>ale dc la
Ranque dc France h Poitiers, pour ctablir la i^ituation de la caissc de eel ctublissemcnt
aux jours indi(|U('>s.

" Fait au prquct dc la Cour ImpL>rialc de Poitiers, Ic 23 Septcmbrc, 18G6.

" L'Avocat-Gen^ral,
(Signd) "CAMOIN DE VENCE."

Pendant la lecture de Tacle d'accusation, que I'auditoirc a ecoute dans le plus
rcligieux silence. Taccuso a parii profondenient emu ; presque constammcnl il a tenu la
Wte baissee, appuyee sur unc main, passant frequemment son mouclioir siir son front et
Hur ses yeux.

Nous devons niontionncr qu'au moment du tirapc du jury. Me. Lachaud, au nom de
Laniirande, a deniainle acte de ce que sa pr6sence et celle de I'accuse ji ce tiraije ne
derail prfjjudicier en Hen aux conclusions exceptionnelles qu'il Iui plairait poser avant
d'engager le deliat au fond. Acte a etc donne de cettc reserve, ot M. ic Pii^idcnt a
ordonne que mention en serait faite au plumitif de I'audience.

M. le President rappelle ^ I'accuse Ics divers chefs d'accusation relcves centre Iui, au
nombre de six soustractions fraudulcuses et faux.

Laccusc'! ne fait aucunc observation.

Me. Bourbeau, avocat, sc presente, assiste de Me. Pinchot, avoue, qui donne lecture de
conclusions tendantes a ce (lue la Banque de France soil adniise a intervenir conime
partie civile et a ce qu"il Iui soit donne acte de ses reserves de conclure, dans? le coursdcs
uebats, a tels dommages-interets, qu'il Iui plaira fixer.

M. le President. — La parole est a M. le Premier Avocat-G<^'neral.

Me. Lachaud. — Pardon, M. le President, je dcmandu la paiule pour po.icr li;s con-
clusions suivantcs :—

Atteiidu (ju'il est de principe que les Cours d'assises sont comi)ctenles pour apprd'cier
si I'extradition des accuses a etc reguliere, ou si, au contraire, elle n'a pus ete le resultat
de lu traude ou dc la violence ; que ce principe a ete rcconnu par la Cour de Cassation,
notamment dans son arret du J) Mai, 1845;

En fait:

Attcndu que Laniirande, caissicr de la succursale de la Banque de France a Poitiers,
renvoye par arret de la chanibrc des miscs en accusation devant la Cour d'Assises dc la
Vienne, sous diverses inculpations, s'etait refugie au Canada (possession Anglaise) ;

Qu'une demande d'extradition avait (5t6 formee contre Iui, en vertu du Traite passe
entre la France et la Grande Bretagne, ^ la date des 18-21 Mars, 1843 ;

Que ce Traite, qui indiquc les formes niicessaires a observer dans les deux pays pour
arrivcr a I'extradition, porte textuellement, Article ler, § 2, en ce qui concerne la Grande
Bretagne :

"En cons(5quence, I'extradition ne sera effectuee, de la part du Governement
Britanniquc, que sur le rapport d'un juge ou magistral commis h. I'effet d'ontendre le
fugitif sur les faits mis ii sa charge par le mandat d'arret ou autre acte judiciarc egale-
ment emane d'un juge ou magistral comp<Stent en France et cnon9ant egalenient d'une
nianiere precise les faits."

Attendu qu'il resultc que pour que I'extradition soit accordee par le Gouvcrnement
Anglais, il faut, avnnl tout, que le juge competent en ait declare la legalite, que ce n'est
done pas seulcment une decision administrative, mais aussi une decision judiciare ;

Attendu que Laniirande ayanl ete traduit d'abord devant le juge de paix Brebaut,
celui-ci avait rendu une sentence permettant I'extradition, mais que presque aussit6l cette
decision fut atlaquee devant le juge sup^rieur du Banc de la Reinc, M. Drummond, et
que, d^s lors, elle se trouvait frappee d'un veritable appel ;

Attendu que le juge Drummond a doiin6 audience le 24 AoAt, 1866, que toulcs les
parties y ont comparu par leurs reprdsentants respectifs, que la demande d'extradition y a
ete soutenue, contrcdite et discutee ;

Qu'en ccl etat, aprus unc longue audience, et alors que le debat avait et^* accepte par
tous, le juge Drummond, au moment de rendre son jugement, dut, sur la demande de

c France,
if (leclara-
('•, laqucllc
t''toiirn<!CH,
dcrcaii de

cs fnusses,
Mile dc la
blissemcnt

5NCE."

ns le plus

a tenu la

n front et

nil iiom dc

tiraije ne

Dser urant

ii^idcnt a

ntre lui, au

lecture de
nir comme
c coursdes

tr 1

us con-

r apprdcier
le resultat
Cassation,

a Poitiers,
sises de la
,i.se) ;
'raite passe

c pays pour
2 la Grande

)vernement
ntendrc le
iare egfale-
iient d'une

ivernement

le ce n'est

ire;

X Br(5haut,

ssit6t cette

tnmond, et

toutcs les
adition j a

Eicceptn par
emande de

M. Pomninvillc. avncnt dc la Banquo de France, loquol voulnit pn'sontcr dc nouvclles
obsiTvatioiis, rmvouT. vu liiture uvancri' (7 hcurcs du »oir), au lendcmain 2'>, pour
rciirciidrc rnuiiioncc 1 1 imnioncTr sji sentence ;

Attenilu (]m\ dan-; !n snirre du -4 Aoi'it. avniit In decision du jnpc, (jUi scul arait
qunlile piiiir htntiuT liilinitiveuient, dcs agents de pcijice >iiiri'iit >i<ileninu'nt armehcr
Laniiraiule de f^n prisun, ([iril tut eoiiJuit en France, ct reniis, nialgre sos pnitestatioiis, h
In ji()lii'<' Fraiir.'ii.-e ;

Atteiidu (|iic tuns cos faits iic saurnii'nt itrc contcstt's, qu ils sont i)rouv^'Hparlc jugc-
mcnt (iu'ii reinlii M. Druinniond le !.'< Aout, li*>>*'>;

iju'W ri!-sulte encore de ei'ttc deei-ion tiue M. Druniniond a diTlnre n'y avoir lieu ii
extradition, par plii-^ieurs motifs con>ii;n('s dans son iu;;einenl. et tires, soit dc la forme dc
la (leniande, snit du fond, en ce que les iaits precises ne constitunient pas I'un des crimes
pour le'Cinclles rcxlradition pent etre aecordee ;

Atleiulu quVn IVtat, la Cour d'Assiscs est appelOe a apprecicr si I'extradition dc
Landrande pent etre deolavee le;ra!e ;

(^u'li e-t eviiK'iit (|u'el!c ni saurait I't'tre. alors (jue Ic .jn2;c regnlierenicnt saisi par
toutes les ])arties. ct qui devait en counailrc detinitivcmcnt, a prononce (pi'il ny avail ])as
lieu de i'aceorder;

(.^>u'un aeie ilc violence, ilont il est impossible (|uc I'Ansletcrrc nc dcmandc pas
compte a ses agents ne saurait prevaloir contre une decision judiciairc et placer la force et
la subornation au-dessus du droit ;

(^)ue quelles (jue soient les fautcs ct Ic crime dont est accuse Laniirnnde, ce nc pent
etre nn motif pour violer, en sa personne, les regies les plus ordinnires du droit ; que Ics
Traitis internationaux d'extradition n'ont ]ms pour but dc proliter aux accuses, niais
surtout tie repondre aux iiitcrcts les plus elcves des rapports ct dc la liberie dcs nations
entre elles ;

Atteiuiu qu'on oljjeetcrait vainenicjit que Laniirnnde a ete livre aux agents Fran^nis
en vcrtu d'un ordrc sigue le -'^ Aout, ISCiiJ, par le Gouvcrneur de Canada ; (|u"il requite <le
la sentence de M. Drumniond que la date portee dans cct ordre n'est pas reelle, (pi'ellc a
etc donnee posterieurement au '2-\ Aoilt, ([uc la signature du CJouverneur n"a pu etre
obtenno (pie par surprise ;

Attcndu. au surplus, (|uc les tcrnics niumes du Traite do 184!) ne pcrnicttent pas au
Gouverneur-General de livrer uu accuse par suite d'extradition avant (lue la decision
judiciairc ait eteprononcee par lejugc competent ; que le 24 Aout M. Ic jugc Drunnuond
avait ete saisi ; (juc le Gouverncment Anglais, represente jiar ^I. Uam?ay, nvocat de la
Couronnc, la Banque dc France, rej)rescntec par M. Poniainvillc, avocat, Jiamirande lui-
menie represente par M. Doutre, avocat, avaient ete entcndus ct avaient dcbattu devant
ce niagistrat la question legale dc I'extradition ;

(jiuc, des lors, jusqu'apres la decision du Jugc Drunimond il «5tait impossible de
disposer dc Laniirandc sans violer a la fois la loi ct Injustice;

Par ces motifs et autres qu'il plaira h la Cour supplcer, prononccr la nullitc de
I'exlraditiou.

Et, tres-subsidiaircmerit, attcndu quo si, par inipossibilite, la Cour sc declarait
incompetcnte pour i)rouonccr la nidlite dc Vcxtratlition, en raison du caraclere
diplimiatiquc do cet actc, elle ne saiuait mecnnnnitrc que les circonstanccs au milieu
dcsciuelles I'cxtradi'ion sVst produitc pcuvcnt 6trc de nature ii entrainer sa nullite : qu'il
y nurait, des lors, a la souniettre h I'oxamcn attentif des deux Gouvcrnenicnts de In France
ctde la Grande IJretngnc, ct, en ce cas, d'accorder un sursis jusqu'u ce qu'il nit ete statu<5
par qu 'il appnrtiendra, sous toutcs reserves.

Apres la lecture de ces conclusion.s, M. I'Avocat-Gcneral Gnst deninnde imniediatc-
ment la parole pour les conibnttre : —

]Messicur.s, dit-il, nous avons a opposcr h cos conclusions des conclusions prejudi-
ciclles ; nous venous demnnder a la Cour de nc point en autoriscr Ic developpenient. Ces
conclusions nc sont point une surprise pour nous. Des son premier interrogatoire, I'accuse
pretenrlit que Ton ne pouvait pas le juger en Franco.

L'honorabic defenscur nous avait iait connaitre ces conclusions, qui rcsscmblcnt ^
une plaidoiric et tendnnt a ce que la Cour se declare compctente pour nppecicr I'extradi-
tion et subsidiairenicnt prononccr un sursis.

Pour discuter la competence de la Cour a cct cgard, nous cxamincrons les regies
applicables h Textradition, les pouvoirs de rautorite judiciairc. les droits de I'extrade et
les privileges du Gouverncment Francais.

Les lois penales sont exclusivement territoriales ; ce principe est incontestnble ;
au-dcla des fronti^res dc chaquc Etat les lois penales sont paralysees ct c'est derriere ce
principe que s'abritent les malfaiteurs I'ugitifs; en consequence, ces malfaitcurs ne

[68J E

I >'

«aur«ii'nt critiqucr lii puissance dos mc^urcs r|ii*(in Iciir a ni)i)li(Hi('cs, en dehors do noire
tcrritoiro.

fVjiiimciil Ii's ^la^istiats I'rniiriis juiioraieiit-il-i di; la K';;aiit,' do ccs artcs ? lis
nc le |Miuriaic"il ui uii point de vuc de la loi Fraiirai-c, ni cii appri'ciaiit la loi
etranuere.

11 y a i-neorc iiri motif plus saisis-ftnt (|ui rcpoiis e la coniptti'iicc ; Ics mcsure-. prises
par I'l'lrai^^cr Tout I'tr sur la dontandc (!ii (inuvirn. nu'iit Fran(;ai>, el il'ailii'urs, los a<'t('.s
coui)al)l('s cniniiiis a I'l-trangor Hont i'oui[d(liMni'nt iniHli'.'rLiits, ci ils ('■chappcnt eiiiitrt'-
mcnt a imtro appr'Tiation.

f-ainiranili' a si biun coniui raclc d'accnsaiioii sur lifiiud ('uiii loiidi'L' I'ordonnaiu'i'
de prise de corjjs, ([iic stin Avocat Aini'iicaiii a ('to aecuse d'avuir voli- cetle pii'ce, ct cut
ordoniiance lui a rte sij^nifiec sins protestation de sa pait.

M. l'Av(icat-( Mineral dcniisndi' ;'i (pii 1 textc (K' loi on jxiiirrait aviiir reeoiirs pour
apituyer cette jirrti-iition de i'aire ree.)miuire l/iniirande a la rrontiere.

Mainteiiant, nous avons a nous den.ander (|iiels Mint les droits de I'estradi' ; a-t-il
Ic tlroil (If dire qw Ton avicde en sa personne les Convention., eonclnes eiitre la Franee et
I'Auifleterre ? Ia-s eonclusions le pretendent, mais est-ce quo Textrade a ite partie dans
ces Conventions; Tun ou I'autre des (Jouvernements jicut ,«eul rcveiuli(|Uer ees droits.
Pour I'extrade, il r^'Jeviont depuis sa rentree sur le tenitoiri', ua simple acense qui doit
ttrc ,iuj;e.

.M. I'Avocat-f !('•:. I'ral eit ' a I'aiipui Dalloz ("Traite International," page 18-1); un
Arret dc Cassation, is.'n' (Morin, pauc jO-*).

-Mais si les nctes eoniniis a I'etrangcr sont indiirerents pour la justice Franraiso, il
n'en est pas de nienio pour le (iouvernemcnt etranger. Sil y a eu f'raude, violation de
territoire, dans I'extradition, il pent on resulter nienie un ra.'-tis brUi.

Snp|)osons ((u'un (louvernt'inent t'lranger ait a se plaindre d'un i)areil grief; a (|ui
s'adressera-t-il pour le redrosser? A unc Cour d'Assises? Poser eette question, (''<'^t la
r<5s()udre. C'esl direelement que le Gou\erneincnt etranger viendra deniauder rep;,; tion
au (Jouvernenienl Franc/ais, ct remnniuez (jue e'ost la le seul plaignant (jui puisse Jtre
accepte par rinterniuliaire de scs Agents Diploniatiques, I'extradition n'ajant aucunc
ospece tie droit.

Vons ditcs (p!c le Traite a ete viole; mais, pour c.!.\ i! vous faut interpreter le
Traite; les Tribuuaux le peuvcnt-ils ?

Voici ce (pie je lis dans Dalloz, " Traitij Internationa','' No. l.^Vi* : — " Ij'interpretation
dcs Trait(Vs Diplonuitiques est en dehors dc la competent des Tribunaux soit judiciairos
9oit adniinistratii's," &e.

Nous avons u nous deniandcr maintenant cc que fcra leGouvernemont Fran(;'ais saisi
d'uno rJelaniation de cetle nature. S'il trouvc les grid's fondes, il viendra tievant la
justice et (lira par I'organe dc son Excellence le garde des secaux : — "Cet lioninie, jc
I'eideve ii votre juridietion eu vertu du droit des gens, supericur aux droits des parti-
culiers,"

En ed'et, rEnipereur ayant Ic droit de former des Traitesivec les nations i-trangercH,
a le droit de faire tout ee (;ui est ni'c.ssairc pour I'exiJeulion de ces Traitcs.

11 y a plus, Iors()n'^ 1. ' .ernement Francais a obtenii une extraditiim, il pcut
encore venir dire au Ju • ..i - j'l' ores', -^et accu.-e que sur les faits dc faux, puree (\\XQ
c'e.st sur ees faits h-^niv icu. qut j'. > "^'tenu I'extradition.

Devant cette iii •.■■'.( lUoii > ui^Jvaieju. la justice s'abstiendra.

]\rais .'!, au lieu ''o t.iiir •■■'. '" •■:^e. le Gouvernenient garde lo silence, si ccs griefs
nc lui paraisscnt pas f(Mi(l(' ;, .: j.i '. \ ■ suivra son Cours, no connaissant que les r('gles
legales du droit posilif. Les consL-quenccs possibles nc regardent en rien la justice.
Nous mettoi'.s eette (^pinion peut-etre un pen hasardeuse, sous I'egide de la doctrine et de
la jurisprudence.

II s'agissait d'lm individu poursuivi pour faux ct d(!'tourncment dc mineurc (1845)
II fut extrade de Toseane seulement pour crime de faux. La Cour de Besaneon appr(5ciu
<;u'il n'y avait pas crime de faux, mais au contrairc des presomptions tres graves d'enleve-
meut (le niineure. La Cour dit que cet individu ne serait mis sous pri.se de corps que
pour enl(jvement dc mincure seulement et quil ne serait juge qu^ par enntumace. Le
Procureur-Centiral se pourvut contre cet arret, que la Cour de Cassation blftma dans lea
tcrmes que vouz allez voir.

(Arret, Cassation 1845.)

M. r Avocat- General donnc lecture de cet arret ct des observations de Dalloz : — " La
misc en jugement pcut etre une violation du Traits, mais la justice fait son devoir ; ce
sont la des questions u debattre de Gouvemement k Gourernemcnt."

t'liiurc-

(\ltc dix'triiu'. ))OHt-i*lre (in pcu troji jib'iohu', est oomhatUie |>nr donx (ieci^<inn«« dont
jo vnis vmis tlininT liciiiri' ; il eii nViilio i|Ut' oi iim- cxliailitioii a (Ir taito .-mis riu'aiK'iin
(Ics (l<Mix (Jiiiivoni'mi'iits ynit cooiKn', In ju-tiro aiiriiit loilroit (KMiciiiiinder an (Ii>iivtriic-
nit'iit »il avDuc ci'tti' inoun-, sil In tifiit jiour n'fr'i litre ; \<>\\a, Mcs-ifiirs, la mmiIc n'srrve
a lain-. Voila si Ion nous <|iu>lU' I'st la (li)ctriiu' (]iii so dt'-gnf^o iloh dfiix sfules tli'fiMoiw
que lOn puissc nous oppiisor, tons allcz en jujjer : —

M. lAvocatCii'iieral donne leeturc du proton »lc rafliiire Dorincmm (Dalloz, " Traits
liitornati(»nal,' pajrc ii'j'.''

No vdvoz-voiis j)iis dans oos fnits la confirmation do la dootriiio ([uo nous vous oxpo-
HJons lout a i'iu'uro. II est, covtain ([iic. dans cottcoxtradilion, lodonvorneniont Hah rest^
eomplitoniont otraiiirrr. ot cost pour oela (jue la justice intorpcllo Ic (iouvirnoiiiont et lui
dcniando s'il nvoiio la nicMiro prise.

M. i'.\\oi'al-(!v'iicrai oito un arrrtdo la C'our d'Assizosilo rArir;fodu 17 Fi'vrior. 1845.
(Affaire Lnujro.)

Me. Larhnud. — f'ost larrtt (juo jinvocpio dans inos conclusions ; il c*\ du {» Mai,
184r>.

M. I'Avoc.it-tjioiu nil apros avoir donii:'- loctiiro do cot nrrot on tire los nu'*inos oonse-
quenoi's (pie du proc'dont do'-umeiit. Ia' Siour Lnus(', o\-dossorvant, jtoiir'-uivi pour
leiitaiivo do vitil, sotait rolutrio dans lo \\\\ d'.\ndorro : il avail i't«' arrete par un jiisre de
pai\ Fraiioais. avoo i'autori-alion du Sviidicdo la Hoiuildiquo d'Andoiio. l.aCour {{ovale
ordonna un sursis pour savoir si ootte arreslalion olait avoui'o par If' (iouvoriioment
(pii ii'y avail pris aucuiie part. J^a Cour do Cassation appreoiant los droits do Siize-
rainoto de la J'rance sur le petit tcrritoire iioutie d'Andorre, ju^ea (pie Tarrestation otait
legale.

*^(i point otabli, si, an lieu de pardor Tinaoiion, lo (jouvoriuinont viont vous dire,
c"ost nioi (|ui ai obtcnu ootte oxtradilioii ol (pii on assuino la risponsal)ilil('', la jiistioc doit
suivro s'ln oours ot n"a pas a douiandor si U's aotos di' loxtradiiion out ('tt'' eont'ormos
aux Traitos, ot clio iii' pout iiirino ailiiiLtlro aiioiin d^'bal siir oo tcrr.-.iii, (pii n'ost jtas
le sion.

Nons n'avoiis ro(;u auoun niandat jioiir suivro la di'-fonse sur cos fails nomliicux
qu'olio nous a ('luinn'rc-s, aiiotio irraudo surprise, ot auxipiols nous no serious sans doute
])as eml)arrass('s de Vv'-pondro, si telle otail iiolro mission ; nmis il y a jciur nous (piclipic
ohcso (pii lU'passo tout, cost uiiO prorognllve n'ouvonu'inout'ilo a laqiiollo nous n'avons
rien a voir.

M. lo preinior Avocatd'i'm'ral domic locturo d(' p'usicurs docuinoiits ollioiels
t'talilissant (pie lo (Jouvorncniont rran(|'ais a pris uno part active ot diri'cto ii riiisiaiice on
extradition contro Laiiiirando, ot outre autros. iruiio lottro do son I'^X'-elloiuH' le (lardc
dos Scoaux.

Dans cotte lottro, dit AI. rAvncat-Ck'in'ral, l:i partio drs tails c.>t jnironient <;nioioiiso
pour l:i justice ; iiiai^ CO (pi'il I'aut oousidtTcr siirtout c'est raot.' uouvoriiomcntal
rovoii(li(piant pour le Gouveriieniont Frau(7ais hi responsabilito de la mesurc d'extnulition
vis-a-vis des Ciouvornonionts ('tranfrors.

>l()Us aurioiis lini si. 'i r.iiio'.i do cotte lottro, nous nj devious vous Cairo rmiarquor
que M. le (Jardo des Seoaux di'-olaiait (juo liaiiiiraiido lu' di vait (tro jiinv' <pio sur lo I'ait
(le i'aiix seulomont, a moins (ju ii n'acccplat. de sa ploinc volonto, la dc'cision du jury kuf
Ics i'aits d'aluisdo contiancc ot do vol.

(Vci soml'loifiit nous nioUre on contradielion avoc nons-minios, (pii avons soutonu
que rextradi^' no pouvnit avoir auoun droit a iiivo(pior. ("o.-t l.i uno t'orimilo de ro-poot
pour le (Jouvorninont otraiia'cr qui n'a adniis extradition que sur co cliol' d • faux: niais
le consontoment de laccuso pout cteiiidre c^tto proliilution foiidc'e sur lo rospoct des
droits intcrnatioiianx.

M. rAvocat-Goiieral cite Ics arn'ts do 18.31 (arret Virmaitroi, 18."i2 (arret Darroau),
ct 1805 (arret . . . ), ariots qui docidcnt que Ics actos d'extradition eclia])iiont Ji
tout controle de Tautoritij judiciaire.

Los conclusions sont done non-recevablcs, et il y a lieu de la part de la Cour dc
prononcer son incomiK'tence et d'ordonner qu'elles ne sont pas doveloppCes.

M. le Pre'siflenf : jMc. Lachaud, vous avez la parole.

Me. Lachaud: Messieurs de la ('our, les conclusions que j'ai prises ne sont pas I'oouvre
de Laniirande, elles sont lojuvre de scs conseils. Scs conseils ont decid(^' de vous les
soumettre parcc qu'ils ont pense que rhomnie qu'on poursuit pent etre indigne, que son
crime peut etre odieux, mais que derriore lui, il y a la loi. Or, (]uand la loi est soanda-
leusemcnt viol(5e, j'ai le droit de me plaindrc et je me plains. L'homme que je viens ici
d^fendre a ^te vol6 a I'Angleterre.

M. le President : Me. Lachaud, je ne puis laisser passer ce mot ; tous ne plaidez pas

E 2

ponr Ic jury, touh plaiduz pour la Cour, ct Hur la compc-tcnce Hculoincnt. Vcnilloz vous
le rappclc-r.

Me. Ijorhaud: Jc nc I'ai ims oublir, M. If Prt'siilcnt. Jo ili^nis que cct hoiniue a
('i^ vol(' a I'Anffletcrre, puree quo j'ai l.i uiic pii're (jui Ic proiivc, wm senleiice tl'iin Jiikc
AnglaJM, que je lie lirui jias, par Uetiroiioe pour la (.'our, niais qui ii'tii exi-^tc pas iiioius ct
qui, pour iiioi comine pour lous, <|uaiiil tile sera coniiue. prouvc cc que J'ni avaiice; jc
u'cn (lis pan pluH cur ce point, et je in'ciiq)rosse de n |)oiulri' a .M. I'Avocat tit-iurai.

Lc tlefcnxeur donne lecture de divi-rs an«ts dc casation, iiiii, refutaut ceu* imli(|Ui's
|tar M. I'Avoeat (ieu'ral, jtosent en priiicipe. dit-il, <i'U! raitusv a toujoursiu droit de jioser
des cxeeptioiis devant la t'ourd'Assises. C'es arreU, ajoute le (U't'ciiM'ur, sont eniroljorwi
par r<qtiiii<»ri »le M. Kaustin llelie, qui jiejise (|ue les e\eo|iti<iiis i)i'iiMiit porter soit siir la
legalite de I'aele d'extruditioii, soit sur les conditions restrietivcs ilii 'IViiit-'MHii lie les deux
Gouvertienunts.

M. Faustiii Helie soutient qu'cn cettc niatiere, la Cour d'A>i>ises a un pouvoir
discretionnaire; il nceepte eompli'tement nion droit de reelamation. Seulenient, eonunc
il prevoit qu'il peut y avoir lieu a certain dehat-i dipIoma(i(iues, il dit qii'en certains eas il
pent y avoir lieu i» aecorder un sursis. Enfin, comnie ^1. rausliii ih'lie ne touehe jamais
i\ une nialiere sans I'epuiser : il ajoutc que, tout en accordant le droit de reclamation, il
fttut que I'exception soit scricuse et de nature a suspendre le jugement du i'ond,

•Fe craiiis qu'on nc voie dans liamirandc (|ue le criminel, «|u'un lioninie (jui inspire
pcu lie sympatliie. Que I'ait ici le pers()nna;?c ? ouhliez riiommc ; au lieu d'uii crime dc
cupidite, (p>e demain vous ayez a juijer un crime de passion, et la these de M. I'Avocat
General n'a plus d'ajipui ; que serait-ce done s'il s'ajjissait d'un ])roct^s politique .'

Jc nc veux pas insister davn'ifaf,o ; mais, ne louMiez pas, mosieurs : dans cettc
aiTatre, tout est grave ; un peuple \oisin. un grand peuple pese en ce moment nos paroles;
il faut qu'il les trouvc a la hauteur des respects dont il a I'habitudc d'entourer ees deux
grandes hascs dc la soci(5te, la liberte de tous et la loi pour tons. Je j)ersiste dans nies
conclusions.

Me. Bourbcnu, avocat de la partie civile, declare s'.associcr au niinisterc public ct
repousse les conclusions au point do vue de I'annulation de I'extradition et au ponit de
vuc du sursis.

Me. Lepetit, I'uu des defenscurs de I'accuse, replique, et dans une arciimcntation vivo
et prcssee, nppuyt5c de I'opinion de MM. Dalioz et Faustin llelie, et de la doctrine de
I'arret de la Cour de Cassation de 184"), soutient que la Cour d'Assiscs est competente pour
connattrc de- Texccption de la nullite de I'extradition, non pas en ee sens que la justice
aurait le droit de critiqucr les actes diplomatiques, niais en ee sens qu'elle peut examiner
si les formes edictees par les conventions Internationales ont ett3 observee, en d'autres
termes, s'il y a cu tVaude a la loi.

La Cour se retire dans la chambrc du conseil pour deliberer sur rincident.

A trois heures et demie, I'audience est rejjrise.

M. le President prononce I'arret, ainsi con(;a : —

" Attcndu que par un arret de la Cour imperiale do Poitiers, chambrc des misos en
accusation, en date du 2!)Mail8G6, le Sieur Surreau, dit Laniirande, aolo renvoye devant
la Cour d'Assises dc la Vienne, sous la triple accusation de vols qualiKes, abas dc contiauce
qualifies, et faux en ecriturc dc commerce ou de banquo ;

" Attcndu, qu'cn consequence dudit arret, il a et^' redige par le procurcur general un
acte d'accusation en date du 23 Septembre 18G(5;

" Attenduci^ue ces deux pieces ont ete sig nifi^'cs a I'accuse par exploit du 24 Septembre,
et que Ic 24 du meme mois le dit accuse a etc interroge par le President des Assises.
conformement aux Articles 29'\ 204, 29 j et 29G du Code d'instruction criminelle ;

" Attcndu. des lors, que I'affaire se trouve en I'otat et quelle a ete reguliercment
portee au role de la presentc session ;

" Attcndu, n(5anmoins, que, par des conclusions posees a raudience, les defenscurs de
Lamirande ont demande h la Cour de pronoiicerla nullite de I'extradition dont I'accuse a
ete I'objet, et, tres-subsidiairenient dc surseoir au jugement de la cause jusqu'a ce qu'il ait
«.He statue par qui il appartiendra sur la validite de cette extradition ;

" Attcndu, en fait, qu'il r(5sulte des documents de la cause et, notammcnt de la
depeche minist^riellc du 25 Novembre 1S6G, que, sur la demande du Gouvernement
Frangais, Lamirande, jilace dans les liens d'un arret de mise en accusation, comprenant
des fiiits de faux en ecriture de commerce ou dc banque, aete rcmis parle Gouvernement
du Canada, ou il s'etait refugie, Ji la disposition de I'autorite Fran^aise ;

" Attendu que, ti la suite de cet acte dcxtradition, le Gouvernement Imperial a
lui-meme remis cet accuse entre les mains de la justice, pour qu'il eiit a repondre devant
la juridiction competente des crimes de faux en ecritures de commerce ou de banque qui
ont motive son extradition ;

" Attendu, en droit, quo los Trait«''s d'cxtmJition sont dcs nctcs do haute ndministrntion
intervcnus cntro «leux puissaiu'cs, dans un iiitt'-iiH (;i-iural do nmralite ft de si-curitt'
socialc ; que les fornifs i-t los conditions on Kont nj^lt'c-i. non nu profit ilos accuses, qui no
IK'Uvenl, par leur fuito a I'l'tranRor, so crior mi privihjjo contro la ,iu>tico (lo lour pavo,
inni.s au point do vuo dos nooossitos iutornationalos ou dos convenances rtoiproqucH di'»
Gouvornonionts ;

" Attoiitlu (pic lo i)rincipe londamcntal do la Ki'-paratiou dos pouvoirs s'opposc ik cc
uo la justice I'ranruise piiis^o s'imniiscer dans I'iiitorpretation et lappiication des actcs
u (iouvernonienl cpii li\ront iosuccusos ii sa Jurisdiction ;

" Attendu ([Uo, par le fait nu'nio do la ronnso d'un accuse a sos jupos nnturols, Jo
Oouvcrnemcut Imperial consacro la n'uiularito do son oxtradilion, et quo cotto decision,
qui rcntrc dans la tonipetencc exclusive du pouvoir cxecutif, ne pout etrc I'ohjet d'aucun
recours ;

'Par CCS motifs, la Cour rejotto los conclusions tant principalos (pjo snbsidiaircs
fonnulees par la defense do l.atnirando, et ordoniio (pi'il soit passe outre aux deltats."

M. le I'rr'sidciit : Accuse, vous avez onlondu ; vous jtouvez nc repondre tpio sur les
faits relatifs aux crimes de faux. Ktes-vous dispose a repondre t\ toutes les autres charges
consif^neos dans Tacti- d'aceusiition ?

Lumirandi': Jo >uis piet a n'ljondre sur tons los faits.

3/e. Ltichnud ■ Je no puis laissor onjjnger mon client sur ce terrain. .lo soutions
que la Icttre du (Jardo dcs Sceaux n'a pu faire renvoyor F^amirando devant los assises (pie
pour crime do faux. II ne pout appartenirii personno, pas plushM. le Garde dos Sceaux
(ju'il tout autre, de violer la loi.

M. le l*resident : Cost pour cola que j'ai (-onsultt- Ijainirando, lui laissant toute sa
libertt- d'agir.

Me. Lnchnud : Jc pcrsisto dans ma protestation, M. le Pr(5sident, et, s'il le faut,
je poserai des conclusions In's concises pour la bien d('terminor. lianiirando ne comprend
pas les e()ns(jquenccs de son accjiiiesconient ; il appartient ii ses dt-fenseurs do les lui faire
conii)rendre. Je ne domando qu'une suspension de cinq A six minutes pour rtdiger mes
conclusions.

Ml: Lepetit : Je m'associo conipl(;temont aux observations de ^le. Lachaud, et je mc
joins i\ lui pour dcmander le temps decrire nos conclusions.

Apres (|uelqucs minutes do suspension, Taudience est reprise.

3/. le Pre'nident : Accus(} Lamiiande. jo vous rt^pote ce (|uc jo vous ai d('ja demands :
consentcz-vous a Otro jui^d- sur tons les chefs de Paccusation dirigtjc contro vous ?

Lamirande : Je n'ai ni a conseiiur ni u ne pas consentir.

Me. Lachaud : \ oiei les conclusions que je prends au nom dc Lamirande :^

" Attendu que liaminindo est renvoye devant la Cour d'Assiscs de la Vienno, sous la
triple accusation dc detourncmcnts, de vols (luulitiC'S et de faux en eeriture de commerce
ou de baiKpio ;

" Quo I'arret lui a (!'ttj signifie et qu'il comparait devant le jury sous cctte triple
accusation ;

" Attendu qu'il nc sanrait etrc au pouvoir do personne de divisor ou de supprimcr unc
partic dc cos divers cliels d'accusation ;

" Que Lamirande n'a pas A consentir ou a nc pas consentir 4 etrc jug(!' sur les crimes
relev(5s contrc lui, d'abus de conlianco et dc vols qualifi(}s, mais qu'il a int<"ret u ce que le
jury soit appole a vidcr toute I'accusation;

" Que s'il est viai, commo vient de le d(5cider la Cour, que les TraitiC-s d'extradition ne
peuvcnt jamais etrc intcrprotcs par les tribunaux, il n'cst pas acceptable (juo, devant la
justice .saisie r^gulierement, on puisse, a Icur sujct, modifier unc accusation ;

" Attendu que la Icttre do ^I. le Garde des Sceaux ne rcnferme que des instructions
donn(5cs k M. le Procureur-GL-nt'ral et ne saurait en aucune maniere emiiecher l'ex«5cution
i\'\in arret de la Chambre dcs Miscs on Accusation ;

'• Par cos motifs, diie quo tons les chefs d'accusation scront soumis au jury."

Me. Lachaud, apros avoir hi ccs conclusions, dcmande a les dcivelopper.

M. le President : JI. rAvocat-G(;neral a peut-etre aussi des requisitions a prendre.

A/, le Premier Avorat-Gc'nc'ral : En ofl'ct, nous requ(irons qu'il plaise a la Cour
disjoindre les faits relatifs aux soustractions fraudulcuses et aux d(;tournements, et
ordonner que Lamirande no sera juge que sur les faits relatifs aux faux.

Apres que Me. Lachaud a d(ivelopp(j ses conclnsions et que M. le Premier Avocat-
Gen(5ral a soutenu ses r(3quisitions, la Cour d(5libere da nouveau et rend un second arret
qui repousse les conclusions de la defense et fait droit aux requisitions du Ministere
Public.

M. le President : Ici, Messieurs les jur('s, voire rdlc va commenccr : jusqu'i^ present

ro'im n'RYCT ]>iim ru k voim pr^>crnjicr dt-s dircrn iiicidcrils (|iii oiif siirjri dniis l«'s d imts ;
il ii|>|iiirU'iiiiil •■xclusivcinciil it la ('our lien coniiiiiui' it dc Ics appn Cicr. Miiiiiloniint,
Mi'MMi'iirs. c'ot u voUK di' litVidfr sur In ^uilc dc t-cs di'-lmts, on vous rn|»;)t'liiiit i|ue,
i'<»lil'i»riiii'MruMil a rurri'f <|iu' vicnt de icudri' hi < our, voit^ ii'iivcz a ii|i))rt'i'it'r ot a jii^jrr
qui- li'H i'liarif«'K t xfhiNivciiuiit rolativos au\ criiiH- dc l.uix oin'cTiturt's du iMimiu'rce ou dr
Imiitjiic ; tMiiic- Ics iiiitit's t'tfinf ('cnrtrTS jmr rnrnt.
La fMirdlc CHt doiiiK'i; an Minist(>ri> I'uldic.

M. /<• I'rniiier Avoriit'dnU-ral : Mc^^ieii's li-s jun' •. la ffriivitt' do cetto nffiiirc. Ics
iirc<)n>l.in('cs iioii inoiiis i.'rav.s cjui s'y rattachont, ni'()blij;(.nt il invudro la paroK' pour
yous vn })n si'iilt r i'oxposi;.

Ii«iiiirnndf avail t'lo rcnvoyi^ dovniit votis jioiiv icpandro dc six chots dislinotK d'licou-
Katioii : niui'*. cDinnit' M. le Pn'-iidcnt viciil dc vdii.-t IcvpliiiiuT. ct ccia en contorniiti' dc
I'arrt't (juc la Cimr vicnt dc icntlrc, nous n'luniz a ciiiiniiilrc (pic dcs cliiU';;os (]ui kc
nittaclicnt mix I'aux. ('ci)endant, vous Ic C(ini|ircncx, Iiiin (pic vons nc sovcz paH nppclcs
u statucr Miir rcnseniMe den olinrffcs priniilivcs dc riic'cusati<ni, il est ni'cossairu (pio jc
vous I'asy.e iin expos*'! coniplct dcs faits.

M. rAvdciit (iciicinl. npics avoir fait cdmialtre qiu' la Huocursale do la Bantpio de
Fr'iiicc. a l'(piiir<. a t'tt- crcco c.i ls."is, ct (pio, d'-i ci'ttc cpoipi >, Lainirande fill dioisi
IMUir en Iciiir l;i r:us-<o, rcprodiiit, en lis di'Vi'!(>p])ant, ics tail-i indicpi.'s par I'lictc <rac "iisa-
tjon. II doir.ie dcs details sur la tenno dc la caissc coiirantc ; il dcerit la cave mi on
onicrinnit Ics c-piccs en ari;enf, los sacs qui coiitciviicnt ccs cs])eccs par sonuncs de
1,000 Inincs, lour dimension, lour t'ornie, comnio aiis-i ei'lles dcs rafoclics dans IcsipicUes
•III Ics cntas^ait (piiind on avail un envoi eonsiilt'ialile ii fairc en ardent.

Ij'oriranc du Ministore I'ublie fait connaitre ensuitc eoinniciif iiainirande a pu opercr
<ies I'raudcs eoii^idi'ralilcs tant en es))cces d'arixciit ([u'cn espi'cos <i'or, 11 simtieiit ([w. loi
fraudcs n'ont jm ( tre ojicrcos ])ar fjamirande (jue dans son burenu. on il sc troiivait
Bouvent soul ct sans eoiilrolc. En cH'ct, pour les cspcccs c:i nruenl, il n'aurait ])U fraudor
ajiios ipi'cllcs anraient etc desccndues dans la cave ])ar mus ilc I.ojki iVancs, ear il nallait
jamais soul a la cave ; il \ avail trois clefs pour I'ouvrir. ct trois eniploves de la hainpie
etaient iicccs-air. > ])our <juc rouvcrdire en fi'it i)rali(pieo. C'e>t done dans son bureau
qucJjainimnde enlevaitL'OO francs sur le sac de 1.00(» i'ranes, on ]irenant soin de iJiinimicr
la dimension iles sacs; puis, (piand cos sacs etaient de-cendus a fi cave, que les portL'> en
etaicnl fcrnu'e ;. il (k'veuait inipossil)le de dcviner de (luelic main t'lait partie la fraude.
amirandc avail f\</\ avee bcaucoiip (riiabiicte dans ccttc manici-c d'operer; il niett::it la
l)an(|iie dans I'inqiossiliilitc ile <leeouvrir le coujjabie, et s'il no sc i'lit pa.s fait connaitre
Jui-meine jjar sa fiiitc. on nc salt, a Ica^ard des especes dnrnenl renfermdcs dans la cave,
qui (m aurait ])u sunpr-onncr. Pour les cspeees d'or, dit M, I'Avocat-Gi^ncral, on sait que
c'est ))ar du jiapii'r qu'il remplaf;ait le jioids dcs pieces (pi'il enlcvait. M, rAvocat-Cieii'ral
tcrminc en va|ipv'la;it (]ue c'est pour masquer ccs sonstraetions, tant en ari^ent qu'cn or,
d<iiit le tolal sclcvc a plus de 700,000 francs, (ju'il a caniniis toui ici faux que lui impute
raccusation.

Apres I'appcl dcs tcmoins, nu nombre do neuf, raudicnco c«t reuvovte il demniii.

'iidience du 4 Di'cembrc.

L'audiencc d"liicr, qui a etc consacreo tout entiere k des incidents sur des quesiions
dc droit, dcvait jjcu intcresser Tauditoire, et iieanmoinfi I'ardour dn public nc s'est ()as
rcfroidie et la foulc n'cst pas inoins considerable aujonrd'hui pour s'assurcr des places dans
la salle des as.-isos, un peu exia;iie. Lc premier rang des baiupi.ttes de la tribune e'.evee
au-dessu-; de la porte principale, exelusivement r<5servee aux dames, est an grand eomplet.
Des places rcsei vees a droite, a gauebo ct d^riere les siejj:es de la Cour sont occui)ees par
des niasistrats, des fonctionnaircs publics et des ofliciers superieurs.

Jl est precede au reappel des tenioins, au nombre de neuf, qui scat conduits dan? la
sallc il cux destinee.

Interrogatoire dc VAccvs^.

M. le President : A quelle epoque avez-vous ete nomme caissicr dc la succnrsalc de
la banque, ^ Poitiers?

Lamhande : Dix-buit mois avant la creation dc ccttc succursale, qui a ^te cre^e en
AoiU 1858.

D. Dites-nous en qnoi consistaient vos fonctions ? — R. A rccevoir, h payer ce qu'on
appcllc la eaisse courantc. Le trop-plein dc la caissc courante allait dans la caisse
ouxiliAirc et de U dans la care.

/). Viiii.i n'.ivuz \in< srul los ili'fH ilf la cavo ct ilo la raUsc auxiliairc f— >f2. Noii,
j'avai-< uni' ilc cos t-lcf- ; K- I'iiiu tnir mail raiitn-.

/). A (|iiill(' i-iioijin' ;i\iz-\<)u. comnu'iicc ii jrcmlii' tics I'undH iliiiis U-s Mrrts (la
Ciivi') ? — /'. .If (Tdis (jin' (•'••r.l ail ((iiiimi'iici'inciii ilr l>tij.

J), II V a III all^^i tli'^ iUtduriii'iiifiits ilaiis la nii^hc coiiraiitc ; a (jtn-iio i'|)o';ni' lis
nvc/. voiis i-uiiiniiiic's,' — /'. Li- TJ Mars, isii.'i, ct j'ui I'dntimif ili|iiiis; iimin .i'<»-'i"'TaiH
fimiipiirs rciM|i!iU'cr los i:iis d'or (If la raissc couraiito, [wr iK •- .sac* d'argi'iit (iiio i'..arai«4
tail iinritT a la I'avf.

/). Mai^ riMiii)la'!'r. cc ii'i'tait pis rcstitiuT ?—>/?. .Ic Ic ^ais ; j,> n i-sji, rais \);u
ri'stilucr ; ll.ai^ jc v.i'.i! i: . ivtanlcr lo phi-* |iit>silil,. h. imnmMit "ii Je pniirrais itvc (I'liuivcrt,
I't c'o^l piitirqiioi jo c'KTohais tiniimiis a ivilir lo dfticii dans |;i cais-i.' iv.uruiili',
pouvail d'mi jimr a I'autro ("Ire vcritli'T ; taiidis (|Ui' if dt'tii'it h'cn" taut (|iii' uv.u

urn

fspj'ccs drjiiLrc's a la i-avf, jf po'.ivais o.spi'riT (pu' ma tVamli' a.irait im iIiiit;- tiiiiu Ue-
mcMit.

I) Oil a rt'iiianpti' (pu- K's sacs alleles «Ic la cave ctaiciit places mhis Ks :iali\'s.
(VIn c.>t si vrai, (lu'on a (nuive dos sacs dmit la tidlo etait poiiirio, co qui fait ^-upp •tr
(pi'ils y etaicnt depiiis liiiii;teiMps .' — 1{. .le n'avais ]ias pris celte prtcaiilii>u ; h-s ,iu's
poiirris peiiveiit Tavoir eU- en pen de temps, par -,nite de la tempir.iliire lie la cavi*.

/). Iviiiii. vtins re<''aMiai..sez (pi- (lei»uis frois ans on tiois ans et deiiii. \iuis prciiir;*.
dans los n'-erves de lu m rre, el ipic dejiuis Mars isn."; vons avez praliipi'- an-si des
de(<»nrncnioii(s dans la caii-se C'lurante? — Ii. .le le reconnais.

/). I'oiir les ronleaiix d'or, voiis pratitpiicz ainsi: vons hrisicz nn rimleaii, vraw en
onlcvic/: plusiciirs pieces d'or, et vons nniijlacii'z le jxjids do ees pieces i)ar dn paiiier.
I)c cette siirte. si I'on cut pese jes rouleaux sans les onvrir, on eiit Ironve le poids, a im
ceiilijirainme pres. Cela inditpie uiie ;j;raiide liaMtnde. ('omlden vons iailait-il de
tomjis pour all^Tcr aiusi un sac d'or conlenaiit l'O,0O0 francs t — R. A pou prrs di\
minutes.

/). Cela pnrait imi)ossible ; vous avcz du y consacrer plus dc temps ? — II. Si j'y
mc'ltais plus de dix minutes, je n'y mettais pas un <piart d'heuro.

I). Quel est le nonihre des billets de baiupic tpic vous avez detournes dans la caisse
dc service ? — /\. .Je no me rappellc pas bion si c'est 4ti.»,000 on t'^.'i.nno IVaiics.

D. .lo vais vons adres^er une (juestion tros importante, ii laipielleje vous engage i
n'ponthe avce iVancliiso. (ju'avez-vons fait des sonnncs quo vous avez emportoos avec
vous ? — Ii, .Ic les ai depensees d'abord on vovagoant. J'ai adiete des habillomentM.
En Ani;letcre, j'ai donne 7.000 francs ii un intcrprete ; puis j'ai on des dep.'nses ile vova^c
so niontant h 3,000 ou 4,0U(t francs. J'ai depense boaucoup a riondros. ]):issaiit des nuils
sans dormir, nouf units do suite. 11 m'ost impossible dc diro co (pie j'ai d. pense d'ar^enl.
pendant cc laps do temps. Dans ma traversee d'Angletorre on Anioricpie. j'ai prete
(5,000 francs a un Canadien qui rotournait dans son pays. Cette somme, il I'a roslituec a
la banqno.

.)/. /(' Pie'sidnit. — No parlous pas do co (]ui a ote rostitue. Qu'avez-voiis fait du
rcsto de cos Kw.OdO ou ts.'.jUOO francs (pie vous avoz omportcJs en partanl? — /'. A Now
York j'ai donne 101,000 francs a mesavocats.

Mc Larhmid. — (,'o no sont pas do» avocats.

M, le Pre'sidvnt. — Des avocats dc New York.

ilo. Lachaud. — II no faut pas lour donncr ce nom; cc sont des complices do vol.

M. Ir President. — Quo sont dcvonus cos 191,000 francs? — R. Ilsdevaient me garder
13">,000 i'rancs paur rC'scrvo dans le cas oil j'aurais plaido I'cxtradition, ou me los rondre ;
ils ont rendu L'5,000 francs, et lo rcste est dcmeuro entre lours mains.

D. Qu'avez-vous fait du restc dos sommes emportocs ? — R. J'ai donnij 10,000 francs
h dos feninios ; j'ai dissipe, j'ai joue, j'ai pay*' dos dettes consid(irables.

D. Qui vous a \o\6 s" — -lo no puis pas lo dire ; pour arriver aux voleurs, il faudrait
traverser dos innocents.

D Pourquoi jouer, puisquo vous avioz ii votre disposition des sommes consi-
derables?— K. On savait que jo netais pas riche; je dopensais boaucoup; j'ai jou(} pour
fairo croire que je gagnais beaucoup et quo jc trouvais dans le gain du jou do quoi
satisfairo u mes depenses.

D. Vous ditcs que vous avoz payti vos dettes, et cependant elles sont loin d'etre
<5telntes. — R. Cola est vrai ; niais si j'ai encore des dettes pour environ 30,000 francs, j'en
ai payt' pour des sommes bion plus considerables.

D. Pour couvrir vos detourncments, reconnaissez-vous avoir, depuis pros de trois ans,
fait des bordereaux de situation dc caisse inexacts ? — R. Les bordereaux ne sont pas
inexacts. Cos bordereaux devaiont servir plut6t h me perdre qu a ddguiser la verite.

D, Jc le sais; ce n'est pas la la question que je vous adresse. Je vous demande si,

Rur le VII ilo p<*« hordorpniix. on pniivftit Hftii|v;oniicr If •li'-firit dos rais^ps? — R, Non, siinii
doutc ; niiiis la hitiiulion inili(|Ui:e iIiuih iiu-s iMiniiTi'aiu M-rnit oxnctc m'H no mnnijiiait rion
dan^ lo<4 rniHS(><« I'mir nioi, Ic crinif a commence aux (If'-tuurnomontv mam iion quand
j'ai fait imps iMinlprcaiix dp sitiiaJion.

J). </iii. ppppntliint, Mcivflii'nt a iimHfiucr vos ilitoiinu'inpnlH? — li. ('cn'pst pax mon
avis, J'ajoutc (in'i'ii (lrp-.Haiit ivh luirilfrcaux <li' sitiiaticm, ji- iif prois pas avoir ci>mnii.i iin
fans ni pn «''iTi(un' df prtmnuTPP. iii pm I'pritiirf iIp Iiuikjup.

I). ('p«t la une diNCUHMon de droit qiiil laut laiMscr a vo-t dt'fenMi-urs. Appplez
iin tPMKiin.

Me. Litrhrind. — Panlfin, M. Ip IVsidpnt. Voulpz-voim niP pcnncttrp un mot f

M. Ir I'r/Miitrnl. — .Ip up crois pas (|iu' pp suit Ii- nionu'iit. llnitr*' Lapliaud.

Me. Lachaiid. — .rinsiitp, M. Ip l'n»idpiit, jp dois insistpr. I'e qiip j'ai dirp est trps-
gravp.

M le Pir'sidenl.—Yiitro plipiit a rti- interrojip Hur un fait aiKpicl il n'a pas voulii
rt'pondrp. Nous np |W)uvoiis pprinpttro a son avopat »Ip rt'iioiidrp pour liti.

Me. l.iirhiiHil. — '\i' up vi'iix pas me pliari,'pr dp ri'iimidri' |iour lui, C'p que j'ni h dire
no ppul iiiiirp ni a lui ni a porsonrip. .I'ai la UO.'.'UO iVaups (Maitrp liaphami pose dpvant
lui un iia(|Uit dans unp Piivploppp dp pnpior). Jp veux Ips domicr, Jp Ips donnp, pt en
attendant quils arrivcnt h Ipur dpstination a titrp de restitution, Jp Ips dppnse entrc lea
mains do .Nlaitre llourhcau, avoeat dc la partic civilp. (A]iplaudi.ssi'incnts dans Ip fund dc
la Hallp).

Mf. Rourlii-iiii. — .le n'ai pas qualitp pour Ips reppvoir. II faut Ics rcmettrc plutot
cntre li's mains dp M. le Dirpptpur dp la ibn(|up, qui pn donncra rp(;u.

.\fc. l.nchituil. — II n'pst pas lipsoiu de rpru.

(M. Ip Dirpctpur dp la Hantiue ouvre le pa(]UPt ct appcptp les billets de banquc qui y
Bont rpnfprnu's.i

M. Ir Pre'sidrnl, a hamirande. — II inaiiqup encore environ 120,000 francs. Qu'avcz-
Tous fait tie pptte somnic '{

Ijiinn-itudf. — .Ic no puis quo ropptor pc ([ue j'ai dpja dit : jo no puis pas le dire.

Mr. Larhaitd. .Fo dois ajoutpr (iuoi(|UPs mots j)our pxpii(|upr eetto restitution dc
llO,20i» i'ranps. On nous a dit un mot, A Maiire fippolit et ii moi. Nous avons couru
au-devant tlu vol ; on a chcrphe partout, mi?inc sur los toits. Nous avons domandu h
Lamirando s'il voulnit nous nomnipr la personno Ji lariuellp il avait contie pette sommc :
" Non ! non !" n-t-il dit, '* plutot la mort. C'ette personnc a (5te voice ellc-ineme, je no
vcux pas (lu'olle soit eonipromise,"

Alor* nous nous sonnnes attaclips a pptte mission, et nous avons rctrouvc cos
110,200 francs que jo vicns do donnor. .rajoute que Lamirando n'a jamais eu cettc
Aomme on sa possession pt (pie, s'il nous 1*.-' t iljinnii.iJo. nous nc la luiaurions pas donnec.
(Mouvcment dans rauditoirc.)

A/, le Pre'isident. — Appclez un temoin.

Audition dcs Te'moins,

Le premier temoin entendu est M. Dubois dc Jancigny, Inspccteur dc la Banquc de
France, pclui qui a accoinpagne I'ouvricr mecanicion ai)pele A Poitiers pour ouvrir
le eouipartiment supcricur de la caissu courantc, dont Lamirnnde avait cmporto la
clef.

Ce temoin confirmc tous Ics details donncs dans I'actc d'accusation sur lea contesta-
tions du detieit trouve a la suite du d^'part de Lamirande.

M. le Pre'nident. — Le bordereau quotidicn de la situation de la caissc est-il unc pidcc
obligatoirc pour lo caissier ?

Le le'inoin. — Tout ee qu'il y a de plus obligatoirc; c'est sur le vu de ces bordereaux
dcs supcursalos que la Banquc de France fixe le taux de resconipte. Le double de ce
bordereau est cousignc dans un livre de la succursale.

Me. Lachaud. — Les instructions de la Banque sont-elles les memes pour toutcs les
succursalcs, pour rctablissemcnt en double dc la situation quotidienne ?

Le le'inoin. — Les monies, depuis trois ou quatrc ans, je crois ; avant la transcription
du bordereau sur un livre reli6 n'etait pas obligatoirc, quoique dans plusieurs succursales
les directcurs rcxigeasscnt.

3/. le Pre'mlent, au temoin. — II est rcconnu, par les aveux de Lamirande, que vos
previsions etaient exactes, en ce sens que les premiers detourncments remontaient d plus
de trois ans. Maintenant, dites-nous s'il a pu consommer ces d^toumementa sans passer
dc fausses ^critures.

Le teniotn.— C'^tait one consequence nucessaire des detournements ; sans les

ait rivn

la** mon
niniit un

Appclcr.

est tri'8-

as vouhi

"ni i^ (lire
*c 4U!vnnt
ni', I't en
entrc Ico
e fond do

trc pintot

iquc qui y

Qu'ftvcz-

dire.

itution do
k'ous eourii
ikMnaude ^
te somme:
imc, ,jc nc

Irouve CCS

eu ccttc

aa donnec.

Banque de
)our ouvrir
emporte la

;s contesta-

1 unc pidcc

bordereaux
Dublc dc ce

ir toutcs lea

ranscription
succuraales

dc, que vos
aient h. plus
sans passer

: sans les

cuKsier <|iii fii II uiie luitre.

P)»t-('»' pns piir Miitc de ectti' n'spntimiMlitt'' divist'c (|iii' I'iiiirifn dircrtiMir,

hordrrcaia f»UH»eN, on se sernit a|»cr(,'n lotit de suite dun detordre dan* In eni'*«e ; on t'l^f
controls, on eut diVouu-rt la frnude, et l<nniirande iiurnit ('t»'' nrri"t«\

J). Iiittnirande |ir<'tend feci : ii dit <|u«' le>. Iionlert'iiiix dc «itinili<>n.' inin de t'liciliter
noH detouriienienls, en roiiilnienl In dei'itiiverti' plii-> fmile, cnr. iiimiti-t-il, tii rap|ir(iehiint
le» l»orderea\i\ tie I'etnt dc In eniHsc. on piunnit ««• reiulri' (•on\iitr ; un siinplf pexaye
suHiH4iit. — W. Ce niisonnenient serait in>«teHionavnil eu de* soupi nns : tnai>. les liorderenux
maMi|uant le dftieit nc pouvnimt qu'aider a In t'rnndc.

/>. lianiiramlc a*one les dt'tourncnu'iit-. eela sc continiinl, il ii'i".i pn* poursuivi sur
oes clicts. nulls il nic Us 1imi\ pour Icxiuds il c-t poiirsuixi; on cunipicr'd ^i tacticiue. — •
Ii. Dans mon opinion, K's ilcux liiits. cclni dc ih tonriu'ni'iit it nlui lir l.tiis. nc pcuvcnt
se scpnrcr; Inn est venn en aide a I'antre.

/). Kxpliqucz-nous <|n<"lle est In rcs|M)nsal»ilitf dii ciii-.,icr ct i|U!iiit i\ \^ <iiis-;c
eournnte. et <|inint a la enii'se den reserves ' R. I'oiir In cnis.c coiirnMtc, cclle ijui cs(
dnns U" linrean du enissi»T, la responsaliiliti' Ini incomlie pcrsonncllcincnl ct nniqucnicnt.
II n'en est pns ^\^' nu'-nie pour In enisse des reserves (enve oit scire) ; ici la nsponsjihilitc
sc divise entrc deux personnes. Ic dir«'ctcur dc In sneeursali' (|ui a Tunc dcs elets, ct le

lier oil

M. Jlaillv. a etc reniplaec * — R. Oui. M. !c {'resident

M. Ilaillv. ein<|nantc-dcux nns. proprictnire n Aiiifcrs. nncicn (iirceteur de la
siiceursalc de Poitii'r-. est appcic a la liarrc.

^f. le Prr'sitlrnt. — Dites ee <pie vous s;im>/.

M. Hoilhi. — Messieurs les jnrcs, ill Mars dernier, j'ni rccu I'ordre dc In nanipn' de
Franee de faire des envois a la sneenrsale dWnfjoult'nK', I'un dc l.dOO.nOt), rautre de
flOtt.OOO francs. lie jour nu-nie ji- prcvins Lamirande, mon enissier, tic faire pour lo
lendemnin IL', I'envoi »le I.OOO.OOO francs, ct dc ])rcpnrer. jMUir le Mardi l:l, eelni dc
.'iOO.OOO francs. (Vs ordres donm's, nous arrivons an .Mardi l.'K oii dans la matinee je
reeois une lettre de M. I^andiande, qui me previent qn'il a et(' oldiifc d'aller subitcnient ;\
('hatcllernnit, laissant ses elefs a M. Qnevrianx. elief de eomptaliilitc, ct le soin d'ojx'rer
I'envoi h An<!;onl<'*nie des .'U(),()00 frnnes.

lei. le temoin entrc tians les ^Ictails donnt's par I'actc d'aecu«ation siir In dccouvcrte
des fraudes opcrees snr les saes dar^i'cnl a destination dAni-oulcnu', ct. pins tard, sur les
sacs d'or. Dans les sacs darjjent ii nifin-iunit re;rulicicnicnt L'Oi) I'rnncs par sue; dans les
saes d'or. le ])oids des picees enlevccs etnil, reniplaei' par un poiils efjal dc jiji'ccs d'arj^ent
et de papier. Ces fraudes nauraient Jnninis ])n ctre conimiscs ni dans In enve. ni dans In
serrc ; ^a n du Ctre neeessairemcnt dans son bnrcnn qn'il opernit ee travail, et (|unnd les
snes etaient ainsi trnnsfornies, main pesant leur poids leijal, les -jareons ics pnitnicnt dans
la enisse o\\ dans la serre. et, une fois les portes fermees, Ijamirnnde sc tvouvail n l'al)ri,
ear des ee moment la responsnhilite etait tlivisee entrc Ini ct moi. .Innuiis j*- nai
conlie nies elcfs dc la reserve a M. Lamirande. en ipii j'avnis. dn rcsti', la plus -jraiide
confianee.

M. If Pre'sit/ent. — Ainsi. le eaissier repondait personnellement lie sa eaisse eourante,
et pour les caisscs dc reserve vous juirtape/. la rcsponsabilite nvec Ini ?

Le temoin. — Oui, Monsieur Ic President, eela est ninsi dans toiitcs les sueeursales ;
j'ai etc nioi-niOnie longtcmps enissier dune suecursnle, ct je rcpondnis dc nui eaisse
eourante.

7), Comment se fnit-il (pre Lamirnnde ait pu continucr ses detouvnemcnts pendant
plus de trois nns, ee qui est constate jiar ses aveux d'abord, et par la vctuste d'un certain
nombru de snes trouves dans la eave? — R. Le eaissier a la direction <iu nionvement dcs
fonds, Qunnd nous deseendions dans les reserves, e'est lui <pii inditpuiit dans (piejles
enscH il fallnit prendre les snes qu'on nvait a expedier ; il etnit tout nntnrel qu'il se <.>;ardi\t
d'indiquer de prendre les saes altores. II nurait fallu avoir des souptjons sur lui pour
contrecarrer ses indications.

M. le Pre'sidenl. — .Accuse, (pi'avez-vous a dire sur cettc deposition ?

Lamirande. — Uien, Monsieur le President, que dc temoigner d M. Bnilly mon j)rofond
regret dcs consequences que ma eonduite a cues pour lui.

D. Ces regrets Hont venus bien tardivcment. Le 1'3 .Mars, alors (pie vous avez si
bicn pr^pnre votre fuitc, en emportant de votrc eaisse plus de 400,000 francs, vous n'avez
ims song«i ;\ la rcspon.sabilitd- tpii allait tombcr sur lui. — 7^. .ie n'ni |)as |)VL'pan'' ma fuitc ;
je I'ai subic nvec nt/eessitt' ; il fallnit me tucr ou fair. .

D. Mais pas avee 400,000? — R. .Ic pouvais ])rendrc o,(tOO,00(l. (Mouvcmcnt dans
I'nuditoirc.)

D. Ainsi, il faut loner votre discr(itifm ? — R. .le no clicrciie pas de louanges. inais je

[G8] F

v«m dire que, dans rtxtrCnie n''ces.sit(;' oii je rnc trourais, ie no pouvais partir les mains
vidcs ; mail (\ni- >-i j 'avals rir nn volour, jaiiriiiiH jirin tout cc (|Uf je poiivais prendre.

.M. Huilly cfuitirinc i|U(' Ic- t'aiix ImnliTii.nx <li' situation dc la enisle a lui roniis
churjUf jour par Laiiiiiainlr n'oiit \ni (lu'cnlonnir >;i coiitiaiicc t-i vt-nir n\ aide a la
niiitinuatioii ilc- ilt tourin'mciit-i.

3/. (Ir (irttry, tivsurnr jidi/iur ijnwriil u I'oitirrs — .if siiis rcccvcur df la Vicnno
dcpuis 18(!.j I't I'l-nscur do la succursale dc I'oitii-i-*. ("eht vu cctto di-niirTc qmilit(^ quo
j'tti cu occasion d'avoir (lucliiucs V. lation> avcc lianiirandc. .Ic nc connnis ni sa ja-rsonnc
ni SOS antecedents.

Lo i;$ Miifs dernier, je tus appelc a la succursnle \)nr M. le Direrteur. lii on
nt'appril, (|u'a propos d'lui envoi (i':ir;:eiii a Annoulcnie. dc .">tni,(H)(» IVancs, on nvait
roconnu (jirun ;;raii(l nonilire de sacs ne coutenaient jias les S(tnnnes f|u'ils devaient
contcuir, et qui; Ic caissier Lainirande av.iit ecrit Ie niatm au directcur (pi'il etait parti
suliiteinent pour Chatellerault et avail laisse les clef's de sa eaisse a M. Qr 'sriaux, cliefde
eoniptahilile, en Ie priaiit de I'airi- i'en>"i des ")OU.(i»h» francs ."i An^:onli le. .renp:aj^cai
aussitol M. le Dirccti-nr liaillv a alter lain- sa declaration a .M. Ic I'rocuieur Imperial, on
je raeconipa!;nai. On adressa a.issi unc di'peehc a la Mancjue pour envover ini inspccfour
et un ouvrier pour ouvrir le compart iinent superieur dc lu cais.se eourantc dont liumirande
avail emporte la clef.

T.iC reste de la (lejiositinii de ee li''miiin ne rcpo->o (pie sur des t'aits deja counus.

.M. I.anil)ert. .\dniiiiistialeur de la s\iecursale, a Poitiers, ancion mugistrat, est appcle
;i la harrc.

.V. le Pivikk).l. — Deja plusieurs l(hnoins out depose des i'aits a propos dosquols vous
(tes appele a t'aire votre declaration. Nous vous en<;a!ieons a la resumor en aussi pen de
mots qu'il vous sera possilile.

Al. Lainberl. en cU'et. ne tail i|U'j contirmer ci' qui a etc dit par les j)reecdunts
temoins, taut sur le niecani-me tie la eomjttabilite de la succursnle, du niouvement des
fond.s, que sur la rcsponsaliilite inconiiiant au caissier et sur les circonstancos qui ont
Jimcne la decouverte des Iraudes.

.V. Ir Presiili'Hf. — I'ltes-vous dcpuis lonylemps admin intra tour de la succursalc ?

Lr le'inoin.— De]iuis sa creation, MoiL-ieur le I'residcnt.

M. lr Pn'.-irliiil. — .Vvc/.-vous fait (piehpiefois des verifications do la eaisse ?

Lr ti'iiiiiiit. — .laniais, M, le I'resident. excepte cello faite le \'^^ Mars, ii laquoUo j'ai
i'te appele apres la fuito de Laniiraiiile.

D. En quo! consistent les fonctions d'administratour ? — li. Uniquement a s'assurer
de la solvabilite des persoiiiies ([ui ])resentcnt des elfets a roscompte.

M. Queyriaux, ancion chef de I'omptabilite de la suocursalo, banquior a Poitiers, est
appolo.

M. le Prhideiit. — Vous etcs appcle dovant nous, monsieur, pour nous donner des
details sur la c()in])tabil;tc de la suocursalo.

M. Queyi-ianx. aiues avoir rai)pele les faits (pii ont pr(5code et suivi la fuito de
Lamirande, ajoute : Kelaiivenient a la couiptabilite voici cc qui so passait : M. Lamirande
comnie caissier, me donnait les pieces ; j'en passais les ecritures sur mos livros, et le soir
je oontrolais mon s<dde avee colui do son livro de eaisse. 11 fallait que les deux soldes
fussent d 'accord, et ils Tout toujours iito.

M. lr President. — .Mais ])our tpio le soldo do Lamirande fut d'uccord avoc lo votre
il fa'lait qu'il fut mensougcr ?

M.Quppidm: — Sans douto, mais j ignorais le mensongc.

D. Quelle otait la conduito do Tjaminuulo a Poitiers ? — K. Jo I'ignorais compl^tcment ;
ce n'est que dopuis sa fuito (pie jo snis (pi'il faisait do grandos deponsos.

D. Hoixante ii quatre-vingts luillo francs par an, dit-on 's" — R. Cost ce que j'ai entendu
dire, niais toujours dcpuis; s:i disparition.

/). Et de (juollc nature etaient ses depon.scs ?— A'. On ni'a dit qu'il jouait boaucoup.

/). Soixante tnille Iraiics on uno seule fois, dit-on. il Angoulemo ou h Angers ?

Lumirmtile. — do n'ai jiiuais etc a Augers, et mdle part, pas meme k Angoulfime, je
n'ai perdu <iO,000 francs.

Me. Ltichaud. — Pen importo. Co qui est certain, c'est que vous avez beauooup joue
et boaucoup perdu.

Ldininntde. — de I'avoue.

.M. IMareclial, commis aux ecritures a la suocursalo, est lemployo qui u oto charg^
d'acompaguer au chomin do fer I'onvoi a Angoulemo des 500,000 francs. Cost lui qui,
ou pesant les sacs, a constats quil devait mauqucr de 55,000 1\ 00,000 fruncs. 11 confirme
ces constatutions.

1m mains
ulre.

liii roinis
aide a 1a

la Vicnnc
ualit<^ <|U0
I jK'rsoiinf

ir. Til on
oil nvnit
s (U'vaicnt
rtait jiarti
ii\, clu'fdc
lonjiaf^oai
iiix'rial, oil
inspi'otcur
liUiiiiraudc

imis.

, est appcle

squt'ls vous
lussi pen de

precedents
vement dcs
cos qui ont

rsale ?

>
laqucllc j'ai

a s'assurer

Poitiers, est

donner des

la fuitc de

Lamirande,

es, et le soir

deux soldes

vec le voire,

mpl^tcment ;

j'ai eiitcndu

it beaucoup.
igers ?
ngouldme, je

Mueoup joue

» ete charg^

C'est lui qui,

11 contirme

Le nieur Snrrauh. {rar(;'on de (•ai'*s<' h l« «.ui>iir<al('. ct Barrv, concierge, ont
accompagni'' ('•yraleineiit rtuvoi des .*.Hft.(»M) franc*. 'I'lmn diMix I'dnfirnirnt Ic- faits
deolarci* par le conniiis Marc'cljal. I,«' ".jcur Snrrnull. ipii. en iiKint- tcini)* inril est :;nr(;on
de caisse, clait If ilcmiesliinii' ](art;ciilirr de Laiiiiiiiiwlr, ajnuU' (|iic. I^ Icndcinnin de f-a
fuite, entrant (ian-< ia cliaiiilire de celui-i-i, il a rein.iriiur dan^ la cliciiiiii(''e que dcs papiers
avaient »le liniii s.

M. /'■ Prr'xidrnl. — liamirandc. ([uels ('■tai<Mit cc>; [mpicrs '

Lamirinidr. — J'avais nnt'aiiti des reciis d'arireiit que j nvai^ iirete.

.\/. le I'lr'.^irlfnt. — .Ti' lie efini])rciids pus; liniler des rei;u- d'arirent pret^' ?

Loiiilrandr. — d'avais perdu c()ni])!('ti'in(til la teti-.

M. le Prisidrnt. — Pas trop: tons les preiiaralii's que mmis avez t'aits jiour voire fuitc
prouvent le contraire.

Liiwirniiilp. — .ie declare ([Ui' j'avais la l'''te perdue: tome ma conduite. apres m»
fuite, la Men ])ripnv('.

Lu parole est donnee a Me. IJoiirlieau, avncai de im IVrvnie de Franco, partie civile.

Me. linurhcdii. — de vien^ devaut vou-. pmir la Maii(|iie de France, defendre de giandH
interets. dcs inlerets nioraux et des intiTi-ts nuit''riels, auxqneU. pour ces derniers, il a ete
donne un coniinen.'einent tie reparation.

C"est une dc'ploralile liistoire iiiie celle de l.ninirande ; en lui vnus n'avez jias .'i punir
un ecart. un nionieiit d'ouliH, ni lis une lun^ui' ~iiite de nn't'.iits, une ))ersev(''rancf dans le
mal qu'on pourrait diri' inexoralile. <'1kz iiii. aiiciui renioiil-, .nncun ('clat de !u conscience
pour larreter ; en Irois ainues il a dii.-ipidi' Jjii.tinii I'rancs. el eela par des inaiuruvres
journalieres. II K's exiilique, coninient .' par la pa.s^ion dn Jen. I.e jeu n'est pas une
excuse, il ne pent etre qn'iine < Npliealiin). In i( ur airive uu jl lu' ])eiil plus eontinucr ses
detourneinenls, ct il fiiit. sans ])eiiser (juil lais-ail derrierc lui des t'ainilles desolees, celle
de son niallieureux direetenr et la sienne. 11 part ; ce nesl pas anx sjens (ju'il va faire
SOS adioux. niais il va les adrcsser k deux feuinies de celle vilie, stir lesquelles il fait
tomber la pluie di- Danae. Snivons-le un nionienl : il <jiiitte Poitiers, so rend d'abord en
Anglotorre. puis dans rAnu'ri(jno .\i)i;lai-e, an C'atiaiia. I/"i, il est Tolijet d'uno deniandc
d'e.itradilion de la part du (lonvernenieiil Fr,iiii;ais. Snrvienf nn incident. . .

M. le President: N'abordoz pas la qneslion d'extradilion ; vous connaisscz I'arret
rendu hior par la Cour.

Ale. liourbean .- Je n'en voulais dire (|ue deiix mots.

M. le Pre'sidrnt : Pas ni.''>ie deiix mots, inaitre Pourheau, venillez passer.

.\fe. Boiirlieaii . Eh bien, ne jiarlons pas de rcxlradition ; ne parlous pas non plus des
vols, des soustriclions fiaudulouses, des ilelourncinenls, el puis(|ii'il ne pent desorinais
6trc poursuivi que pour des faux en eeritiires de comnierce ou de banquc, discutons lu
que.stion do faux.

Co crime ost-il doutoux apres les e.xidications qui snnt lo r«?sultat des debats ? Nous
n'hesitons pas a declarer quo, pour nous, il no saurait faire romiire d'un doutc. II a fait
de faux etats de la situation de sa caisse; cola est constate, il Tavonc. Dans quo! but?
dans un soul but, celui de cberclior une ])rotection do scs detournemenls, dans I'alteration
de ses ecriluros. Ainsi. quand il annoneait par ses ecriturcs la presence do tant de .sacs
de 1,000 francs, alors qu"iin grand nonii)re de ces sacs ne conleiiaient ebacun quo 800
francs, no coninieltait-il pas un faux ? \'oyoz-lo dans son Imreau, soil jirelcver 2M francs
8ur des sacs do 1,000 francs, soil transronner des rouleaux d'or en rouleaux d'argont, et
faire transportor tontcs cos valours dans les caves, voila lo vol, vfiila le dotournement ;
mais apres, quo faitril ? U proud la plume el nnntionne siir son livro do caisse et sur
ses bordereaux de situation des sommos (pii n'existent plus, |)uis(|u'il les a detournoos.
Et eela ne s'appollorail pas un faux, et jiourquoi ? osl co que la Hanque do France n'est
pas une sociote eommorcialc ? ost-ce qu'eile no fail pas le commerce des valours d'or et
d'argont ? Fst-cc que Lamirande n'elail pas le coinmis dune sociele eommerciale ? A
toutes ce* questions, , v no pout repondre (jue jjftr raf^irmalive, Non, il ne pent pas etre
dit que pendant trois ans un caissier aura pu eerire un eiicaisso monsonger et en d<5ficjt, et
qu'il ne sera pas un faussaire.

Voyez quelles ont I'ti' les conscuiuonces de ces faux. A I'aido de ces faux, il a pu
faire passer de la cais.«e eouranto, dont il avail soul la resj)onsabilito, dans la caisse de la
reserve, dont la rcsponsabililo etait partagee avee lui ])ar li,' direclour, un chiHre de plus
de 200,000 francs; ot voila comment Ikl. Pailly, i'lionnele directeur. deineure moralement
responsablo do celle sommo iju'il n'a jamais rf>r;uo.

Entrant dans la question do droit. I'avocat cile un arret de cassation de 1841, qui
proclamo quo les mentions fausses faites par un coininis sur dos livros dv comnierce consti-
tuent un faux en ecriture de comnierce. Dans rospece citeo, il s'agissait d'un commis
qui, sur les livres de sou patron, avait porte conime vendues des marclmndises qu'il avait

F 2

3f>

diTolK-t'H. La C'our do Cahsation a ilwitlr qiict-i'ln const itunit iiii faux, j»ar cette considt-
ration (|ue les meiitioii.s fausso farhaiontlavrritf. it, iK- plus, |»iiuvnii'iil iutluire on errour
If nc;;(MMant sur .s4i vcritalile iiositiim i-onuiuTi-iali'. L)ans cotto ciroonstanoo, conimt' dans
rt'lle oil nous |»la<'f If diliat, If faux est un niovfU de pmtf^icr un vol oomniis ou a
L'oninicttrf.

.Ini fait niii dcnioii-^tratiou, mfssicurs, ct j";ii iiKHihi' les |)i»-Judicfs «|Uf |i(UVt'Ut
caUMcr U's lausSfs tcritiiifs fu iuatifri' df ctMuiiifiVi.'. L.iniiraiidf flait uu volour. il
fallail nfCfssaircnifiit (|u'il dfviiit luussaire. I'ar its I'mix. il a causr un triplf pri'juiliff
il la l>an<iuc', uu iiri'judicf d'aiifont d'aliord, puis uu >fCoud jjiijudioo on lui lais>aut
ij,'noifr la situation vraio dc ^a su'-i-ursak- ilf l*oilifi>. iytiorancf (|ui rfiniH-fliait do
n'paitir sfs fonds la oii ils pouvait-nt t'tre uIiU>, ( t fuliu un tioisitMUf prfjudiff, cflui-lu
caiiM- a un fUiplov«'- suporifur do la banijue, a Ihonorablo M. liaill.v, (jui, UK-nif aprrs la
pfrtf de ses foiu-tions do confiancc, restf sous le eoup de la responsaltilite morale d'une
partie des int't'aits de son oaissier infid(>le.

.I'ai terniine nia tiU'hf. \ai probite proverbialo do ee beau pays du Poitiers a leru
une < Tuelle atteinte. Pendant trois ans un iioninif a pu travaillor dans ronibie ii lui
faire eette eruelle injure ; niais, <"onunc toujoui '. il est arrive ipio la justiee, apimyce par
I'opinion publiciuo, a decouvert le eoupable, et iiujourdliui il vous est livre. A'ous le
juuerez bleu, messieurs, ear je sais (jue votrc decision sera j^uidee jtar la conscience du
juLje ft rindi<;nation du eitoyen.

L'audieiiee est renvoyee it demain dix hoiues ft demic.

Audience du 5 De'cembre,

li'audiencc est ouverte a ouzo heures, an milieu de Tenioticm suscitee jMir I'ineident
qui a amene la rcHtitution de la sonimo de nO,l'(»(» francs.

M. lo Premier Avoeat General Gast a la jwrole, et s'exprime ainsi : —

Harement, dans une atlaire criminelle, le jour de la justiee a ete plus vivement
desire, plus impatiemment attendu, (jue dans celle (jui est en ce moment soumise a voire
appreciation, Cc ii'est pas (juc cette afl'aire renfenne un de ees forfaits qui jettent dans
les i)opulations la consternation et repouvante ; mais. sans offrir cette horrible pravite,
cette cause a le triste privilejj«! d'avoir excit6 au plus liaut jwint l'indi;:;nation publi(|ue.
lliktons.nous de le dire, cette indignation honorc le cceur humain. 11 est, en ett'et, do
ces spectacles contre les«|ucls le cocur humain sc soul^ve avec vehemence. Les attentats
de Lamirandc ont sonlcve I'opinion publicjue. A I'ase ou la raison est arrivee a t«)utc
sa maturite, Larairande avait ete place dans un poste de coufianee (jui lui livrait la garde
d'inmicnses richcsses. La pntbite do sa gcstion seniblait garantie, non-seuloment par les
precautions les plus severes, niais aussi par les sentiments d'honneur et de delicatessc
qu'il avait puises dans sa respectable famille.

Qu'est-il arrive ? Lamirandc s'ost trouv«5 place, un jour, outre le desir de satisfaire
ses ignobles instincts et le devoir de respecter les tresors confies a sa garde : il est arrive
que la cupidite I'a emporte sur le devoir. Lamirandc a franchi I'abime ouvcrt devant
lui, et apr^s avoir portc une main criminelle sur le tn-sor dont il ctait le gardien, il sost
fait faussairc. Une fois engag6 dans cette voie criminelle, I'accusc y a persisto jusqu'au
moment oil ses crimes ont etc decouverts, et Lamirandc a couronne tons ses crimes par
tm crime plus enorne encore ; il a voulu s'assurer une grasse opulence sur une terre
("•trangore, pour continucr les debauches auxquelles il etait habitat.

Mais le Gouvernement a compris qu'il etait indispensable de demander rextradition
dc Lamirande. Ah ! s'il suffisait de franchir la frontioro, cc serait I'impunite sociale
accord^e aux plus grands criminels. Aussi I'extradition se propage de jour en jour.
Notre homme d'Etat le plus eminent I'a dit ; " Ti'extradition, c'est I'assurance mutuelle
contre I'ubiquitd du mal."

Vous savez cependant le scaudale (|iu a oclate sur la terre etrang^re ou lamirandc
s'etait refugi6. Vous sav»z comment, avec I'or qu'il avait vole 4 la Banque de France,
Tjaniirande a soudoye toute une legion de suppots qui se mirent k chicaner sur les condi-
tions de I'extradition. Refugio au Canada, il fut enfin livre ii la France, et aujourd'hui
Lamirande attend le juste ch&timent (ju'il a encouru. Ce n'est pas une oeuvro de
vengeance que nous voulons, c'est une ceuvrc de justice.

V'ous le savez, Lamirandc ne pent etre juge par vous que pour le crime de faux.
On vous a dit que la grjkce du repentir a sublter ent touche ce criminel ; on vous promet
que s'il est acquitte sur le chef de faux, il viendra s'olfrir en holocauste quant aux autres
liefs de I'accusation.

Suppusuns que ce ne soit pas 1,\ une strategie d'audience, suppoHons qu'il veuille
plus tard se faire juger pour les crimes de vol et d'abus de confiance, ce ne serait pas une

rnixdn noiir TnoquittiT sur la (|uestion de faux. Kn oHt't. |K)ur nou^, le criiiu- do fniix ist
til' touu- t'vidcuce.

C\>innu'iit ! il nV a jias dc crime de faux dans cottc alliiire ■' Noii-i tin caissicr qui
rdiiimcl tinis Ics jours dos soustraotions dnus su faisso. (jui viont tous les jours cortilier a
son clu't'. dans >(>-. ('•(•rituri's. ([lie tout est exact ; rai-ciiM'- taisait dan- >a cuiMM- den oiK-ra-
(ions ( riinini'lK's (jui notaii'nt pas rcproduiiis daiis ks icriluios. Lo ccriluris soul it
doivi'tit I'tro l.'i ]))iotu<;ra|)liic de la caisso. \'oila ri' ijuc dit lo lioh si'n.-;.

A Vdtn- audiciii'e d'liior, vous avez I'litiiidii ime di'iiiciii-lratio i niauistrale do I'exis-
tence dii tiui\. II v a d'aliord une eoiisidiTatioii (|iii a une vaieiir si-rifuse. Uiie jiroct'-
ilure eriininiilo. a", nut d'arriver aux assises, subit uiie double epreiive : la premiere est
(elle de riustruetion ; puis, si lo fait coiistitue un eriuie, la jiroci'tlure est soiiiuise a la
('our imiM riale, ohaud)re des nuses en accusation. Cette niarelie a eti' suivie dans latlaire
Laniirande.

Aprils avoir passe en revue toutcs les jdiases de la proei'dine, .M. i'Avocat CJeiu'ral
<'xaniine cpiels sont les caracteroa du faux, en droit, ot il applit|Ue les prineijies aux lulls
de la cause. II fait remarquer ensuite (juelie a Hi- IVnorinite du prv'Ju liii' cause a la
J?aiM|ue de France.

fjauiirande a preeipitc son pere dans le plus atlreux descspoir ; il a deshonore son
noni. Mais le eliutiment ue s'est pa.s fait ntteudre. II a ete frappe de reprobation nieine
par cette ignoble cr(5ature qu'il cntretenait. qui vivait de prostitution, et qui, en appreuanl
son arrestation, a dit : "Cet honimc n'a jms de cieiir ; je erovais )|u'il aiinait son ptirc et
sa mere : il n'aime per.sonne."

damais accuse nc s'est prescnte devant le jury avec une iwreille accumulation
d'attentats. II a accompli ses crimes avec une assurance, avec une inirepidite sans
('•gales. Son calme ne la jamais abandonne, et tout dans raHiiire demontrc la premedi-
tation de I'accHse.

Quel est done le mobile qui I'a fait agir .' C'est le mobile le plus vil, la soif des
plus basses jouissances, des plus ignoblcs voluples. Sans parlcr des plaisirs de la cliasse.
il lui fallait les emotions du jeu; il lui fallait les ratiinements de la iuxure la plus
eflrontee. A ce debauche <5m6rite, il fallait deux concubines richenient entretenues.

S'expli(|uant sur I'incidcnt rclatif a la restitution des 1 lO.l'OU francs, M. I'Avocat
General dit (ju'on a voulu faire un coup de theatre. Cette restitution, c'est le fait d'un
v(deur <iui, se sentant poursuivi, abandonne une partie de sou butin pour suuver le reste.
Lamirande a voulu se menuger des circoustances attenuanles. niais I'accuse en est
indigne, et le jury sera pour lui sans pitie ! Les crimes de Paeeuse out eu un retentisse-
ment immense ; iu ch^timent doit tomber sur lui de tout son poids. Votis assurerez a la
societe, a la conscience publiciue, la reparation (jui Icur est due.

Me. Jjachaud, avocat de Lamirande, s'exprime ainsi : —

Nous n'avons jamais meconnu au banc de la defense tout ce (jue celte affaire a de
grave. Un caissier ijui oublie son devoir, qui meconiuiit la contiance (|u'on lui accorde,
rien n'est plus grave. Nous ne serions pas digues d'etre des avoeats Fraucais si nous
n'etions pas d'accord avec les magistrats sur tout ce qui touelie a I'honneur. ;i la probile,
et ^ la loyaute. Mais pour que la justice soit juste, il faut qu'elle apprecie tout, qu'elle
pese tout avec le plus grand soin. La justice, c'est la plus grande chose du luonde, c'est
la justice dc Dieu, Mais, apr<is avoir reconnu I'enormit'.'; du crime, il taut (pie vous
connaissiez I'accusi?, sa vie, ses faiblesses, scs souttrances inouies. Si vous ue teniez pas
compte de tout cela, ce ne serait plus qu'uue justice d'indignation, dont -M. I'Avocat
G(5neral ne veut jmis plus que moi.

Le malheurcux homme que je defends a quarantc-deux ans. Dc sa fainille, je ne
veux rien dire. Qui ne salt ici que tout le in(mde plaint, estime, aime son v<in(5rable
pere que Dieu a laisse vivre trop longtemps, |iuis(|uMl assistc uu d(;shonneur de son uum .''
Je ne vous parlerai pas de aa sainte m^re et de son frerc, I'homme le plus estimable. Le
malheurcux Lamirande est devant vous sous le poids d'une accusation terrible. Qu'il
accepte cette humiliation nouvellc et que ce soit pour lui Ic plus inexpiable des malheurs.
Quand I'orage a grond^ sur cette malheureuse famille, on a ete bon pour elle ; je le dis a
la gloire de ce pays. H^las ! Lamirande n'a j)as su etre le digne enfant de ces braves
gens. Sa jeunesse a eu des entrainements, des foiies, des dC'penses, et lorsqu'en 185H on en
faisait un caissier, il devait plus de 50,000 francs. Le d(5sir d'etre utile a ce jcunc homme
faisait peut-etre commettre uiie imprudence.

Le caissier doit etre un homme aux habitudes inodestcs. vivant de peu ; c'est le
rcpresentant le plus parfait, il doit I'etre, de I'exactitudc et de la modestie. Celui-1^ qui
vcrra devant lui les triors ouverts de la Banque dc France, il luttera longtemps ; le jour
ou il succombera, vous lui direz que c'est un crimincl. Ah ! il ne fallait pas lui contier
ces tr^sors.

■. ii,

.IuH(|u'on \>*(\2 Tjamirande a •'•ti'- irri'i)r()chablo. Ses petitcs dettCH ont auffinciite. II
ne nc. donnait pas le luxo, inais liicn In lionte dc deux oonouhinos. II y en a une ijuo jc
plains; il y en a iir.i' nutic ilotit ji' in' pnrlc jjas, »t <jiU' jc lais>i' a ,M. rAvoont-CiuiuTal le
droit dc iii(']pri«i'r tout a fun ai^o. I'n j'Hir, alois <|irii ctait liarnlr do toutfs \n\rU, an
milioii de si-s ]ir('<ic<-ii|iatii>ii-, il y a ini dtlicit, il lui iiiaiKjiu- ."i.Ooit train's, (.'c n't'^t pas
boaucoii]) (inns une coiniitaliiiitc coninu! cclK' di- la Hniiijuo. Kperdi., n'osant plus
iniposer a .-.a thniillo tin sacriiici- nouviau, il a voli'-, LamnK' ('tail ouvort. Qiinnd on a
fait Ic pnniicr i)a> dans (•••ttc >oif, la porvtrsiti'- inarclu' ; \v mal nous puusso, nous
devpiioiis son osclavf. ("i-st cc (pii est arrive li co niallicaroux. Aj)ri'.s avoir comldt'- le
df'^ficit, il a ]»nyt' scn dottfs, il a jour ; il a coniptc' sur la fortunt', il a pordu, el, apres
avoir perdu lOO.ndO frniics, de fauto en t'aute. de chute en <'hute, il en est arrive a ce
d(5part .,ue vows sa\(z.

Otte terrible affaire sera jmur tout* les enissiers une grande lumiere. Lor fails vous
discnt que Ic; prmiutions de Fianiirande etaient derisoire.s. II coupait les sacs, il
chanpeait Tor en arjj;en( ; inais im pouvait verifier. 11 etait ix la discretion de la
premiere visite seiv-usc.

Vous vous rappelex, la tuite di' riamirande, aliaut. dnns le trouble de sa conscience,
dierclier un asile au Canada, tralii par tous. (.Vest une ajjonie si cruelle <|Uo je inc
dcmande s'il ne vaut pas niieux etre siir ce banc d'ignoniinie. (^uand on I'a arrele au
Canada, savez-vou- <•(• (ju'il lui re>tait ! l)ix-huit francs, a lui qui avail eniporte d'ici un
demi-niilliun. Kt (juand il a <'crit a ces luunnics, ([ue je n"api)ellerai pas, nioi. des avocats,
pour avoir une jjctiie soniuie, il n'a pas re^u de reponse.

N'olia les niiseris (|u"il a Mibies. Quand il est rcvenu en France de<j;ucnille, Tafjent
dc police a du lui prefer des veteuients pour le faire nu)nter sur le bateau qui le ramenait
en France. All I (|ueile lc(;on !

•le pounais parlor de I'incident d'hicr. Xous pourrions nous demander, nion
confrere et imii. ce (jiie luius a ra])p()rte la restitution faitc a I'audience. Si les iV'fcnsours
n'etnient pas d'lioniietes iioiis ice doiit nous ne remercions personne), il y nnrait
du danger ;i se coiuluiic cdinmc on le doit. Non, noii, M. rAvocat-Cieneral, ce n'est
pas un coup dc tliiatre (pie nous avons voulu faire. Nous avons reinis cct argent i
i'audience, parce (pi'il no nous a pas jiaru opportun de Ic faiie plut. tot. Si nous avons
restitu<'r cot argent, e'esf ]mrce que c'est nous, ct noii Lamirande, qui avons retrouve cet
argent. Qu'il iiie soit perniis do le dire a mes confreres dc ce barrcau, ce que nous
avons fait avec notre cceur et iiotre honneur, vous I'eussiez fait comme nous, niais vous
passericz bien des nuits sans soni'.iieil. Voila le fait : nioi, messieurs, je m'en honore, et
mon confrdre Lepotit s'eii honore comme moi. Nous ne sommes pas en France des
avocats Americnins.

Trois chefs d'accusation ont et^ reprochi^'s a Lamirande — vol, detourncment, et faux.
L'avocat, apn^s avoir ('-carte les doux premiers chefs, examine les caract^res juridiques
du faux.

L'Articlo 147 jiunit (pourquoi ne le dirais-jc pas? rien ne le defend, que je sache) —
I'ArticIe 147 du Code lYnal puiiit des travaux forces i temps le crime de faux. Mais oil
rencontrez-vous I'altijration de la v('rite ? Co livre de caisse est sincere ; les bordereaux
de situation comprcniunt lYtnt du capital dans toutes les caisses de la banque. Or, vous
savez qu'il y avait trois caisses. Seulement les pieces dc comptabilite servaient a faire la
declaration de situation. Quant a la comptabilite du caissier, elle a ete vraie. Mais ou
est lobligation, la dechargo ? Montrez-nioi Tengagcmcnt pour ou contre quelqu'un ?

On vous a dit (]u'il y avait la une dijchaige implicite, faisant pcser la responsabilite
sur quelqu'un qui ne devait pas lavoir. Cottc pretendue decharge dont on vous a parle
ne pcut done vous arriHer. Mais, ofi done est le prejudice ? J'en appellc a Me. Bourbcau,
qui est mon confrere, or avcc (|ui je peux me permettre plus de latitude qu'avec
M. l'Avocat-G(?n(''ral. Est-ce jmice qu'il pent y avoir un prcjjudice moral qu'on pourra
dire qu'il y a un veritable prejudice, comme I'entend la loi ? Ab ! niais, dit-on, vous
avez trompe la Banque. .le r('ponds (lu'avcc un million de plus ou de moins la Banque
n'en est pas moins riche, tant qu'clle n'est pas atteinte dans son credit. Qui, j'ai trompe
la Banque. je I'ai tfompc''e en la volant, mais non pas en faisant un faux.

La Banque do France a des comptes courants. Si le compte courant n'est pas
sincere, il pout y avoir grief, alteration de la v(5rit4. C'est \ii un faux. Mais il ne sutfit
pas d'avoir alti-ri' la verit(5 et d'avoir caus6 un pr<;judice moral. Lc mensonge (-crit ne
suffit pas. ("cla pent tHre une cscroqucrie, ce peut etre une manoeuvre frauduleuse. Eh
bien ! le livre du caissier, mon livre h moi, n'a pas ^t^ alt^re. Ce que vous attaquez,
c'est la coinptabilit(5 intcricure de la Banque. Mais le malheureux qui est la, tout
coupable qu'il soit h vos yeux, au point de rue de I4 morale n'est pourtant pas un
fauBsairc.

t.-. 11

<|ue jc
('•rill Ic
irts, ail
ot pas
it plus
1(1 on a
0, nous
nl)l(- Ic
:, apres
('• u ce

(io la

Avant tout. Ics jur(5a ont lour scrmont qui Ics lit'. II fan* iuffor cot hommi> roupahlc
do faux, si le faux a vtv (.'oiiuiiis. Hussurrz-vou^. jc iic vcuv ]>i\- I'iiupuiiitc pour eel
homnio. II lie s'tti Ira pas. il nc lo veut pas. it jo nc le vcux \fn^, nioi. \'<>il;"4 Ia
(ii'i'laratioii quo j'a reoii iiii>sioii do voiw liro an uoni do i.amirimiio, it j'oii:,Mi;o pnur lui
ma parolo : —

"Jo sous-iifjno, Surroau-Laniirando (Kriiost-<'lmrli'--('i)ii-taiit^. (h-claro solonnolloniont
quo si Io vordiot du jury <iui doit statuor sur lo-; fautos qui me »oiif n'[>''i>('lii'o';. ot c|iic jo
jirotosto n'avoir jamais on I'intontion do oonuiiotlro. »"<t lu'tiaiit', ]t' irciitonds en juioiino
manioro prolitor du lioiu'tioo du 'irait('' d'lvx tradition avvi- 1" Aii^lctorro ; (pic ic dcinando.
au contraire, dans ootte hvpothoso, a itro .ju^-'i'' par la ('our d'A^-^isc^ dc In Viciinc pour
los faits do d('"tournenionts ot do vols qui sont reloV('-; oontro ni')i p;r I'arn't do la
Chamliro des Mises on Aocusalion.

" Jv suis done pivt a mo c(mstituor prisonnior. ct jc pric nic- ditV-ii-iour-i dc (h'-poser
cetto d('olaration ontro los mains do M. lo lVocurcur-<i>'n 'mi.

'•Poitiers, 4 Dr'ceinbre, 18()0.

(Signo) •• l-'.Mii:.\Nnr. '

All! M. rAvocat-Cionc'-ral. ost-oo (|ue vous navoz pa- <'(>inpri> ma ■situation dans
ootto afliiiro .^ Nou-* ii'avons pa-^ voulu iiou^ oniIm-;(|Ucr diMTicrc i\{-- Traitt'-; d'Kxtrn-
dilion. Arrioro! arrii'-ro! nous navons pas rcoours a dv tols movon-;. ("ommc los
ma <?ist rats, nous purtons Itt robe aussi. i<a ooulour n'y fait licn, c'c^t la oonsoience qui
fait tout.

Dans tnns nmis liamirando sera ioi, ot vous !<• in:.;frcx, vou> ou d'antrcs. .lo voux
(pril ait lo iK-nofioo do sou oourau'o ; j'c voux tpiapri's lo vcrdici du jnrv il -loit liliro do par
la Ioi, mais quil soit prisonnior do par la justice ot ]:nr ^u Vdloiiti'. N'ous autro^. avocats.
nous oomprenons avant tout la inisorioorde. Lo (h'tonsonr d'uii aocusi'' lo sotitiont, le
reli'vo (levant tons; it lui parlo du romords. do Dion, do r(X])iatiiiii. Xous sonimos los
m(''docins do riinio, heuronx ot tiers do lotro. ('et homnio sera acipiiUi'. niais jnstioo sera
faito dans trois mois. .I'ai |>lai(I('' nion ^irooi's roniiiic jo I'liiU'iuK- j'ai ilit la vi'-rito.
Dans trois mois nous lie dirons pas quo la Ioi est pour nous, mais (|n'cllo est oontro nous;
nous cherclienms. sans doute, il attcndiir le jurv dans uno cortaino nu snro pour tant dc
soutlhinoos.

All! le mailieureux, si vous saviez oe <|iril a soiitlort ! Oiii, avant darrivor sur ce
bane, ii a trouvt*' liicr dans sa prison cos trois lettres (|iio ji- veux nous liro. \]\\ lisaiit ces
lignes, j'otais emu au fond do lame, et vous partauoroz mmi emotion.

Voici d'abord la lettre de la sainte ini^re de Ijamirande : —

'•Trop chcr ct malheureux enfant,

"Jo n'avais pas attendu le cri de ton occur pour to pardonnor ta faute; men ame est
reniplie pour toi d'uuo immense compassion on sonj^oant au sort que tu t'es fait et aux
souffrances que tu t'es attiroes.

" J'adresso au Ciel une ardente \mvTO pour (juc tes ju:;of. soieiii indulgent.s, et que
Dieu to pardonnc comme ta mere ta pardonno.

(Sigiie) "A. S. liA.\iiUANi>E."

Voici la lettre du vieillard a son fils : —

"Jesavais bien (jue I'heure du lepcntir viendrait avanl I'honn' do la justice, et nion
))ardon, malheureux enfant, t'(itait ac(|uis du jour oi'i tu rocunnaitrais ton errour.
J'ai soufl'ert plus que toi des mis^res qui devaient etre la suite dv ta honto ct de ta fiiite.
Je soutfrirai encore des affreuses souffrances ((ui vont t'otro imposi'es. Je no men
plaindrai pas si tu sais supporter avec (lignite ta mis(jro ct porsister dans ton rcpenlir.

" Je n'ai pas besoin de to dire (|uo nous t'aisons tons des vanix pour que tes jujiyes
soient indulgents et tf tiennent compte dune vie houora'ijlo juscjuau jour oil tu as manque
a I'honneur et a la probitc.

'• Sois repentant et Dieu te viendra en aide.

'• Ton malheureux pt^re,

(Si-n.-)

"S. Lamibande.

Lc fr^re de Laiuirande, enfiii, lui ecrit ce (lui suit : —

" Mon pauvre irm,

" Tes souffrances pa.s.stjcs, tes souffrances aujourd'lmi bien pins poiunantes encore,
remplissent iiotre ame dc piti(3 pour toi ; mais ce n'est jias a cause d'olles (|ue nous te
pardonnons. (/est A cause de ton repentir (jue nous orovons sincere ct coniplet ; c'est la
qu'est ton refuge, cost par la seulement que tu peux retiouver la paix aveo toi-menie.
C'est par la que plus tard a force de courage, de patience, ot dabnoyation, tu peux te

rcfftirc uiio diKnilr. Nous tc soutiondrons dc tout notrc pouvoir dans rapcomplissi'mont
<ic cftto u'uvrc ijui (e ^^cinit inipossilde iiujourdliui, iimis (jui nc Tost pas. Courajjc done,
notrc iifffction nc to lorn pns dol'mit. si tu as la ft'rnie volonto d'cn etrc dipno. Kile
t'aidern a rt'coiMpu'ir iiotro cstinie.

(Signe) "C IjAMiJiANnK.

" I'.S — Mntliildi- ol do moitio dans Ics wntinicntH quo ji foxprimo."

Jo no voux rion iijtnil<-r A cos loltros. Pour lo mondc linmirnnde orI mort. II sora
nil oondiinino do Cmr d'Assisos. dans trois mois ; mais. si Ics honimes sunt s('voros, Diou
sera iMiiir liii uiiMriooidioux. 11 v a dnns cos lottros quo jc lui rends t(nil iin avonir
d'aniiMH-. So- imionts vivront onoore pour lui pardonner cf poiir I'nimer. VoilA la raii«i\
" ' ninis 110 t'iiisons pas sans nooos i*o uno violntion a la

li'llCUlf

\i\ voiiir, o!lo o-^t

ncli

loi. .lo eii'i>|itc : Mv vous. Mos^ii'urs, paroo (|Uo vous ot- <lc.
eons .ioisoo, oi ipio vous no tVa|)poz (|Uo lorsqu'il faut t'rapiM;i.

do oo'ur et do

President
■s quarts

''" 1' '

oes

li'audionco est susponduo a -| licmos.

Apres (ios roi»liquos do Me. r.Vvooat-CJenoral et de Mo. f.onotit, M. K-
n'stiine les doliats ; le jury so retire ensuitc i)OUV doliborcr. Au ' nt di •
d'licuro il rapporlo un verdict affirmatit' sur les questions dc faux ot ."usnj;x
fau.sscs.

II reeonnait (pi'il existe on favour de raccusedos circonstanecs attoiiuantes.

La (Jour, apros en avoir delibero, condamnc Surcau dc Lamirande a tlix annoos dc
rcclusion.

Ijainirandc {tarait attcrc.

(Translation.)

Report of the Trial of M. Lamirande.

Annhjsis of the Decianttion of Judge Drummond, published by a Behjiaii Paper.

THIS document not having been read during the sittings of the Lamira-idv tiini
has not been published by the French papers. By printing it they would have reiidcrcd
themselves liable to prosecution for inaccuracy in the judicial reports.

"We will here recall that somewhat strange document of Judge Drumniond of
Montreal, which, in fact, sums up the whole question of the extradition.

" Indeed, in France wc should be at a loss to give a name to this document, which
corresponds neither in form nor in substance with our idea of a judicial sentence.

" In the first place, the Honourable Canadian Judge acknowledges that he has no
further orders to give, it being impossible to bring before him the accused, or rather the
petitioner, as he calls him in deferential language, he being on the high seas, carried
oif by one of the most audacious and up to this time happy enterprizes against justice
which have ever been heard of in Canada.

"Notwithstanding this somewhat candid declaration, the Honourable Judge
Drumniond launches forth into a long dissertation better suited to pleadings or polemics
than to the iuqiartiality of a judicial document.

'• What results from this harangue is the rather impassioned opinion of the Judge,
maintaining that tlio 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 tlio French Consul-General at Montreal was not qualified to demand the
extradition, not being an accredited Diplomatic Agent, as requu-ed by the Treaty of 1843.

"2. Because the original instrument 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 that at New York
the warrant was abstracted from the rest of the ])apers by one of Lamirandes advocates,
to whom this document had to be communicated).

" 3. Because the act imputed to the accused Lamirande does not contain the impu-
tation of any of the nets characterized as crimes by the English laws, and which would
authorise his extradition according to the terms of the Treaty,

'• In fact, in England, the crime of forgery only consists in the deceitful fabrication
of a document intended to be what it is not, not in the fabrication of a document intended
to be what it is ; in other and clearer terms, a lie in writing is not a forgery.

"Then Judge Drunimond recollects that he ordered the petitioner (Lamirande) to be
brought before him, and adds ; —

" ' The answer of the keeper of the prison to my writ of hnben» rorpun waw, that he
had handed over the prisoner to Edme-Justin Melin, Inspector of Police at Paris, on the
night of the 24th instant, at midniglit, by virtue of an order signed hy the Deputj-
Sheritr ujwn a d(K-ument signed by the Governor-General.

" ' It ap])ears, he contiuues, that the petitioner, tluis delivered to a French Agent of
Police, is now on his way to France, although his extradition was illegally demanded,
although he was accused of none of the crimes for which he could have been legally
delivered up, and notwithstanding that I was positively informed that his Excellency the
Governor-General had promised, as he was bound to do in honour and justice, to give
the iK'titioner an opportunity of having his petition decided by the tirst tribunal of the
land before ordering his extradition.' "

" After these imputations levelled by a magistrate against the Governor of the
country, one can undc: stand the polemical violence of the American press. It is true
that the Canadian magistrate adds, that if there is a false date in the Governor-General's
warrant, he sees therein a proof that the good faith of the Governor has been abused."

Report of the Trial of Lamirandt, taken from the " Gazette den Tribunaur," and the Journal

" Le Droit."

Court of Criminal Justice. — Assizks ok Viennk.

(Elspecially drawn up for the " Gazette dcs Tribunaux.")

*
Under the Presidency of M. Acbuoeois dk la Ville vv Bost, Judge of the Imperial

Court of Poitiers.

Sitting of December 3.

In re Lamirandc. — Fraudulent Abstra^-lion. — Embezzlement of 704,000 francs from the
Branch Bank of France at Poitiers. — Forgery in Bank Accounts.

The name of Lamirande has for some months acquired such notoriety that it is
sufficient to mention it to recall all the facts with which it is connected. Cashier at the
Branch Bank of France at Poitiers, ho disappears, leaving a considerable deficit in his
cash ; he flies, he crosses the seas ; he first takes refuge in England then in America.
French police agents follow on his track,'have him arrested, but before he is delivered up
to them, disputes arise between the different authorities of America, England, and France
upon the question of extradition, and it is only lately that they have been settled, and
that Lamirande has been handed over to the justice of his country. Such is the summary,
much abridged, of the long preliminaries of this serious affair, but which, it appears to us,
ought to be sufficient, now that it is coming to trial, to bring it to the notice of the
public.

A large concourse of people thronged the approaches to the Palace of Justice in
the hope of being present during this important trial. It could not be otherwise in the
town where the accused has been so long known, and where, whilst he acquired a position
of confidence, he was enabled to gain the esteem of a large number of its inhabitants.

The Magistrates' Bench was occupied by M. Gast, first Avocat-General. The
Procureur-G^n^ral Damay was present.

Maitre Lachaud was charged with the defence of Lamirande, who had also as
Counsel, Me. Lepetit, formerly senior advocate of the bar at Poiters.

Upon the accused being introduced into Court, a quick movement of curiosity was
apparent on all sides ; all heads were raised ; all eyes directed towards him, and a long
period elapsed before the first burst of public curiosity subsided.

Lamirande, whose carriage and demeanour announce him to be a man of superior
breeding, is of middle height ; he has brown hair, a high forehead, a pale complexion ;
his regular features announce shrewdness and vivacity. Those of the inhabitants of
Poitiers who knew him, say that they can hardly recognize him, he is so changed and
emaciated ; nevertheless, he is not depressed and he seems not to have lost any of his
energy.

After the jury had taken their places and the identity of the prisoner had 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 terms :—

" On Monday March 12, 1866, M. Bailly, Director of the Branch Bank of France at
Poitiers, informed Lamirande, cashier of the same establishment, that a million in gold
would have to be immediately forwarded to the branch at AngouMme. and that the dav

[68] Q ^

after, Tuesday, .5fK),(KM"> francs in silver would Imve to l>t' senl to tlu' s4inic |ilnce,
I^amirande made, during tlie day, the neceswiry prcimnitions lor the dJNpntili ula million
in gold. In the cvoning ho plandi'ctinely Kit liis jMt.xt, took tlio rnilway, niid niiclied
the frontier. Ilel'ore sinrliii'; he had h-ft a letter addres-id to the diieetur M. Mnilly, in
which he ot^ited that lie was unexpectedly oblii,'fd to (ro to Chatellernult, that lie had left
\m keyn with M Qmrieu.v, chief aei-ouiitaul, and ihiit lie woidd relnrn Mion eiioii;;h to
make up his cash aeeount. At the same time he had written to M. Querieiix that
being old iged to leave tor Cliatelii'rault he bi'gjjed liiiu to act as eashicr on the morrow
and to superintend the dispatch of the money liy the alli-iidaiitsof the Imiik : h<' .iddi d that
he would arrive in time to draw up the daily report. 'I'liis letter was taken liy a mi-Mii^rer
to M. Qnerieux with the keys «liicli openi'd llie lout r fotniiartiiieiits of the current ca.sh
('caisse eouiaiite'). Lamirande's sudden departure could luil at tirsl appear suspicious, for
he had takea the precaution of ti'llin;; several ])cople the falsehood that his nephew was
very ill nt Chatelleraull, and thiit the state of the child caused him jfreal anxiety. On
the IJUh of March, the employes of the hank iirocceded to remove the .'ud.iMKi francs
which had to he sent to An.ixouleme. Sacks were rcaily : they were (illcd In the nuiiiber
of "jO. by taking' from the cellars ."lOO bags of l,()Ol( francs each, and the •"<» ^aeks, which
ought each to have weished oi> kiloj^rammes, were placed upon a truck accompanied by a
clerk and an attendant, and taken to the Hureau des Messam'ries. There they were
weighed and it «as immediately I'ouiid out that inii.>t ol I hem weie under «i'ii;lit. sliowing
a deficit of about l.',0()0 francs jier sack. Tlie director wa- informt d of this; he
immediately had the wh<de taken back to the bank, opened Iho sacks, loik out the
money bags and counted them. 310 of them were found to Ik- uniformly delicienl of
200 francs, within about a tive-frauc piece.

"One of the Inspectors (ceiiseurs). M. (Jretry. and one of the Mamigi rs. M. Pavic,
were informed of this; they went down into the celliir from whieli (lie drtiiient ba^s hau
been taken, and discovered that the same dilfereiice existetl in a great many more bags
of money. They discovered, besides, that many bags which ought to have held
each 10,00(» francs in gold of 2()-franc pieces, only contained in the same bulk 'Jfranc
50 centime ])ieces. In a v.ord, it was proved by the examination which took jilace on the
13th of March and the following days, that the sums abstracted from the cellar amounted
to 219,000 francs.

" Lamirande had not however, sent to ^I. Querieux the key which opened the upper
compartment of the current cash; now, this compartment ought to liave contained a very
considerable sum. whether in notes or in gold. A workman, sent for from Paris, arrived
the next da}', together with a Baidc Inspector, and opened the comjiartment. All the
1000-franc notes had disappeared ; there only remained -100 notes of lOO-lVanes, of which
the bundle had no doubt appeared too bulky to be carried oil". It was moreover found out
that there were two bags apparently filled with gold and labelled 20,000 francs, but it
was at once perceived that the rouleaux of gold-jiieees had been replaced, at the
bottom of the bags, by paper rolls of 2-franc oO-ceutime jjioces, wrapped first in white
and then in blue paper, so as to eciualize the weight to within about a centigramme with
that of a sum of 20,000 francs in gold. An exact and minute investigation jiroved that
the embezzlements effected from the cash amounted to the sum of 48.'),000 francs.

" Hence, from the cellar and from the cash-box, in specie or in notes, a sum total of
704,000 francs had be in abstracted to the loss of the bank.

" In face of these discoveries no doubt was possible : the flight of the cashier was the
proof of his guilt.

" It was moreover manifest that the cashier alone could have jierpctiated this immense
spoliation. In the first place Lamirande had the exclusive management of the current
cash, which had been exhausted in the course of the day of JIarch 12; sci^ondly, he
alone could have effected either the abstraction from a great number of bags of silver or
the removal of the bags of gold. It was easy for him to abstract them wliils! alone in
the cellar, where he superintended the depositing and the despatching of money-, by
taking advantage of the absence of the director and employes charged with the convey-
ance of the bags.

" Lamirande's flight was suddenly precipitated by the unexpected order to send
600,000 francs to Angoulemc, for it became clear to him that the dispatch of so consi-
derable a sum trenching upon the reserves of silver deposited in the cellar would neces-
sarily include the deficient bags, and lead to the discovery of the fraud.

"Lamirande is not answerable to .justice for the enormous abstractions of which he
is guilty alone. His duties as cashier required him to remit daily to the Board a return
in which he certified to the state of the different coffers of the Bank, by showing, accord-
ing to their value, the sums and effects that were there deposited. He has committed

naml

the

tioni

the

thati

brou

and

a ddilv scries ol' for^i-rics liy annoimcinir I'ai'Ii <lny in his n'tiirii n stato ot' attkirs which
bud ci'.i'-cil to l»i' ('(irrcft (i^^il!„■ lo liis own < iiilicz/lcinciits. 'i'lw wry iIhv of hiH (le|tar-
turo lie «till Intn-niiiti (1 to lii-^ dircclor a ivuirii ol the -tali- of fiie Mani\, ocrtitiod and
sipni'd \ty liimsclf. in which lie fnlselv altostt'd that ttio sum total in \hv cotl'tTs of the
IJank aniiMiiitcd to tlic '^uin of 1 1, 1 t:^(i(in frant-*, wliilst in loalitv, throuuli his ahstrac-
tioii'^, till' amount in liand was diminiilicil h\ tlii' T'M.tKM) francs of wiiicli he hud |»ortsesscd
himself

" liainirnndc liu< ooniniittcd forfjcrios in Imtikinu' uccoiints ("tuux en rcriture de
buiKpie " . atid lie lias knowini;ly matle use of t'al>c |in|icr'< liv rctnittiiij; returuH which
concealed the fraiiiluleiit ali-.lraciiniis and eiiil)cz/,leinenls of which he i> ijuiltv.

•' CoiisKjiieiitly Laiiiiiandc is accuseil : —

" I. Of tiavin;; nt Poitiers, within less than ten venrs. tVniidulenlly nhstrueted divers
sums in ;^old or silver coin fioin the sale or cellar of the Hrancli liank of France, to the
los> of thai e-taidislinient. Of iiaviiii;- cotmnitted these frninlulent iihst ructions, under
this eircinii>ance, that he was tliun the salaried eu-hior, or servant at wages, ol the said
Bank of I'm nee.

" •_'. or liavinji- at Poitiers, within less than ten \enrs, and especially on the 12th of
March, I'^fiti. emliczzlcd or nindc awa\ with, to the prejudice of tin' Hank of France, the
proi>iieior- tlu'icof, fund.-, am! iiou- placed in tlu' current rii«li of the branch at Poitiers,
whicli had otilv liecn reniilU-d and condJcd to hint for parp isi's of deposit and demund,
on the understanding? of his ri'turniiiij, or prodiieinu'. or nmkinp; some appointed eniploy-
nient or ii^i.' of then;. 01' ha\ini; committed tlu' aliove >pccitie(l endiez/lemenls, under
thi.-. circiimslMnce, thnt he was then ca>'iicr or jiuid clerk of the said 15aiik of France.

'•or liiviMLT at Poitier-. on Murch 1.', l.'-titi. in the return sifiiicd hy hiiu, which it
was his duty ro draw up and certify each <iuy as cashier of the Crunch Hank of France
for the purpose of showinii; the ntnounl in hand al the said branch, fraudulently inserted
the false declaration that the .iinount in hand con-isied that day of 1 1 .44;i,."io(i francs
84 centime^, whilst in reality it was less by all tiie >uins abstracted «ir embezzled by him,
and of bavinj? thus fraudulently ehanj-od the dedaiatiou and facts which it was the object
of this report to receive and verify,

" 4 Of liavinaf the "^ame day, nt the same place, made use of this fictitious paper
knowini; that it was fictitious, by remitlinfj it to the Director of the Branch Bank of
France al Poitiers, in order to show the state i)f the cash at that establishment on tlie
12th of March. IftiC.

•' '>. Of having at Poitiers, within less than ten years, and anterior to the 12th of
March, 18t)(j, in several returns signed by him - which it was his duty to draw up and
certify each day a-s cashier of the Branch Bank of Fiance, in order to show the cash in
hand nt the said branch — fraudulently inserted the false declaration that the cash in hand
amounted to a sum larger than that which existed in reality ; whicli amount was less thau
the ligures recorded by all the sums abstracted or embezzled by him. and of bavins thus
fraudulently changed the declarations and facts which it was the object of this report to
receive and verify.

" (5. Of having at the same period and at the same place made use of these fictitiotiB
papers, know ing that they were fictitious, by remitting them to the Director of the Branch
Bank of France at Poitiers, in (irder to establish the state of the cash at that establish-
ment on the days indicated.

" Given at the bar of the Imperial Court of Poitiers, the 2,')rd of September, 1866.
(Signed) . '-CAMOIN DE VENCE, Avocat-Ge'ne'ral."

During the reading of the indictment, which was listened to by the audience in the
most profound silence, the accused appeared to be deeply moved ; he almost always
kept his head down, resting on his hand, frequently passing his handkerchief over his
eyes and forehead.

It ought to be stated that on the jury being empanelled, Maitre Lachaud, in the
name of Lamirande, requested that note might be taken so that his presence, and that of
the accused, at this em|)anelling should not in any way prejudice the motions in excep-
tion (" conclusions exceptionnelles '') which he might choose to submit before entering upon
the actual pre ;: odings. Note was taken of this reservation, and the President ordered
that it should mentioned in the minutes of proceedings.

The President then recapitulated to the prisoner the different heads of accusation
brought against him, to the number of six fraudulent abstractions and forgeries.

The prisoner made no observation.

Maitre Bourbeau, advocate, came forward, attended by Maitre Pinchot, attorney,
and read motions to the effect that the Bank of France should be allowed to amiear as

G 2

proHocut'.r, and t'int rcoonl should be made of their roHcrvations to fix during the course
of the dehalfs sucli daniagen as they should think fit.

'I'lir Prrsithnt. — It is for the first A vocat- General to speak.

Miiiire iMrhnml. — I'ariion me, M. le I'resideut, I rcqueiit permission to sj)eak in
order to submit the follitwiiif? motions : —

Si'i-iiig that it is I'slalilishcd as a principle that Courts of Assize are competent to
judgo Mlu'tlier the extradition of accused persons has been conducted in n regular manner,
or whellur, on the contrary, it has been the result of fraud or of vicdence ; that this principle
has been recognized by the Court of Causation, especially in its Decree of the Uth of May,
184r> ;

In point :—

Seeing that Lamirandc, <a-hier of the Branch Bank of France at Poitiers, sent by
order of Hie Court of Indictment before the (Jourt of Assize of Vienne, on several accu-
sations, took refuge in Caniida (an Knglish jmssession) ;

Tliat a demand for his extradition had been made by virtue of the Treaty concluded
between tJreat Britain and France on the 18th-21st of March, IHt.'^;

That this Treiity, which indicates the forms necessary to be observed in the two
countries in cases of exiradilion, reads tcxtually, Article I, Section 2, in so far as concerns
Great Britain : —

'• CoMse<iuen(ly, on the part of the British Government, the surrender shall be made
only on the repoit of a Judge or Mauristrate duly authorized to take cognizance of the
acts charged against the fug live in the warrant of arrest, or other judicial document like-
wise issued by a Judge or competent Magistrate in France, and likewise i-lenrly setting
forth the acts."

Seeing that it results that in order that the English Government may grant the
extradition, it is necessary before all that a competent .ludge should have declared its
legality, that consetiuenlly it is not only an administrative, but also a judicial chcision ;

Seeing that Lamirande liaving, in the first instance, been brought before M.Bri'haut,
Justice of the Peace, the latter adjudged the surrender, but that almost immediately that
deei>ion was attacked before the Superior Judge of the Queen's Bench, Mr. Drummond,
and that from that time a regular ai)peal was lodged against the decision ;

Seeing that Judge Drummond heard the cause on the 2Mh of August, inHO, that all
parties appeared through their respective representatives, that the tlemand for extradition
was su|)poited, opposed, and discussed;

That at that stage, after a long sitting, and when the trial had been accepted by all,
on the re(|ucst of M. Pomainville, counsel for the Bank of Prance, who was desirous of
making some further observations. Judge Drummond, when about to give judgment, in
consideration of the lateness of the hour (7 o'clock in the evening), postponed the
remainder of the hearing and his decision till the next day the L'oth ;

Seeing that during the evening of the 24fh of Augu.st. before the decision of the
Judge, who alone was qualified to give a definitive decision, police agents dragged l^ami-
rande foreil.dy from prison, that he was brought to France, 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, 1860;

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 either on the form of the demand, or on the main issue, in that the acts cited
constituted none of the crimes for which extradition could be granted ;

Se 'ing that at present the Court of Assize is called upon to judge whether the
extradition of Lamirande can be declared legal ;

That it is evident it could not he so, since the Judge before whom tiie case had been
duly brought by all parties, and whose duty it was to decide definitively upon it, has
declared that there was no rea>on for granting it ;

That an act of violence, for whicli England cannot fail to call her Agents to account,
ought not to prevail ever a judicial decision, and thus make force and subornation
superior to right ;

That whatever may be the faults and the crimes of which Lamirande is accused, they
can form no reason for violating the most ordinary rules of justice ; that the aim of
international Treaties of Extradition is not to give advantage to accused persons, but
above all, to respond to the highest interests of the reciprocal relations and liberty of
nations :

Seeing that it is in vain to object that Lamirande was handed over to the French
Agents of Police by virtue of an order signed on the L'3rd of August, 1866, by the

L'ludcd

Governor of C'nnada; that it reniilts from the sentence delirered by Mr. Drunimond that
the date home hy this order i;* nut the reiil one; timt it was given after the 'J trd of
August ; tliat the CSuvernur'M signature could only have l>eeii ohtained hy underhand
meanH ;

Seeing, moreover, that the very terms of tlie Treaty of li*|:^ do not permit the
Ooveriior-tJeneral to deliver up an accused person for extradition hcfore tiie judicial
decision has heen pronounced liy the proper .Iiuige ; tliat on the -ith of August the ca.so
came before Judge Drummond ; that the Rritisii (iovernnient, represented liy Mr, Kainsay,
Queen's counsel, the Bank of France, representeil by M. I'oniiiinviile, advocate, Fianii-
randc himself represented by Mr. Doulre, advocate, — were heard, and that tliey argued
the question of the legality of the extradition before thai Magistrate ;

That from that moment until after the decision of .fudge Drummond, it ^«ns impos-
sible to dispose of Lamirande without violating al once both law and justice ;

That it may please the Court, for these reasons and for others which it may think fit
to add, to pnmounce the extradition null.

And. (piite collaterally, seeing that — to suppose an impossibility — the Court sliould
declare itself incompetent to iironounce the extradition null by reason of the (li|iloinatic
character of that act, it cannot ignore the fact that the circumstances attending this
extradition may be of a nature to render it null ; that it would then have to be submitted
to the attentive examination of the two (Jovernmcnts of France and (Jreat Mritaiii, and
in that case to grunt a postponement until it shall have been decided, with all reserva-
tions, by those to whom it shall belong.

After the reading of these motions. M. (5ast, the Avocat-Gcneral, immediately
asked for permission to sjx'ak in order to oppose them : —

Gentlemen, he .said, against these motions we have to bring some interlocutory
motittns. We come forward to a>k the Court not to allow them to be argued. Tlie.se
motions do not take us by surprise. From his first examination the accused asserted that
he could not be tried in France.

The prisoner's honourable counsel had informed ns of these motions, which are like
pleadings, and the object of which is that the Court sliouhl declare itself conipitent to
judge of the legality of the extradition, and collaterally grant a postponement.

In order to discuss the comiictency of the Court in this respect, we will examine the
laws relating to extr.idition, the [towers of tiie jiniicial iiuthorily, the rights of the indi-
vidual delivered up, and the privilegis of the French (Joveniment.

Penal laws are exclusively territorial ; this principle is incontestable. Miyond the
frontiers of each State penal laws are paralyricd, and this is the principle behind \>hich
fugitive criminals shelter themselves: eonsecpiently, tliese criminals cannot crilicize the
force of the measures which have been applied to them beyond the limits of our
territory.

How could French Magistrates judge of the legality of these acts .' They could not
do it either from the point of view of French law, nor in judging of foreign laws.

There is another reason still more conciu-ive, which di>poses of the (piestion of
competency. The measures taken abroad were at the retpust of the French Govern-
ment ; ""d, moreover, culpable acts commiltetl abroad are (|uite indiHerent to us, and
they are quite beside our judgment.

Lamirande was so well aware of the indictment upon which the warrant for his
arrest was founded, that his American advocate has been accused of having stolen that
document, and he mode no protest when the warrant was served on him.

The Avocat-General asked to what rule of law could recourse be had to support the
claim to have Lamirande reconducted to the frontier.

Now we have to ask what arc the rights of the individual delivered up r lias he a
right to .say that in his person have been violated the Conventions concluded between
France and England? The motions pretend that he has; but was he a party to these
Conventions ? One or the other of these Governments can alone vindicate these rights.
As for the individual perison given up, from the moment he again sets foot in his country,
he becomes simply an accused man who has to be tried.

The Avocat-General quoted in his support Dalloz (' Traite International," page
184) ; " Decree of the Court of Cassation," 18.52 (Morin, page; 502).

But if acts committed abroad are matters of indifi'erence to French justice, it is
otherwise with the foreign Government. If in the extradition there has been fraud or
violation of territory, even a casus belli may be the result.

Let us suppose that a foreign Government had cause to complain of such a grievance,
to whom would it apply for redress ? To a Court of Assize ? Simply to ask the (juestion
is to answer it. The foreign Government will come direct to the French Govoiunient

I-

to n'-k for rcdti*-' . n-nl Iriki" luili'i' flwit tlii> is (lie mily Plainfitl" wliicli onn bf rcco^rnizctl
through ilif iiiftliiiiii of lii^ f)i|iliiiii;iiif AjiciiN, cxtrntlitidii Imvini: no kiml of rijjlit.

Yon a>.-.irt llmt tlic 'Irciitv Ii.ih Iipen violntod ; Imt fur thnt ynu must luivc tho
Tn'iil\ iiiliT|ir' ted. Clin tin- triluiniiU do ho /

Hen i.wli.ii I ititd in |);il!o/. ••'I'inil*'- Intornntiotml, " Vo. l.*;:.' - '• Tin- intorjtrptnfion
of Dip'i itntic Tronlirs is lu'voml ihc conipcti'iicv of trihuiiiils, nluthtTJiidi-irtl orndminis*
Irative, " He.

We Imvo nun (.> a«k oursclvos wluit tlip Frcncli OovcrnuM'nt will do if a claim of
Jhis ti.iinrc !•< iirclcncd. If it finds thiif (Iuti- is loiindiition I'li/ the gritvanri's, it will go
lidiiri' Cic Cniirts, nnd iir ihnMii;|i his I'Affllrnn- tlir Kt'c|icr ol tlii' Souls, " 1 niilidraw
lliitt in.in ii'nn ,\i>nr jiirisdictioti l»v riiiht of tlic law of iintions, "liich is siiju-rior to the
riplits nf individunls."

In fuel tlio Kin])ciT>r, iiosiossinj;; the riiriit of niakinir Treaties with forcinii nations,
liiis th- riyhl of doinu all that is mrossarv lor tlic execution of tliosc Treaties.

.MoiiMivrr, win ;i I he I'niieli ( loNeintiu lit has idilained a surrender, it can jjo and say
to tlie jiny, •• Viin »i!l only try the aeeii-.ed on ihir eliarj;e of lory;ery. Iiueause «e liuve
obta ried hi- '-urrender only on thai i'liar;(e."

in iiresefice ol that intervention alone justice will refrain.

]h\ if instead of holding this Ianu:nn'ie (Jovernnient is silent, if these n-rievances
appear lo it '.Nirlioiii fi)iindafii)ii, jii^tiee «ill take its conrse, 'eco'-ni/inin- hut ih.e lejjal
rides ol" positive riixnt. I'osvilile er)Tisei|uen<'es have tio inilnenee on justice. We place
tiiis p rhii|i-- rather ho;(l ojiiiroii iiinier tiie avuis ol' iloelvine ami iurispriidenee.

All individual was proseeiitod for forgery nn I the aliiluetion of a jjirl nnd.cr ajje
(IHt.>). lie \\.is delivered uji IVoni Tn-rany only for the erinie of forijery. The liaw
Oouit nf l!esaiif;()n decided tliat there was no case of roij,'ery, hut, on the other hand,
that th< re were \ery i;rave suspicions ofahduction of a minor.

The Coiiri iinlevcd that the individual ^liould he arrested only for ahdnetion. and
that he sliHiihl only he judged hy defaiill Tin I'rocurenr-Cu'neral hied an ap|)eal ajjiiinst
this decision, which was rcverseil in the Court of Cassation i'l the following terms: —

[Drrrrr, Court of Cnissation, 1845.)

THK .\v(icat-( .lernl rend that Decree and Oalloz' ohservations: —

" The indictment may he in violation of the Treaty, hut the law takes its course ;
those are ipiestions to he discusseil between Government and Oovernment."

Tliis doctrine, a little too absolute perhaps, is contested hy two decisions whicli I am
goinjr to read to y(ui ; and from which it follows that if an extradition has taken ]ilacc
without the intervention of either of the two Gevernments. the Law Courts would have
the ri^fjit of askiuii' whether the (Jovernment recnjinized that proceedinji^ and considered
it regular. That, fjentlemen, is the only reservation to be made. That according to our
opinion is the doctrine which results from the (mly two decisions which can be brought
against us. You shall judge for yourselves.

The Advocate-General then read an account of the Dcmienon trial. (DaUoz,
"Traite International," page .')97.)

Do you not see in those facts a oonllrmation of tho doctrine which we just now
explained to you. In that case the Government had certainly nothing whatever to do
with the extradition of the accused, and it was on that account that the Law Courts
appealed to the Government and asked it whetlier it recognized the measures which
had been taken.

The Avocat-General quoted a Decree of the Court of Assize of Ariege of the
17th February, 1845 (Laug6 case).

Me. Lttchaud : That is the Decree which I refe; to in my motions ; it is of the
9th May, 1845.

The Avocat-General, after having read that Decree, drew from it the same results
08 he did from the preceding document. The Sieur Lauge, ex-officiating priest,
prosecuted for attempted rape, tied for refuge into the Val d'Andorre ; he had been
arrested by a French Justice of the Peace under the authority of the Syndic of the
Republic of Andorre. Tlie Conr Royale ordered a postptmement to find out whether that
arrest was recognized by the Government, which had taken no part in it. The Comi of
Oassation, in consideration of the suzerain rights of France over the small neutral
territory of Andorre, decided that the arrest was legal.

That point settled, if, instead of remaining inactive, Government were to say to you,
wc have obtained the extradition of that man and assume the responsibility thereof, the
law must take its course and is not to ask whether the extradition proceedings were in

*'iiiir<>rniit\ with 'I'lvuli nl it caiiiiol cvin alK>u anN (U'Ikiio oii ilial ^iiltjcil. wUikU in

not within its proviiuv.

\V»' h!i\c ii'il riH'i'iM'il nn_v iii'lructinii-, to I'lil'ow the ('cniiiMl Inr thr tli'lviif*' in
it'ijuiil to lliii'f iiniiKTiiii^ I'lic'lv wliich thi'N hmr ciMimcraU'il ti> ii-^ to our i^rrai --iiiiiri^f,
ami whicli we sliiiiilil (loiil)lii.'>-< have iio (iilli('iilt,\ in aiiKWirin;; il' »iu'h vM-if otii l)U-iiu>"«.
lint for us liitTi- is >oinilhiny; that o\i'rriili> all a pi('ro;;atiM' of llu- (Joviriiiiuiit «ilh
which it is not lor lis to nicihllc.

'riio lir-l .\\ocnt-(j«'nirMi ic.ul sivi'rnl odicinl ilociiiiu'nt« provin;; thnt the I'li'iirh
Guvrrnnifiil look an activr ami inuncdiali' |iarl in o!>tainiiiL; llir I'Mrailiiion oj' l.atniramti',
nmi aiiionjx^l othcr^ a letter IVoin lii«. lAciHeiicx tl)'' Kii'|ifr ot' the S.;i!v.

In that ii'ttir, said the \\iicat-<irin nil. the part itnnnniiilralin;; the lael- i^ |(invk
volunUiiy us liir as llu* law is cotn'enieil ; hut what niiisl lie ion-iiUreil ahove all is llu'
(loveriiineiital Art clainiiiiy for the Krt'iich (iovernimiii tlu' re-|ionsil)ilitv of tlio
extraililion as n;;ainst foreij;n (Jovernnieiil-.

\\ (' >hoiihl liaAe linisheil if we were not lionml. on are, Mini of that h tier, to reiniml
voii that the Kt'eper ol' the Si als lias (h'claretl that Kaniir.imle -lioiiiil onl^ lie tried iin
tin.' rhar^re of i'orgcrv, unle.ss ho accept of lii> own free will tie- deei^inn of the jiirv on
the f]iarj;i's of liroach o' st and theit.

This would seem lis in contr.'idiclii/n \\ith ourselves, since we niaiiilaiin u lliat

the pi'i'son snrrcmkr 'xtriiditiou could have im vli:ht- whalwi r lo appeal to,

That is a form of ri'sjuct lowanl- tlii' fiirei;;n (lovernnient \\hieh oni_\ ailo\U(l the e .trii-
dilioii of the aecuscil ou llii-- cliarirc of foruerv ; hut the consent ot' the aeeu^ed may
do away with that prohihition. founded on resjiect for international ri^dit-.

The .\dvocatc-(ieiit'ral iiiiotcd the Mecrees ol I'^'il Vjnnailre decree), of 1h,*»2
(Darreau decree), and of \si\^> ( . . . decree), dei'ii'cs which decide liml niea^nre- of
extradition are heyoml ail cnntrol of the judicial authorities.

The motions are therefore not udIni^^.il»le, and it is for tiie (oiirl to declaii' its
incompetency, a; d to order that no further proceedings he laki'ii thereon.

The Presidint . Afaitre Fiachaud, il is for you to speak,

Mr. Lilt baud: fJentlemen of the Court, the motions ^vhi(■h I have drawn n|> are
not ilie work of Laiuirande, they are tin' work of his ('oiin^el. Ili> Counsel decided
to submit them to you, because they thoimht that lhoii;j;h the defendant may be
unworthy, thoufjjh his crime may be odious, yet that behiiul him I here is t!ie law. Now,
when the law is scandaloUHly violated I have the ri;ilit to complain and I do complain.
The man whom I come here to defend has been stolen from l'jii;land.

Till- Pirsldeni : Maitre Ijaehaud. I cannot let that word pass. Yoii an ariruini;. not
for the jury, l)ut for the Coiut, and upon the tpiestion of comiieteiicy onlv I'ieaM.' to
recollect this.

Mc. Lachitud : T liavo not forj^otten it, Af. ie President. I said liiat llii- man hnJ
been stolen from Kngland because T have there a document which pro\e;; it. a iKi'i>ion of
an Eii;;li>h Judiije, which 1 will not road out oi" deference to the (.'ourt, but wiiich never-
theless exists, and proves to mc as it will do to all when it heeomes known, the truth of
what I have advanced, I shall say no more on this point, and I hasten to aiiswiT the
Av<ieat-(Jen(!Tal.

The Counsel for the defence then read various Decrees ol' Cassatimi. which, refuting
these pointed out by the Avocat-(jleneral, lay down the principle, he said, that the
accused always has the right of taking exceptions before the Court of Assize, 'i'hose
decrees, added the Counsel, are corroborated by the ojiinion of M, laustin llelie, who
thinks that the exceptions may have regard either to the legality of the Act of ICxtradi-
tion, or to the restrictive conditions of the 'i'reatv which binds the two (Jovermneiits.

M. Faustin Helie maintained that in this matter, the Court of As-ize has a
discretionary power: he acknowledges completely my right of olijectioii. Only as he
foresees that there may possibly be grounds for diploniatic discu.ssion, he says that in
certain cases it maybe necessary to suspend the proceedings. And since .M. Faustin
Helie never touches on a subject without exhausting it, he adds that in granting the right
of objection, the exception taken must be important, and of sucrh a nature as lo suspend
judgment on the main points,

T am afraid that Lamirande is only h)oked ui)on as tlie criminal, as a nini who
inspires little sympathy. What has the individual to do with the iiuestion .'' Forget tlie
man ; instead of a crime of cupidity, to-morrow you may Jiave to try a crime of passion,
and the position of the Avoeat-General 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 neif;libouring people, a great people, are at
thiH motiH-nt wci^'liing our wor(l> ; they Hhouid not find thcrn falling ahort of that respect
with which they are nccustonied to Kurround those two grand bases of society, the liberty
of all and the lav for all. I persist in my motions.

Miiitre IJourbeou, Advocate for the prosecution, declares that he took the side of the
Jjaw Ofticers, and rejects the motions with regard to annulling the extradition and with
regard to the adjournment of the trial.

Maitre Le])ctit, one of the Counsel for the defence, replied, and in a warm and
animated argunicnt grounded on the opinion of MM. Dalloz and Faustin Hdlic, and on
the doctrine of the Dccreo of the Court of Cassation of 1845, maintained that the Court
of Assize is comiietent to entertain the exception as regards the nullity of the extradition,
not in the sense that the l.nw 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 the law has been imposed upon.

The Court retired into the Council Chamber, to deliberate on the point.

At half-past 3 the sitting was resumed.

The President pronounced the decision, couched in the following terms :

" Seeing that by a Decree of the Imperial Court of Poitiers, Chamber of Indictments,
dated the ^t^tli May, 18GG, the 8ieur Surreau, called Ijamirande, has been sent before the
Viennc Court of Assize, under the triple accusation of aggravated theft, aggravated
breach of trust, ,r. " ".>rgery in commercial or in banking accounts ;

"Seeing tL:i "t .consequence of the said decree, an indictment has been drawn up
by the Procureui- .neral, dated September 23, 186G;

" Seeing that those \wo documents have been communicated to the accused by the
summons of the 24th of September, and that on the 24th of the same month the said
accused was examined by the President of Assize, in conformity with the Articles 293,
294, 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 the
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 case until a decision
be come to by the 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
especially from the ministerial despatch of the 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 accounts, was placed by the Government
of Canada, where he bad fled for refuge, at the disposal of the French authorities ;

" Seeing that immediately after the extradition had taken place, the Imperial
Government itself delivered the accused into the hands of justice, in order that he might
answer before a competent tribunal for the crimes of forgery in commercial or in banking
accounts, the crimes upon which the demand for his extradition were founded ;

" Seeing, that in the matter of law, Treaties of Extradition are high administrative
acts agreed upon between two Powers in the general interest of morality and social
security, that the forms and couditions thereof are regulated not for the advantage of the
persons accused, who cannot by taking refuge abroad obtain impunity for themselves from
the law of their own country, but by the consideration of the international requirements or
of the mutual observances of the Governments ;

" Seeing that the fundamental principle of the separation of authorities is opposed
to the possibility of the French Courts of Law interfering in regard to the interpretation
and the application of the acts of the Government which gives up the accused to their
jurisdiction ;

" Seeing that by the 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 the subject of any appeal ;

" For these reasons, the Court rejects the motions, both principal and collateral,
drawn up by Lamirande's Counsel, and decrees that the trial be proceeded with."

The Pretident. — Prisoner, you have heard what has been said. You need only
answer as to the facts relating to the forgeries. Are you willing to answer to all the
oUier charges recorded in the indictment ?

Lamirande. — I am ready to answer as to all the facts.

Me. Lachaud, — 1 cannot allow my client to commit himself on that ground. I

4»

maintain that the letter of the Keeper of the Seals could only cause l,aniiran»lc to he sent
before the assizes for the crime of forgery. No one can have a rijj;ht, the Keejier of the
Seals no more than anybody else, to violate the law.

The President. — It is for that reason that 1 consulted T^mirande, leaving him his
full liberty of action.

Me. Lttchand. — 1 persist in my protest, M. le President, and, if necessary, I will
make some very jirecise motions in order to define it dearly, linnurande does not
understand the consequences of his acquiescence ; it is the b\isiiiess of his Counsel to
make him understand them. I ask only for a delay of five or six minutes iu order to
draw up ray motions.

Me. LepetU. — 1 entirely concur in and adopt the observations of Maitrc Lachaud,
and I unite with him in asking for time to write out our motions.

.\fter being suspended for a few minutes, the sitting was resumed.

The President. — Prisoner liamiranue, I rei)eat what I have already asked you, do
you consent to be tried on all tin- chariies brought against you.'

Litiiilvundv. — I have nether to consent nor not to consent.

Me. Lachaud. — Here are the motions, which I submit in Lamirande's name : —

" Seeing, that Lamirande has been remitted to the Viennc Court ol Assize for trial
on the triple charge of embezzlement, of aggravated theft, and of forgery in commercial
or in banking accounts ;

" That the Decree has been communicated to him, and that he ajipears before the
jury on that triple charge ;

" Seeing that it cannot be in the power of any one to divide or to sujjpress a part of
these several counts of indictment ;

" That Lamirande has not either to consent or not to consent to be tried for the
crimes brought against him of breach of trust and aggravated theft, liut that it concerns
him that the jury should be called on to settle the whole charge ;

"That if it is true, as has just been laid down by the Court, that Treaties of Kxtradi-
tion can never be interpreted by Courts of law, it is inadmissible thai there should be. on
their account, the power of modifying a charge before the Court of Law where the case
has been regularly brought ;

"Seeing that the letter of the Kee])er of the Seals contain> < iily the instructions
given to the Attorney-General, and could not in any way impede tlie carrying out of a
decree of the Chamber of Indictments ;

" For these reasons that it be ruled that all the courts of the indiofment be submitted
to the jury."

Maitrc Lachaud, after having read these motions asked leave to argue them.

The President: The Avocat-G^neral, perhaps, has also .some rctiuisiiions to make?

The First Avoeat-Gene'ral : In fact, we require that the Court may be pleased to
separate the facts relating to the fraudulent abstractions, and to tlie embezzlements, and
to order that Lamirande shall only be tried on the facts relating to the forgeries.

After Maitre Lachaud had argued his motions, and the iirst Advocate-General had
maintained his requisitions, the Court deliberated again and pa4i>ed a second decree
which rejected the motions of the defence, and decided in favour of the retjuisitions of the
Law Officers.

The President : Here, gentlemen of the jury, your part begins, hitherto you have
had nothing to do with the various points which have arisen during the discussions ; they
were within the exclusive cognizance of the Court. Now, gentlemen, it is for you to
decide on the rest of the arguments, bearing in mind that in conformity w ith the decree
which the Court has just passed, you have but to consider and determine, exclusively,
the charges relating to the crime of forgery in commercial or in banking accounts : all
the other charges having been set aside by the decree.

It is the Law Officers' turn to speak.

The First Arocat-Ge'n^ral : Gentlemen of the Jury — the importance of this matter,
and the circumstances no less important which are connected with it, make it necessary
for me to address you in order to explain how the case stands.

Lamirande haJ been sent before you to answer six distinct counts of indictment ;
L.U .... i.: President has just explained to you, and that iu conformity with the decree just
pa.ssed by the Court, you will only have to take cognizance of charges relating to the
forgerios. You understand, nevertheless, though you may not be called upon to decide
on the whole of the original charges of the indictment, that I must give you a couiplc^*;
statement of the facts.

The Avocat-General, after having explained that the branch of the Uank of Kranee
at Poitiers was founded in IS.'iS, and that from that time Lamirande was appointed ca^ll-

[68] II

keeper, rejtroiliiced. with remnrkH thereon, the lhetf< alleged in the indictment. He gave
some (letiiils rc^ix-cting tlic way in wliieli the eiirrent eiish lU'cuimt was kept ; lie ileserihed
the eclliii- wliere the s-iiver >)Kcie hum locked up, the \nvj:s which contained t!iis specie in
sums of l,ftOO i'lancs, their size and shape, us well as tho . of the sacks in which they
were stowed wiicn a lari':c remittance of silver had to be made.

The Counsel for tlie prosecution explained al'terwurd^ h.nv fiamiiunde was able to
purloin considerable amounts of silver as well as of irold specie, lie maintained that the
purloining could only have been eU'ecled liv I^mirande in his own ollice, where he often
found himself alone and witlmut control. In fact, that he c(mld not have purloined any
of the silver specie after it had been taken down into the cellar in ba^s of 1,000 francs,
us he never went alone into thi; cellar ; there were three keys to open it, and three
employes of the bank were necessary to effect the opening. It wus, then, in his own office
that liamirande abstracted 200 francs out of each 1,000 francs bag, taking care to reduce
the size of the bags; afterwards, when these bags had been taken down into the cellar,
and the doors were .shut, it became impossible to guess by whose hands the fraud had
been committed. Ijamirunde acted with great skill in thus conducting his operations ; he
made it impossible for the bank to discover the guilty party ; and if he had not discovered
himself by his flight, no one knows who might iiave been suspected in regard to the silver
specie locked up in the cellar.

With regard to the gold specie, said the Avocat-CJeneral, it is known that he
replaced by paper the weight of the coin which he abstracted. The Avocat-General
finished by recalling to mind that it was to conceal these defalcations, both in silver and
gold, the total of which amounted to more than 700,000 francs, that he committed all the
forgeries which the indictment imputed to him.

After calling over the witnesses, to the number of nine, the sitting was adjourned to
the next day.

!<{lting of 4th December,

Yesterday's sitting, which was cntirelv occupied by points affecting questions of law,
could but little interest the audience; nevertheless the public excitement had not subsided,
and the crowd to-day, desirous of securing places in the Hall of the Assizes — a rather
small one — wus not less considerable, 'i'lie first row of seats in the gtdlery over the
principal entrance, reserved exclusively for the use ol' ladies, was quite full. Reserved
places on the right, on the left, and behind the seats of the Court, were occupied by magis«
trates, public functionaries, and officers of rtiuk.

Proceedings were commenced by calliig over the names of the witnesses, nine in
number, who were conducted to the room set apart for them.

Examitiation of the Accused.

-At what date were you appointed cashier of the Branch Bank at

branch, which was

The President.
Poitiers ?

Lamirande. — Eighteen months before the creation of that
establisiied in August 1858.

Q. Tell us in what your functions consisted. — A. To receive into and to pay out of
what is culled the current cash ; the surplus of the current cash went to the auxiliary
chest, and thence to the cellars.

Q. You were not the only person who held the keys of the cellars and the auxiliary
chest i—A. No ; 1 had one of the keys, the director had the other.

Q. When did you begin to abstract funds from the safes (the cellar) .' — A. I think it
was at the beginning of 18G2.

Q. There were also defalcations in the current cash ; when did you begin them ? —
A. On the 1 2th of March. 180.'), and I have carried them on since; but 1 was always
hoping to substitute for the bags of gold of the current cash, bugs of silvei-, which I should
have had taken to the cellar.

Q. But to substitute is not to restore ? — A. I know that ; I had no hope of restoring,
but I wished to delay as much as possible the moment when I could be found out, and
that is why I was always endeavouring to cover the deficit ii^ the current cash, which
might be checked any day, whilst so long us the deficit only existed in the specie deposited
in the cellar I could hope that my deception might last for ever.

Q. It has been remarked that the bags in the cellar which had been tampered with
were placed under the others; that is quite certain, for bags were found with the stuff
rotted, which leads to the supposition that they had been there a long time? — .-1. I
did not take that prcoaution; the rotten bags may have become so in a short time on
account of the temperature of the cellar.

Q. In short, you acknowledge that for the past tlirec years or tlirce years and si-half
on used to take from tin reserves in the ?iift'. and tliat sinee Mureh, 1805, you have also
eniliezzlcd fioiii tlie ciirroiit (■a>l)? .1. I neknowledee it.

Q. With icirard Id tin- roideauv of gold, yoii went to work in this manner: you
0])en('d a rouleau, you took out several jiieces of •;oid, and vou replaced the weight of
chese piiccs hy papor in .ie.eh a way that it these rouleaux had heen vvciuiiod without In ins;
opened, (tic wi'iirht would l.ave Itu'ii found correct within aln^ut a ci-ntimiunnie. 'I'liat
Hhows loiiif practice, liu'v much tiuie did you rctjuire to tampe,' in tiiis way with a has;
of ?oId contiiiniii^- 'M,UOO IVancs .' — .(. Ahont ten ndnutcs.

Q. '\".'.:\\ apj)eais impossihlc. yon must surely have d', voted niore lime to it .' — A. If I
took nioic (hail ten minutes, I did not take a quarter of an hour.

Q. What numher of Iiauk notes did you iibstraet from the ciish in use .' — A. 1
do nut (•!e;r.l\- renuiuher whether it was -l'i'>,()()0 or 4Hy,()0U fniiics.

Q. 1 am ahout to ask you a very important (jnestion which I hej; you to answer
frankly. V.'liat have you done with the suuis of money you eariicd oi!" witli you .' — A. I
spent liiem first of all in travellirii:. I houijht some clotiies. In England I save au interpri ter
7,000 francs. Then 1 liad ti-aveiiin;,' expenses umountini^ lo .'-i.UdO or 4,t)0(' francs. 1
spent u i;rcat deal in London, passin:; wlioie nights wilhuut sleep, nine nights running. It
is impossihle for nw to say how much money 1 spent ilurinLT that pciod. On my passage
Jrom luigland to America I lent (i. ()()() tVanes to a Canidian who was ^oiuL: liome. Tiiis
sum he lias restored to the himk.

T/ir Pri'^'idiT.I. — Let us not

-pel

di of what has heen restored. What have vou done

with the remainder of the 4*l'),()()(l or 4S"),00(l francs you tooli with you on your departure!
— A. 1 gave ly 1,000 liarics to my lawyers iit New York.

Ml'. Lachauil. — Those fellows are not lawyers.

The Pregident. — New York 1 .wycrs.

Ml'. Luchiniil. — 'I'hey do no not deserve the name. They are complices in the
robbery.

Till' Presiclevf. — What has become of those 191,000 francs ? A. They wer<? to keej)
135,000 trancs as reserve for me, in case I had put in the plea of extradition, or to return
them to me. They have returned 25,000 Iranes and tlie rest has remained in their hands.

Q. \\ hat have you done with the remainder of the sums carried oil ? — A. I spent
10,000 francs among women. I squandered, I gambled, I paid heavy debts.

Q. Who robbed you? — A. I cannot say. The thieves could not be not at without
affecting innocent persons.

Q. Why gamble, since you had large sums of money at your disposal ? — A, It was
known that I was not rich. I had large expenses. I gambled in order to induce the
belief that I was winning a great deal, and that I found in my gains at play the means of
meeting my expenses.

Q. Y"ou say that you paid your debts, and yet that they are far from being got rid of?
— A. That is true; but if there still remain debts amouuting to about 30,000 francs, I
have paid aw ay on this account sums of nmch greater amount.

Q. Do you acknowledge that for nearly three years, with the object of concealing
your defalcations, }ou have falsified the bank returns? — ^-1. The returns are not incorrect.
These returns would rather serve to ruin me than to disguise the truth.

Q. I uuow that ; hut it is not the (|uestion I put to you. I ask you whether on
inspection of those returns, the cash deficit could he suspected ? — A. Certaiidy not. But
the state of affairs shown m my returns would be correct were nothing mis-liig I'rom the
coffers. My crime connncneed with the defalcatioiis, hut not when I drew out my
returns.

Q. But which, nevertheless, served to conceal your embezzlements ? — A. That is
not my opinion. I add that, in making up these returns, I do not consider that i
committed forgery either in commercial or in banking accounts.

President. — That is a question of law which you must leave to your Coimsel. Call a
witness.

Me. Lachaud. — I beg your pardon, M. le President. Will you allow me to say a word.

President, — I do not think this is the right time. Me. I^chaud.

Me. Lachaud. — I insist, M. le President; it is my duty to insist. What I have to
say is very important.

President. — Your client has been examined on a point to which he would not reply.
We cannot allow his advocate to reply for him.

Me. Liichinid. — I do not wish to undertake to reply for him. What I have to say
can do no harm to him or any one else. I have here 1 10,200 francs (Me. Lachaud placed
before him a packet in a paper envelope). I wisli to give them up. I do give them up,

U 2

t'l

nnd until they can reach their destination by way of restitution, T place them in the hands
of Ml*. Bourbeau, toutisol for tlic prosecution. (A|>]>lansc in tlip hotly of the hall.)

Me. limirbenu. — I am not ('iii|)owered to receive tiu-m. 'J'liey had better lie placed in
tlic hands of the Director of the Bank, who will i^ivc a receipt for them.

Mr. Larliaiul.— There is no need of a receipt.

(The Director of the Bank opened the parcel and took ihurge of the hank notes
inclosed in it.)

The Presidenl to Laniirande. — There is still missing about I'iO.OOO trancs. What
have you done with that sum .'

Lumirundc . — I can only give the same answer as belore ; I cannot say.

Mc. Lacl'turl. — 1 should add a few words in explanation of this restitution of
110,200 fnuics. A hint was given us, to Me. Lepetit and to myself. We followed up
the tracks of the robbery. Every plate was searched, even the housetops. We asked
lamirande if he would give us the name of the woman to whom he had entrusted this
sum : " No, no," said he, " I will 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 1 10,200 francs which
I have just given up. I must add that Lumirande never had tliis sum in his posses-
sion ; and that if he had asked us for it, we should not have given it to him. (Sensation in
Court.)

The President. — Call a witness.

Examination of Witnessen.

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 Return showing the
state of the cash ?

Witness. — Nothing is more obligatory ; it is by these branch Returns that the Bank
of France fixes the rate of discount. The duplicate of this Return is entered in a book
kept at the Branch Bank.

Maitre 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 same for the last three or four years ; formerly
copying the Return into a bound book was not obligatory, although it was required by the
directors in several branches.

T^te President to the Witness. — It is shown by the confessions of Lamirande that your
anticipations were well founded, inasmuch as the first embezzlements go back for more
than three years. Now tell us whether he could have effected these embezzlements
without rendering false accounts.

Witness. — It was the necessary consequence of the embezzlements; without the
falsified Returns in would soon have been 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.

Q. Lamirande pretends that the daily Returns, far from facilitating his embezzlements,
made discovery more easy ; for, he adds, by comparing the Returns with the state of the
cash, an account might have been taken — simply weighing the money would have been
sufficient. — A. This argument would be valid if suspicion had been entertained ; but the
Returns by concealing the defiicit, could not but aid the deception.

Q. Lamirande acknowledges the embezzlements — his reason is apparent ; he is not
prosecuted upon those counts, but he denies the forgery for which he is prosecuted — his
tactics are understood. — A. In my opinion the two facts, that of embezzlement and that of
forgery, cannot be separated ; the one came to the assistance of the oth r.

Q. Explain to us the nature of the responsibility of the cashier, both as regards the
current cash and as regards the money in reserve. — A. With regard to the current cash,
which is in the cashier's office, 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 respon-
sibility is divided between two persons, the director of the branch, who has one key, and
the cashier, who has another.

Q. Is it not in consequence of that divided responsibility that the late Director,
M. Bailly has been replaced ? — A. Yes, M. le President.

M. Itailly, who hn.s been for fifty-two years ft landowner at Angers, late Director of
the Branoli Bank of Poitiers, was railed to the bar.

The President. — Tell us what you know.

A/. Bnilli). — Gentlemen of the Jury, on the 11th of March last, I received an order
from the Bank of France to dispatch to the AngoulCme Branch, tirst 1,000,000 and then
500,000 francs. The same day I gave directions to Lamirandc, my cashier, to dispatiih
on the next day, the 12th, the 1,000,000 francs, and to make preparation for the dispatch
of the 500,000 francs on the 13th of March. The issue of these orders brin^ us to the
13th of March, on the morning of which day I received a letter from M. Lamirande,
informing me that ho had been suddenly obliged to go to Ch&tellcrault, leaving to
M. Queyriaux, Chief- Accountant, his keys, and the duty of dispatching tiie 500,000 francs
to AnKouleme.

Here the witness entered into the details given in the indictment, of the discovery of
the frauds perpetrated in the bags of silver destined for Angouli'ine, and, at a latter period,
in tiie hiigs of gold. In the bags of silver 200 francs were uniformly missing per bug ; in
the bass of gold, the weight of the abstracted coin was replaced by iin ecjual weight ul
siivei- coin and paper. These frauds could never have been committed either in the cellar
or in the safe ; it must necessarily have been in his office that this operation was i)crformc(l
and when the bags were thus altered, but weighing their proper weight, the attendants
carried them into the cellar or to the safe, and the doors once closed Lamirande 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, 1 had the greatest
confidence.

The President. — The cashier then was personally responsible for his current cash ; and
as regards the reserves you shared the responsibility with him ?

The Witness. — Yes, M. le PnJsident, this is the case in all the Branch Banks. I was
myself for a long while cashier in a branch, and was responsible for my current cash.

Q. How is it that Lamirande was able to continue his embezzlements for more than
three years, which is proved in the first instance by his confessions, and secondly by a
certain number of the bags found in the cellar being so old ? — A. 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 President. — Prisoner, 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.

Q. These regrets have come very late. When on the 13th of March you had so well
prepared your flight, you did not think of the responsibility which would fall upon him by
your carrying off more than 400,000 francs from your cash ? — A. I did not prepare for
my flight, I yielded through necessity ; I had the choice of suicide or flight.

Q. But not with 400,000 francs?—^. I [might have taken 5,000,000. (Sen-
sation.)

Q. So your discretion is to be praised then ? — A, I 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
hands ; but that if I had been a thief, I should have taken all that I could lay hands on.

M. Bailly gave evidence in confirmation that the falsified returns of the state of the
cash delivered to him each day by Lamirande, could not but lull him to confidence and
aid in the continuance of the embezzlement.

M. de Or^try, Treasurer and Paymaster-General at Poitiers. — I have been receiver at
Vienne since 1865, and inspector (" censeur ") of the branch bank of Poitiers. It is in
this latter character that I have had occasion to have some relations with Lamirande. I
do not know him personally, nor am I aware of his 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 dispatch of 500,000 francs in silver to Angouleme it had been
discovered 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 the director to say
that he had left suddenly for Ch&tellerault, and had left the keys of the cash witii
M. Queyriaux, chief accountant, at the same time begging him to tuidertakc the dispatch
of the 500,000 francs to AngoulSme. 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 bank requesting them to send an inspector and a workman to open the upper com-
partment of the current cash, the key of which Lamirande had carried ofi*.

The remainder of this witness's deposition only refers to what is already known.

M. I,aml)ert, ninnaser (" administmteiir ") of the branch at Poitiers, formerly a
matri^trntr, wns called to the bar.

The I'lmideiit. — Several witnesses have alrctidy deposed to the facts of which yoii arc
called to make your declaration. We request you to sum it up in as few words as
possible.

M. Lambert, in fact, only confirmed what bad been said by the previous witnesses, as
well upon the working of the acroimts 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 Prrnidrnt. — Have you been long manaper.of the branch?

The IVilnrsii. — Since its formation, M. Ic President.

The President. — I lave you sometimes veritied the cash ?

Tlie M7'/iM«.— Never, M. le President, except on the 13th of March, when I was called
upon to do so aftor the fliijlit of Lamirande.

Q. What arc the duties of the manager? — A. Solely to assure himself of the
solvency of persons who present bills for discount.

M. Queyriaux, late chief accountant of tlic branch, banker at Poitiers, was called.

The President. — You are called before us, Sir, to give us some information on the
management of the accounts of the branch.

Al. Queyriaux, after having referred to the facts which preceded and followed the
flight of Lamirande, added : \Vith regard to the accounts this was the arrangement :
M. Lamirande, as cashier, gave me the papers ; 1 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 balances should agree, and they always did so.

The President. — But in order that Lamirande's balance should correspond with yours,
it must necessarily have been false.

M. Queyriaux. — Doubtless, but I was not aware of the falsity.

Q. How did Lamirande conduct himself at Poitiers ? — A. I was perfectly ignorant on
the subject. It is only since his flight that I have become aware that he spent a great deal
of money.

Q. It is said from 60,000 to 80,000 francs a-year ?— .(4. That is what I have heard said,
but only since his disappearance.

Q. And of what nature was his expenditure 1^—A. 1 have been told that he gambled
away a great deal.

Q. Sixty thousand francs, it is stated, at one time, either at Angoul^me or at
Angers ?

Lamirande. — I have never been at Angers ; and nowhere, not even at Angouleme,
did I ever lose 60,000 francs.

Me. Lachaud. — It matters little. What is certain is, that you have 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 dispafched to Angouleme. and who, on weighing the bags, found out that
from 55,000 to 60,000 francs must be missing, conflrmed these facts.

M. Sarrault, attendant in the cash department of the Branch Bank, and Barry, the
doorkeeper, likewise went with the 500,000 francs. Both confirmed the facts stated by
the clerk Mareehal. 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. — T had destroyed acknowledgments for money which I had lent.

The President. — I do not understand ; what I bum acknowledgments for money lent ?

Lamirande. — I was completely bewildered.

The President. — 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 leaves no doubt of it.

Maitre Bourbeau, counsel for the Bank of France, was called on to speak for the
prosecution.

Me. Bourbeau. — I appear before you on the part of the Bank of France; to defend great
interests, interests moral and material, for which, as regards the latter, some reparation
has been commenced.

The story of T^niirnndc is u sad one. You are not called upon to punish in
him II more deviation, a moment of forpfethihicss, l)iit a lon^ scries of misdeeds,
a perseverance in evil wliicli midit be eiillcd incorritiihle ; no retnorsr, no twinires ot
conseieneo. ever iiiiidered him ; in tince years lie lias s(|ii;iii(liie(i ■JHt.OOO trnncs. and that
by means of daily tiieks. llow does he explain them? By bis pas>ioi) tur play, (Jamblinj?
is not an excuso, it eaii be but an explanation. A day arrivt^ wlu'u be ean no loiiiier
continue bis emhez/lements, and be takes Higbt, without considiriii^ that he leaves behind
him disconsolate lannlies, bis own and that ot bis unhappy Direetor. He departs ; it is
not to his own family that lie !;ik>s to bid farewell, but to two wonuii of that town, upon
whom he rains down Danae's golden sliower. I.et us for a moment follow him : lie leaves
Poitieis ; he goes first to Enj^land, then to Eni;lish America — to Canada. There he
becomes the subject of a demand for extradition on the part of the French Government.
An incident happens

The PrMi(/CTi/.— Do not touch upon the question of extradition. You are aware of

Be good enough to pass

the decision passed by the Court yesterday.

Me. Bourbeau. — I only wished to say two words.

The President, — Not even two words, Maitrc Bourbeau.
that over.

Me, Bourbeau. — Well, let us say nothing about the extradition ; let us also be
silent on the subject of the robberies, fraudulent abstraetior.s, and embezzlements ; and
since henceforth he can only be jirosecuted for forgeries in commercial or in banking
accounts, let us discuss the question of forgery. Can there be a doubt as regards this
crime after the explanations which have resulted from these discussions ? We do not
hesitate to declare that, as far as we are concerned, there cannot be the shadow of a doubt.
He made false returns of the state of his cash ; that is proved, and he confesses it. With
what object? With the sole intent of seeking protection from the consequences of his
embezzlements by falsifying his accounts. When, therefore, he showed by his accounts
the existence of so many bags of 1,000 francs, whilst a great number of those bags only
contained 800 francs each, did he not commit forgery ? See him in his otfice, whether
abstracting 200 francs from bags of 1,000 francs each, or transforming rouleaux of gold
into rouleaux of silver, and having these effects taken to the cellars, there is the robbery,
there is the embezzlement. 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 be has embezzled
them. And shall not that be called forgeiy, and why ? Is not the Bank of France a
commercial Company ? Docs it not trade in the value of gold and silver ? Was not
Lamirande the clerk of a commercial Company ? Tq all these questions the answer can
only be in the affirmative. No, it cannot be said that for three years a cashier can have
written a false account of a deficient balance in hand, and yet not be a forger.

See what were the consequences of 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 tiie director, u
sum of more than 200,000 francs, and this is hr-v 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
Cassation of 1841, which declares that false entries made by a clerk in commercial books
constitute a forgery in commercial accounts. The case cited, relates to a clerk who entered
as sold, in bis master's books, goods which be had stolen.

The Court of Cassation ruled that that constituted a forgery, in as much as the false
entries concealed the truth and, moreover, were calculated to mislead the merchant as to
the true state of his affairs. In this case, as well as in the one which we are discussing
forgery is a means of concealing robbery, either committed or about to be committed.

Gentlemen, I have ended my address, and I have demonstrated the injury which may
be caused by false accounts in conancreial business. Lamirande was a tliief, 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
leaving it ignorant of the true state of the Poitiers branch, ignorance which hindered it
from apportioning its funds where they could be of service, and lastly a tliird injury, that
caused to a superior officer of the bank, the upright M. Bailly, who, even after the loss of
his confidential employment, rests under the stroke of the moral res[)onsibiiity of part of
the misdeeds of his faithless cashier.

I have accomplished my task. The proverbial honesty of lair Poitiers has experienced
a cruel blow. For three years an individual has laboured secretly to infiict upon it this cruel
injury ; but as is invariably the case, justice, supported by public opinion, has discovered
the criminal, and to-day he is handed over to you. Gentlemen, you will do him justice.

11^ 1'

for I know that your decision will be guided by the conscience of the judge and the
indignution of the citizen.

The Hitting wiut [lOBtponed till the next day ut hulf-post ten.

•Silting of December 5.

The Hitting commenced at 1 1 o'clock amid the excitement caused by the incident
which led to the restitution of the sum of 1 1 0,200 francs.

M. Ir Premier Aiocnt-Ge'neral Gant commenced and expressed himself as follows : —

Rarely in a criminal case has the day of trial been more anxiously desired, moic
impatiently 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 society; yet without possessing this fearful importance this case has the sad
privilege of having raised public indignation to the highest point. Let us state at once
that this indignation docs honour to the human heart. It is, in truth, one of those
spectacles that are revolting to the feelings of our nature. Public opinion has been
outraged by Lamii-ande's crimes ; at ati age when the powers of his mind had reached their
full maturity, Lamirande was placed in a confidential position which entrusted immense
riches to his care. The severity of the precautions as well as the sentiments of honour
and delicacy which he had imbibed in his respectable family, seemed to be a guarantee for
the fidelity of his conduct.

What has happened? Lamirande found himself one day hesitating between the
desire of yielding to his ignoble instincts and the duty of respecting the treasures entrusted
to his care. It so fell out that avarice prevailed over duty. Lamirande crossed the abyss
that lay open before him, and after having laid a guilty hand upon the treasures of which
he was the guardian, he became a forger. Once engaged in this criminal course, the
accused persisted in it up to the time when his crimes were discovered and Lamirande
crowned them all by one yet more heinous. He wished to assure himself a rich indepen-
dence abroad in order to continue the debaucheries to which he was accustomed.

But the Government felt that it was indispensable to seek the extradition of Lamirande.
Ah! If to cross the frontier were sufficient, the greatest criminals might count on social
impunity. Hence the principle of extradition is daily gaining ground. Our most eminent
statesman has said " Extradition is a reciprocal guarantee against the ubi(iuity of evil."

You are, however, aware of the scandal which has arisen in the foreign country where
he took refuge. You know how Lamirande, by means of the gold which he had stolen
from the Bank of Fnmce, 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 Ibrgery.
You have been told that this criminal hat; been suddenly touched with the spirit of repent-
ance. You are promised that if he ?s acquitted upon the charge of forgery, he will come
and oQ'cr himself up as 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 contidenee, that would
be no reason for acquitting him upon 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
abstracts money from his cash — who daily certifies to his Chief in his accounts that all is
coi-rect ; the accused was carrying on criminal operations in his cash without reproducing
them in his accounts. The accounts are and ought to be a photograph of the cash. This
is dictated by common sense.

Duiing yesterday's sittings you heard a magisterial demonstration of the existence of
the forgery, Theie is, first of all, a consideration which is of serious importance. A
criminal procedure previously to its coming before the assizes has to undergo a double
test : first, the preliminary examination ; then, if the deed amounts to a crime, the
procedure 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. i'Avocat-
General examined into the character of the forgery as regards the law, and applied its
principles to the facts of the case. He then drew attention to the enormous injury
occasioned to the Bank of France.

Lamirande has precipitated his father into the depths of despair ; he has dishonoured
his name. But chastisement was not long in overtaking him. He received reproof even

from tliat sliumcles.s crcaluiv whom lie kept, who was hviiif^ by prostitution, uiul who, on
karning his arnst, siiid : *' 1 hat man has no heart ; I tliouirlit he lovrd his father and
mother : he luves no one."

Never has a prisoner appeared het'ore a jury witli such an aeeunudation ol' eriines.
He has aeeomphshed tliese erinus with unrivalled intrepidity and assurane( . His eoolness
never abandoned him, and everything shows the premeditation of the aeeiisi'd.

What was hi.s motive of aetiou f His motive was the most vile, a tllir^t tor the basest
enjoyments, the most ignoble lusts, not to inentioi\ the |)leasuiis ot the eliase, the exeite-
ment of the gaming-table was neeessary to him; he required the relini'inents of the most
shameless luxury. This finished debauchee must needs have two cx|K'nsively kept
mistresses.

Expatiating on the eircmnstanees attending the restitution of the I lo,2(>0 franes,
M. rAvocat-General said that it was meant for theatrieal cH'eet. 'i'hat rt'stit)ition was the
act of a thief who, finding that he is pursued, abandons a portion of his booty in order to
save the rest. Liimirande would lain loiilrive to reap the benefit of extenuating circum-
stances, but the accused is unworthy of it. and the jury will show him no j)ity. 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 eonseienee, the reparation which is
their due.

Me. Lftchauil, Lamirande s counsel, expressed himself as follows: —

We, on the side of the delenee, have ever recognized the gravity of this case. A
cashier who forgets his duty, who betrays the confidence reposed in him, — nothing is more
sejious. We should not deserve to lie French advocates if we did not agree with those
who administer the laws on all that touches honour, probity, and loyalty. IJut in order
that justice may be impartial, she must take everything into consideration; she nmst weigh
everything with the greatest care. Justice is the most important thing in the world, for
it belongs to God. But after having acknowledged the enormity of the crime, you must
take account of the accused, of his life, his weakness, Ids unheard-ol' sufferings. Unless
you take all this into account, it will be not justice, but vengeance, which M. I'Avocat-
Gen^ral desires no more than I do.

The wretched man whom I defend is 42 years of age. Of his I'amily I will say nothing.
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 the dishonour
of his name .' I will not speak to you of his jiious mother, nor of his brother — a most worthy
man. The wretched Lamirande stands before you under the weight of a teriible accusation.
Let him accept this new indignity, and let it be to him the most inefiiieeable of misfortunes.
When the storm lowered over this unhappy family, people were considerate towards them ;
I mention the fact as an honour to the country. Alas ! Lamirande knew not how to be
a son worthy of those good |)eople. His youth was marked by deviations, by follies, by
prodigality ; and when, in 18.08, he was made a cashier, he owed more than .00,000 francs.
The wish to benefit this young man led, perhaps, to the commission of an imprudence.

The cashier should be a man of unassuming habits, of frugal life. He is the most
perfect representative — he ought to be so — of accuracy and modesty. That man who will
see open before him the treasures of the Bank of France, he will struggle for a long
time ; when he shall succumb you will call him a criminal. Ah, these treasures ought
not to have been entrusted to him.

Up to 1862 Lamirande's conduct had been in-eproachable. His small debts increased.
He did not, indeed, indulge in the lu.\ury, but in the disgrace of two mistresses. One of
them I pity ; of another I do not speak, and for her I leave to M. I'Avocat-G^neral the
right of expressing all his contempt at his ease.

One day when he was harassed on all sides in the midst of his engagements, there
was a deficit ; he was short of 5,000 francs. That is not much in accounts such as those
of the Bank of France. Distressed, not daring to impose a new sacrifice on his family, he
committed a theft : the abyss was opened. When the first step in this path has been
taken, wickedness strides on, evil urges us forward, we become its slave. That is what
happened to this wretched man. After having provided for the deficit, he paid his debts ;
he 'jT'imlilpd. he reckoned on good luck, he lost, and after having lost 100,000 francs, from
fault to lault, from fall to fall, he at last took to flight, as you know.

This terrible affair will serve as a great example for all cashiers. The facts of the
case show that Lamirande's precautions were ridiculous. He cut o])cn the bags, he
replaced gpld by silver, but examination was possible ; he was at the mercy of the first
serious inspection.

You recall to mind Lamirande's flight ; going in his uneasy conscience to seek a
refuge in Canada, betrayed on all sides. His suflferings were so severe, that I ask mvself

[68] 1

wlu-tlier it Ih- not pret'erahlc tn Htand ut that bar of iiil'amy. When he wan taken into
cuKtody in C'anachi, how iiiiich think yon he had It-rt ? Eiglitccn IrancH; hi- who carried
off hah a iiiilliiiii. And whtii lie wrote to thoi-c men, whom I certainly shall not call
IttwyerH, for u Mnall miiii. Iu' rccfived no answer.

Tliese are tlie iniserie> wiiieli lie litis e.x|HTieiiee(i. Wiien he came back to France in
raus, the I'oiice Ai^ent was forced to lend liiin eloliies to enahle hitn to embark in the boat
which i)i'oiiKhf iiim into F'raiiee. Alas! what a h ->i)n! 1 miiilil speak of vesterday'i*
incident. N\'e nii^rht ask ourselvi s, my eolieaj^ue and 1, how we iitive been bcncKted by
the restitution made in Court yesterday, if the Counsel tor the dclence weie not men of
upright chaiaeter (for which we thank nuhody), tlierc mi;;ht he daii^er in acting as is
right. No, no, M. I'Avocat-Cicnerai, wc did not want to produce a tlieatrieal ett'ect. The
money was handed into Court because we did not tliink it projier to give it up sooner. If
wo restored that money, it was because we, and not l.amirande recovered it. Let mc say to
my eollcajjiucs at the bar, thai whicii we have done with hetut anil honour, you would have
done likewise; but many sleepless nights you would have p,.s-.icl in eiins^i|uentv', 'I'hese are
the facts: I, gentlemen, am proud of them, and my colleai;ue Lepetit is as proud of
them as 1 am. We in France are not Yankee lawyers. Three heads of accusation have
been laid to the charge of I^mirande — theft, embez/.lenuMit, and forgery.

The Counsel, ailer having laid aside the two first heads, examined the legal character
of forgery.

Article 147 punishes (why should 1 not say so? there is nothing that I am aware of
to prevent it), Article 147 of the Penal Code punishes the crime of forgery with penal
servitude for u term, liut where do you find perversion of tiic truth ? The cash-book is
correct ; the returns include the amount of capital in all the cort'ers of the Bank. Now,
you are aware that there were three divisions of the cash. The Accountant's documents
alone served to make out the return. As trt tlie cashier's accounts they were right. But
where is the obligation, the discharge '(' Show me the engagement in favour of or against
any one. They have told you that there was therein a complete discharge imposing the
responsibility upon one who oui^ht not to have borne it. This pretended discharge, of
which you have been told, cannot then imjiedi" you. Hut where then is the injury t I
appeal to Maitre Bourbcau, who is my colleague, and with whom I can allow myself
greater latitude than witli tin- Avocat-General. Is it because there may be a moral
injury that it can be said tliat there is a real injury, as the law understands it? Oh ! but
it said, you have imposed on ihe Hank. I answer iliat the Bank is not the less rich for a
million more or less, so long as its credit is not atiected. Yes, 1 have imposed on the
Bank, I have imposed on it by robbing it, but nut by forgery.

The Bank of France has curreiit accounts, ll the current account is not correct,
there may be a wrong, a perversion of truth. Tliat is a forgery. But to have perverted
truth, and to have caused a moral injury, is not suHicient. The lie in writing is not
sufficient. That may be a swindle, it may be a fraudulent scheme. Well, the cashier's
book, my own book, has not been falsified. What you attack are the internal accounts of
the Bank. But the unhappy man there, however guilty he may be in your eyes in a moral
point of view, is nevertheless not a t'orger.

Above all, the jury are bound by their oath, if forgery has been committed, that man
must be judged guilty of forgery, lie assuit'd, I do not seek impunity for that man. He
will not get oft', he does not wish, and I do not want it.

Here is the declaration which I have been connnissioned to read to you in the name
of Lamirande, and I pass my word for him : —

" I, the Undersigned Surreau Lamirande (Krnest Charles Constant), solemnly declare
that, if the verdict of the jury wlio have to determine on the crime of which 1 am accused,
and which I protest 1 never intended to coinmit, is in the negative, I do not intend to avail
myself in any way of the privilcije of the Treaty of Extradition wiith Kiiiiland; that, on the
contrary. 1 ask in that case to be tried by the Court of A.ssize ot \'iennc for the acts of
embezzlement and theft which are laid to my charge by order of the Court of Indictment.

" I am, therefore, prepared to sun-eiider myself as a prisoner, and I request my Counsel
to place this declaration in the hand of the Attornev-Gcneral.

"Poitiers, December 4, 186(i."

(Signed) " Lamirandb."

Ah ! M. rAvocat-General, did you not understand how I was situated in this matter ?
We did not wish to shelter ourselves behind Treaties of pAUr.dition. Away! Away ! We
do not have recourse to such means. ^Ve wear the long robe as well as magistrates. The
colour is of no consequence ; conscience is everything.

In three months Lauiiraude will be here, and you will try him, — you or others. I

to
ed
all

v'»

'he

avo

lire

avc

Iter

ft9

wish him to have tlu' lionrfif of his coiiiam': I «i'*li him, aOci- tlic verdict nf the jury, to
lit free hdoro the law, liut to he a |iri»()iitr hetoro jti>-ti('i' and in lii-i t)\vii trie will. NVc
advi'cntrs apprt'ciaff ah^vo all tliir'."« roni]ia'»«ioii. Tin' advocate for an acciisfd man

al;s tii liiiii ct itMior-i;-. of (lud. and of atuncmt lit.

iii(iul.;('ut, and tliat (iod may
" A. S, Lamiiia VI).'

tlif iionr of j'.i'^tici' ; and.

sustidns uni! .nu-i-s lii-.i ; lie spo;

We UK! pliysifians of the mind, liappy and pruud to lie so. 'I'h.it man \\ili he
a(<pi!uud, l<i,i ji!-;ii' ■ will he done ill thfie m<.nth:«. 1 LaM- plf.idcd iii\ ciiise ae* oiilini;
to tilt! \ie'.v 1 Inivo taken of a; I have spuki ii the truth. In ihne monlh.s w. will not >ay
that the law is fur us, hut that it is u^aiiist us; no duuht wu hiadi cnduuvoui, in n curtain
measure, to Mii'len the luaits of the iury towards so mueli ^lllHrin^r.

AIii-. for the unhappy nrin I if ymi (ii.Iv hnev wlmt he has sull'iiedl Ve^, betorc
taUin;{ h'.- place en that iK'Uch lie louiid u-stinlay in his pii>oii tl„se tinre letter-, which
I w".-!i to r.iid to yon. \Viiii>,t reading; the-c lines I was deeply moved, and yuu will shuri;
my emotion.

lliiv Is, lirst, the kttc.' of Luniiruniie'.i pioiir. mother: —

" Dcarc.-i, niiiiappy ciiiM,

'• 1 did not Wi'.it for your cry of lamentation hctovc? I'orifivimr your crime ; I feel an
intense (onipas-iou .'or you in thinkiii^i of the lot which you have prepared foi' your-elf, and
the suti'erini;> whieii you have l)iou:,'ii! upon yourself.

"I fervently pay Heaven that your jud'.;es may he
forgive you as your mother i'or;^lve: y.u.

(Siijncd)

Here is the cdd man's letter to his son :

'• I well knew that the hfuir of repent anc'e would pre
unha|i])\ child, I lor^cave you from the day in which y(Ui acknowledtjid your iwor I have
suffered in a deei)er di^reu than yuu the miseries which are tiie inevitahle conscipienee;
of your sh;une and of your fiii;lit. 1 shall sMth-r still I'roiu the terrihle penalties which
will he ieflieted en vcju. I shall not com] Iriin if you can support your sull'erinjjjs with
dii:nity, am! continue in your repentance

"1 need not tell you that v.eall pray that vonr .Ir.Jiic may he indul_'ent, and <Xi\v you
credit for an honourable iile till the day in which you faile 1 in honour and prohily.

" Repent and (iod will aid you.

" Your unhappy father,
(Signed) " S. La.mirandi:."

Lastly, Lamirandc's brother wrote as follows : —

" My poor brother,

" Your past suflerings, your present sufferings, infinitely sharper, till u.s w ith compas-
sion for you ; but it is not on their account that we for;.;ive you. It is on account of your
repentance which we think sincere and complete. There is your rcluge ; there aluue can
you recover peace with yourself. It is only by repent.uicc that hereafter, by dint of
courage, patience, and denial, you can regain self-respect. Wc will sujijiort you with
all our might in the aceomplisiiment of that work which is impossible at present, but will
not always be so. Have courage then, our love will not fail you, if your will is lirm
enough to be worthy of it. It will aid you in regaining our esteem.

(Signed) " ('. La.mik.vnde."

" P.S. — Mathilde joins in the sentiments which I express."

I will add nothing to these letters. Lamirande is dead as reirards the world. In
three months time he will bo condemned by the Court of Assize ; but if men are severe,
God will be compassionate to him. A future of love exists in those letters whiih I return
to him. His parents will still live to forgive and to love. There stands the case. The hour
approaches; it is nigh at hand ; but do not without necessity violate the law. I reckim
upon you, gentlemen, because you are men of feeling and of conscience, and because you
will not strike till it is necessary to do so.

The sitting was suspended till a quarter past 2 o'clock.

Aftei the replies of the Avocat-General and of Maitre Lcpetit, the President sununeu
up the arguments ; the jury then retired to deliberate. ,'\t the end of three-()Uarters of
an hour they brought in a verdict of guilty upon the charge of forgery and of the employ-
ment of falsified papers.

They acknowledged that there were extenuating circumstances in favour of the
accused.

The Court after deliberation condemned Surreau de Lamirande to ten years' imprison-
ment (r^clusion).

Lamirande appeared overwhelmed.

I 2

No. 24.
Karl Cowley to Lord Htanlnj. — {liecfired Dfcrmher l.'».)

My liord, I'uris, Derpmlirr H, 1. •*)>(!.

IN <-om|ilinn('c with tli<> inNtntctinns ciiiitiiiiu-il in your l<oi'ilslii|)'s <lfs|)iit('li of tlic
7tli in>*taiil, to iiHuiirc into (In- (dr-(!ctiu'><H ot' tlu* >tntfiiuiil of n diiiiv \m\H'T thnt,
a lew Hci'ks sinci', a crimiimi wlioso caiiluro or surninU'r Imil lit-i-ii iiii|)roiH>rly ohtniiietl
in Franco was, after a conviction and sentence in Fnince. sent buck to t^wit/orlniul by
order of the Imperial (Sovernnient. I ilesired M. Treite to make in(|uiries, and I now
inchtse copy «»f a letter which I liave reci-ived fronj that K(^i>tl^'n><>t>> ••"om wiiiob your
liOrdMhii) will ]>erccivc that he has not liecn able to find any trace of such a caH(> having
occurriHl recently.

M. Treite consitlers that tlic nexspajier refers to the case of Oermenon, in IHIO, of
which he jjives a summary, and which tiinu-d less on the irrejjfularity of the extradition
than on the principle that an accnst-d person can only be tried on the charges upon which
the extradition had been granted.

M. 'I'reitc also states that the only point in tliis precedent which has any bearing on
liamirande's ca,se is, that it follows from it that, when the Executive declares an
extradition not to have been made according to law, it can waive it, and give up the
individual,

I hare, Stc.
(Signed) COWLF^Y.

Tnclosure in No. 24.

3f. IVelte lo linrl Vovloy.
Milord, PiniK, le tl D/remhre, 18G6.

VOTRE Exeollcncc a bien voulu me faire une communication relative ik un erimincl
«]ue le Gouvernement Fran(;ais, d'apn'^s d'un journal, aurait rendu, il y a quelques
semaincs, k la Suisse, par le motif que I'extradition n'aurait pas etc reguliere — fait qui
constituerait un prtW'dent pour la restitution de Lamirande.

Je m'empresse de repondre a votrc Excellence (|ue, mnlgre mes rccberchcs, je n'ai
pu trouver trace d'un pareil fait qui se serait i)asse recenmient. Et, i^ moins qu'il nait
et6 profond<5mcnt enseveli dans les arcancs de la Cliancelleric, je ne crois pas qu'il existc,

II y aura eu confusion ilans I'assertion du joiunal. Le precedent auquel il a ete fait
allusion sc rapportc evidemment au proces d'un Sieur Dermenon, jugd en 1840, et dans
Icqucl cc fut moins I'irregularit*!' de I'extradition qui fut en jeu (lue ic primeipc qui veut
qu'un accuse ne puisse etre jug*? que pour des causes ou chefs d'accusation pour Icsqucls
rcxtradition a 6t6 eflPectude,

Voici I'espfice : Un criminel, nommd Dermenon, s'etait rcfugie en Suisse. II avait etc
mis en accusation pour crime de banqueroute frauduleuse devant la Cour d'Assises du
D(5partement de la C6te d'Or i^ Dijon. L'arrfit de renvoi devant la Cour d'Assises portait
(|ue, ulterieurement, Dermenon serait traduit devant le tribunal de police corrcctionnelle
pour les delitsdc banqueroute simple et d'abus de confiance. s'il eta it acquitti'- du chef de
liancjueroute frauduleuse. L'extradition de Dermenon fut demande i)our ce deniier chef
d'accusjxtion, et accorde par le Canton de G<5n<'^ve ; niais le jury accpiitta Dermenon.

Le Procureur-G6n<;ral pres le Cour de Dijon demanda alors au Ministre de la Justice
s'il fallait faire juger Dermenon pour les ddits de banqueroute simple et d'abus de
confiance. Le Ministre repondit que I'accuse, n'ayant etc livr<5 que pour le crime de faux,
ne pouvait etre mis en jugement pour d'autrcs causes, et qu'il fallait le reconduire k la
frontiere. Mais le Canton de Geneve refusa de le reccvoir, et Dermenon fut ramend h
Dijon, ou il fut traduit en Police Corrcctionnelle pour abus de confiance et banqueroute
simple. Le pr^venu cxcipa de son etat de fugitif, de I'irr^gularit^ forcee de sa presence
en France, &c. Le Tribunal de Police Corrcctionnelle admit les exceptions de Dermenon,
et ordonna qu'il serait ramen6 ^ la fronti^rc. Mais le Procureur-Gdneral fit appel contre
ce jugement, et la Cour, reformant le jugement du Tribunal de Premiere Instance,
ordonna, par arret du H AoiU, 1840, qu'il fut procede aux debats, parce que, " si les
Fran^ais poursuivis en France pour crimes et d61its sont protdg^'s par I'inviolabilite du
territoire etranger, il ne sauraient se prevaloir de cettc inviolabilite quand le pays
etranger les repousse."

Dermenon se pourvut en Cassation contre cette decision, et la Cour Supreme, par
arrfit du 1 Septembre, 1840, a casse la sentence de la Cour de Dijon, par le motif qu'elle
aurait dfl surseoir, vil que la question h decider etait celle de savoir si le refus de Geneve

*u*

do rm'voir rncniHi' r(|iiivalai> ;'• iinc rxtrndition n'-iulitrc, vt (|iu' \o (Jouvoriicnu'iit wiil
«'tni< (•ompotoiil h cct oH'ot. I.c |Miiiv(iir »'\<'<Milii' ili'cidc on ctrit iiu'il n'v nvnit jms limi
<!o jiijfor Ik'niiendn, vi'i riirc;;ulaiilr do ><>ii oMiaditioii, ct il lo lit roooiidairo h uno
froiititVo.

Ainsi (jn'on lo voit la dootriiu' prinoipalo <|iii >o ditjano tout il'aliord do cos CaitH. o'ost
(jiio lo (iouvornomotil Kraiinii- n'a pas voulii «|iio I)oiimii<iii I'ul Jiiijo sur dos «'liof's
d'liooiiHalion aiitros quo ooiix ^nr loHipicls IVxtraditioii avail <'lo doniaiidoo ot <d)toiiiic. l.e
(louvernoiiiciit Kranonis a toujoiir-i oli-<orvo oo priiioipo; il y a do uondiroiix oxomitloH,
]mrnii los(|iiols on )ioiit oitor oolui d'lm ii'dividii <pii on |s|,"( avail oti' oondaniiio par
ooiitiiniaoo pniir orinio. Plus tard lo in^nio iiidividii tut aooiiM- do o<iinpli<-ito dans la
tontative dasnassinat dii Duo do Woliiiigtnn. liO (loiivoincmont tditint I'oxtradition |iour
CO irliof d'aocusntion, innis I'lndividii tut aotpiitto par lo jurv ot put s'oii iH'touriior a
IV'tranKor.

iMais on soooiid lion il n'sulto aussi dos Caits-Donnoinin (pio lo (Jouvornoinont
Kranrais n'a pas voulu oonHidoror ooinino n'jj;ulioro uno t'xtradition hasi'o souloniont sur
lo rofiis d'un (louvornoniont otranyor do rooovoir un inouipo ipii tUja avail trouvi'
antorionroniont uu refujro Mir son torritoiro. II on n'sulto oiiooro quo (|uand lo piuivoir
oxooulif no trouve pas uno oxtraditicin cont'ornio au\ lois. il |icut no pas son provalnir ot
rondro I'oxtrado. ("ost lj\ K; sold point dv innlniM cpio lo pn'ccdonl Donnonon ait avor
I'airaire do Ijiviniiivndo.

Cost a cot arrot-Dornioiion i|iio t'ai>!iil aiiu.-.ii(n i'Avocat-ticnoral dans Ir j»rooos
haininindo. qmind il soutonnit quo lautorito judioiairo otail altsoluniont inooiniatoiitp
pour statuor sur dcs fuits d'oxtradition, exoopto dans un soul oas, cclui oi'i I'oxtradition
avait ou liou sans que lo pouvoir oxocutif y out pris part, ot alois lo .lujfo dovait sursooir
jus(|U'a ce que lo Oouvpriiempnt so Cut pnnmiicc sur la roj^ularito do I'oxtradition,

l"cst la du reslc la doctrine proclann'o dans la I'anioiisc oirouiairo do la Chanoollorio
du *» Avril, 1S41, laquollo met on relict' tons los points do la pratiipio do I'ovtradition on
France.

Ainsi s'il y a doute sur la lognlito di' I'oxtratlition, raulorilt'- judioiairo aooordoni un
sursis, ct pour conscrvor intaoto la distiiu tion du pouvoir juiliciairo ot <lu pouvnir oxooutif,
attendra la decision do oc dernier jtouvoir, qui soul ]»eut intorprolor los 'I'raitos intorna-
tionaux. Dans le procos Lamirando, il n'y avait pas liou a aooordor nn sursis, puisqiie le
Oouvemement avait trouv(^' roxtnidition r('-i;nlioro, ot avait ronvoyo Textrado devnnt los
iluges.

Ces doctrines sont po" raloin. ;,, dojitoo- par los publicistes Franoais, nuiis <joiu;-
ralen)|;nt ausai \'ov < le oontlit n Nultant do I'oxtradition do lianiirando. S'il est
vrai que cct aco .uoioineni livn |mr I'autorito ccmqiotente, I'ait oto copendant en

dehors des preset , ^ de la loi Angl , it dans dos circonstances insolites, lo (louvorno-
inent Franoais ni -rait pas se pr<;valoir dc cette extradition. Ce sorait le soul nioyon
de preparer Ics voiu- < un I' u Trnito, qui est uno indis|)cnsal)le nocessite des deux cotos
de la Manche.

Aj^roez. &c.
-ligno) 'rJJEITK,

Arocal de la Com Impilnnle,

(Translation.)

My Lord, Paris, December II, 1866.

YOUR Excellency has been pleased to com iiiicatc with me respecting a criminal
whom, according to a certain newspaper, the Froiich Goverment had a few weeks ago
sent back to Switzerland on account of the irregularity of the extradition, a fact which
would constitute a precedent for the restitution of I^mirande.

I hasten to inform your Excellency, in reply, tliat, notwithstanding my researches, I have
not been able to trace any such case of a recent date ; and urless indeed it has been deeply
buried in the secret recesses of the Chancery, I do not think that such a case exists.

There must have been a misapprehension in the newspaper's assertion. The precedent
to which allusion has been made, evidently relates to the case ot one Dcrmenon, tried in
1840, and in which it was less the irregularity of the extradition that was in (juestion,
than the principle that the accused can only be tried for the reasons or charges on account
of which the extradition had been effected.

This is the case : A criminal named Dermenon had taken refuge in Switzerland. He
had been indicted for fraudulent bankruptcy before the Court of Assize of the Department
of the Cflte d'Or at Dijon. The commitment of the Court of Assize provided that
Dermenon should be eventually arraigned before the Tribunal of Correctional Police for
the misdemeanour of simple bankruptcy and breach of trust, if he were acquitted on the

charge of fraudulent bankruptcy. The extradition of Dermenon was demanded on account
of this latter clwrgo, and wa« i^anted by the Canton of Geneva, but the jury acquitted
Deriiu-non.

'I'hf l*ro('ureur-fJL'n(';ral of tiio Dijon Court then inquired of the Minister of Justice
whctiier Denm-non should he tried for the misdemeanours of simple bankruptcy and
breach of trust. The Minister replied that as the accused had only been surrendered ou
the charge of forgery, he could not be put on his trial for other reasons, and that he must
be reconducted to the frontier. But the Canton of Geneva refused to receive him, and
Dermenon was brought back to Dijon, where he was taken before the Tribunal of Correc-
tional Police on the charge of breach of trust and simple bankruptcy. The accused
alleged his status as a refugee ; the enforced irregularity of his presence in France, &c.
The Police Tribunal allowed Dermenon's objections, and ordered him to be taken back to
the frontier. But the Procureur-(k-n(5ral appealed against this decision, and the Court
revising the judgment of the Tribunal of First Instance, decided by a Decree of August 14,

1840, that the ease should be tried, on the ground that "if Frenchmen prosecuted in
France <*«' crimes and misdemeanours, are protected by the inviolability ot a foreign territory,
they iiMinot avail themselves of that inviolability when the foreign country rejects them."

Dermenon ap|>caled 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 Court 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 extradition,
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 results 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 obtninefj. The
French Government has always observed this principle, of which there are numerous
instances, amongst which may be cited that of an individual who in 1815 had been
condemned for crime through contempt of Court. Tho same individual was subsequently
arrested of complicity in the attempt to assassinate the Duke of Wellington. The Govern-
ment procured his extradition on this charge, but he was acquitted by the jury, and was
able to go abroad again.

But in the secoiiu place, it resull.j from the Dermenon case that the French Govern-
ment would not consider as regular an extradition founded merely ou the refusal of i
foreign Government to receive an accused pei-son who already had previously foynd a
refuge in its territory. It further results, that when tho Executive Power finds that an
extradition is not according to law, they can decline to take advantage of it, and give up
the person sun-endered. This is the sole point in which the Dermenon precedent affects
the case of Lamirande.

It was to this Dermenon decision that the Avocat-Gen^ral made allusion during the
Lamirande proceedings, when he urged that the judicial authority was altogether incompe-
tent to decide upon the facts of extradition, with the single exception of a case in which the
extradition had been eilected without the intervention of the Executive power, and then
the Judge ought to suspend the proceedings until such time as the Government had
pronounced a decision on the regularity of the extradition.

Besides, this is the principle enunciated in the famous Chancery Circular of April 5,

1841, which brings clearly out all the points ot extradition practice in Prance.

Thus, if any doubt arises respecting the legality of the extradition the Judicial authority
will grant a delay, and in order to preserve intact the distinction between the Judicial and
Executive powers, will await the decision of the latter authority, which alone can interpret
international Treati».'8. There was no occasion in the Lamirande proceedings to grant a
delay, for the Governmeiii, had Jcoided that the extradition was regular and had sent the
person surrendered for trial.

These doctrines are generally adopted by French pu'olicists, but the dispute arising
from the extradition of Lamirande is also gc erally re^TCtted. If it be true that this
prisoner, regularly surrendered by the proper i uthority, vfas so surrendered in a manner
not within the provisions of the English law, and under uni sual rsircurastances, the French
Government ought not to take advantage of that extradition. This would be the only
means of preparing the way for a good Treaty, which is indispensably necessary for both
sides of the Channel.

Accept, &c.

(Signed) TREITE,

Avoeat de la Cour ImpMale.

laccount
[quitted

Justice

tcy and

cred on

he must

lim, and

Correc-

accuser!

nee, &c.

back to

e Court

l?ust 14,

cuted in

erritory,

them."

[Supreme

Court of

question

tradition,

e Power,

ty of his

No. 26.
Earl Couley to Lord Stanleii, — {lieccired Drcrmher 'JO.)

My Lord, Pnrix, Dcrrmher 10, IBfiO.

IN takin^f leave of M. de Mouslicr ihis afternoon, 1 rocominended to his attention
the last communication which I iiad made to liim on tlie snliject of I^mirande's
extradition.

His Kxcellency replied that the Krencli (Sovernnu'nt could do nothin;; more: that
if Hit Miijcsty's Government haii any claim to nuiko ujjDn tiio Imin-riai fiovcrnmcnt
in consequence of the infractiop of the Extradition 'rreiity. it siiouid lie put toiward
officially and supjwrted by proofs. The Im))erial (Jovernmeut ivould be quite ready to
consider a demand of the kind, and to examine it upt)u its nlerit:^ ; niul lie I'ould assure
me that if Her Majesty's Government could make out a case, IjunirandL' .•<liould be
surrendered to them.

I observed that it would be, in my opinion, preferable to make tliis (pK-tiou the
subject of a confidential, rather than of an otticial inquiry. M.de Moustier rejoined that,
under any circumstauces, it must partake of an otlicial character.

I have, &c.
(Signed) COWLEY.

No. 2G.
Lord atanley to Admiral Harris.

Sir, Forrign Office, Dcrcmhrr 2t>. 18*30.

IN the second leading article of the "Daily News ' of the Ttli instant, it is stated
" it is only a few weeks since that a criminal whose capture or surrender had been
improperly obtained in Switzerland was, after conviction and sentence in Frnnce. sent
back to Switzerland by order of the Imperial Government on the ground ol the ante-
cedent irregularity."

I have referred to Her Majesty's Amliassador at Paris on this subject. l)Ut I have not
been able to obtain any information of a case answering the above description, and of so
recent a date as is stated in the " Daily News."

1 have therefore to instruct you to furnish me with any particulars of which you are
in possession, in exslanation of the statement above referred to.

I am, &c.
(Signed) STANLEY.

No. 27.

Admiri.ll Harris to Lord Stanley. — (Received December 30.)

My Lord, Berne, December 28, 1866.

IN accordance '.ith the instructions contained in your Lordship's despatch dated
the 20th instant, I have obtained the details of n case, doubtless the one alluded
to in an article of the " Daily News " of the 7th insta:it, in which it is stated that " a
criminal, whose capture and surrender had been improperly obtained in Switzerland, was,
after conviction and .sentence in France, sent back to Switzerland on the groimd of the
antecedent irregularity." The following are the correct details su])plied to nie by the
Swiss Government : — On the 'Jotli of last .June the French Ambassador demanded the
cxtraditioii of two Frenchmen, Andre JJalmont and Ferdinand Courtes, commercial
travellers, arrested at Geneva on charges of "crime de faux et usage de pieces fausses,"
in accordance with the terms of the existing Treaty of Extraditi(m Ijctween France and
Switzerland. The Federal Council acceded to the request, aiul the prisoners were
handed over to the French authorities on the oth of July. On examination before the
Juge d'lnstruction at Lyons it was found that the orig'nal charges could not be sust.iined ;
nevertheless, thcj' were remanded to prison and siinmioned before the Tiibunul Correc-
tional at Lyons on a charge of "a!>us de confiance et escroqucrie." This being in legal
classification a " d^lit '' and not a " crime,' is not included in the terms of the Extra-
dition Treaty ; consequently the prisoners' counsel protested, and would not allow them
to plead. They were withdrawn from the bar, but the trial proceeded and they were

> ,
h

condomiicd "en ('(iiitiiinacc." 'I'licv ai)jKak'(l tliioii;;li tla-ir cuiinsi'l in tlio Swires (iovLrii-
iiiftit, who insdiictc'd tlieir Knvov at I'aris. .M. Kiin, to make a reclamation on llie

HUbjt'Ct.

In a note ilatud tlic 31st Aujjust, M. Kern informs the Federal Council that previoub to
applying to tlu French Minister of Foreiu:!! Afliiirs he had made iii<iuirii's of the Minister
of .Justice, who informed him that instructions had already l)oen issued on the L'3rd of
August to the authorities at Lyons to convey the two prisoners to the Swiss frontier antl
release them. The Minister of Justice further told M. Kern that incorrect statements
had lieen puhlished in u pamphlet in London respecting this ease, which would be refuted
in the " Moidteur."

I have, Sic.
(Signed) K. A. J. IIAJUIIS,

No. 28.

Lord Stanlcif lo Mr. h'une.

My liord, Foieiijii Office, Jumiaiy 0, 18(i7.

ITKR Majesty's (Jovcrnment have hi'en awniting with some anxiety the v)Iiservations
which, as reported by l^ord Cowley in his despatch of the 'M)i\\ of November, M. de
Moustier proposed to oHer on the communication maile to his J^xcellency by lx)rd
Cowley on the i8th of that month resi)ectiiig the case of .M. liamiraiidc.

M. de Moustier, in the conversation re( orded in that despatch, showed u disposition
to demur to the view taken iiy Her Majesty's ({overnment in regard to demands for
extradition not being properly made by a ( 'onsular otiicer, and spoke of being unable
then to discuss the question whether the crime of which M. Lamirandc was accused was
or was not forgery.

Since that conversation .AL Lamirandc has been tried and convicted, and is under-
stood to have appealed against the decision of the Court ; but little more has been elicited
from the French Covernment than an expression of readiness to meet any official demand
which might be addressed to it with u view to effect the release of ^L Lamirnnde.

Although the Law Officers of the Crown, at an earlier stage of the discussion,
expressed their opinion, as stated in my despatch to Lord Cowley of the 10th of November,
that Her Majesty's Government could not demand, as of right, the surrender of M. liami-
rande, I have nevertheless submitted the (piestion to them again, on the strength of
what passed between Lord Cowley and the French Minister, as reported in his Excellency's
despatches of November i;i and 20, and of the 19th of December.

I have also placed before theni the case of surrender of a prisoner many years since
on account of defect in regard to his extradition, as well as the still more recent fase
which occurred last summer, to which Admiral Harris refers in his despatch of the
2Sth of December, in order that they might consider whether such cases aftbrdcd any
grounds on which a denunid for the release of M. Lamirandc could be supported.

I have not yet received the opinion of the Law OHiccrs on these later references,
and I am still expecting from you the particulars respecting the Swiss case of last year,
into which you have directed M. Treite to in(|uire.

In the meanwhile, however, I should wish you to remind AL dc Moustier of his
conversation with Lord Cowley of November 20, and in(|uirc whether his Excellency has
so fully informed himself <m the points then brought to his notice as to enable him to
explain the views of the French (Sovernnient.

Her Majesty's Government are very anxious that any communications between the
French Government and themselves on this question should be brought to a close, —
favourable, they trust, to M. Lamirande's release, — before the meeting of i'arlianient, when
the ease is sure to be publicly discussed, both as regards the proceedings of the Colonial
Government in surrenderiiig the prisoner, and the retention of him in custody by that of
France.

The latter point is the only one to bo considered internaticmally ; but the bearinga
of it on the geucial ([ue- tiou of extradition are very important : and Her Majesty's
Government much b'ar lest, even though the retention of the prisoner in France may be
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 uU
events, to the Treaty of 184a, if not to all Extradition Treaties whatever.

«■'*

Such a course would be fraught with much injury to the coninu'rcinl interests of
both countries, and it is in the hoi)c that the necessity for takin<; it may not arise that,
without waiting for the opinions of the I^aw Officers, as to nmking a formal demand, I
have to instruct you again to see M. de Mousticr dii the subject, and, in the samo
confidential form in which the question has hitherto l)cen treated, endeavour to persuade
him to recommend that M. Lamirande should be set at liberty.

1 should wish to be informed, as soon as possible, in what state M. Lamirande's
ap^R'al now is, and when it may be expected to be decided.

I am, &c.
(Signed) STANLEY.

No. 29.

Mr. Fane to Lord Stanley. — {Received Junuary 12.)

My Lord, Paris, .lanuury U, 18t}7.

WITH reference to my despatch of the 4th ioNtant, 1 have the honour to
inclose herewith copy of a Report addressed to me by M. Treite on the Franco-Swiss extra-
dition case referred to in your Lordship's despatch of the 31st ultimo, and on its bearir5
on the case of M. Lamirande.

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 me immediately
with a report embodying the result of his inquiries.

1 expect to have an opportunity to-morrow of bringing the case of M. Lamirande
once more before the Marquis dc Moustier, in obedience to the instructions conveyed to
me in your Ijoidship's despatch of the 9th instant.

I have, &c.

(Signed)

JULLVN FANE.

Inclosurc in No. 29.

M. Treite to Mr. Fane.

M. le Ministre, Paris, le 11 Janvier, 1867.

VOUS avez bien voulu me charger de prendre des informations sur un cas
d'cxtradition intervenu entre la France et la Suisse, cas qui aurait eu lieu dans le courant
de 1860, et qui pourrait etre un precedent pour le fait dc Lamirande.

Ce cas 6tait rest6 enfoui dans les cartons des Chancelleries dea deux pays ; mais,
gr&ce a la r^f^rence que vous m'avez donnee, M. le Ministre de la Conftkhhation Helvetique
m'a mis au courant dc toute I'afi'aire, et le voici.

En Juin 18GG deux Frantjais, Andr6 Balmont et Ferdinand Courtis, refugies en
Suisse, ont 6t6, sur la demande de I'Ambassadeur Fran^ais k Berne, arretes dans le Canton
de Gentive et extrades. Ces deux individua etaient accuses de faux et d'usage de pi«^ces
fausses, crimes prevus par le Traite d'Extradition. Les accuses Balmont et Courtis ont
etc traduits devant la Cour d' Assises du Rhone, si(5geant a Lyon. lis furent acquittds
par le jury des chefs de faux.

Le Procureur-Generalvoulut les traduire devant le Tribunal de Police Correctionnelle
pour d61ites d'eseroquerie et d'abus de confiance, deux chefs de d('lit dont ils etaient
egalement inculpes.

Mais ils resisterent a la pretention du Procureur-General, et reclamerent tant auprds
des autorites Federales Helv^tiques ([u'aupr^s du Ministere de la .lustice. Ayant refuse
de comparaitre devant le Tribunal de Police Correctionnelle, ils furent condamnes par
defaut ou par contumace.

Le Conseil Federal ecrivit le 24 Aout au Ministre de la Suisse a Paris en le chargeant
de rapi)eler au Gouvemement Fran9ais que I'extradition n'ayant eu lieu que pour le
crime de faux, il n'y avait pas lieu de juger Balmont et Courtis pour d'antres delits, k
moins que les prevenus n'y consentissent.

M. le Ministre de Suisse, avant dc saisir olficicllemcnt Ic Ministere des Affaires
Etrangires, prit des informations officiciscs au Ministere do la .Uisticc ; et on lui repondit
que des le 23 AoCit, avant meme (lue la lettre du Conseil Fcilenil no fut eerite, le Ministre
de la Justice a» ait spontanement donuf? lordre au Procureur-Gene'ral de Lyon de faire
reconduire Balmont et Courtis k la frontiere.

[68J K

JiCf Ministre dc la Suisse n'avait dHa lors plus dc reclamation u fairo, et lo 31 AoOt
il rcnvoya Ii's pieces a son Oouvememcut.

Aiiisi c'li ce cas, il ii'y a en aucune intorvention diplomatique, et cVst a tort que U
" Dnilv News " a mciitioiinr- ce fait commc un |)rt''C('dL'iit dans I'aHaire do Laniirnndc.

|)» resti-, le .Ministrc de la Justice, en faisaiit, proprio motu, reconduire los deux
inciiI|H's h la frontitTe n'a i'ait ([ue ^e eonfornior a une jurisprudence constante dont, dans
nies pn'-ci'-dcntes coniiniinications. j'ai dcja cite des cxeniples et quiestainsi formulee dans
une ciiculaire iiiinistcrielle du •'< Sijttembre, l^^tl : —

'• Du prineipe (jue I'extradition ne i)cut »)tre acconlec pour un delit, il resulte (jue si
un individu (|ui a couunis un fait (|uaiifie crime en France, est livr6 au Gouverncnient
Franrais ])our tUre jufje sur ce fait, et (|u'en m^mc temps il soit prevenu d'un delit, il ne
doit pas »itre jupe sur ce delit.

" li'apjdication du princij)c est susceptible de quel(|ues difricult(;s. II est evident que
si le (l(''lit est isole. il sera facile de ne juger I'individu livre qi'e sur le crime, mais dans
certains cas le delit est connexe ; en outre, il devient souvcnt, par la connexite. une
circ(iii-.tauce ajririavante. Quand ces difficidt^s so presentent vous men refererez, et je
vous fi-rc'Z coiinaitre, avecmon avis, Ics i)recedents de mon administration."

Tel est lclanga<;e que le Ministre de la Justice tient aux Procureurs-Generaux ; on
ne doil juj^er les accusi'-s (jue sur les crimes ])revus par les Traites d'Extradition.

(\tte circulnire est tr^s iniportante ; elle rc-sume toute la praticpie dc la matiere de
Textradition, telle quelle a toujours etc exercee par le Gouvernement Fran^>ais.

II ma ete impossible den ritrouver un exemplaire ; mais commc die est trt^s longue,
je vais le faire reimprimer, et aurai I'hoiineur dc vous en remettre un exemplaire, ainsi
qu'a M. le Ministre do Suisse, qui m'en a prie.

•le crois done ne pas (}tre t<''meraire en persistant dans I'opinion que j'ai <;mise le
10 Decembrc dernier, declarant qu'il n'y avait jms dc pr(5cedent applicable a I'afiairc
Lamirande.

Agr^cz, &c.
(Signe) TREITE.

(Translation.)

M. le IMiiiistic, Parui, January 11, 18(i7.

Vt)U have boon pleased to direct me to make inquiiy into a case of extradition
between l''run<o and Switzerland, a case which had probably occurred during the year 186(i,
and which might form a precedent for that of Lamirande.

The case had remained buried among the papers uf the Chanceries belonging to the
two countries, but, thanks to the introduction you gave me, the Minister of the Helvetic
Confederation has made me conversant with the whole affair, and liere it is.

In June IHtiG, two Frenchmen, Andre Balmont and Ferdinand Courtis, who had fled
to Switzerland, were arrested in the Canton of Geneva and given up on the demand of the
French Ainbassador at Heme. Tliese two individuals were accused of forgery and of
uttering forged papers, crimes within the purview of the Extradition Treaty. The
prisoners Balmont and Courtis were arraigned before the Court of Assize of the Rb6ne,
sitting at Lyons. They were actjuitted by the jury on the charge of forgery.

The l'rocureur-(ieueral wished to try them before the Tribunal of Correctional Police
for swindling and breach of trust, two charges of misdemeanour of which they were likewise
accused.

But they opposed the attempt of the Procureur-Generul, and invoked the aid both of
the Swiss Fodeial authorities and of the Mhiistry of Justice. Having refused to appear
before the Tribunal of Correctional Police, they were condemned through default or
through contenipt of C'or.rt.

Tile Federal C'ouncil wrote on tiio ^4th of August to the Swiss Minister at Paris,
dcsirin;.;' liitn to remind the French Government that as the extradition only referred to the
crime of forgery, it was not competent to try Balmont and Coui-tis for other offences,
unless indeed the accused gave their consent.

The Swiss Minister, before applying officially to the Minister for Foreign Aft'uirs,
made some unofficial inciuiries at the Ministry of Justice, and he was told in reply that on
the 23rd of August, even before the letter of the Federal Council was written, the Minister
of Justice had of his own accord ordered the Procureur-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 31st of
August he returned the documents to his Government.

Thus, in this case there was no diplomatic intervention, and the " Daily News" was
mistaken in mentioning this case us a precedent for that of Lamirande.

Besides, the Minister of .Tustice, in cnusing propria wolu the two accused |H«rsons to
be reconducted to tlie I'rontier, only <i>iir()nnid to tlie constant rule ot law, of wliich I
Iiave alrendy in my |)re('C(lin^ coininniiiciitions cited exiini|>l(s, ;!mi1 which is thus laid down
in a Minislen;il ("iicnlnr of Scpteinlicr '>. 1>«H :

" It results I'roin the piinciple th;it cxtriulition caiinfit lie u'laiited for a misdemeanour
('delit') — that if an individual who has committed an act which is criminal in France is
given up to the French Government to he tried for this act, and if at the same time he
is accused of u misdemeanour, he must not he tried for that misdemi anour.

"The a]tj)lieation of the principle is susceptible of some iliftieiilties. It is clear that, if
the niisdcnieaiiour stands alono, it will he easy to try tlic individual surrendei-ed (iir the
crime only. But in certain cases the misdemeanour is connected; besides, it often becomes,
by reason of its connection, an nirfiravatintr circumstance. When these ditti( ulties arise,
you will refer them to nie, ami I will let you know, together with my opinion, the prece-
dents of my Department."

Such is tlie lunf,'uage held by the Minister of Justice to the I'rocureurs-fjcneraux :
the accused persons can only be tried for tlie crimes that are provided for by Kxtradition
Treaties.

This Circular is very important. It sums up the whole practice in matters of
extradition as it has ever been followed by tiie French (Jovenmu nt.

1 have found it impossible to ^ct a copy ; but, as it is very lontf, I am going to have
it re|)rinted, and shall have the honour of sending you a copy, as well as one to the Swiss
Minister, according to his recjutst.

I think, then, that I am not rash in persisting in the opinion which I g-ave on the
loth of December last — namely, that there is no precedent applicable to the case of
Lamirande.

Accept, &c.
(Signed) TREITE.

No. 30.

Lord Stanley to Mr. Fane.

Sir, Foreign Office, January 12, 18G7.

HER Majesty's Government hare given their best consideration to, and have
consulted the Law OflScers of the Crown on, Lord Cowley's report, contained in hi.s
despatch of the 19th of December, of his conversation with M. de Moustier respecting
the case of M. Lamirande, and they gather from it that unless a fonnal 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 .slionld have
been set at rest, as it has hitherto been di.scusscd, by informal rather than by oflicial
representation on their part ; but as the French Government seem to consider the latter
course preferable, I can no longer hesitate to say that although even now Her Majesty's
Government are advised that they cannot demand the surrender of M. Lamirande as a
matter of right, yet it is their desire that you should at once make an othcial request for
his surrender.

You will observe that Her Majesty's Government contend that the extradition of
M. Lamirande was unauthorized by the Treaty of 1843, and by the Statute giving effect
to that Treaty, on two grounds :

First, that the demand made for his extradition was not made through the intervention
of such a Diplomatic Agent as is contemplated by the Treaty, and the British Statute
confirming it : and.

Secondly, that the offence charged against M. Lamirande was not the oflenee of
"faux," or forgery, contemplated by the Treaty.

As regards the first point, M. de Moustier in his conversation with Lord Cowley,
reported by the latter in his despatch of the 20th of Ivoveni])er, seemed di^pused
to contend that the French Consul-General was, under the circumstances, an accredited
Diplomatic Agent within the meaning of the Treaty and Statute. The Governor-General
of Canada by appearing to treat the French Consul-General as an authorized Agent
within the meaning of the Act, certainly m&de himself a party to such a construction.

It is to be observed, however, that the British statute reproduces the term
"Diplomatic Agents," which alone appears in the Treaty, and limits to persons so
quahfied the right to demand extradition under the French Treaty. If a more coinpre-

K 2

hciiHivc Hipnifieancc lind then been considered to bo nttached to that term, there was no
reason why it should not have been set forth in tlio statute; in the same manner as in
the statutt' passed on tin- self-same day, namely, tlie L'l'iid of August, li-i^.l, for .giving
elfect to the Extradition Article of the Treaty with tin- United States of the previous
year, no mention was ina<le of the sjieeific cliMnictiT ol' tlie nrticcr «|io should inukc the
demand for extradition, liut ordy tliat the niiiii-itinn sliould he " made hy tlie aulliority
of till- United States." the Treaty speeifyinic in (renend terms " Ministers, otiieers, or
authorities ■' as the channels throu<.'h which rccjui^ifions should he made, and not, as in
the case of the Treaty with France, defining those authorities us Diplomatic Agents. In
the ahsenee, thereiore, of a more comprehensive terni than that of" Diplonuitic .\gents"
in the British statute, it is impos-^ihle for Hei' Majesty's (Jovernment to accede to M. de
Moustier's view that for the purjM)ses of demands of extradition a Consular Agent can he
recojridzed as Diplomatic .\gent, under the Treaty of 1843.

Tiie Act of Congress of 1848, giving efl'ect generally to Treaties of Extradition
concluded or to he concluded with foreign Powers hy the United States, merely specifies
that re<iuisition shall he mside hy the '"proper authorities" of the foreign Governments,
and that term would seem sufficiently large to include others than Diplomatic Agi'uts,
although the Treaty between France and the United States specifies Diplomatic Agents
alone as the medium of rc((uisition. 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
to British law, and therefore does not do so according to the mind of the British
negotiator of the Treaty, or the intention of the British Legislature when giving effect to
it. The French Government are understood to hold tluvt the crime comes within the
term "faux," employed in the French version of the Treaty as the equivalent of the term
" forgery " employed in the English version. Each Government may be right in their
respective contentions as to the import of terms used in the several languages, but when
so material a difference exists between the two parties to a Treaty, it may not l)e
unreasonable in the party who will suffer by an adverse construction to press the other
party not to insist on its own.

But even admitting, with the French Government (which, however, Her ilajesty's
Government are by no means prepared to do), that under exceptional circumstances the
requisition of a Consular Agent for the 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 be pleaded in the case of
M. Lamirande. 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
conveyed direct to Canada without passing through France ; but the crime was committed
in France, the warrant was issued by a Magistrate in France, and it was probably
conveyed by the person who was the bearer of it through England, or at all events might
have been so conveyed without inconvenience or sensible delay. There was therefore no
necessity for disregarding, in this case, the usual practice of applying to Her Majesty's
Government for the extradition of M. Lamirande under that warrant through the French
Diplomatic Agent in England.

On all these grounds, therefore, Her Majesty's Government trust that the French
Government will be disponed to view with favour the application which I have now to
instruct you officially to make to them for the surrender of M. Lamirande.

I am, &c.
(Signed) STANLEY.

No. 31.
Mr. Fane to Lord St<tnley.—(Recelved January 14.)

(Extract.) Paris, January 13, 1867.

I HAD a long conversation yesterday with the Marquis de Moustier on the subject
of the extradition of M. Lamirande.

The result of that conversation was a declaration on the part of his Excellency of the
sincere desire of the Emperor and of the Imperial Government to do strict justice in this
case, and to prevent its becoming the subject of unpleasant controversy between the two
Government.

The views of Her Majesty's Government, M. de Moustier said, had hitherto been

submitted to the Imperial Government in too vapuc a form to admit of a specific reply
bein^r piven to tliem. If these views, topfcllitr with any application which mipht be
iouniiod on thcni. were formally submitted in writinf? to the hnpcrial Government, they
should be considered, with every desire to satisfy scrupulously the ends of justice.

His Kxcellcncy ndded, however, that if tlie release of .M. F.aniininde should be
ilemanded us a matter of favour, it would be iinpn-vlMo tor tin- Iniperiiil (iovernnient, in
view of their res]»onsibility to the law and to public opinion, to accede to it. Hut if it
was based on claims of rijrht and justice, those claims would lie examined with every
desire to satisfy them if they should prove to be legally admissible.

I received this morning your Lordship's ikNiiatcli of yesl.-iday's date, instructing
me to make an otlicial application for the release of M. I^^imirande to tiie Imperial
Government. I have accordingly drawn up a draft of note to M. de Aloustier, copy of
which I have the honour to inclose.

I shall keep my note to M. de Moastier in my possession till to-morrow evening, in
order that your Lordship, should you desire any alteration to be made in it, may instruct
me to that effect by the telegraph.

Inclosurc in Xo. SI.
Draft of Note from Mr, Fane to M. tie Moustier

M. le Ministre, Paris, January 1SG7.

YOU 11 Excellency, in conversation with Earl Cowley and with mysv'lf, on the
subject of the extradition of M. Ijamirandc, 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 formally addressed to the Imperial Government in a written state-
ment.

In accordance with that desire, and in obedience to the instructions of Her ]SIajesty's
Government, I have now the honour of submitting such ii statement to your Excel-
lency.

Her Majesty's Government contend that the extradition of M. Lnniirande was
unauthorized by the Treaty of 1843, and by the Statute giving elleet to that Treaty, on
two grounds :

First, that the demand made for his extradition was not made tlnough the interven-
tion of such a Diplomatic Agent as is contemplated by the Treaty and the British
Statute confirming it ; and.

Secondly, that the offence charged against Lamirande was :iot the offence of
" faux," or forgery, contemplated by the Treaty.

As regards the first point, your Excellency, in your conversation with Lord
Cowley, seemed disposed to contend that the French Consul-Cienenil was, under the
circumstances, an accredited Diplomatic Agent witliin the meaning of tlie Treaty and
Statute.

It is to be observed, however, that the British Statute reproduces the term " Diplo-
matic Agents," which alone appears in the Treaty, and limits to persons so (pialified the
right to demand extradition under the French Treaty. If a more comprehensive signi-
ficance had then been considered to be attached to that term, there was no reason 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, viz., the 22nd of August, 18i3, for giving elleet to tlie
Extradition Article of the Treaty with the United States of the previous year. No
mention was made in that Statute of the specific character of the ofiicer who should make
the demand for extradition, but only that the requisition should be " made by the autho-
rity of the United States," the Treaty specifying in general terms " Ministers, officers,
or autlforities," 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 the British Statute, it is impossible for Her JIajesty's Government to accede to your
Excellency's view that, for the purposes of demands of extradition, a Consular Agent can
be recognized as a Diplomatic Agent under the 'i'roaty of 1843.

The Act of Congress of 1848 giving efi'ect generally to Treaties of Extradition
concluded, or to be concluded, with foreign Powers by the United States, merely specifies
that requisition shall be made by the " proper autiioritics " 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

■w

alone as the medium of requisition. But the British stntiite ndniitH of no siiih ronipro-
bensive confltruction.

Ah rogarils the Hccond point nrisinjr in the enso, Uor Mnjosly's (iovcrttnifiit if)nsi(lcr
that tlie crime witli which M. Liimirnniif is <lmr;L;t'il docs not iinKUiiit to foiircrv acinrdinj;
to British law, un«l tiicrcforcdocs not ilo j-o incordiiiji to tlic iniiid of the Mriti^h ii(';:otintor
of the Treaty, or tlie intention of the ISritish l^cjjislatiirc wlu-ii ;ri^inLr cH'crt to it. 'Hic
French Government are understood to'hold tliat the crime "a-, witliin tlie term " fanx."
employed in the French version of the Treaty as tlic e(|uivnK'iit of the term '•forirery"
employed in the Knirlish version. Each (tovernnu'iit may lie rijjlit in their respective
contentions as to the import of terms used in tlu' several huiuiiayris, Imt wlieii so material
a difference exists between the two parties of a Treaty, it may not he nnrea-oiialile in the
party who will sutler by an adverse construction, to press the other jtarty not to insist on
its own.

But even admitting with the French Government (which, however. Her Majesty's
Government are by no means j)rei)are(l to do), that vindi-r exci'])tional cireumstanceH tlie
recjuisition of a Consular Ai^eiit for the surrender of a jirisoner under the Fxtviidilion
Treaty may be accejited in lieu of that of a Diplomatic .\;;iMit, JIit .Maji-iy 's (loMiiinient
must observe that no such e.\coplional circumstances can he pleaded in the case of
M. Lamirande. Ilis crinu', whatever it may be, was not comndtled in :: French t'olony,
nor was the warrai.t for his apiirehension issued by a French C'oloiual Mairistrate. and
conveyed direct to Canada without jmssing throu;>h France ; but tlic crime was commiittd
iu France, the warrant was issticd by a Ma<;istrate in France, and it was prohably
convejed by the person who was the bearer of it throu<;li Eni-land, or at all event> mi^lit
have been so conveyed without inconvenience or sensible «1( lay, 'I'liere was therefore no
necessity for disregarding, in this case, the usual practice of applying to Her Majesty's
Government for the extradition of M. Lamirande under that warrant through the French
Diplomatic Agent in England.

On all these grounds, therefore, Her Majesty's Government trust that the French
Government will be disposed to accede to the application which I have now the
honour of addressing to your Excellency for the surrender of M. Lamirande.

I avail, &c.
(Signed) JULIAN FAJfE.

No. 32.

Lord Stanley to Mr. Fane.

, Foreign Office, Januurij 14, 18(5".

I HA'VE to acquaint you, in reply to your despatch of the 13th instant, that
I approve of the note which you propose to address to M. de Moustier respecting the case
of M. Lamirande.

1 am, &c.
(Signed) STANLEY.

No. 33.
Mr. Fane to Lord Stanley. — {Received January 16.)

(Extract.) Parin, January 14, 1867.

I HAD the honour of receiving this afternoon your Lordship's telegram, informing
me that the draft of note which I proposed to address to the French Government, upon
the case of M. Lamirande, was approved ; and I accordingly sent my communication to
the Marquis de Moustier without delay.

Your Lordship will perhaps be good enough to direct that the date " 14th of January "
shall be attached to it. It will then be identical with the note which I have addressed to
the Marquis de Moustier.

No. 34.

Mr. Fiine lit Lord Stiinlev. — {Rireived Jitnuiir'i i<>.)

My Lord. Piiri», January 1.'), 1807.

WITH nlirincf to my dcspatcli of tlic lltli instant, statiiij; tliat I Imd requested
M. 'i'rtitc to in(iuirc into the exaet state in wiiieli M. l^iniirande's appeal is. I have
tlie lionoiir to inelose iierewilh a copy of a report whieli 1 have just received from that

gcntleniun .

1 have, &e.
(Signed) JULIAN FANE.

Inclobure iu No. .34.

M. Treiti- to Mr. banc.
M. le .\linistie,

Jl'L suis iille liie.' au pari(ueL dii I'loeureur-CJeneml prt;9 de hi Cour do Cassation,
nrinlbrnur .si Lamiiande avail I'oniie un jio irvoi t'ontrc I'arri^t (|ui I'a eoiidanine a dix
aiiiHis (le leeic.-ion. La ivpon.se ayai.i ele neirutive, je |)uis, a nion letour, re'poiidre avcc
eerliiudf a la (iiiestion (pie vous ave/. l)ien voidu me poser, et \()ns dire tpie la eondanination
dc Lanurandc est deiinilive et ipi'eile ncst jihis suseeptibic d'aueun recours lef;al.

Lc condauime a done aeeepte la |)eiiu' inlamante dont il a ete frappe ; il cut pu I'tre
eondannne a vin^t annees du tra\aux forces, (jui sont ia peine ediett'e pour le faux ; niais
lc jury ayant aecorde a Laniirando ie benetice tl'mic declaration de eireonstances
altcnuantes, la ('our a ete obiifjee d'abaisser d'un deu're reehclle des peines et dc ne
proMoncer (jue la reeliision, dont lo uiaxiniuni est de di,\ annt'cs.

II n'appartient a personne de sonder les motits (pii out determine l^amirande i» ne
pas se p<jurvoir en Cassation ; uiais on pout cependant presumer ipi'il a songe il i'avenir.
En cH'et, si, par (pielque vice de formes on menie pour t'ausse (pialitication dcs faits
eoupabks, mal a [)ropos (jualities de faux, ainsi (pje les del'enseurs de I'aecuse lout plaid(;
ct soutenu. Tanel de eondainnation avail etc easse et I'aeeuse renvoye devant un autre jury,
il aurait bien \m ne pas obtenir une seconde fois uiio declaration de eireonstances
attenuantes, et en (■,• eas il serait condanine aux travaux i'orees et cnvoye h Cayenne.
Aubsi dit-on ^eneralonient ([ue l^auiirande a ete lurt bien traitc par le jury d'un pays
oil sa famille a une luinorable position.

Quant a la qualiliculiou lo crimes do faux donne^' aux faits reproch(5s a Lamirandc, ils
jiaraissent ne pas entrcr dans ec quo ia loi An^laise apjjelle "forijery," qui supj)0.se toujours
un fait materiel, uuo alteration palpable et pbysiciue. Mais le Procureur-(jeneral a soutenu
(et lc jury lui a (!or,:;J raison) (juo cos faits eonstituaient le crime de faux, selon la loi
penale FraiKaise.

En etiet, en France, on distingue doux especes de faux, le faux materiel et lc faux
intellectucl.

Le I'aux materiel resultc d'une falsification on alteration constatce et physiquement
de'niontree.

Le liiux intellectucl resulte sculement de I'alteration ou de la falsification dans la
substance ou lc contcnu d'un acte non falsifie matoriellemetit ; par exemple, ccrire des
conventions autre.s (juo cellos arrfitecs par des contractants ou bien constater comme vrais
des fait.s qui sont fiiux.

C'ette distiiiclion dans le crime de faux est fondec sur cet axiome : Falaitan entfraudu-
lom rcritati.'i mulnlio et in nlterius prmjudlvhun fiicta.

Col to ditinition, admise par les criminalistes Franoais. a passe dans la jurisprudence.
La Cour de Cassation a elle-meme dc'fini k: faux : — " L'alteration dc la verity dans une
intention erimiucllo qui aportc, ouapu porter, prejudice a autrui." (Arr^t du 17 Juillet,

Si Lamirandc se fiit pourvu en Cassation, la Cour do Cassation lui eut probablement
applique cette jurisprudence et out rejete son pourvoi.

Veuilicz bien m'excuser si jo suis entre dans tons ces details ; je ne vous les ai donnas '
que pour quo vous pui.ssiez vous rendre compte du verdict du jury, qui, malgi'C I'absence
d'une alteration mat^rielle dans les ecriturcs de la banque, n'en a pas moins declare Lami-
randc coupable do faux.

Pcrnietle/.-nu)i dajoutor encore quclques mots. J'ai entendu dire que I'Angleterre
pourraltetrc fondec a rcclamer la personne do Lamirandc par le motif que les faits reproches
a cet accuse et pour Icsquels ila ete extrade, nc rentraient pas dans les termes du Traitede

18-13, (pK! Ifs crimes i»i('viis dnns le Tniit<5 doivent avoir Ich m^^mcs caracti^rcs dans li'« deux
pavH, ct mw IjiniiriiiKic, -tioii la loi Aiij^lnisf, n'i-tait pas ruupablc du crime du forgery, mais
sciikiiicnt (111 criiiir (in vol, piiiscju'il n'a pas tnatcricllemcnt alteri? Ics i-critiircs dc la
ljaii(|UL".

L'arKmneiit, s'il ('tait produit, n'a pas dc chances d'c^trc admis. On rdpondrait (pi'li
faiit intcrjuctcr Ics I'laiti'- mIoii la conimunc intention des I'urties Contractantes. Si an
iiionicnt (le la conleitioii dii 'I'raitc il y avail eu lieu a en laire une interpretation, i'Anide-
terro ti'it repondii (pi'iHc entcmlait (juon lui livrat ciux dc ses nationaux aecust^s dc forgery,
<pi(ii(pie la k)i FriUK;aise iic piinissc pas, et nc considerc pas coininc crime dc faux, plusicurs
alterations ct faussetcs niatcnclles eonuniscs dans Ics passeports, Ics fcuillcs de route, et Ics
ccilificats d'exDiii'ratioii niilitaire. L'Aiiu'lcterre n'ci'it cnvisag(^' que Ics caractcrcs du
crime, sduii la lui Aiiu'laisf ; et die cut aj()Utc(|u'ellc entcndait livrer IcsFraneais riJirulierc-
Mient iieciiM.'s du (rime -le faux, tcis epic In loi dc France (pialifie ct punit Ic faux, sans
distiiiguer ciitre ie faux inatt'ric! ct Ic faux intellectucl, admis par la theoric pcnalc en
France — distinction (|ui est unc chose dc It^gislation intdrieure, en dehors de la competence
des (jouvernetnents etrangcrs.

Im France soutiendra que, ninlgre ces circonstanccs anormales (|ui ont accompngiic
I'extradition de I^inirande, die n'a pas fi sc prdoccuper des fails cl des lois, cpii sont en
dchoi-s dc sa competence, et que I'accusc, du moment qu'il etait rdguli^remenl accuse du
crime dc faux, dcvait lui t*tre livr<^,ct lui a H6 livrd A bon droit. Les Traites (rKxtradition
nc sont pas faitsdans rintcrSt des criminels, mais contre les malfaiteurs. Ccux-ci nepeuveiit
les invu(picr ; Ics Gouvernements co-contractnnts ont seuls quality pour les interpreter ct
en cnq)iVher respeefiverneiit la violation I'un i)ar I'autre. Lc Gouvernement Kranriiis n'a
pas violc ni la loi Fran^aisc ni la loi Anglaise. Si I^mirande avail etc acquitte par le
jury 8ur lc chef de faux, il I'eut fait reconduirc h la fronti^re sans lc juger pour vol et
abus dc contiance.

J'ai cm de nion devoir dc vous soumcttrc ces considerations, qui ont cours en France.

Jc doute qu'unc reclamation fonddc sur la violation de la loi Anglaise par des func-
tionuaires Anglais soil accueiliic.

J'ai, &c.
(Signe) TREITK.

(Translation.)
M. le Ministre,

I WENT yesterday to the Office of the Procureur-Gdneral at the Court of
Cassation, to learn whether Lamirande had appealed against the sentence which has
condemned him to ten years of solitary confinement (" reclusion "). The reply havinir
been in the negative, I am enabled on my return to give a definite answer to the question
which you have been pleased to put to me, and to tell you that the conviction ut
]-amirandc is definitive, and that it is no longer susceptible of any recourse to law.

Tlie convict has, then, acquiesced in the degrading penalty inflicted on him. He
might have been condemned to twenty years' penal servitude (" travaux forces "), which
is the penalty for forjrcry ; but tlic jury having given Lamirande the benefit of a declara-
tion of extenuating circumstances, the Court was obliged to go a step lower in the scale
of penalties,, and to pronounce sentence of solitary confinement only, of which the
maximum is tcMi years.

It is no one's business to fathom the motives which have determined Lamirande not
to appeal, but it may, however, be presumed that he thought of the future. In fact, if
through some iuformnlity, or even through a false description of the culpable acts
improperly defined as forgery, as the defenders of the accused have pleaded and main-
tained, the sentence had been quashed and the accused sent before another jury, he
might perhaps not have been able to obtain a second time a declaration of extenuating
circumstances, and in this case he would have been condemned to hard labour and
sent to Cayenne. Thus it is generally said that Lamirande very well treated by the
jury of a country where his family occupied an honourable position.

As to the definition of crimes of forgery given to the acts imputed to Lamirande,
they do not appear to fall within what the law of England calls "forgery," which always
supposes a material act, a palpable and physical alteration. But the Proeuroin -General
has maintained (and the jury liavc taken the same view) that these acts constitute the
crime of forgery neeording to the penal law of l'" ranee.

In fact, in France there are two distinct kinds of forgeiy, the material and the
moral ("iutdlcctuel").

Material forgery results fr;)iu a falsification or alteration proved and physically
demonstrated.

Moral forgery only rcs\ilt'< from tli»> alteriitioii or fuUifiootion of the nubstancc or the
contents of u document not materially f'aMtidi ; tor cxainiilc, drawing agreements different
from those settled bv tlie contraetiiiL parlies, or (leclarim!; a< true tiling* which are false.

I'his di<«tii)Cti()ii in tlie eriiiie of forgery is foinulcd tipuii this axiom : " Fuisitas est
fraudulosu veritatis mutatio et in alteriiis prieiiuiieium fueta."

This definition, admitted hy the Treneii eriiiiinal lawyers, has passed into juris-
prudence. The Court of Cassation has itself (ietiiud foruery : — " Alteration of the truth
witli a criminal intention which has prejudiced or could have prejudiced another." —
(Decree of July 17. \H:i:,).

If I^mirundc had appealed, the Court of Cassation would prohably have applied this
maxim of iiiw to him, and would have rejected his appeal.

Be good enough to excuse me lor entering into all these details ; I have only given
them in order to enable you to (orn> an opinion on the verdict of the jury, who, not-
withstanding the absence of an actual alteration in the Dank accounts, did not the less
declare Laniirande guilty of forgery.

Allow me to add a li w more words. I have heard it said that England might be
justified in reclaiming the jierson of Laniirande on the ground that the acts imputed to the
accused, and for which he was surrendered, did not come within the terms of the Treaty of
lb4<'i ; that the crimes provided for in the Treaty ought to have the same character in the
two countries -, and that J^mirande, according to the law of l')nglund, was not guilty of the
crime of forgery, but only of the crime of theft, since he has not actually altered the bank
accounts.

The argument, if produced, has no chance of being admitted. Jt would be replied
that Treaties must he interpreted according to tlie common intention of the Contracting
Parties. If at the time of drawing up the Treaty an interpn-tation had to he made, f^igland
would have answered that she understood that her subjects accused of forgery should
be delivered up, although the law of France does not punish, and docs not consider as
forgery, several alterations and material fasitications committed in passports, march
routes, and certificates of exoneration from militan,' service. England would only have
looked at the character of the crime according to the law of England, and she would have
replied that she was prepared to surrender French subjects regularly accused of the crime
of forgery, such as the law of France defines and punishes as forgery, without dis-
tinguishing between material and intellectual forgery, admitted by the penal theory in
France, a distinction which is a matter for internal legislation, beyond the competence of
foreign Governments.

France will maintain that, in spite of the abnonnal circumstances which have accoqa-
panied the extradition of Lamirande, she has nothing to do with acts and laws which arc
beyond her competence, and that the accused, from the moment that he was rcgu.arly
accused of the crime of forgery, ought to have been surrendered to her, and has been
justly surrendered. Treaties of Extradition are not made in the interest of criminals,
but against evil-doers. These cannot appeal to them ; the co-contracting Governments
alone are qualified to interpret them, and to prevent their violation the one by the other
respectively. The French Government has violated neither the law of France nor that
of England. If Lamirande had been acquitted by the jury on the charge of forgery, it
would have caused him to be reconducted to the frontier, without trying him for thefl
and abuse of confidence.

I have thought it my duty to submit these considerations to you, which are current in
France.

I doubt whether a demand founded on the violation of the law of England by English
functionaries would be entertained.

I have, &c.
(Signed) TREITE.

No. 35.
Mr. Mackensie to Lord Stanley. — {Received January 30.)

My Lord, 77, Gresham House, Old Broad Street, January 29, 1867.

I AM sorry again to trouble your Lordship on this case, but having sent out to our
correspondents and clients at Montreal the particulars of the trial in France, and with all
the facts connected therewith, up to the 8th December, I have just received a reply to that
communication, and am urgently requested to draw your Lordship's attention to the facts
set out in the extract from his letter, which I now inclose.

[68] L

mr^m

My uttculioii liu been drawn tu ii )):iru|^u|ili iu tli> '* Suiidind " dI' Satunlny lost, to
the effect tlmt the " Ua/cttc dis Tribunaux " savi it is OHHcrtcd that tho English Ciuvcrn-
nicnt ha* niude un iipplication tor the surrender of Lainirandi'. Will \ our Lurdt<hi|i bo kind
enough to Ht4itc wliuthcr tliure i» any t'uundution fur this |Hira.iji'ii|)li, and how the matter
BtandH nt present ?

1 have a;;ain to urge upon your Lordshi]) the prcut importance of our Anibussndur
making u further application to the Frcncii uuthurities fur M. Lnnirande'^t release.

I have, &c.
(Si^Mlcd) J. II. MACKENZIE.

IncloHtirc in No. M5.
Extract from a Letter of Mr. Doutre, dated December ti8, 18(J(J.

I HOPE you have already taken steps for drawinc; the attention of your Oovomment
to the fact that Liimirande has been tried tor tacts ditf'erent fVoin those for which lie was
extradited. 'Hie tri.il hos not brought out the shadow of the facts for which extradition
was asked. It has never even been attempted to make cnit tlmt Lamirandc had ever made
any false entries in the books of the Banjt of France. The Uritish Government have as
much right to nsk his release as if he hnd been tried for embezzlement or robbery. The
trial raises a totally new issue between the two Governments, and the question on which
Lord Stanley has abandoned the demand of restoration has in no way prt^judiccd the
ground on which the j)risoncr may now be claimed.

The doctrine laid down by the Attorney-Genernl before the assizes of Poitiers, viz.,
that the Court must try the prisoner whom it finds before it, no matter how he has been
brought there,— that doctrine is the diivct negative of the position taken by the Lord
Chancellor before the House of Lords on the 19th July last, when he said, " It has been
supposed that tho French Government arc extremely desirous of continuing the Extradition
Treaty for political purposes, because they may, by making criminal chnrgcs against
particular individuals, get possession of such persons, and then try them in France for
political offences. There could not be a more mistaken notion, than that any such law
prevails in France. On the contrary, there is a strict law under which no person delivered
up, In consequence of an Extnulition Treaty, can be tried for any offence other than that
in respect of which he was so delivered up. If acquitted, although he may be clmrged with
twenty other offences, he is allowed to leave France, and to return to the country whence
he was sent."

Tliis last doctrine has been positively denied by the Attorney-General, though it is
true the Court limited the trial to the charge of " faux." But it turns out be upon facts not
mentioned at all in the demand of the French Consul-Generul, in the warrant originating
the prosecution, or in the Warrant of Extradition. It seems, then, that there is a clear case
for the intervention of the British Government.

No. 36.
Mr. Egerton io Mr. Mackenzie.

Foreign Office, January 31, 1867.

Sir,

I AM directed by Lord Stanley to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 29th
instant, and its inelosure, with reference to the case of M. Lamirande ; and I am to state to
yoa in reply, that this matter is still under the consideration of Her Majesty's Government,
and that, in its present stage, they cannot give you any more detailed reply to your
communication.

I am, &c.
(Signed) E. C. EGERTON.

No. 37.

Mr. Fane to Lord Stanley. — {Received February 2.)

My Lord, Paris, February 1, 1867.

I HAVE the honour to indole copy of an article from the " Gazette des Tribunaux,"
on the oaie of M. Lamirande.

I n&V6 &c

(Signed) ' JULIAN FANE

IiK-loNure in No, .17.
Ettract from thr " (iiiuUt ilr» Tnbuiwiu."

l.'KxTRAmnuN DK Lamiiunde.

NOl'S nvoii-* miiioiico, cominf tin limit u'l'iuralcmciii rt'|iiiii(lii (iipiii-. ijiiplqiifn joiii!«,
que le CiouveriicMiuiit Aii«liiiH kc disposcniit .'i riVliiincr a h\ France In restitution <lc
I.aniirniule, dont IVxtraditioii a ite onlonn^f par rnutoritd jiulieiaiir de Canada,

I,a nouveile cut exacto. !>• Minist^re de la .Iu'*tiee int ^aisis de la reclamation de
I'AnijIuti'iTC'. Kl h! nouK en ovovoM'* ee <|iii a Irnnsiiire a ett I'j^ard, lu (lonvernement
AnKlai*, pret( ndnnt (pic IVxtrudition n'aurait pan eto reftulidrcinent oonscntic, invo(juerttit
deux motifs a Tappui de sa deniande.

1^ premier Hernit (pie, aux termcs du Tniite de ISj.'j entre la Fraiiee ft I'Annhiterre,
I'extradition ne |)out i!tre areordcc (pie sur la deniande d'nn Aifent hiploniatiipic. Ur, la
demandc d'extradition du Lamimnde a t'te lornieo par le Consnl-Citfneral de Franre an
Canada. Les Con>^uls sont des ,\i;ents Coinmeniaux et iion des Ai^ents Diplomatique-*.
Selon \c Gouverncment Anglain, la demande d'exlradition de Lainirande n'aurait done pas
(lA 6tru accueilliu, a raison do la t'nnetion de I'Aitent (pii lavait tranMinise.

Le second motif invo(pie par rAn^leferre, jionr cfaliiir I'irr^'zularite de I'extrndition
(le Lamirande, serait (pie les fails i'clc\ei« ik sa cliarufc. Niln constituent le crime de faux
d'apr^sla loi Fran^aixe, ne constitufiit pns le in/^mc crime d'niirfs la loi An^laiHC, et (pi'anx
tcrinei du Traite de l^A'.l, l'An;,dtten'e ne s'cst cni^atfce a livrcr les aecusen (pie lorsqne Ic
fait relevt? centre eux conslitnerait, d'apr^s la loi Antjiaise, nil (Us crimes enumcr^s dans le
Traits. Or, la loi Anglaiso ne iccoiinait comnie tiiux (pie ralt^ration mat^rielle d'une
Venture. A la ditli^renco dc I'ArticIc 47 de notre Code IVnid, ellu ne (pialitie pas crime de
faux la fabrication de conventions, diHpof<itioiii4, obligations on dc'eliaitres ; de sorte qu'en
Angloterre I.amirandc n'atirait pas (;tc rcgardc; coininu enn|)alile du crime de faux. La
conclusion que tirerait de la le Gouvcrnemcnt Anglais, c'cKt que I'extradition n'auruit pas
dii £tro accord^c, et il rcdeinanderait la personnt; de I^iiniian(je.

S'il est exact que I'Angleterrc veuille, en ivclaniant la restitution de Ijiniimnde, revcnir
sur unc extradition ({u'clle a volontairciiient et libremcnt accordce, il ne nous paratt gu6re
vraisemblable qu'cllc puisse fonder sa deniande sur les dcnx moyens qii'on pretend qu'elle
invoquerait ; car ils ne re])osent sur aucunc base solidc et nc sauraient r^sisterik un examcn
s^rleux.

Le fait de livrer un accuse, reclame par une Puissance etrangferc, est uu act© de
Bouverainet^. Cet actc de souverainct^ pent Ctre accompli par un Gouvernement, sans
qu'il ait au pr^alable conclu de Traite special avec la Puissance (pii reclame le coupable.
Nous n'auriong pas de Traits avec I'Anuletcrre pour I'extradition des malfaiteurs, que nous
pourrions cependant, si des malfaiteurs l'Vun(;ais sc r^fiieiaient dans le Koyaume Uni, en
demander I'extradition ; et I'Angleterrc pourrait nous les rendre pour les juger en France ;
car, le droit d'accorder des extraditions appavticnt a clinque Gouvernement en vertu de sa
souverainct^. Ce ne sont pas les Traitds d'Extradition qui conf^rcnt ii la Puissance
chez qui des malfaiteurs se sont r^fugi^s, le droit de les rendre au Gouvernement de
leur pays. Ce» Traitds ont seulement pour but, de la part des Puissances Contractantes,
pour la facility de leurs relations, de constater qu'cllcs prennent rengagement r^ciproque
d'user, I'unc cnvcrs I'autre, dans de certains cas et d'une certaine muniere, du droit qui leur
appartient d'accorder des extraditions.

Mais, parce qu'un Gouvernement aura pris envers une autre I'uissaiice I'cngagement
de livrer les malfaiteurs accuses de tcis ou tels crimes, lorsqu'ils seraient reclames dc telle
ou telle mani^re, — par la voie diplomatique par exemple,— il ne s'cnsuit pas que ce
Gouvernement ne puisse pas, s'il le juge convenable, consentir I'extradition d'une personne
accus^e d'un crime non prevu au Traite, m^me si elle ^tait reclamee par une autre voie que
celle qui a et^ stipul^c.

L'Angleterre ^tait done niattresse nbsolue de livrer Lamirande, inline pour un crime
non prevu par la loi Anglaise, et mi^me si la denmndo (I'extradition ctait prt^sent^ par unc
autre personne (jue par un Agent Diplomatique. Lorsque, usaiit de son droit, elle u accordd
une extradition, soit dans un cas prevu par un Traite, soit en dehors des provisions d'un
Traits, peut-elle Stre recevable k vouloir revenir sur le fait accompli, en modifiant I'acte
de souvcrainctd emane d'elle>m6me, par lequel elle a opere I'extradition !

Ce qu'il y aurait de plus singulier dans la reclamation dc lamirande par le Gouverne*
ment Britannique, ce serait la contradiction que cettc reclamation etablirait entre les
principes sur lesquels elle s'appuierait, et d'autres principes, invoquOs prOcOdemment par
une partie des Membres du Parlement Anglais, et mSme par quelques publicistes de
notre pays.

L 2

Par sa reclamation, ic Gouvernemcnt Angluis voudrait rcvcnir sur un actc dmanc de
lui ou de ses agents ; il voudrait reformer cet a te par Ic niotif que ceux qui I'auraient
ordonne, nurtiitiit corrmis unc erreur de droit. Ce serait le Pouvoir Royal, representation
Ja plus ebve'c du Pouvoir Administratit", deelarani que ses agents infericurs se sont trornpes,
qu'ils ont nial proceue, ct voulant hubstitucr une decision nouvelle i celie qui avait etd
prise (! abord.

Si ks \gents Diploinatiques Anglais, agissant au uoin de leur Reine, rdclament un
indivJ! u, iivre par l"ur Gouvciiiement ii une Puissance etrangiirc, en disant que la Reine
ot Jon Cabinet— c'est-i-dire, le I'ouvoir Executif de d'Angleterrc — regardent sou extradi-
tion commc ayant ete aecordee a tort, et qu'ils out decide de I'unnuler, c'est que, pour le
Gouvernemcnt Anglais lui-mfirae, Ic fait d'accorUer, de refuser ou d'annulcr une extradition
est un acte de souverainett-.

Cette doctrine n'est pas precisenient celle qui a ete soutenue jusqu'ici par les Anglais
ct par les Administriiteurs passionnes dc la constitution et des lois de la Grande Bretagne.
On disait que chez nos voisins I'cxti-adition dtait unc ecuvre de justice, ct non unc mcsure
administrative.

En rdclamant Lamirande, Ic Gou' ernenient Anglais porterait le coup de grace a cette
doctrine ; car, si Lamirande a ete livre en vertu d'une decision dc justice, comment Ic
pouvoir administratif pourrait-il s'arro<;er le droit dc ju^^er, d'apprecier et de reformer cette
decision de justice, qui a acquis 1 autorite de la chose jiigec .'

Ou bien, si le Gouvernemcnt .Vnglais croit (\ue. dans les pays soumis a sa domination,
I'extradition est oeuvre de justice, la reclamation, dont on p.icle, ne s'explicjuerait pas.

Car il faut noter, d'apres ce qu'on dit de cette reclamation, qu'il n'y serait pas
question des moyens qui ont etc presentes devant la justice Fran^-aise, dans I'interet de
Lamirande. Ainsi, le Gouvernemcnt Anglais ne se plaindrait pas dc ce qu'on aurait execute
une decision de justice, qui n'aurait pas ete detinitive, au mepris d'un appel, ou du droit
d'appel de Lamirande. On comprendrait jusqu'i un certain point le pouvoir executif d'un
pays, qui donne la force executoire aiix decisions de justice, venant se plaindre de ce qu'on
aurait exteute une decision illaqueile il n'aurait pas communique cette force executoire, ou
de ce que la force executoire, qui i, pcut einaner que dc lui, aurait ete donnee ^ tort i^ i^i
sentence d'un Juge. On pourrait reponiJre a une reclamation basec sui ces motifs, que
c'etait au Gouvernemcnt reclamant dc surveiller I'exe'cution des actc? de ses tribunaux ou
de ses agents pdministratils sur son territoire ; niais qn'une fois ies actes executes, il ne
peut plus les reformer, alors que les p.-rsonnes auxqu'Jlcs ils s'appliquent, ne sont plus
dans Tenclavc de sa juridiction. Mais, nous le repetons, dans re cas on pourrait
comprendre la recl.'imation jusqu'a un certain point ; tandis que, dans la reclamation telle
■^u'ellc serait formulee aujourd'hui, I'Angleterre recc»;naitrait qu'en la forme elle n'a pas
d'objcction a fairc contre la decision d" Juge qui a ordonne I'extradition ; elle pretendrait
seulement que le Juge :. mal statue, qu'il n'aurait pas dQ accueillir la demande.

Que deviendrait alors ce grand principe de I'autorile de la chose jugee que tous les
Gouvernements reconnaissent, proclament et reKpectemt ?

Le Cabinet de Londres voudiait-il j)iclerdre que ^extradition de Lamirande a ^te
aecordee au. mepris de la loi Anglaise ; que, dnas les pays de I'obeissance de la Couronne
d'Angleterrc, les extraditions ne peuvent (Ure accordecs que dans les cas prevus par la loi ;
que la loi, qui rsigle cette matiere de Pextraditioii a I'egard de la France, c'est le Bill qui a
approuv6 le Traite de 18-13 ; et que ce Bill ne permciiait pas d'acjorder I'extradition sur la
demande d'un Consul, pour un crime auquel la loi Anglaijc re reconnaissait pas le
caract^re du faux.

A cela il serait facile de rdnondre que les Puissances ctrangercs, q»ii demandent et
obtiennent I'extradition des ma. itc;irs refugies en Angleterre, n'ont pas 4 se pr^occupor
de la question de savoir ki les autoritds Anglaises, qui statuent sur les extraditions, ont
observe ou non les lois particuli^res dc leur pa^ ^.

Le Ministre Anglais ne peut pas, eu effet, soutenir qu'il y ait eu violation des
principes du droit des gens, car Lamirande n'a pas ete arrachc par violence ou par surprise
du sol Britannique.

On comprend une reclamation diplomatique, a propos a'un fait qui a ete accompli
centre ',a volonte et au mepris des droits de la puissance qui reclame. Mais on ne
s'explifjue guere une reclamation d'un Gouvernement k propos d'un acte qui emane de lui.
Si I'extradition de Lamirande ne devait pas avoir lieu d'apres la loi Anglaiac, il ne fallait
pas la consentir ; raais une fois cette extradition operee, ii ne doit plus ^tre possible de la
rttracter.

A ujourd'hui, la justice Franyaise a prononc^. EUe a frappe Lamirande pour le crime de

aux. Si, apr^M la decision du jury Fvanyais, il fallait remettre Lamirande en liberte, le

renvoyer en Angleterre pour qu'il pat y jouir de I'impunite de ses mefaits,ce serait un scandale

public. Ce ne serait qu'en gemissant que le Gouvernemv'nt Frangais pourrait accueillir la

c de
aient
itioD
ipes,
ctd

it un
leine
radi-
ur le
ition

reclamation dc I'AngloteiTC. lleureuiicment, il n'cxiste dans Ics Traitds aucune stipulation
qui oblige la France it restilucr Lainiraudc.

Mais si, rur impossible, la Fnincc se trouvait obligee ;» cette restitution, cc serait la
condamnation In plus manifeste du Traite de 1 843.

Jusqu'ii prt'sent, cc T-aite t'tait reste une lollre-morto. Le (jouvernemcnt Fran^ais
n'avait pu obtenir ai cunc extrr-iition de rAntfleterre. \'«ic'i ccpcndant (ju'une extradition
est accorde'e, a raison d un crime qui avait viveiiieni enui I'opinion piibii<|ue. Le coupabic,
livre a Injustice Fran^aise, est CDndamne par le jury de son piys, it il t'audrait restituersa
personne a rAiiglcterro pour I'empi^cher de subir sa eondnmnation !

Ce Tniite dc lHA-i entre la France ct TAnglctcTrc, (jui a ete denonee par notre
Gouvernemcnt, et qui dtpuis n'a etc proroge qu'a titrc provJsoire, de six raois en six
mois, doit otrc definitivement jugt.

Tout en I'invoquant dans les eas qui y etaient express^ment prevus, la Fnmce, avant
186(5, ne p.)uvait pas obtenir I'extradition dcs accuses refugies en Angleicrre. Des raisons
de fait emp<}cliaient toujours les deniaudes d'extradition des accuses de pouvoir reussir.
On ne pouvait pas non plus obtenir lextradition des condamnes refugies dans les posses-
sions Britanniques, jiar une raison de droit strict, tiree de ce que le Traite ne parlait que
des accuses ct non des condanmes. De sorte (pit- soit par dcs considc'ratiuiis de fait, soit
par des considerations de droit, accuses et condainnes trouvnient fi-npunite en Angleterre.

Aujourd'liui, il faudrait, si la reclamation t'tait adiniso, epic rceuvre dc la justice
Fran^'nise iiit arr^tee dans un nouveau ens encore ; car, il en rcsulterait lunpunite pour les
accuses livres par rAnglcterre et condamiies, apres leur extiiidition, par nos Tribunaux.

N'y aurait-il |)as lieu alors de rcconnaitre que I'epreuve du Traite de 1843 a etc
assez longue pour la dignite de la France ?

(Signe) CH. DUVERDY.

(Translation.^

KxTUADiTioN OF Lamiuaxde. — WE havc announced, as a rumour which lias been
generally spread about for some days past, that the English Government was about to
claim from France the rcsl oration of Lainirande, whose extradition had been decreed by
the judicial authority of Canada.

The news is true. The Ministry of Justice has the English claim before it. And
if we believe what has transpired respecting this matter, the English Government, alleging
that the extradition was I'ot regularly granted, urges two reasons in support ot their
demand.

The first is that according to the Treaty of 1848 between France and England,
extratlition can only be granted upon the demand of a Diplomatic Agent. Now the
demand for Lamirande's extradition was 'nade by the French Jonsnl-Geiieial in Canada.
Consuls are Commercial, and not Diplomatic Agents. According to the English Govern-
ment the demand for Lamirande's extradition should not have been received, on account
of the character of the a^ent transmitting it.

The second reason put forward by England to show the irregularity of Lamiranile's
extradition is that the acts laid to his charge, even if constituting the crime of forgery
according to French law, do not amount to the same crime in English law, and
that by the terms of the Treaty of 184'3, England has only bound herself to surrender
persons accused of what, according to Englisii law would amount to one of the crimes
enumerated in the Treaty. Now, English law onh' r;*cognizes as forgery an actual
alteration in anything written. In contradistinction to Article 47 of our Penal Code, it
does not conside;- the fabrication of agreements, directions, bonds, or acijuittances to con-
stitute the crime of forgery ; so that in England Lainirande would not have been considered
guilty of forgery. The conclusion drawn therefrom by the E'lglish Government is that
the extradition ought not to have been granted, and the' ilemand the rendition of
Lamirandc.

If it be true that in claiming the restoration of Lamin .ide, England wishes to recur to
the question of an extradition voluntarily and freely t^.anted by herself, it seems to us
hardly credible that she can found her demand on the '.wo rtu.;ons on which it is pretended
she relies ; for they repose on no soiid basis, and ^ .nld not resist a serious examination.

The surrender of an accused person when ciaimcd by a foreign Power, is an act of
sovereignty. This act of sovereignty can be carrie t out by a Government without having
previously ".oncluded a special Treaty with the Power claiming the culprit. Although we
might have no Treaty of Extradition with England, yet, were Frencli criminals to seek
refuge in the United Kingdrin, we could ask lor their extradition, and England could give
them up to us for trial in France; for the right ot granting extraditions belongs to each

Government by virtue of its 9overeij»nty. It is not Extradition Treaties which confer
upon the Power of the country where tin- culprits have taken refuge, tiio right of
surrendering them to their own (Government. The only ohject of these Treaties is to
facilitate the relations of the Contraotiiifj; Powers, and to record that they reciprocally bind
themselves to use towards eucii other, in ccrtuin cases and in a certain manner, the right
which belongs to them of t;rantinir extradition^.

But because .i Government shall have i ntered into an arrangement with another
Power to surrender criminals accused of such or such criini s when claimed in such or such
manner, by diplomatic means for instance, it does not follow that this Government is
unable, should it think proper, to const nt to the extradition of a person accused of a
crime not provided for in the Treaty, even if the application be made in a manner oti.er
than that stipulated.

England linl. therefore, full power (o surrender Ijiimirande even for a crim-^ not
recognized as such by tiie Knglish law, and even although the demand for extradition
were presented by some one not a DiplonnUie Agent. When, therefore, in the exercise of
her right, she has granted an extradition, whether in c. cane provided for by a Treaty, or
whether in a case beyond ti'.e ])rovisions of a 'i'reaty, is it allowable tor her to recall the
accomplished fact, and niodily the net of sovereitrnty emanating from herself, by whtch
she has effected the extradition ! What is still more singular in the British Government's
demand for the rendition of Laniirande is, that that demand would involve the contra-
diction of those principles on which they rely, and of other ])rinciples appealed to
previously by one part of tiie iiicmbers of the English Parliament, and even by some
publicists of our own countiy.

By their demand the Kntrlish Government wishes to recall an act which emanated from
themselves or from their agents; they wish to revise this act on the plea that those who
ordered it committed a legal error. This is for the Royal power, the highest repre-
sentation 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 (irst been taken.

If the English Diplomatic Agents, acting in the name of their Queen, demand an
individual, surrendered by their Government to a foreign Power, afhnning that the Queen
and her Cabinet, i.e., the Executive Power of England, regard his extradition as having
been improperly granted, and that thev have resolved to cancel it, it is because that for the
English Government itself the fact of granting, refusing, or cancelling an extradition, is an
act of sovereignty.

This is not precisely the same doctrine as that hitherto maintained by the English,
and by the enthusiastic administrators of the constitution and laws of Great Britain, It
was said that among our neighbours extradition was a judicial act, and not an adminis-
trative measure. In demanding I^mirande,. the English Government would give the
final blow to this doctrine ; for if Lamirar.av- has been given up in virtue of a judicial
decision, how can the administrative power arrogate to itself the right to judge, appreciate,
and revise that judicial decision, which has acquired the authority of a matter adjudged?

Again, if the English Government believes that, in the countries under its rule, extra-
dition is a judicial act, there is no explanation for the talked-of demand.

For, it is to be noticed, acco. ding to what is said of this demand that no luestion is
raised on these points advanced b fore the French tribunal in the interest of Lamirande.
Thus, the English Government uoes not complain of a judicial decision which was not
definitive, having been executed in spite of an appeal, or the right of appeal, by
Lamirande. We could understand, to a certain point, the executive power of a country
which gives executive force to the decisions of justice, complaining of the execution of a
decision to which it has not given this executive force, or that the executive force, which
can only emanate from itself, iias been erroneouslj given to the sentence of a judge. We
may reply to a demand based on these pleas, that it was the business of the Government
which makes the demand to watch the execution of the acts of the tribunals or of the
Administrative Agents in its territory, but that, tlie acts once carried not. they can no
longer be revised, since the persons to whom they apply are no longer within its
jurisdiction. But, we ivpeat, in this case the demand might be intelligible to a certain
point ; whereas in the demand, j it is at present framed, Englnrid avows that blic has no
formal objection to make against the decision of the Judge who ordered the extradition-
she only pivtends that the Judge has given a wrong decision, that he ought not to have
entertained the demand.

What becomes, then, of that grand principle of the authority of an adjudged matter,
which is acknowle<lged, proclaimed, and respected by all Governments ?

DoM the Cabinet of London wish to pretend that the extradition of Lamirande has

been granted iu contempt of Knirli>li law ; tliat in the coiintiv under tlic sway of the
English Crown extraditions can only be gninti-d in tu*i.- iiiu\ iilcd (or by law ; that the
law which rcjiulatcs this matter of extradition witli re^jmt to Fnuire is the Bill which
approved the Treaty of 184'}; and that this Bill d.-cs not permit the cranting an
extradition on the demand ol a Consul (or a tiime whieli the English law docs not
recogni/e as a forgery ?

To this it is easy to answer, that foreign l^. v ,^ who demand and ol)tain the extra-
dition of criminaln who have taken refngi in Knstlftiid arc not oldigid to trouble tliemselvcs
with the f|uestion whether the Kngli^' utlioiities who decide on the extraditions have
observed, or not, the special law nt ',,11 country.

The English Minister i mdeed, maintain tiial tiicre has been a violation of the

principles of international law, Im- Laniirande has nut been taken by violence or fraud from
British soil.

We can understand a diplomatic demani "ith . Terence to an act which has been
done against the will or in contempt of tlie rij,' ' of tlie Power making the demand.
But there is hardly any explanation for a demand liy a Government with reference to an
act that cmana'.cs from itself. If the extradition of Lamirantle ought not to have taken
place, according to tlie English law, its cons nt ougiit not to have been given. But
extradition once effected, it cannot possibly be retracted.

French justice has now pronounccf- •-,; >o:;'.'o. It has condemned l^amirandc for the
crime of forgery. It", after tlie decisit ;i of tli . French jury, it should be necessary to
restore Laniirande to liberty, to send him !. • '. to England, there to enjoy with im|)nnity
the fruits of his misdeeds, this would be a public scandal. It is only with irreat reluc-
tance that the French Government can entertain the demand of England. Happdy
there exists in the Treaties no stipul.ition which obliges Franco to restore Laniirande.

But if, through some ir.ipossibility, France found herself forced to make this lestitu-
tion, this would be the most manifest condemnation of tlie Treaty of 1843.

Up to the present time this Treaty had remained a dead-letter. Tlic French Govern-
ment had not been able to obtain any extradition from England.

Here, however, an extradition has been granted, on account of a crime that had
strongly excited public opinion. The culprit surrendered to French justice has been
condemned 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, whicli has been denounced by our
Government, and which has since only been provisionally prolonged, six months at a time,
ought to be definitivelv adjudged. Even while appealing to it in eases which were
expressly provided for in it, France, previous to 1 8G6, was not able to obtain the extra-
dition of accused persons who had ti.ken refuge in England. Matters of fact have always
hindered the demands for extradition of accused jicrsons from succeeding. Neither was it
possible to obtain the extradition of persons wlio liad taken refuge in British possessions,
on account of a strict legal technicality, derived from the fact that the Treaty only
mentioned accused and not condemned persons. 80 that, whether from considerations of
fact, or from considerations of law, accused and condemned were able to find impunity
in England.

In this instance, were the demand admitted, it would be necessary that the operation
of justice should be stopped again on a fresh ground, for the result would be impunity for
accused persons delivered up by England and condemned after their extradition by our
tribunals.

Would there not, then, be occasion to acknowledge that the Tieaty of 1843 has been
tried long enough for the dignity of France ?

(Signeu) CH. DUVERDY.

ii(;

No. 38.

Mr. Fane to Lord Stcnley. — {Received February 27.)

(Extract.) • Paris, February 25, 18G7.

THE brother of M. Lamirande called upon me this day for the purpose of placing in
my hands two letters addressed to Earl Cowley, copies of which I have the honour to
inclose. The one is from M. I.amirande himself, withdrawing the application made by
him to Lord Cowley in September last, that Her Majesty's Government would demand bis
surrender by tho French Government ; the other, which is signed by the father and brother
of M. Lamirande, transmits his letter and approves its contents.

M. Lamirande's brother, in (Idiverinp tliesc letters to me, gave expression to the
strong desire entertained by his family to put a term to the unhappy notoriety which
attached to their name, by causing all further 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.

Inclosurc 1 in No. 38.

MM. G. C. and C. -S. Lumirande to Earl Cowlty.

M. I'Ambassadeur, dultellerauU, le Fe'vrier, 1867.

J'AI I'honneur de vous trnnsmettre ci-inclusc une lettrc de mon fils, Ernest
Lamirande, par laquelle il retire la demandc iju'il avait adressde en Scptcmbre dernier A
votre Excellence k Veffet d'etre reclame par Ic Gouvcrnemcnt dc la Grande Bretagne.

.I'ai voulu me cbar{,cr moi-mfime d'adrcsser a votre Excellence cette declaration,
dans laquelle nous constatons avec satisfaction, ma, famille (*■ moi, le desir de mon
nialhcurcux tils, dc nous eviter la continuation de penibles emotions, en mettant un terme
au bruit scandaicux dont notre nom a ete I'objet.

Nous I'eussions vu d'ailleurs avec peine s'lloigner de nous, dont I'influence sur lui
ne pent tStre que salutaire ; nous aurions craiut que rendu h la libcrte, il n'en fit peut-^tre
un emploi qui lui eAt interdit pour I'avenir Tespoir de sa rehabilitation.

C'est done avec notre agrement qu'il retire sa demande et qu'il a renoned tr^s
librement du reste, et d'une mani^re toute spontanee, je suis heurcux de lui rendre cette
justice, au benefice de la restitution de sa personne que le Gouvernemeut de la Grande
Bretagne eut pu obtenir du Gouverncment Frangais.

Mon fils le plus jeune, qui signe avec moi cette lettre, s'assoeie pleinement aux
sentiments qu'elle cxprime.

Daignez, &c.
(Sign^) C. G. LAMIRANDE.

C. S. LAMIRANDE.

(Translation.)
M. rAmbassadeur, Chdtellerault, Fehruartj . } 867.

I HAVE the honour to transmit to you herewith a letter from my son, Ernest
Lamirande, in which he withdraws the request which he had addressed in September laist
to your Excellency, with the object of his surrender being claimed by the Government of
Great Britain.

I am desirous myself of addressing this declaration to your Excellency in which my
family and I record with satisfaction the desire of my unhappy son to spare us the continu-
ation of painful emotions by putting an end to the disgraceful notoriety of which our name
has been the subject.

Moreover, we should with sorrow have seen him separate himself from us whose
influence over him cannot be otherwise than salutary. We 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 tuture of his reinstatement in his former position.

It is, then, with our coucun-enee that he recalls iiis request, and that he, moreover,
freely and quite spontaneously (I am glad to do him this justice) gives up the advantages
of his it'storation to liberty which the Government of Great Britain might have succeeded
in obtaining from the French Government.

My youngest son, who signs this letter with me, fully joins in the sentiments which it
expresses.

I have, &e.
(Signed) C. G. LAMIRANDE.

Inclosure 2 in No. 38.
M. E. S. Lamirande to Earl Cowley.

M. I'Ambassadeur, Fontevrault, le 1 9 F/vrier, 1867.

A MON arrivde du Canada, dans le courant du mois de Septembre dernier, j'ai eu
I'honneur d'adresser de Paris h votre Excellence une demandc tendant h obtenir que le

the

Gouvcrnrmcnt do la (rramlc nrctntriie voulilt bicn me r^clamer au Gouvernement
Fraiirai- tt mc faiic londro h. la lilicrtc.

Drcidd ii mi' snuiiK ttrc cntiiiciiu-nt aux dtcisions de In justice do mon pays, je viens
nninnid'liiii ntiivr toninllemLMit ina dnnandc, it vous prior di- vouloir bicn la considdrer
Cdniiiit' iiiillc I't iio;i aMiuic.

C'l ttf ri'siiliition que jo proiuls, apres mure reflexion, most dictee par le repentir de
luoii ciiiiu, ct jliis ( pcDio jiar mon aflbction pour ma famille, dont rintdret mc commando
de I'airo ecsser la tristo puUliiito a incpiclle j'ai trnp longtemps livre son nom.

\'oiiilloz, Al. rAml)as>adour, transnicttrc la presente declaration au Gouvernement de
Sa ^lajcstc Britannique.

J'ai, &c.
(Sign^) E. S. LAMIRANDE.

(Translation.)
M. I'Ambassadcur, Fontevreadt, February 19, 1867.

ON my arrival from Canada in the month of September last, I had the honour of
addrossinp; to your Exrellcncy trom Paris a re<|uest, with the view of inducing the Govern-
ment of Great IJritain to claim my surrender from the French Government and have me
set at lihorty.

Havjii? dooidcd to submit in every way to tlic judicial decision of my country, I now
foriiiiilly witluiiaw my ro(]uost, and hi"; you to liavo tlie goodness to consider it as null and
void.

This determination, which 1 have formed after maturfc reflection, is dictated to me by
repentance for my crime, and still more by afi'eetion for my family, whose interest bids
mc put an end to the unhappy notoriety to which I have too long subjected their
name.

Have the goodness, M. I'Ambassao mr, to transmit the present declaration to Her
Britannic Majesty's Government.

I have, &c.
(Signed) E. S. LAMIRANDE.

No. 39.
Mr. Fane to Lord Stanley.-^{Reeeived March 4.)

My Lord, Paris, March 3, 1867.

I HAA'E the honour to forward herewith to your Lordship copy of a despatch and
its inclosuros wliich I received last night from the Marquis de Moustier, in reply to the
note 1 addressed to his Ivvcellency on the 14th of Januarj' last, conveying an application
on till part of lit i Majesty's Government for the surrender of M. Lamirande.

AL de Moustier commences his despatch by recording a formal declaration made by
M. Lamirande to the Imperial Government that he voluntarily renounces all claim to his
surrender, and that lie wishes to remain in France to undergo the punishment awarded to
him. His Excellent y transmits to me the written declarations which establish this fact,
and states that Hei Aiajestys (Jovernment will probably consider that these documents
should put an end to tlic diseu>.-ion of whieh M. Lamirande is the object.

M. de Moustier is. however, of opinioii that it may be useful to examine the judicial
questions rai.^ed b\ 1 lei Majesty's Government, and he proceeds accordingly to a
eati-L'oiical con.-iderutiun ot them, 'i'iie conclusions at which his Excellency arrives may
he thus surnniarily stated :

!. That the omission to demand the extradition through a Diplomatic Agent, even if
sue!', a course were invariably followed, cannot be invoked, after the fact, to annul the
extradition. Ti:at saoh demands arc in certain cases made by Great Britain herself
throu'rh ot'^er than a Diplomatic Ae^'-f.

2. That, iC the crime lor which Lamirande was surrendered does not constitute
" forgery " aceoiding to the English law, the dictrinc affirming this proposition has not yet
been established.

3. That tlie uicision of Jud'j.^ Piehaut argues the regular application of the Treaty,
and that no ar:.;uincnr can be sustained on tlie pretended right of appeal from his
judgment

4. '1 hat Lamiiande, before the Court of Assize of La Vienne, accepted in principle
the jurisdiction of his country.

His Excellc ncy concludes bv expressing the hope of the Emperor's GoTemment that
['J8] " M

Her Majesty's Government will appreciate the considerations embodied in his despatch,
and will acknowledge that they are just in principle ; since, in point of fact, I^iniirande
having formally declined to take advantaije of the results that would accrue from his
surrender, tiie question no longer possesses any but a theoretical interest.

I have, &c.
(Signed) JULIAN FANB.

Inclosurc 1 in No. 39.
M. de Moustier to Mr. Fane.

Paris, le 1 Mars, 1867.
mecrire, le 14 Janvier dernier, pour dcmander, au

Monsieur,

VOUS m'avez fait I'honneur de
nom du Gouvernement do i, Heine, la restitution du condamne Lamirande, comma ayant
^te indiimcnt livrd h la justice Fran9aise.

Au moment, nvi je me disposais h rdpondrc h cctte communication, M. le Ministre de
la Justice m'a annonc^ que Lamirande venait d'derire spontanement Ji M. le Procureur-
Gdn^ral de Poitiers pour declarer qu'il renoncjait a toute restitution de sa personne.

Depuis lors il a dcrit h M. Baroche pour renouveler la mfin.e demarche en termes plus
explicites encore, et j'apprends que son fr^rc s'est recemment presente a llidtel de
I'Ambassade pour vous eonfirmer par ses explications la tencur des declarations du con-
damne dont il dtait porteur.

Aueun doute ne peut done s'elever sur la volonte formelle de Lamirande do rester
en France pour y subir sa peine, et les actes qui constatent cette intention seront probable-
ment consideres par le Gouvernement Britannique comme devaut mettrc fin au debat dont
sa personne est I'objet.

Toutefois je ne crois pas inutile d'examiner les questions juridiques soulevecs par
votre communication.

La reclamation du Gouvernement de la Reine est basde sur deux motifs :

Premi^rement, la demande d'extradition concernant Lamirande n'aurait pas et4 faite
par I'intermddiaire d'un Agent Diplomatique, tel que I'exigent Ic Traite et le statut
Britannique qui donne au Traite force de loi.

Secondement, le crime pour lequel Lamirande a ete livre ne constituerait pas le crime
de faux (" forgery ") pr^ra par le Traite.

Pour ce qui est du premier point, nous reconnaissons volontiers quo la lettre du
Traits ne mentionne que les Agents Diplomatiques ; mais doit-on I'intcrpreter dans un sens
absolument exelusif de la competence d'agents places dans les conditions oil se trouvait le
Consul- Gen«^ral de France h Quebec? Si une telle interpretation devait prevaloir, elie ne
pourrait que reveler une nouvelle et regrettable lacune dans le Traite de 1843; et, a ce
sujet, je dois rappeler d'abord qu'eu fait, dans le cas aetuel, les agents charges de poursuivre
Lamirande et porteurs du mandat lance contre lui n'auraient pu requerir, a Icur passage
par I'Angleterre, ainsi que le suppose votre lettre, I'intervention de I'Ambassadeur de
France h Londres, attendu que, k ce moment, I'accu.'e etait refugie iion sur le territoire
Britannique, mais aux Etats-Unis. Les mfimes agents sont passes ensuite, comme le
fugitif, du sol Fdddral, directement au Canada, et la prorapte requisition adressee par notre
Consul-Gdneral au Gouverneu'' de cette Colonic pouvait seule rendre I'extradition
possible.

Get incident montre au contraire combien le concours des Agents Consulaires peut
^tre indispensable dans les cas d'urgence, en m6me temps que la necessitc d'une interpreta-
tion s'inspirant avant tout de I'esprit de conciliation pratique qui doit presider il I'execution
des actes intemationaux.

D'autre part I'extradition accordde en dehors d'une demande formulee par la voie
diplomatique n'a en elle-m6me rien de contraire c\ la pratique suivie dans certaines circon-
stances par la Grande Brctagne, soit vis-^-vis de la France, soil vis-a-vis d'autres
Puissances.

Jusqu'il ce jour I'extradition s'est effectuee cntre les Colonies Fran^aises et Anglaiseri
sur la simple demande des Gouverneurs, sans qu'on ait eu recours i la voie diplomatique
« sans que le Gouvernement Britannique ait jamais protestd contre cette maniere d<»
proceder.

Recemment, en 1863, I'Angleterre a etabli avec I'ltalie, relativcment h Malte, un
accorc duquel il resulte que les demandes d'extradition peuvent fitrc formiil^es par les
Agents Consulaires.

Enfin, la clause du Traite Anglo-Amdricain de 1842, qui a trait k I'extmdition entie

lea deux pays, laissc supposcr, ainsi que voiis le reconniasscz, que ia faeulte dc requ^rir la
remise des crimincU n'est nuHemcnt limitce aax Agents Diplomatiquca propremcnt dits.

Votre lettre, il est vrai, invoque precisement u I'appui de lopinion (|ui exclut I'inter-
vention des Consuls Francais los termes du S'.atut pusi^e li> 2'2 AoAt, IH43, pour la mise
k execution du Trait(5 Anglo-Ami-ricain, teniii's plus etendus que ceux du statut adopts,
& la m^mc date, pour donner force de loi au Trnite Anglo-Fntn^ais, ct vous infercz des
d.fferences dc texte (lui resultent de ce rapprochement (jup I'iiitcntion des negociatcurs des
d ux Trait^s aurait ^t^, dans un ea.«, d'admcttre rintcrvention des Consuls, ct, dans I'autrc,
d^ los ^carter.

A notre sens, les diSl^rences de textes qui existent entre les deux Statuts et les deux
Traitds s'expliquent par des niisoiis de nature diverse, inais dont aucune ne permet de
supposer que les Parties Contractantes aient entendu admettrc les Consuls dans un cas, et
les exclure dans I'autre.

En fait, le TraitC' Anglo-Americain est antdrieur dc huit mois au Traits Anglo-
Fran^ais, et, si les deux Statuts, quoique du ni^mc jour, difli^rent dans leur redaction, c'est
sans doute parce qu'on a voulu mettre chacun d'eux en harmonic avec les termes du
Trait6 auquel il se r^fere. Quant aux differences de texte qui existent entre les Traites
m£mes I'ArticIc du Traite Anglo-Anii'ricain ne figure pas dans une Convention specialc
d'ext.'adition. Cet Article, occasionnellement introduit dans un Traits de Delimitation
avec le Canada, conclu k Washington, d^signe, en eifet, d'une nianiere gen^rale, les
autorit^s de chaque pays commc aptes u requdrir ['extradition, tandis que tous les Traites
sp^ciaux sur la mati^re, conclus par I'Angleterre avec d'autres Puissances, France, Prusse,
Danemark, emploient I'expression " Agents Diplomatiques." Mais cette formule ne peut
avoir qu'une port^ indicative ; car quelle raison pourrait-on invoquer pour justifier
I'admission des Consuls des Etats-Unis tandis qu'on excluerait ceux des autres Puissances ?

Mais si Ton suppose m^mc que le Traite de 1843, en se servant du mot "Agents
Diplomatiques," ait eu pour but de tracer une r^gle invariable, il ne s'en suivrait pas que,
lorsque la remise de I'inculpe a et^ eifectu^e, et surtout apr^s que la justice ^trangire a
prononc^, I'extradition dOt ^tre annul^e pour cette irregularity. Eu nous pla^ant avec le
Gouvernemeut de la Reine sur Ic terrain de droit strict, il nous est permis de faire observer
que, g^ndralement, en mati^re de procedure, les formalit^s ne sont une cause de nullitd
qu'autant que la loi I'a formellement declare, ou que rirregularit<3 signal^e porte atteinte &
un principe g^n(^'ral de droit reconnu dans un pays. Or, d'une part, le Traits ne contient
rien sur les consequences attachees ^ I'inobservation de la voie diplomatique, et, de I'autre,
cette mSme inobservatiou est admise par I'Angleterre avec les Etats Unis, d'une mani^re
g^nerale, avec 1' Italic pour Malte, enfin avec la France elle-mSme dans les rapports des
Colonies Fran^aises et Anglaises.

Le Gouvernement de 1r Reine all^guc, en second lieu, (}uc les faits imputes h
Lamirande ne constitueraient pas le crime ue faux ou " forgery " pr^vu par le Traits, ence
sens qu'il n'y a pas faux d'apr^s la loi Anglaise.

Nous n'entendons point afiirmer a priori que les faux couiiiiis par Lamirande soient
prdvus et punis par la legislation Anglaise ; mais il y a lieu de consid^rer que le Gouverne-
ment de la Reine ue produit k I'lippui de sa th^se aucun texte ni aucun avis officiel et
motiv^ ^manant d'une autorite judiciaire, tandisque, au contraire, il y a chose jug^e dans
notre sens, la decision du Jugc Brehaut creant une pr^somption grave et serieuse en faveur
de l^gitimite de I'extradition.

Au reste, en nous attachant au sens litteral du Traite de 1843, I'extradition de Lami-
rande nous parait parfaitenunt reguli^re.

Que dit, en effet. le Traite ? Que I'extradition s'effectuera de la part de I'Angleterre
" sur le rapport d'un jw^j^ ou magistral comniis k I'effet d'entendre le fugitif soi' les faits
mis a sa chai^ par le niandat d'arrlt."

Ce rapport a ^te fait par le Juge Brehaut, et c'est sur ce rapport que le Gouvemeur
de Canada a livre I nccuse. Nous etions done dans les termes du Traite; on oppose, il
est vrai, (ju'il y a«»it appel devant un juge sup^rieur. Mais, strictenient, d'apr^s la lettre
du Traits, nous :!ommes fondes k soutenir que ce droit d'appel n'existe pas, et, en effet, si
ce droit extate, ftiudra-t-il que le Gouvernement qui reclame un accus^ k I'Angleterre le
suive devant tous les degres de juridiction qu'admet la procedure Anglaise 1 Ce r^ultat
n'est point k craindre, sans doute, quand il s'agit d'un coupable sans ressources. Mais
mille moyens de procedure sont offerts, Lamirande en est la preuve, k celui qui a trouve
dans son crime m^me les elements de ndKSse propres a faire face k ces d^penses, de sorte
«|ue, en tin de compte, par un renversement de toute id^ de justice, les chances d'extradi-
Hon seront parfois en raison inverse de la grandeur du crime.

En tout cas, pour en revenir k I'esp^ce actuelle, on ne peut all^guer I'avis contraire
du Juge Drummond pour Topposer a celui du Juge Brehaut, parce que cet avis, readu

[68] N

Bprli coup, en dehors de la pn^nce ties parties, di^pounru d 'impartiality d'ailleurs, s'il (ant
en croire tous les coinptcs-rendus publics a cette occasion, ne saurait avoir la valeur d'une
d^iiinn de tribunal d'nppel.

En presence de la cboso jugdc;, Tupinion des jurisconsultes qui ont ^t^ appel^ k
donner un avin aiitorisr, pourrnit seuie nous flxcr sur le point de droit, le point de fait
n'ayant point 4t6 I'objet d'unc verification contradictoire : — II est pour nous d'unc
importance majeure de pouvoir verifier si les fulsitieations qui en France cutrainent une
peine crimihclle, et que In Cnur d'Assises de la Vienne a frapp^es do dix ans de r^clUaiotl«
nc constituent pas un crime de faux d'apr^s la loi Anftliiise.

Unc nutorite Coloniale Anglaise s'est crue suffisamment saisie par la requisition de
nbtre Consul-G^ndral pour deiivi-er un warrant au juge competent. Celui-ci a rendu Uh
jugement exdcutd par la meme autorite administrative avant toute decision contraire d'un
autre tribunal dont roeuvrc tardive n'a aucune vulcur k'aale. L'extrad^ a s^journ^ sept
jours sur un b&timent Anglais, et trois autres jours sur le sol Anglais dc Liverpool ii
Londres, escorti; par des agents Anglais. Des conferences ont eu lieu entre des magistrats,
des attorneys et les agents Anglnis. Enfin il est certain que des membres du Cabinet
Anglais ont (^te interpelles par depCches t^iegrapbiques et ont cu & r^pondre aux reclama-
tions des ofhcieux qui sc doniiaieiit la mission d'ngir pour Lamirande. Tels sont les
precedents apr^s lesqucls la restitution de I'cxtrade est redamee sous pr6tcxte d'erreurs,
soft du Gouvcrneur- General du Canada, soit du jugc qui a statu^.

II y fenoorc lieu de noter que Lamirande, qui a avoue k I'audience sea vols et ses fauxj
ne s'est m^me pas pourvu en cassation contra I'arr^t qui I'a frapp^. Enfin Lamirande a
accept^ le d^bat sur les faux, ainsi que cela resulte d'une declaration formelle de sa part
depos^e publiquement k I'audience de la Cour d'Assises.

Vous trouvercz ci -joint une copie dc cettc pi^ce. Elle prouve qu'apris les contesta-
tions de son avocat en date du 3 Decembre, Lamirande a accepts, le 4, le d^bat sur les
faux et, en cas d'acquittement mdmc, sur les vols, de sorte que son acquiescement nous aurait
obliges k le garder, s'il eUt 6tA acquitte, et k le juger sur les accusations que le respect des
Traites nous emplchait dc sommettre au jury dhs I'ouverture de la session.

En resume : Le defaut de demande par la voie diplomatique, fdt-elle un r^gle invariable,
tie saurait £tre invoque apr^s coup pour annuler I'extradition. La r^gle contraire est
d'ailleurs pratiquee dans certains cas par la Grande Bretagne.

Si le faux pour lequel Lamirande a ete livre n'est pas un faux d'apr^s la loi Anglaise,
o'est une doctrine qui reste k etablir.

II y a, au contraire, chose jugec en faveut de I'application regulie*edu Traite, et on ne
saurait ai^er du pr6tendu jugement d'appel. Lamirande a accepte, en principe, la juri-
diction de son pays devant la Cour d'Assises de la Vienne,

Le Gouvernement de I'Empereur est done fond6 k esperer que le Cabinet Anglais
appreciertt cet ensemble de considerations et les reconnaitra comme justiflees en principe }
car, en fait, Lamirande ayant renonce formellement au benefice de la restitution, la question
n'a plus qu'un inter6t theorique.

J'ai I'honneur de tous communiquer ci-annexee une copie certifiee de la lettre adress^e
le 10 Fevrier, par Lamirande, k M. le Procureur-General de Poitiers, ainsi que sA seconde
lettre du 10 it M. le Garde des Sceaux, et une autre de son p^re du 20.

Agreez, &e

(Signe)

M0U8TI£R.

^Translation.)
Sir, Part*, March 1, 1867.

YOU did me the hotiour of writing to me on the 14th of Jatiuary last, to request in thd
name of the Government of the Queen the surrender of the condemned prisbnw
Lamirande) bs having been unduly given up to French justice.

When I was on the point of ailswering that communiciitioni the Minister of Justi<}e
informed me that Lamirande had just written of his own accord to the Procureur-General of
Poitiers to declare that he renounced all claim to his surrender. Since then he wrotb to
M. Baroche to renew that declaration in terms still more explicit; aud I leatn that his
brother recently called at the Embassy in order to ratify and explaito to yoU the purport of
the convicted prisoner's declarations of which he Was the betiren Tb^re can be no doUbt)
therefore, as to the formal wish of Lamirande to remain in France to undergo his sentencOt
and the KHtish Government will probably consider that the documents which establish
that inteutioQ ihouid put an end to thie discussion of which he h the object.

Nevertheless I do not believe it useless to examine the legt . questions rtdSed by your
oommunication.

The daniand of the Queen's Qovenunfent is bosed on two grounds :-^

f'7 .;

lUt

rune

fBit
I'uiic

una
biotit

^n de
uh
Id'un
sept

)Ol h

trata,
[biaet
taina-
It l08
surs,

First, that the application for Lamirandc's extnidltion wm not made through the inter-
vention of a Diplomatic Agent, such as is required by thcTivaty and by tiic British Statute
giving effect to the Treaty.

Secondly, that the crime for which Lomirande was given up did not constitute the
crime of ftirgcry (" faux "; contemplated by the Treaty.

In regard to the first point, wo allow willini^ly that the text of the Treaty only men-
tions Diplomatic Agents ; hut ought it to be interpreted in a sense absolutely excluding
the competency of agents placed in a similar position to that of the French Consul-Gvneral
ut Quebec ? If such an interpretation should prevail, it could only reveal a now and
lamentable omission of the Treaty of 1843 ; and in regard to thi!< I must first call to mind
that in point of fact, in the pn>sent 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 in I^ndon, inasmuch as at that time the accused had fled nut to
British territory, but to the United States. The same persons afterwards, like the fugitive,
went over direct from Federal soil into Canada, and it was the prompt requisition alone
addressed by our Consul-General to the Governor of that Colony which couUl have mode
the extradition possible.

That incident, on the contrary, shows how indispensable in cases of urgency the action
of Consular Agents may he, 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 acts.

Besides, an extradition granted without a request made through a diplomatic channel
has nothing in itself opposed to the practice followed under certain circutnstances by
Great Britain either towards France or other countries.

To this day extradition is carried out in French and English colonics on the simple
request of the Governor, without recourse having been made to a diplomatic channel, and
without the British Government ever having protested against that way of proceeding.

Recently, in 1 8G3, England entered into an agreement with Italy rcspectint; Malta,
whereby applications for extradition could be made by Consular Agents.

Lastly, the clause of the Anglo- American Treaty of 1842, which refers to extradition
between the two countries, leaves it to be supposed, as you allow, that the power of
requesting the surrender of criminals is by no means limited to Diplomatic Agents,
properly so called. Your letter, it is true, invokes especially, in support of the opinion
which would exclude the intervention of French Consuls, the terms of the statute passed
on the 22nd of August, 1843, for carrying into effect the Anglo-American Treaty — tcrnu
more comprehensive than those of the statute passed the same date to give the force of
law to the Anglo-French Treaty ; and you deduce from the discrepancies of text which
result from this comparison that the intention of the negotiators of the two Treaties must
have been, in the one case, to admit the intervention of Consuls, and in the other to shut
them out.

In our opinion the discrepancies in the text which exist between the two statutes
and the two Treaties are explained by reasons of an opposite nature, but of which neither
admits of the supposition that the Contracting Parties intended to admit Consuls in the
one case and to exclude them in the other.

In feet, the Anglo-American Treaty is anterior by eight mouths to the Anglo-French
Treaty, and if the two statutes, although of the same date, differ in their wording, it is
doubtless because it was intended to frame each in harmony with the terms of the Treaty
to which it refers. As regards the discrepancies of text which exist between the Treaties
themselves, the Article of the Anglo-American Treaty does not figure in a special
Extradition Convention. This Article, casually introduced into a Boundary Treaty with
Canada, concluded at Washington, designates, in fact, generally, the authorities of caoh
'^'•'jntry who can properly demand extradition, whilst all the specific Treaties Qp this
subject, concluded by England with other Powers, France, Russia, Denmaric, use the
expression " Diplomatic Agents." But this form of expression can have but one Qieaping ;
for what reason could be invoked to justify the admission of the Consuls of the
United States whilst those of other Powers were excluded ?

But even if we suppose that the Treaty of 1843 by the use of the words " Diplomatic
Agents " intended to lay down an invariable rule, it would not follow, after the accused
has been handed over, and above all after foreign justice had pronounced its decision, that
the extradition should be annulled on account of that irregularity.

Whilst placing ourselves with the Government of the Queen upon the groqnd of
strict right, we m^y be allowed to observe that generally, in matters of legal procedure^
formalities are only a source of invalidity, in so far as the law Lus formally declared them

N 2

1 1- ■

ill

to be 80, or when the irregularity in rjuestion nttucks u general legal principle recognized
in the country. Now, in the first place, the Treaty containfl nothing upon the consequences
entailed by the non-observance of the diplomatic channel ; and, in the second place, this
same non-obsen-ance is sanctioned by England towards the United States, in a general
manner towards Italy for Malta, and, lastly, towards France herself in the rclutions
between the French and English Colonics.

Tlie Government of the Queen alleges, in the second place, that the acts imputed to
Lamirundc would not constitute the crime of " faux," or forgerv, as contemplated by the
Treaty, inasmuch us there is no forgery according to the law of I'iUgland.

We have no intention of affirming it priori that the forgeries committed by Lumirande
arc foreseen and punished by English legislation ; l)ut we are justified in titking into our
consideration that the Government of the Queen brings to the support of its position no
reference nor any official o|)inion originated by or emanating from a judicial authority, whilst,
on the contrary, in our opinion the decision of Judge Br(;haut is a settled fact, creating a
grave and serious presumption in favour of the legitimacy of the extradition.

Moreover, in odhering to the literal meaning of the Treaty of 1843, Lamirande's
extradition appears to us perfectly regular.

What, in fact, does the Treaty say ? That the extradition siiall bo curried out on the
part of England " on the report of a Judge or Magistrate duly authorized to take
cognizance of the acts charged against the fugitive in the warrant of arnist."

This report has been made by Judge Brehaut, and it is upon this report that the
Governor of Canada has handed over the accused. We were therefore within the term of
the Treaty ; it is true, that it is argued that there existed an appeal to a superior Judge.
But, strictly, according to the letter of the Treaty, we are justified in maintaining that this
right of appeal doce. not exist ; and indeed, if this right does exist, is it requisite for the
Government which claims an accused person from England to pursue him through all the
judicial steps authorized by the forms of English law ?

This result, doubtless, is not to be feared when it is a question of a criminal destitute
of resources.

But Lomirande is the proof that a thousand ways of procedure are open to him who
has found by his crime itself the elements of riches necessary to meet his expenees, so that
at last by a complete subversion of justice 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 Drummond
cannot be alleged in opposition to that of Judge Brdhaut, since that opinion given, too late,
in the absence of the paities, wanting moreover in impartiality, if all the reports published
on that occasion are to be believed, cannot Iiave 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
upon to consider the question could alone determine us on the point of law, the point of
fact never having been the subject of adverse examination. It is of greater importance for
us to be able to discover whether the falsifications which in France entail a criminal
punishment, and which the Court of Assize of Vienne has chastised by ten years of
confinement, does not constitute the crime of forgery according to the English law.

An English Colonial authoritity thought himself sufficiently justified by the requisition
of our Consul-Gcneral in delivering a warrant to the proper judge. The latter gave a
decision which was executed by the same administrative authority before the appearance 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 London, escorted by English agents.
Conferences were held between the magistrates, the attorneys, and the English agents.
Lastly, it is certain that members of the English Cabinet were questioned by means of
telegraphic despatches, and had to answer the objections of the officials who took upon
themselves to act for Lamirande.

Such are the antecedents, after which the restitution of the person thus given up is
claimed, under the pretext of errors committed by the Governor-General of Canada or by
the Judge who gave the decision.

There is, moreover, occasion to remark that Lamirande, who has confessed his theft
and forgery, has not even appealed against the sentence inflicted on him. Finally,
Lamirande has accepted the trial on the charge of forgery, as appears from a formal
declaration on his part, publicly given in the session of the Court of Assize

You will find annexed a copy of this document. It proves that, according to the
statement of his counsel, dated December 3, Lamirande accepted, on the 4th, the trial on
the charge of forgery, and, even in the case of acquittal, upon that of theft ; so that his

ac(|uiescence would have obliged us to keep him, hnd he been acquitted, and to try him on
those charges which rc8|>cct 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 post facto to annul the extradition.

The contrary rule is, moreover, practised in certain coses by Great Britain. If the
forgery (cr which Lamirande has been surrendcrefl is not forgery according to English law,
it is a doctiinc: which remains to be established.

There is, ^n the contrary, a decision in favour of the regular 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
Vienne.

The Government of the Emperor has, therefore, reason to hope that the English
Cabinet will appreciate these various arguments, and will acknowledge them ns justified in
principle ; for, in fact, Lamirande having formally given up his claim to the benefit of
surrender, the question has no longer any but a theoretical mtcrest.

I have the honour to transmit to you, herewith, a certified copy of the letter addressed
on February lOth by Lamirande to the Procurcur-Gdndral of Poitiers, as well as his
second letter of the 1 9th to the KeeiMsr of the Seals, and another from his father of
the 20th.

(Signed) MOUSTIER.

Inclosure 2 in No. 39.
Declaration of M, E. S. Lamirande.

JE soussign^, Surreau Lamirande (Ernest Charles Constant), declare solennellement
que si le verdict du jury qui doit statuer sur les faux qui me sont reproch^s et que jc
protcstc n'avoir jamais eu I'intention de commettrc est n^gatif, jc n'entends en aucune
mani^re profitcr du benefice du Traite d'Extradition avec Angleterre ; que je demande au
contrairc dans cctte hypotht^sc k dtre jug^ par la Cour d' Assises de la Vienne pour les faits
de ddtournement et dc vol qui sont relev^s contre moi par I'arr^t de la Chambre des mises
en accusation.

Je suis done pr^t h me constituer prisonnier et je prie mes ddfenseurs de d^poser cette
declaration entre les mains de M. le Procureur G^n^ral.

Poitiers, le 4 Dicembre, 1866.

(Sign^) E. S. LAMIRANDE.

(Translation.) .,

I, THE undersigned Surreau Lamirande (Ernest Charles Constant), declare solemnly
that, if the verdict of the jury who are to decide on the forgery which is imputed to ine,
and which I protest never having intended to commit, is in the negative, I do not intend
in any way to profit by the benefit of the Extradition Treaty with England ; that I demand,
on the contrary, under this hypothesis, to be judged by the Court of Assize of Vienne for
the acts of embezzlement and of theft which have beep brought against me by the decree
of the Chamber of indictment.

I am, then, ready to constitute myself a prisoner, and I beg my counsel to place this
declaration in the hands of M. le Procureur-Gln6ral.

(Signed) E. S. LAMIRANDE.

Poitiers, December 4, 186G.

Inclosure 3 in No. 39.

M. E. S. Lamirande to M. Damuy.

le Procureur-G^ndi-al, Fonlevrault, le 10 Fe'vrier, 1867.

J'APPRENDS k I'instant que le Gouvernement Anglais a adress^ une demande en
restitution de ma personne au Gouvernement Fran9ais. D^sireux d'^viter la continuation
d'une publicity pJnible pour ma famille et bien decide k expier mon crime, en subissant la
peine qui m'a et^ infligde par la justice de mon pays, je declare renoncer, formellement, d^s
aujourd'hui, au benefice de cette restitution, si elle devait avoir lieu.

Je viens vous prier de vouloir bien transmettre la pr&ente declaration k son Excellence
M. le Garde de Sceaux.

J'ai, &c.
(Sign^) £. S. LAMIRANDE.

IMAGE EVALUATION
TEST TARGET (MT-3)

1.0

1.1

mm W22

^ m

■il

IL25 HI 1.4

■ 2.0

1.6

Hiotographic

ScMices

Corporation

23 WIST MAIN STRin

WIBSTm,N.Y. I4SM

t716)«72-4503

q'^

>.\

4^\

^ '^>

^V^

I) •

S.i f

frrensUtion.)
M. I« PH»iiwif-aAiA«»I. IhnltvrmH, Feknry 10, 1807.

I HAVE just learnt that the English Government have addressed a demand to the
FMnoh Government for the surrender of my person. Being desirous of avoiding the
continuance of a pubhoity painful to my ftmily. and quite decided to expiate my crime, by
submitting to the penalty which baa been inflicted on me by the justice of my country,
I deelaiv that I formally renounce, from toKiay, benefit from that surrender, if it should
take place.

I now beg yon to have the goodness to transmit the present dedaraiion to his BxceU
lenmr the Keeper of the Seals.

(Signed) E. 8. LAMIRANDB.

Indosure 4 in No. 39.
M. E. S. Lamirandt to the Keeper of the aealf, Minister of Justice.

M. le Ministre, Fontcvrault, If 19 Efvritr, 1867.

J'AI I'honneur de vous informer que jc renonce d'avance ct dc la manidre la plus
formelle h la liberty que pourrait mc rendrc, si elle r^ussissait, la demande formee par le
Gouvcmement Anglais en restitution dc ma personne.

Ma renonciation a pour mobiles I'int^^t de ma famille, k laquelle je desire 6viter la
continuation d'une publicity bicn pdnible pour elle et Ic rcpentir sincere et complet par
lequel je vcux t&cher d'expier mon crime.

Cette determination est do m« pfirt parDutemeqt Hbre et r(&flective.

C'est done de mon propre mouvctnent, iud^pendamment de toute influence, que je
d^lare me sommettre aux decisions de la justice nan9aise et en accepter, ^aivs r&qrve et
sans arriere-pensee, toutes les consequences.

(Sign^ ' ?'. S, LAMIRANDB,

(Translation.)
M. le Ministre, F-\ntevrault, February 19, 1867.

I HAVE the honour to inform yoi) that I reqounce beforehand, and in the most
formal manner, the liberty which the demand framed by the English Government for the
surrender of my person, if it were successful, might restore to me.

lie motives of my renundation are the interest in my family, for wbom J wish to
avoid the continuance of a publicity very painful to them, and the sincere and complete
repentance by which I wish to try and expiate my crime.

This determination on my part is perfectly free and deliberate.

\t is, then, by m^ own deed, indepenaently of any influence, that I declarel my
decisions of French justice, <|nd acci

submissioQ ^o the

crrihe fettaie^ of all {ta consequences,

acceptance, without reserve a{id|without
(Signec}) E. S. LAMIRANDB.

Inclosure 5 in No. 39.
MM. C. O. and C. S. Lamirande to the Keeper of the Seifls, Minitter of Justice,

M. le Ministre, Chatellerault, le 20 F^vrier, 1867.

J'AI I'honneur de vous adresser ci-incluse une lettre de mon iils, Ernest Lamirande,
par laquelle il renonce d'avance au b^q^fioe de U demande du Gouvernemeut Anglais en
restitution de sa personne.

Si auelque chose pourrait i^parer le mal que ce raalheureux 61$ m'a ftit, wui qu'k
ma fkmille, ce serait son repentir. Aussi voyons nous avec s^Usfhction cette determination,
que je m'empresse de transmettre it votre Excellence.

Elle aurii un rtfsultat auquel nous attachons un grand prix, celui de fliire cesser enfin
le bruit qui s'est produit autour de notre nom.

De plus die indique un retour k de bona sentiments pnisqu'elle a le m^rite de la
spontaneity et qu'elle est inspiree par I'interAt de sa ihmille et par un sincere d^sir d'expia*
tion. J'ose esp^rer, M. le Ministre, que le repentir dont fait preuve aujourd'hui mon
malheurvwv &$ Un urfSera pour plus tard un titre k la ciemence de Sa Majeste
rEmpereur*

1867.

M to the

fding the

ime, by

J country,

|it ahoald

is Bxcel.

kNDB.

Men plus jeune fil« qui signe avec moi ccttc leltre partagc tous les sentiments qui y
sont exprim^.

Veuillcz, &c.
(SignO C. G. LAMIRANDE, Ancien Maaitlrai.

C. S. LAMIRANDE.

(Translation.)
M. le Ministre, Chdttllerault, February 20, 1867.

I HAVE the honour to address to you the inclosed letter from my son, Ernest Lami-
rande, by which he gives up, in anticipation, all claim to the benefits of the demand by the
English Government for the surrender of his [lerson.

If anything could repair the harm which this unhappy son has done to me as well as
to my family, it would be his repentance.

Therefore we regard with satisfaction this determination, which I hasten to transmit
tb your Excellency.

It will have a result to which we attach great Value — that of putting a stop at last to
the reports which have been circulated in conncctioh With our name.

In addition, it indicates a return to proper fcelingj since it possesses the merit of
being spontaneous, and of being inspired by interest in his family and by a sincere desire
for etpiation.

t venture to hope, M. le Ministre, that the repentance of which my unhappy son
now gives a proof will create for him at some future time a claim on the indulgence of
His Majesty the Emperor.

My youngest son, who signs this letter with met shares all the sentiments which are
exprtessed therein.

(Signed) C. G. LAMIRANDE, ex-Magistrate.

C. S. LAMIRANDE.

No. 40.
Lord Stanley to Earl Cowley.

My Lord, Foreign Office, March 20, 1867.

MR. FANE transmitted to me in his dcspateh of the 25th of February two letters
from M. Lamirande and from his family, withdrawing the application that the former
had made in his letter of the 1 Ith of September last, for the interference of Her Majesty's
Government to obtain his release as having been unduly given up to the French Govern-
ment under the Extradition Treaty of the 13th of February, 1843,

Mr. Fane further transmitted to me in his despatch of the 3rd instant the answer
of the French Government to the application, which, by my instruction of the 12th of
January last, he was instructed to make for the surrender of M. Lamirande.

Whatever exception Her Majesty's Government might, under other circumstances, hare
felt disposed to take to the statements made by M. de Moustier in this answer, with the
view of controverting the grounds on wliich they rested their application, the request now
made by M. Lamirande himself, and by his family, that the application should be with-
drawn, would render it a matter of great difficulty on the part of Her Majesty's Govern-
ment to pursue a controveidy on the subject with the Government of the Emperor, since
the person on whose behalf the controversy was commenced urgently entreats that it
should be abandoned.

At the same time, however. Her Majesty's Government must guard themselves from
appearing to acquiesce in the doctrine and principles on which the French Government
justify their refusal to set M . Lamirande at liberty ; and I have accordingly to instruct your
Excellency, in acquainting M. de Moustier that Her Majesty's Government no longer insist
upon their application for his release, to add that their abstaining from doing so must not
be construed into an admission on their part that there were not sufficient grounds for
insisting upon it.

I am, &c.
(Signed) STANLEY.

•"iSf^JII

ill

■I

s
g

8
8

-I

5* 2
11
a"!

B ^
O S*
g EQ