IMAGE EVALUATION 
 TEST TARGET (MT-3) 
 
 // 
 
 ^ .^i.. 
 
 1.0 ^1^ 1^ 
 
 I.I 
 
 1.25 
 
 ^ 1^ 12.2 
 £ 1^ 12.0 
 
 K 
 
 WUu 
 
 1.8 
 
 U 1 1.6 
 
 I 
 
 HiotQgraiJiic 
 
 Sciences 
 
 Corporation 
 
 23 WIST MAIN STRICT 
 
 WEBSTER, N.Y. MStO 
 
 (716)S72-4S03 
 
.^ 
 
 CIHM/ICMH 
 
 Microfiche 
 
 Series. 
 
 CIHIVI/ICMH 
 Collection de 
 microfiches. 
 
 Canadian (nstitute for Historical IMicroreproductions / institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques 
 
TechnicMl and Bibliographic Notaa/Notas tachniquas at bibliographiquaa 
 
 Tha instituta has attamptad to obtain tha babt 
 original copy availabia for filming. Faaturas of this 
 copy which may ba bibliographically uniqua, 
 which may altar any of tha imagas in tha 
 raproduction. or which may significantly changa 
 tha usual mathod of filming, ara chackad balow. 
 
 □ Coloured covars/ 
 Couvartura da coulaur 
 
 □ Covars damagad/ 
 Couvartura ai idommagte 
 
 □ Covars rastorad and/or laminatad/ 
 Couvartura rastaur^a at/ou palliculAa 
 
 
 
 D 
 
 
 
 D 
 
 D 
 
 Covar title missing/ 
 
 Le titre de couverture manque 
 
 □ Coloured maps/ 
 Cartes giographiquas en couleur 
 
 □ Coloured inic (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/ 
 RaliA avac d'autres documents 
 
 Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion 
 along interior margin/ 
 
 La re liure serr6e peut causer de I'ombre ou de !a 
 distortion \e long de la marge intirieure 
 
 Blank leaves added during restoration may 
 appear within the text. Whenever possible, these 
 have been omitted from filming/ 
 11 se peut que certaines pages blanches ajoutias 
 lors d'une restauration apparaissant dans la texte. 
 mais. lorsqua cela Atait possible, ces pages n'ont 
 pas itA filmtes. 
 
 Additional comments:/ 
 Commentairas supplAmantairas: 
 
 L'Institut a microfilm* le meilleur exemplaire 
 qu'il lui a At* possible de se procurer. Les details 
 da cat exemplaire qui ^ont peut-Atre uniques du 
 point de vue bibliographiqua. qui peuvent modifier 
 una image eproduite. ou qui peuvent exiger une 
 modification dans !a mithoda normale de filmage 
 sont indiquAs ci-dessous. 
 
 I I Coloured pages/ 
 
 Pages de couleur 
 
 Pages damaged/ 
 Pages endommagies 
 
 Pages restored and/oi 
 
 Pages restaurias et/ou pellicul6es 
 
 Pages discoloured, stained or foxe( 
 Pages ddcolories, tachet6es ou piqudes 
 
 Pages detached/ 
 Pages ddtach^es 
 
 Showthroughy 
 Transparence 
 
 Quality of prin 
 
 Quality inigale de I'impression 
 
 Includes supplementary materii 
 Comprend du material supplimentaire 
 
 Only edition available/ 
 Seule Mition disponible 
 
 I — I Pages damaged/ 
 
 I — I Pages restored and/or laminated/ 
 
 I — I Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ 
 
 I I Pages detached/ 
 
 r~^ Showthrough/ 
 
 rrri Quality of print varies/ 
 
 I I Includes supplementary material/ 
 
 I — I Only edition available/ 
 
 The 
 poi 
 ofl 
 filn 
 
 Ori 
 be( 
 the 
 sio 
 oth 
 fira 
 sio 
 or I 
 
 Th( 
 shi 
 TIP 
 wh 
 
 Mt 
 dif 
 ent 
 bei 
 rig 
 rec 
 mc 
 
 D 
 
 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 6t6 film6es A nouveau de fafon d 
 obtenir la meilleure image possible. 
 
 This item is filmed at tha reduction ratio chackad below/ 
 
 Ce document est f ilm« au taux da reduction Indiqu* ci-dossous. 
 
 10X 14X 18X 22X 
 
 26X 
 
 30X 
 
 y 
 
 12X 
 
 >6X 
 
 aox 
 
 24X 
 
 28X 
 
 32X 
 
The copy filmed here hat b—n reproduced thanks 
 to the generosity of: 
 
 Univanity of Toronto Library 
 
 L'exemplaire film* f ut reproduit grAce i la 
 gAnArosit* de: 
 
 Univtrtity of Toronto Library 
 
 The images appearing here are the best quality 
 possible considering the condition and legibility 
 of the original copy and In keeping with the 
 filming contract specifications. 
 
 Original copies In printed paper covers are filmed 
 beginning with the front cover and ending on 
 the last ^age with a printed or Illustrated impres- 
 sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All 
 other original copies are filmed beginning on the 
 first page with a printed or Illustrated Impres- 
 sion, and ending on the last page with a printed 
 or Illustrated impression. 
 
 The last recorded frame on each microfiche 
 shall contain the symbol — »- (meaning "CON- 
 TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"), 
 whichever applies. 
 
 Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at 
 different reduction ratios. Those too large to be 
 entirely included In one exposure are filmed 
 beginning In the upper left hand corner, left to 
 right and top to bottom, as many frames as 
 required. The following diagrams illustrate t' e 
 method: 
 
 Les 'mages suivantes ont tti reprodultes avec le 
 plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition at 
 de la nettetA de l'exemplaire film*, et en 
 conformity avec les conditions du contrat de 
 filmage. 
 
 Les exemplulres orlginaux dont la couverture en 
 papier est Imprimte sonl filmte en commenpant 
 par le premier plat et en termlnant soit par la 
 dernlAre page qui comporte une emprelnte 
 d'Impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second 
 pifat, selon le cas. Tous les autres exemplalres 
 orlginaux sent filmfo en commengant par la 
 premiere page qui comporte une emprelnte 
 d'Impression ou d'illustration et en termlnant par 
 la dernlAre page qui comporte une tell« 
 emprelnte. 
 
 Un des symboles sulvants apparaltra sur la 
 dernidre Image de cheque microfiche, selon le 
 cas: le symbols -^ signifie "A SUIVRE", le 
 symbole V sfgnifie TIN ". 
 
 Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent dtre 
 filmte A des taux de reduction diffirents. 
 Lorsque le document est trop grand pour Atre 
 reproduit en un seul clichA, il est fllm« A partir 
 de Tangle supArleur gauche, de gauche A drnite, 
 et de haut en bas, er anant le nombrti 
 d'images nAcessa' .. s.gs diagrammes sulvants 
 lllustrent la mAthode. 
 
 1 2 3 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 5 
 
 6 
 

 CORRESPONDENCE 
 
 WITH THE 
 
 GOVERN f)it-GEXERAL OF CANADA 
 
 RESPBCTIMO Tin: 
 
 EXTEADITION 
 
 J 
 
 or 
 
 M. LAM I RANI) E. 
 
 Pre-imtcd to both Homes of Parliautent by Command of Her Majesty. 
 
 March 1867. 
 
 IX)NUOM, 
 PMMTBO BT HARRISON AND SMI. 
 
 IcJ^or. 
 
SCHEDULE. 
 
 DESPATCHES FKOM TII.K (JOVERNOIt-dENKHAL. 
 
 No. 
 I 
 
 No. 
 IS5 
 
 Iti4 
 173 
 
 174 
 175 
 182 
 193 
 
 Date, 
 Ort. G. 
 
 18, 
 25, 
 
 .SUH.IKOT. 
 
 Pii«r>' 
 
 1«66 
 
 2.-), 
 
 25. 
 
 31, 
 
 Nov. 10, 
 
 Jii,. 3, 1867 
 
 Tranimilliiip aiMrrss to llir Majc'ily tV(im cprtain inliabitmits of 
 the city of Moiitrral. praying tlint .-i jirisniicr iiannil Lam raiidf. 
 lately ilcliverod tu the l"ri'n"h (iovprmui'iit uiidcr tlic E. tradi- 
 tion Trpaly, iii.iy lie rptiirnnl to Moutrt'al to liavc hit I'aiif 
 itivestigatpil (hcrt- hi'fori' thf Court ni' Qiiocn's Urncli on writ 
 of habeas eorptu 
 
 Furnishing llie Report on this case as called for by l..ord Carnarvon's 
 denpatcli No. Gl of the '_'2iid Scptcmbor, 1S(!6 
 
 Inrlosing' llirw extracts fioni tlip '• Montreal Herald," containing 
 reports of what took place in the Court of Quecn'^t Bench 
 ruspecting the necessity for notice in applirations for ihe writ 
 of habrat corpus . . . . . . 
 
 Inclosing corrrapondonrewitli .Mr. Doiitro. the counsel for I^mirande 
 
 Inclosing a further letter from Mr. Doiitre. with copies of documentt 
 
 Inclosing copy of affidavit of M. Mrlin 
 
 rranxRiitting letter Crom Mr. Itamsay, the Crown Prosecutor, to 
 Mr. Godlcy.. 
 
 Acknowledging Lord Carnarvon's ili'spatcli annonncinj that Lanii- 
 rande had been trie<l in I'raiicp and s(>nti'need to ten vears' 
 reclusion . . . . , . . . . , 
 
 !■.> 
 
 65 
 66 
 91 
 
 9:i 
 
 l)i 
 
 DESPATCHES FROM THE SECRET.ARY OF STATE. 
 
 Transmitting copy of a ilospatch from llcr Majesty's .Vmbassador 
 at Ptiris accompanied liy a letter from .M. I/iniiraiidi, complaining 
 of his extradition, and calling for a report on tim case .. 'J' 
 
 Statingthn' Her M.ijesty's .Xnihassador at Paris had been instructed 
 to address a representation to the French (lovernmcnt on the 
 
 subject . . . . . , . ay 
 
 Acknowledging Lord iMonck's despatch No, 155 of tlie Gtli October, 
 1866, explaining the circumstani.'es under which Lamirande was 
 delivered by the Canadian authorities to tlic French police . . 99 
 
 Views of Her M.ijesty's Government respecting Ihe course which 
 bad been adopted by the Canadian authorities in this case . . 100 
 
 Announcing that Lamirande had been' tried in France and found 
 guilty of forgery (" faux ") and sentenced to ten years' reclusion, 
 and that from this decision he had appealed to the Court of 
 Casaation .. .. .. .. .. ., 101 
 
 61 
 
 Sept. 22, 
 
 1866 
 
 67 
 
 •->7, 
 
 
 84 
 
 Oct. 27. 
 
 
 110 
 
 Not, 24, 
 
 
 114 
 
 Dec. 14, 
 
 
Despatches from the Governor-General. 
 
 No. 1. 
 
 Copy or a DESPATCH Trotn Viscount Monck to the Right Hon. the Earl of 
 
 Carnarvon. 
 (No. 155.) Quebec, October 6, 1866. 
 
 (Kmivrd Ortobcr 'J4, 1866 ) 
 My Lord, (An>wor<>il, No. 84, Oclobrr t7, 1H(!6, pagr 99.) 
 
 I HAVE the honour to transmit, for prcsontntion to ller Majesty, nn adclrcsH 
 Trom certain inhabitants of the city of Montreal, praying that a certain prisonrr 
 named i. amirande, lately delivered under my warrant of extradition to the autho- 
 rities of the French Government, may be returned to Montreal, in order that his 
 case may be Investigated there before the Court of Queen's Bench, on writ of 
 habfos corpus. 
 
 I have the honour to transmit also atfidavits from Joseph Doutre, Esq., Q.C, 
 and C. L. Spilthorn, t^sq., Advocate, counsel for Lamirande, and the judgment nf 
 Mr. Justice Drummond, of the Queen's Bench, on an application for a writ of 
 habeas corpus. 
 
 With respect to the statement of the facts of the case contained in these 
 affidavits, as far as they came within my personal knowledge, I l>elicvc it to 
 be accurate. 
 
 It is true that I stated to Mr. Spilthorne, when he presented a petition to mc on 
 the subject at Ottawa, that time should be afforded to the prisoner to apply lor a 
 writ of habeas corpus, and that sufficient time not only to apply for, but to olituin 
 the writ, was allowed, is apparent from the judgment of Mr. Justice Drummond, 
 who says, speaking of the proceedings before him on the 24tli, " 1 would have issued 
 the writ before acQourning the Court, had the Counsel for the prisoner insisted 
 upon it." 
 
 But while on the one hand sufficient time should be allowed to a prisoner to 
 avail himself of any advantages which our laws allow h<m, I think on the other 
 hand a friendly Power with which a Treaty of Extradition exists, would have 
 good grounds of complaint if unnecessary delays were interposed by the Executive 
 in carrying those Treaty obligations into effect. 
 
 In this case the prisoner was committed by the Magistrate on the 'J2nd 
 August. 
 
 Late in the forenoon of the 24th August, the Solicitor-General for Lower 
 Canada, Mr. Langevin, came to my residence near Quebec, with the warrant of 
 extradition, and gave me his opinion in writing, that in point of law the case was 
 one for extradition. 
 
 In justice to the Solicitor-General I must here correct an error into which 
 Mr. Doutre has fallen, in relating my statement of the verbal advice tendered to me 
 fay Mr. Langevin with respect to the effect of my warrant on an application for a 
 writ of habeas corpus. 
 
 I am made to say, that I executed the warrant " on the express understanding 
 that it would in no way interfere with the proceedings adopted, or to be adopted, 
 by the prisoner for obtaining a writ of habeas corpus." 
 
 Wnat 1 did ask Mr. Langevin was, whether the execution of my warrant 
 would interfere with the writ of habeas corpus if the prisoner's counsel had obtained 
 it in the period (forty-ei^ht hours as it appeared from the dates), which had then 
 elapsed since the committal. To this Mr. Langevin replied in the negative, and I 
 believe his answer was quite right in point of la,w. 
 
 I may state, that the practice which I have always followed in cases of extra- 
 dition, of which we have a great number on the application of the Government of 
 the United Statcfl is, in cases in which no questions of policy arise and which merely 
 
 No. I. 
 
Inrl. 1 in No. I . 
 
 
 Ind. 3 in No. I . 
 
 iiivohc pointH of law. to niiidc niysi-lf by llio iulvicr nf llic l/iiw < Xlirci-, of ttif 
 
 Crown. .11 
 
 Thit nit|w'firfil t" mr sikIi a raM-. ami as tin- SnlicilorCniinal adu^cil nw ihnt 
 ill ixMiit of law il was rii;lil llir |itis()iiir sliunid he siirrriidcrcd, anil I wa?. iiiii|( r the 
 iiii|ircHHion from the daH-s. lliat lorty <i-'lil hours liad daiiscd Ix'tw.^cii flic comMiiital 
 of tin- |»riM>iiiT and lln' siyjniny; ul my warrant, wliicli a|i|ii'arid tu inc aiii|>li' time 
 for i»l)laininx t'l'' writ itf Itnlfaii rorjiut. I twoi iiloM it. 
 
 It ih true' llial on lir>l liiarin;; tlial llic |irisoni'r had liccn ii-inuvcd nnili-r mv 
 wnrrani, and Im fore I wa.s fiillN inloriufd of ihr wlioii' lads oj' the ca.-.c, | dij] 
 (•x|insH ins rrf^n I th.il he h.ul liccn dcj)riv('d il an ad\.intat;r hy in\ act, .ind | ~n\,\ 
 that I would do wli.al I I'oiild to cnahlc him lo hriii:;- his ca^c I»cIih\' .niotluT 
 triliiinal. 
 
 I ;iccui,lin;;K .si nl ,i inrss,i{;r to yonr I iirdslii|i l)\ \ll;inlii' Tcii'^raiili,* liii'fl\ 
 inronnin}; sou of the facts of ihc casi-, and ^'.alin- that, should a!\ aiij>lKM;i pii Im« 
 made fur a will oi' V(^"/*' (V/r/if/v In KiijLfland, ! wished that it |iossil)le in\ i\arraiil 
 nlioiild not lie a bar to it. 
 
 I am honml to say, thai on a c.ilin i\ view ol' the whole fads, it a|ipears to me 
 that the miscari iay;e in the <M>e is doe to the want of dili^i'nce on the |n is uier's 
 part in .sniii;^- onl the writ of Imliriiy tnrim^, for \\hi<'h lull liuie '.sjis allowed, \liieli 
 writ, if it Inil heen issnid, .vonid ha\e ^us|)inded the "xri'nlion olnu wair.in iinlil 
 tin Court of Queen's neiieli had had an o|iiii'rliiiiity of delivering- il.s jiid^;nK nl on 
 the merits of the case. 
 
 II may he riijht to state, by way ol' e.vplanation, ihai tlion{;li ni\ warrantor 
 exlr.-idif inn' l> ••.i< il'>t'< tlv '.'.Trd "C \ii!;ib:t, the diy njio'i wl'icli if v,-ns s'\.Ir ! m 
 Oll;iwa, I did not, in point ol' fact. siy;n it as I Iiave stated, nnlil tlicL'Uli. The 
 diseii'i):inc\ arose IVoin thv fas 1 lli.it i!ie oilier who lias the custody ol' niy seal was 
 at Ottawa, whereas I \\as at (^nibec. 
 
 I have, &ic. 
 The Ui^li! II>.n. liio I'.a.l of Cai nar.on, (Si^-ncdj .MONCK. 
 
 &IC. &wC. &iC. 
 
 Inclosurc I in \.). I. 
 Mr. Hoi lui. lo iiic I'.arl of v. aii.nak\().\. 
 
 Mv liOiU), Montreal, October 4, i8()(». 
 
 I ll.W'K the honour to eiulosc a petition lo 1 1 r .Majesty from citi/cns of 
 Canad.a. and csjiccially from .Montreal. concernin<;- what is described as tlie fraudii- 
 fnt rcniov:! oi" I!. S. I, iiur-uuh- iVom lli" jurisdielion of llie Court of (^nc( n's lieiicli 
 at .Montri;il, and pr;i\i!)<;- iler M.ijesly lo use iler authority for leslorin;;- llie .said 
 Laiiur;t:idc lo the jurisdiction of the si;id Court. Vour Lordship will oolit;(; by 
 layini;- it before Iler .Majesty, and inform the sif;iiers tiirouf;h me of its result. 
 .Messrs. Mackenzie, Trelierne aid Triiiden, .Solicitors of London, may be applied to 
 for further informations if I'tHiuircd. 
 
 I have, &c. 
 (Signed) JOSKPU UOUTRH:, Q.C. 
 
 'I'o Lord Carnarvon, 
 
 Secretary of State for the Colonies, London. 
 
 Inclosurc; 2 in No. 1. 
 
 Province of Canada, Districi ofilontreal. 
 
 To Her Most Crvieious Majesty Victoria, l)\ th.- };-ra('e of Cod, of the United 
 Ivingdoni of (ireat liritain and Ireland, Queen, Defeiuier of tiic Faitii. 
 
 The Petition of the Undersigned, humble subjects of your .Majesty, 
 
 .Most res])ect fully represents, 
 
 TII.VT from facts of public notoriety, in this part of the Province of Canada, it 
 is manifest that Krnest Sureau Laniirande, (.'lainicd by France under the Extradition 
 
 * Tlie following i... a copy of tlic lili'gr;iui .scut by Lord .Monck to Lord Carii.aivou : - 
 
 (Teli'graiii.) ^ " Quebec, Au^uiil -'lO, 18CG. 
 
 " PIUSONF.U, ii.Tincd Lamir.indc, dcl;\ciTd lo ricncli Govf rnmcnl midrr my warrant, wiul in 'Damascus' on 
 25tli. Owing to delay in obtaining babcaa corpus be was removed before it is>ncd. Application will be made to 
 (•;nglish Courts bv Mackenzie and Co. I wish niv warrant not to lie an obstacle. Do not reply. 
 
 "LORD MONCK." 
 
rircrs of the 
 
 '"•P'! n..' that 
 i^ im.l.r the 
 
 '" <"iiiiiiiiia| 
 iiiii(,l(. time 
 
 '<! miller my 
 '••>••'••. I iliil 
 
 ', .111(1 I .;,il| 
 
 >!'.• aiioihiT 
 'I'll.* Ixicriy 
 
 I'lilMii 111 Im« 
 
 "lis Hairaiii 
 
 i>i;irs ti, ,ne 
 <-' prisuiier's 
 ^'••1. vliich 
 man luuji 
 
 ■ ''K'hh III (III 
 
 waiiant ol' 
 
 ^ V Jr.! at 
 ^Uli. The 
 
 i.\ sc.il was 
 
 p. 
 lOXC'K. 
 
 4, iHfid. 
 
 ■ili/cn.s of 
 lU liaudii- 
 ii's iiciich 
 !;• tlio huid 
 
 oMii;(; by 
 
 ts result. 
 i|>|)lii3d to 
 
 :, Q.c. 
 
 United 
 
 inadu, it 
 • I'adition 
 
 !0, I8G6. 
 luasciis ' on 
 I' niaue to 
 
 >NCK." 
 
 n 
 
 Trrntv of Kchnmry \^i^, nn .■; rlinrtrc of fnrcjrrv. \\»h rrandnlontly icm««f>il diirini; 
 th<* ihk''' '•' tliP li-Jth '-'.Mil Xuijiist Inst, from llw innsdiriioii of the .IuiI^'h of the 
 Court of <k^<i'"*''i''< Koncli, sittiiij; in Montrcnl, wliitr |ir(M'»'('diiinH wrn- |>«Mi«lin)j for 
 hJH rrU'asc, m virtiic of voiir Majrxty's writ of h.iliran mrpus, siicli removal Iwimr 
 rtwortod to in onlfr to prevent tlio Nnid K. S. I.ainirnndc fmm ohtainm;; titp Itciirfit. 
 of the snid writ. 
 
 Tliat previous to the «nid K S. I.nmiiand'' lieini; thnn removixl ftimj the juris, 
 diction of till" snid Court, tlie lloii. I.. T. Dnmimnnd. one nf tlie .IndueN thereof, 
 |)cforc whom the prot'ecdiiif;s for luihrn.-- rmiiu- were peiiditiu for Ins reh'.ise, 
 intini.'ited to the Counsel eiifraL'dl on Ix'li.df of ttie Crown, tie private pnmeeiitor, 
 and the prisoner, that he was of opinion lliat there was no eaiise or lav*' to anthori/e 
 the evtradition of the said l.amiiande, aid .idjunriied the ease to the next mornMl^, 
 for til' purpose of orderinp; the issue of thi- «ril of liabi-ii^ corpui and the eonsn- 
 (iiieni release ol the prisoner. 
 
 That in the niorniuj;- of tlie 'J.'dli .\nuust last, the writ of hnhras mrfiun wan 
 ordered to issue and issuerl aceordinirly. b'M that the return thereto 'va- that the 
 prisoner had been delivered over to the Ap:cnt of the French (iovernment in the 
 course of the previous nielli. 
 
 'I'lal liy Mieh I'raiidiileiit icmov al. the said Court has l>een «et at deiimee to tlie 
 evil ev;'mple ;ind scandal of ymir Majes(\'s dutiful stdijects. 
 
 Wherefore your I'elitioners nnst rcspecllully pray ih.at vour .M;i|esl\ l>e 
 ple.ised to use \our authority lor r( storing' the said Krnest Sureau Lamiramle to 
 the jurisdiction of the Court of(j>ueeirs Meiidi, sittin;; at Montreal, so tl'i' thi'said 
 Laniiraiide he there dealt with accordinu; to law, and in a manner worthy of your 
 Majesty's Crown and difjnity. 
 
 And v(>ur Petitioners \sill ever pray. 
 
 Montreal. Septemlwr 'J'2. iHtitJ. 
 
 .Si!,MU(l) C. S. CIIKKKIKH. Q.C 
 
 (.\nd 72 others.) 
 
 Inclosure S in No. 1. I'"'- •' i" ^'o- '■ 
 
 Province of Canada, District of Montreal. (L. S.) 
 
 In the Petition of C. S. CnKnniKii. Q C., and others, relative to the K.vtradiiion of 
 
 ^'UNKST Si IIKAC liAJIIH.VNDE. 
 
 JOSKPH DOIJTRK of the City of Montreal. i':s(|uiic, Queen's Counsel, lieing 
 duly s\vt)rn, doth depose and say : 
 
 That the deponent is |)ractisin<;- before all Her .Majesty's Courts in this part of 
 Canada, constituting heretofore the Province of Lower Canada, as .Vttorney. 
 Advocate. Proctor, Solicitor, and Harristcr. since the year ls47. and has lieen 
 commissioned as one of Her .Majesty's Counsel. 
 
 That on the evening" of the 1st day of Auaust last the deponent's services were 
 retained on behalf of Krnest Sureau liamirande. I'orinerly a French subject, arrested 
 the same day in pursuance of a warrant issued under the signature of his K\cellenc\ 
 the Governor-General of Canada, on a charge qualified as follows in the s.aifl 
 warrant : 
 
 " Whereas one Ernest Sureau Lamirandc, late of Poitiers, in the Krciich 
 Empire, stands accused of the crime of forgery l)y having in his capacity of cashier 
 of the Branch of the Bank of France at Poitiers, made false entries in the books 
 of the said bank, and thereby defrauded the said bank of the sum of 700,000 
 francs, &ic." 
 
 That from the beginning of the proceedings tending to the extradition of the 
 prisoner, the deponent anticipated that the said prisoner would be arbitrarily and 
 illegally dealt with by the Magistrate and the officers prosecuting his extradition, 
 and the deponent felt bound to take unusual precautions to protect .the prisoner; 
 that this expectation on the part of the deponent was grounded on the following 
 facts:— 
 
 The ordinary judicial officer before whom these proceedings should have taken 
 place having obtained a leave of absence, a temporary Magistrate of Police had 
 been appointed to fill the vacancy; the Magistrate so temporarily appointed, 
 William rl. Brehaut, Esquire, had been already dismissed from office as Clerk of the 
 
Criwn for malvenuitinn. aiyi had heoii r«-a|)|>ointeil to a public nfRre without having 
 ever attempted to remnvr ttic raunea of his (iianiiutal, and he OMe«l hia ri'-iip|M»int. 
 mcnt t«» the rxcluaivr (xtlitiral inHucncc of the nctunl AttoriifyUJrncral fur Canada 
 Kant ; the Ativocatc rcpreacntiiiK thv Attorncy-(ienrral Kaat in the pnwvnjtion 
 of <rimc, on behalf of the Crown, T. K. Uamany. Kaq., had alao lN>«>n dtHinJKiied 
 from ofKce for inHiilKirdiimtion townrdH liiHHii|M.'rior otticcrit, the |M»litical iKUrrsarieii 
 of the nctunl AttorntyCirncrnl ; lie nUo hnd l)ccn re-np|M>inted to n |>iililii- oHice 
 throii^h the exclusive '|»olilicnl iniluenre of the nnid Attorney-(Jtnerul. And hii 
 xenliMM adviK'ncy of the extrnditioii of the |iriHoner wbh Hurh that the private 
 l>roHecution otUMi left the entire matter in hiH hands. The Deputy Clerk of the 
 Crown, C. K. Sehilirr, whose [mrticipation in the priM-eedinKs compluined of hIuII 
 hcrcnfier Im' hIiowi<, iind also been dismiNHed from the same office for malversation, 
 nnd hn<l also l>een reap|M)inted without having; ever attempted to remove the caiisca 
 of liis dismissnl, and throii)>;li the exclusive political influence of the rtaid Attorney- 
 General. The private oroweulor. the Bank of Krance. had selected for their Counsel 
 Messrs. Pominville and Ikftournay, the partners in business of the said Altorney- 
 (ieiicral, (ho latter and his said iiartncrs practisiii^r in Montreal, under the name 
 and firm of Carter, Pominville, ami Uetournay. 
 
 That the parlies engneetl in prosecuting; the extradition of the prisoner, 
 revealed so manifestly their ({('termination to carry away the prisoner, that nothing 
 slioii of the fair and impartial ile!ilin<;Hor his Kxcellency the Governor-Ucneral could 
 prevent them from accomplishing their object. 
 
 That since many years a rule of practice has obtained in this district, in matters 
 of hiiliran rorpun, requiring a notice of twenty-four hours to be given to the Attorney 
 representing the Attorney -(Seneral, before presenting the petition for obtaining the 
 writ. 
 
 That the arbitrary manner in whicii the nroceedings were carried on against 
 tiic prisoner induced the deponent to suspect tliat whenever the prisoner woidd be 
 comniitted for cxtruditic this delay of twenty-four hours woidtl be employed by 
 the private prosecutor in obtainin;^ the warrant of extradition from his Kxcellency 
 tlie lr.)vcrnor-(ieneral, and in executing such warrant with sufficient dispatch to 
 outrun the pr(K-ecdings on habeax corpus, an(\ thus frustrate the prisoner from the 
 benefit thereof. 
 
 That (Ml the IStli of August last, after the close of the investigation on the part 
 of the private prosecutor, and before entering on the defence of the pr.soner, the 
 deponent addressed to his Kxcellency tlic Clovernor-General, in the name of the 
 |)risoner, a petition in which he exposed that none of the provisions of the Treaty 
 uiid of the Statute (i and 7 Vict., cap. 75, had been complied with, and that even if 
 they liad, the facts charged on the prisoner did not constitute the crime of forgery ; 
 tiiat notwithstanding tiie illegality of the detention of the prisoner, he had reas(jn to 
 suspect that he would be committed, and that an attempt would i>e made to surprise 
 tiio good faith and sense of justice of his Kxcellency, in order to obtain from his 
 Kxcellency a warrant of extradition before the prisoner could submit his ease to a 
 hi^!1er tribunal under a writ of hahen's corpus, and finally praying his Kxcellency 
 not to give an order fiH* the surrender of the prisoner without allowing him the 
 necessary time to submit his case under a writ of habeas corpus ,- and not to 
 leave any room to accidents, the deponent requested Charles L. Spilthorn, Ksquire, 
 to proceed to Ottawa, and present tiic petition personally to his Kxcellency, and 
 bring back an answer; that on his return to Montreal the .said C. L Spilthorn 
 reported to the deponent that he had received both from his Kxcellency the 
 Governor-General, and from the Attorney-General a formal promise that ample 
 time would be allowed to the i)risoncr to apply for a writ of habeas corpus. 
 
 That on the 22nd day of August last, the proceedings before the Police 
 Magistrate were brought to a close and a decision rendered at half-past 7 in the 
 evening, committing the pri-soner for extradition; that on the late hour, at which 
 the above decision of the I'olice Magistrate was rendered, it was impossible to give 
 a legal notice to the Crown Prosecutor for the next night ; that on the next morning, 
 the 23rd day of August, the deponent caused to be served on the Crown Prosecutor, 
 ii copy of the petition of the prisoner for a writ of habeas corpus, with a notice, that 
 such petition would be presented in Chaml)ers to any of the Judges of the Court of 
 Queen's Bench, then present. On the following day, 24th August, twenty-four hours 
 after such service, that at the appointed hour on the latter day, the said petiti(m was 
 presented to the Honourable L. T. Drummond, one of the JuHges of the said Court 
 
tout having 
 '■^'•'•|'|'«»'nt. 
 for Canad* 
 
 <liHiniiiitc(l 
 
 a(l»cr»(aric« 
 
 "il)lir office 
 
 And hit 
 
 ><• private 
 
 Irrk .if the 
 
 i'<l of NllidI 
 
 Ivfrsation, 
 
 tin* c'uiiseg 
 
 At(oriic\> 
 
 "'ir Counsel 
 
 Altornpy. 
 
 the nnme 
 
 c prisoner, 
 at nothing 
 iieral nuild 
 
 in matters 
 e Attorncy 
 ninin^ the 
 
 )n Against 
 ' would be 
 p'oyefj by 
 
 Kxcellcncy 
 spatc'h to 
 Ironi the 
 
 n the part 
 soner, the 
 Tie of the 
 10 'I'rcaty 
 lat even if 
 r (orj^cry ; 
 reason to 
 (1 surprise 
 from his 
 ^ase to a 
 )x<'ellency 
 him the 
 [| not to 
 . Ksquire, 
 ency, and 
 SpiUhorn 
 lency the 
 at ample 
 
 le Police 
 t 7 in the 
 at which 
 le to give 
 morning, 
 osecutor, 
 tiee, that 
 Court of 
 ur hours 
 tion was 
 i<i Court 
 
 of yiie«'n'« Bench, in th(> pmcncr of the aaid T. K. Rnmiiay. Em], Crown Proaeoutor, 
 who nr^ticd nun nreliniinary |>oint, that an the Crown t^asnot tin- only party intrrented, 
 ihf twenty-four liours' noti«i' was insunioient, and rrtiucMtcd lung;«>r drinv to aniiwer 
 the |M-tition; that on thin ilrmaml the ticponcnt aniiwertti. that althouKli the notice 
 wan that rc«piirrd by tlie prai'tire of the Court, hf had n<i oiijcction to (jrjnit even ihreo 
 or fcur <layH' delay for arjjuinR the case, pmvide<i that the writ iih«)uld immediately 
 inHue, ami that the prisoin-r Im*, by that meanii, placed under the excluHive control 
 of the C'(mrt ; the ticnonent adding;, that althon^;h be could not vubstantiatc hit 
 ap|irehcnHion8, and tht)s(< of the prisoner, by allidavits, he had Htron)( Hunpiciona 
 that by some means or other, the prisoner would not l)e dealt with fairly ami 
 according to law ; that on the mention of these apprciiensions ami HUMpicionM, the 
 Crown rrosecntor replied that it was a calumny againvt the institutions of the 
 country, to suppose that the prisoner couUI be exposed to ony unfair treatment; 
 that tlie Honoural)|e.)ud^r> havinc^ flecided that the notice wns sufVicient, the case was 
 arjjned by ileponent on litli.iir of the prisoner, by the said T. K. Uamsay on behalf 
 of the Crown, ami l»y I"'. I'. I'oiuinville for the private prosecutor; Mr. Hainsay 
 arguing the points of l.r.v. and Mr. Pominville the facts of the case; that the 
 deponent, havin;;; Ixcii prevented from entering in the facts, by the saidJudge, for the 
 reason that the mind of the saiil Judge was, as he expressed, sudicieiitly maile up 
 on the points of law, .Mr. Pominville was also interrupted for the same cause, the 
 Honourable Judge clearly expressing his opinion, that he thought there was no 
 cause for the extradiiimi of the prisoner, ami adding that, as the (pcjstions raised 
 were im|)ortant, on aecount of their international eharaeter, he would take until the 
 next morning for preparing his judgment, and consequently adjourned the case lo 
 the next day. 
 
 That on the evening of the .same day, 24th August, Ix'twccn half-past 8 and 9 
 o'clock, the deponent was called upon by parties, wno informed him that they had 
 credible information that the prisoner was to be carried away within a short time 
 the same night, that deponent answered that the prisoner could not be tak"n 
 away upon any authority other than that of the Governor-General, who had 
 promised to allow the prisoner the necessary time for obtaining a writ of habeas 
 corpus, adding that if lie was taUen away, it must be with the forged signature of 
 the Governor-General ; that he (the deponent) had no means to protect his client 
 against forgeries; that althoi::;-h disbelieving such information, the deponent 
 imtnediately repaired to the rcsid.-nce of the said Judge, to lay it before him, which 
 he did, by an affidavit stating the facts ; that on this information of the deponent, 
 the said Judge accompanied the deponent to the Grand Trunk Railway Station, 
 where a train was to leave at ten minutes after 10 o'clock the same night for 
 Quebec, with the object of commanding any person that might be engaged in taking 
 away the prisoner, to desist from doing so, as the prisoner was then under his 
 jurisdiction ; that the presence at the railway station of the French detective Melin, 
 the High Constable liissonnette, and of Sinling, a Montreal Constable, giving some 
 substance to the information conveved to the deponent, the said J jdge, after stating 
 to the High Constable that he had information under oath, of a threatened attempt 
 to take away the prisoner, started for the gaol, where he lefl a written order 
 commanding the gaoler not to deliver the prisoner on the authority of whomsoever, 
 as he was then und(T t!ie jurisdiction of the said Judge ; that the deponent, 
 conceiving thut his mission as an interpreter of the law did not impose upon him 
 the duty of resorting to other means of defence, he left the matter in this state until 
 the next morning ; that on tlie 25th August, the writ of habeas corpus was ordered to 
 issue and accordingly issued, and the gaoler's return to it was that the prisoner 
 had been delivered over to an agent of the French Government during the previous 
 night, on the warrant of the Deputy Sheriff, founded on the warrant of the Governor- 
 General, dated the 2ord day of the same month ; that on this return, the Honourable 
 Judge called upon the Deputy Sheriff to give an account of his conduct, in the 
 presence of the deponent, that the Deputy Sheriff then stated that he had given his 
 warrant on the demand of Mr. B^tournay, one of the Attorney-General's partners 
 in business, and in official ignorance of the proceedings for habeas corpus ; that the 
 Deputy Sheritf having received orders to produce the Governor-Genecal's warrant, 
 it appeared that the said warrant was in the handwriting of the above-named 
 C. E. Schiller, Deputy Clerk of the Crown, virho being asked how it happened that 
 that document was in his handwriting, answered that some time before the decision 
 of the Police Magistrate, he had received from the Crown Prosecutor, the gaid 
 
 [75] C 
 
 M 
 
w~^ 
 
 T 
 
 m ' 
 
 T, K. Ramsny, a draft of the said warrant, witli a reejucst to Iiim. Scliillfr, to write 
 it on parclimcnt ar.d have it ready for us*", when need he; that in llic prcHonce of 
 the said C K. ScliilK-r, the gaoler was aski-d l)y the said .Judf!;f whra and where ho 
 had received the warrant of the Deputy Sh'-riff, and he answered tliat he had 
 received it durin;; the nipht of the 24th August, at the residinee of the Deputy 
 Shcrifl', where he had gone fo' une «)ther pressing business connected with lu^ 
 official duties (which was true), d where he had seen, occupied with the ohtuiniiig 
 of a warrant for taking away Lamirande, the said Mr. IJclournay, ('. E. ScliiJK r, 
 Ifigh Conslahle Hiusonnette, Jt-'rench ilctective Melin, and Constable Sipling ; that tlie 
 deponent, desiring to exhai'st all means of prev( nting tiic illegal surrender of the 
 prisoner, called upon tiic Governor-General at Quebec, on the 29th of August, 
 accompanied by C. L. Spilthorn, Ksq., who 1....I presented tlie petition above 
 referred to, of the jirisoner, at Ottawa, on the 17tli August, and had obtained the 
 promise also above referred to, from his Excellency and the Attornoy-(Ji norai ; that 
 in that interview, his Kxccllcncy fully acknowledg'/d that lia had made tliat promise; 
 that the deponent and the said C. L. Spiltiiorn, having v.iiitcn a Joint report of that 
 interview with the tiovernor-Gcneral, and that report being communicated to the 
 Governor-General, nis Kxcellency, by a letter addressed to tlie deponent by his 
 Secretary. Denis Ciodley, Esq., under date of t!;c 12th September instant, 
 acknowledged in the following terms the correctne^is of its contents: — 
 
 " I have the honour to inform you that ! have laid the paper which you 
 enclosed to me in your letter of the 11 th instant, before the Governor-General, and 
 I am to acquaint you that it is therein correctly stated his Excellency told 
 Mr. Spiltiiorn that am|)le time would be -allowed to Lamirande to ol..,aia a w rit of 
 luibeas corpus before tiie execution of the warrant for Ids extradition." That in this 
 irtciview his Excellency explained that when he had signed tlic warrant of extra- 
 dition, he had done so at the request of Solicitor-Geni ral Langevin, under tlie 
 express understanding that it would in no way interfere with the ])roccedings 
 ado|-<ted, or to be a(K)pted, by the prisoner for obtaining a writ of habeas corpus. — 
 that Iiaving been deceived in the execution of that understanding, he felt mure 
 {rricved than any one for having been instrumental in committing a grave wrong 
 towards the prisoner, and he would do any thing practicable to redress that wrong, 
 — that it was then and there understood that his Evcellency would telegraph 
 through the Cable to the I lonourable the Secretary oi State for the Colonies, to 
 81 ;)poit in the measure of his powers the proceedings whic'i would be adopted by 
 the Councillors to whom the deponent was to telegraph lor obtaining a writ of 
 habeas corpim in England, and for that object his Excellency requested the deponent 
 to communicate to him the names of the Councillors tiie deponent intendcil to 
 employ in London, that the deponent having returned to ^lontreal on the night of 
 the 2!)th August, he telegraphed on the 30th to his Excellency that he would entrust 
 Messrs. Mackenzie, Treherne and Trinden, Solicitors of London, with the duty of 
 applying for a writ of habeas corpus ; and the same day t'lc deponeni telegraphed 
 through the Atlantic Cable to that legal firm in the follouing terms:—" Sec Lord 
 Carnarvon. E. S. Lamirande, kidnapped by E. Justin ]\Ieli:i, and Joseph Sipling, 
 on stenm-ship ' Damascus,' S. Watts, captain, due Londonderry, .3rd September. 
 Use habeas corpus ;" that fioni the conversations of the deponent with his Excellency, 
 the deponent was lead to believe that the promised telegram of his Excellency 
 would make up for the insufficiency of information conveyed by the telegr.im of the 
 deponent, which impression was confirmed by a letter of the Secretary of the 
 Governor-General, addressed to the deponent under date the lOth September last, in 
 foil wing terms: — "In reply to your request that the telegram of the Governor- 
 General to the Secretary of State for the Colonies should be communicated to you, 
 I am to acquaint you that his Excellency in his message to Lord Carnarvon, 
 expressed his desire that his warrant for Lamirande's extradition should ik t be 
 any obstacle to the prisoner's obtaining a writ of habeas corpus in England, as his 
 Excellency understood that an application for that purpose would be made in the 
 English Courts." 
 
 That on the 25th August last, judgment was rendered, ordering tlie issuing of 
 the writ of habeat eorpugi that in return thereto the gaoler stated, that during the 
 night of the 24th and 25th August, he had delivered over the prisoner to 
 E. J. Melin, agent of the French Government, on the warrant of the Deputy- 
 SbcrifT, founded on the warrant of the Governor-General, that on this return the 
 Judge seeing that an order for the discharge of the prisoner woul4 be of oo avail, 
 
pi 
 
 IT, to write 
 prcBoiic'c of 
 il where lie 
 lat lie harl 
 lit' ih\nny 
 il with I>i8 
 o ol)tainiii{; 
 K. Schilior, 
 ; thai the 
 nder of the 
 of August, 
 tion aljovc 
 •tallied the 
 iicjul; that 
 iit promise; 
 )ort of that 
 atcd to tlic 
 lent Ijy his 
 r instant, 
 
 whicli you 
 cncral, and 
 Ilcncy told 
 in a writ of 
 'hat in this 
 It of cxtra- 
 
 under the 
 )rocec(lings 
 a.v corpus: — 
 ■ felt more 
 ave wrong 
 hat wrong-, 
 
 telegraph 
 [Colonies, to 
 adopted by 
 ; a writ of 
 c deponent 
 ntended to 
 lie night of 
 uid enir-jst 
 he duty of 
 clcgraphed 
 " «ee Lord 
 )h Sipiing, 
 Scptcniher. 
 Excellency, 
 Kxcel/ency 
 ram of the 
 iry of the 
 Jer last, in 
 Goveruor- 
 ;cd to you, 
 -arnarvon, 
 Id n^t be 
 md, as his 
 ade ill the 
 
 issuing of 
 juring the 
 isoner to 
 5 Deputy, 
 eturn the 
 ' OQ avail. 
 
 tdjourned to another day the roconling of his judgment, 
 jeconied in the terms of the accompanying record. 
 And further deponent saith not, ;.nd hath signed. 
 
 (Signed) 
 
 wl 
 
 ucli was 
 
 aft 
 
 (TVTUrU 
 
 JOSKPH DOrTRK. 
 
 Sworn an<l acknowledged before me, at Montreal, the 4lh Octolwr, ISGd. 
 (Signed) CiiARi.Eii Mo\Dbi.ET, Jun. 
 
 Charles L. Spilthorn, of the city of New York, .\ttorney and C'dunseilor-al Caw 
 being duty sworn, doth deposes and say, that having taken comnuinict>*ion of the 
 foregoing aflidax it, he may a'd (l<> declare that all and every the facts lliorein 
 contained arc personally known to him, and arc true, and hath signed. 
 
 (Signal) C. L. SPILTHOUN. 
 
 Sworn and ."cknowledgcd before me, this 4th day of OoIoIkt, ISGfi. 
 (Signc<l) C'haulks Monhk.let, Jun. 
 
 Indosure 4 in No. 1. 
 
 Province of Canada, District of Montreal. (L.S.) 
 
 In the matter of Krncst Sureau Lainirandc. 
 
 CHARLES L. SPILTHORN, of the city of New York, Attorney and 
 Counscllor-at-Law, bcir.^ duly sworn on the holy Evangelists, doth depose and say 
 as follows: — T have assisted at the exainination and trial of the said Lamirandc, at 
 Montreal, before the Police Magistrate Brehaut, and am well ncquainted with the 
 case. On the 15th of August, 1866, I was solicited by Joseph Doutrc, Ksq., Counsel 
 for Laniirande, to go to Ottawa, in order to present personally to his Kxcellency the 
 Governor-General, a petition which Mr. Doutre had hastily prepared in the name 
 and in the interest of Lamirande ; in that petition it was exposed to his Kxcellency 
 that there was no ground to extradite Lamirande; that none of the formalities 
 provided '-.y law had been fulfilled, and that even if they were, there was not in the 
 whole matter the shadow of the crime for which his extradition was demunded ; 
 that, notwithstanding all this, there was reason to suspect tli.-U some attempt would 
 be made to surprise the good faith and sense of justice of his F^xcellency, in onler 
 to obtain from him a warrant of extradition, without giving time to the prisoner to 
 apply to the regular tribunals of the country, and submit his case for examination ; 
 the petition concluded by praying his Excellency not to warrant the surrender of 
 the prisoner in haste, and to give him time to have his case carefully considered by 
 the legal authority. 
 
 Having been one of the Counsel of Lamirande in New York, and seei;i5r that 
 the ground of his extradition was a manifest false pretence, I could not decline to 
 act as Mr. Doutrc requested me to do, and I started the evening of the same day for 
 Ottawa. After reaching this place, I presented, on the 16th of August, the petition 
 of Lamirande, to the Governor-General, through Denis Godley, F^sq., private 
 Secretary of his F^xcellency ; on the same day, in the afternoon, Mr. Godhy informed 
 me that the petition had been referred to the Honourable the Attorney-Gcneral 
 Cartier. On the 17th I was received by his Excellency, who told me spontc.neously 
 that he knew the object of my visit, that he had seen and read the petition of 
 Lamirande, and that there was no occasion ro entertain any fear, that nothing 
 would be done hurriedly nor without the fullest consideration ; that Lamirandc 
 would be allowed all the time required for applying bv habeas corpus or other legal 
 means to all competent Courts of Her Majesty ; then a general conversation 
 followed about the facts of the case. I explained to his Excellency the case of 
 Windsor, decided in London in the spring of 1865, when the same question was 
 decided by the highest and most distinguished Judges of England, by which decision 
 it was established that, admitting all the facts alleged in the case of Lamirandc, 
 there wsis no ground for extradition. I mentioned, that when this case had been 
 cited before the Police Magistrate, the Crown Prosecutor had laughed at the 
 decision of those English Judges, as being do authority. His Excellency expressed 
 the high respect he entertained for the opinion of the Judges of the Court of 
 Queen's Bench, which, besides being the highest Court, was presided over 
 
 Incl. 4 in No. 1. 
 
; 
 
 n 
 
 
 8 
 
 by the moHt eminent and lenrncd Judges of England. After repeating tht 
 asHiirancc that the prisoner woi;l<l l)c allowed the most ample time and up|M>rtur.ity 
 of having his rase liilly examined by all competent Courts, not excluding thcCouru 
 of Kngland. as I had alluded to the possihility of resorting to them, his KAcellcncj- 
 advised me to see the Honourable Attorney-Uenera! Mr, Cartier, and ordered one of 
 his oHieers to intrwiure me to him. After some conversation about the ease and 
 other matters. M. Cartier tok' me that there would and could Iw no precipitation 
 in the decision of the Governor; that all t!ic papers must be submitted to the 
 F'xecutive and personally to the Governor, after the commitment, if there were any; 
 that these proceedings would necessarily take several days, and that his l''xccllei.lt' 
 would not decide except after mature deIil)eration ai\d according to his own jiidg. 
 mcnt. He added, that he did not see any occasion for hurrying the matter; that 
 we should have all the time recpiired for hahen^ corpus. nm\ finally, that I might have 
 the fullest confidence in the word of the (lovcrnor (leneral, whose promise I had 
 communicated to him. We then parted in the most friendly way. 
 
 On the 22ndof August, the argument being closed before the Police .Magistrate 
 at 6 o'clock i'..M., he rendered his Judgment at half-past 11, notwithstaniling' the 
 
 1)rayer of Mr. Doutre to po.stponc it to the following day for bettor consideration, 
 lis Kxcellency was then passing through Montreal from Ottawa to Quel)ec, and it 
 was rumoure(l that he vould stop an hour at Montreal. Everything was so much 
 hurried up that this circumstance looked very suspicious to the pri.soner as he 
 communicated to his Counsel. As soon as possible an application was made for a 
 writ of habras rorpuK. 
 
 I was |)rcsent in Chambers, Court of Queen's Bench, on the 24th of August, 
 when Mr Ramsay, the Crown prosecutor, complained of the short notice of twenty- 
 four hours he had received of the petition for habeas corpus. Although tiic Judge 
 decid fl tnat the notice was sufficient, Mr. Doutre ofTcred to allow two or three days 
 to answer it, provided the writ should issue immediately, so as to place the prisoner 
 more expressly under the exclusive control of the Honourable Judge and Court. 
 Mr. (lamsay having declined to accept that olTer, Mr. Doutre, after some argument 
 of the case, stated that he felt bound to make himself the echo of his client's mind, 
 and to express the deep apprehension of foul play under which he laboured. 
 i\Ir. Ramsay protested against such insinuations and, as he said, calumniations of 
 the institutions of the country, the Governor-General being the only person under 
 whose warrant the prisoner could be extradited, and he was fully protected against 
 any illegal processes. His Honour the Judge said that the question being of high 
 importance, and the prisoner being from this moment under the control of the 
 Court, he would take to the ne.\t day to mature his Judgment. The Counsel for 
 "lit, French Government was also present, and heard on their behalf. 
 
 On the same night, 24th of August, at about half-past 8, I was at Mr. Doutre's 
 housL, when he told me that persons who wished not to be seen had at that moment 
 assured him that Lamirande was to be spirited away that night. We could not 
 believe it; notwithstanding Mr. Doutre went to the house of the Judge to consult 
 him, and I went to the Bonaventure Station, where all trains leave. At about 
 half-past 9, Mr. Doutre, in company of the Judge, Mr. Drummond, before whom the 
 ap[>lication for habeas corpus was made, came there also. Then the Judge meeting 
 High Constal o Bissonctte, told him that an affidavit had been made before him to 
 the efTect tha some attempt was to be made during the night to remove the prisoner 
 Lamirande f im his jurisdiction. 
 
 Mr. Bissonette answered that he knew nothing thereof, and had received no 
 order to that eflect. 
 
 Mr. Justice Drummond then told Mr. Bissonette that he gave him notice 
 thereof, and that if any such thing should happen he would hold him responsible 
 Immediately after this Mr. Bissonctte and tne French detective Melin, who was 
 in Bissonette's company, disappeared, when Judge Drummond said that having 
 suHicient evidence that there was something on foot, he would go to the gaol. 
 
 A few minutes after, the Quebec train being in motion, Mr. Doutre advised me 
 to go down to Quebec, and do as circumstances would require. I did so; but the 
 train stopped at Point St. Charles, and we were all detained thereuntil 1 o'clock a.m. 
 During that interval I walked up and down, and saw that the train was divided in 
 two parts, some three or four cars having been left some distance behind. About 
 one or two minutes before the final departure of the train the two parts were 
 coupled together. Having more than suspicions about what was going on, I tried 
 to look into those cars. One of them was a baggage-car, having a kind of balcony 
 
9 
 
 ropcating the 
 <1 op[M)rtunity 
 ing thoCourti 
 fiis Kxcfllono- 
 ordered one trf 
 t the case and 
 
 precipitation 
 "litted (o tht 
 pre were any ; 
 
 *< l''x(.'cllet.l,' 
 his own jiidg. 
 ! matter; that 
 
 I niiffht have 
 promise 1 had 
 
 cc .'\Ias;istratc 
 istandinn' the 
 consideration, 
 lueljcc, and it 
 was so much 
 risoner as he 
 as made for a 
 
 h of August, 
 
 ice of twenty^ 
 
 gh tiie Judge 
 
 or three days 
 
 B the prisoner 
 
 e and Court, 
 
 me argument 
 
 client's mind, 
 
 he laboured. 
 
 umniations of 
 
 person under 
 
 :ccted against 
 
 )eing of high 
 
 control of the 
 
 le Counsel for 
 
 Mr. Doutre's 
 that moment 
 V'e could not 
 Ige to consult 
 J. At about 
 )re whom tlie 
 idge meeting 
 before him to 
 ; the prisoner 
 
 received no 
 
 him notice 
 responsible, 
 lin, who was 
 that having 
 e gaol. 
 s advised me 
 I so ; but the 
 I o'clock A.M. 
 is divided in 
 iind. About 
 parts were 
 
 fon, I tried 
 of balcony 
 
 passngc. Seeing li^rht in that car, I went in the passage and saw Lamirandc 
 through the windov. The door was l(H-ke<i. Around Lamirandc I saw High 
 Constab'c Kissonettc, the Freneli detective Melin. and one or two others I did not 
 know. I called Lamirandc by his name, and he made a move towards me, but he 
 was immediately brought down by force, and the liglit inside was blown out. I did 
 not sec him any more iicfore reaching Point Levi, near Quel)ec, on the morning of 
 the 25lli of August. On the way down I prepared two telegrams, one addressed to 
 the Governor-General, the other to lawyers of Qucl>cc. I applied to live stations to 
 have my telegrams sent to their <lestination. In two of them I found no operator; 
 in two others I was told tliat they were not in working order; and in the last, 
 objection was made to my tolegram.s because they were written in pencil. We 
 arrived at Point Levi at about 10 o'clock. I met Lamirandc at the ferry-boat. I 
 askc<l liis guardians under wl.at autliorily they were conveying linn. They answered 
 at first that they had no account to give, but at last they said that they had the 
 Governor's warrant. I reminded Bissonelte of what had been told him by Mr. .lustice 
 Drummond in my presence, lie answercil that when he l;ad the (iovernor's warrant 
 lie laughed at Judge's orders. Hissonette's assistants w ere saying the same ; this all 
 amidst threats of violence and arrest against me if I said anything more. All the 
 while the ferry-boat was directed towards the steamf r " Damascus," laying at the 
 Quebec wharf, and waiting for the ferry, under steam. Lamirandc was imme- 
 diately transferred on the steamer, which left a few minutes afterwards. My 
 mission was then at an end. I could not do anything more for Lamirandc, and I 
 returned. When I came back to Montreal the Judge had given his dec! .ion, 
 allowed the writ of habeas corpus, and pronounced his opinion for discharging the 
 prisoner. 
 
 The other facts connected with tliis afiair lieing related in an affidavit of Joseph 
 Doutrc, F^sq., are omitted in the present deposition to avoid repetition. And further 
 deponent says not ; and this deposition being read to him, he declares it contains 
 the truth and has signed. 
 
 (Signed) C. L. SPILTIIORN. 
 
 Sworn and acknowledged before me, at Montreal, this fourth day of October, 
 one thousand eight hundred and sixty-si.\. 
 
 (Signed) Chaules Mondelet, Jun. 
 
 Inclosure 5 in No. 1. 
 
 Province of Canada, District of Montreal. (L.S.) 
 
 In Chambers. — Tuesday, August 28, 1866. 
 
 Before the Honourable Mr. Justice Dru.mmomd. 
 
 In the matter of Ernest Sureai; Lamirandc, for writ of habeas corpus. 
 
 THE Honourable Mr. Justice Drummond pronounced the following Judg- 
 ment : — 
 
 On the 26th July last, a document under the signature of his Excellency the 
 Governor-General, purporting to be a warrant for the extradition of the petitioner, 
 issued under the authority vested in his Excellency by t!io provisions of the Statute 
 passed by the Legislature of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland in 
 the sixth and seventh years of Her Majesty's reign, intituled " An Act to give 
 effect to a Convention between Her Majesty and the King of the French for the 
 apprehension of certain offenders," setting forth that the said petitioner stood 
 accused of the crime of " forgery, for having, in his capacity of cashier of the 
 branch of the Bank of France, at Poitiers, made false entries in the books of the 
 said bank, and thereby defrauded the said bank of the sum of seven hundred 
 thousand francs;" that a requisition had been made to his Excellency by the 
 Consul-General of France in the Province of British North America, to issue his 
 warrant for the apprehension of the said petitioner, and requiring all Justices of 
 the Peace and other Magistrates and officers of justice within their several jurisdic- 
 tions to aid in apprehending the petitioner and committing him to gaol. 
 
 Under this document the prisoner was arrested, ana after examination before 
 William H. Br^haut Esq., Police Magistrate and Justice of the Peace, was fully 
 
 Incl. 5 In No. 1. 
 
i> 
 
 if' 
 
 10 
 
 cominiited to the common gnol of this district on the 22nd day of the current 
 nonth of August. 
 
 On the following dny. between the hours of 11 and 12 o'clock in the forenoon, 
 notice was given in due form by the prisoner's couuKel to the counsel char^-wl with 
 the rriminal prosecutions in this district, that he (the said counsel for tli< prisoner) 
 would present a petition to any one of the Judges of the Court of Cc.iocn's Bench, 
 who min-ht be present in Chambers at 1 o'cloci: in the afterncMm of the following day 
 (the a^tlil, praying for a writ o{ hahein corpus and the discharge of the prisoner. 
 
 At the time appointed this petition was submitted Co me. 
 
 Mr. J. Doutrc appeared for the pf>titinner, Mr. T. K. Hamsay for the Crown, 
 and Mr. Pominville for the private prosecutor. 
 
 A preliminary objection rai.scd on the ground of insufficient notice was 
 overruled. 
 
 Mr. Doutre then sot forth his client's case in a manner so lucid that I soon 
 convinced myself, after perusing the Statute cited in the warrant of extradition, 
 that tho warrant itself, the pretcnticd warrant of arrest alleged to have been issued 
 in France (nrrel <fe renvoi), and all the proceedings taken with a view to obtain the 
 extradition of the petitioner, were unauthorized by the above cited Statute, illegal, 
 null, and void, and that the petitioner was therefore entitled to his discharge from 
 imprisonment. 
 
 But as Mr. Pon'invillc, whom 1 supposed to be acting as counsel for the Bank 
 of France, wished to be heard, I adjourned the discussion of the case until the 
 following morning. 
 
 I would have issued the writ before adjourning had the counsel for the prisoner 
 insisted upon it; but that gentleman was no doubt lulled into a sense of false 
 security by the indignation displayed by the counsel for the Crown, when 
 Mr. Doutre signified to me his apprehension that a coup de main was in contempla- 
 tion to carry ofT the petitioner before his case had been decided. 
 
 On the' following morning, Saturday, the 25th of this month, I o; lored Vjc 
 issuitig of a writ of habeas corpus to bring the petitioner before me, with a view to 
 his immetliate discharge. 
 
 My decision to discharge him was founded u;: ;n thn reasons following: — 
 
 1. Because it is provided by the 1st section of the .„tt cfthe British Parliament 
 to give effect to a Convention between Her Majesty and the King of the French for 
 the apprehension of certain offenders (6 & 7 Vic., cap. 75) that every requisition to 
 deliver u]) to justice any fugitive accused of any of the crimes enumerated in the 
 said Act shall be made by an Ambassador of the Government of France, or by an 
 accredited Diplomatic Agent, whereas the requisition made to deliver up the 
 petitioner to justice has been made by Abel Frederic Gai:cier, Consul-General of 
 France in the Provinces of British North America, who is neither an Ambassador 
 of the Government of France nor an accredited Diplomatic Agent of that Govern- 
 ment, according to his own avowal upon oath. 
 
 :.*. Because by the 3rd section of the said Statute it is provided that no .Justice 
 of tin; Peace or any other person shall issue his warrant for any such supposed 
 ofTcnder until it shall have been proved to him upon oath or affidavit that the 
 person applyinjr for such warrant is the bearer of a warrant of arrest, or other 
 equivalent jiidijial document issued by a Judge or competent Magistrate in France, 
 authenticated in such manner as would justify the arrest of the supposed ofT'ender 
 in France upon the Kanr.e charge, or unless it shall appear to him that the act 
 charged against the supposed offender is clearly set forth in such warrant of arrest 
 or other judicial document ; whereas the Justice of the Peace who issued his 
 warrant against the petitioner issued the same without haying any such proof 
 before him, the only document produced before him, as well as before me, in lieu of 
 such warrant of arrest or equivalent judicial document, being a paper writing 
 alleged to be a translation into English cf a French document made by some 
 unknown and unauthorized person in the office of counsel for the prosecutor at 
 New York, and bearing no authenticity whatever. 
 
 3. Because, supposing the said document purporting to be a translation of an 
 acte d'accusation or indictment, accompanied by a pretended warrant for arrest, and 
 designated as an arrft de retwoi, to be authentic, it does not contain the designation 
 of any crime comprised in the number of the various crimes for or by reason of 
 the alleged commission of which any fugitive cAn be extradited under the said 
 Statute. 
 
1 
 
 •e ourrrnt I 
 forpnooD. 
 
 the 
 
 rpnooD, 
 :?har^«| with 
 ti' prisoner) 
 iPcii's HL'tich, 
 ollowing day 
 )risoiior. 
 
 ■ the Crown, 
 
 notice was 
 
 that I soon 
 
 oxtradiJion, 
 
 •)Pen issued 
 
 o ohtain the 
 
 tnte, illegal, 
 
 charge from 
 
 ar the Bank 
 se until the 
 
 the prisoner 
 
 nso of false 
 
 •own, when 
 
 pontenipla- 
 
 o: !ered l;ic 
 h a view to 
 
 ng:_ 
 Parliament 
 French for 
 quisition to 
 atcd in the 
 e. or by an 
 ^cv up the 
 ■General of 
 imbnssador 
 at Govern- 
 no Justice 
 h supposed 
 t that the 
 ., or other 
 in France, 
 Jfl ofTender 
 at the act 
 t of arrest 
 issued his 
 "ch proof 
 , in lieu of 
 :r writing 
 by some 
 secutor at 
 
 tion of an 
 rrest, and 
 signation 
 reason of 
 the said 
 
 If 
 
 4. Because by the 1st section of the said Act it is provided that no Justice of 
 tlip Peace ishall cuinmit any person aciuscij of any of tlic crimes mentioned in the 
 sail! Act (to wit, murder, attempt lo commit mnrdfr, foigrrv. and fraudulent bank- 
 ruptcy), unless upon such evidence an accordina; to the laws of that part oi Iler 
 Majesty's dominions, in which the supposed offender shall lie foun«l, wt)uld justify 
 the apprehension and committal for trial of tl»e per«<m so accustnl if tho crime of 
 whiiii lie shall lie accused harl been there committed. 
 
 Whereas the evidence produced ajjainst the petitioner upon the accusation of 
 ri)rf::ery brought against him before the committing Magistrate wouhl not have 
 justified him in appreiiei)(linj,' or committing the petitioner for tlie crime of forgery 
 h.-id the acts charged against him been committed in tliat jjart of llcr Majesly'g 
 dominions where the petitioner was found, to wit. in Lower ('. iiada. 
 
 5. Because the said warrant for the extradition of the prisoner, as well as the 
 warrant for his apprehension, does not charge him with the commission of any one 
 of the crimes for which a warrant of extradition can Iw issued un«ler this Statute, 
 inasmuch us in both of the said warrants the allescd oncnee is cluirge«l against the 
 (jetitioner as " forgery, by having in the capacity of cashier of the branch of the 
 Bank of France at Poitiers, made false entries in the books of the Bank, and thereby 
 defrauded the said Bank of the sum of 700,000 francs." 
 
 Whereas the said offence as thus designated does not constitute the crime of 
 forgery according to the laws of Kngland and Lower Canada, for to use the words 
 of Judge Blackburn, when he pronounced Judgment concurrentlv with C. J. Cock- 
 burn and Judge Shee, in a case analogous to lhi< {e.r partv Charles Windsor, Court 
 of Queen's Bench, May 18(».'))," forgery is the false making of an instrument 
 purporting to be that which it is not; it is not the making of an instrument 
 purporting to be tliat which it is; it is not the making of an instrument which 
 purports to be what it really is, but which contains false statements. Telling a 
 lie does not become a forgery because it is icduce<l to writing." 
 
 The gaoler's return to tills writ oi habeas corpxiK \\ s that lie had <Ielivrred over 
 the prisoner to Kdme Justin Melin, Inspecteur Principal (ie Police de Paris, on 
 tlic night of the 24th instant, at \'l o'llock, by virtue of an oriler signed by W. H. 
 Sanborn, Deputy WherilF, grounded upon an instrument signed by his Kxeelloncy 
 the Governor-General. 
 
 It a|)pears that the petitioner thus delivered up to this French polieonan is 
 now (111 his way to France, althougii Iiis extradition was illegally <leiiKui(!ed, 
 although he was accused of no ciiuic under v.hieli he could have been legally extra- 
 dited, and although, as I am credibly informed, his Kxeelleney the ('mvei uor- 
 Gcneral had promiscil, a.s lu! was bound in honour iwA justice to ^la:;!. the peti- 
 tioner an oj)j)ortunity of having his case decided by tlie first tribunal of the land 
 before ordering this extradition. 
 
 It is evident th.at his Kxeelleney has been tiikcn by surjirisc, for the <loctiment 
 signed by him is a false record, pur|:orting to having been signed on thi' 2.3j(l 
 instant at Ottawa, while liis P^xci-'lleuey was at (Quebec, and f'alselv certified to 
 have been recorded at Ottawa before it had been signed by the (jovernor- 
 Gener&l. 
 
 In so far as the petitioner is concerned, I have no further order to make, for 
 he whom I was called upon to bring before nic is now probably on the high seas, 
 swept away by one of the most audacious and hitiicrto successful ."ittempts to 
 frustrate the ends of justice which has yet been heard of in Canada. 
 
 The only action 1 can take in so far as he is concerned is to order a copy of 
 this Judgment be transmitted by the Clerk of the Crown to the Governor-General 
 for the adoption of such measures as his Excellency may be advised to take to 
 maintain that respect which is due to the Courts of Canada and to tho laws of 
 England. 
 
 As to the public officers who have been connected with this matter, if any 
 proceedings are to be adopted against them, they will be informed thereof on 
 Monday, the 24th day of September next, in the Court of Queen's Bench, holding 
 criminal jurisdiction, to which day I adjourn this case for furth>''r consideration. 
 
 jr., . .■ 
 
 
 "Wc the Honourable Louis Antoine Dessaulles and William Erraatinger, 
 Esquire, Clerk of the Crown for the district of Montreal, do hereby certify that the 
 foregoing is a copy of the Judgment rendered by the Honourable Lewis Thomas 
 Drummond, one of the Justices of the Court of Queen's Bench for Lower Canada at 
 
 
12 
 
 m 
 
 Montreal, on the 28lh day of August, 1866, upon the petition o( the said Krnett 
 Sureau Lamirandc for writ of kabea$ corpus. 
 
 (Signed) DKSSAULLES AND ERMATINGER, 
 
 Clerk of the Crown, District uf Montreal. 
 Crown Office, Montreal, October 4, 1866. 
 
 No. 2. 
 
 No. a. CoFr of a DESPATCH froni Vis»count Monck to the R'\ght Hon. the Earl of 
 
 Carnarvon. 
 (No, 164.) Quebec, October 18, 1866. 
 
 Mv Loud, (Uimved November 1, 18GG.) 
 
 1 H.\VE the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your Lordship's despatch 
 No. 61* of Septemlwr 22, transmitting a copy of a despatch from Her .Majesty's 
 Ambassador at Paris, to the Secretary of State for Foreign AlTairs, accompanied 
 by a letter from a French subject named Lamirandc, complaining of his liaving 
 been given up to the F'rench Government unv^er the Extradition Treaty, and more 
 especially of the manner in which he was removed from Canada while his case was 
 st.dl under consideration of a Judge of the Court of Queen's Bench. 
 
 I have also the honour to acknowledge the rsceint of your despatch No. 6"t of 
 September 27, in which you inform me that Her Jlajesty's Ambassador had been 
 instructed to request a delay in the legal proceedings against Lamirandc until 
 authentic information about his case had l>een received from Canada. 
 
 I had hoped to have been able, in conformity with your Lordship's instructions, 
 to havn sent my report of this case by last week's mail; but, owing to the fact that 
 the ship which brought your firs^ despatch was delayed much ^yond the usual 
 time of arrival, I found it impossible to get all the information ready in time. 
 
 I have now the honour to transmit the several documents connected with the 
 extradition of Lamirandc, noted in the margin -,1 and I also beg Icav to refer your 
 Lordship to my despatch on this subject, No. 155§ of the 6th instant, and the papers 
 inclosed in it. 
 
 This case seems to divide itself naturally into three heads : — 
 
 1st. The legal grounds which exist for the extradition of the prisoner. 
 
 2nd. The manner of his extradition. 
 
 3rd. The conduct of the different persons connected with the Government who 
 took any pp.rt in ^he proceedings. 
 
 I shall endeavour to express to your Lordship my views on the subject in this 
 order. 
 
 The first and most important question to be resolved is whether this prisoner 
 has committed any act for which his surrender could be demanded under the 
 Extradition Treaty with France. 
 
 The crime alleged against him is that of " forgery, by having, in the capacity 
 of cashier of the branch of the Bank of France at Poitiers, made false entries in 
 the books of the Bank, and thereby defrauded the said Bank of the sum of 700,000 
 francs." 
 
 In the French version of the Treaty the word used in treating of crimes of this 
 description is "faux," which, in the English version, — I presume for want of an 
 ' equivalent English word, — is rendered by the word " forgery." 
 
 Now, I believe, it is true that, according to the English law, the falsiGcation of 
 entries in a banker's book docs not constitute the crime of " forgery." 
 
 But it is equally true that, under this Treaty, prisoners may be surrendered to 
 the French authorities f^r acts which are not cognizable by the criminal law of 
 England. 
 
 It is only necessary to state, in order to prove this, that " fraudulent bank- 
 ruptcy " is one of the acts tor which a prisoner may be surrendered, and that this 
 act is notoriously not punishable criminally in England. 
 
 In order, therefore, to ascertain whether this prisoner has committed an offence 
 for which he might be legally surrendered under the Treaty, it is necessary to 
 discover what meaning the French criminal law attaches to the word " faux." 
 
 • Page 97. f Page 99. 
 
 X The Attorney-General for Lower Canada to Lord .Monck, October 17, 1866; T. K. Ramsay, Eiq, 
 to the Hon, the Attomey-Qeneral for Lower Canada ; Depoaitions. 
 i Page I. . 
 
18 
 
 Mid Krneit 
 
 Karl of 
 ■ 18, 1866. 
 
 T 1, 18CC.) 
 
 )■» despatch 
 T -Majesty's 
 iccompanicd 
 his Imving 
 y, and more 
 lis case was 
 
 No. G't of 
 or had been 
 rande until 
 
 nstructions, 
 he fact that 
 i the usual 
 time. 
 
 cd with the 
 J refer your 
 1 tiie papers 
 
 er. 
 
 ■nment who 
 
 aject in this 
 
 lis prisoner 
 under the 
 
 be capacity 
 ! entries in 
 of 700,000 
 
 mes of this 
 vant of an 
 
 ificatioD of 
 
 endered to 
 nal law of 
 
 lent bank- 
 I that this 
 
 an oSence 
 cessary to 
 ux." 
 
 amjay, Esq, 
 
 On referring to ;— 
 
 " Les ('(mIcs Kran^ais Collationn(!>8 sur los Tcxtes OlficicU," par Louis Tripicr, 
 seizitiinc edition, Parin |Mi5; Code Penal, livrc iii, chapitrc 3; Crimes ct Im'itn 
 coiitre la Paix P«l)li(|ue, section premit^rf " Dii Kaux " — 
 
 1 iind lliat the word " faux" includes a great variety of acts which, 1 presume, 
 would not be '• forj^cry ' by British law. 
 
 Section '.\ of this chapter is headed " I)oa faux en 6critur« publique ou authen- 
 tiquc, ct dc Commerce ou «le Uancpie." 
 
 Article :\ of this section, page n53, reads as follows : — 
 
 " Seront punies (le travanx forcOs a temps toutes autre^^ |)crsi)nnes (pii aunmt 
 comrnis un faux en ccriture authcnti(|ue ct pubrunio ou en ecriture de fommcrce ou 
 de banque. 
 
 "Soit |)rir contrcfacon ou nlt('-ration dVcritures ou de signatures. 
 
 " Soit par fabrication dc conventions, dispositions, ol)ligations ou dechargcs, ou 
 par leur insertion apr<}s coup dans Ics actes." 
 
 From this, I thini\, it is apparent tiiat the act for which the extradition of the 
 prisoner was demanded is a crime by the laws of France, and is included under the 
 general designation "faux " used in the Frencli version of the Treaty. 
 
 These considerations appear to me to dispose of the tiueslion as to whether the 
 prisoner has committed any act for whicii his extradition could be demanded under 
 the Treaty with Fr.Tnce. 
 
 Tlie next point of dispute in the case is as to the authority of the French official 
 who made tlic demand for the surrender of the prisoner, namely, the Consul- 
 General of France in British North America. I coid'css that when the sufyect came 
 before me for wy decision my own opinion concurred with that of the Imv/ Ofiicers 
 of the Crown in Canada, that the Consul-General who resided amongst us as the 
 recognized Agent of the French Foreign Office, was clothed with sufficient powers 
 to put the Treaty and statute in operation. 
 
 The only other question, as it appears to me, connected with this branch of the 
 case, refers to the legal documents which the statute requires to be given in evidence 
 before the Magistrate cm the preliminary investigation. 
 
 The objection to the extradition of the prisoner in this respect, seems to rest 
 principally on the non-production of a legal document from the French Court, called 
 an " arr^t de renv i." 
 
 In order to explain the bearing of this objection, it is necessary to state that 
 this prisoner originally escaped from France to New York, where an application 
 was made for his extradition under the provisions of the Treaty between France 
 and the United States of America. 
 
 On the investigation of this application before the Magistrate at New York, 
 Lamirande was represented by Mr. Spilthornj who was also one of his counsel at 
 Montreal! 
 
 The " arret de renvoi " alluded to, was produced in due form before the Court 
 at New York, and it was proved at the investigation at Montreal, orf the oath of 
 Mr. J. R. Condert, an advocate residing at New York, that the document was 
 abstracted by Mr. Spilthorn, and that the prosecutors have never since been able 
 to recover possession of it. 
 
 Lamirande effected his escape from jail at New York before judgment was 
 given there on the application for his extradition, came to Canada, and the appli- 
 cation for his extradition was made here. 
 
 On the proof of the facts which I have above detailed to account for the 
 absence of the " arrfet de renvoi " at the trial at Montreal, the Magistrate admitted 
 secondary evidence of its contents to be given. 
 
 I was advised that it was competent for him to do so, and I think your 
 Lordship will agree with me that, assuming that this advice was sound in Ipw, the 
 case was not one in which I was called on to depart from the strict letter of the 
 law in favour of the prisoner. 
 
 I think I have now given your Lordship the impression produced on my mind 
 by the consideration of all the points raised as to the grounds which existed for the 
 surrender of Lamirande. 
 
 You will find them dealt with elaborately and in a more technical form in the 
 accompanying Reports from the Attorney-General and Mr. Ramsay, the counsel 
 who represented the Attorney-General in the investigation at Montreal. 
 
 I now come to the consideration of the manner in which this prisoner was taken 
 out of the jurisdiction of the Canadian Courts. 
 
 [75] D 
 
 ,JSF 
 
"i: 
 
 ) 
 
 I 
 
 U 
 
 By the Ofh and 7lh Vict., cimp. 75 (the ntattitc paHscd for giviug effect to the 
 Ealmdition Treaty with France), the public riinctiouarics named in the Act, araonsriit 
 tkoa, in Coloiiies, the (»ovcrii(»r, are rcqiiirc<l, on being notifu-d that a pcrHon who 
 IB accused of having committed within French territory any of the crimes enumerated 
 io tbe alatutu, tu ihHue their warrant for hi» a|>prehen8iun. 
 
 Tliis was done l>y nic in ihe case of Lamirandc. 
 
 The next hto|i r<M|uired by tlie statute is tlic examination of the cliargo on oath 
 before a Justice of the Peace. 
 
 This orocccdinp also took place, and on the 22nd August the prisoner was duly 
 committed Ijy tiie Justice "to jail, there to remain until delivered pursuant to such 
 rsquisition." 
 
 In the meantime, and while the investigation before the Justice of the Peace 
 was proceeding, 1 think about the IGth or 17th of August, a petition was presented 
 to me, stating that apprehensions were entertained that this prisoner would l)e 
 carried out of tiic jurisdiction of the Canadian Courts, without having time allowed 
 bioi to make an application for a writ of habeau corpus. On that occasion I saw 
 Mr. Spilthurn, one of the counsel for the prisoner, and I. told him that time for 
 making such an application should be allowed. 
 
 On the 22od oi August 1 left Uttawa for Quebec, arriving there on the morning 
 oi tlie 23rd. 
 
 Late in the forenoon of the 24th, Mr. Langevin, Solicitor-General for Lowe 
 Canada, called upon ine with the warrant of extradition (bearing date the 23rd, on 
 which d.-iy it was sealed at Ottawa, where the officer who has charge of my seal 
 raaides), and gave me his opinion in writing that, in point of law, the case came 
 within the provisions of the Extradition Treaty, and that the warrant should issue. 
 
 Seeing that the case involved no question of public policy, and was one the 
 decision of which rested on legal points, 1 determine to act on the opinion of the 
 Solicitor-General. 
 
 I then looked at the date of the committal (tbe 22nd), and as two days appeared 
 to have elapsed since the prisoner had been committed to jail, it seemed to me that 
 ample time had been allowed to enable him to obtain a writ of habeas corpus. 
 
 I then asked the Solicitor-General whether, supposing a writ of habeas corpus 
 bad been sued out, the signing of tbe warrant of extradition would prevent the 
 prisoner from obtaining the benefit of it. To this Mr. Langevin replied that it 
 would not. 
 
 Having satisfied myself on these points, I signed the warrant of extradition,, 
 which I am informed was sent to Montreal by the ordinary train from Quebec, and 
 arrived there late in the evening of the same day. 
 
 It is scarcely necessary for me to add that when I signed the warrant of 
 extradition, I was not aware, and I am assured by him tnat neither was the 
 Solicitor-General, that any application had been made for a writ of habeas corpus on 
 behalf of the prisoner. 
 
 These arc the facts as far as they came within my own knowledge ; and it 
 appears to me that the sole question is, whether the time allowed the prisoner 
 between his committal on the 22nd, and the execution of the warrant late in the 
 evening of the 24th, was or was not sufficient to enable him to obtain a writ of 
 Imbeas corpus, in order to have tbe legal points in his favour considered and decided 
 by a competent tribunal. 
 
 This matter appears tome to be at once set at rest by the statement of Mr. Justice 
 Drummond, namely, that the case was brought before him on the 24th, and that 
 '* he would have issued the v. rit before adjourning had the counsel for the prisoner 
 insisted upon it." 
 
 Had the Judge adopted this course, the prisoner would have been, according 
 to. the opinion given to me by the Solicitor-General, taken into the custody of the 
 Court, and if the Judge so decided, would have been discharged before the warrant 
 of extradition could have been executed. 
 
 Unfortunately the Judge did not act in this manner, which I believe 1 am 
 jiuXififid in saying is the ordinary practice in cases of application for a writ of 
 habeas corpus, and in consequence the warrant of extradition was executed, and 
 the poisoner wast sent out of the Province. 
 
 Mr> Justice Drummond is represented as having gone in person to the prison, 
 and forbidden the gaoler to deliver up the prisoner to any authority whatever, but 
 ilili acarcely neoessary to say, that the proceedings- which the Judge adopted in 
 this respect, instead of, as he might have done,, imraedyiately issaing the writ lOC 
 
to the 
 ion est 
 » who 
 crated 
 
 oath 
 
 (I Illy 
 such 
 
 15 
 
 kdbttm rorpu*, tvrre ontirrly rxtra-juclirial nnd im^ilar, and that no piiWir ndcial 
 would have Immmi juHtifiod in (liHohp\ine;, in oonformity with dirrrtianii ho givon, 
 the requirements of a duly exenitwl andauthentieatcd warrant. 
 
 Should your Lordship think that I signed the warrant of extradition with ao 
 much haste that sullicient time was not allowwl to the prisoner to ohtnin the writ 
 of httbean rorput, I feel that in this view of the rase I am char);eahlc with the 
 responsibility of the miscarriage which has ocenrred. 
 
 The third branch of the subject remains to be onsidered, namely, the eonduct 
 of those wlio took part in tliese pr«x*ecdingB. 
 
 These ijcrsoiis arc myself, the Attorney- and Solicitor-General for Lower 
 Canada; Mr. Bri'-haut, the committing Magistrate; Mr. Ramsay, the j^entleman 
 who represented the Attorney-Oeneral at the inTCRtigntion at Montreal ; ami 
 Mr. Schiller, Deputy Clerk of the Crown. 
 
 With regard to myself, I have laid before your Lordship without reserve every 
 (rtcp which I took in the transaction. 
 
 I have observed an apparent desire on the part of almost all th()se who Have 
 discussed this snl)jcct, to protect mc from blame at the expense of the Law OUicers 
 of the Crown by tlic assertion that 1 was made the victim of a deception, and that 
 I was surprised into putting my signature !»> the warrant of extradition. 
 
 The narrative which I have given to your Tjordship shows that I am neither 
 able or willing to accept any such protection. 
 
 I signed the warrant with the full knowledge of what I was doing, nnd in the 
 opinion that, assuming the j)risoner to use ordinary diligence in the assertion of his 
 legal rights, he had been allowed sufficient time for that purpose. 
 
 The part which Mr. Cartier, tlic Attorney-General, took personally in the 
 matter was very slight. During the s;re.iter part of the time occupied in the preli- 
 minary investit',ati()n before the Magistrate he was at Ottawa. 
 
 lie was, 1 l)pliev(«, at Montreal wiien the prisoner was committed, but I do not 
 think it is alleged that he took any part in the j)roccedings. When the warrant of 
 e.'ctradition was signed, and the prisoner w.ns removed, the Attorney-tiencral was at 
 the sea-side more tiian .300 miles from Montreal. 
 
 The interference of Mr. Laiigevin, the Soiicitor-ticneral, with the proceedings 
 in the case, w.is confined to the tvvo lej^al opinions which he j;ave me. The one in 
 writing on the wlioli' facts of the case, th.it tlie prisoner ou^ht to l)e surrendered; 
 the other verbally that tlie signing of the warrant of extradition would not interfere 
 with the operation of the "vrit of habeas corpus if the writ had been issued before 
 the execution of the warrant by the extradition of the prisoner. 
 
 I have not hoard any insinuation against the conduct of Mr. Hr(>haut in the 
 matter, nor do I l)olieve it is imptigned. 
 
 Mr. Ramsay's connection witli the case is detailed at Icngtii in his own report, 
 and I cannot see that he has laid himself open to any charge. 
 
 Your Lordship will ol)scrvc that he explains the statement in Mr. Justice 
 Drummond's observations, l)y caving that his indignation was excited, and expressed 
 at the ap()lication by Mr. Dontrc of the term " kidnapping" to the regular execution 
 of a valid legal warrant, and that ho pointedly told both the ,Iu(lge and the counsel 
 for the prisoner that the (iovcrnor's warrant of e\tr;.uition was the only means by 
 which Lamirandc eojld be removed. 
 
 I do not understand th.at the conduct of Mr. Schiller, the Deputy Clerk of the 
 Crown, has been impngned. 
 
 I have thus endeavoured to lay before your Lordship with as much clearness 
 and conciseness as ' can command, an account of the facts of this c;ise. 
 
 T have to express my regret that any prisoner should appear to have been 
 removed from the Province, the affixirs of which I have the honour to administer, 
 without having secured the benefit of every privilege which our 'aw could afford 
 him. 
 
 I must, however, call your Lordship's attention to the fact that no one step has 
 been taken in this case which, assuming the legal ground for extradition to exist, is 
 not in strict conformity with the law. 
 
 Before your Lordship shall decide on the merits of the share which I have had 
 personally in this transaction, I desire to bring before your notice some a^eneral 
 considerations atfecting the duties which my position casts upon me in reference to 
 ■uch cases. 
 
 1 assume that Extradition Treaties are based on the principle that all men 
 
 D 2 
 
 I! 
 
 4 
 
 
^^ 
 
 Li 'ill 
 
 lad. 1 in No. 9. 
 
 r; 
 I 
 
 16 
 
 hnvcnmmmnn intprcnt in th(* RupprcHHion nrtlx* crimea which arc made the Rubjecti 
 orthrHc international contrnctii. 
 
 ThiH iM'int; aiHiimotl, it followN, in in\ opinion, thnt |M>rNnnN nccusc<i of crinm 
 iin«l«'r Trcatii'H of Kxtriulition arc ontitlrd to no favour or in(lnl^«•ncc at the liandt 
 of public (jHicorH ontruKtoH with the rxrrution of tlir law. 
 
 They arc rntitlod to every rij;lit wiiicli tlic proviHiouH of «nir law, Htrictly 
 A(ltniniHtcr('<l, allowH lliein, itiit to notliiuK more. 
 
 Some stress Iwih In-en laitl oti what is cailctl n)\ "piDinise'" to the priHoner'i 
 counsel when he saw nie at Ottawa, that time HJiouhl lit- ailoweil him for makinr 
 his aitplication for a writ ni hnhraK corpus. 
 
 The "promise" alluded ti) consisted merely of a declaration that time wu 
 always allowed f ch a purpose, and that his case would not Ik* treated iliffercntly 
 from that of other prisoners in similar circumstances. 
 
 Mail I made the prisoner's counsel a promise that any unusual favou ould 
 l>c shown to him, or that the onlinarv routine should in his case lie changed, I should, 
 according to my ideas, have violated my public duty. 
 
 I also wish to call your Lordship's attention to the nature of the writ o[ habeat 
 rorpus, ami the mode in which that writ is brought to Iwar on the execution of the 
 laws. 
 
 The issue of the writ ni habeas corpux is not a step in the ordinary routine of the 
 administration of justice. 
 
 The right to obtain this writ is an extraordinary power conferred by statute on 
 a prisoner, by means of which he can arrest the usual course of the administration 
 of the law, and test the validity of the proceedings adopted against him. 
 
 But until the writ is issued ana the ordinary course of the law thereby 
 suspended, the machine of legal administration continues to move on, and if a 
 prisoner neglects to avail himself with proper diligence of the privileges which the 
 statute confers upon him, he has no rignt to complain if his interests suflcr. 
 
 I have endeavoured to show that in this case sufficient time was allowed by me 
 to this prisoner to assert his legal rights. 
 
 If I had allowed him more than this, I think I should not have performed 
 my duty, and the prisoner having neglected to take advantage of the opportunity 
 afforded him, cannot, I think, reasonably charge me with blame for the results of the 
 supinenessof himself or his counsel. 
 
 If those results were produced by the improper conduct of any persons 
 representing the Crown in the transaction, such persons should be held strictly 
 responsible for their Acts, but I am unable to see that this has been the case, and 
 assuming, with Mr. Justice Drummond, that sufficient time was allowed to the 
 prisoner to obtain the writ of habeas corpus, 1 think the conclusion is inevitable, 
 that the blame for what has happened rests with those, who having charge of 
 the prisoner's interests, neglected to avail themselves of the opportunity afforded 
 them. 
 
 I have, &ic. 
 TheRight Hon. the Earl of Carnarvon, (Signed^ iMONCK. 
 
 &c. &c. &c. 
 
 Inclosure 1 in No. 2. 
 
 Report of the Attoney-General. 
 
 To his Excellency the Right Honourable Viscount Monck, Governor-General of 
 Canada, &c. 
 
 May it please your Excellency, 
 
 IN obedience to the request contained in the letter of Denis Godley, Esq., your 
 Lordship's Secretary, i have the honour to lay before your Excellency a copy of 
 all the proceedings which took place before the Police Magistrate, by whom Ernest 
 Sureau Lamirande was committed, and the report of T. K. Ramsay, Esq. ; and at 
 the same time to report to your Excellency, that I have carefully examined all 
 those proceedings, and have no hesitation in saying that, under the evidence 
 adduced before that Magistrate, the commitment was properly ordered. 
 
 I fully concur in the report made by the Honourable H. L. Langevin, Solicitoro 
 
c theBtibjecti 
 
 «e«l of crinwi 
 at till! handi 
 
 law, 
 
 strictly 
 
 I"' prinoner*! 
 " fur making 
 
 lat lime wai 
 <••• flillprently 
 
 avt)u ould 
 K»'<l. I should. 
 
 «rit ol' habeai 
 Lution of the 
 
 ■outiiieofthe 
 
 jy statute on 
 
 iministration 
 
 II. 
 
 law thereby 
 on, and if a 
 cs which the 
 
 fufler. 
 lowed by me 
 
 e performed 
 
 opportunity 
 
 results of the 
 
 any persons 
 held strictly 
 he case, and 
 owed to the 
 s inevitable, 
 g charge of 
 lity afforded 
 
 kc. 
 iMONCK. 
 
 -General of 
 
 ' Esq., your 
 ' a copy of 
 lom Ernest 
 q. ; and at 
 amined all 
 e evidence 
 
 I, Solicitofo 
 
 17 
 
 General for Lower Canada, advinin^ your Kxrrllenry that the warrant of 
 extradition onRht to isxsmv 
 
 I have further to remark tli:it I have rarefullv pcruHtMl tin* report vif 
 Mr. RamH.iy, anil that I fiiilv agree with him in the Icij.il nri';iimeiil used l>y him. 
 and the le^jai position takiMi by i\im. in support ol' the |*olici' .Nl.ii;istrate's decision 
 and ill support of the propriety anil iieieMsity of the issue of :\ warr.-int of 
 extradition in the ease. 
 
 Without entering; into any of the dilferent nrgiunentii st.ited by Mr. Kn.iiMax. 
 the principal ipiestion to be Holved is, wlifil law should apply to determine the 
 criminalilv of the oifenee eimuniltid by Lamirnnde; whether it should be the 
 criminal law of Kntjlaml and Cauada, nearly alike, or the law of F'raiiee. I eonaider 
 that the odenec of whieh l.^tmirande was accused, caiuc within the Treaty for, 
 althoiii<;h not strictly forgery accordiiii; to the criminal law of Kngland and Canada, 
 yet the evidence was sullicieiil to establish the Commission of one of the oirenees 
 mentioned in the Treaty, vi/, . the " crimt' de fauv," or forijery, as dct»TmiiHMl by 
 the laws of France. As there exists eiuisiderable dilferenee between forgery, 
 "crime de faux," in France, and for^:ery according to the laws of Kiigland and 
 thiseountrv. I am of opinion that the determining the offence according to tiie laws 
 of the former country, with which the Treaty was made, was correct, the laws at 
 France bcin^ taken to establish the crime. ^Fhe contrary, would in my opinion, 
 render the Treaty a dead letter. 
 
 With regarti to any Hiippoacd irrcgtdarity in the documontH produccti as 
 evidence against Lamirande, 1 may mention that the iirret de renvoi stated to have 
 been wanting, and the absence of which is accounted for in Mr. Ramsay's Report, 
 by the fact of its having been abstracted in New York by Laniirantlc's Counsel, was 
 replaced by the next best evidence which c(»uld be procuiccd, and which 1 consider 
 to be in siich case strictly legal. An authentic translation properly certified aitd 
 duly proved l)earing the initials of the Commissioner in the United States, with 
 whom it was filed, and by whom it was used. I therefore consider that the objec- 
 tion made to such copy beir. received as evidence is of no avail. 
 
 As to the other objectioi , they arc amply answered by Mr. Ramsay. 
 With regard to the writ of habeas corpus, it could not be directed against the 
 Governor's warrant, but against the commitment of the Magistrate who investigated 
 the case ; and as there was a delay of more than fifty hours lietween the commit- 
 ment which took place on Wednesday the 22nd August last, and the surrender of 
 the prisoner late on Friday night following, ample time and opportunity were 
 afforded to obtain the writ of Imbeas corpus. Thus the prisoner was by no means 
 deprived of the privileges attached to the obtaining of thac writ. The procec<lings 
 in matters of habeas corpus must be prompt and summary. By the 4tn section cf 
 chapter 95 of the the consolidated statutes of Lower Canada (24th Geo. IIL ^^p. 1| 
 sec. 3), the writ of habeas corpus must be granted at once, and without any delay 
 by the Judge to whom the request for its issue is made ; and the Judge is, within 
 forty-sight hours (two days) after the party is brought before him, bound to give 
 his decision whether the prisoner has to be discharged or not. The prisoner nad 
 thus more time to claim and procure the issue of the writ than is given by law to 
 the Judge to decide on the merits of the case. Besides which the investigation had 
 already occupied a period of more than three weeks, thus affording every oppor^ 
 tunity for making preparation for the adoption of any course which the prisonerV 
 Counsel might have contemplated. 
 
 I respectfully call the attention of your Excellency to the statement of 
 Mr. Ramsay, that on Friday the 24th August, Mr. Justice Drummond adjourned 
 the case, of his own motion, and that the adjournment was solicited neither by 
 Mr. Ramsay, nor by the Counsel acting on behalf of the French Government ; and 
 that Judge Drummond has stated that if the Counsel of the prisoner had moved for 
 the issue of the writ on that day he would have granted it. Thus, if any blame 
 exists for the non-issuing of the writ, it attaches either to the Judge, if he thought 
 it correct to issue the writ, or to the prisoner's Counsel who did not move for its 
 issue. 
 
 As the departure of the steam-ship on the following Saturday afforded the 
 readiest way of conveying the prisoner out of Her Majesty's dominions, it became 
 necessary to use great diligence after the commitment to have the warrant of 
 extradition executed in time, to enable the officer who was to take charge of the 
 prisoner to avail himself of that conveyance. These facts being known to the 
 
 ■fS/ 
 
IB 
 
 priMoitrr'H ('diiiinl'I, it wnN IiIm duty nUn to hnvc tixfd tliligcncc in any proc'eedinn 
 tu Ik* lakrii In him, uliidi diligence docH not apiieur to liavi* Imvn lined. 
 
 V<mr Kxcolicnf) 'k warrant una- iHNiKtl there were n«» nicanH of n'tardinir iti 
 operation, and in itii inunvdiatuixecutiun the Slu'rifT, or Idit deputy, ap|)earN to htv« 
 done no utore ihun liiit duty. 
 
 .Mori'ovir. I conNider that if the priHoner had liecn liltcrated under any writ 
 of hafiea^ roriiuM, for the rcasonn j;iven in Mr. JuHlice Druinniond'H extra-judicial 
 opinion alluded to in Mr. Ilamsay'H Uefxtrt, u failure of juHtite would have takw 
 plaee, and that the Fn'neh (loxe'niiiient would have Ijeeii in a poMition rightly to 
 cuuipluin tiial the Treaty hud not been eurried out in this caHO. 
 
 (Signed) (JKO. K. CAHTIER. 
 
 Attorney-General for Lower Canada 
 
 Ottawa, October 17, 186C. 
 
 lod. 3 ia No i. 
 
 TSTTO! 
 
 
 Incloaure 2 in No. 2. 
 Mr. Ramsay to the Ai"roii.\iY-(.iKNi:uAL. 
 
 Silt, C'<iurt IIouMe, Montreal, Oetolicr 15, IR66. 
 
 I IIAVK the honour to rc-incloso you .Mr. lir)dley's letter and the extract from 
 Mr. JuHtice Driiinniond'.s Judgment in the eaitc of Lainirunde which accompanied 
 that letter. 
 
 In order that you may lie enabled to convey to his Kxcellency complete infor- 
 mation as to tiie position I .isHUincd, I shall trouble you with a narrative of my 
 whole connection with the matter. 
 
 On Friday, the 3rd of August last, I \va.s informed of the arrest of I^amirande 
 under a demand lor extradition by the Krencli Government for tiic crime of forgery. 
 As I was aware of the anxiety created in Kngland by the notice given to llcr 
 .Majesty's (iovermnent of the intention of the French CJovernnuiit to put an end to 
 the lOxtiadilioii Treaty, owing to tiie failure on tlic part of the Knglish authorities 
 to give it elt'ect. and also of the steps taken in Kngland to induce France to .diandon 
 this resolve, althoiigli I had no special instructions from you in the matter, I thought 
 it my duty to notify the Magistrate of my intention to vvateh the proceedings on the 
 part of the Crown. Some little time after I met .Mr. Pominvilie, who informed me 
 tliat he was retained on tiie pari of the Frencli Ciovernmeiit, and he introduced ine 
 to a Mr. Coudert, wiio had conducted the proceedings on the part of the French 
 Government in tlie United States, where Lamirande iiad bet'ii arrested previously, 
 and from wiiich lie had escaped. We had some conversation as to the accusation, 
 and to the sort of proof that 1 should consider necessary to enable me to take 
 conclusions '.'uv llie extradition i)f the prisoner. On the Otii, the incpiirv began 
 before tiie Magistrate and was continued till the 15lh, when the prosecution was 
 closed. During the taking of the evidence I tooii little or no interest in tlic matter, 
 and indeed was rarely present, as I did not conceive the Crown Iiail anything to do 
 witii the means tlie private prosecutor took to make out his case. When, iiowcvcr, 
 the case for the prosecution was closed aiul the Counsel for tlie prisoner moved his 
 diseiiarge, I opposed his application and maintained tliat a case within tiie Treaty 
 had lieeii iuade out. After a long aigiimcnt tiie Police ^lagistiatc refused to 
 discharge tiic prisoner, and his Counsel then prayed to be allowed to adduce evidence 
 for tiie (icfenec. Altliough it is purely discretionary witii tlie Magistrate to hear 
 evidence or not for tlic defence, and that the ordinary practice liere is to decline to 
 admit it, 1 at once assented to the delay being accorded, and said that I considered 
 extradition cases to be so exceptional in their character tiiat evidence for the defence 
 when oll'ered sliould never be refused. The Magistrate tlien adjourned the case to 
 the 20th. On the 20th, the prisoner was again brought up for examination, and the 
 evidence suggested on his part was terminated on Wednesday, the 22nd, at what 
 time I do not know, as I was not present when the evidence was clo.sed. The 
 Magistrate then heard the parties by tiieir Counsel, but I took no part in the hearing 
 as 1 bad been heard on the 15th, and as I did not consider the new evidence had in 
 any way altered the position of the case. After the argument, for which 1 did not 
 remain, the Magistrat,} adjourned for an hour or an hour and a half to prepare his 
 judgment. On Lin return ne fully committed the prisoner for extradition. 
 
 Immediately on the termination of inquiry before the Magistrate, I believe the 
 
retarding lU 
 pnirH to hA»» 
 
 lor any writ 
 •vtra-judicial 
 I have takn 
 »i rightly to 
 
 ER, 
 
 <r Cntiad*. 
 
 ?r 15. 1866. 
 «'xtract from 
 acfoinpaiiied 
 
 iii|)l<'tc iiifor- 
 rativc of my 
 
 if I^amirande 
 11! (tf forgery, 
 fivcn to licr 
 lut ail (-11(1 to 
 li atitlioritios 
 e to .iliaiidon 
 Ler, I tlioiiglit 
 •dings on the 
 informed ine 
 itr()diicc<l me 
 [■ the French 
 d previously, 
 :> accMisalion, 
 ! me to take 
 Huiry began 
 seetition was 
 1 till' matter, 
 \ thing to do 
 len, however, 
 r moved his 
 n tlie Treaty 
 3 refused to 
 hice evidence 
 rate to iicar 
 to decline to 
 I considered 
 V the defence 
 the case to 
 tion, and the 
 !nd, at what 
 closed. The 
 1 the hearing 
 ence had in 
 ich 1 did not 
 prepare his 
 >n. 
 '■ believe the 
 
 greater 
 
 The rt'UHon he 
 
 10 
 
 private proHccutor made preparationii to obtain the (io\cri)or'N warrant authonting 
 the t'Xirudition. And here it iH ncccHtary to Hay a few wordn. An eironenuH opinion 
 ha* taken largely poNiteHMiou of the publie mind that the priHoner tn Ih> extradited 
 has a right to Honie kort of an aopeal, and that tlie (lo\i'rnor(i('i)eral ih t4> Hii|>cr- 
 viHe the dreiHion of the rommitting MagiNtrate. It Ih impossil)le lo conceive a 
 blunder. The action of the tiovcrnor-(ieneral iit not judicial, but executive, 
 ix called upon to do the last act of extratlition iii not that he may 
 decide whether the evidence iH Hunicicnt, or whether the Magihtrate liaH given • 
 g(HNl or a bad Juilgment, but bciiUH? the Act of Parli.imeiit may be terminated by 
 the ruj)turc of tiie Treaty, of \Nhich a Court of Juntice might not have cognizance, 
 anil of which the (invernnr niunt neccHHarily have the earliest information, oh fur 
 inntance, in the cane of war, which breaks ail Treaties. Again, the examination of 
 the commitment under a writ of habnis roipuK \h nut in the nature of an appeal ; it 
 Ih not a necessary incitlcnt to extradition, and therefore there was no call upon the 
 proftecution or on the Kxecutive to give any delay at all for a proeeeding which 
 might or which niiglit not be taken, and which is not contemplated in the Act 
 giving elTect to the Treaty. 
 
 On the morning of the 23r(l, I got notice from Mr. Doutre that he would ai»ply 
 for a writ of luibias cnrnus on the 24th, at 1 p.m. I went to C'hnmbers, am! met t>otn 
 Mr. Justice Drunimonil ami Mr. Justice Mondilet. Ah the laUer had already hod 
 cogni/.ance of the alTair, and as he had informed mo, one day I met him in a railway 
 train, that he was going into town on purpose to bo ready to hear any a|)plicatiun 
 that might be made in the Lamiranue cane, I told him that a writ was then to be 
 demanded. Witti a slight air ofcmbarrasHmont tlicy both told me that Mr. Justice 
 Drummond would take the case. Some little time after Mr. Doutre came in and 
 made his application, to which I interposed an objection that the notice was short, 
 stating my reason for making the objection, that as I did not represent tl c French 
 Government I could not waive any right. Mr. Justice Drummond then interrupted 
 me very rudely, saying, that he would not pass the whole aftcrn(M>n with such 
 quibbling. From that moment I l>egan to suspect that the liberation of Lamirandc 
 was a Toregcne conclusion, and tliat Mr. Justice Drunimond's appearance iq 
 Chambers th.it day — a most unusual circumstance, for I had not seen him there once 
 during the vacation — was not unpremeditated, and I soon became convinced that a 
 
 Eortion of that plan wa's to compel me to silence. Shortly afterwards some allusion 
 cing made to a fact in the record, Mr. Doutre asked if the papers had l)oen sent 
 up. I asked him if he had given notice to the Magistrate, to wliich he answered he 
 had not. This, again, called forth some expressions of irritability from the Judge, 
 who declared he would not be trifled with, and he sent for the Deputy Clerk of the 
 Crown. On the arrival of the clerk he stated that the record had not been yet sent 
 to the Crown Olfice by the Magistrate, and that the Magistrate was not then there, 
 but that he should [ye sent for. It is only due to the Deputy Clerk of the Crown to 
 say that however intemperately given, the directions of the Judge were carried out 
 with the utmost celerity, and in less than an hour the papers were procured from the 
 Magistrate and brought into Chambers. And here it may be as well to state that 
 we nave an express enactment declaring that the Magistrate must have notice to 
 send up his papers, and, furthermore, before the issue of the writ the Judge had no 
 authority over the record at all. 
 
 By our Statute copied from the old Statute of Charles, on an application for a 
 writ of habeas corpus, the Judge in vacation, under a penalty of 500/. in case of 
 contravention, is obliged to issue the writ " upon view of the copy of the warrant of 
 commitment " unless, first, the commitment be for treason or felony plainly 
 expressed in the warrant, or, secondly, that the prisoner be in execution. The 
 
 Srisoner Lamirandc was in neither category, and it was, therefore, the imperative 
 uty of the Judge to issue his order for the writ fortwith. Had he actecl as the 
 law directs, all the difficulties which ensued would have been avoided ; and the 
 Sheriff refusing to deliver up Lamirande on the demand of the French officer would 
 have been within the reservation contained in his Excellency's warrant, and the 
 responsibility of surrendering or discharging Lamirande would then have been 
 witn the Judge upon whom it ought to rest, and not on the officers of the Executive. 
 To relieve the Judge of the imputation of irregularity a miserable quibble has been 
 advanced. It has oeen said the writ of habeas corpus is a writ of right, but not of 
 course. Now what do those words signify ? Simply this, that there are two 
 exceptions, those I have enumerated wherein he is not obliged to issue the writ on 
 view of the copy of the warrant of commitment, to neither of which, however, did 
 
 " •( 
 
 • 
 
 \ 
 
 li > 7 
 
 
 if 
 
 Si 
 
•▼ 
 
 i¥ 
 
 90 
 
 the cMv in point h-lonp. Ha\ inp made the mistake of taking the arfjumciit on the 
 
 fictition. tiu- prisoi. r i.inain«'il during the \vhol«' timo it lastecl suhiect to licinu 
 
 (••.friditc*! by a warrant from tlu- (lovrrnor, which hcini; dirci-to'l to tlio Shcrifl 
 
 would l»c acti'd on hy him, jxi Imps even in iijnorancc of the |)etition for a writ ; 
 
 hut whether ifjnoraiit of the f.u i or not. he would at all eviiits have no legal eNciise 
 
 for delaying oJK-dienee to tln' writ. It will, doubtless, be in your reeolleetion that 
 
 one of the ninsl serious ehargcs against tiu' CliiiT of Police, .\lr. l^inioMie. after the 
 
 enlargement of the St. Albans raiders by tlie Judge of S<'ssions. was his delaying 
 
 only half-an-liour to execute a Marianl issued for their re-arrest by a .hidge of the 
 
 Superior Courl acting in his c.ipacity of a Justice of the i'eaee, in order that he, 
 
 Mr. Lamothe, should have time lo incpiire as to the legalii\ of the rearrest. Can 
 
 it, then, be |)ret<'nde(i that tin; Sheriff, even if he difl know that an ap|)lieation for a 
 
 habeas rurpus was pending, coidd have refuserl obedience to llu' (lovernor's warr.int 
 
 till the decision was come to '. Such a doctrine would lead to the most e.xtiaor- 
 
 dinary residls. and to the desl; lution of all executive subordination, besides, if a 
 
 notice of an application for a wiil. nl' hahras nir/nis could thus |)araly/.e tiie j-.ction of 
 
 the Kxecutive. it would be coiii|):t('nt for a prisomr, committed for (>xtradition, by 
 
 repeated applications to defer the evil day as long as he chose. 
 
 Hut to return to the narrative, after the papers came up, -Mr. Justice Drum- 
 mond announced liis intention of sitting as late as might be necessary r the 
 hearing, and Mr. Doutre cnlored at great lengtii into the case. When he had 
 spoken for nearly an liour, iMr. Drummond asked lue to answer what Mr. Doutre had 
 said, for from what he had heard he said he felt disposed to discharge the prisoner. 
 1 then replied, speaking only to the law of the case, and not occupying twenty 
 miniitcs, but maintaining that the case was within the Treaty. When 1 htd 
 finished, I mentioned that Mr. Pominville, on the part of the French Government, had 
 something to say as to the facts. So soon as Mr. Pominville rose, Mr. Drummond 
 said that he would adjourn the case to the next day. After the extradition it wa« 
 stated boldly in one of the newspapers that Mr. Pominville had asked for an adjourn- 
 ment. This is totally incorrect. It was the Judge who, of his movement, ordered it 
 (see the extract of his Judgment inclosed by INIr. Godley, where he says, "I 
 adjourn, &ic."); and after the announcement that the Judge would sit late, this took 
 us not a little by surprise, for it was hardly 5 o'clock, and 1 had made arrange- 
 ments with the Deputy Clerk of the Crown, Mr. Schiller, that he should not go so 
 long as the Judge sat, in order that no delay should occur in issuing the writ, if 
 ordered. Within half-an-hour after the adjournment, I left the Court-house, and 
 heard nothing of the proceedings till next morning about 10, when I learned that 
 Lamirandeliad been removed during the night under a warrant from the Governor- 
 General. I was just going to write to the Judge to tell him that this put an end to 
 the case, when I got a message from him to say he wanted to see me. 1 found him 
 labouring under quite as much irritability as on the day before, and as he seemed 
 desirous of finding fault with some one, and at a loss to knovf with whom he ought 
 to find fault, I thought it right to tell him that had I been asked by the Sheriff the 
 night before whether Lamirande ought to be given up, there being no other cause of 
 detainer in the Sheriff's hands, I should have told him to obey the Governor's 
 warrant immediately. I added, however, that I had not had an opportunity of 
 giving this advice as I had never seen the Sheriff or his deputy on the subject. It 
 is, perhaps, however right for me to state here that the Sheriff was not at all likely 
 to ask my advice, for in a similar case in June I had telegraphed in, for the guidance 
 of the Sheriff, to say that the Governor's warrant must be obeyed according to 
 its tenor at all hazards, and there is but one exception to the Governor's warrant, 
 namely, that the prisoner be not detained " for any other cause, matter, or thing." 
 This answer seemed at the time to satisfy Mr. Drummond, and a few minutes after 
 he even came to my chambers without there being anything in his manner indi- 
 cative of violent feeling. It was, therefore, a new surprise for me when on the 
 return of tlie writ of /irtft^flw corpus, which, be it observed, he issued after he was well 
 aware of the removal of the prisoner, he indulged in a most unmeasured attack on 
 the officer of justice, who had conducted the prosecution. As a report of this 
 attack got into the newspapers, I thou.<;h.; it my duty to reply iii a letter addressed 
 to the " Montreal Gazette," a copy of which is appended marked A, so that these 
 most injuriotis and libellous accusations should not go abroad uncontradicted. 
 
 On the 27th, Mr. Justice Drummond, having determined to give a Judgment in 
 the case, although there was no prisoner, and no order could be made, actually took 
 possession of the Court of Appeals, where he has only a right to sit as one of five 
 
31 
 
 Judg-'s, and there lipfore a fjrcat ron< oiirsc of pcoiilr road n J.idgmrnl. and made 
 oltscrvatioiis. which I .tin iiiluriiicil. l\<- 1 had (Ici'hiicd 1) In- |ircsi'iit, were rorrrctlv 
 rcporteil in the •' Herald " of tlic 2'.ith ll is Irotn this i .'iiorl. tho L-Mratt incloseil 
 ill Mr. ti(Klle\s letter is taken. 1 war- not |)reseiit when thi' wonl.s nieiiiioiie<l in the 
 inclosed extract were used ; hut so sck ii as I saw the report, I replied to the renewal 
 attack !)> a letter in the " Ciazette," !'•. and in that letter is to lie round my answer 
 to the |)ortion of the .hidj:;i's remarks, .ulverted t) liy .Mr. (Jodlev . The iiulit;nation 
 I expressed was at the use o! the won. '• kidnajt ' ny .Mr Doutre, and I ;it once told 
 him that it was idh- to talk of kidiiapiiintj. for that the prisoner could only be 
 reino\e<l by one process, that is om the warrant of the (loxernor-tJeneral. Had the 
 distinctions thus established, before the extraditi)ii. Ik en ol)sirvtil|afl(rwaiils. much 
 foolish deeiaination would have been avoided, and much ill-feeling |)revonled. To 
 allirm that a man icmovod by pioci ss of law is kidnapped is nonsense; and tu 
 aftirm that Latnirandi- was kidnapped is to be"; the (piestion. 
 
 Having reca|)itulatc(i the main facts of the cas«! in order to give you a fidl idea 
 of the positi:)!! I i( .)! , i. K^r.ly iciii.iiiis lor me to refer to the legal considerations 
 which indiiei.'d me to regard the ease as coming witiiin the Treats. 
 
 The only (|uestion that gave rise to any solicitude on my par^ was the question 
 of whether, the oU'ence not being forgcrv by our law. Lamirande <;ouhl be extr.idited 
 for forgery by the law of Trance ; aatl, if so. whether we should tiiVc the law of 
 Kraiiee as stated in the arn't tie rmrol and the French allidavit, or oblige the prose- 
 cution to make further proof of the constituents of forgery by the law of Krance. It 
 would probably have been agreeable to the prosecution had I adojited the view 
 that the offence charged was forgery by our law, or even had I left my opinion as 
 to the nature of the oirence doubtful; indeed, one of them, Mr. NV. C'oudert, 
 battlcfl long and earnestly to bring me to the conclusion that it was; but I unhesi- 
 tatingly stated my opinion, on the l.ith. when the case for the Crown was closed, 
 that forgery, by the law of Hngland, liad not been brought home to the prisoner, 
 and that the (juestion to be decided was, w hetiier he could be extradited on the 
 proof of forgery according to the law of Kranc(>. The issue was thus narrowed 
 down to a very small point, and, as I have said, there was no etpiivocation as to 
 the view of the ease taken by me. It is true much time was wastetl in the discus- 
 sion of whether the demand by the Krench Consul was legal, an 1 as to whether the 
 evidence was sullieient to maintain tlie ai-cusatiuii. It was also pretended t!iat the 
 French detective ouscht to be .ictuaily in jjossession of a I'reneh warrant of 
 arrest. 
 
 The whole of this part of the discussion appeared to me idle in the extreme. It 
 is not necessary to be a lawyer to know tb.nt the authority of the French Consul to 
 demand the extradition was an executive, and not a judicial ipiestioii. and one in 
 which the prisoner could not have any legitimate intcresit. It is .i stipulation in 
 favour of the power from which the extradition is sought, and not in favour of the 
 prisoner. 
 
 Again, as to the evidence of the falsiilcation, nothing could be more complete, 
 and it was not even seriously denied. As I found myself under tin* necessity of 
 answering publicly, on the 1st of September, .Mr. .Justice Druminond's extra-judicial 
 opinions expressed on the 27th in the Court of Appeals, I shall now repeat the 
 argument I then used. Before doing so, however, there is one point to which I 
 have not there adverted ; and it is whetiier the |)rosecution was bound to |)rove the 
 foreign law by testimony. I think not; and that it is not competent for the Judge 
 here to go behind the French warrant. But, at any rate, this w as not insisted upon 
 seriously at the time, and, besides, it is not strictly true that tiiere is no evidence of 
 the French law, for the French deposition on which the proceedings in France were 
 based, after setting up the facts, calls it forgery. 
 
 Mr. Justice Drummond said : — 
 
 "My decision to discharge him was founded on the reasons following : — First, 
 because it is provided bv the first section of the Act of the British Parliament to 
 give effect to a Convention between Her Majesty and the King of the French for the 
 ar)|)re!iension of certain ofT'enilcrs (G and 7 Vict., cap. 7')) ; that every rctpiisition to 
 ucovei up to justice any fugitive accused of any of the crimes enumerated in the 
 said Act shall be made by an Ambassador of the Uovernmcnt of France, or by an 
 accredited Diplomatic Agent; whereas the recjuisition made to deliver up the 
 petitioner to justice has been made by .Vbel Frederic Cauticr, Consul-Gcner.d of 
 France in the Provinces of British North America, who is neither an Ambassador 
 
 [75] E 
 
u 
 
 if 
 
 if 
 
 tl 
 
 
 ii 
 
 22 
 
 of the Oovrrnment n\' Franco nor an acrrcditcrt Diplomatic Agent of that Oovorr,. 
 nicnt, accordiri); to l\"s own avowal upon oath." 
 
 In tiie first |)lacv'. it is .'vific-nt tliat, if tli • rccpiisilion must lie made by an 
 Ambassmlor, and it must lu- this thi' .Judso moans, it rondors tho Troaty inai)plio- 
 ablc in all tho C'olonios. In ilw noxl placo tho statute doos not uso Mio lornis 
 employed bv th»; .lud^je. it is not said a reipiisition •'shall Ik; ma<le. ' In the 
 statute theri- is notiiins; im|)orativo ; tho form is purely diroctory. It says : — 
 
 " That, in oasc romiisition bo <lulv made, pursuant to tho said Convention in the 
 name of Mis Majesty the Kinpof tho Kronoh, by his Ambassador or other aocrodited 
 Diplomatic Agent, &c., it siiall bo lawful," &c. 
 
 Now every one knows that, in tho interpretation of statutes, there is a wide 
 difference between what is directory and what iv iniperativo (2 Dwarris, page 7!3); 
 and it is often a question of groat nicety to decide whether a particular clause is 
 the one or tho other, Hut technically, the question stands thus : on thr^ part i. f the 
 prisoner it wa8 pretended that the rocpiisition by an Ainl)assa(I;)r was a conuition 
 precedent imperatively lixcd by statute, w ithout ••vhich tho Governor's warrant was 
 a nullity. 
 
 On the part <jf the prosecution it was maintained that the words were purely 
 directory; that the necessity of a rf (position was established in favour of the power 
 called upon to e.vtradite, and that consecpiently it was for the executive of that 
 power to decide whether a sufficient requisition had been made, and that it was in 
 no way competent for the Court to go Ijohind the Governor's warrant directing 
 all Justices to aid in the apprehension of the prisoner. 
 
 It was further maintamcd that this interpretation was not only agreeable to the 
 general objects of the statute and conformable to the principle of interpretation 
 already laid down, but that it also a|)peared, bv other words in the statute, which 
 goes on to say that, this requisition being made, the Governor is authorized "by 
 warrant under his hand and seal to signify that such requisition has been so made, 
 and to require all Justices, &ic." IJesides, if this question were not to be settled by 
 the signification of the Governor, how is it to be established in any case that the 
 requisition was made by a " Diplomatic Agent?" The warrant cannot contain the 
 
 E roof otherwise than bv the declaration it contains; will it. then, be pretended that, 
 eing denied on the part of the prisoner, the Amliassador or otlicr Diplomatic 
 Agent will be obliged to Hie his credentials? Mr. Drummond's holding implies so 
 much. But whoever heard of the credentials of a Diplomatic /igent being judged 
 of by any one but the executive with whicli he lias been put in relation ? Dots not 
 the very expression "accredited Diplomatic Agent" used in the statute, exclude all 
 doubt ? It is only necessary to ask, by whom is credit to be given ? It therefore 
 would appear that Mr. Justice Drummond's first point is a blunder, and that "a 
 poor Magistrate who has never pretended to read the law " may be nearer riglit 
 than he. 
 
 The Judge goes on to say : — 
 
 " 2ndly. Because by the 3rd section of the said statute it is provided that no 
 Justice of the Peace, or any person, shall issue his warrant for any such supposed 
 offender, until it shall have been proved to him upon oath or affidavit that the 
 person applying for such warrant is the bearer of a warrant of arrest, or other 
 equivalent judicial document, issued by a Judge or competent Magistrate in F" ranee, 
 authenticated in such manner as would justify the arrest of the supposed offender 
 in France upon the same charge ; or unless it shall appear to him that the act 
 charged against the supposed od'endcr is clearly set forth in such warrant of arrest 
 or other judicial document ; w hcreas the Justice of the Peace who issued his 
 warrant against the petitioner, issued the same without having any such proof; 
 the only document produced before him, as well as before mc, in lieu of such 
 warrant of arrest or equivalent judicial document, being a jjaper writing, alleged to 
 be a translation into English of a French document made by some unknown and 
 unauthorized person in the office of counsel for the prosecutor, and bearing no 
 authenticity wnatever. 
 
 The law and the Judges commentary arc so mixed up, that, for a proper 
 understanding of the question, it is necessary to reproduce the terms of the Statute, 
 which are as follows : — . 
 
 "Provided alw lys, that no Justice ot the Pe"ice or other person shall issue 
 his warrant for the apprehension of any sudi suiposed offender until it shall have 
 been proved to him, upon oath or by affidavit, that the part; applying for such 
 warrant is the bearer of a warrant of arrest, or other equivalent judicial document 
 
23 
 
 »t (lOVPrr,. 
 
 .11 lO |)y „„ 
 
 ■ ina|)|ilip. 
 
 •lie terms 
 
 In the 
 
 ion in the 
 K'crcflifecf 
 
 is a wide 
 
 '••'S'' r!3); 
 
 fl.nisc is 
 
 '•Tt (T tllf,. 
 
 (Mrwiition 
 
 rraiit was 
 
 fit' purely 
 the power 
 ■f" of (hat 
 it was in 
 (lirecting 
 
 We to the 
 •pretation 
 ite, which 
 ized "by 
 so made, 
 Jetfled I) J 
 e that the 
 •ntaiii the 
 idod that, 
 'iplomatic 
 niplics so 
 ff judged 
 Does not 
 delude all 
 therefore 
 that "a 
 rer right 
 
 that no 
 upposed 
 that the 
 or other 
 France, 
 oflfender 
 the act 
 f arrest 
 ued his 
 
 proof; 
 of such 
 eged to 
 kvn and 
 *ing no 
 
 proper 
 'tatute, 
 
 I issue 
 I have 
 r such 
 ument 
 
 issued byaJndgc orcomiMjtenl Mn^^iNtrato in France, authenticate*! in su'*h manner 
 
 as would jiisiily the .irnst of tJK' Mijipi^c i (id'cmicr in !''rance upon tlie same 
 cliarfjc ; or unlesK it slmll (ipprur to him thai llf nets rlmryrif ai/aiiisl the supposfil offrnder. 
 Off rharly yil :>,ilh .n xtirh iniriaiil ufarrrt. nr ithrr fiiuiinli ii' jihIkuiI ilorumi nl." 
 
 Ndw. tl;- .li!il:;c's interpnlation. roliowiiif,' Mr. Doutio, is that there must be 
 an ailidavit I r (It posiiif.n bv 'lie bearer of a warrant ol arrest, declariinj that he 
 has tiiis French warrant, "or other etpiivalent jiidieial (loeiunenl." lint to say 
 this is to if;nore the alternative italicized above , the critical readiii^: of the 
 Statute beinfj, that the Masjistrate shall not proceed to apprehend, even on the 
 reception of the tiovcrnor's iirst warrant, either until it is established by oath or 
 dc|)osition that the person a|)plyin}; is bearer of a French warrant, or other eipjivaicnt 
 document ; or unless it shall appear to the Magistrate that such warrant exists. 
 This, too, is consonant with common sense, wliich Mr. .Justice Drunimond's reading 
 is not. Had the .Mas;istratc not the alternative of acting; without the actual 
 presence of tiie French warrant, the |)risoncr would infallibly escape, even when ho 
 could not find an enthusiastic attorney to purloin it; for all he would have to tlo 
 would be to keep out oi' the |)lace where this dangerous document was, and as but 
 one iierson could be the "bearer" of it, so only one person could be efl'ectuallv 
 employed in the pursuit. 
 
 It is easy to understand why rogues and their counsel should maintain such 
 a sirained interpretation of a Statute, but it is inconceivable that a Judge should 
 be found to .adopt it. The translation of the arrcV de renvoi was never filed by 
 the prosecution .".s a substitute lor a warrant, Ijceaiise the prosecution never 
 admitted that such warrant was retpiired ; but in the ab.sence of the original, which 
 had been made away with by tiic prisoners counsel in New York, it was |)roduccd 
 to justify the Magistrate in committing him. The crret de renvoi being an indict- 
 ment, as we should say, it |)resuniesa warrant of arrest, or other judicial document, 
 and therefore, under the express words o. uhe Statute, justified the Police M.agistrate 
 in acting. 
 
 Mr. Drummond continues: — 
 
 " .3rd. Because, supposing the s.aid document purporting to l)e a trar.slationo 
 an acted' accusation or indictment, accompanied by a pretended warrant of arrest, and 
 designated as arrvt de renvoi, to be authentic, it does not contain the designation of 
 any crime comprised in the nuiuber of the various crimes for or by rcasim of the 
 alleged commission of which any fugitive can be extradited under the Statute. 
 
 "4th. IJecauso by the first section of the said Act it is provided tiiat no Justice 
 of the Peace shall commit any person accused of any of the crimes mentioned in 
 the said Act (to wit, murder, attempt to commit murder, forgery, and fraudulent 
 bankruptcy I, unless upon such evidence as, according to the laws of that part of 
 Her Majesty's dominions in which the supposed ollender shall be found, would 
 justify the apprehension and committal for trial of the person so accused, if the 
 crime of which he shall be .accused had been then committed. Whereas the 
 evidence produced against the petitioner upon the accusation of forgery brought 
 against him before the committing Magistrate, would not have justilied him in 
 apprehending or committing the petitioner for the crime of forgery, had the acts 
 acts charged .against him been committed in that part of Her Majesty's dominions 
 where the petitioner was found, to wit, in Lower Canada. 
 
 '•5th. Because the said warrant for the extr.a(lition of the petitioner, as well as 
 the warrant for his ap|.iehcnsion, docs not chars^e him with the commission of any 
 one of the crimes for which a warrant of extradition can be issued under this 
 Statute, inasmuch as in both of the said warrants the alleged ollence is charged 
 against the petitioner as • forgery, by having in thecapacity of cashier of the branch 
 of the Bank of France at Poitiers, made false entries in the books of the bank, and 
 thereby defrauded the said bank of the sum of 700,000 francs ;' whereas the said 
 offence, as thus designated, does not constitute the crime of forgery according to the 
 laws of Kngland and Lower Canada, for, to use the words of Judge Blackburn when 
 he pronounced judgment concurrently with Chief Justice Cockburn and Judge Shee 
 in a case analogous to this (ex parte Charlotte Windsor, Court of Queen's Bench, 
 May 18G5). ■ Forgery is the false making of an instrument, purporting to be that 
 which it is not ; it is not the niaking of an instrument purporting to be that which 
 it is; it is not the making of an instrument which purports to be what it really is, 
 but which contains false statements. Telling a lie does not become a forgery 
 because it is reduced to writing.'" 
 
 These three paragraphs really contain the great question of this cane. In 
 
 E 2 
 
 
24 
 
 pmimcrntinp the ofrcnceH for which an aroused porsoii may bo oxlraditrd, must wo 
 |()(ik for l!i<' constifuf!!!- »f tlic o'ViM {•(• t') 111' ; \ i ' . ii r . ' 'nt»(J. or l<. that 
 in whii'li the (xlriulition is (hiiiandcd •' Mticli is to Ik; said on Ixdli sides of this 
 •"■.-stion; andthrreran l>c no doiihl that in (! ali". vvilh l!i • \r:''ii;;ni Ts ■,;!•,, 
 and partindarly ho Ion}? as slavery existed ii; lh;it eoniitr\, it was neci sars lor the 
 jrreat eommon law ,'elonies, such as mnrd -T r.iui i'.i.iiislaui;hter, to look to the 
 common law of Kngiand as the ;>nide. Ami of this the Americans could not, and 
 cannot, complain, tor tliey take their comnio i law from us; and. therefore, in nsins; 
 an Kn(;lish common law term, they must he siipjiused to use it with the eominon 
 (aw signirication. This was the' view taken in the Anderson case, and rii^htly. 
 We would not tolerate that the nople of a southern Slate of the Union shonld 
 convert manHiau^hter into murdei- by the existence of a system condemned long 
 previous to the Treaty, hy the jjuhiic morality of the Kmpire. AI)out tlie intention 
 too of this law pivin^f effect to the American Treaty there was nodoidit. It h.ui 
 been fully discussed in Parliament when the Mill was passed, and distinciiy admitted 
 on all hands lliat, in a case such as Anderson's, the fusjilive would not he delivered 
 up. 
 
 With regard to the French Treaty the cpiestion is totally dilferent. There is 
 no common origin for the two laws ; and consequently, when the term does not 
 express the same offence in both countries, tiierc is no reason for making the 
 definition according to the law of the one rather than of the other. Jiul, in adililion 
 to this, it is perfectly clear that in the English statute the law of France was not 
 ignored ; but to make this a|)parent to the general reader, we must proceed to 
 details. The crimes enumerated for which extradition may be sought may be 
 divided into three categories for the purposes of this examination : — 
 
 1. Murder, for which the equivalent is distinctly set uj) in the statute; it 
 comprehends the terms "assassination, parricide, infanticide, and poisoning." 
 
 2. Fraudulent bankruptcy, which has no equivalent in the criminal law of 
 England at all. 
 
 3. Forgery, which has not at all the same signification in France and in 
 England. 
 
 Now, if it be true that, with the exception of murder (the meaning of which is 
 thus absolutely defined), the law of England was alone contemplated, the mention 
 of fraudulent bankruptcy was a mere farce. It must, however, be said, in support 
 of Mr. Justice Drummond's opinion, that even this view has be^n held; and a 
 Solicitor-General in Lower Canada formally gave it as his opinira that we should 
 not extradite in cases of fraudulent bankruptcy, there being no such crime known 
 to our laws; and wc belicv that this opinion was acted upon in several instances. 
 On the other hand, it must he said that the latest case in Kngland under the Treaty 
 is for the extradition of a fraudulent bankrupt. (Ex parte Widemann, in the Weekly 
 Notes of the 30th June of this year.) It is thus plain that in '''ngland it is not 
 settled that the offence must be one under the laws of England. The same argu- 
 ment will apply to forgery, if not to the same degree at all events to a very great 
 extent. Forgery in France and forgery in England are perfectly dilferent, and this 
 is very natural. A mere misdemeanour at common law, forgery has been so 
 altered that now almost every forgery is a felony, and many things which were not 
 crimes are now forgeries. The same thing has taken place in France, so that to 
 refuse to give up a man accused of a particular kind of forgery, because it was not 
 common to both laws, would be almost to annul the Treaty in so far as regards 
 that offence. But it is said that the statute is imperative ; they rely on this 
 passage : — 
 
 " Upon su^h evidence as, according to the laws of that part of Her Majesty's 
 dominions, would justify the apprehension and committal for trial of the person so 
 accused if the crime of which he or she shall be so accused had been there 
 committed, it shall be lawful for such Justice of the Peace, or other person having 
 power to commit as aforesaid, to issue his warrant for the apprehension of such 
 person, and also to commit the person so accused to gaol, there to remain until 
 delivered pursuant to such requisition as aforesaid." 
 
 Now this clause does not bear out the pretension ; and if it did, it would be 
 applicable to fraudulent bankruptcy as well as to forgery, and Mr. Dunbar Ross' 
 opinion, when Solicitor-General, would be correct. But this we see by the Wide- 
 mann case is not the vicv now taken in England. To make Mr. Justice Drum- 
 mond's dictum agree with the Widemann case, we should require to make a 
 distinction not to be found in the law, which it should be unnecessr'v to remind " a 
 
35 
 
 iiiiijj 
 
 Judge who has read the law." is against all princifilc. " I'hi lex iion (iistinguit, 
 HOC nos (lolirmiis (li>tiii';.''rc " ll'it 'I > Mi- nur-ls < itol l^nr out .Mr. nniminomr* 
 rending? Wc ni;untaiii thoy do not. Tluir only nuaning is this that liiere must 
 be suflirient pvidoncf to jnsiiCy the magistrate in eommittiiii;, had the oflenee l)cen 
 an ofTenee hero and l»cen commilteil iiere. In otiier wonis, it m a eant'on to the 
 Magistrate to deal with the ease as he vvoidd with any other preliminary examina- 
 tion for an alleged crime here. How it could have got ahroail that he has anv 
 other duty than that one, almost purely ministerial, which he performs daily ill 
 dealing with those accused of crime here, we cannot imagine, unless it be explained 
 hy the jealousy that exists on I lie sniiject of extradition in Kngland, as l>ord 
 Clarendon said in the Hmise of Lords, when the Hill was recentlv intnxluced to give 
 greater effect to the French Treaty. 
 
 Another of tiie points made was that we had not the arn't ih rfmni. \ have 
 .ilieady shown that it was not necessary for us to have it ; hut even if it hail l)een 
 necessary to produce it before the committing .Magistrate in ordinary eases, ii 
 certainly would not have been so in this case. It is in e\ idence that the mri't ile 
 renvoi had been made away with by .Mr. Spilthorn, the prisoner's counsel at New- 
 York (he does not venture to deny the taking\ and liiat being proved, it was 
 competent for us to give the next best evidence ;it our disposal, which undoubtedly 
 was the translated coj)y of the ni'l dp r''niiii prep.irrd for the Iniited States' ("oni- 
 nrssioner and iiiiti;iled l)y him as one of the documeiUs of his record. 
 
 Hut the real cjucstion now is, not whether the law as laid down b\ liie I'oliee 
 .Magistrate judicially, or that expressed by the Judge extra-judicially, is correct. 
 The only person legally seized of the (luestion and who could give a judgment 
 decided for the extradition, and it therefore only remains to incpiire whether that 
 decision was carried out in a lawful manner or not. 1 am ipiite ready to aihnil, 
 w;'i\ the most violent of the papers here, that the act was one whicli if not legal was 
 kidnapping; but I think it has been made sufliciently clear that the act of the 
 Sherifi' in giving him up was not only justifiable but the only course he could 
 lawfully pursue. The absurdity of the pretension that notice of an application for 
 a writ of hahens corpus served upon mo was to have the sam(^ elTect as a writ 
 served upon the gaoler is too transparent to deserve comment. Hut it has been 
 said there was indecent haste, and that the Governor-General had piomised time to 
 apply for a writ of hnbens corpu.<>, or as Mr. Doutre somewhat unteehnically calls it, 
 "time to bring the case before higher tribunals." As for the maticr of haste, it 
 is expressly enjoined in the Statute giving elFect to the Treaty (Ci and 7 Vict., 
 cap 75, sec. 4; that the prisoner is to be removed out of 1 ler Majesty's dominions in 
 the readiest way. Now the readiest way and the only way of sending Lamir.-inde 
 out )f Canada was by the river, and as the steamer was to sail on the morning of 
 Saturday the 25th, it was obviously incumbent on those representing the French 
 authorities to lose no time in procuring the Governor's warrant, so as to take 
 advantage of that mode of conveyance. The escape of Lamirandc from custody in 
 the United States, the day before the Commissioner was to pronounce judgment 
 upon his case, and the presence here of his counsel, Mr. Spilthorn, whose extra- 
 ordinary proceedings relative to t!ie arret de n-uroi at New York have already been 
 remarked, were additional reasons for inducing the agents of the French Govern- 
 ment not to allow time for iurther machinations. As to the alleged |)romise of the 
 Governor-General I have, of course, nothing to say but this, that even if made in 
 the terms Mr. Doutre alleges, it was fully redeemed, for ample time was given to 
 get out the writ, and if its issue was delayed till Tuesday, the fault must be 
 between Mr. Doutre and the Judge, the latter of whom does not hesitate to state 
 that if Mr. Doutre had insisted he would have issued the w rit on the 24th, Friday. 
 To this Mr. Doutre may fairly reply that if he had a right to the writ before the 
 argument it was unnecessary for him to insist, his application should have been 
 enough. 
 
 I do not care to take up your time in offering any apology for the part I have; 
 taken in this affair, for I feel that my acts speak for themselves; but I maybe 
 pefmitted to say a word on one piece of criticism by the Judge. He said it was 
 my "duty to inform the Governor that a writ of habeas corpus was demanded.'" 
 But why more in this case than any other, or am I in all cases of extradition to 
 keep the Governor advised by telegraph of each step of the procedure ? Uesides, 
 if Mr. Doutre's storv be true, the case in question is the very last in which such an 
 exceptional prv,3ee<Iing on my part was required, for it would appear that so far 
 back as the 3rd of August, Messrs. Doutre and Doutre had appealed to the Governor- 
 
 i: ■: 
 
<rr 
 
 ?f 
 
 1 >i 
 
 26 
 
 General to protect their client whom they then called " Felix CJastier;" and later, 
 on the I5th, we find M.M. Doiitre and Daoiist apnin informing the (Jovernor-Oeneral 
 that it is thfir intention " to apiicai to hi:;h(T nihiin.ils " in favour of their client, 
 whoKe namr tlini turned out to i)e Krncst Snnau Lainirando, the well-known 
 fiipitive from Poitiers. Instead of attciiiiitinp to fix on tiio (lovernor-licneral thi> 
 imputation of not liavinj; kept his word, Mr. Doiitre woidd do well to explain how 
 it came to pass that Dontre and Doiitre slionid petition on the 3rd of Au{;iist for 
 Felix Gastier, and that Doutre and Daoiist should petition for the same man undt. 
 the name of Krnest Sureaii Lamirandeon the loth. 
 
 I have, &,e, 
 (Signed) T. K. RAMSAY, 
 
 A<lvocate prosecuting for the Crown, District of Montreal. 
 To the Hon. George Et. Cartier. 
 
 Attorney-Cicnoral, Lower Canada, Ottawa. 
 
 (A.) 
 
 To the Editor of the " Montreal Gazette." 
 Sir, 
 
 THE " Herald " of this morning contains two columns of the report of a 
 pretended judicial proceeding in the I^mirnndc case, accompanied by a charac- 
 teristic attack on the Attorney-General, It is very plain that the declamation of 
 Mr. Justice Drummond and Mr. Doutre d propos of notiiing (for there was no case, 
 and neither of them ventured to move for or take any rule or other proceeding), 
 was simply intended to give Mr, Cartier's enemies a pretext for abusing him ; so 
 impossible is it, without rectitude of purpose and complete sobriety, to overcome 
 the recollection of political defeat. But my object is not to review or attempt to 
 answer the contradictions and absurdities of these tirades. I feel perfectly satisfied 
 that nothing I can say or write will ever prevent Mr. Justice Drummond from at 
 all times preferring eflect to truth, and thcretbre my explaining to him that to call 
 the giving up of a prisoner on the warrant of the Governor kidna|)ping is simply 
 a naked falsehood, would be a pure waste of time. I shall therefore briefly state 
 how and why Lnmirande was given up, and from that it will at once be obvious 
 that the outcry of Mr. Drummond anci Mr. Doutre is simply beside the question. 
 
 We have a Treaty with France, enforced by an Imperial Statute, by which we 
 agree to give up person^ accused of certain offences therein enumerated. The 
 procedure is this : The French Government claims tlie extradition of the accused, 
 and the Governor (in the Colonies) issues his warrant, charging all justices and 
 officers of justice to aid in the capture of the fugitive. On his apprehension he is 
 brought before a Magistrate, who deals with the charge, or who ought to deal with 
 it, precisely as if the oflence had been committed here. This being done, the 
 prisoner is either fully committe or he is discharged. If committed, the papers 
 are forwarded to the Government, and the Governor issues his warrant for the 
 extradition of the prisoner, who is at once delivered up, provided there be no other 
 cause (t. e. criminal cause) for his detention. It is an error to suppose that there is 
 any right of appeal from the decision of the Governor; but if application is made 
 in proper time a writ of habeas corpus may be procured, which would have the effect 
 of bringing the prisoner before the Court or Judge to examine into the cause of 
 his detention. In Lamirande's case no such writ was either granted or issued, and 
 therefore it is positively untrue that the prisoner was in the hands of the Court or 
 Judge, as Mr. Drummond said. Without this writ there was no power known to 
 the Taw to stop the execution of tlie Governor's warrant ; and this I at once 
 explained to Mr. Justice Drummond in chambers, on Saturday morning, when he 
 first spoke to me on the subject, i then told him that had the Sheriff consulted 
 me, which he did not, I should have advised him to obey the warrant without a 
 moment's loss of time. So unanswerable was this thit Mr. Drummond, shifting 
 his ground, said that he had put in a commitment before the removal of the 
 prisoner ; but I afterwards found that what he was pleased to call a commitment 
 was no commitment at all, but an order not to deliver Lamirande up on any 
 warrant whatever. What renders this proceeding doubly ludicrous is that 
 Mr. Justice Drummond was the person most terribly severe upon Mr. Justice 
 Mondelet for his order in the Blossom case ; yet when Mr. Mondelet gave that 
 order he was sitting at the Court of Queen's Bench, whereas when Mr. Drummond 
 gave his he was prowling about the town at night without any official character 
 
later, 
 neral 
 •licnt, 
 nown 
 1 1 tl..^ 
 low 
 St for 
 iindt. 
 
 2? 
 
 whatever but that of a .fustiof of the Po.ice. On Sntnnlav aftornoon Mr. .fiistirc 
 DrummonH apai shifted his jj^roiiml. and he was pio.is-d to ii-ll inc tliat it was nn 
 duty to intcrfiTo in somo way or another, and ;>rovcnt tho (lovernor's warrant 
 taking firt'ct. For Mr. .lustier DrnninKMils information, let me sav that when I 
 sock a puide as to dnty I shall endeavour to seleet sr,nie one more inun.uulale than 
 him, Itiit ill so far as regards the prcsri't case I may add thai I wa>, very nidikely 
 to commit an illcg;ality to prevent the extradition, inasnuicli as I hi;;ldy ;i|iprovcd 
 of it. 
 
 And now one vvord as to the prisoner. Lamirande was cashier of tlie I?,ink of 
 France at Poitiers, and he there rohhed his employers of TdO.OOO franes 'JH. (»()(;/. 
 8terlin<r"l, falsified hooks and entries (fur-ied as the French Court calls it i, and fled 
 to the United States. Heinp; arrested there and aiiout to he extradited, lie manaf^ed 
 to drug his guard and escaped to Canada, while his lawver stole the ani't de rmini, 
 or French indictment, which formed part of the record hetore the Commissioner, 
 And this is the person for whom .Mr. Justice Drummond felt so lively a personal 
 interest as to induce him to ahandon the retirement of his home and endure tht? 
 fatigues of sitting in chambers, for, I hclieve, almost the first time since the hegin- 
 ning of vacation. 
 
 While talking of conspiracy it would he, however, interesting to learn from 
 Mr. Drummond, at whose invitation he undertook to arljurlicate in Lamirande's 
 case? The effort was not unpremeditated for tiie interesting fact was duly heralded 
 on Friday morning. 
 
 Your obedient servant, 
 
 (Signed) T. K. RAMSAY. 
 
 Montreal, August 27, 1866. 
 
 
 Sir, 
 
 (B.) 
 To the Editor of the " Montreal Gazette.' 
 
 m 
 
 IN this morning's issue of the " Herald " I tind the following sentence: — 
 
 "That he (the Judge) did not do so (issue the writ of linbms lorpiin at on(e), 
 therefore, was plainly due to a represcitation by the advocates for the prosecution, 
 one of them representing the Attorney-Cieneral, which if not false in words was 
 false in intention, and had all the effect of falsehood u|)on the Court whom these 
 gentlemen were bound to assist instead of deceive." 
 
 It is ot'coiirse of very little importance to me what glos.s it may be convenient 
 for the editors of the " Herald " to <;ive to a very simple transaction ; but it is, 
 perhaps, as well the public should know that >Mr. Kirby, one of the editors of the 
 "Herald," was present in Chambers on Saturday afternoon, when Mr. Justice 
 Drummond nia(ie i'.e utterly unfounded statement that anything was said by me 
 to give Mr. Doutre to understand that the prisoner would not he given up 
 on the arrival of the Governor's warrant. I then immediately rose and contradicted 
 Mr. Justice Drummond's statement in the most pointed manner ; and moreover, I 
 i'epeated the conversation which took |)lace, which was to tins effect, and as nearly 
 . ,s I recoilect in these words. I said, " It was idle to talk of ki(lna|)ping (the expres- 
 sion used by Mr. Doutre), for the prisoner could only lie removed by one process, 
 that is, on the warrant of the Govcrnor-(-encral." 1 thus pointed out specially to 
 the Judge and Mr. l3outre the single peril to which the prisoner was exposed, and 
 Mr. Drummond did not venture in my presence to contradict my statement of the 
 facts. It is, therefore, gross bad faith on his |)art, and on that of the writer in the 
 " Herald " to renew an accusation which the Judge could not stand to the head of 
 when first made and denied. The fact is Mr. Justice Drummond and Mr. Doutre 
 are anxious to throw on my shoulders the responsibility of their own blunder. They 
 had the means, or at least the Judge had, to stop the extradition without the inter- 
 ference of any one, and now he is furious because the gaoler, or I, or some one else, 
 did not rush in to accept no end of responsibility to cover over his laches. In one 
 place Mr. Justice Drummond suggests that " the gaoler might have waitcfi till 
 morning;" in anotlier "that it was my duty to inform the Governor that a writ of 
 Aafteus corpM6\va3 demanded !! " and after ail this bombast, even after the delivery 
 of the judgment, which ordered nothing, this is all that can be said — somebody 
 might nave done for Mr. Drummond what he ought to have done for himself. 
 
 It is not my intention at present to dwell on the extra-judicial opinions expressed 
 
Incl. 3 in No. 2. 
 
 Incl. 4 in No. 2, 
 
 2H 
 
 l)v Mr. .Itinticf Dniinmuiid ystcrday. Willi ilio pnlilif llu'v v,il| | r()l):i)>ly l,^. 
 (linin-iulv rsfiiiiiitiMl ; l>ii( lie is n'|i(»iU>'l tn have m;iilr one sl.th'iiicnt wliiJ-h | 
 caniiDl |)as(M)\cf in silciii c. lie says, " In lad, soiiu' jn; sons cm^.-i^cd in i\u- piosc 
 (•iiIIdii iiC this man (or linj;( ly liavc tlifnu.i'lvi's liccii iii-diiniiMitai ii; a liiisiiiciti,,!, 
 olonc III' llu- in():>t niiU inn iIikiiiikiiIs that can hi- issiird liy tin- tiov rnor-Cif n.rnl." 
 Ill niiswiT ti> this I must slat*-, wilhaiit tiie least rcsirvr tliat this is the must 
 aii<la('ii>u.; (■aliiiiinv I cvt'i' heard ol in my lile, for it iMi|iUL!,hs the aiillu ntic-i'.v oi thr 
 (invi iiiDi's sinnatiMT, and of llic };real .Seal of the jirdviiici'. .\i) man knii\s h itci 
 than Mr. Onuiiiiiuiiil that \n lien the Ciovcrnor is iihseiil lioni the sen) ol (inverMiient, 
 
 ollicial ilociiiiirnts are reeorded, sealed and dated at the seat ol CJovirnnient, and 
 lurwarded to liiiii lor his siji^ti.Htme. This was the pijictiee when .Air. Driiiiuiioiui 
 Willi Attoriiey-(ieiural, anil one which was followiMl during; llie .•ihseiiee of tnc 
 Governor last winter wlu-n the (lovernnK-nt was administered by Sir .lohn Michel, 
 who lived at .Montreal. 
 
 In Icaviiu;- this discussion to the arbilr.imeiitor the |iiil>lic, I shall permit invReir 
 to prophecy that no further pro(cedin;;-of any kind will be taken in this matter, and 
 for this very f;()nd reason that there is no room for any. Had there been a.iythinc 
 wron^' that could be taken hold of, will aii\ one helievi Ih.il .Mr. .Iiisticc Driimmond 
 would have vacillated so many da\s bctwi-en dei-l:ir.ilioiis of its not being lor him to 
 take the initiative, and threats of terrible nioasiires hir the 2iih. 
 
 Your obedient servant, 
 
 (Signed) T. K. RA.M.SAY. 
 
 Montreal, August li'J, 18«6. 
 
 Inclosure 3 in No. 2. 
 
 Mr. Rrehal't to the Honourable the Pkovinciai. Skcretarv. 
 
 SiH, Police Ollice, Montreal, August 22, iS«(), 
 
 I HAVE the honour to transmit herewith, the depositions and other documents 
 in the case of Krnesl Sureau Lamirunde, for extradition. 
 
 I have, &.C. 
 (Signed) W. H. BUKHAUT, Police Magistiate. 
 
 The Hon. the Provincial Secretary, 
 Ottawa. 
 
 Inclosure 1 in No. 2. 
 
 Depositions. 
 
 Police Office. 
 
 Province of Canada, District of Montreal, 
 City of Montreal. 
 
 To all or any of the Constables or other Peace ORicers in the said District ot 
 Montreal, and to the Keeper of the Common Gaol at the said City of Montreal, 
 in the said District of Montreal. 
 
 Whereas Ernest Sureau Lamirande, late of Poitiers, in the French Empire, now 
 present in the city of Montreal, in the district of ilontreal aforesaid, was this day 
 charjucd before me, William H. Rrehauf, Kin\.. Police .Alagislratc in and for the 
 district ol ^lontreal, on the oath oi' i'Aln.e Justin Aielin and othcLs, with the crime 
 of forgery, by having, in his capacity of cashier ol the branch of the Bank of 
 France, at Poitiers, on the 12th day of IMarch, 18GG, made false entries in the 
 books of the said bank, and therebv defrauded the said bank of the sum of 
 700,000 francs : 
 
 And wlicroas a rctpiisition has been made to his Excellency the Governor- 
 General of this province, by the Consul-General of France in the provinces of British 
 North America, pursuant to the terms of the Convention between Her Majesty the 
 Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and His i\iajesty the 
 King of the French, signed at London, on the 13tii day of February, in the year of 
 our Lord 1843; and the Acts of the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great 
 
 u 
 
Il)l):l!,|y 1^, 
 
 It N\liii-li I 
 |li'' proNi.. 
 
 ilNllic:ilj,|„ 
 
 (..„ |;,|>. 
 
 'Ip most 
 i'-i!,v of the 
 
 ■'MS l»t|,.|- 
 
 '\<'ri;iiient, 
 iiiuMit, ami 
 'iiimiiioiui 
 Id- of tiic 
 III! Michel, 
 
 "lit myself 
 
 I'lttci/and 
 
 ii'iylhinp 
 
 >iiiniiii()nd 
 
 lor him to 
 
 iIVlSAV. 
 
 12, iHtiC). 
 iocuinciits 
 
 istrate. 
 
 listrict ol 
 Montreal, 
 
 pire, now 
 this day 
 1 lor the 
 the crime 
 Bank of 
 es in the 
 sum of 
 
 overnor- 
 f British 
 jesty the 
 jesty the 
 i year of 
 )f Great 
 
 29 
 
 Britain anil Ireland, paHH«'«l to give «ff«a tothcnaid Convrntion, to isjiiio hin h arrant 
 for the anpn'lu'nHion of the Haiti KrneHt Suroau Lumirantle, acfiiHo«l of having 
 committea the crime aforcKaitl, after the ratification of the naiii Convention : 
 
 And whereas in (*om|ilianee with the Hnid reciiiisition, his Kxr«-lleney the 
 (lovernor-Oeneral has, by warrant under his hand and steal, l>earin<>' dale at < Mtawa, 
 ill the said pn)viiice, the 26th day of July, in the year of our l-ord )S(>«i, required 
 rath and every the .justieesof the Pence, and other Mn};istrateN, and jUieers of 
 justice, within their several jurisdictions in the said province of Canada, to aid in 
 "apprehending and committint; him. th«' said Krnest Siireaii l^mirande,toany one of 
 the gaols within the said province of Canada, for the pur|M)Me of heing delivered up 
 to justice, accordii g to the provisions of the said Convention and the Acts to give 
 effect thereto : 
 
 And whereas it appears to the said Pt)licc Magistrate, that the acts charged 
 agniiist the siijiposed olVcnder, arc clcarlj set forth in a warrant «>f .irresl or other 
 c(piivalent judicial document, issued bv a competent Magistrate in France: 
 
 An<l whereas divers persons have i>cen examined upon oath bciore me, touching 
 the truth of the said charge : 
 
 And whereas copy of a deposition taken in Kruiice touchiiif; the said charge, 
 diilv atillienticated, has been produced and filed before me • 
 
 Ami whereas siicii evidence would be, according to the laws of Canada, 
 suiiicient to justify the apprchensicm and ccmmittal of the said Krnest Sureau 
 Lamirande, il tlie oflence of which he is accused, h.'ul been committed in Canada: 
 
 And whereas the said Krnest Sureau liamirande, by himself and his counsel, 
 has had Cull opportunity to crossexamine the said witnesses and to aihluce such 
 evidence as he deemed advisable in his own defence: 
 
 And v\ hereas the said F>nest Sureau Lamirande has not shown any goo<l cause 
 why he should not b<! committed for extradition, according to the requirements of the 
 said Convention, and the laws passed to give effect thereto : 
 
 Ti'.ese arc therefore to command you, the said constables or pt^ace officers, or 
 any of you, to take the said Krnest Sureau Lamirande, and hitii safely convey to 
 the common gaol, at the city of Montreal aforesaid, and there deliver him to the 
 keeper thereof, together with this precept, aiiu do herel)y command you the said 
 keeper of the said common gaol, to receive the said Krnest Sureau Lamirande into 
 your custody in the said common gaol, and there safely to keep him until he is 
 delivered pursuant to the rerpiisition aforesaid, or by process cf law. 
 
 Given under my hand and seal, this 22nd day of August, in the year of our 
 Lord, 1866, at the said city of Montreal, in the district aforesaid. 
 
 (Signed) W. H. BRKHAUT, 
 
 (Seal) Police Magistrate. 
 
 Bureau de Police. 
 
 Province du Canada, District de Montreal, 
 Cite de Montreal. 
 
 Krnest Sureau Lamirande, ci-devant de Poitiers, dans I'Empirc Fran^ais, 
 actuellement dans la cite de Montreal, dans le dit district, est accus^ ce jour 
 devant le Soussignc, William H. Hrehaut, Ecuyer, Magistral de Police dans et pour 
 le district de Montreal, le quinzieme jour d'AoClt de I'annd'c de Notre Seigneur 
 mil huit cent soixante-six, d'avoir le dit Ernest Sureau Lamirande, le douziime 
 jour de Mars dernier, ^ Poitiers, dans I'Empire Fran9ais, commis le crime de faux 
 en avant, cii sa qualite de Caissier de la succursale de la Banque de France k 
 Poitiers, fait de fausses entrees dans les livres de la dite Ban((uc et par ce moyen 
 fraude la dite Banque de la somme de sept cent mille francs, en contravention 4 
 la loi ; et la dite accusation 6tant lue au dit Ernest Sureau Lamirande, et les 
 t<5moins a charge, Kdrae Justin Melin, Louis Leoncc Coudert, Frederic R. Coudert, 
 et Abel Fr^d^ric Gautier, etant interroges s6parement en sa presence, j'ai adress6 
 la parole au dit Ernest Sureau Lamirande, comme suit : — 
 
 " Ayant cntendu le temoignagc, d^sirez-vous dire quelque chose en rdponse k 
 raeciisatioii ? Vous n'fitcs jias oblige d'y rcpoiuire, k moins que vous ne le vouliez 
 bien ; mais lout ce que vous dircz sera lais par ocrit, et poiirra faire preuve contre 
 vous lors de voire proces." 
 
 [75] P 
 
 
 
 ! «l 
 
wm 
 
 M 
 
 LA-deaiua le Hit KmMt Surf «a Lumirande Hit eomrae iiuit t " Mm arocats 
 in'ont avi»<^ ilo nc rieii dire" 
 
 Et le dit acciis*'! iir dit rien dp plus ct a signi' In pr(*H<?ritr, nyant 6t6 lue en Ha 
 nr^ncnce. 
 
 (Sipn<^) K. S. [.AMIRANDK. 
 
 Prise dcvnnt moi :\ la Cit(* dc Nfontrral, Ips jour et an oi-dcftsuH mcntionn^^a. 
 (Sign6) W. H. Ubkiiaijt. P. M. 
 
 Session Spocinli! di; la Paix. 
 
 Dcvant \Vm. II. IIrkiialt, Kcr., Magislrnt dc* Police. 
 
 Dans Ic van d'Krnest S. Lamirandc, tiur Kxlraditiun. 
 
 La poiirsnitf ayaiit (icclan' n'avoir pns d'aiitro prnivc (|ue cellc (|ui so trnuve 
 an dossit r, \v prison iiicr so reservant do lairo nni- prenve si la presentc demande 
 nV-tail |)as acc-ordt'c, dcniando (pi'il soil ilargi, attcndu que ricn no Justifle su plus 
 longUL' (let(!ntion. 
 
 .Montreal, le 15 .Vuiit, 18GG. 
 
 (Signd) JOSKPII IX)UTRE, 
 
 Avocat du Prisonnier. 
 
 (A.) 
 
 Two thousand dollars reward will be paid for the re-arrest of one Ernest 
 Surcan Lainirande, who escaped from the custody of a Deputy Marshal of the 
 Unitetl States on the Hrd ol' Jidy instant. 
 
 lie is of a dark hilious complexion, about ft feet 6 inches high, slight build, 
 very dark eves, black hair, slightly touched with grey. Had one tooth decayed and 
 partly broken on tiie left side of the upper jaw. Wore a full beard at the time of 
 his escape, and was dressed in black. Speaks no English. 
 Apply to : 
 
 CouDERT Brothers, 
 
 49, Wall Street, New York. 
 
 
 
 sed of thefts 
 lal or banking 
 
 (B.) 
 
 Sureau do Laniirande. iilias Lamirandc, Ernest Charles Constant, accus 
 ('• qualifies"), l)reaehes of trust ("qualifies"), forgeries in commercia 
 accounts, and of having made use of forged documents (*• pieces"). 
 
 Assizes of the Department of the Vienne. — May 29, 1866. 
 
 Napoleon, by the grace of (iod and will of the people Emperor of the French, 
 to all to whom these presents shall come, greeting : 
 
 The Imperial Court of Poitiers has, in the Chambre des Mises en Accusation, 
 rendered the following Decree : — 
 
 After hearing the report made to-day in the name of the Procureur-General 
 (District Attorney), by Mr. Duverger, his substitute, of the criminal proceedings 
 instituted before the tril)nnal of the district of Poitiers (Vienne^ against Sureau 
 de Lamirandc fi//V(s Lamirandc. Ernest t'harles Constant, former cashier of the branch 
 of the Baidt of France in Poitiers, 42 years of age, born on the 29th of October, 
 1823, at Civrny (Vienne), residing latterly at Poitiers (and who has since absconded), 
 charged with thefts ("qualifies"), breaches of trust ("qualifies"), forgeries in com- 
 mercial or banking accounts, and of iiaving made use of forged documents : 
 
 I laving seen all the papers and proceedings in the case : 
 
 Having seen also the requisitoire (requisition) of the Procureur-General under 
 date of tliis day, written an(i signed by Mr. Duverger, his substitute, and which 
 reads as follows : 
 
 Having seen the Articles 379, 386, 408, 147, 148, and 104 of the Penal Code, 
 and the Article 217 and those following- of the Code d'Instruction Criininelle : 
 
31 
 
 Hi 
 
 WhcrrnB from the jndirinl cxaminntion of the ohnr|i;c« nml cvi«l«"iirr of Kuill 
 rcnult there ap|)oar siinicicnt i^nmnds to nrraiirn tlu- arciiscd on hJH trial for the 
 ofTenrex whi<'li an- rharijril lo luiti. and whu-h lioiriL; i|iialili.il (riiiu-s, an- imnislicil 
 with nfllirti\e and if;ii()iniiioii.i |i(iialliiH l>v il;<' alnnMiuoHil Ai ticlrH of ilu I'cnnl 
 Code : 
 
 Whereas, in fart, on the I'Jth of March, IWU), Siircau Drianiiraiide, wlio wnt* 
 only known under the name of Lainirande, which he nlwa\s used to Hi(;n, caMliier 
 nt the hrnnch of the Hank of France at IV)itierH, niiice liic nmiith of AiimiKt l^^6^. 
 hfw nlmeonded, carryinu: with liini the ki-v of tlie ii|i|mt coni|inrtnient o| the safe, 
 for daily ime. of which he was the oidy acconntant, and ot which he hail the hand- 
 ling in hiH aforesaid ca|meily, in wliicii compartment were contained a lar^^enmonnt of 
 funds and hills of the Hank of Krance; and that the examination of that safe has 
 shown, that previous to his departure Stiicaii dc Ijiniiraiidc einl)c/./.led from Haid 
 safe,nnd appropriated to his own use 4Sy27l Irniics (jl centimes in specie and bank* 
 bills iM'ioiipinpf If) the Hank of France : 
 
 Whereas, in order to ascertain tlie wiiolc amount of the emhe/zlementH or 
 Ruhstraetions of which the casliier ha<l been {ruilty, there had l)oen instituted an 
 immediate and minute examination id all llie vaiuahlcs which siiouid have been in 
 the reserve of the bank, which is called vault or cellar, and in which is deposited 
 the specie which is taken frcmj the safe for daily use in proportion as the luttcr 
 contains too much of it, but which is no lonjjer at the |)ersonal ami exclusive 
 disposition of the cashier, for one can only enter that v.iult or cellar by means of 
 two different keys, one of which is in the hands of the dinrtor ; and that it has 
 been established, aecordinp to the accounts, tiiat tlicrc was there n delitiency of 
 2iy.004 francs 30 centimes, citlier by the impairiiifj of a larsre nund)er of bafjs of 
 gold and silver practised by th(« cashier, or by the substraction of gold bags, w Inch 
 it was easy for the latter to abstract in the cellar or vault where he was superin- 
 tending the deposits and the shipments of funds when he was alone, by taking 
 advantage of tlie absence of the director ai'd the employes of the bank who had 
 charge of the transfer of the bags : 
 
 whereas it is thence proved that Siireau de Lnmirande has embezzled or 
 fraudulently abstracted, to the [)rejiidiee of the Hank of France, while he was the 
 paid cashier thereof, a total amount of 704.275 francs Kt centimes : 
 
 Whereas Sureau de Lamirande, in his capacity of cashier, had to furnish the 
 Director of the Hank, every evening, with a statement ("bordereau de situation ") 
 signed bv him, and in which he certified the state of the scver.il safes of tlu; bank, 
 indicating by their several values the sums contained in each of them, that is to 
 say, in the safe for daily use. in a second safe, called "auxiliary safe," and in the 
 vault. That he has made that "bordereau," or daily balance-sheet, on the I'ith of 
 March, 1866. a few hours previous to his departure. That thus, by handing on 
 that said day to the Director of the Hranch a balance-sheet certified true, and 
 signed by him, attesting that the totality of the cash of the Hranch of Poitiers 
 amounted to 11,443,566 Irancs S4 centimes, while in reality the cash was lessened 
 by the amounts embezzled or al)stractcd by him, ho has been guilty of forgery in 
 commercial or banking accounts, by fraudulently altering in the said balance-sheet 
 the declarations and facts which it was to contain and establish, and has, besides, 
 knowingly made use of said forged statement by handing it lo the director, all 
 in order to conceal the fraudulent substractions and the embezzlomcnts lie had 
 perpetrated : 
 
 Whereas the said thefts and embezzlements commenced at a period long prior 
 to the 12th of March, 1866, Sureau Lamirande. in order to conceal them, has 
 constantly since then, up to this last date of the 12th of March, inserted in the daily 
 balance-sheets made up and handed by him to the director, the false declaration 
 that there was in cash a superior amount to that which was really there, which 
 multiplies the forgeries wh'eh he has perpetrated : 
 
 The Procureur-General requests that it please the Court to declare that there 
 is reason to arraign said Sureau de Lamirande, alias Lamirande, Ernest Charles 
 Constant, 42 years of age, former cashier of the Hranch of the Bank of Krance in 
 Poitiers : — 
 
 1. For having within ten years, at Poitiers, fraudulently abstracted sundry 
 amounts of specie in gold or silver, in the vault or cellar of the Branch of the Bank 
 of France, and at the prejudice of that establishment. For having perpetrated 
 those fraudulent substractions with the circumstance that he was the hired 
 
 F 2 
 
 '.V 
 
 In 
 
IB! 
 
 
 "Mlari^" canhirr or liirwl i-mploy*'' ("honiine >\o h«t\Ii'i' i'i jja^in "^ of the naui 
 Hank of KrantT. 
 
 3. h'or linviiiK nt Poitii-tM, Mithiii ten mmih, iiikI. nam«>l> . on (lie 12th of Marrli, 
 IMiO, vnilN*7.r.li'«l or inii<lt' awti\ with, lo ihr inrjiiitui' ol llir It.iiik of Krninr, wlm 
 wAM tin- o'MHT llH'n-ul, iiiiiils aiiil liilU |il.nnl Ml I Iw Hall' lor (lailv om" of tin- HraiK-li 
 of I'oitiiTN. hIhcIi lia<l onU Im-cii liaiiilol oM-r ami ciilrukUMl lo liiin in tnihl nv hy 
 wnv of innridaU-, n|Min coimIiIioii lo riinrii or uecoiiiil for tlietn, or to iihi> and 
 omjdoy tlirni as lir slionid he dirirtrd. Kor liavin;; |»cr|M'trat«'d ihc i-mlH.>/./.li>ini'nts 
 lii'r(*alK(\c- HiK-cifird under (lie ciriMiniHtanc)' tliat lir wan the caHliier <ir liirt'd clerk 
 uf the Raid Hank of Krance. 
 
 3. With hftvinj; at HoitierH, on the TJlli of Marcii. |N«»o. Iraiidulenlly inserlcd 
 ill the baUinre-Hhcet signed Ity him, which it wu.s liis duty to cHtaliliNh and to 
 certify every day in Iuh capacity of canhier of the Uraneli of the Hank of I'Vancc, in 
 order to Htute the eaith areoiint of said lirancli, the false declaration that the cauli 
 account, on Haid day, amoiirtteil to ll.t Ili.-Wi Irancii HI centinicH, while it waM, in 
 realit\, inferior to tliat amount hv all tli<> sums ai>M(racted or emlxK/Jcd l>\ Inin, 
 and havin|>; thus frau<lulentlv altered the declaralionM and facts which this IkiI.iiicc- 
 shcet was tu contain and establish. 
 
 •1. Kor having on the same <iay and at the same place made uae of that loiired 
 document, knowinu; it to lie a lorgerv when liaiMiinjf it over to the Director of the 
 branch of the Hank of rraiur in J'oiti< rs, to cstaldish the situation of the casii 
 account of that estahlislimenl on the I'itli of March, iNtiC. 
 
 5. Kor having at I'oiliers within ten \caiN .md iireviously to the I'Jth <lay of 
 March, ISG6, fraudulently inserted in several iiaiance-sheets signed l)\ liini. 
 which it was hin duty toesiablish, and to certify every day in his capacity us cashier 
 of (he branch of the Hank of Krance, in onler to state the cash account of said 
 branch, the false declarations that the cash account amounted to a sum superior to 
 that which really existed, which was inferior to the figure indieatctl by all the sums 
 abstracted or cmbcKxIed by him, and having thus fraudulently falsified the d(>(*lara- 
 tions, and facts which these balance-sheets were to contain and to establish. 
 
 ti. Kor having at the same pcrioil and at the same place made use of those 
 forged documents, knowing that they were forged when iiandiiig them over to the 
 Director of the branch of tlut Hank of France in Poitiers, in order to establish the 
 balance-sheet of that establishment i the days indicated. 
 
 Said instruments and reqiiisitoii.t having I'cn read by the Court in the presence 
 of the substitute of the Procureur-(iencral and of the clerk, have been left on the 
 desk. 
 
 The substitute of the Procureur-General and the clerk having withdrawn. 
 
 The Court after having deliberated thereon without leaving the Court-room, and 
 without communicating with anyone. 
 
 Whereas the acts in question are provided for and qualified crimes by the 
 Articles 379, 38G, 408, 147. 148, 1G4 of the Code Pen.al, and that from the proceedings 
 result charges and indications of culpability suiticient to cause the accused to be 
 arraigned and sent before the assizes. 
 
 Adopting, moreover, the facts and motives enumerated in the requisitoire of the 
 Procureur-General here-above transcribed. 
 
 Declares that there is cause to arraign Ernest Charles Constant Sureau 
 de Lamirande, alias Lamirande — 
 
 1. For having within ten years at Poitiers fraudulently abstracted sundry 
 amounts of specie in gold or silver, in the vault or cellar of the branch of the Hank 
 of krance, and at the prejudice of that establishment. 
 
 For having perpetrated these fraudulent substractiona with the circumstance 
 that he w.is the hired ("salarie ") cashier, or hired employ^ (" homme de service A 
 gages ") of the said Hank of France. 
 
 2. Kor having at Poitiers within ten years, and namely, on the 12th of March, 
 180(5, embezzled and made away with, to the prejudice of the Bank of France, who 
 was the owner thereof, funds and bills placed in the safe for daily use of the branch 
 of Poitiers, which had only been handed over and entrusted to him in trust, or by 
 way of mandate, upon condition to return or account for them, or to use or employ 
 them as he should be directed. 
 
 For having perpetrated tha embezzlements here-above specified under the 
 circumstance that he was the cashier or hired clerk of the said Bank of France. 
 
 3. With having at Poitiers, on the l?th of March, 1866, fraudulently inserted 
 
 m 
 
Illir Haiti 
 |t' Mnrrh. 
 
 )'(«', wild 
 
 liraticji 
 
 IInI .>!■ |,y 
 
 I'll*"' aiiit 
 r'ciiii'iKs 
 \>-i\ <'lctk 
 
 iiiscrtfil 
 
 |l Ullli III 
 
 jnncc, id 
 
 Itlic caiili 
 
 was, ill 
 
 '>s Imiii, 
 
 |l>al.incc- 
 
 38 
 
 on the halaiKT-ahrrt Hif;;nr«i hy him, which it won hm duly tii ritlnhliNh unii UtcrrUfj 
 rvrry flay in his ciipnriiv of caxhior of ihr lirnni-h of tlio Hank uf Kramr, m onh-r 
 to Mtatr thr vn»\\ acciMiiit uf Haul liraiu li, tlii> fnU«< ili-t'larationa that tho raah 
 •ircoiint. on ^jiid ,'.,t\ anuMintt'il (o IJ.n^.'i.V. fram-s hi cfntimrM, while it wai in 
 rcalilv inferior to that amount, h\ all the siiiiih aliHtrartni or imlM*/./.l)-«l liy him. anil 
 jiaviii^ tliiiK IraiKliilcntly altrrnl t!ii' il' i tat.itiDhs .im! factx wliirh tliiM lialanco- 
 Hhri'l was to coiitaiii antl cHtahliMli 
 
 •1. For having on llif name ila ami at tin' samr plan* ma(h' nw of that forge^l 
 il(N-iin)(>iit, know iii^; it to lie a for^;i \ .lirn lianilin;; it o\i-r to tlir Dint'tor of the 
 liraiicli of tlif Kank of Kraiu-c in I'oitiirH, ;u csialilish iId* Hitnalion of thr (ash 
 account of that cHtahliHlimcnt on i!.c TJlit of March. |Hfi(i. 
 
 9. Kor havinc at Poitiers within ten vcars, and pn-vioiiNlv to the 12th of 
 March, iHtifl, trainfiilcntly inHcrtcd in several ltalan(*c.NhcrtN Mi|;ncil li\ him. which 
 it WAM Ilia duty to cstahliNh and ctilily every day in IiIm ca|iacii\ ol <-aMliier of the 
 lirnnch of the Hank of France, iii order to state the cash accnutit uf nnid Inanch, 
 the false declarationN that the cotth account amotintcd to a sum superior to that w hicli 
 really existed, which was inferior to the figure imlicatcd, l>y all tli' -.inns alistracted 
 iir emhe/Kled by him, and having ihiis fraudulently falHilied the declarations .md 
 factH which those halancc-Klieeta were to contain anti to cstaltlinh. 
 
 (i. For haviii;; at the same p ricNl and at the same place made use of those 
 forged dociimcntH, knowing that iliey were forged when handing them over to the 
 Director of the branch of llic Bank of France in I'oitiers, in order to (si.iliiish the 
 lmlancc>sheet of that establiHhmeiif on the days indicated. 
 
 In conHC(|uencc sends said Krii'st Charles Constant Siircaii dc Latiiirande, nliai 
 Lamirandc, before the Court of Assi7.es of the Vienne, at I'oitiers, in order to be 
 tried according to the law. 
 
 With a view to which the Procureur-Ucnoral will draw up tlie arraignment 
 against him. 
 
 The Court orders moreover that all constables (" huissicrs ") or officers of the 
 public force shall arrest Sureau de Lamirandc, alian liamiraiule, Kriicsl Chi-.rlcs 
 Constant, formerly cashier of the branch of the Hank of France in I'oitiers, 
 forty-two years of age, born on the 29th of Octolicr, IH23, at Civray ^ Vienne), 
 residing latterly at r<)itiers (and who ha.s since absconded), to be direcily brought 
 to the gaol established near the (lourt of .Assizes of the Vicmie, in Poitiers, and 
 entered in the gaol-book of the said gaol, as accused of the acts enumerated in part 
 of the present Decree, and cjustituling the crimes provided for and punished by iiie 
 Articles 379, 386, 40H, 147, 148, 104 ..f the Code Penal. 
 
 Thus adjudicated at the (m|)erial Court (Chambre des iMiscs en .Accusation), 
 at Poitiers, the 29th day of May, INtJO, by Messrs. Honnet. Knight of the Imperi.-d 
 Order of the Legion of Honour, President. (laillard. Knight ol the Imperial ()nicr 
 of the Legion of Honour, Aubin, Pareault, Harl)ier ithis latter called in to complete 
 the retpiired number). Counsellors ('• Con>eilieis "), who have all signed tlie present 
 Deciee, as well as Mr. E. Marrot, Chief Clerk. 
 
 We sumuKm and order all constables, wiio will be so requested to cxeciile the 
 said Decree, to all our Procureurs-Ucneraux and to our Piocurcurs near the tribunals 
 of first instance to stand by it, to all the commanders and ollicers of the public 
 force to give their help when they will be legally required to do so. 
 
 A correct and authentic copy delivered to the Procureur-tJener.d, who has 
 demanded it. 
 
 The Chief Clerk, 
 
 (Seal of Imperial Court of Poitiers) (Signed) K. MARHOT. 
 
 Examined by us Jean Baptiste Fortune Fortoul, Knight of the Imperial Order 
 of the Legion of Honour, First President of the Imperial Court of Poitiers, for 
 legalization of the signature of Mr. E. Marrot. Chief Clerk of the said Court. 
 Poitiers, May 31, 1866. 
 
 (Seal of Imperial Court of Poitiers) (Signed) F( )RTOLJL. 
 
 (Seal of Im|)erial Court of Poitiers, First Presidence) 
 
 Examined by us President of the Chambre des Mises en Accusation of the 
 Imperial Court of Poitiers. 
 Poitiers, May 31, 1866. 
 
 (Signed) ARMANI) BONNKT. 
 
 (S«al of Imperial Court of Poitiers) 
 
 I 
 
 jMi 
 
M 
 
 m 
 
 
 Examinwl by us Joan Bnptisto Fort»n<^ Forto il. Knight of tho Tmnorial Order 
 of the Lrpion t>( Honour, First Prosidont of tho Im|H>rial Court of Poitiers, for 
 IrgahsatioM of tho sip^n.-ifurc of Mr. Hoiinot, Prcsidont do ('hnmhro, in said Court. 
 
 Poitiers, May 31, IWiC. 
 
 (Seal oflmpcrial Court. First Prosidcnce, Poitiers) 
 
 Transmitted the present arraignment to his Kxecllency, the Keeiier of the 
 Seals, Minister of Justice and of Worship, by us Procurcur-General near the 
 Imperial Court of Poitiers. 
 Poitiers. May 31, 1H()6. 
 
 Tiie Procureur-tieneral, 
 (Seal of Imperial Court of Poitiers. (Signed) DAMAY 
 
 Procureur-Cicneral) 
 
 Seen for authentication of the above signature of Messrs. Konnet, Fortoul, and 
 Dam ay. 
 
 Paris, June 2, lH6n. 
 
 By delegation of the Keeper of the Seals. 
 
 Minister of Justice and Worship, 
 The Chief Clerk, 
 (Signed) CH. MAURAT LAROCHK. 
 
 (Seal of Keeper of the Seals, Minister of 
 Justice and Worship) 
 
 The Minister of Foreign AlTairs certifies as genuine the signature of Mr. Maurat 
 Laroche. 
 
 Paris, June 2, 1866. 
 
 By authorization of the Minister, 
 
 For the Sub-Director, Chief of the Chancellors Office, 
 (Seal of Foreign Office) (Signed) DUBOIS. 
 
 Examined at the Legation of the United States of America at Paris, June 4, 
 
 1866. 
 
 The signature of M. Dubois duly legalised. 
 
 (Signed) JOHN HAY. 
 
 (Seal of Legation of the United States Secretary of Legation, 
 
 of America in France) 
 A true copy. (Signed) W. H. BREHAUT, P.M 
 
 Tribunal de Poitiers, Cabinet du Juge d'Instruction. 
 
 L'an 1866, et le 2 Avril : 
 
 DEVANT nous, Alexandre Henri Jolly, Juge d'Instruction de I'arrondissement 
 de Poitiers, D6partement de la VMenne, en notre cabinet, au Palais de Justice de 
 Poitiers, assiste de Gustave Ponciii, Commis Greffier asserment^ : 
 
 A comparu sur notre invitation le t^moin ci-apr^s, auquel nous avons donne 
 connaissancc des faits sur lesquels il est appcl6 d d(^poser. 
 
 Lequel t^moin, introduit hors la presence de I'inculp^, apr^s avoir pr6t6 
 serment de dire toute la v6rit^. rien que la v6rit^, et enquis par nous de ses noms, 
 pr^noms, kge, profession et demeure, s'il est domestique, parv»nt ou allii de I'inculp^ 
 et A quel degru, nous a repondu et fait sa disposition ainsi qu'il suit: — 
 
 Du Bois de Jancigny, Henri Marie, kg6 de 31 ans, Inspecteur de la Banque 
 de France, deraeurant A ^aris : — 
 
 J'ai ^t^ envoy(5 par M. le Gouverneur de la Banque de France pour faire une 
 enqudte sur Ics faits signal^s par M. le Directeur de la Succuraale de Poitiers, dars 
 ses d^pfeches du 13 Mars au soir ; ces dcpSches avertissaient le Gouverii(;i.;eut de la 
 Banque de la fuite dc I^mirande, caissier de la dite succursale, et dun deficit en 
 espdces ^valu6 dans le premier moment A. 190,000 francs, Je suis arriv^ A Poitiers, 
 e Mercredi 14 Mars, A 5 heures du soir, et me suis imm^diatement rendu dans les 
 bureaux de la succursale de la Banque, ou M. Bailly, Directeur, M. de Gretry, I'un 
 des censeurs, et plusieurs administrateurs, achevaient la verification de la serre 
 aux espices et de la caisse auxiliaire commenc^e la veille. Toute I'attention ^tait 
 A ce moment concentric sur la caisse courante, celle dans laquelle le caissier puise k 
 son gr6 pour les besoins du service, et la seule dont il ait I'entidre disposition, 
 puisque le Directeur n'en poss^de aucune c!^. 
 
 
1^ 
 
 Ordor 
 
 ;rs, for 
 oiirt. 
 
 of the 
 ar the 
 
 AY 
 
 il. and 
 
 IK. 
 
 Oatre lei vantaux ext^rlenfs qui la prot#gent, cettc caisse en fcr sudivisc en troi« 
 compartimcnts super|)OH(''S, ot fermt-s oliaciiii par un petit volet, t'galemeiit en fcr, et 
 muni (i'uno serrure particuli^re. II y a done Ics cles |)rineipnles, c'est-a-ilire cello* 
 des vantaux ext^rieurs et trois c\6h ditf^renteH pour chacun dos compartimcnts 
 int<!rieur8. 
 
 Or. Lamirandc en partant avuit eii soin de laissor a .M. Queyriaux, tenenr de 
 livres de la siieciirsaie, les d^s nc^-eessaires jwiir ouvrir deux de ces trois com- 
 partimcnts ; celui dti milieu dans iecpicl se trouvait un approvisioniicnicnt en billets 
 de toute coupure et en e8|M^ces suflisant pour fairo face au\ bcsoins dii rcrvice, et 
 celui du has qui sorvait de dt-pdt aux titrcs engai;i'-s pour avances, <>t aux elTets de 
 commerce constituant le portefeuille de la succursalc, Mais la de la plus esscn- 
 tiellc, celle du compartiment supi'-rieur dans letpiel etait enfermce la maftse des 
 billets et dix-»ept sacs d'or de 20,000 francs elia(|ue, n'a\ait pas et6 retrouv6e. 
 Cette particularity 6tait assurOment trt^s-gravc dans les cirrimstanees ou Ton se 
 trouvait, et elle avait fait naitre dans I'esprit de tous des appril'-liensions p<^nibles. 
 La crainte avait augment*!' A mesure t|u'oii avait p.i reconnaitre I'etendue du d6ficit 
 en espuLCs. 
 
 Pour moi, et des mon arrivce. Lamirande otant en fuite depuis quarante-huit 
 heures. et ayant pris la precaucion de laisser toiites scs cles, moins colle du com- 
 partiment qui contcnait prdcisement la r<^8erve des billets qui devait <Hre i peu de 
 chose pr^s de 500,000 francs, il ne |M)uvait Otre doutcux que cette r(^scrve avait 
 disparu, et dans mon esprit Liunirande avait emporte tout ce (lu'il avait pu. 
 
 Je lis forcer Ic vole'; de ce compartiment en presence du ^.lirecteur et de la 
 plupart des administrutejrs, et nous reconnfimes qu'en effet tout avait disparu, 
 moins 40,000 francs en billets de cent francs, et les dix-sept sacs d'or de 20,000 francs 
 qui ^taient en apparence intacts. 
 
 A partir de ce moment, reprenant 4 nouveau le travail commence par le 
 Directeur, assist^ des membres de son conseil, je m'occupai de la verification de la 
 serre aux espices, de la caisse anxiliaire, et ^ie la caisse courantc. Cette verification 
 a 6t& minutieusement faitc par moi, en presence du i irecteur, et k I'aide des 
 gar^ons qui ont peso sous mes yeux toutes les espiV-es d'or et d'argeiit, contenues 
 soit dans la serre soit dans la caisse auxiliairc, soit dans la caisse courante. J'ai 
 compt6 personnellement tous les billets. 
 
 La situation du 12 Mars au soir, la dernierc que tit Lamirandc et(|ui est sigu^e 
 par lui, ne pouvant plus concorder avec ce qui existait on caisse au moment de mon 
 arrivce le 14 au soir, puisqu'il y avait eu pendant les journ^es du 13 et du 14 des 
 entries et des sorties de billets et d'esp^ccs, je fus oblig6 pour ctablir rationnelle- 
 ment et avec certitude le chiffre du deficit, tie constater le mouvemerit de ces deux 
 journ6es ; et je reconnus que le H au soir, les caisses dcvaient contenir ensemble, 
 d'apris les ecritures du Journal et du Grand-Livre de la Succursale, 11,261,533 
 francs 9 centimes, tandis qu'en r^alite les somnies que j'y avals trouv^cs en billets, 
 or, argent ct billon, le tout appartenant i\ la BaiKjue de France, ne s'elevaient qu'i 
 10,557,257 francs 15 centimes, ce qui constituait un deficit total de 704,275 francs 
 1)4 centimes, dont 219,004 francs 30 centimes nian(|uaient en esptices dans la serre, 
 et 485,271 francs 04 centimes manquaient dans la caisse courante, cette dernifire 
 somme presque toute en billets. 
 
 Demande. Les questions que nous allons vous adresscr n'ont certainement pas 
 pour cause un soup^on qui atteindrait M. !»• Directeur. M. Queyriaux, chef de 
 comptabilite, jouit lui aussi d'une reputation intactc ; niais vous venez de dire, et 
 cela ce comprend, que vous n'avez pu faire la situation de la ciisse qu'au moment 
 de votre arrivce. Or, |iendant Ics journccs i!n 13 el du It M. Queyriaux a confondu 
 les fonds qu'il recevait et ceux qu'il touchait d.uis la caisse alteree du caissier 
 Lamirande; d'un autre cote les deux cles Jc la serre luiruicnt etc depuis le lb au 
 soir jusq''au 14, A 4 heures, dans les raOnies mains, contrairement aux r(5glements ; 
 si I'inculpe etait present ne pourrait-il pas rejeter sur d'autres une partie de la 
 responsabilite qu'on fait peser sur lui, et pourrie/.-vor.s nous fournir le moyen de 
 combattre ce systdme de defense ? — Keponse. Ce sy.itenie n'aurait 4 mes yeux 
 aucune valeur. Je reconnais q'"e rigoureusement il est possible Jc dire que le 13 
 au matin, M. Queyriaux, ahusant des fonds qu'il avait a sa disposition par la 
 delegation du Caissier, a pu soustraire de ces fomls (pielques bdlets de cent ct de 
 cinquante francs, puisquec'est lui scul qui a reconnu la |>artie dela caisse courante 
 que lui abandonnait Lamirande, mais j'oppose a ce soup^on d'abord la parfaite 
 honorabilite de M. Queyriaux qui est notoirement etablic, cnsuite le danger iiuqucl 
 il se tieiait expos4 en operant un detuurnemeut quelconque. Eu etliet; le Caissier 
 
 
 3; si 
 
 1!' 
 
36 
 
 A 
 
 
 avail .iiinoncc sun rctour pour fniro sa caissc, tout Ic niondo croyait A w rctour, ct 
 n- n'csl (|ira|ir(^s <|ii:itic licuros, c'cst-i-dire, (juanci Ics operations etaicnt deja doses 
 (ju'on a romriwncr a avoir la certitude dc la fuilc de Lainirande. 
 
 D'aiilcnrs, IVsseiitipl en pareille circonstance estd'avoir un point dc depart cxac-l 
 (jui puisse servir de base a toutes les operations. (|uelles qu'en soient I'importaiire 
 et la diiree. .le ne Jiuis vous assurer que M. (^ucyriaux a eompti tous scs lijlipts 
 el tonics scs espices le \.\ au matin, puisquc je n'y etais pas; mais ce (pic jc puis 
 vous dire, e'est tpie eel emi)loye m'a rcnus une situation dat6e du 13 au matin, 
 di'tiiillce par nature de billets et constatant aussi le nombre dc sacs d'or et d'arpjent, 
 aiiisi <iui' I.' nionnaie d'or et d'arfjenl en rouleaux ct a decouvcrt. Done, pour moi, 
 la reenntiaissaneo des valcurs laissco^ a la dis|)Osition dc M. Queyrianx a etc i'aiic 
 |)ar liii, si non rigourcuscii.ont au nioins tres-approximativement, ct s'il est vrai cle 
 dire (jue les foiuis (pii out servi aux operations dc la succursale pendant les jourriees 
 du \:\ et (111 It out etc pris ou versi^-s dans une caisse altd'rie, il est inexact dc 
 supposer qu'il ail |)U y avoir un trouble ou une confusion queiconquc dans le 
 maniomenl de ecs fonds, doiit les entrees ct les sorties sent d'tablies de la manierc 
 la plus netle el la plus claire par dcs c'criturcs authentiqucs. 
 
 Quant aux cl6s, I'objeetion nc me parait pas plus fondde. Je me suis inrumic 
 de ee qui s'esl passi? relativement a la double c\6 qui ouvre la caisse auxiliairc el la 
 sene, et j'ai su par le t(5moignage de M. Bailly, de M. Qr.cyriaux, et des gaieoiis dc 
 recetlc de la succursale, que le .Mardi soir, la elc dc la porte qui conduit a la caisse 
 auxiliairc ct a la scrre avail 6tv enferni(5e par M. Bailly dans les comparlinienls 
 inf(;ricurs de la caisse couranlc dont M. Qucyriaux, caissier par inltirim, avail 
 emporle la cl^', et (pic ]\I. Bailly, d(5lcnteur de I'autre cU qui ouvre la caisse 
 auxiliairc ct la scrre, avail en outre ferme les volets extf'srieurs qui couvrcnl tons 
 les compartimenls dc la caisse couranlc el en avail gard(; la seconde cli:. 
 
 De cetle fa^on iM. Qucyriaux avail une des cl(58 des trois caisses el M. Baillv 
 les autres. I-e reslcmcnt a done 6t6 parfaitement observ(;. 
 
 D. Voiia savez que plus de 400 sacs de 1,000 francs en ^cus ont 6tv Irouvi^s 
 alter(3s dans la serre ; on avail aussi substitu6 dans des sacs d'or des pieces d'argenl : 
 pouvez-vous faire counaitre votrc appreciation sur la maniire dont les alt(jrations 
 ont eu lieu ? — R. II m'est impossible d'admettre que les alterations des sacs d'arf^snl 
 ont 6t6 commises dans la scrre. II fallait avoir pendant longtemps a sa disposilioii 
 ces sacs pour les vider en parlic ct les rogner, ct on ne laissait jamais Lamiraiide 
 asscz longtemps seul daiis la serrc pour qu'il y puisse consommer cetle operation. 
 Toutes les fraudcs ont du sn commettre dans la caisse m^me oCi Lamirande d(3Jeunail 
 tous les jours. 11 avail d ce moment tout le temps de preparer scs sacs, puisquc le 
 tcneur de livrcs sortait pour dejeuner a la m£me heure, et que les gar^ons nc 
 rentrent jamais avant une heure de I'apr^s-midi. Le bureau du Directeur est separ(3 
 de la caisse par deux vastes pieces ; il pouvait done entendre venir son Directeur ct se 
 cacher. 11 etait (igalcment averti par le bruit des pas et de la porte d'entr<;e qu'il 
 fallait ouvrir, si quelqu'un venait a sa caisse pour payer ou recevoir. 11 pouvait 
 done parfaitement commettre ces alterations dans sa caisse. 
 
 Je crois aussi qu'il lui (Jtait facile de faire transporter les sacs ainsi alt<ir(3s dans 
 la scrre ou dans la caisse auxiliairc. 11 eo-op(3rait souventice transport, (pii devrait 
 n'etre fait que par les garc^onr,. 
 
 II a pu aussi, pendant une operation eirectud'e dans la sene, mettre dans sa 
 poche un sac pr(5pare d I'avance et conlcnant des pieces d'argent, pour le substituer 
 dans la serre ^ un sac intact eontcnanl 10,000 francs en or. Jc me suis assure dc 
 cetle possibility en descendant dans la serre avec un sac dans mes poches pour en 
 rcmonter un autre eontcnanl 10,000 francs en or. 
 
 Quant a la date dcs d(^tourncnients sur Icsquels vous appelez aussi mon attention, 
 je crois que les dctournements en argent sont bien ant(jrieurs aux detournements d'or. 
 Ainsi les sacs alt(5r(!'s se trouvaient dans dcs cases qui ne servaienl plus depuis 
 plusieurs ann^es aux expeditions de fonds. La toilc <-tait pourrie ct il 6tait 
 impossible de les ouvrir et de les refermcr. Probablemcnt que les sacs d'or n'ont 
 6t6 a\t6res que quand il nc lui a plus jiaru possible d'alt(5rer les sJics d'argent. 
 Les sacs d'argent alteres les i)romicis I'ont vt6 il y a peut-6tre quatre ans. Il y a 
 bcaucoup nioins de temps qu'oii a eomuicncii a altt^rcr les sacs d'or. 
 
 D. l«s livrcs tenus jiar Lamirande etaicnt-ils r(iguliers ct au eourant? — R. II 
 y avail un grand (le.sordre dans toute sa comptabilite. Je in'exprime adminislra- 
 tivemcnf, car il nc s'agit que d'invgulaiiles dc forme. Lamirande dcvail tenir un 
 livre intitul(i "Journal de Cais.se," dont les fcuilles sont cotees et paraph(!'cs, et qui 
 doit etrc arrtSti cliaquc soir ou au plus lard le Icndcmain matin. Les Caissicrs 
 
 par 
 
 
^ 
 
 37 
 
 ticanent ordinaircment unc main courantc, qui n'cst autre qu'un livrc 'le caissc 
 provisoire et qu'ils copicnl ensiiitc siir Ir livrc journal |M)ur tonir cc dernier plus 
 
 f»roprement. Or Lnmirnndc, qui dcvnit faire chnquo soir cette oopie, ne I'avait pas 
 aitc dcpuis le mois d'()cti)hre dernier, epocpie du |)assafr,. dc rins|H>cteur. 
 
 II resultc (le tout oe <pie je viens «le dire que Ics soustractions reproch<5es ti 
 Lamirandc remontant h trois ou (pjatre ans : il a du roumir chaciuc jnur jwndant 
 ces trois ou quatre annees unc situation niensontjtre ; ef ii a atteste cetto situation 
 par sa signature, ee (|ui parait const ituerautant de faux en ecriturc de bancpic. 
 Lecture faitc, le temoin a persistc- ct a sign(^ avec nous et le grcflier. 
 La presentc copic transcrite sur liuit r61esetcertifieecxactc par nous soussignd, 
 Juge jlinstruction de I'arrondissemcnt de Poitiers. 
 Poitiers, le 27 Avril, 1866. 
 
 (Sceau) (Signe) JOLLY. 
 
 Vu pour k'galisation de la signature de M. Jolly appos(5e ci-contrc. 
 Pans, le 30 Avril. 1866. 
 
 Par del<;gation du Garde des Sceaux, 
 
 Ministre de la Justice et des Cultes, 
 (Sceau) Le Chef de Bureau, 
 
 (Sign6) CH. MAURAT LAROCHE. 
 
 Aflaircs F'trangi^res certifie veritable la signature de 
 
 Le Ministre des 
 Ch. Maurat Laroche. 
 Paris, le 30 Avril, 
 
 1866. 
 Par autorisation du Ministre, 
 
 Pour le Sous-Dircctcur, Chef de la ChanceUerie, 
 
 (Signe) DUBOIS. 
 
 (Sceau) 
 
 Vu A la Legation des Etats-Unis d'Amdrique A Paris, le 1 Mai, 1860. Bon pour 
 la legalisation de la signature de M. Dubois appos^e ci-contre. 
 
 (Si^-n<5) JOHN HAY, 
 
 (Sceau) Secretaire de Legation. 
 
 Nous, Garde des Sceaux Ministre Secretaire d'Etat de la Justice et des Cultes, 
 certifions veritable la signature de M. Jolly, Juge d'Instruction prOs le Tribunal de 
 Poitiers, lequcl Juge est autorisd, d'apr^s les lois de I'Empire, 4 recevoir les deposi- 
 tions, et k faire prfiter serment aux deposants. 
 
 Paris, le 2 Juin, 1866. 
 
 (Sceau) (Signe) J. BAROCHE. 
 
 Nous, Ministre Secretaire d'Etat au Departement des Affaires Etrangdres de 
 France, certifions veritable la signature de M. Baroche, Ministre Secretaire d'Etat 
 du Departement de la Justice et des Cultes de France. 
 Paris, le 28 Juin, 1866. 
 
 Le Ministre Secretaire d'Etat au Departement des Affaires 
 Etrangires de France, 
 (Sceau) (Signe) DROUYN DE LHUYS. 
 
 Legation of the United States, Paris, Empire of France, 
 June 29, 1866. 
 I, John Bigelow, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of the 
 United States to the Empire of France, do hereby certify that the foregoing deposi- 
 tion is legally and properly authenticated, so as to entitle it to be received in 
 evidence by the tribunals of this country as prescribed by Ihe Act of Congress, 
 approved June 22, 1860. 
 
 (Seal) (Signed) JOHN BIGELOW. 
 
 (D.) 
 Frocks- Verbal de Saisie de Piice A Conviction. 
 
 L'an 1866, et le 29 de Mars : 
 
 Nous, Alexandre Henri Jolly, Juge d'Instruction de I'arrondissement de 
 Poitiers, assiste de M. Gustave Poncin, notre Grefiet" : 
 
 Vu la procedure suivie contre Lamirande, inculpe de detournemei. t au preju- 
 dice de la succursaie de la Banque de France k Poitiers : 
 
 [75] O 
 
 il •:*! 
 
 i 
 
 ,^ 
 
Attondu qu'il rdiultc de I'inHtruction que I'iiiciilpd, en sa quality de caiiBier, 
 signait chaqne jour & quatro hcures, quelqucfois cinq licures, apr^a la cldture dei 
 op^rationn de la aucciirsale un 6t&t <lc situation dc la caissc : 
 
 Que le 12 Mars, 1H66, il a signcj «n «5tat de situation duquel il r(5sultait qup la 
 serrc contenait 830 sacs d'argent dc l,(K)0 francs cliacun, ct 'Mi aacs d'or de lu,(iO0 
 TrancB chacun. Que la caissc nuxiliairo contciiait en billets ot espt^cos 8,810,011 
 francs, et que la caissc courantc contenait, en billets b9'2,30U francs, et en 
 cspdces, 50.'1,700 francs 54 centimes : 
 
 Attcndu que dcs soustractions ont et<^' conimises depuis longtemps dans la 
 serre, et avant la r(l'daction du bordereau dont nous vonons de donner I'analyse, 
 dans la caissc courante ; que pur consequent I'inculp^ a, en sa quality de caissier, 
 a\t6r6 les (5critures de banque ou affirmo par sa signature une situation 
 mensongiire : 
 
 Qu'il importc par consd>qucnt dc saisir ic bordereau dont il s'agit, coninie piticc 
 k conviction : 
 
 Nous nous sommes transportiJ, comnio dit est, A la succursale dc la Bantpie de 
 France, et avons rciju des mains de M. Bailly, Directcur, le bordereau dont il vient 
 d'etre parle, qui a 6t6 s>^n6 nc varietur par lui, nous et notie Greffier. 
 
 Nous avons declare cette pi»ice saisie pour etre depos6e au greffc du tribunal 
 et servir ce que de droit. 
 
 Etaprds lecture nous avons signd- avec M. le Directeur et notre Greffier. Ainsi 
 sign<^ — Baiixy : Jolly, Jugc d'Inst. : Poxcin, Gredicr. 
 
 La pr6sente copie ccrtifiuc conforme k I'original par nous, Juge d'lnstruction 
 soupsignd. 
 
 La prdsente copie, transcrite sur un rdle et demi, est ccrtifiuc cxacte par nous 
 souasigpid, Juge d'lnstruction de I'arrondissement dc Poitiers. 
 
 Poitiers, Te 2G Avril, 18GG. 
 
 (Sceau) (Sign6) JOLLY. 
 
 Vu pour legalisation de la signature dc M. Jolly, appos6c ci-dessus. 
 Paris, le 80 Avril, 186(5. 
 
 L-ar delegation du Garde des Sceaux, 
 
 Ministre de la Justice et des Cultes, 
 (Sceau) Le Chef de Bureau, 
 
 (Signe) CH. MAURAT LAROCHE. 
 
 Le Ministre des Affaires Etrang^res certitie veritable 
 Ch. Maurat Laroche. 
 
 Paris, le 30 Avril, 1866. 
 
 Par autorisation du Ministre, 
 
 Pour le Sous-Directeur Chef de la Chancellerie, 
 (Sceau) (Signe) DUBOIS. 
 
 Vu k laLeeation des Etats>Unis d'Amerique A Paris, le 1 Mai, I8G6. Bon pour 
 la legalisation die la signature de M. Dubois anposee ci-contre. 
 
 (Signe) JOHN HAY, 
 
 (Sceau) Secretaire de Legation. 
 
 la signature de 
 
 Bureau de Police. 
 
 Province du Canada, District de Montreal, 
 Cite de Montreal. 
 
 La denonciation et plainte d'Edme Justin Melin, Inspecteur Principal de 
 Police de la ville de Paris, dans I'Empire Franfais, actuellement dans la cite de 
 Montreal, dans le district de Montreal, prise sous serment ce IGmejourd'Aoflt, dans 
 I'annee de notre Seigneur 1866, par le Soussigne, William H. Brehaut, Ecuyer, 
 Magistrat de Police dans et pour le district de Montreal, lequel declare : — 
 
 Le 17me jour de Mars dernier j'ai ete charge par le Prefet de Police de la ville 
 dc Paris susdite de rechercher et arrfiter un nomme Ernest Sureau Lamirande, 
 caissier dc la succursale de la Banque de France k Poitiers, dans I'Empire Fran9ais, 
 lequel etait place sous le coup d'un mandat d'arrSt, lance par le Juge d'lnstruction k 
 Poitiers susdit, sous Tinculpation de detournement de fonds, au prejudice de la 
 Banque de France, au monta.nt de 700,000 francs. Mes renseignoments me demon- 
 trdrent que le dit Ernest Sureau Lamirande avait quitte la France pour se rendre 
 
ure des 
 
 que la 
 
 810,011 
 et en 
 
 on Anjjieterre. Jc le siiivis lA. ct trouvai son paBBJiRP A Lnndros ct A Liverpool, ou 
 il s'ctait einharcnK- sous le iiom do " Thiliault," li l)or(l dii va|X'ur " Moravian," 
 en destination pour Portland, dans I Ktat <lii Maine, un des Fltats-Unis d'Anicriquo 
 Jc m'embarquni de suite pour les Kt.its-Unis, etj'arrivai a New York Ic 2 Avril 
 dernier. 
 
 Aprils 1 avoir clicrclie i\ New York, il fut dmnivort au Metropolitan Hotel, ct 
 apprehend^ le 9 du dit inois d'Avril. Apr(is son arrestation A New York, comnie 
 susdit, '.in arrOt .le renvoi I'lit cxprdit' par le Procurcuv !nip('>rial A Poitiers au 
 Consul-Gdndral de France A New York, I'accusant, en outre, du detournemcnt dc 
 foncis, de ralsiHcation d'ecriturcs, et de faux en ecriturcs dc commerro, par son 
 bordereau dc situation mensongcr. ct dc iausses cntr(>e» dans les livrcs de la ditc 
 succureale, fraudant par lA la ditc Banquedc France au montant de 700,1)00 francs. 
 Le dit arrdt dc renvoi a i:i6 emane apres unc instruction complete faile par le Juge 
 d'Instruction A Poitiers. 
 
 Pendant sa detention a New York je lui lis de nomiircuses visiles, et il devint 
 tr6s-expansif vis-A-vis de nioi. 11 a plusicurs fois avcjue ct confesse volontaircmcnt, 
 et sans promesscs ni menaces, en ma presence, avoir detournd des fonds au montant 
 su8-mcntionn6 ; ct il m'a m6mc souvent dit comment il s'y prcnait pour sortir les 
 fonds de la banque. Apr6s I'nrrivcc de I'arrt^t de renvoi A New York, jc lui en 
 donnai avis, lui disant qu'il 6tait accuse de plus de faux en dcritures de commTCO 
 par son bordereau de situation, et il me rdpondit. " C'est vrai ; jc lo sais oien." 
 Plusicurs fois depuis il me lit la momc admission, ct toutcs les admissions qu'il m'a 
 faites relativcment aux offenses dcsqucllcs il etait accuse, I'ont Hi s|)ontan6ment 
 ct volontaircmcnt de sa part, et sans aucune promcsse ni aucune menace de ma 
 part pour les obtenir. 
 
 Pendant I'instruction dc son proci^s jjour extradition A New York, le dit 
 Ernest Sureau Lamirande s'est dvadc. II a depuis ct6 arri^td dans la Province du 
 Canada. Je I'ai vu dans la prison commune du district de Montreal. Je I'ai 
 parfaitement rcconnu pour otre le dit Lamirande, ct jc n'ai aucun doutc sur son 
 identitc ; il avait m^me sur lui les mCnies habits qu'il portait le jour qu'il s'cst 
 &v&d6. Le dit Ernest Sureau Lamirande est maintcnant prisonnier dan? le 
 Bureau de Police de la ditc citd de Montreal, ou je fais la pr<5sentc d(;p()sition. A 
 New Y'ork le dit Lamirande a pris le nom de " Dyhers," vcnant do Belgique; mais 
 apr^s son arrestation, et lors de ma secondc visitc, il a rcconnu qu'il ^-tait bicn 
 Lamirande. J'accompagnais alors M. le Consul-(i6n^ral Gauticr Hoilcau. 
 
 Fourquoi je demande justice, et j'ai sign6, lecture faite. 
 
 (Si^ni) MELIN. 
 
 Asscrmenti!; par dcvant moi A Montreal, le G Aout, 18G6. 
 (Sign6) W. H. BuEHAUT, P.M. 
 
 La prdccdente deposition ayant 6t& lue en presence dn prisonnier, Ernest 
 Sureau Lamirande, demandc lui est faite s'il desire poser des (|uestions au 
 ddposant, et il rdpond qu'il desire poser au tdmoin les questions suivantes par son 
 Conseil, Mr. Doutre: — 
 
 Question. Avec la quality que vous vous ^tes donndc, n'avez-vous pas cello 
 aussi d'cspion de la police secrete ; c'est-A-dire d'espion pay<; ? 
 
 [Mr. Ramsay, de la part de la Couronne, s'cbjecte A la question. Objection 
 maintenue.] 
 
 Q. D'aprds les lois Fran^aises n'est-il pas vrai que I'espion paye pourle service 
 de la police secrete, ou en d'autres termes le ddnonciateur p6cuniairemcnt recom- 
 pense par la loi, ne pent pas etre tdmoin dans les cas ou il agit dans cette quality ? 
 
 [M6me objection. Objection maintenue.] 
 
 Q. N'est-il pas vrai que par I'Article 322 du Code d'Instruction Criminelle de 
 France, paragraphe 6, les depositions des denonciateurs dont la denonciation est 
 recompenses pecuniairemeut par la loi, ne peuvent 6tre re9ue3 ? 
 
 [M6me objection. Objection maintenue] 
 
 Q. Par qui ave«-vou8 ete employe pour suivre les traces du prisonnier? — 
 R. Par le Prefet de Police. 
 
 Q. Quel est votrc traitement pour les fonctions que vous remplissez actuelle- 
 ment en Amerique, et specialement en Canada? — R. Mon traitement fixe est le 
 mfime que si j'etais A Paris. J'ai aux Etats-Unis un credit ouvert chez un banquier. 
 Je depcnse ce dontj'ai besoin, et A ma rentrde en France je ferai Ic compte de 
 mes d^penses A la Prefecture, comme cela se fait toujours. 
 
 G 2 
 
 Bi ■■.■ ■ 
 
 fe jil 
 
40 
 
 |i 
 
 Q. Quelle (lifTidrencc y aura-t-il dans vns Emoluments si vous rdussissce ou ne 
 r^uuissez pas k amcner le prisonnicr en France ? — R. Aucune. 
 
 Q. Ou Ic prisonnier sc trotivait-il 4 New York, lorsquc vous ditcs lui avoir fait 
 les visitcs mentionn(!lcs dans votre examen en chef? — R. A la prison de Ludlow. 
 
 Q. Le prisonnicr connaissait-il alors en quelle qualitu vous vous trouviez 4 New 
 York ?—R. Oui. 
 
 Q. Aviez-vous jamais ronnu le prisonnier avant d'allcr ik New York A sa 
 recherche?—/?. Non, 
 
 Q. N'est-il pas vrai que ie prisonnier a recuse et recuse actuellement votrc 
 t^moignage ? 
 
 [Object^; de lu part de la Couronne. Objection maintcnue.] 
 
 Q. Y a-t-il actuellement iri queiqu'un muni d'un mandat d'arr6t <5nianant do 
 quelque Cour ou Tribunal dc France I 
 
 [MOme objection. Objection maintenue.] 
 
 Q. Aviez-vdus A New York entre les mains, ou queUiu'autre dans I'int^rdt du 
 Gouvernement Fran9ais avait-il entre les mains, un mandat d'arrfit ou autre aclc 
 judiciaire (^-quivalcnt imani d'un .luge ou d'une autorit^ conipctentc en France ; et si 
 tel est le cas, dites do quelle offense le prisonnier «5tait accusi? — R. J'<5tais porteur 
 d'une dijp^che tiiliSgraphicjue de M. le Procureur Impi^rial A Poitiers au Pi6fet dc 
 Police A Paris, ce qui Equivaut A un mandat d'arrfit. Mais en outre j'dtais porteur 
 d'un mandat d'arrfit decerne par M. Jolly, Juge d'Instruction A Poitiers, ou Lami- 
 raude 6tait inculp<5 de detourriement de fonds au prejudice de la Banque de France. 
 II n'y avait que cette accusution-IA sur le mandat dont j'^tais muni. Plus tard 
 il est arriv6 un arrfit dc renvoi qui inculpait Lamirandc de faux. 
 
 Q. Que sont devenus ces documents ? — R. Ces documents sont restes aux Etats- 
 Unis. 
 
 Q. Dans les visites qut jus avez faitcs A Lamirande A New York, lui avez-vous 
 dit que son pdre et son frire avaient et<5 arrdtes en consequence des faits (jui dtaient 
 reproch^s A Lamirandc et pour lesquelles il Etait arr6t(5 A New York ? — R. Je lui ai 
 dit en effet (|ue j'avais appris que son p^re et son fr<ire 6taient arrfit^s. 
 
 Q. Qu'y avait-il de vrai dans ce que vous lui disiez relativement A son p^re et 
 A son Irdre .' — R. On me I'avait dit en quittant la France, mais je ne I'affirmais pas 
 en parlant A Lamirande. J'ai su depuis que le fr^re scul aurait 6te arr6t6. 
 
 Q. Quand avez-vous appris que le p6re n'avait pas 6t6 arr6td? — R. Je n'ai 
 jamais appris que le ptire ne I'avait pas ^t^. 
 
 Q. Dites-vous que 'ien n'a detruit chez vous la croyance que le pfire avait ete 
 arrSte ? — R. Rien n'a d6truit ma croyance. 
 
 Q. D'apr^s ce que vous savez par vos correspondances, avec Poitiers ou aucune 
 autre partie de la France, pr^tendez-vous dire que rien n'a affect6 chez vous 
 I'information dont vous parlez plus haut comme vous ayant ete communiqude avant 
 votre depart de France relativement A I'arrestation du pere et du frtire de Lami- 
 rande ? — R. Je n'ai jamais appris ofticiellement I'arrestation non plus que la mise 
 en liberty. 
 
 Q. N'avez-vous pas dit plus tard A Lamirande que ni son pdre ni son fr^re 
 n'avaient pas et<5 arrfit^s? — R. Non. 
 
 Q. Avez-vous jamais etd muni d'un mandat d'arr^t EmanE sous I'autoritE du 
 Procureur Imp<irial de Poitiers, ou avez-vous vu tel mandat ? — R. Je n'ai pas eu 
 d'autres documents que ceux que j'ai mentionn^s plus haut. 
 
 Q. Combien de temps avant I'Epoque que vous dites que Lamirande s'est 6vad6 
 avez-vous regu I'arr^t de renvoi ? — R. Je ne sais pas. 
 
 Q. Quand pr^tendez-vous que le prisonnier s'est dvad^ de New York l—R. Je 
 crois que c'est le 3 Juillet. 
 
 Q. Q ?lle connaissance avez-vous de I'instruction qui a pr^c^dd I'Emanation de 
 dfi I'arrfet de renvoi ? — R. Aucune. 
 
 Q. Dans les visites que vous avez faites A Lamirande A New York, lui avez- 
 vous parlE de ce que le Consul ferait pour lui s'il retournait en France ? — R. Le 
 Consul-G^n^ral, la premiere fois que nous sommesallEs ensemble voir Lamirande, et 
 oil il a reconnu Hre bien Lamirande, lui a dit que s'il retournait volontairement en 
 France il Ecrirait A ses Juges pour les int^resser A sa position, et il a donne sa 
 parole d'honneur qu'il partirait. Je lui ai moi-m6me souvent parlE dans le m^me 
 sens et lui ai donn^ le conseil de rentrer en France. Je lui disais que s'il rentrait 
 volontairement comme il le promettait, M. le Consul-G^n^ral dcrirait ce qu'il avait 
 dit, et que moi, dans ma deposition orale A Poitiers, devant la Cour d'Assises, je 
 lui serais agr^able. Ces conversations ont eu lieu dix, douze, quinze, ou vingt fois. 
 
41 
 
 ou ne 
 
 koir fait 
 low. 
 lANcw 
 
 |k a 8a 
 
 fit votrc 
 
 laiit cie 
 
 Lo Icndemain ou iwut-^tro Ic jour mt'^mc dc son arrrstation, Ics conversations du 
 genre quo jc vicns de rapportcr out cu lieu entre Lamiramio et rmi. A u»e 
 certainc (>|>o(|ue apri^s que la proc<5dure en extradition eut etc C()mmenc(5e, j'ai 
 continue de voir Lamirande, et un jour il me dit: Jc ne puis plus parlor avec vous 
 de mon affaire, parlous d'autres choses ; et en ellet nous avons paric d'autres clioses. 
 Durant cette proc<5duro, j'ai un jour ccsso compk-tement dc lo visiter. .le no le 
 voyais plus qu'i\ I'audicncc, ou jc n'avais aucune cor 'crsation avec lui. 
 
 Q. Combien dc temps avant son Evasion avez-vous cosse de le visiter '—J?. Je 
 nc puis pas dire. 
 
 Q. Peut-il sVtre ecoulc un mois aussi bien (|ue huit jours entrr le mcmient ou 
 vous avc7. cesse dc le visiter et celui de son evasion ? — K. Je ne puis pas dire ; il 
 |)eut y av(»ir quiiiKC jours, il |MJUt y avoir huit jours. Jc ne puis pas prcciscr. 
 
 Q. Qiiand vous avez cesse de le visiter avait-il jamais et6 qMcstion do I'accuscr 
 dc faux, et comment ?— li. Oui ; je lui avais dit on prison qu'il etait accuse de fiux 
 par son bordereau dc situation ainsi que I'arret dc renvoi le disait, et il en est 
 convenu, et il a mOme clicrch6 a donncr uiic cx|)lication a I'iiitcrprctntioii du mot 
 "faux." 
 
 Q. Veuilioz rapportcr aussi exactcment que possible ce que Lamirande vous a 
 dit relativement a son bordereau de situation ? — R. II n'a pas etc question entre 
 nous dc son bordereau dc situation, je lui ai dit: Vous otcs inculpe de faux en 
 ccritures de commerce. Comment comprcnd-t-on le faux ? me ilit-il. .Ic lui dis alors : 
 Par votre bordereau dc situation mensonj2;er que vous avez signc le jour dc votrc 
 depart. Alors il me dit : Ce n'est pas un faux comme la loi le veut. C'est la cc 
 qu'il y a de plus saillant dans la conversation que j'ai cue avec Lamirande. 
 
 Q. Lui avez-vous dit en quoi Ton prctcn(lait (pie son bordereau de situation 
 etait mensonger et faux ? — R. Kn 6non^ant dessus qu'il cxistait dans les caisscs dc 
 la banque une sommc de "00,000 francs qu'il emportait. Cost ainsi que cela 
 m'avait etc dit et que je I'ai r»5p(5t<5 Ji Lamirande. Je n'ai pas vu son bordereau do 
 situation. 
 
 Q. Cette conversation a-t-cUc eu lieu avant ou apres I'arrivec de I'arrdt de 
 renvoi? — 11 en a probablement etc question avant, mais il en a ccrtainemcnt etc 
 question apriis. J'avais re^u des lettrcs qui me I'annonyaient, c'est-A-dire, qu'il ^tait 
 inculp^ de faux. 
 
 Q. Le Consul-Gcncral de Krance a New York n'c^-t-il pas dit a Lamirande 
 devant vous, qu'il nc pesait contre lui aucune accusation de faux et (|u'il nc pouvait 
 fetre puni que d'emprisonnenient l—R. Quand jai vu Lamirande avec iM. le ConsuU 
 G6n('.\u\, c'^tait le lendemain de son arrestation, et il etait Evident que nous ne 
 connaissions pas qu'il existait unc accusation de faux ; done on ne pouvait pas en 
 parler, et je ne me rappelle pa.s que M. le Consul-Gt-ncral ait parle d'emprisonne- 
 ment. 
 
 Q. Savez-vous si dans hi manit^re dont le directeur de I..amirande rend compte 
 des faits reproch6s k Lamirande il est question d'accusor ce dernier dc faux? — 
 R. Je n'ai jamais lu ni entendu lire cette piece. 
 
 Q. D'apies ce que vous a dit Lamirande, son bordereau de situation aurait-il 
 6t6 vrai et exact si Lamirande n'avait pas emporte 700,000 francs ? — R. Je ne puis 
 pas r^pondre & cela, mais si les 700,000 francs fussent restds U, il ne se scrait pas 
 sauv6 et nous ne courrions pas amis lui. 
 
 Q. D'apr^s ce que Lamirande vous a dit, qu'est-ce que le bordereau de situa- 
 tion aurait dii contenir pour n'Atre pas mensonger et faux? — R. II n'a pas et^ 
 question de cela entre nous. 
 
 Q. De qnelles ecritures de commerce parliez-vous k Lamirande quand vous lui 
 disiez qu'il dtait inculpe defaux? — R. Je lui disais qu'on I'inculpait de faux en ce 
 qu'il avait falsifie ses Ventures et fait un faux bordereau de situation. 
 
 Q. En quoi lui disiez-vous qu'il avait falsifie ses ccritures?— ft. Je lui disais 
 simplement qu'il avait falsifid ses Ventures, sans lui dire en quoi il les avait falsifiees, 
 parce que je n'avais pas re^u d'autres informations. 
 
 Q. Qu'est-ce que Lamirande disait d cela ? — R. J'aurais bien de la peine d le 
 dire, je ne me le rappelle pas. 
 
 Q. Lamirande a-t-il jamais recon"u devant vous autre chose que ce qui suit: 
 Que la somme de 700,000 francs qu'il avait enlev6e ^tait portee dans son bordereau 
 cumme 4tant dans la caisse de la banque, et qu'elle ne se trouvait pas Id vu qu'il 
 I'avait enlevd-e? — R. Quand je lui ai dit quil ^tait inculp^ de faux, il en eat 
 convenu. 
 
 , t 
 
 sf il 
 
 f, ■■si I 
 
i^i 
 
 Q. Qu'est-cc qu'il n reconnu ?•—/?. Quand jc lui aiditqu'il ^tait inculp6 de Taux 
 par son bordereau de Hituation il a r^iiundu : Jc lo aais bien. 
 
 Q, En qtioi hod bordereau de situation Tinculpnit-il do raux,d'aprditccque vour 
 lui (liaies ? — R. Jc I'igiiorc ; jc no coiinni»HaiH qu'uno choHC, ton inculpation, ct jo lui 
 en ai d<inn6 connaiasnnee. 
 
 Q. D'apri^s lex inlbrmntions (|U0 vouh avicz revues et quo vous comtnuniquicz k 
 Lamirande, etait-il question d'autres choscs que de Houstraclion do la lommc de 
 700,000 francs dont vouh nvez parK:? — K. Qui, il 6tait (]uc8tion de I'accusation de 
 faux. 
 
 Q. Cetto accusation do faux uvait-ello rapport it, cctte somme d'argcnt ? — 
 R. C'est un crime it part. 
 
 Q. La Bomine d'urgent cii (luestion a-t-ollo quelquc rapport phis ou moins 
 direct avec cette somme d'argent f — R. Pour nioi I'une d^jcoulc de I'autre. 
 
 Q. D'apri^s les informations qui vous ont guid<) dans touto cette affaire, le 
 bordereau dc situation fourni par lamirande lors de son depart soraiuil faux 
 si la somme dc 700,000 francs utait r6int6^;ree dans les caisscs Jc la Hanquc de 
 Poitiers ? 
 
 [Object<5 k cette question <le la part de la Couronne. Objection renvoy(5e.] 
 
 R, Quand I'argcnt serait r(jintcgrc dans la caisso lo faux, oxisterait la m6me 
 chose. 
 
 Q. Alors on quoi consistait le faux ? — R. Pour moi, ct d'apris les renseignc* 
 ments que j'avais regus, c'est do faire figurer sur son bordereau de situation qu'il a 
 8ign6 et qui est une pi(^ce ofbcielle, une somme comme cxistant dans la caisso et 
 dans les serres et n'y existant pas. 
 
 Q. Est<ce l&cc (|ue Lamirande a reconnu devant vous, ou est^e autre chose ? — 
 R. Pour moi, Lamirande a reconnu avoir fait un faux. 
 
 Q. S'est-il agi, cntre Lamirande ct vous, lorsque vous parliez de faux, d'autre 
 chose que de faire flgurer sur son bordereau de situation une somme comme existant 
 dans la caissc ct (Tans les serres, ct qui n'y existait pas ? — R. Oui, nous avons 
 caus6 des registres aussi. 
 
 Q. Que s'est-il dit & propos des registres ? — R. Je lui ai dit qu'on I'inculpait de 
 falsificati(m d'^critures en outre du bordereau de situation. 
 
 Q. De quelles <^>criturcs s'agissait-il? — R. On nc m'a jamais donnd de details. 
 Je ne connaissais que Tinculpation. 
 
 Q. Que s'est-il dit entre Lamirande ct vous relativement k ces ^critures ? — R. Je 
 dirai toujours la m6me chose. Nous ne parlions que de I'inculpation. Je ne 
 pouvais pas lui donner de ddtails. Je n'cn connaissais pas. II le reconnais* 
 ■ait. 
 
 De consentement cette cause est continu6e k domain k onze heures du matin pour 
 plus ample transquestiondu t^'moin par le prisonnicr. 
 
 Montreal, le 6 Aout, 1866. 
 
 (Sign6) W. H. BREHAUT, P. M. 
 
 Avenant ce jourd'hui le 7me jour d'AoCit dans I'ann^ de Notre Seigneur 1866, 
 le d^posant susnomm^ et d^sign6 comparait de nouveau devant le Soussign^, 
 William H. Brchaut, Ecuycr, Magistrat de Police dans et pour le District de 
 Montreal, et ^tant ri-as8erment6 en presence du prisonnier, Ernest Sureau Lami- 
 rande, la transquestion du dit d^posant est continude comme suit : — 
 
 Q. Quand vous avez parl<3 de falsification d'^critures k Lamirande, s'agissait-il 
 d'^critures concernant. la somme d'argent qui manquait dans la caisse de la banque 
 apr^s son ddpart? — R, C'est mon avis qu'il s'agissait de cola. 
 
 Q. D'apr^s les informations que vous communiquiez k Lamirande aprds les 
 avoir' regues vous-mdme, reprochait-on au registre tenu par Lamirande la m6me 
 irregularity que I'on reprochait k son bordereau de situation, ou quelque chose de 
 diff(§rent? — R. J'ai dcj4 dit que je n'avais point eu de details sur la manidre dont 
 proc^ait Lamirande, que seulement j'avais ^t^ inform^ de falsification d'^critures 
 et de faux en ^critures de commerce par son bordereau de situation. 
 
 Q. Avez-vous jamais dit k Lamirande qu'on lui reprochait des alterations 
 d'^critures ou de chiffres doit dans les registres soit dans son bordereau de situa- 
 tion ?—R. Pour moi, alt4ratiou ou falsification signifie la m6me chose. J'ai pu me 
 servir des deux mots dans mes conversations avec lui. 
 
 Q. Veuillez pr^ciser ce que Lamirande a reconnu devant vous et dans quels 
 
m 
 
 Faux 
 
 rouR 
 lui 
 
 fcz h 
 
 cJe 
 do 
 
 ?— 
 
 loins 
 
 le 
 piaux 
 |C de 
 
 termei il I'a rnitr— R. Quaiid J'ai dit i\ Lnmirnndo qii'il ^tait inculpi en outre de 
 ddtournemciit, de faux on ucnturcs do commerce, il m'u rdpondu : C"e«t vrai, je 
 tais bien. 
 
 Q. A qiioi s'appliqiiaicnt Ics nnrolcH do Lnmirande, " (ri-st vmi, je le tail 
 bien?' — /^ Pi)iir nioi, jc siiis mornlonieiit coiuaincu (|iic cctto r<^|M)nBC voulait dire, 
 qu'il Bc reconnaiKsnit cnupal)lc dii fnil. 
 
 Q. Rap|«irto/, en queln tormcs Lnmirniido a discutd avoc voiis lo raract^re de 
 I'oflense qui noiivait rcsidter des laits qn'im lui rcpiuchait ? — R. Lamirnndo a 
 pr^tendu quo Ic faux (|ui lui 6tait repruclxi n'd'tait paa cehii que la loi caractdrisait 
 ainsi, 
 
 Q. I)e quels arguments se servnit-il puur repousser la qualiflcatiun de faux 
 comnie apnlicabie i\ scs actcsi' — R. Je ne pense pas (|ue nous ayons disout(?. Je ne 
 me rappelie bien que de coci, c'est que Lamiran<le a prtitendu que le faux duquci il 
 £tait inculp6 n'titait pas colui caracteris6 par la ioi. 
 
 Q. Quelle raison donnaiuil pour dire (|ue sen actrs ne ronstituaient pas le faux 
 caract^ris^ par la loi? — R. Je crois, ma is je ne I'atKrme pas, (pie l<amirande 
 pr^tendaitque le faux utait uno fausso signature, tandis quo la siennc C'tait vraie. 
 
 Q. A»ei-vou9 cu. tant d New York qu'A Montr6al, dcs consultations avcc oeux 
 qui dirigeaient la poursuitc sur lo caractdro A donner d I'accusation que Ton 
 entendait porter contro Lamirande 7 — R. A New ^'ork, oul; mais a Montreal, non. 
 Mail d New York la question de faux on n'en a jamais parl6, parce que lo fait de 
 d^tournement rcnt'-ait dans lo Traitd, bien que I'arriit de renvoi qui a iti remia 
 entre les mains de M. le Jugo Commissairo Hotts portocetto inculpation. 
 
 Q. Avei-vous ou d Montreal des conversations dans lesquelles on vous a oxpliqu6 
 pourquoi I'inculpation n'dtait pas la ni^mc ici qu'd Now York ? — R. II ^t tit inutile 
 qu'on me I'oxplique. Je la connaissais d Londres, en Angleterre, od jc suis all^ 
 souvent pour des extraditions; je connaissais Ic Traits qui existait entre la France 
 et cette Puissance et ses Colonies. II a 6te question do toute I'aifaire de Lamirande 
 entre les avocats de la poursuite et moi ; nous avons lu le Trait6 qui cxiste entre 
 I'Angleterrc et la France, et je n'avais pas besoin qu'on me I'oxplique, je le 
 connaissais bien d'avance. 
 
 Q. A-t-il 6t4 question entre vous des moyens d prendre pour donner aux faita 
 la couleur d'un faux ? — R. Non. 
 
 Q. Les avocats de la poursuite ne vous ont-iU pas dit qu'il n'y avait aucun 
 moyen dans cc paysde baser une accusation de faux sur lesfaits que Ton reprochait 
 d Lamirande ? — R. Avant de voir les avocats de Montreal, j'dtais aWf: d Quebec, oil 
 ^.'lans le conseil de pcrsonne j'ai fait un uflidavit inuulpant Lamirande de faux ; par 
 consequent je savais ce qu'il y avait d faire avant de voir les avocats de Montreal. 
 Les avocats de la poursuite d JVlontr(^>al nc m'ont pas dit qu'il n'y avait aucun moyen 
 dans ce pays de baser une accusation dc faux sur les faits que Ton reprochait d 
 Lamirande. 
 
 Q. Pourquoi I'accusation de faux n'a-t-elle pas eu de suite u New York, lorsque 
 I'arrSt de renvoi la contenait ? — R. Probablement parce quo I'inculpation de ddtourne- 
 ment de fonds suffisait. 
 
 Q. L'accusation de faux n'a-t-elle pas 6t6 abandonn6e h New York sur I'avis 
 dea hommes de loi qui la d^claraient incompatible avec les faits, et cela n'a-t-il 
 pas 6l6 constat*^ par le Commissaire Betts f — R. Je n'ai jamais entendu parler de 
 cela. 
 
 Q. Veuillez donner la substance de ce que vous avez d6clar^ dans Taffldavit 
 
 France il ^tait inculp6 de ddtournement de fonds d'une sommc de 700,000 franca 
 au prejudice de la Banque dc France d Poitiers ; que de plus il 6tait inculpd de 
 falsification d'^critures et de faux en ^critures de commerce par son bordereau de 
 situation. 
 
 Q. Si la somme de 600,000 francs out 6ti enlev(5 - de la Banque de Poitiers 
 par qn autre que Lamirande, existait-il qUelque chose pour vous justifier de dire 
 que son bordereau de situation 6tait faux ? — R. II existait ceci, I'arrfit de renvoi 
 qui rincnlpait. 
 
 Q. Existait-il quclque chose dans la conduite de Lamirande qui cQt mia en 
 doute la v^rite de son bordereau de situation, si la somme d'argent eut 6t6 prise par 
 ria autre ? — R. Je I'ignore. 
 
 Q. D'aprds ce que vous connaissez du Traitd entre la France et I'Angleterre, 
 
 J 
 1 
 
 
44 
 
 
 
 m 
 
 poll vex- vniiN dire quelle (\»rvc ilnit nvnir cc Trtiit*' ot comment on pent y incttre fin ? 
 
 li^ ParHiiite<lecirc()iistan('i-s<|iiejf neconiiais paHJc Ci(Mi\<THoment de rF'.mpcrcur 
 
 (l«'H Frnnrais a t\6iwnr6 uu (Jdnverncment AnglaiH (pie If 'I'rnitr ilevait prendre 
 fin Ic ler Juiii, IWii), niaiii le(;i)nveriiemeiit Anglain a (iemaiuie i\ ce (pi'il soit continue'' 
 jusqn'A eecpi'un iiouveau Traite Koit fait. 
 
 Q. I)'apr«"'s la loi l<'ranc;aise (piel est le crime Ic pins grave, du dc-toiirnement do 
 fondti oil du faux, ct ijucl est ceiiii qui entraine la peine la plus st'vt^rc ? R. l.v 
 faux, i^-vidcmment. 
 
 Q. D'apri^s les conversations ipie vous avcz cues avec Lamirande, qu'est-ce 
 qu'il reconnaissait Hro faux; ^;tait-ce son bordereau dc situatitin ou la caisse?— . 
 H. Jc crois ipi'il reconnnit faux la falsification des ('•critures et aussi son bordereau 
 de situation. 
 
 [Le |)ri8onnier (k'clare par son Conseil.M. Doutre, n'avoir pas d'autres questions 
 A poser au t^moin. 
 
 M. I'ominville, pour la poursuite, pose an t<^-moin lu question suivantc en 
 r<l'-examcn.] 
 
 Q. Dans les t.ansqucstions qui vous ont iti posees de la jiart du prisonnicr 
 vous avez parl<5 d'une conversation que le Con8ul-(Jen<5ral avait euc avec le 
 prisonnier ct qu'il liii aurait (lit, "(pic s'il retournait volontaircment en France, 
 il «5crirait t\ sen .luges pour les int«5re8ser A sa position, et il a donne sa parole 
 d'honneur <pi'il partirait ;" vciiillcK dire A la suite de quelle conversation entre 
 le Consul -GiSiK^ral et le prisonnier le Consul-General a ainsi \mr\6. — R. Quand 
 nous somm 's arrives inoi et M. le Consul-G(^n6ral et M. Beranger, V ice-Consul, A la 
 prison de Ludlow, on nous fit cntrer dans unc petite pitiec ; 1 individu a ^jte amcne 
 
 Kris de nous ; M. le Consul-G(5n<;ral lui a dit : Est-ce vous qui fttes Lamirande ? Oui, 
 [onsicur. Vous Hicv. caissier A Poitiers ? Oui, Monsieur ; et je connais ma position, 
 mon intention n'est pas de r(5sister aux lois de mon pays. Alors M. le Consul- 
 G6n6ra\ lui a dit : Ce n'est pas une visitc officiclle que jc vous fais, elle est toute de 
 bienveillancc ct commeConsul-G6n6ral. Jedois m'int<5resser A tons ines nationaux, 
 et puis que vous ne voulez pas r(^-sister, ecrivez-moi un mot par lequel vous vous 
 mettrez A ma disposition ; alors j'6crirai A vos Juges pour les intciresser A votre 
 
 Eosition, car d'apri^s ce que m'a dit M. Melin, votre famille est honordc et 
 onorable. 
 
 La poursuite d(5clare n'avoir pas d'autres questions A poser en re-examen et cet 
 examen est cons6quemment clos. Et le dit ddposant a sign(^-. 
 
 (Sign6) MELIN. 
 
 Prise et reconnue devant moi, A Montreal, le 7 Aout, 1866. 
 (Sign6) W. H. Brehaut, P.M. 
 
 Bureau de Police. 
 
 Province du Canada, District de Montreal. 
 
 La deposition de Louis L^once Coudert, Ecuyer, Avocat de la ville de New 
 York, dans I'Etat de New York, un des Etats-Unis d'Amdrique, actuellement dans 
 la cite de Montreal, dans le district de Montreal, prise sous serment ce 7roe jour d'AoAt, 
 dans I'annee dc Notre Seigneur 18G6, au Bureau de Police dans le Palais de Justice, 
 dans la cit6 de Montreal, dans le district de Montreal susdit, par le Soussigne, 
 William H. Brehaut, Ecuyer, Magistrat de Police dans et pour le district de 
 Montreal, en presence d'Ernest Sureau Lamirande, ci-devanl de Poitiers, dans 
 I'Empire Fran9ais, qui est maintenant accuse devant moi, sur plainte portee devant 
 moi, sous serment, en vertu des dispositions de la Convention entre Sa Majeste la 
 Reine du Royaume Uni de la Grande Bretagne et d'Irlande et Sa Majeste le Roi 
 des Fran9ais, et des statuts faits et pourvus A cet effet, d'avoir commis A Poitiers, 
 dans rjimpire Fran^ais, le crime suivant mentionne dans et prevu par la dite 
 Convention entre Sa Majeste la Reine et le dit Roi des Fran9ais, savoir : — 
 
 D'avoir le dit Ernest Sureau Lamirande commis le crime de faux, en ayant, en 
 sa qualite de caissier de la succursale de la Banque de France A Poitiers, fait de 
 fausses entrees dans les livres de la dite Banque et par ce moyen fraude la dite 
 banque de la somme de 700,000 francs. 
 
 Le deposant Louis Leonce Coudert depose et dit comme suit : — 
 
 Je connais le prisonnier depuis plusieurs mois. Je I'ai fait arr^ter d'abord 
 comme Sureau Lamirande, quoiqu'il se fut fait passer d'abord sous le nom de 
 
lin? 
 jcur 
 Id re 
 
 |llU(' 
 
 (Jc 
 Lc 
 
 l-ce 
 \f 
 
 cau 
 
 ins 
 
 en 
 
 45 
 
 Tl)iel);iiilt. rnsuit<> sous lo nmn <!»• nvhcr.'*. Jf I'ai atla(|i;r v\\ rxtrailition ot I'ai 
 fait niinparaitic dcxatit I- ('(imMiihsairi- Mctts, <m vrrlii iriiii manilat t'maiu- tin 
 I'lt'siciirit lies Klats-L'nis a la ir(|iiisiti<iii ilii (iiHivcrrn'inrnt rraiiriis. Lo jour do 
 SI coiniianitiDU dm ant Mr. Il( tts. en iv|>()ms(> aii\ »|ii«sti()ns prt'liniiiiain's il dri-lani. 
 oil |iliiti)t sdii avdcat drdari |>(iiir iiii i-t on sa prt'si-nrp, (|iii- son noni I'-lait 
 Siircaii Kainirandc. a;;i'. jc n-i)is, (lc 11 on 12 ans, mais jc nc snis pan cxactcnicnt 
 siir dc lVii4!\ .1',' I'att upiais anssi civilcnicnt sons lc imni di Snican l.aniirandc. 
 Son pii'iioni ctait Krncst, cl il y cm avail [)'nl"ctic il'anlris. L'ohjcl dc la ponrsnite 
 «i\ilc rl.iit <\c rcconvrcr la soinnic dcloiiinrc an monfarit dc 'JUO.ddO dollars. II ftit 
 assi'.'^nr |)crsoiuirllcni( nl s..iis lc noni dfSnrcan l..iniir.Midc, cl snr ccttc assiijnalion 
 il cDiMp.Hut pnr asocal, mil tine drfcnsc, lc tout ctant dc\ant nno ('our «l(« Jnridie- 
 tion coni|)ctcnlc. cL dans ccltc cause il fni condamm' contr.idictoircnicnt en •JOU.noo 
 dollars coinnio clant hicn Snrcau l.ian>iraiidc. .Fc lc vis anssi pcrsonncllcnicnt 
 plnsicnis (uis. la premiere Ibis lc !• .\vril, iMliii, jonr <>u il fnt arr(Mc ; d'alxird an 
 .Metropolitan Hotel, mais la jc no I'd ni pas ])arle, ct ensuiic dans lc I.ndlow-stroet 
 (iaol (ie la viilc de New N'ork, lors(pi'il nn- ric(Miiiut maintes fuis son idcntilc. II 
 ni'a proniis hiin sonveiit de rentrer vulontaircnu'iit on Krancc, m'a pric do nc puH 
 cnlainer do ponrsnite on extradition contro Ini on nie disant : " La Uancpii' ;i hicn t\sw7, 
 |)crdn par nioi, sans <pie Jc Ini I'assc perdrc autre «'liose." La prendcrc I'ois (pu- je ini 
 ai parlc, oVtait Ie jonr do son nrresfation. .!(> I'avais trace personnellonicnt nioi- 
 nu^ino, dc Portlainl a New York ; d'ahord il nio dit (pi'il no savait pas oc dont jc 
 parlais, ct en Ini parlant de I'att'airo jc lin mentionnai ee (pic n/avait dit lo ConsuU 
 (i«''ncral on M. .Mclin. <|uc son pcrc etait arrcd'. lime dit (pio co n'etait pas vrai, 
 que ca no poiivait pas ctre, (pi'il etait nste i\ New York plus lon!2;t!Mnps (pi'il no lo 
 prnsait. dans I'ospoir dc voir dcs jonrn.inx dc France, ct d'y trouvor les ditails d(! 
 I'iiirairc ot savoir si Ton trouvcrait sa i'aniill(\ Ccla parut Ini I'airc hcanconp do 
 peine; il pleura nicme, ct oidln so reeonnni coinnie t'tant rcellemont la pcr.>on!ie tpic 
 je ciierchais, c'ost-a-diro, Suroan Lamirandc, oaissicr (\c la l'>an(pic do Franco A 
 Poitiers. Jc Ini dis anssi que j'avais (rouvc a Quchcc un .M. Valin, ancpn-l il avail 
 remis (!,(!()() (rancs dc; l'ar;;eiit vole, ct (pir cc .M. Valin ctail oxcessi\cn)ent clia;;rine 
 do so tronvor on possession dc cos fonds-IA. II nie dit (pic .M. Valin n'cn connais- 
 sait pas Torigino ct (]uc lui scnl ctait conpable. .lc dois ajoutor (pic je lis saisir 
 an.ssi k Xcw York, dans lc |iroc(^s civil cl on vertn du jngomcnt conlrc Ini. en 
 I'avcnr dc la Bantine de Franco, environ !.'].').( ()0 francs, jc erois (pie e'cst la somino 
 cxacte. Jc 1 jii vu on outre l)icn souvcnt, (piand il venait un tribunal ; son identite 
 n'a jamais etc niise en (jncstion, il a rccoiniu an inoins cent fois (pi'il ('lait la personno 
 incnlpce dans Pairairc (ie la IJaiupic dc Hoiticrs. L'iiivestigation pour I'extradition 
 du jiiisonnicr .*i dnri; i\ pen |ir(!'s trois mois ct il comparaissait dcvant lo trilmnal 
 qucUpiefois line fois, (picUpiclbis deux fois. ct int'^mc trois foi.s par scmainc. ("est 
 notic l)iireau.c'csl-a-(iiro, nics fivrcs ct ir.oi coinmc Condcrt IVCtcs ; rpii ponrsnivions 
 dcvant lo tribunal en vcrtu dcs ordres ('•manes du ('onsul-tiC-iK^'ral de France a Now 
 York. Outre ccla, j'ai nno procuration sjiecialc dc la Han(pie de France en mon 
 noni. Le prisonnier iHait assistc do pluslenrs avocats a New York. Nous re(;unics 
 dans le proc(Js civil, dans le(picl il ctait defcndu |)ar dcs avoea^.s dc New York, denx 
 copies dc pit^ccs quo nons ont fair rcmettro.cn defendant la cause, los avocats du 
 prisonnier ; ccs copies ('•taicnt sia^iu'cs '■ Lamirandc." .lc jure(pio lc prisonnier main- 
 tenant (levant nioi est lc nomm(l' yurean Lamirandc (pie j'ai ponrsuivi a Now 
 York, ot qui a ri'-ponda A I'invcsfigation qui a 6l6 faite a New Y'ork pour son 
 extradition. Dcpnis quo jc I'ai vu a New Y'ork, il s'est coupe la monstacho ot nnc 
 partie do la barbo, mais s'il vcufc oiivrir la bonclie on trouvcra (pi'il a nnc dent dc 
 manque du ct)t(5 ftanchc, machoirc snpijricnrc, cette dent est cari('e ct en parti(! 
 cassee. II a disparu de New York ct jc I'ai revn ici a Montreal. II (5tait. lorsqu'il 
 s'est (5vad(5 de New York, sous la chars;o du Marshal dcs Ktats-Unis, mais il etait 
 sous la charge imm(5diate du IMpulc Alarshal Greene. A la suite de I'll'vasion du 
 prisonnier nons avons, c'est 4-dirp, la maison Coudert frcrcs a fait imprimer nn 
 certain nombre de proclamations, dont I'une est maintenant produite et marqui'c de 
 la lettre A. L'extradition du prisonnier a ct6 (lcmand(3e, k New Y^)rk, snr une 
 premiere pi^ce qui us parlait, jo crois, que de d(>tourncment de fonds ; cette piticc a 
 6t6 cnvoy^e avant que I'instruction en France fut terminde. Lorsquc I'instrnction 
 fut tcrmin^e, on nous envoyades d(;positions ct un arrfit de renvoi, lequel I'inculpait 
 de d^tournemcnt et de faux. A I'cJpoque oil ces derniers documents nous ont C-te 
 transmis, I'instruction pour l'extradition du prisonnier pour d6tournement de 
 deniers etait commenc6e. Sous le Traits avec les Etats-Unis nous pouvions aussi 
 [75] H 
 
 $ il 
 
 I 
 
 M 
 
46 
 
 I 
 
 bicn I'cNtradrr pour (Irtourncmpnt (\Mr \tn\ir (lUts, rt il I'tait |mrfaitPinriit inutile de 
 ricn cliniijfT A la [iroorduri' CDmiiuMic'c pour (IrloiniuMniMil. 
 
 Kt !<• <lit (ItiMmaiit iif ilit rii'ci tie iiltis rt a sij;ii<', Icctiirf faiti-. 
 
 (Si-iR) I.Ol'IS I.KONCK COI'DKIIT. 
 
 AKMcrmcnti' pai-dcvant iimi, a Miinlnal, Ir 7 Avril, iHlKi. 
 (Si^ni) NV. II. Hreiiai'i, I'.M. 
 
 I^a pirfV'ilrntP «l<''|>OHilion ayant <'•(('• faito i-t luo. on pn'scnrp dii priHonnicr 
 Krncst ^iiicaii l.ainirnndc, lifinviMlc liii «'st (aitc n'il di'sirc posi-r dcs (piistioiis au 
 tt^miiiii, ct i! ii'pond qu'd di'nire liii piiscr los qufslioiiH Miiivuiitrs par win ('unHeil 
 Mr. Duutrr. 
 
 Qiif-stihiK KHt-fc Hur V(H iiislriiclioiiH et houm voire direction ipu* larrcstotiun 
 (iu priMdiirvicr a ( li' e(r<'ftu('c vn Canada .' 
 
 (Mr. Uainsav n'ohjccw- j'l hi (picstioii (\c la jyart dc la Coiiroiine t-u nutant 
 quVllc ii'a aiKiiii rapport a I'cxanirii jin'liiniiiairc. I'arn station dn prisonnicr ayant 
 t':t('' ordonnro par K warrant du non KxccilfnoL' ic (iouvt i nciir-viriu'rai. Objection 
 niuinteniic] 
 
 Q. ('o:nl)icn dc temps s'cst-*' .rcndc ontre le coninicuccinent iles proeedii en 
 extradition a New York <•[ rcpcHiuc on rarnt do renvoi doiit vous avc/. p '8t 
 
 i\Tr'\\6 do I'Vance .' — li. .Ic ik; ponrrais vons le dire. ,Ic nc ni'en Konvit 
 L'atlaire a tr.iine lon<i;lcni[)s aprt^s le conini( ncenicnt Ibrniel des proci'^lcs en extra- 
 dition, parcc (pie Lainirande priait de lie |>as la ponsser, disant qn'il rentrerait 
 volontaircincnt en Wraiico. L'arret dc renvoi nous est arrive dc deux i\ (piatre 
 HcmaineH avant IVvasion <lu prisonnicr. 
 
 Q. l/addilion dti I'anx au d(it<nirncinent de fonds dans l'arret «lc renvoi a-t-ellc 
 ^te laite a la suite de su<;t;estions de votre part, ou dc ecux avee (|ui vous a^issiez 
 A New \ ork aupres des anlorit^'s Kraneaises's' — II. Aucuncment. 
 
 Q. Ave/.-voii 1 participe a Montreal dans iles consultations sur la nmnici • de 
 rcqut^-rir I'extradition du prisonnicr en Canada J 
 
 [Ohjocte de la part <ie la Couronne. Objection maintenuc.] 
 
 Q. kn qnoi consistaicnt les difflfrentcs pieces qui ont etc re<;ups de France a 
 New York, a piopos de I'extradition du prisonnier ;'— ii. Antant que je m'cD 
 souviens, il y avait un niandat darrfct, des dtiK)siti(;:is, un arret de renvoi comme 
 documents. 
 
 Q. Que sont devenues toutes CCS pieces ? — li. Jc erois qu'elles out tontes etc 
 d<!posiVs entrc les mains de M. Uetts, le Ccmmissaire, devant qui se I'aisaieiit Ics 
 procedes en extradition. La premiere piAce est le mandat d'anicner (je erois que 
 jusqu'a present nous I'avons appcle mandat d'arrOt), c'est la lapiOccoti le prisonnier 
 etait iniuipe <le detonrnement dc fonds, crisuite se fait I'enquetc ou I'instruction ; 
 comme c-s kicpositions prises dans I'instruction prouvaient un d^tourncmcnt de 
 fonds ct un faux, la piece qui est fondee U\-dessus, c'est-i-dire, I'arrftt tie renvoi, 
 I'accusc des deux crimes commis. Je crois que nous avons re^u ces pi»ices dans 
 I'ordre suivant: d'aboni le mandat d'anicner, cnsuite les dcjjositions, et apris I'arriit 
 de renvoi. L'arr6t de renvoi correspond a pen pres A rinfJictment dans ce pays. 
 
 Q. Y nvait-il au nombre de ces depositions celle du directcur ou principal 
 officier dc la Succtirsale de la lianquc de France a Poitiers, M. Adolplie Bailly ? — 
 jR. Porsonnellemcnt je n'avais pas la charge de la poursuite de M. Laniirande. Je 
 crois copendant qu'il y avait une deposition faite par un nomme Bailly, niais jc ne 
 sais pas quelle etait sa qualite otficiellc. 
 
 Q. Pouvc/,-vous dire pourquoi le prisonnicr n'est accus6 que de faux ici ?— 
 R. Paree que c'etait tout ce (pi'il fallait pour I'extrader. 
 
 Q. L'identiti du prisonnier avec le nomme Ernest Sureau Lamirande, accns^ de 
 dt'toiirnemcntde fonds oude faux au prejudice de la Banquede France, Sucoursalede 
 Poitiers, a-t-ellc jamais et6 alfirmee par des personnes qui I'eussent connu en France 
 autre que Iui-m6ine.= — R. Non; nous jugions qu'il devait se connaitre lui-mftme, et 
 que Ic signalcmcnt que nous avions re^u de France correspondait parfaitement 
 avec tui. 
 
 Q. Ce signalemcnt ^tait-il photographic ou descriptif ? — R. Tous deux. 
 
 Le prisonnier declarant n'avoir plus d'autres questions k poser au t6moin, cet 
 examcn est clos et le deposant a sign^. 
 
 (Signe) LOUIS LEONCE COUDERT. 
 
 Fris et reconnu devant moi, k Montreal, ce 7 Aofit, 1866. 
 (SignC) W. H. Bbbhaut, P.M. 
 
 M' 
 
-^1 
 
 \\o ,\v 
 
 [T. 
 
 jiH Ull 
 
 pnscil 
 
 •lion 
 
 litunt 
 jyaiit 
 r'lion 
 
 en 
 
 'St 
 
 (Ic 
 
 47 
 
 niirpaii fJp Polirp. 
 
 Province dii (.'nnmio, Distric-l dc Montrrnl. 
 
 \.n «lt'|i(miti<»ii (I'Kdnie .Instin Melin. Innpeeteur Prineipnl «l- Poliee, lir la Ville 
 <lc I'iiriH. (Innn rKniiiire Kran(,-aiH, aetiielloment ilann In Ciii- il- Montreal, (lain Ic 
 (liNtrift lie Montreal. priNC sous serinent re I tiiu> jour cl'Aout, itaim Innn^e rle Notre 
 Seipneur lP()(i, nu llunnii de I'olicf, «lans lo Palain ile Jnslicc, dunii la i'iU- de 
 Montreal, danv Ic cliHlrict dc Montr'al siiMdit. par le SonsHiirm'', William \\. lireliaiit, 
 Keiiycr, Ma<>;iHtrnt de I'oliee, daiiH et pour le diNtriel dc Montreal, en pn'seiice 
 irKment Siiienii I.ainiraiide. ei-dcvant de P(iilier«. dans I'Kmpire Fraiir/nis, ipii ett 
 nininteiiant ai-etiHi' di \ant inni Hiir plainle {Hirtee dexant inoi hoiih Ncrmcnt, rn vertQ 
 (icH dispositioiiH de la Ciiiiveiitinn cntrc Ha MnjeNte la Heine «iu Royaiime Uni dr 
 la (Irande Bretaj;iie et d'lrlandc, et Sii MaieHte le Roi des Fran(;nii, et des HlatuU 
 faitH et poiirvns u ect eflot, d'avoireoinmiH A Poitiers, dans rKin|)ire KrunfaiM, leerime 
 Buivaiit inentioiine dans et prrvii par la <lite Convention eiitrc Sa MnjcHti'' la Rcine 
 ct Ic dit Hoi di's Kraneais, savoir : — 
 
 D'avoir le dit Krnest Siiieaii Kaiiiirande cnminis le eriine de faux en aynnt, nn 
 sa rpialite dc eaissicr de la .sneenrsale de la liaiupie dc France i\ I'oitieis, fait dc 
 faiisHcs entrees dans les Ii\ res de la ditc bamjue, et par ee nioycn fraiidd* la (lite 
 banipic de la Honiine de 7U(),()()0 iVancs. 
 
 I.e (leposant Kdnie .Iu^tin Melin «icpose ct dit eomine suit : — 
 
 Je produiH la d'-|y)Nition dc Henri .^iaric du liuis de Jansip^ny, Inspectciir dc la 
 Banquc du France, ucmcuiMnt a Paris, daiiH I'Kmpire I<'ran9ui!*, prise au Triliunal 
 dc PoitiorH, ('al)inet (III .lup^u d'instrnction. le \i Avril, ISilli. Cctte dc'-pimition est 
 marnu»!'C dc la lettrc ('. Je eonnais la si^^natiire de M. Dubois, Clief du Bureau de 
 la Clmnecllerie, ecllc dc M. Uanu-hc, Minislre dc la Justice en France, etdle de 
 M. Drouyn de Ijhiiys, Minislre dcs AH'ain's Ktran^t^rcs en France. I/cs si<;naturc8 
 apposi^'CH ail doeuiuent prodiiit cnnime susdit soul hion ccllcs dcs dit8 Dubois, Daroeiio 
 et Drouyn dc LhuvK. .le suis i'amilicr avcc la signature dc M. l)ul)ois pour Tavoir 
 vu sifynerbien sou vent devaiit nioi ; je jiircipio la si;;;iiatiirc apposi'c sur ic dociinicnt 
 est la sienne. Quant au\ autrcs jc nc l;-s ni jamais vu signer, niais j'ai souvunt eii 
 dans mcs mains des documents ct pieces oniciellcs signil's par ciix. 
 
 Kt le dit dcposant ne dit ricn de plus et a sigiR-, lecture faite. 
 
 lSign(5) MELIN. 
 
 Asscrmcnt(5 par-dcvant nioi, a Montrc'al, co 14 Aout, IHOG. 
 (SigiK") W. II. i5ui:iiAUT, P.M. 
 
 La deposition pri'cLdcnle ayant (He faite ct hic en pn's^ncedu prisnnnier I'riiest 
 Surcaii Lamirande, deniande liii est I'uitc s'il a des questions d poser uu t(!'iuoin, et 
 11 rcpond par son Conseil .M. OouLre. qu'il n'en a pas. 
 
 JNlontreal, le 14 .\oiit, IsiJO. 
 
 (Signe) W. U. HuriiALr. P.M. 
 
 Bureau de Police. 
 
 Province du Canada, District de iSlontrciil. 
 
 La deposition d'Abel l''retl(Jric (Jautior, Cmisul-lii'ni'ral dc France, j)nur Icsi 
 Provinces Britanniipicr, do i'AnK'riipic au Aoiil, denu;urant a la Cite dc; Quiibcc, 
 dans ic district de Quebec, prise sou.-i scrmoui- eo 1 1 Aoiit, dans i'annur! dc Notre 
 Scis>neur 186G, au Uurcau de Police, dans le Palais do .Justice, dans la Cilu do 
 Montreal, dans le district de Montreal siisdit, par Ic .'-ousoigne, William 11. Hrehaut, 
 Ecuyer, Magistrat d'3 Police, dans ct pour lo district dj .Montrila!, en Dixsenec 
 d'Ernest Sureau Lamirande, ci-devant de Poitiers, dans I'Kmpire Fraii(;.iis, .<ui est 
 maintcnantaceus(5 devaiit moi.sur plaintc portec devant moi sous scrment. ea vcrtu 
 des dispositions dc la Convention entrc Sa Majest(3 la Reinc du Uoyaume Uni dc la 
 Grande Bretagne ct d'irlundc ct Sa Majestij le Roi dcs Fran(;ais, et d-s statuts 
 faits ct pourvus a cet eU'ei;, d'avoir commis a Poitiers, dans I'Empirc Fiaii(;ais, le 
 crime suivant mentionne dans ct prevu par la dite Convention catre Sa ■\lajost6 la 
 Reine et le dit Roi des Fran^ais, savoir : — 
 
 D'avoir le dit Ernest Sureau Lamirande commis le crime dc f lux. en ayant, en 
 sa qualitd' de eaissicr de la suecursalc dc la Banquc de France il Poitiers^ fait de 
 fausses entries dans les livres dc la dite banquc ct par ce moyen fraud6 la dite 
 banque de4a sonimc de 700,000 francs. 
 
 .H2 
 
48 
 
 W' 
 
 i 
 
 4.1 
 
 ™ 
 
 in 
 
 liil 
 
 Le d'pjsant Abel Fr<5fl6ric Gaiitier ddpose ct (lit comme suit : — 
 Je siiiti Ic seul Agent du Grtiverncment Fraiigais dans Ics cinq Provinces 
 Britanniqucs de l'Am(5rique dii Nord. Ayant pris communication de la piece 
 marquee C, jc declare que la sigiiaturc Drouyn de Lhnys est bien ccllc du Ministre 
 des AlFaires Etrangires de France, Chef du TX-partemcnt dont je depends. Les 
 documents judiciaircs g6n6ralcnicnt ne sont pas sip;nt'S par Ic Ministre lui-mCmc. 
 C'est par e;:ccption ct pour lui donner plus diniportancc que Ic .Miiiislro lics 
 Afliiires Ktrang<ires a signt5 cette piticc. Quant i\ la sif.fnattire de M. Dnhois, ellc mVst 
 «5galement parlaitemcnt connuc, et nous avons, tons los Agents du D(!'partcnien des 
 AiFaires Kfangt^rcs, pour instruction <le la legaliscr. Je eonnais la signature de 
 M. Bigclovv, Ministre des Ktats-Uniscn France. Je pnxiuis niaiiitcnant une pit-ce 
 marqui'cdc la Icttrel), au basde laquellc sc trouveapposeelasign.ituie de M. Dulxjis; 
 jc la reconnais parfaitemcnt autlientique, ct je suis pret, tant pour la signature de 
 M. Drouyn dc Lhuys que pour celle de M. Dubois, de les ccrtilier officiellement et 
 d'y apposor mon sceau. Ccla se rapporte au.v deux pieces prodiiites. 
 
 Kt le dit deposant ne dit ricn de plus et a sign6, la preo(5dentc deposition lui 
 ayant <:t6 luc. 
 
 (Signe) FREDC. ClAUTIER. 
 
 Asserment(5 par-devant moi, d ]"ontr«';al, ce 14 Aout, 18GG. 
 (Sigm-) W. II. Brkiiaut, P.M. 
 
 La deposition picc(5dente ayant et6 faite et lue en pre'sence du prisonnior, 
 Ernest Surcau Lamirande, demandc lui est faite s'il a des questions A poser au 
 t^moin, ct il repond q'.i'il ddsirc lui poser les questions suivantes par son Conseil, 
 Mr. Doutre . — 
 
 Question. Oil ct comment se trouvent definies les fonctions qne vous rcmplissez 
 en Canada? — Rdponse. Elles sont defuiies par des ccntaines dc depOches, d'instrue- 
 tions, do circnlaires qui me sont transmisos par mon Departement. 
 
 Q. Quelle difllifirence faites-.ous entre les fonctions d'un Consul-Gcneral et 
 colics d'un Ager;t Diplomatique? — E. Les Agents Diplomatiques sont charges des 
 relations politiques entre deux pays; ce sont eux qui concluent et signent les 
 Traitf'";, et, comme je viens dc le dire, tout ce qui se rattachc au.\ relations 
 politi pies du pays ou ils resident, avec la France. Les Consuls-Generaux ne s'ocon- 
 pent point dc ces questions. lis s'occupent seuloment de tenir leur Gouverncmcnt 
 au courant des afaires du pays ou ils resident, et ii preter I'appui de leur position 
 officiellc aux inter( ts francais. 
 
 Q. D'apres ccia considerez-vous que vous fites ici un Agent Diplomatique du 
 Gouvcrnement Fnm^ais ? — R. Non : etjc n'ai jamais pris ce titrc. 
 
 Q Savcz-voi.s sur la demande dc qui son Excellence le Gouverneur-Gcneral 
 a emane le warrant qui se trouve entre 16s mains du Magistral de Police devant 
 lequel nous pre Aons en ce moment ? — R. Sur la mienne. 
 
 Q. L'extradition du prisonnier a-t-elle etc demandee A son F^xcellence le 
 Gouvernnur-General par aucun autre representant du Gouverncmcnt Fran^ais qu ; 
 vous-; lO ne ? — R. Non pas nuc ie [ache. 
 
 Q. Comment le warrant de son Excellence est-il parvenu il William H. Brehaut, 
 Ecuyer, Magistral de Police, devant qui nous procedons ? — R. Le warrant ma ^tc 
 adress6 i Quebec par le Secretaire Provincial. Je I'ai re9U le 3 Aoiit, et comme 
 j'avais appris alors I'arrestation du prisonnier, jc I'ai apport6 moi-mCme A Montr<5al, 
 ct I'ai remis A M. Pominvi'.'" pour en faire I'usage qu'il jugerait convenable. Le 
 warrant qui m'cst present^ est exactement celui qui m'a ^te envoye par le Secre- 
 taire Provincial. 
 
 Q. Avez-vous jamais vu signt-r soit M. Drouyn de Lhuys, Ministre des AfTaires 
 Etrangcres en France, soit M. Dubois, Chef de Bureau de la Chancellerie, dont il 
 est question dans votre examen en chef, ainsi que M. Bigclow, Tlinistre des Etats- 
 Unis en France? — R. Non; mais je puis produire vingt depfiches qui m'ont etc 
 adressi5cs personnellement par M. Drouyn de Lhuys ; quant a la signature de 
 ?I. Dubois, elle m'a et(5 transmise officiellement de mani^rc a pouvoir la IC'galiser 
 en toute circonstance. 
 
 Le prisonnier declare n'avoir plus d'autres questions A poser au d6posant ; en 
 consequence cet examen est clos, et le deposant a signe lecture faite. 
 
 (Signe) FREDC. GAUTIER. 
 
 Prise et reconnue par-devant moi, A Montreal, ce 14 Aoilt, 1866. 
 (Signe) W. H. Bhehaut, P.M. 
 
49 
 
 m 
 
 \ . 
 
 lltlCOS 
 
 Ipiocc 
 li'stre 
 
 l.ts 
 |iCnic. 
 
 tics 
 
 (ics 
 |i (le 
 I>it'C'c 
 ji)')is; 
 [o de 
 lilt ct 
 
 Bureau (le Police. 
 
 Province du Canada, Pistrict dc Montreal. 
 
 La deposition de Froduric R. Coiidcrt, Kciiyer, avocat de la villcdp New York, 
 <Ians rKtut de New York, un dcs Ktats-lJnis d'Anu-riquc, actucllcmcnt dans la cit6 
 dc Montreal, dans Ic distrit t de Montreal, pr'sc sous scrmont re 14mc jour d'Aoi'it, 
 dans I'annce do notrc Soi;;iiciir 18(iG, au Bureau de Police, dans K* Palais dc Justice, 
 tians la cite i\c Moiitrial, dans le district dc Montreal susdit, jiar le Soussij!;n(?, 
 William II. Brcliaut, Kcuvor, Maj^jistrat de Police dans et pour Ic «listrict de 
 Montreal, en presence dKrnest Surcau Lamirande, ci-devant de Poitiers, dans 
 IKmpiro Krangais, (jui est maintcnant accuse devant nioi sur la plainle portet 
 (levant moi, sous senneiit en vertu dcs dispositions dc la Convention entre Sa 
 Majeste la Rcine du Royaume Uni de la Grande lirctasnc et dirlande et Sa 
 Majcste Ic Roi dos Kranr.us, et des statuts fails et pourvus i\ cet diet, <iavoir 
 eommis A Poitiers, dans THmpire Fran(;ais, le crime suivant mentionne dans ct 
 prevu par la dite Convention entre Sa Majcste la Reinc ct le dit Roi des Fran9ais, 
 savoir : — 
 
 D'avoir le dit Frncst Surcau Lamirande eommis le crime de faux, en ayant, en 
 sa quality de caissier <li la Suecursale dc la Banquc de France a P-)itiefs, fait dc 
 fausses entrees dans les livrcs dc la dite banquc, et par ce moycn fraude la dito 
 banquc de la somnie do 700,000 francs. 
 
 Le deposant, Frederic R. Coudert, depose et dit comme suit: — 
 
 Je suis avocat, praliqwant a New York depuis 1852. .I'ai (-t.'' cmploy«5 
 comme Conscil dans la ])oursuit3 contrc le prisonnier Lamirande a. New York. 
 Le prisonnier, M. Lamirande, a ete arr6te et iraduit devant le tribunal de M. lo 
 Commissaire Bctts. Nous avons cu de nombreuses seances dans lcs(|uelles ma 
 raison sociale dc Coudert Frercs, rcprescntait le Gouvcrncment Fraru;ais, et plusieura 
 avocats, entre autrcs Mr. Spiltliorne, ici present, rcpresentaient le prisonnier 
 Lamirande. Ccs seances out dure jusqa'au 3 Juillet dernier. A cot to seance, oif 
 a la precedente, je no puis alfirmer lac u^ile, Mr. Spiltliorne demanda la pcrmissioi. 
 au Commissaire d'eniportcr avcc lui uue piice C'criteen Fran9ais, venant do France, 
 ct que nous appelons r.xrret de renvoi. Cette pie 'c a ait etc prouvec par nous 
 comme piece autheiitiquc, ct admise comme telle pa, Ic Juge Commissaire. Nous 
 avions eg;alemcnt pro'ive unc traiaietion en laui^ue Anglaise faitc dans num bureau, 
 et dont jc puis certifier rexactituilc. Cette traduction avait ete egalement re^ue 
 par Ic Juge, rt marque": de sos initiales; elle est maintcnant entre mcs mains. 
 Lorsquo Mr. 8pdtIiorne I'emanda la permission d'emporter ce document, il dit qu'il 
 le rapporterait a la prochaine seance. Je no lis aucunc objection a ce quo la 
 demandc de i\Ir. S|)iltliornc lot accordeo. Mais mon frerc, qui etait associe avec 
 moi dans la poursiiite, mo fit observer qu'il ne confierait pas un document de 
 cette valour a Mr. .Spiiliiornc, (pie probablement je ne le reverrais (ce document) 
 jamais. Depuis co jour je n'ai jamais revu cette piece, quoique je I'aie clierch^e 
 parmi tous les papiers dc Mr. Betts, ne la trouvant pas. Je me rendis clicz 
 M. Spiltliouie; je hii rappelai Ic fait qu'il avait emporte ce document; il reconnut 
 I'avoir pris. Mais il die (ju'il ne savait pas s'il I'avait rendu ou non, qu'il faudrait 
 pour qu'il s'cn a^isunlt qu'il clicrciidt parmi ses papiers; que ses papiers i^'taient 
 4 son domicile, ct il mo jnuMt, quo s'il pouvait trouver le papier en question, 
 je I'aurais A mon bureau le Ici. domain, Mercredi, a 9 heukcs. Jedis a Mr. Spiltliorne 
 que le cas etait urgent ; (piil mo rendrait un service personnel s'il vouln^it aller cliez 
 lui immediatement, quo jo payeiais uno voiture afin qu'il perdit moins de temps. 
 Mais je ne pus obtenir de lui (ju'il le fit. Lo lendemain, vers 10 lieures, n'ayant 
 re^u aucune communication de Mr. Spiltliorne, jc lui cnvoyai un de mes eommis, 
 avec une lettre, lui demandant I'arrfit de renvoi ; il ne m'a pas rt'pondu, et je n'ai 
 jamais revu le papier. Jo n'ai pas conuaissancc qu'il y ait une copie Franyaise de 
 ce document, et je ne crois pas qu'il y en ait. 
 
 Q. Avez-vous en votro possession la traduction Anglaise de I'arrdt de renvoi qui 
 a servi devant le Commissaire Betts A New York I — R. Oui, Monsieur, j'ai ce 
 documen*^ ; le voici. 
 
 Mr. Ramsay, representant la Couronne, fait motion que ce document soit fd^ 
 et re^u par la Cour. 
 
 INl. Doutre, Consoil du prisonnier, sobjecte 4 la motion et k la proluction de ce 
 document, vu qu'il ne possdde aucuh des caract^res vuulus par le Statut 6 et 7 
 Vict., c. 75, s. 3. 
 
 i' '-la 
 
bf 
 
 50 
 
 La Cour renvoie robjection et le document est filt5 et marque dc hi Icttro B. 
 
 Lc d(5posant continue commc suit : — 
 
 La Iraductiun est unc traduction compari-e par moi-ni6nic avec le papier prouvo 
 en K-moignage (levant Mr. Belts, laquellc traduction a ct6 soumisc i I'autre cow? et 
 & laquclle je n'ai jamais cntcndu d'objection. 
 
 Le d(5[)osant ne dit ricn de plus et apris lecture faite il d^'dareque cettc disposi- 
 tion contient la v6rit^, y porsiste ct a signd-. 
 
 (Sign6) F. R. COUDERT. 
 
 Aisermcnt^ par-devant moi, k Montreal, ce 12 Auut, 1866. 
 (Sign<5) W. H. Brehaut, P.M. 
 
 ir- 
 
 La deposition pr<5c<jdente ayant <5tc faite et lue en pre'sence du prinonnier 
 Rrncst Surcau Lamirande, demande lui est faite s'il a dcs questions d poser au 
 t^moin et il rcpond qu'il desire poser au dcposant los questions suivantes par son 
 Conseil, M. Doutre. 
 
 Quegliott. Kst-ce snr I'arrfit de renvoi jlont vo-.'s avez parl(5 que lc prisonnicr a 
 ^t6 arr6t6 aux Ktats Unis ? — Mponse. Non. 
 
 Q. Comment et pourquoi cct arrftt de renvoi se trouvait-il dans la procedure 
 institUiSe A New York ? — R. Commc preuve ik I'appui, offerte de la part de la 
 poursuite. 
 
 Q. Pour quel crime lc prisonnicr ^tait-il arrfit^ aux Etats-Unis? — R. Pour ce 
 que nous appelons le crime d'emhez/lement. 
 
 Q. Quand le prisonnicr a etif; arrfite, ceux qui le faisaient arrfetcr <;taient-ils 
 munis d'un mandat d'arrfit «5man<> de France ? — R. Je crois que oui, on aloi s on jwu 
 de temps apros nuus en avons ut^ muni ; nous ne nous ca sommes pas scrvi pour lc 
 faire arrfiter. 
 
 Q. Qu'est devenu le mandat d'arrt^t en vertu duqucl le prisonnicr a etc djtenu 
 d Ne*- York en vne de son extradition, et pourquoi ce document n'cst-il pas cntre 
 les mains de ceux qui poursuivcnt ici I'extradition du prisonnicr? — R. Lc soul 
 mandat d'arrfit sous lequel lc prisonnicr ait 6te arreto c'cst lc mandat dc Mr. Hctts, 
 qui se trouve naturellcmcnt dans son bureau, je presume. Si vous voulez parler du 
 mandat d'arrCt, signu par Mr. Jolly, Juge d'lnstruction, immediatemcni aprc^s la 
 fuite de M. Lamirande, ct avant qu'il ne fut mis en accusation, je crois que cc 
 document est entrc Ics mains de MM. Pominville et Bctournay- 
 
 Q. Do quel crime lc prisonnicr cst-il accuse dans le mandat d'arrfit emane dc 
 France et qui se trouve entrc les mains dc MM. Pominville et Betournay ? 
 
 [01)ject6 par M. Betournay, pour la pouraiiite. Objection maintenuc.j 
 
 Q. Le Commissaire Betts a-t-il tenu aucune seance sur Taccuszition portec A 
 New York contre le prisonnicr aprds que I'arret dc renvoi que vous elites 6tre 
 disparu, eut et6 confie d Mr. Spilthorne? — R. Je ne crois pas. Commc jc vous ai 
 d6ja dit, cc document lui a et(5 confie a la dernitire ou I'avant-derniCre seance, mon 
 impression est que c'cst la derniere ; dans ce cas-la il n'y a pas cii d'autrc seance. 
 
 Q. Onel est le d^positaire ou gardien legal des papicrs dont cette picjcc a fait 
 partie?— i?. M. le Commissaire Betts. 
 
 Q. FiSt-il A, votre connaissiiicc si M. lc Commis^riirc Betts a jamais rcquis 
 M. Spilthorne dc remettrc cette piiVe au dossier? — U. Noii, il est pas a ma connais- 
 sance, mais j'ai autorit6 dc M. Brtts do prendre Ics dcjiositions dans la cause. 
 C'est unc autorite ccritc ; je I'ai re^nc par teli'graplic ct die a etc envoyee par Icttre a 
 M. Osborn, un de ses collegucs qui me I'a eommuniqiico en la retirant dc son sac 
 k papcrasses (waste-paper basket), et qui I'a rijctet* la apr(is me Tavoir commu- 
 niqu6e. Jai recu aussi un tel(5gramme au mCme ctFet. M. f^sborn m'avait dejA 
 laisse examiner les papicrs pour prendre ceux que jc voalais, cc M. Betts lui-m6mc 
 avait jiermis A mon commis, quclqucs jours avant, de prendre les pieces que je 
 voulais. 
 
 Q. La disparution de cct arrOt de renvoi a-t-cllo donne lieu A quelque procedure 
 de votre part? — K. Oui, Monsieur, j'ai consulte le District Attorney ; il m'a dit que 
 je devrais faire unc plainte, c'etait Vendredi dernier. Voulant dviter de faire une 
 plainte contre un confriire, j'envoyai un commis chez iM. Spilthorne, vers trois heures, 
 heure A laquclle on m'avait dit qu'il y serait; il n'y etait pas et j'appris pour la 
 premiiire fois qu'il devait partir pour le Canada. Je me rendis chez le Commissaire 
 Osborn, jc signal uu affidavit; il signa son warrant pour I'arrestation de 
 
il 
 
 mains dii Marsiial, mais lo Marshal iic put \v.\s Ip 
 
 fonvC 
 F'lc ft 
 
 pposi- 
 
 (le 
 
 M. Spilthorno, Ic remit cnln If^ 
 trouvcr. 
 
 Q. Voiilrz-vniis iiniis doiiiKT la siihstancc do I'afiidavit 7— «. I^s faits tols que 
 jovoiis Ics ai donni'^. avci- cpttc adf)itit)n (jiiodans nion opinion M. Spilihorii" oardait 
 ce papier poiir Ic volcr on |p dctriiirc, aliii qtion nVn nit \k\s. le Ik- lit' lire au Caiiacla. 
 Cost la aiissi prt^s epic possible ce cpie j'ai depos^. 
 
 Q. Quelle est In desjirnation de Toffense pour 
 
 COIltiC 
 
 pas si 
 
 M. 
 
 liltliorne-' — R. Je reCuse de 
 po irrais doniier la designation 
 
 laqiieile M. Oslx rii 
 repmulie a 
 cxavte (pie 
 
 a em IS son 
 
 la tpu'stinii, lie 
 liii (loiii.crait le 
 
 avee 
 hut, il a 
 
 warrant 
 sachant 
 Procureiir. 
 
 [La Conr pcrmot an tt'moin de ne pas faire daiitrc repon^e] 
 
 Q. Dans (juel hut .M. Spiltliorne avait-il doniande a emporter eetto pii'^e; 
 lui ? — R. Natnreilcniont je ne saurais atfirmcr positivenieiit (juc! etait sun In 
 alli5gu(5 qu'il voul;iit la comparer avcc ma traduction. 
 
 Q. Ucpuis eombien de temps eette traduction etait-cllc alois I'aite ? — R. Je ne 
 saurais voiis Ic dire, pcut-etrc liuit Jours peut-etre f|iiinze jours. 
 
 Q Le document que vous avez produit cst-il niateriellement le raeriie quo eeliii 
 que ^1. Spiltliorne vuulait comparer avcc I'arret de renvoi ? — R. Jc ne poiirrais voiis 
 ledire positivcment. 
 
 Q. L'arret «lc renvoi (pie vous dites Otrc rest6 entie Ics mains de M. Spiltliorne, 
 (5tait-il un dnciiment original ou une copie? — R. Le document remis ;. M. S|)illliorne 
 ^tait lino copie certilicc de telle fai^on a servir eomme original devant les tribunaux 
 de France d'apr<js Ics temoins. 
 
 Q. Avcz-voiis iiiontrc ii M. Spiltliorne aucunc autorisation ecritc de la part de 
 M. Ic (.'ornmissaire Betts, ii vous donncre, de prendre po.ssession du dit arrOt de 
 renvoi ? — R. M. Spiltliorne m'ayant jure qu'il me le rendrait A. moi et ne m'ayant 
 pas parld' d'autnrisation de M. Uetts, je ne lui en parlai pas non plus. 
 
 Q. Le tribunal pr(5sidc par M. Betts est-il une Cour de Record ? — R. Pour certains 
 objcts il est assimil<i a une Cour de Record ; par e.\emple, pour le dtitournoment 
 d'nn papier, par la loi du Congr^s, cependant il n'a pas techniquement de Clerk ou 
 Grefiier. 
 
 Q. Ktes-vous I'un dc ccu.\ qui avez dirigc- la proctjdure en extradition contre le 
 prisonnicr a New York ? — R. Elle a et6 entierement dirigee par nion bureau, raes 
 frdres et moi. 
 
 Q. L'extradition du prisonnicr utait-elle poursuivie sur une accusation de Taux 
 aux Etats-Unis? 
 
 [Objectci par la poursuite. Objection maintenue.] 
 
 Q. Que sont devenucs les piC'ces produites au.\ Ktats-Unisetqui accompagnaient 
 le dit arret dc renvoi? — R. Une partie se trouve cliez le Commissaire Betts, une 
 partie entre les mains de !MM. Pominville et Batonrnay, et l'arret dc renvoi je ne 
 sais pas ou il est. 
 
 Q. Y avait-il au nombre de ces documents des depositions prises en France 
 et entr'autrcs cclle du Directeur de la Succursale de la Bamjue de France d 
 Poitiers ? 
 
 [Objecto par la poursuite. Objection maintenue.] 
 
 Q. Quelle est la partie de ces documents qui est restee entre les mains de M. le 
 Commissaire Betts ? 
 
 [M6me objection. Objection maintenue.j 
 
 Q. Existe-t-il d votre connaissance aucunc deposition, ce que nous appelons, aux 
 Etats-Unis et au Canada, affidavit, qui accuse Ic prisonnicr de faux ^ 
 
 [M6me objection de la part de la poursuite, en autant que la question est tr«)p 
 g^n^rale et qu'clle devrait se limiter & la poursuite contre le prisonnicr en Canada. 
 Objection renvoy^e.] 
 
 R. II existait des dt-positions, je prc^'sume qu'elles existent toujours. J'ai vu 
 une ou plusieurs depositions dans lesquelles on disait que M. Lamirande avait fait 
 de faux bordereaux et qu'il avait fait des faux en ^critures de commerce pour 
 cacher ses vols. Je me rappelle ro6me qu'un t^moin d^posait avoir verifiC* sa 
 caisse et Tavoir compar^e avec son bordereau de situation qui au moyen dc chilfres 
 cachait un deficit de plusieurs centaincs de 1,000 francs, et que d'aprds ce temoin 
 ou un autre M. Lamirande avait dii depuis longtemps faire de faux bordereaux, 
 je crois tous les jours mais au moins tr6s souvent. 
 
 Q. Avez-vous jamais vu aucun de ces bordereaux ou pieces argu^es de faux ? — 
 R. Non, Monsieur, mais j'ai vu un proc^s-verbal, je crois, coostatant qu'on avait 
 saisi une telle pidce. 
 
 in 
 
 
52 
 
 Q. La pi^cc incntionn^e dans cc proct-s-vcrhal etait-cUc attnqu(5c conimo 
 fauBse? — H. Je nc sais pas; si jc mc rappelle, cettc pii^c avait et(5 saisie dt^s 
 I'orijEcinc, soit immt'-diatcineiit apris la fuite <lc M. Lamiiandc on aprOs I'cxaincii de.s 
 livrcs. 
 
 Q. CVttc pi6cc a-t-cllo ct6 cnvoy^e on Amf-riquc ? — li. Non ; jc n'ai jamais vii 
 la piicc; Ics livrt-s non plus n'ont pus t'te onvoyes on Ann'iifpic, 
 
 Q. A-t-on onvovt' des fac-similes ou copies des pi«icos ari^iu'cs de faux ? — R. Non 
 pas quo je sachc, mais jc crois que la suhstance dcs piOccs est dans rarrCtde r^'nvoi 
 dont j'ai aujoiird'hui pioduit unc traduction (idOlc. 
 
 Q. Savcz-vous (pii rcprc'-scntc Ic Gouvernemcnt Fran(;:iis dans la dcmandc 
 d'cxtraditlon qui est faite en Canada? — K. Je presume fpie c'crst M. le Consul- 
 Gen(^;ral. 
 
 Le prisonnier d^-clarc n'avoir plus d'autrcs quosti )ns a p</ser au t^moin, ct cct 
 examcn est clos ; et ledeposant a signe apr^s lecture I'ailc. 
 
 tSigne) 
 
 V. R. COUDERT. 
 
 Prise et reconnue dcvant nioi, A ^lontreal, ce 14 Aout, 18GG. 
 
 (Signe) 
 
 W. 11. BUKIIAUT, P.AL 
 
 Defense. 
 Bureau de Police. 
 
 Province du Canada, District do Montroal. 
 
 La (Imposition de Charles L. Spiithorn, Kcuyer, Avocat de la Villo de New 
 Vork, un des Ktats-Unis d'Amcriquc, actuellenient dans la Cite dc Montreal, dans 
 le District do Montreal, prise sous serment ce 20n)c jour d'Aout, dans rannee dc 
 notre Seigneur 18GG, au Bureau dc Police, dans le Palais de Justice, dai::- la Cite 
 dc Montreal, dans le district de Montreal susdit, par le Soussigne, William H. 
 Breliaut, Kcuyer, ^iagistrat de Police, dans et pour ic District de Montreal, en 
 pr<?scncc d'Krncst Surcau Lamirande, ci-devant de Poitiers, dans I'Kmpire Kran(;ais, 
 qui est niaintenant .nccus6 devant moi, stir plaintc portL-c (icvant moi, sous serment, 
 en vcrtu dcs dispositions de la Convention entie Sa Majostc la Reinc du Iloyaumc 
 Uni do la (irandc Bretagne et d'Irlandc et Sa Majestc le Roi des Fran^ais, et des 
 Statuts I'aits ct pourvu;* A cct efTet. tl'avoir commis d Poitiers, dans I'Kmpire 
 Fran^ais, Ic crime suivant mcntionne dans et prd'vu par la dite Convention entre Sa 
 Majeste la Reine ct Ic <iit Roi des Fra: ;;i;;:, ;,::v;)i;-: — 
 
 D'avoir le dit Krnest Sureau Lamirande commis le crime dc faux, en ayant en 
 sa qualite de caissicr de la Succursale de la Banqnc de France A, Poitiers, fait dc 
 fausscs entrees dans Ics livrcs de la dite banquc ct par ce moyen fraude la dite 
 banque de la sommo de 700,000 francs. 
 
 Lo dcposant. Charles L. Spilthorn, depose et dit commc suit : — 
 
 J'ai etc employe comme I'un dos avocats du priaonnicr a New York, lorsquc 
 son extradition y etait demandce Dcpuis le commencement dc la poursuite pour 
 son extradition en Avril dernier jusqu'A .son depart dc New York que j'ai compris 
 fitre le 3 Juillet dernier. Le document produit sous la marque B m'etant montr(5 
 je ne puis pas bicn dire si j'ai vu ce document-la d New York au nombre des |)i(ices 
 aiii se trouvaient produites devant le Comraissaire Belts, devant qui se poursuivait 
 <*fXtradition du prisonnier. 
 
 Q. Avez-vous vu le document dont cette piice B pretend etre unc traduction ? — 
 R. J'ai vu un document sur la table aupr^s de laquelle M. le Commissaire Betts 
 <5tait assis, ou se traitait I'aflaire, qu'on pretendait fitre une copie envoyee de 
 Poitiers, en France, d'un y)r<5tendu arret attribue d la Chambre des Mises en 
 Accusation de Poitiers. Cc document etait r(5dige en Franfais. On I'appelait, je 
 crois, alors, acte d'accusation — indictment en Anglais. Pour autant que je puisse 
 mc souvenir, ce devait 6tre un arrfit de renvoi. C'est dillicile de dire si c'etait le 
 in^me document que Ton a design6 comme arrfit de renvoi devant cette Cour et 
 dont on a pr<5tendu que le document B dtait une traduction. II n'y a eu qu'un seul 
 document de ce genre produit devant ie Commissaire Betts d New York, et ce doit 
 dtre celui dont on a pr^tendu que la pidce R <:tait une traduction. 
 
 Q. Get arr^t de renvoi, celui en languc Fran9aisc, ^tait-il admis d New York, 
 par le Commissaire comme authentique conformement d la loi Fran9aise ou au 
 Traits d'£xtradition ? 
 
58 
 
 (IS VII 
 
 Noil 
 pnvoi 
 
 li.indo 
 |)nsii|. 
 
 St cct 
 
 IT. 
 
 [Obicctd dc la part dc la Couronnc. Objection maintcnuc] 
 Q. i)itC8-noiis cc que vous connaiKsez de la piiVc M, oi (in (iHcnmont <iont elle 
 pr(5tcn(l Otrc line traduction. — R. On avait aiuioiic<;> (lu'il y avait A commnniqucr i\ 
 Mr. Belts, A prfKliiirc devant la Cour <ie Mt. Hefts, uii tertain nomltre de nitVes dans 
 lesqiieUes on disait que sc trouvait ee pretcndu arriH de renvoi doiit on disaif a.oir 
 fait des traductions. Ces piiVes <^'taient marquees par Mr. Ik-tts. ne varieiitur. car 
 jc<lois expliquer (|ue quoiqu'un Juge marque une pii^ee. ee n'est pas uiie preuve de 
 sa r(?ception, et c'est mOmc I'liabitude i\ New York de les faire marquer avant (pi'on 
 les offre commc preuve. II y avait unc pretendue traduelion du dit arret <le renvoi, 
 dans laquelle traduction il y avait Iwaucoup de hianes, et il fut ol 'serve cpie rettc 
 traduction no pouvait etre acunisc commc 6tant ineompreliensil>le. Les t'onseils du 
 
 (>risonnier ici objecti^rent A la reception de ces |)ieees de la part du C'ommissairc 
 Jctts. et Id-dessus il fut deeidi'' par Ic Commissaire (|ue les ])iticos restaient a la 
 Cour .sauf toute objection apris pour verifier. Nous demandames alors un «ldlai ; 
 on (5tait press<S de pousscr la procedure en avant et Mr. IJetts m'ofrril de prendre le 
 pr<!'tcndu arrfit dc renvoi avcc moi et de bien ex;\miner |)<)ur le comparer avec la 
 traduction. Jc ne me souviens pas tr«is-bicn maintenant si j'ai j)ris la piece avec 
 moi ou non. A la prochaine audience M. Lamirande etait parti, il ne fut plus 
 question de rien. Mais aucune de ces pit}ces alors i)roduites, le pretendu arret dc 
 renvoi et la pr<5tendue traduction y comprises, ne fut definitivement admise ou rerue 
 commc preuve ou dumcnt authentiquee par Mr. Hetts. Dc^jA an])aravanf Mr. Metts 
 avait rcjet(5 la copic de la deposition du Dirccteur de la Banque do Poitiers comme 
 n'ctant pas dunient authenliquee, et I'acte de renvoi ainsi que les autrcs pii^ces 
 produites ^taicnt exactement authentiquces comme la piece (pii avait (He r('jet('c. 
 Ainsi la copic de I'arrftt dc renvoi venue de France, ainsi que la pretendue traduction 
 n'6taicnt pas admises comme preuve, la traduction etait dt5elar6e par les Defenseurs 
 de I'accus6 incorrectc, A cause des blancs qui s'y trouvaient et d'autres termes qui 
 nous paraissaient incorrects. I'arlant des blancs, Mr. Coudert a dit alors qu'il 
 avait laiss6 ces blancs, parce (ju'il n'avait pas pu traduire les termes Kran(;ais. 
 Aucun expert n'a etc entendu pour v(5ritier la traduction comme cela se fait 
 ordinairemcnt A New York. Comme Lamirande ('■tait parti et que raffaire fut 
 remise par Mr. Betts an 2 Septcmbre suivant pour le cas qu'il fiit repris, je ne 
 me suis plus Gccup6 avant de venir ici, dc la procd'dure du prisonnier. Dix ou 
 douzc jours passes Mr. Coudert est venu A mon office; il nva dit qu'il avait «5te au 
 b'lreau de Mr. Betts pour voir s'il ne trouverait pas le pritendu iirrH de renvoi, 
 qu'il avait cherchd- dans ses papiers A lui-rafime et qu'il ne I'avait pas tromx', qu'il 
 vcnait voir s'il n'titait pas dans mon dossier. Je lui ai dit que j'(5tais sur le point dc 
 ddloger et que j'avais mis mes papiers dans des malles chei', moi, ou se trouvait le 
 dossier de Lamirande. Je lui ai dit r|uc je nc savais pas bien si j'avais eu la piece, 
 mais que mon impression 6tait que je ne I'avais plus dans aucun cas, parce cpi'il me 
 scmblait I'avoir vu A la Cour A la derni(}re audience. Mr. Coudert nie demaiida 
 d'aller de suite chez moi pour voir. Je ne le pouvais pas, attendu (jue j'avais 
 plusieiirs clients qui venaient me consulter et qui 6taient press(is. Que je verrais, 
 que j'examinerais mes papiers et que je lui en donnerais des nouvelles le lendemain, 
 et que si je trouvais la piece et si je pouvais la lui rcmcttre, (pie je le ferais. J'ai 
 ajout^ qu'il ferait bien d'aller chez Mr. Betts lui-mrmie, qui <5tait A la campagnc, 
 qui avait d<5jA plusieurs fois emport6 les pieces avec lui A son domicile, et que si jc 
 ne la trouvais pas elle devait fitre la. Mr. Coudert ni'a r^pondu qu'il n'avait pas le 
 temps et qu'il etait persuad(5 que je la trouverais. J'ai fait des recherches partout 
 et je n'ai pas trouv6 la pii^ce. Lc ienderaain j'allai conduire un Juge de la Cour 
 Sup(5rieure qui s'en allait en Angleterre, et j'ai fait dire par un de mes commis A 
 Mr. Coudert que je n'avais pas trouvd la piiice, que je chercherais encore et que je 
 la remettrais A Mr. Betts, A qui seul je pouvais la rcmcttre si je la trv)uvais, car 
 Mr. Coudert n'avait aucune autoritd', et ne m'en avait point montr(5, pour avoir 
 cette pi^ce en cas que je la trouvasse. J'aurais manqud* A tous mes devoirs en la 
 lui reraettant. Je suis a.\\6 spontanC-ment a la Cour de Mr. Betts pour voir s'il (5tait 
 lA et pour lui deniander s'il avait la pidcc, et qu'en cas que je la retrouvasse ce que 
 je devais en faire; il n'y 6tait pas, on disait qu'il (jtait A la campagne et nc revicn- 
 drait qu'en Septembre prochain. Mr. Coudert manifestait I'intention d'apporter 
 cette pi^ce ici, A Montreal, de la soustraire ainsi A la Cour A laquelle elle apparte- 
 nait, et je me serais rendu, en cas que je I'eusse cue, complice d'un crime en reniet- 
 tant, pour cet objet, la pi^ce A Mr. Coudert. Je ne pouvais la rcmcttre qu'A 
 Mr. Betts, toujours dans le cas quelle eAt (3te en ma possession. 
 
 [75] I . 
 
 I !l 
 
M 
 
 I' 
 
 Q. Connaiascz-vouR la loi Fran<;ai.sc en g^niral ct sp<^>cialcincnl en ce qui 
 conccrnc la niRiiiire d'autlientiqucr Ics (l«K'umcnts en France? 
 
 [Object^- par la Couronnc. Objection rciiv()y<5e.] 
 
 It. Oui. Jc suis ne Kran<;ais, j ai fait uiie partie de mon cours de droit A Paris, 
 j'ai UHsist(!: t\ Iteaticonp d'anaiios en France. J'ai (;t6 admis avoiiat en Uelgiqne, ou 
 j'ai pratiqu(5 pen<lant plus do vinp;t aiis commc avocat. A pcu d'exceptions pr»is lea 
 Codes Fran(;aiH ot Beige Hont Ics ni^Jmes. 
 
 Q. Lc document niarqu6 B est-ii authentiquu de telle manii re qu'il justificrait 
 I'arrcstation du delinquant y mentionne en France sur la luOme accusation ? — R. 
 Pour la France on n'arrfitc (les delinuuantH (pic sur des originaux. Si lesoriginaux 
 manquent il y a unc disfmsition dans Ic Code d'lnstruction Criminellc qui y jwurvoit. 
 Ccs dis|)ositi(>nK sont contcnues dans les Articles 521, .V22, .O'i'?, et 524 : 
 
 L'Aiticle 521 contient les dispositions suivantes: •• Lorsque par IVITet d'lin 
 incendie, d'une inondation ou ('e toutc autre cause extraordinaire, des minutes 
 d'arriU rcndues en matii^res crinnnelles ou correctionnelles ct non encore executecs 
 ou dcs |)rocedurcs encore indecises auront ete dtl-truites, enlcvecs, ou se trouveront 
 egarees, et qu'il n'aura pas <5te possible de les retablir, il sera proc(5de ainsi qu'il 
 suit: 
 
 " Article 522. S'il existc uncexp(!;dition ou copie authentique de rarr6tclle sera 
 considerec conime minute et en conswpience remise dans le dup6t destine i la 
 conservation des arrCts. Acetefiet tout oflicicr public, ou tout individu depositaire 
 d'une expedition ou d'une copie authentique de I'arrtit est tcnu, sous peine d'y 
 Ctrc contraint par corps, de la remettrc au Orcfie de la Cour qui I'a rendu sur 
 I'ordre qui en sera donnd par le Pr<5sident de cette Cour. Cet ordre lui servira 
 de d(!icharge cnvers ceux qui auront interfit A la piice. Le depopitaire dc I'expC'- 
 dition ou copie authentique de la minute detruite, enlev«5e ou egarec, aura la liberty, 
 en la remettant danslc d<5p6t public, de s'en faire d(51ivrer une expedition sans frais. 
 
 " Article 523. Lorsqu'il n'existera plus, en raaiitirc criminelle, d'expedition ni de 
 copie authentique de I'arrCt, si la d(iclaration du jury cxiste encore, en minute 
 ou en copie authentique, on proccdera d'aprOs cettc declaration a un nouveau 
 jugement. 
 
 " Article 524. Lorsque la declaration du jury nc pourra plus fitre representee 
 ou lorsque I'afTaire aura6t6jug6e sans jury, et qu'il n'en existera aucun acte par 
 ^crit, I'instruction sera recomnienc<5e d partir du point oil les pieces se trouveront 
 manquer tant en minutes qu'cn expeditions ou copies authentiques." 
 
 Q. Comment les depositions dc tcmoins doivcnt-clles etre signees pour avoir 
 aucune valeur en France ? 
 
 [Objecte par la Couronnc. Objection renvoy<;e.] 
 
 R. D'apri^s les Articles 75 ct 76 du Code d'Instruction Criminelle, les formalites 
 suivantes sont requises : — 
 
 " Article 75. F^es tdmoins prfiteront serment de dire toute la v6rit6, ricn que la 
 vdrite. Le J uge d'Instruction Icur demandera leurs nom,prenom, Age, ^tat, profession, 
 demeure ; s'ils sont domestiques, parents ou allies des parties ; il sera fait mention 
 de la demande et des r^ponses dcs temoins. 
 
 " Article 76. Les depositions seront signees du juge, du greffier et du temoin 
 aprds que la lecture en aura ete faite et qu'u aura declare y persister. Si le temoin 
 ne veut ou nc peut signer, il en sera fait mention. Chaque page du cahier 
 d'information sera signee par le juge et par le greffier." 
 
 L'Article 74 du i6me Code porte ce qui suit : — 
 
 " Us representeront" (entendant par lA les temoins) " avant d'etre entendus la 
 citation qui leur aura ete donnec pour deposer ; et il en sera fait mention dans le 
 procds- verbal." 
 
 Je dois ajouter qu'il s'agit des temoins entendus devant le Juge d'Instruction. 
 
 Q. D'apr^s votre connaissance du droit Fran^ais, un huissier ou officier de la 
 force publique pourrait-il arretcr un delinquant en France, avec un document du 
 caract^re de celui marque B ? 
 
 ■"OWecte par la Couronne. Objection maintenue.] 
 
 Q. Voulez-vous citer le texte de I'Article 147 de Code Penal Fran^ais mentionn^ 
 dans la pi6ce B ? — R. L'Article 147 du Code Penal Frangais dit : — 
 
 " Seront punis des travaux forces A temps toutes autres personnes qui auront 
 commis un faux en ecritures authentiques et publiques, ou en ecritures de commerce 
 ou de banques, soit par contrefa^on ou alteration d'ecritures ou de signatures, soit 
 par fabrication de conventions, dispositions, obligations ou decharges, ou par leur 
 
 ! I 
 
115 
 
 I Paris, 
 l>'e, ou 
 frils Ic8 
 
 |t «run 
 linutes 
 jjcutics 
 |veri)iit 
 si qu'il 
 
 insertion apr<is coim dans CCS actcs, soit pr addition ou alteration dc claiiscti, do 
 d^Iarations on dc faits (jue ccs actes avainit jiour ol)jct dc rcccvoir rt dc constatcr. 
 
 " Article 148. Dans tows Ics ca.s exprimcs an present parajjranhe, cclui qui 
 aura fait usage des aetes faux sera puni des travaux fim is a temps 
 
 Q. Les Artielcs IMU, nsO, lOS, et UVJ <lu Code Penal Kraneais ont-ils trait au 
 crime de faux ?— K. Ndh ; rAitiele 'M'J est nlatif au vol, i'Aitiele .{Sti est aussi 
 relatif au vol avec cireonstaiices agg;ra\antcs ; I'Ailiele 4G-t est relatit'au detournc- 
 mcnt de funds; I'Artielc IGl est relatif a uuc amemle accessoire a la peine dc 
 faux. 
 
 Q. n'apr«is ce que vous counaissez de la loi Krnneaisc rehulto-t-il un faux des 
 faits consignees conimc suit dans la piece H, pa<;e 7 : 
 
 "3. With having,' at Poitiers, on tlie llitli of March, l^fiO, fraudulently 
 inserted on the lialance-sheet signeii by him, which it was liis duty to estalilish anil 
 to certify every day in his ea;)aeity of cashier of the hraneii ol' the Hank ol France, 
 in order to state the cash a'count of said hraneli, tiie false (ieclarations that the 
 cash account on said day amounted to 11, -140. .').'(> Cranes S4 centimes, while it was 
 in reality inferior to tiuit amount hy all the sums abstracted or embezzled by him, 
 and having thus fraudulently altered the ilcelaralions and facts which this balance- 
 sheet was to contain and establish ?" 
 
 [Objects par la Couronne. Objection mainteiiue,] 
 
 Q. Avez-vous cu avec .M. Kilme Justin Meliii, Agent de Police, (jui a depos6 
 dans cette affaire, quehpic conversation relativcment aux conversations qu'il aurait 
 cues lui-niiime avec Ic i)risonnier a New York touchant I'aeeusation de I'aux portee 
 contre le prisonnicri' Si tel est Ic cas ra|)porteii co quil vous a dit. — /\'. Oui. Vuici 
 cecpieje sais rolativcment a cela. Le |)risonnier, .M. Melin. moi et mOme .Mr. Hetts, 
 <''t ions ensemble chez Delmunico. Je fis I'observation a M. Melin (pie le prisonnier 
 avait cu tort dc quitter I'Anglctcrre, puisc,. 'a il nc pouvait etrc extrade cpie pour 
 assassinat, pour faux et bant|uer()Ute IVaudideuse, et que eertainement on nc 
 I'accuserait pas d'aucun dcees faits. M. ^lelin dit (pi'en cffet aucun de ees faits 
 nc pouvait cxister contre le jirisonnier, mais qu'il aurait trouve moyen d'avoir 
 M. Lamirande en Angleterre, qu'il eonnaissait tnJsi)ien son mtUier, (pi'd etait 
 chasseur d'homnies, qu'il chcrcherait son giijier et le trouverait par tons les moycns 
 et qu'il lo mangerait, vovdant dire par li\ qu'il aurait sa recompense. M. Lamirande 
 protestait hnutemcnt qu'il n'avait jamais commis de laux. J^oi s(|ue la premiere fois 
 i\ fut parle de laccusation de faux a la C'our devant Mr. Hctis, M. Lamirande se 
 rdcria hautement que c'etait unc infamie, que jamais il n'avait commis de faux et 
 qu'on ne pourrait pas prouvcr cela contre iui. 11 a dit ccla en presence de M. Melin 
 ct dc bcaucoup d'autres. Lorsqu'oii produisit Ic pr6tendu arrOt dc renvoi, 
 M. Lamirande disait encore hauteme:it qu'il ne pouvait pas en croire ses ycux, ct 
 moi-mfime j'ajoutai que je nc pcnsais pas qu'il y avait en France des Magistrats 
 capablcs de voir lA un faux ; (pic c'etait tout le contrairc, d raoius que ce ne fut un 
 tour qu'on voulait joucr dans I'afl'aire Lamirande comnie on avait d(5ja fail, ncuf ans 
 auparavant, dans PafTaire Carpenticr, Grelct ct Parrot ct autres, ou j'etais avocat 
 et ou Air. Betts 6tait commissaire, ou ne pouvant obtcnir I'extradition sur I'accusa- 
 tion de burglary on avait accused les prisonniers dc faux pour obtcnir plus suremen 
 leur extradition ; que la-dessus on avait obtcnu I'extradition dc Grelet, qui n'avai 
 jamais 6t6 accuse ni condainn6 pour faux en France, mais condamne |H)ur abus d 
 confiance, pour lequel il n'y avait pas d'cxtradition ; que je pricrais Mr. Hctts d'y 
 faire une attention toute particulierc si Ton vcnait avec cette accusation devant Iui 
 d'autant plus je disais A l\Ir. Betts, que le cas d'embezzlcmcnt, pour lequel on 
 demandait I'extradition de M. Lamirande, netait pas un cas d'cxtradition aux ycux 
 de la loi Americaine, dans la position dc M. Lamirande. La-dessus, Mr. Coudert, 
 qui a d6pos6 ici, et qui etait le principal avocat qui menait I'affairc, a dit qu'il nie 
 comprenait et qu'il n'entendait pas du tout demander I'extradition pour faux et 
 mSiae qu'il y renon^:ait cxpressemcnt, il 6tait entcndu qu'on ne parlerait pas dc faux. 
 M. Melin ^>tait present, il a entcndu les protestations dc M. Lamirande. Un ancien 
 Procureur du Roi Fran^ais (5tait present ; il a itc entcndu comme t<3moin dans I'afl'airo 
 dc la part de la defense, et qui disait qu'il ne pouvait pas comprendre qu'un tel 
 arrfit fOt rendu par des Magistrats Fran^ais dans un cas si clair oij le faux n'^tait 
 pas possible. M. Melin lui-mcmc disait, en bon gargon qu'il est, que c'etait absurde, 
 qu'il n'y avait pas de faux 14. 
 
 Q. Savez-vous si apriis I'arrivee a New York de la copic d'arrfit dc renvoi dont 
 la pi^ce B pretend dtre une traduction, M. Melin a cu aucune conversation a la 
 prison avec le prisonnier, ct s'il a pu avoir de tclles conversations avec M. Melin sur 
 
 1 2 
 
 ^r I 
 
P: ■' 
 
 I 
 
 f '4. 
 I 
 
 M 
 
 le faux apr^s Ics conversations que vous venc/, tU; rapporter ? — i!. Sur la possibility' 
 je ne pourrnis rion dire, mais sur le sens moral je puis m'cx()li(mer. Lorsquc la 
 proc<5<hire a commcncL' (levant Mr, IJetts au moisd'Avril, il n'y avail ancuno question 
 encore cl'nn iivrH (le renvoi |)Our faux, ni de faux en auoune mani6rc; pcrsonne n'en 
 avait jamais \iarU: On en avait d'autant moins piirli; (|ue la d(;position du 
 directeur do la |{an(|iie dc Poitiers (qui (;tait avec M. Lamiiandc) chez Mr. fktts 
 aver un mandat d'arret attribu(' 4 Jolly, .luge (rinstruction li Poitiers, ainsi qu'unc 
 plaintc au Procurrur Imp<^'rial de Poitiers, plus unc complainte dc M. le Consul- 
 (Jd-ncral Fran^;ais a New York, avait 6t6 dt'-poM-c pour I'arrestation de M. Lamirandc 
 cliez Mr. Hetts, il <5tait expres8(^'ment (lit dans cette d(^-position du dit directeur qu'on 
 nouvait nussi fraudor la banque par alt6ration dV'criturcs, mais que cc n'tl-tait pas 
 la le cas avec M. lamirandc. Dans le mandat d'arri^t du dit Jugc d'lnstruction, 
 ainsi (|ue dans la plaintc faite au Procureur lmp(irial, il nY'tait pas dit un mot du 
 faux, et on ordonnait sculcment I'arrestation dc M. liamirande pour di^tournemcnt 
 de ftmds en cilant les Artii-lca 3711 et 408 du Code P(5nal Fran(,-ais, qui n'ont trait 
 (pi'au vol et au (h-tourncmcnt de fonds. Ju.squ'alors pcrsonne n'avait |)arl(5 de faux 
 j\ iM. Lamirandc, puisquc pcrsonne n'en avait c(mnaissancc ; j'entcnds jusqu'au 
 moment ofi pour la prcmii^rc fois M. Lamirandc vint (levant le Commissaire Betts ; 
 alors moi et lesautres Omseils de M. Lamirandc avons dijfendu tV M. Lamirandc de 
 recevoir encore M. Melin, ou de lui parlcr encore en particulier. M. Melin a (lit 
 lui-mCme que iM. Lamirande n'a plus voulu le recevoir, et notrc rcfus ^tait fomic 
 sur cc que M. Melin par des promesscs et des insinuations avait pr<;tendu tirer de 
 M. Lamirandc des confessions contraircs il sa position. M. Melin m'avait dit lui- 
 mGme (ju'il avait dit i\ Lamirandc que s'il voulait tout avouer, ct retourner, il serait 
 moins pirii, et que son pirc et ses parents ctaient en prison A Poitiers. Mais 
 M. Melin ajoutait qu'il le faisait par bienveillancc pour le nrisonnier. 
 
 Lc di'posant nc dit rien de plus pour le pr(^>scnt, sa ({(^'position est continu^e A 
 dcmain, il 1 1 hcurcs du matin, ct lc d(3posant a s\en6, lecture faite. 
 
 (Signi) C. L. SPILTHORN. 
 
 AssermcntfSe, prise et reconnue par-devant moi a Montreal, ce 20me jourd'Aout, 
 
 avu 
 
 Yo 
 
 t^n 
 col 
 
 18( 
 
 Ei 
 
 p( 
 
 to 
 
 d( 
 
 r( 
 a 
 il 
 
 P 
 P 
 
 5 
 
 ( 
 I 
 
 1866. 
 
 (Sign(:o 
 
 W. H. Brehaut, P.M. 
 
 I I. 
 
 u 
 
 Avenant ce jourd'hui le 2 1 me jour d'Aoftt dans I'ann^e de Notre Seigneur 
 1866, le d(-posant susnomm(^> comparait de nouveau devant le SoussignC', William 
 H. Dreluiut, Kcuycr, Magistral de Police dans et pour le district de Montreal, et 
 dtant r6-assermcnt(5 en pr(5sence du prisonnier Ernest Sureau Lamirande, sa 
 deposition est reprise et continude comme suit : — 
 
 Je d6clai e en outre de ce que j'ai dit deja et depose qu'il n'est pas vrai que 
 j'aic jure, que j'aie dit au t6moin Coudert que je jurais de lui rendre la piece dite 
 arr<^t de renvoi si je la trouvais, je ne me sers m^me jamais de ces expressions ; je 
 ne lui ai dit autre chose d ce sujet que ce que j'ai depos(i hier. II n'est pas vrai 
 non plus (luc, comme lc m6mc Coudert I'a depos^, que j'ai demand^ la dite pi^ce d 
 Mr. Betts pour I'emporter, et si je I'ai prise avec moi, ce dont je ne me souviens pas 
 exactement, c'cst Mr. Betts lui-m^me qui me I'a volontairement remise. Je I'ai si 
 peu demandC-e et prise, que pour verifier \e pretendue traduction offerte par 
 Mr. Coudert, Mr. Clinton et moi, nous avons demands une remise de I'affaire pour 
 verifier la dite traduction ainsi que les autres traductions oflertes avec les pieces 
 pr6tendument venues de France, y compris le pretendu arrfet de renvoi, au bureau de 
 Mr. Betts, et c'cst la-dessus que Mr. Coudert demandant d presser I'affaire et pour ne 
 pas perdrc de temps, que Mr. Betts m'a spontanement offert la pi^ce pour la prendre 
 avec moi, et il n'est pas vrai non plus, comme le dit Mr. Coudert ici, que son fr^re 
 ou lui ait fait la moindre objection, et je disais que je pr^f^rerais mdme de 
 beaucoup verifier les pii-ces dans le bureau de Mr. Betts. 
 
 Q. Dans une accusation de faux port^e en France la production de la pi^ce 
 argu<^e de faux est-elle n^ccssaire ? 
 
 [OLiecte de la part de la Couronne. Objection maintenue.] 
 Q. Apr^s la cldture de votre examen hier, M. Melin vous 
 d(^>po8ition qu'il vous avait entendu faire ? et veuillez rapporter 
 a dit. 
 
 [Object^ de la part de la Couronne. Objection maintenue.] 
 
 Q. M. Melin vous a-t-il dit hier aprds la cldture de votre deposition que vous 
 
 a-t 
 ce 
 
 ■il parle 
 qu^il - 
 
 de la 
 vous en 
 
57 
 
 avicK exactcment rapt)<)rte Ics conversations «uc vous avic-/. cues avcc lui \ New 
 
 York? 
 
 [Objccti- (Ic la part de la Couronnc. Ohjcrtion maintrniip.j 
 Lc C'onseil du prisonnier drclan' n'avoir iilus d'niitrrs (|ii('! 
 
 tdmoin pnuluit par lui ; la dite tit-position est luc an «l«'|)osant, <|ui deflar'o «pi'clle 
 
 contient la v^-ritv ct a signe. 
 
 ^Sisn6) C. L. SPILTIIORN. 
 
 Assermcntt^'c, prise ct reoonnne par-dcvant moi i\ Montreal, cc 21 me jour d'Aoflt 
 
 ipiestioiis :\ |M>Her an 
 
 1866. 
 
 (Sign*-) 
 
 W. H. Hhfhai T. P.M. 
 
 Lecture ayant c't6 faitc de la d(^-(X)sitinn prect-dentc, en presence du prisonnier 
 Ernest Sureuu Lnmirande, M. Pominville, C'onseil de la poiirsnite, declare d('-sirer 
 poser au temoin les (picstions suivantus en contre-interrogatoire. 
 
 Q. Avez-vous agi comme d(5fenseur dc I'accuso lianiirande d New Y»)rk durant 
 tout le temps de la dcmundc pour son extradition? — li. Oui. 
 
 Q. Quels etaient les autres dei'enseurs dc raccuse qui out ap;i conjointement ct 
 de concert avec vous? — K. Mr. Clinton et Mr. Stalneolit. 
 
 Q. Comliicn de temps aprds I'arrestation de I'acous*^' Lamiiande ave/.-vou8 6t6 
 rctcnu comme son dt'-fenseur ?— K. Depuis I'arrestation pour extradition jtisqu'au 
 moment oCi il est parti et mOmc le 5 Juillet, puisque jc mosuis rendu a rau(lience ct 
 il n'y <5tait pas. Je me rappclle maintenant que (|uel(|ue temps avant I'arrestation 
 pour extradition j'avais 6t6 consulte par raceus<5. Lamirande avail viv arrC!t6 pour 
 pretcndu d<5tournement de fonds d'ahonl au iiom d'un hanquier de Paris, <li)nt on 
 
 tird*tendait qu'il avait pris I'argent, et ensuitc on a ajji de ce ciiel' pour la Hanque do 
 I'rancc. dont on nrC-tendait alors qu'il avail (k'tourno les momes roi\ds. Les frt^res 
 Coudert (Utaicnt les avocats de la Banquc de Krance et j'avais etc consult^ par 
 Lamirande dans ce proct^s. Ceci 6tait civilement. 
 
 Q. D'aprOs la rC-ponse que vous venea de donner doit-on comprcndre que 
 I'accuse Lamirande a (5te arriite deux fois? — R. L'accnse Lamirande a etc arrC-t^ 
 d'abord civilement et succcssivement, si je me rap|)elle bien, deux fois, c'est-tV-dirc,- 
 qu'il avait 6t6 arr6t6 une premiere fois ct pendant qu'il 6tait en prison on lui a 
 signiii6 qu'il 6tait arr6t6 une seconde fois. Je ne pourrais pas dire au juste ici s'il 
 y a eu deux arrestations civiles ; mais pour siir il y en a eu une, et c'est pendant 
 qu'il dtait arr6t(^ ainsi civilement qu'un ordrc (i'arrestation a Hi donne contre lui 
 
 Eour extradition sur lc fondement de detourncment dc fonds au prejudice dc la 
 lanque de France. 
 
 Q. Alors c'est sur le mandat d'arrOt pour d(5tournement de fonds et pour 
 I'extradition de I'accusd' que vous avez agi comme Conseil, comme son d<;fenseur ? — 
 R. J'ai agi comme Conseil dans le process civil ainsi que dans la riemandc d'extra- 
 dition. 
 
 Q. Dites-nous combien dc temps apri^s I'arrestation dc Lamirande vous I'avcz 
 vu pour la premiiire fois? — R. il <5tait arrfite depuis quelque temps civilement 
 lorsque je I'ai vu et qu'il m'a consulte la premiere fois, peut-fitre huit, dix ou quinze 
 jours aprtis ; pcut-6tre plus ou peut-Otre moins. Jc ne saurais lc dire exactc- 
 ment. 
 
 Q. N'est-il pas vrai que la demande pour I'extradition de I'accuse Lamirande d 
 New York ne reposait et n'a repos(5 que sur le detourncment des deniers dc la 
 Banquede Poitiers et le crimed'embezalcment? — R, Je ne connais pas d'autre demande 
 dextradition contre M. Lamirande que pour detourncment, et je ne puis pas appeler 
 ici, comme je ne I'ai pas fait d New York, le pretcndu " embezzlement," en languc 
 Fran9aise un crime, ni en France ni aux Ktats-Unis, mais simplcmcnt un d(5lit dans 
 le cas de Lamirande. 
 
 Q. Combien de temps a dur6 devant lc Commissairc Belts I'instruction pour 
 I'extradition de I'accuse Lamirande? — R. Je ne puis pas preciser exactcment Ic jour 
 qu'a commence la procedure dans le mois d'Avril, mais c'd'tait dans le mois d'Avril, 
 et elle a dure jusqu'au 5 Juillet, aprds I'evasion d'accus6. 
 
 Q. Pendant le cours de cette instruction pour I'extradition de I'accuscj Lami- 
 rande, n'est-il pas vrai qu'il a cte produit devant le Commissairc Belts certain 
 nombre de documents sur lesqucls ce dernier a mis ses initiales ? — R. Je crois que 
 oui. 
 
 Q. Prenez communication de \u pi^ce B produite en cette affaire, et dites si 
 vous trouvez ecrites les initiales du dii Commissaire Bctts?— i2. Je vois E, A, et B. 
 
 I 
 i 
 
58 
 
 Jo ne pourrain pn8 nttostcr que re sunt lA Ich initinlcs (If Mr. BcttR, luais j'ai bcau» 
 coup (Ic (lontcH qti*' ro soicnt lA sos iiiitialcs, pnrco (|ii'il mr Hrmlilc <l'apri^s lea 
 initiairs <pic j'ni viu-s dc Mr. IJctts, luaiB jo ncii ai paHvii hcaucouii, «'llc» ctaiviit plus 
 nottemcnt v\ |)Iuh riTiiH-nicnt. tracocs Ji- iw puis ricii assurer ia ilcssus. 
 
 Q. P()u\«7.-v()iis junr (pic Ics iiiitiah s cpii sc tniuvi'iit Hur If diKuincnt H nc 
 Ront pas !rs iiiitialfs dc M. Ic (onmiissairc Itc'ts? /»'. .k- nc jure ricii lA-dessus. 
 
 Q. Quund cetic piiicc a etc produitc dcvaiit Ic Coiumissairc HcIIh, les Consciis 
 do racciis<5, MM. Clinton ct Slidnccht. ont-ils fail (piehpiolycetion ? — li. Jc no me 
 Hotivienn pas (pie ecttt- pi(Ve-ei ait jamais Ho pmdnitc devant le C.'ommissnirp BcttB, 
 car jo ne I'v ai jamais luc ni vuc mni nicmc ; mais jc sais epic rpiand on a prodiiitdeti 
 pr(^tcndues tradnelions tic la piece (pie ( oudcrt a appcN'i' ici "arn'^t do renvoi." ccs 
 tra(liK'ti(ms rontciiaicnt, coninic jc I'ai dit dans mon exainen en clier, des hl.incs, et 
 (juc .Mr. Clinton et ludi se soiit opposes, cl out objcctc i\ I'admission tant de la 
 
 !)rctendne pi(Jcc venue de France (pi'A la dite traduction (ricellc. Quant a 
 dr. Stalneelit, jc crois cpi'il n etait pas a raiidieiicc, ou il ne venail pas toujours 
 
 Q. Connaisse/.-vous la distinction cntrc iin arret de renvoi ct un acte d'aceusa- 
 tion en France? — R, Oiii. l/arret dc renvoi est rendu par la Cliambrc dcs Mises 
 on Accusation, .ipics instruction et iiivcstijjation de la eliarge porti^^e contre 
 l'nceus(5. Lors(pi'un accust' est present on est g(5n('ralcmcnt plus cireonspcet ct on 
 oiitrc (lanu plus de diHaiis (juc lorsfiu'il est aliscnt, ct en son absence cela su fait 
 ci;n(.'ralement asse/, iej;(?icnienl. I.,'a(lc d'aceusation est un ('.wit posttJrieur a I'uetc 
 He renvoi qu'a ordre dc rc(lif;er le Proeiircur-Gunoral, ct c'cst sur eel acte d'aceu- 
 sation (pii est signifii' a I'aeeusc" ct qui est lii A la Cour d'Assises devant ic jury que 
 80 fait la procedure erimincllc contic raccus(;. 
 
 Q. L'arrOtde renvoi nc contient-il pas toutcs les inculpations contre I'accusC'?— 
 R. G(5»6ralement ; ccpendant s'il rcssortait devant la Cour d'Assises d'autres faits 
 
 3ue ceux eontcnus dans laetc dc renvoi, la Cour d'Assises se doune souvcnt le droit 
 e le jucer lA-dessua. 
 
 Q. N'est-il pas vrai qu'A New York, durant I'instruction pour I'cxtradition do 
 I'accus^ Lamirande, dcs avocats Franf-aisont 6U' consulti's ou cxaniin(!''s, tant de la 
 part dc la poursuitc que dc la d(;fense relativcment A la legalisation des piiiccs 
 venues de France ct produitcs dans radaire?— ii. Oui. 
 
 Q. N'est-il pas vrai (pio nonobstant I'opinion cxprimcc par les d^fenseura de 
 l'accu'i<5 Lamirande, I'avoeat Fran^aia produit dc la part dc la d(5fcnso declara que 
 les pieces produitcs (Jtaient suflisamment l(5galis(5cs ? — R. Si jcme rappcUe bien, il a 
 d^clar^ le contrairc, qu'ellcs nc I'd-taient pas. 
 
 Q. PouvcK-vous jurer que cct avocat Fran^ais, examind dc la part de la 
 d(5fen8e, a d6clar(!; que ccs pieces nYitaicnt pas sudisaranient I(5galis(!;e8 pour fetre 
 admises devant les tribunaux Fran^ais? — R. Au mieux dc mon souvenir, il a dit 
 
 3ue pour au'une K-galisation fut valabic elle devait contenir ce qu'en dit M, Merlin 
 ans le " Repertoire de Jurisprudence" au mot " Legalisation," et commc ellos ne 
 contcnaient pas ccs requisites il disait qu'elles n'ctaient pas sufTisantes, comnie 
 liSg'alisation. 
 
 Q. L'avocat Frangais, consulte dc la part de la poursuitc, a-t-il 6t6 de miime 
 opinion quo cclui dont vous venez de parler ? — R. Jc ne me souviens paa trt^s-bicn de 
 ce qu'il a dit, mais pour autant que je me souvienne de ce qu'il a dit, 6tant trans- 
 questionne, qu'on nc pouvait en France agir que sur des pieces originales qui nlors 
 n'avaicnt paa besoin d'etre Wgalisecs dans lour ressort. Je dois ajouter qu'il etait 
 trfis-contradictoire dans ses reponses, et que Mr. Clinton I'a mdmc traito de par- 
 jure en plaidant. C'etait un hommc qui n'agissait pas comme avocat, mais on 
 douta bcaucoup qu'il eut la qualite d'avocat. 
 
 Q. Sur le serment que vous avez prete, n'est-il pas vrai que M. Catois, l'avocat 
 Franyais consulte de la part de la defense, a admis devant le Commissaire Betta, 
 devant le tribunal, <ju'il y avait des cas ou des depositions legalisees telles que 
 I'etaicnt cclles produitcs, (Jtaient revues en France? 
 
 LObjecte de la part de la defense. Objection renvayee.] 
 
 R. Je ne me souviens pas bien s'il a ete interroge lA-dessus, ou ce qu'il a 
 repondu ; mais je sais bien qu'il a dit qu'en mati^re criminelle en France on ne 
 pouvait recevoir que les pii^ccs originales, et si elles etaient an^anties ou perdues, 
 
 au'on ne pouvait admettre dca copies que comme il est prescrit par le Code 
 'Instruction Criminelle. 
 
 Q. Combien de temps avant I'evasion dc I'accuse Lamirande de New York 
 I'arrfit de renvoi a-t-il ete produit devant le Commissaire BettsP-^fi. Au metxx de 
 mon souvenir le Jeudi ou le Mercredi auparavant. 
 
1 
 
 'au- 
 lea 
 
 •Ins 
 
 nc 
 
 ciis 
 nic 
 tts, 
 (lea 
 
 CCS 
 
 ct 
 la 
 i\ 
 
 50 
 
 Q. Avant la prtvluction <lc cct arnH di- roiivoi dovanl Ic C'onimiHfiairi^ lletU 
 avait-il rii <|U<>Htioii (riiu-iil|Kitioii «le fuiix oontn? I'luciim'' Lainiraiitlr .' — It. Non, 
 |MH ii m.i connaiHHiiiKc, i\ ramliL'tu-c. 
 
 y. Coiubipn (Jc temps apri-H la pnKliution rli- cci arnt tlo n-nsDi ilevanl Ic 
 Cdmmissairo Hotts rav«v.-voiis on en votre possesyiim .' — //. .Ime me rappelle pas si 
 je lai priH nvec moi ou non. Si je I'ai mi avee mm, eeiail a une »ie^ ilerniereH 
 audicnci'H. 
 
 Q. Y a-t-il eii des eurrespondanees rclianujeeM entre Mr. ('(iiuiertet vons relative- 
 inent a cct arret de renvoi ? — II Mr. C'oiiderl m'a icn\ im lijllft If lemlcrnain ou le 
 aurlcndeinain cpi'il etait vnui ehe/. moi |H)nr deinandei la dite p . ee. 
 
 Q. SavoK-voUK (pj'un iiiandat d'arrel a I'le iaiuv enntre vons a New York 
 rclativemcnl :\ la dite itit^ce, arn'l de renvoi, doiil d a ele <pn'Htion dann celtu 
 aiiuire ? — R. Je n'cn sais rien. Mr. Condert la depose ici. 
 
 Q. Conimeavoeat de I'acense lijiiniraii'Ic vons ave/. sonlenn, nCst-ee pas, a New 
 York (|ti il ne ponvail pas rCre extrade f — U. Oiii. el je le sonlnMiH en ure. 
 
 Q. N'e8t-et> pas vons (|oi avez donne dcs insliuclions el I'oni ni di s nnseionoinenlB 
 au defcnseur de I'acense Lainirande iei, lelalivcnienl a la deniande ponr son extradi- 
 tion ■' — li. Oni, j'en ai I'onrni (piehpics-nnes. 
 
 L'avocat de la ponrsnilc ('eelare n'avoir pis dantres (pn-siions a poser an 
 t<imoin et cct exanicn est clos, el aprtJs leelme laiif le deposant a smiie. 
 
 (Siir,,,.) c. L. si'ii/rnoRN. 
 
 Pri«c et rcconnue par-dcvant moi a Afontreal ce 21nic jonr (r.\oQt, 18G6. 
 (Signe) \V. H. Hkkiiai r, l».M. 
 
 PeI ENSE. 
 
 Bureau de Police. 
 
 Province du Canada, District of Montreal. 
 
 La (^'position d'Emile U. Morel, Kenycr, .\ vocal de la ville de New York, dana 
 I'Ktat de New York, un ilea Etats-Lnis d'Ameri(pie. actneileinent dans la cite de 
 Montreal, dans le tlistnct de .Montreal, |)rise sous sennenl cc "iJiue jonr d'.Voill.dans 
 I'annee <le notre Seigneur 1866, au Bureau de Police, dans le Palais do Justice, 
 dans la cite de Montreal, dans le district de .Montreal snsdit, |)ar le Soussigii<5, 
 William II. Brehaut, Kcuyer, Magistral de Police, dans et pour le district de 
 Montreal, en presence d'Krnest Surean Lainirande, ci-devant de Poitiers, dans 
 I'Empire Fran9ais, qui est in lintenanl accuse devant moi, snr plaintc portee devant 
 moi sous serment en vertu dcs (lis|)ositions do la Convention entre Sa Majeste la 
 Reine du Royaume Uni dc la Grande Hretagne et dirlande et Sa Majesty le Roi 
 des Fr^n^ais, et des Statuts I'aits et pourvus i cet ellet, d'avoir commis A Poitiers, 
 dans I'Empire Fran(,'ais, le crime .suivant menlionne dans et |)r6vii par la dite 
 Convention entre Sa Majeste la Reinc et Ic dit Roi des Fran^nis, savoir :— . 
 
 D'avoir le dit Ernest Surcau Lainirande commis le crime ile laux, en ayant, en 
 Ba quality de caissier de la succursalc de la Banque do France H Poitiers, fait de 
 fausscs entries dans les livres de la dite Banque et par ce moyen fraude la dite 
 Banque de la somme de 700,000 francs. 
 
 Le dd'posant Emile B. Morel depose et dit comme suit : 
 
 Question. Avez-vous eu quelque rapport avec la ponrsuitc qui a eu lieu k New 
 York pour I'extradition du prisonnier en Avril, Mai, et Juin dernier? — Rfpome. 
 JY'tais avocat particulier de M. Lamirande A New York, mais je ne paraissais pas 
 en nom comme un de ses d^fenscurs devant le Commissairc Belts. II me consultait 
 dans son afi'aire d'extradition et dans ses autrcsaifn ires en general, J'ai assiste A 
 presque toutes les stances qui ont eu lieu devant le Commissaire Betts. J'ai 
 notamment assist6 A une seance, jc ne me souviens pas si e'cst la derniire ou 
 ravant-derni^re seance avant la fuite de Lainirande, et A cette seance Mr. Coudcrt, 
 avocat de la poursuite, produisit un acte ou retenduc cojjie d'un pretend u arrdt 
 de renvoi, ainsiqu'une pretendue traduction de la dite copic. Les defenseurs de 
 I'acciise s'opposfirent A la reception de ces pieces ; prima, parce que la pretendue 
 copie du pr<5tendu arr6t de renvoi n'etait pas dilment lei;alisec ; et, secundo, 
 s'opposiirent A la riiception de la traduction, parce (pi'il y avail beaucoup de hiancs 
 et qu'elle 6tait autrement incorrecte ct inintelligililc. Mr. Betts decida (lu'il 
 n'adraettrait pas les pieces delinitivement, qu'il r<iservait sa decision A cet egard. Les 
 avocats de I'accus^ dcmand^rent un d6lai, afin de pouvoir examiner les tlites pieces 
 et comparer la traduction faitc par Mr. Coudert. Alurs Mr. Betts r6pondit que 
 
i ;'V 
 
 m 
 
 commo il nr delimit |»ns proloiijfcr rnfTnirc plus lonptrmps par (Ich (lelftin, il prinit 
 Mr. Spiltlmrn <IVnip«)itfr la jiirrc avci- liii vl qin* <lc itHc iniiiiirr('-li\ Ii-k piiVcti 
 poiiriiiinit ctrc cxamiiH'cs ile In a la proohaino s/'ancr. Jc n'ai pns rcmarfJiK^' hI 
 Isir Spiltlmrii a eiiiportt'- In pitcf oiii on iioii. btrMtpii- r«m jmHliiiiiil re prctviidu 
 arnH il<' it'tivoi (|iii a('<usait sdi-disant M. I.niniraiitli* (ii> laiix, nn cri iiniv«.THcl 
 retnilit <lo tdiilcs [lailM (|iiaiit a lahsiiiditr tl'iinc pnn-illr arcusntioii. 
 
 Q. Voiiii'z-VdUK (lire si Ic (lociiinciit pnidiiit devniil Mr. ItcltH coinnie tradiirtiiin 
 dii pn'tcndii arret di- renvoi ctait la iiunip «nie la piire I) prodiiiu* iei, et n\ 
 cV'lait la iiK'me ctait-f Ile aiors <lans I'etut oti vous Iroiivex atijotird liui la pieee II,* 
 — It Jo voiiN dirai (pie j'ai Itieu etitendti dire nar .Mr. Clinton, (pi'il y avnit iinc 
 masse de mots non iraduils et en lilane dans la dili Iradiietion de Mr. C'(mdert, 
 cedent. Mr Coiidert eon\int el (in'il atlrdiiia u riniportsil)ilit(' on ii s'lHait trotivi- 
 de (radiiire ces mots, pnroe (ju'd ne les eomprenait pas exaetement ; fjn'il no savait 
 pas en ap|in'(ier leiir exactc valeur ; mais (piaiit a la piece IJ. jo ne pnis pas dire 
 I'avoir vne ; par consd-cpient. jo ne sais pas si c'est cellc-la ou pas. Je ne poiirrais 
 pas assurer posit ivenu'nt s'il y a eu niie st'anee a|)ri^s celle oil M. iSpilthnrn a «'t(' 
 retpiis d'emp(trter la traduction pour la comparer, mais je nc le erois pas. Je sais 
 nii'on s'est n'lini une fois, mais il n'v a pas eu de seance, il cause de la maladic dim 
 lies avocats. .le ne dis rien de posiiii a cet ej^ard. 
 
 Q. .M. Kdme. Justin .Meliii a-t-il exprime en votre pri'soncc ce cpi'il savait ou 
 peii.sait de I'accnHjition de I'auv, soit a New York, soit ici .' — R. M. .Melin, comme 
 tout le moiide, a eonvcnu de I'absiirdile d'une pareiile iccus;ition ; il disait (pi'on 
 ne poiivait pas lextrader pour I'au.v, (pi'il n'y avait pas I'l de laux. Ici i\ .Montreal, 
 Aplusieurs reprises, devantd'a litres |)ersonnes il a reconnu ipie tout cc ipic Mr. Spil- 
 tliorn avait dit ici ('■tail vrai, cl ipi'il n'avait jamais voulu dire dans son temoignagc 
 que iM. Lamirandc s'etait reconiui coupable de faux, ipi'il avait seulement reconnu 
 (]ii'on I'av.iit accuse!' de laux. 
 
 Q. M. Melin a-t-il ('•le temoin a New Y ' 4 .' — /^ Non pas qui; jc m'cn rappclle. 
 Je ne coiii|)iends pas comme temoignagc L attidavits ipi'il aurait pu donner ; ct 
 j'ignorc s'il en a doruie. Je vcux seulement pi'iicr des temoif^na^es oraux. 
 
 Q. Le prisomiier etait-il accusij de faux a New York soit dans les precedes de 
 son extradition soit dans les depositions qui scrvaicnt de base u cette procedure ^ 
 — li. Avaiit la |)ioduction dc la pretendue copic du prctendu arret de renvoi, on 
 n'avait jamais parle de faux. J'ai lu les diircrcntes d(!>positions ou pretendues 
 d(5positions, ()ui (''taient deposeesauGreflc, ct, entr'autres, la deposition de M, Hailly, 
 I'un ties Directeurs, je crois, de la Succursale de la Hanquc tie Franco tl Poitiers, 
 dans laqucllc de|)osition M. Uailly disait qu'im pouvait fairc des d^tourncmcnts 
 de fonds an moyen de faux, ou d'altC'rations dans les livrcs, ct que tcl n'etait pas Ic 
 cas avec M. Lamirandc. Jc n'ai nulle part vu Ic fait de faux bordereaux, ou m^mc 
 dc lausscs entrees, je crois, mciitionncc. II faut bien s'entcndre que jc parle des 
 pi("'ces dcposecs au (jrede a. New York avant la production dc la pretendue copic du 
 prctendu arr(;'t de renvoi, car jc n'aimerais pas qu'on dirait qucje me contredis. 
 Quand on a prodiiit devant Ic Commissaire Bctts la pretendue co|)ic du prctendu 
 arrOt dc renvoi, le prisonnier s'est ecriii hnutemcnt qu'il ne se reconnaissait pas 
 coupable dc faux ; (|iic ce n'etait pas un faux ; ct les MM. Coudert cux-m6mes ont 
 eonvcnu qu'il n'y avait pas matiere a faux, et qu'ils abandonnaicnt toute espiice de 
 poursuitc il cet egard. 
 
 Q. ConnaisscK-vous suflisainment les conditions des Trait^s d'Extradition entre 
 la France ct les Etats-Unis, pour dire si le faux est I'un des crimes pour lesquels 
 Textradition pent Otre rcspectivcment demande'e entre ces deux Puissances ? 
 
 [Objectij par la Couronnc. Objection renvoyi-e.] 
 
 R. Oiii ; le faux est I'un des crimes enum^rcs dans ces Traites. 
 
 Le Conseil du prisonnier dijclare n'avoir pas d'autres questions d poser au 
 temoin p: iliiit. Et le deposant, apr6s lecture faite, declare que sa disposition 
 contient la \oritc, y persiste et a sign6. 
 
 (Signi-) EM ILE B. MOREL. 
 
 Assermcntee, prise et reconnue par-dcvant moi A Montreal, cc 22me jour d'Aotkt, 
 
 1806. 
 
 (SIgni5) 
 
 W. H. Brehaut, P.m. 
 
 Q 
 U. 
 
 n'eHt-c" 
 ffnM'iu' 
 Lamii^ 
 
 Q 
 IV"*'' 
 consf'l 
 
 Q 
 
 U 
 noil- 
 U 
 
 La disposition prec<;dentc ayant i5t6 faite et lue en presence du prisonnier, 
 Ernest Sureau Lamirandc, M. Pominville, Conseil de la poursuite, declare d^sirer 
 poser au temoin Ics questions suivantes en contre-interrogation : — 
 
m 
 
 ■tiDtl 
 
 NJ 
 
 11.' 
 
 line 
 
 ort. 
 )iive 
 ivnit 
 (lire 
 •rais 
 
 rtr 
 Hais 
 
 iin 
 
 «l 
 
 Q. IVpiii^ qiianH »t<H.V(iiis axixal •- II. Jr miin nvntat ilcpiiis \HiV\. 
 
 Q. IK'|niis l";irrfst(ili()n di- I aniiraiKU' i«i n'.ivr/.vMiH pan t'u' son aviMPiir rt 
 n'wt-cc pns vdiiH «pii iivc7, foiirni A ra\< '-.(t (jiii Ic ilrlcml lonli> U-. inturmatiDnH, 
 rfnsri:;Mi'mcii|>J iclativcincnf ."i rrlti' ortiirr .'-/,' .Ic hiiIm uii dos i(Hihciln " «!«• 
 Laniir.ii '!<• \n lunis moiis soinincs rniisiilt.' nwr Mr. Donlir Hiir mm iiHauT-. ""T" 
 
 Q. Mr. S|iillli()rn (('•nioiii. ciiUmkIimIc I.i part '!-• I.i il 'Irnsr, chI.jI autNi c.inHcirWr 
 |'arrii*('' ?—/>'. .Ii* nc sais nas jiiHipia (|n(-l poiiil Mr SpiltlmiiiMc c-nnsidtVc cdnm"' Ip 
 conncil dc racciiHt'. 
 
 Q. (^ncl (!(•:: r<^ dc pareiit<'\ a-t il i-nlrc Mr Si.ililioni it \.mi>?— /.'. Mr. Spilllinm 
 c«t ni"ii uncle. .I'ai ('tiidlr la lui (In-/. I'li NOii-. prali(|niiii> d.ins Ic nii'mc Inircati. 
 
 Q. l>i)is-jciMnjprcnilrc(pi<- vdiisclcs en siKiilr avcc Mr. Spililiorn y U Oni tl 
 
 noil. 
 
 Q Dam voire cxaincn en cluT \ oiis ditcH (pie vons avc/ agi i\ New York comniu 
 I'avocat p:irlicuii<T ik' Laniiiandc. dilcs-nniis done ce <pie V( lis eiilcnde/. par la' — 
 R. ("( sl-.'i-dirc (picM. I.aniirandi' me ('(insidlait snrscs atlaiiiscn ncueral en dcliors 
 dc sc'S aiities avocat». • 
 
 Q. Coniliicii dc teinp^ a,in>s i'arrestation de Laniirande a New \ Drk lavcz- 
 vous vn pour la preniit^rc lois .' - II. .Ip up Hais pas hi <''est (piin/.c ynn> on IroiH 
 scmniiips apr»\s. mais jp ne puis ripii (Trtider de certain h ret cijard. 
 
 Q. D.Mis (piel temps a commence rinstriiclion a New ^■(lrk pinir I'Mradilioii 
 (Ic Lamirande ' /.'. .Ic crois mc lappeler (pie c'csl druis Ic conrant dn niois dr Mai. 
 LVvtradilioii einit dem;iiid('c pour le c rime d cmlK/./.jemenl, il n'etail alorH 
 nulloiiient (|u('lion d'incidpalion dc laiix, pas (pie jc Kaclic. IVttP procedure pour 
 I'extradition i\c I'accusc'' s'est continiiec jnscpra la Inite d;i pris(nuiier. .I'ai cnliiulu 
 dire (pi'il s clait enfiii le .'< .Inillet. L'in^lruction pour lextradilion dii prisonnier 
 tirait alors a sa tin. 
 
 (f. C'ond)icn dc temps avant Ja fiiite dii prisonni(!r I'arret dc renvoi a-t-il «!'t^ 
 prodiiit (levant le Coinmissaire Hetts / — Ii. .le dis (jue jc n'ctais |)as tout i"> lait 
 certain, mais rpie jocroy.'iis fiuo cpla a et('; il la dernitrc oii a ravant-deiiiicrc M^aiice. 
 
 Q. Avp/.-v(nis III I'arret (Ip renvoi produit devani Ic Coininissaire nctls? — W. Jp 
 nc mc rappplle pas I'avoir lu. 
 
 Q. *Avc/..vous lu la traduction ipii en a (•U- faite ^ — //. .le nc nren rappello pus. 
 
 Q. Avc/-vous vii les initialcs du Commissairc Bctts snr les pieces ct documents 
 produits (levant lui dans radaiip do I^amiraixle ? -H. .le nc in'pii ra|)pellp pas. .4 
 
 Q. I.ps ol)jpctions failps par les avoeats de rarciist' relativemcnt aux piOres 
 
 [iroduites ont-elles Hi' coucliies par ecrit .♦ — R. Je crois (pie oiii, parce quc'V'est 
 'habitude (l< le fairc. 
 
 Q. Mr. Clinton. I'lin des nvocats de raccus('', |).irlp-t-il le Kran^ais? — Ii. Je ne 
 le sais pas. 
 
 Q. Ave/.-vous vn dans Ic bureau de .Mr. Spilthorii oil le voire I'arrdt de renvoi 
 dont vous avc/. parld plus liaut .' — R. Non. 
 
 Q. N'est-il pas vrai que lors(pic vous dites dans votre examen en rhef " iin cri 
 universel retenlil de toute part (jiiant a rabsurditc'' dc raccusatiou dc taux, " vouB 
 n'cntendcz i)arlcr que des avoeats dc I'accusC; .' — R. Jentcnds parler aiissi de 
 M. Catois, un avocat trcis (iistingu(- de Krancc, qui a dit qu'il ne eomprcnait pas 
 comment des Magistrals Fran^ais pouvaicnt sc proslituer A une pareill«> inf'amie 
 
 Siuc d'accnscr ainsi indAment un individu dc i'aux saehanl (|u'il n'y avail pas dc 
 aux |)ossil)lc d'aprt^s les lois Fran(;aise8. .I'ai rpmarqu6 que lous except(5 ceux 
 int^ress(5s dans la poursuile trouvaienl la chose incroyable el absurde. 
 
 Q. Ce M. Catois n'6tait-il pas un des avoeats consult<>s de la parldc la defense? 
 — R. Non, il nc I'^lait pas, car au contraire j'ai toujours cntcndu dire a M. Catois 
 qu'il ne veiiait pas pour approuvcr les fautes (pic le prisonnier aurail pu com- 
 mettrc, mais qu'il venail simplemenl pour dcjposer dcvant el instruirc le juge de ce 
 qu'dtaient les lois, Ic droll et la justice en Krancc, qu'il Ic savail niicux que 
 
 Psrsonne A New York |X)ur ce genre d'affaires, parce que lui-memc avail M 
 rocurcur du Roi en France pendant de nombreuses anndes. 
 
 Q. Combien y avait-il de personnes pr^sentes an tribunal dans loccasion 01^ 
 I'arrfit de renvoi a 6l<5 produit ? — R. Je ne les ai pas cumpt6. 
 
 Q. A part les avoeats tantdc la poursuile que de la d<ifense, et vous y compris, 
 y avait-il plus de cinq personnes ? — R. Je sais qu'il y avail plusieurs personnes, mais 
 je ne puis pas r^pondre autremenl avec certitude. 
 
 Q. Y avail-il plus de six personnes ? — R. Je n'en saig rien. 
 
 Q. Y en avait-il plus de trois? — R. Je ne m'en rappelle pas ou plulot je n'en 
 sais rien, mais je pense que oui. 
 
 [75] K 
 
 'I 
 
 M 
 
 jm\ 
 
62 
 
 No. 
 
 Q. N'est-il pas vrai que Ic iiom'n6 Mclin, Hont vous avcz parld 
 len CI) chef, vous u tuiijours (lit qu'il n'accusait pas Lamirande, 
 
 dans votre 
 rxaiiien en cnci, vous a loujours (iii qu ii ii utiusaii pas Liamiranue, qu'il (!tait 
 accus<^' par la justice Fran«;ais(', et tpie pur consequent il croyait I'arcusation Fondle; 
 ft n'a-t-il pas ajouli'; aussi <pK- la 'cponsequc Lamirande lui avail faite conceriiant le 
 fiux indiquait inq)licitement (pi'd so reconnaissait coupablo? — H. Non, si je nio 
 rappelle bicn ii m'a toujours (lit Ic contrairc. II ni'a dit qi.il no pouvait pas 
 accuser iiamiraiidc de sV;tre av()U(3 coupable de faux puis(ju'il no sY'tait jamais 
 !iv()U(^' coupable ; voila co (ju'il m'a dit. 
 
 Q. Quand vous at i' dit cela ? — R II me I'a dit hier encore, ici li la portc dc la 
 ('our; et je lui ai • ■: lulti dire dilU'renlos autrcs fois ici m6nie ct aillcurs, oii noug 
 dcMieurons, ii I'Motel Jacfpics Carticr. 
 
 Q. Qui a invit(; Mclin i allcr a I'lKUcI Jacques C'artier, et pounjuoi a-t-il tit(; 
 \i\vh6 h s'y rendre ? — Ii. Jc no me rappelle pas s'il y est venu de son proprc grti on 
 s'il y I (5t('' invit(!', jc n'cn suis pas siir. 
 
 Q Happorte/, Ics proprcs expressions donl: s'est servi M. Meiin lorsqu'il vous a 
 parl('' de I'inculpation dc faux |)ort('o contic i'accus(!'? — Ii. .Ic crois me rappilir (|u'i| 
 s'cst servi dcs termcs, ou a pen pros dcs termes, mentionniis plus haut ])av moi. Jc 
 nc puis pas dire cxactement mot par mot les expressions (|u'il a cmpK)y(5cs. 
 
 Q. Sur le sermcnt (pie vous avez pr6t(!', n'est-il pas vrai que M. Meliri vous adit 
 dans Ics occasions en question que loisqu'il avait parl(5 A Liimirandc de Tarrct dc renvoi 
 (jui i inculpait de faux, Lamirande avait rtl'pondu : " Oui c'est vrai, jo Ic sais " ? — R. 
 Jc iivt m'en rappelle pas. Jc «"' nioralcmcnt certain du contraire. 
 
 Q. N'est-il pas vrai c,'.:c ' iiommc^ Melin vous a dil que pour !> perstinnelle. 
 mcnt il nc pouvait accuser Lamirande de faux, mais (luc la r(jponsc dc Lamirande, 
 en li;i parlant de ce crime, "Jc !e sais bien," indiquait implicitcnieiit, 'lans la 
 conviction dc Mclin, quo Lamirande se reconnaissait coupable? — R. Jc nc nie 
 rappelle pas que Melin m'ait jamais dit cela. 
 
 Q. Sur le scrment que vous avez prfitC-. donncz les expressions dont s'(?st servi 
 hicr .\Icli;i cpiand il vous a parit; dc raflaire de faux? — R. Comme je I'ai dcjja dit, jc 
 no pourrais pis dire mot pour mot les expressions dont s'est servi ilclin, mais je 
 puis dire que les expressions qui! a cmployd-cs et la toneur dcs expressions cpi'il a 
 cmployt'ics, ct qu'il a a pen prc^s littcralcment employees, ai pas littoralcmcnt, ont et(3 
 cellcs-ci : " Je no puis pas accuser Lamirande de s'titre avou6 coupable a moi, attendu 
 qu'il nc s'cst jamais avou<5 cou|)ablc ;V moi dc faux." 
 
 Q. Alelin (-tait-il sous sermcnt lorsqu'il vous a ainsi parlc ? — R. J'aimerais que 
 Ic savant avocat m'expliquat cc (pi'il entend par Ctrc sous scrment. 
 
 Q. Savcz-vous si vous dtt's sous scrment ct que vou ; avcz donn(j votre d(5posi- 
 lion sous sermcnt? — R. Oui, jc sais que je suis sous scrment et que jai doiine' ma 
 (l('"j)osition sous scrment. 
 
 Q. Avcz-vous aide ou participc ;\ I'fjvasion du prisonnier Lamirande de New 
 \ Ork ?— R. Je refuse dc r»5p(>iulro a cette question, parce qu'eile est inconvcnante, 
 ii.ipcilincnte. indd'ccntc, sale, ct iiidif^nc d'un avocat, et si j'avais plus d'cpitli(ites 
 dans ma l)oucho je Ics soi'nicttniis encore dans ma reponsc. 
 
 LeCoiiseil dc Ii p.iursuitc, M. Pominvillc, d(jclare n'avoir pas d'autrc question a 
 poser au tcmoin, et cet cxamen est dos. Kt le d6posant a sign(5, lecture I'aitc. 
 
 (Signi-) KMILH B. MORKL. 
 
 Prise et reconnuc par-dcnanl moi A Montr(5al, ce 'J2me jour d'Aout, 18(JC. 
 
 (.Sionij) W. H. liiii iiAUT, P.M. 
 
 __ 
 
 Coi'v of a DKSPATCM from Viscount Monck to the Right Hon. the Earl of 
 
 Caunauvon'. 
 (No. 173.) Quebec, October 25, 18G6. 
 
 Mv Loud. (Received Novcmbor 7, 18Gt!.) 
 
 RKKKRRING to my dcspai-lics No. 15.5* of the 6th October, and No. i()4,t of 
 the 18tli October, I have the iioiiour to transmit, for your Lordship's information, 
 tlirec extracts from the "Montreal Herald" of 8eptc..iber 25th, October the 18th. 
 and October the 22nd, containing reports of what took place on those days in the 
 Court of Queen's Bench at Montreal, respecting the necessity for notice in applica- 
 tions for the writ of habeas corpus. 
 
 I have, &c. 
 The Right Hon. the Earl of Carnarvon, (Signed) MONCK. 
 
 &c. &c. &,c. 
 
 Page 1. 
 
 t Page 12. 
 
 m } ! 
 
fans votre 
 
 [•nfonck-e; 
 
 t*eriiant le 
 •^i je nin 
 
 'ivajt pas 
 I'it .janiai.s 
 
 poito (Je la 
 "ii nous 
 
 J)i a-t-il (ite 
 [■■e gre ou 
 
 I'll vous a 
 
 (|hIiT (|u'i| 
 
 inoi. .If 
 
 I vous adit 
 It <lc renvoi 
 uis " ?—ii 
 
 rsDiinclle- 
 aniiraiide, 
 'lans la 
 I' ne me 
 
 ) 
 
 i <!.st seivi 
 <5,ja (lit, je 
 
 ", niaisje 
 ns (lu'il a 
 nt, ont etc 
 "i, attendu 
 
 iierais 
 
 que 
 
 re <l(5posi- 
 doiine' ma 
 
 le do New 
 •nvenante, 
 1 epitli<5tes 
 
 |iicstion ;"i 
 lite. 
 
 m. 
 
 Ill c»f 
 
 , 1866. 
 
 ISG'J.) 
 
 I()4,f of 
 niiation, 
 lie 18th, 
 s in the 
 applica- 
 
 NCK. 
 
 63 
 
 Inclosure in No. 3. luelooirr in Vn. t. 
 
 ExTEACTs from the " Montreal '« lerald." 
 
 'I'me I.amirandr Case — Court of Queen's Bench. 
 
 THIS morning (September 25). before the Judge (Mr. Justice Drummond) look 
 his seat, the Court was crowded with professional men and others, attracted by the 
 expectation of a lively discussion respecting the I^mirande case. 
 
 Mr. Doutre, Q.C., said there was a reference in tlie charge to the (irand Jury 
 in the Lamirande case. All the dilliculty in this case had arisen from the practice 
 of requiring twenty-four hours' notice in an application for writ of habeas roTpuit. 
 \n order to show the working of that rule and the necessity for its abrogation, he 
 would communicate to tiie Court documents which would make it manifest thai as 
 long as tiiat rule existed there wis no huniaM means of protecting the liberty of a 
 
 f)crson claimed under extradition Treaties. While the proceedings were going »n 
 Hjforo the Police Magistrate it was easily seen that, law or no law, Lamirande 
 would be committed for extradition. In tliese lircumstances and in view of the 
 present rule, it was felt that there would be a surprise attempted, and to guard 
 against this a petition was presented to his Kxceilcncy pointing out the facts of the 
 case, and an acknowledgment was received stating th.it the petition had been 
 referred to the Attorney-General Kast's department. To confine himself to written 
 documents and not referring to what took place at Ottawa, he would read the 
 following report: — 
 
 "On tl>e 29th of August, 1860, (he undersigned, Joseph Uoulre, Q.C . au'l 
 C. \j. Spilthorn, attorney and counsellor at law, had the honour of meeting his 
 Excellency the Governor-CJeneral of Canada, &,c., at QucIjcc, in relation to the 
 extr.'i(!ition of Krncst Sureau Lamirande, claimed l)y France as a fugitive criminal. 
 
 " In that interview his Excellency acknowlcdgerl that Mr. Spilthorn, one of the 
 undersigned, having presented a petition from the said Lamiranclc to his l^xceiiency 
 about the 17tii of August, 18G6, in Ottawa, prayirg his Ivxcellency that in case lie 
 (Lamirande) should be committed .'^)r extradition liy the Police .Magistrate then 
 investigating the matter, he (Lamirande) should lie allowed the necessary time lo 
 submit his case to higher tribunals for examination under a writ of habras rorpur. 
 His Excellency had tlicn and tiicrc told Mr. Spiltiiorn that ample time wou'd be 
 allowed to Lamirande foi the purpose of suijmilting his case as mentioned in tiie 
 said petition. 
 
 (Signed) "Josf.ph DotritK. 
 
 4' 
 A' 
 
 Montreal, September 11, l**^.' 
 
 'C. L. Spir.TiioK.v. 
 
 To this the following acknowl*'4g*i«>nt was received : — 
 
 "Sir, "Quebec, September 12, 1806. 
 
 " I have the honour to inform you tha I have laid the paper which you inclosecf 
 to me in your leltcrofthe iUh instant Ix'for*' the (jcnernor-General, and 1 am to 
 acquaint you that it is therein correctly stated Wjal Ivis Excellency told Mr. Spilthorn 
 that ample time would be allowed to f/fimiran^Ue to obtain a writ of habeas rnrpus 
 before the execution of the warrant for hi* extradition. 
 
 (Signed) '' Dknis <ia«LEY, Governor's Secretary.' 
 
 His Honour said ho had seen »!;i3 oflicial acknowledgment before bringing it as 
 a fact before the Grand Jury. 
 
 Mr. Doutre said he presumed the reference in tlw charge was founded on that 
 document. It was, howcvci matter of notoriety th.ii nf withstanding all these 
 
 Erecautions Lamirande was carried off. The tacts connected with this case would 
 ave to come before this or some other tribunal. He hafl asked his Exceliencv's 
 permission to lay the whole of the documents before the public, s<^> that it miglit be 
 seen what influence had been broug!it to bca*' to induce his Excellency to sign the 
 warkant on the morning after the decision had been come to by the jPoiiee Magis- 
 trate. His Excellency, however, had himself expressed a desire that they should 
 not be published, so that he felt relieved from the necessity of explaining how the 
 warrant of extradition had been igned so hurriedly, notwithstanding the solemn 
 promise of the Governor-General. In the case of [>erson8 remaining in gaol no 
 prejudice could arise from the twenty-four hou s' rule. l)ul in this case it was very 
 difTereat. He had prepared a petition to abrogate tinu rule, which was in substance 
 
 K 2 
 
fi4 
 
 that the case of Lamirande. forming part of the record of this Court, Iwid shown 
 that the notice of twenty-four h«»tirs for ;i writ of hah fax rortiun had been -subversive 
 of the eflects of that writ in matters of evtraditior., uid prayed that the rule should 
 be abrogated for the future in cases of this kincl. 
 
 Mr. Kanisuy said that notice ought to l)e given l)e(bre anytliing l)c (iunc, so 
 that the Attorney-Oeneral might take cognizance of it. It was a petition pro|)osiMg 
 a cliangc of the whole practice o! the Court, whicli iiaii existed lor \cars. It 
 proposeij to shorten Itie time wliidi existed (;ven in llngland, and the linie iipre ig 
 not twenty-four hours, liut one day, it would be better that the praclitc of giving 
 no notice be adopted, and let the writ issue at once on appliiation. 
 
 His Honour said tlial th 
 
 lus was an error, and that a \crv serious mistake was 
 committed on this point. Tin- wnl of luihrtix cnriitis uas a writ of rigiit, l)iii lijd not 
 issue as a matter ol' cnurse. Most unjiistiliable attacks li.ul been maiic upon a 
 Judge of this Court because hr had not issued a writ of habeas cuipu.s. Tlu' .Fudges- 
 took the law from the book-., and not from scribblers in the newspapers. 'I'lie 
 opinion of Chief .Jusiii-e Wilniot was worth more tiiaii that of m'..ii wiio had 
 pronounce<l an opinion without having seriously studied tiie (juestioii. Of course 
 the change would not be inadi without due consideration. There was mucii to be 
 8ai<i on Ijotli sides, but can- ougiil lo be taken tliaL no opportunity siiould be 
 aflTorded of entrap|)ing and carrying off men under plea of .a legal didiculiy. The 
 petition would be considered, i ut he did not contemplate lliat there would be any 
 change in the rule, except after due consideration by all the .ludges of liie Court. 
 
 Krom the "Montreal Herald" of October 1^, 18G(i, 
 Presiding;: — Mr. .Justice Dbummond. 
 
 Pii.\cTici; i.\ Hai!e.\s CoKi'us, 
 
 HIS Honour said ihui. sci mg Mr. Doutre in Courl, he wished to infonu him 
 that they all appeared to have been under a mistake regarding this mailer, the 
 petitiiMi stilling tl.at there was a rule of practice which lie wished altered. Tiiere 
 was. he found, no rule of practice \q issuing these writs. Vfter cousultatioa with 
 his colleagues, he would now say, that wliilo there was no rule, yd that liic .Judges 
 would follow tiie cijur>;e liitiierUi pursuctl ur.lcss where a case was showa icquiriug 
 haste, in which case the writ would at once issue, due notice being given to ihc 
 Attorney-General as usual before any decision would be given. 
 
 Mr, IJoutre said lie had stared there was a practice wiiich had the force of a 
 rule. He wouUl w ish to be heard before any decision on the petition was given, 
 
 Mr, Ramsaysaid. we do not care about notice before the issue of the wril. He 
 had alw.'iys ailvocatcd tht issuing of ilie writ immediate. There was a linancial 
 reason for the Crown desiring; this. 
 
 Court of Quebn's Bencu. — Skptkmbkr Term. 
 Present: — Their Honours Justices iJulmmond, Baugli;y, and Jaondelkt. 
 
 PiiACTicE IN Habeas Cobpus. 
 
 ()ci-i*»er 20, I86G. 
 
 MR. nOUTIU*^ Q.C.. applietl to hav; :i (ieciaion rendered on kis petition to 
 change tlie ruh'or proceeding in a; plicati< . for a \vrit ai' huhfim -nrpus. 
 
 Their Honours severally stated that no rule coated on the subject furiiier thau 
 that the writ might issue at once or motici' be prr\ ioo^r given iu che discreti(Mi 
 
 of the Judge before whom anidavits 
 
 icre 
 
 lai 
 
 The prjirti 
 
 notice to 
 
 the Crown had always been in existence, but wrt«>«*«>T the notice shojiid be given 
 before or after the issuing of the wril was in al. s ^ matter For consideration. 
 Kach case must be judged by its merits. Mr. DouU i .J thereiioj'L Lake nothing 
 by his motion. 
 
66 
 
 No. 4. 
 
 Corv of a UKSPATC'II |iom Viscount Monck. Id tlic Ritjlil tlon. the Karl of 
 
 Cahnarvon. 
 Ko. 174.J toucher, (Ktol)cr :i;'), luM. 
 
 My Loud, (HtwiM,! Xi.v.iiiiMr 7, iscG.) 
 
 I HAVK thr lioimur to iiaiisiiiit to unir Lordship a cojiv of a It-tliT wliicli I 
 have iciTivfd from Mr. IJoulro, who was C'ouiisol for l.anuraiKli' in llir Icjjal 
 nroceciliiigs that have lately takiii |)lacc, togfther with a itipy of the rt'piv which 1 
 caused to be returned to it. All the docuiiKMits in Laiuirandc's case an- easily 
 iccessiliie to Mr. 1). ntrc, cxce|)t the opinions an<i repoiis ol th" Law Ollieers of the 
 frown: and in <leel!i inj; to eoininunieate to liini thost 
 lielievc that I ';a\e li.i, \» d the invariable 
 Imtli in Kngland and in (.aiiada. 
 
 I have, ^e. 
 ThcRipht Hon. the Karl oT Carnarvon. (Siiined) MONCK. 
 
 &c. &e. &e. 
 
 No. 4. 
 
 opinions ;ind reports, I 
 |)raelice under similar cireunistanecs. 
 
 I! 
 
 inelobure I in No I. 
 '^\r. DoLTiiK to Viscount .Mo.nck. 
 
 Inrlu. 1 in No. 4. 
 
 Mr Lord, Montreal, October lM. I86ti. 
 
 SINCE mv letter of the 22nd instant. I have received through ni\ atjents in 
 London an oflieial notice of the recpiest made to your K.xeelleney by i e Secretary 
 of State for the Colonic>. coneernini!; the Laniiraiule extradition cast. Th;' absence 
 of my client imposes upon me the duty of .ulopling measures ol protection both in 
 England and France ; and I feel that I am quite inadeijuate to the discharge of 
 that duty if I do not ])r()cure copies of ihe oHicial documents which are sent or 
 about to be sent to the Secretary of State for the Colonics. U will be obvious to 
 vour Ivvcellenc'' that I have no idea of a.'^kinf*' copies oi any teniarks, rc|)ortN. or 
 communications froi- vour I'^.vcelkncy to tiic Secretary of Stale; but 1 luunbly 
 submit that it would an act of justice to my client to let me have copies of the 
 other tloeumeiits sent to Kngland. r, compliance v\!ih the request of the Secretary 
 of State for the Colonies. 
 
 I have, &ic. 
 To his Excel ncv ihe Covcrnor of Canada. (Signed .J. DOCTltK. 
 
 Quebec. 
 
 [nclosure 2 in >'o. t. 
 
 Mr. tioDLEV to Mk. t>OUTI 
 
 Inclo. 2 in No. 4. 
 
 Sir, (Juebec, (Jclober 2.'), lHb6. 
 
 I AM directed by the ( lovcrtinr-Gciieral to aHtnov. I ^d^c tiic receipt oi 31'ur 
 letter of yesterday's date, anci in repi, i aaii u> iuMwm you that his Kxtellcncy is 
 quite prepared to forward to the Secretary wf tJtate Mt^ cbe ColuuieH auy statement 
 which you may desire l > place before him. 
 
 The docunu ats in th:; case of l^aniirandi'. which jure records ol the Court, can 
 
 be obtained by you without an) in, 
 decline to give copies of an, oi>iuion ^ 
 the Law OlHcers of the Crowii. 
 
 J. Doutrc, Esq., ^^.C. 
 
 Montreal. 
 
 i.iJii, .>ut Lac (jovernor-Ciiiierai must 
 ^ iiis 1 .ikcellcncy, or rc)>uri:» maoc i>y 
 
 I have, &tc. 
 (Signed) DKNIh UOULh\. 
 
66 
 
 No. S. 
 
 '.V 
 
 No. 5. 
 
 I 
 
 Copy of a DESPATCH from Viscount Monck to the Right Hon. the Karl of 
 
 Carnarvon. 
 (No. 175.) Quebec, October 2^*, 1866. 
 
 Mv Lord, (Received Noveml>er 7, 1806.) 
 
 I HAVP} the honour to transmit herewith, at the request of iMr. l)outrc, a 
 letter which he has addressed to your Lordship, mentioning the documents which he 
 believes are necessary to lie laid before you, in order to enable you to form a correct 
 opinion on tlic whole of Lamirande's case. All the papers marked in Mr. Doutre'g 
 letter with an asterisk, have already been sent to your Lordsiiip in triplicate, and I 
 now enclose, also in triplicate, copies of the other documents to which Mr. Doutrc 
 refers. The attidavits alluded to in the F'rench Consul-Gcneral's application for 
 Lamirande's extradition, wtiich application is termed by Mr. Uoutrc a Requisition 
 from the Kreiich fJovernment, and marked 1 in his letter, will be sent to your 
 I.<ordshi|) by the next mail. 
 
 1 have, &ic. 
 The Rifjht Hon. the Karl frfJarnarvon, (Signed) MONCK. 
 
 Sic. &,(• kc. 
 
 lacloiure in No. 5. 
 
 Mr. 
 
 Inciosure in No. 5. 
 DouTRE to the Karl of Carnarvon. 
 
 My Lord. Montreal, October 22, 1866. 
 
 H.WIXG hoard th.il our tOlonial Authorities had been requested to transmit 
 to the Coloiiiii' Oflke in Ki'^liind copies of papers connected with the I^amirande's 
 extr'i'lition case, I ])P^ leave to inform \oiir Lordship that the record of the case to 
 be complete, should iiulutle the following drx-uments: — 
 
 1. R<'quisitioi) from tlie French Government to his Kxcellency the Govcrnor- 
 (jleneral, for the extradition ol Lamiramie. Page 67. 
 
 2 W:irnint of his Kxcellency, date.l 26th .luly. 18()6. Page 68. 
 
 3. \Varrant of Police Magistrate. William ll. Br6haut, Esq., in obedience to 
 the Governor-General's warrant. Page 69. 
 
 4. Piiition of Felix Gaslicr, arrestcfl under the name of Ernest Sureau 
 Lamirande. to his Excellency the Govcrnor-(ieiieral, dated .3rd August, 1866. Page 70. 
 
 .'», L(>tfcr of Denis (iodley, PiS(]. under date 4th August, 1866, acknowledging 
 the receipt of Petition No, 4 above. f*age 70. 
 
 •6. Complaint of P'. J. Meiin, before Police INIagistrate. Page 38. 
 •7. l)ejK)siti(>n ami cross-examination of the same iSIelin before the same. 
 Page 39 
 
 •l* IJe|)ositioii 
 Pttije 47. 
 
 *9. Depoiition 
 Page 44. 
 
 *10. Deposition 
 same Paire 46. 
 
 *l I Deposition of Dubois de .Tancigny, made in France. Page 34. 
 *12. Translation of a pretended arret de renvoi, issued out. Page 30. 
 ■^IS. Proies-vvrbal de snide de piece a conviction, made in France. Page 37. 
 *]4. Petition of E S. I^amirande to his Kxcellency the Governor-General, dated 
 15th August, ime. Page 70. 
 
 *1.5. Le(tf>r of 11. Cotton, Esq., from the Governor-General Secretary's Office, 
 acknowledging the receipt of petition No. 14 above. Page 72. 
 
 IG. Deposition and cross-examination of C. L. Spilthorn, before the said Police 
 Magistrate. Page 52. 
 
 1 7. Deposition and cross-examination of E. B. Morel, before the same. Page 59. 
 
 18. Voluntary examination of the prisoner. Page 60. 
 
 19. Demande iNlargissement " of release" by prisoner, 15th August, 1866. Page 7 1 . 
 
 20. Commitment of K. S. Lamirande for extradition, by Police Magistrate, 
 dated 22nd August, 1866. Page 72. 
 
 21. Petition of E. S. Lamirande for habeas corpus, dated 23rd August, 1866, with 
 notice to T. K. Ramsay, Esq., of presentation, on the 24th August, 1866. Page 73. 
 
 22. Writ of habeas corpus, and return of the gaoler, 25th August, 1866. Page 75. 
 
 23. Warrant of extradition of his Excellency the Governor-General, dated 
 'i^rd An ust 1866 Page 76. 
 
 and cross-examination of Abel F. Gautier before the same, 
 and cross examination of Frederic Coudert, before the same, 
 and cross-examination of Louis L^once Coudert, before the 
 
«7 
 
 \r2:>, 1866. 
 
 fr. l)outre,a 
 f»t8 which he 
 »rni a correct 
 |Mr- Doutre'g 
 Jlicate, and | 
 l» Mr. Doutrc 
 jplication for 
 Requisition 
 |ient to jour 
 
 l&c. 
 AIONCK. 
 
 '■ 22, 1866. 
 ' to transmit 
 L'lmirande's 
 >f the case to 
 
 ifi Governor- 
 
 obedience to 
 
 nest Sureau 
 66. Page 70. 
 knowledging^ 
 
 5 the same. 
 
 ■ the same. 
 
 B the same. 
 
 before the 
 
 37. 
 leral, dated 
 
 ry's Office, 
 
 said Police 
 
 Page 59. 
 
 >. Page 71. 
 lagistrate, 
 
 1866, with 
 Page 73. 
 Page 75. 
 
 ral, dated 
 
 24. Affidavit of J. Doutrc, before Judge Drummond, 24th AugiiRt, 1866. Page 77. 
 
 25. Or''er l<'*'t at the Montreal Gaol by the Honourable L. T. Drummond, one 
 of the Judges oi ihc Court of Queen's Bench, the 24th Angust, 1866. Page 77. 
 
 26. Warrr.nt of Surrender by Deputy-Sheriff Sanborn, to the Gaoler, founded 
 ou his Excellency's Warrant of 2.'lnl August, 1866, dated 21th August, 1H6C. Page 77. 
 
 27. Judgment of the Honourable L. T. Drummond, Judge of the Court of 
 Queen's Bench, on the above petitioi.' for hnbean cor pun. Page 78. 
 
 28. Tolegram from J. Doutrc to his Kxccllcncv, from Montreal to Quebec, 
 dated 30th August, 1866. Page 80. 
 
 29. Second telegram from the same to the same, .'lOth August, 1866. Page HI. 
 
 30. Third telegram from the same to the same, .'Utth .\ugust, 1866. Page 81. 
 
 31. Telegram fronj Denis Ciodley, Kscj., to J. Doutrc, from Quebec to Montreal, 
 30th August, 1S66. Page 81. 
 
 32. Joint report of .Messrs, J. Doutre and C. L. Spilthorn, ot liieir interviews 
 with his Excellency on the 29th August, 1866, said report dated ."JOtli August, 1866, 
 and sent in duplicate to his Kxcellency on the 8th Sepiombcr, 1866, with a letter of 
 the last date from J. Doutre to D. Godley, Esq. Page 81. 
 
 33. Letter from D. Godley, Esq., acknowledging receipt of said report and 
 letter No. 32 above. Page 84. 
 
 34. Second report of Messrs. J. Doutre and C. L. Spilthorn, of their interviev.s 
 with his Excellency, dated 11th Septeml>er, l86(),scnt in duplicata to his Excellency, 
 with letter from J. Doutre to D. Godley, dated 1 1th .September, 186(j. Page 84. 
 
 35. Letter from D. Godley to J. Doutre, acknowledging receipt of report r.nd 
 letter No. 34 alK)ve. Page 85. 
 
 36. Letter from J. Doutre to D. Godley. of the 13th September, 186G. Page 85. 
 
 37. Charge of L T. Drummond, Ju<lge of the Court of Queen's Bench, at the 
 opening of the September term of the Court of Queen's Bench (Crown side), to the 
 Grand Jury. Page 86. 
 
 38. Presentment of the Grand Jury to the same Court, ou the 10th October, 
 1866, with papers accompanying said presentment. Page 88. 
 
 39. Motion of E. S. Lamirandc by J. Doutre, his Counsel, to obtain cojjies of 
 papers accompanying said presentment, with afHdavit of J. Doutrc, in support of 
 that motion. Page 90. 
 
 I do not mention in the above list the petition of G. S. Chcrrier, Esq.,* and 
 others, to Her Majesty, and the papers accompanying it, as I suppose they have 
 reached your Lordship in due time. 
 
 I have, &;c. 
 (Signed) JOSEPH DOUTRE. 
 
 Lord Carnarvon, Secretary of State for 
 the Colonies, London. 
 
 No. 1. — Requisition from the French Government for the Extradition of 
 
 Lamiuande. 
 Monsieur, Quebec, le 18 Juillet, 1866. 
 
 J'AI I'honneur de vous adresscr ci-inclus uii affidavit fait par-devant "Si. lo Juge 
 Taschcreau, de la Cour Superieure A Qii6bcc, par le Sieur Edme Justin Melin, 
 Inspecteur Principal de Police d Paris, A Teffet d'obtcnir I'arrestation et I'extra- 
 •dition cnsuite du nomm6 Ernest Sureau Lamirandc, Caissier de la Succursale de la 
 Bauquc de France i Poitiers, Departement de la Ilaute-Vienne, Empire Fran^ais, 
 lequel s'est rendu coupable non-sculement d'un vol de 700,000 francs an prejudice 
 de cette Succursale de la Banque de France a Poitiers, mais aussi du crime de faux 
 en ecriture en falsiHant scs livres et son bordereau de situation, et faisant ainsi 
 iigurer comme pr6sente dans sa caissc la somme voice de 700,000 francs, crime 
 prdvu par les dispositions du Traite d'Extradition conclu entro la France et 
 Angleterre en F<jvrier 1843, dont je transcris ici une partie: 
 
 " By a Convention between Her Majesty the Queen of Great Britain and Ireland 
 and the then Sovereign of France, signed at London on the 13th February, 1843, 
 the ratifications whereof were exchangetl at London on the 13th day of March in 
 the same year, it was agreed that the High Contracting Partie.? should, on requi- 
 sition made in their name through the medium of their respective Agents, deliver 
 up to justice persons who being aceu.sed of the crimes of murder, forgery, or 
 fraudulent bankruptcy, committed within the jui isdirtion of the requiring party, 
 should seek an asylum or should be found within the territories of the other." 
 
 * Printed at page 3. 
 
^ 
 
 ■ f! 
 
 <1 
 
 I 
 
 "In ordpr to carry tlie Convention into pfTcct, the British Parliament, on the. 
 l?2nH AiipuHt. 1843, passed the Act t) aeui 7 Vict., cap. 75, in which, after rocitinjr 
 the Convention, it is ciiacte<l that in case requisition lie made pursuant to the 
 ('onvcntion to deliver up to justice iny [wrson who U'ing accused of having 
 committfd. after the rntihcntion of the Convention, any of the ahovc crimes within 
 the territories and jurisdiction of His Majesty the Kmjicror of the French, shall be 
 f«#i::Ml within the dominions of Her Majesty, it shall be lawful for one «)f Hep 
 Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State, <ir in Ireland for the Chief Secretary of the 
 Lord liieutenant of Ireland, and in any of Her Majesty's Colonics or Possessions 
 ahroad for the oHicer adniinisterinfj the (Jovernment of any such Colony or Posses- 
 sion, hy warrant under his hand and seal to sifjnify that such requisition has been 
 so nia«le. and to recjuire all .Justices of the Peace and other Macfistrates antl oHicers 
 of justice within their several jurisdictions to {jovern themselves ace<)rdini;!\, and 
 to aid in apprehending; the persons so .iccused and committing such persons to gaol 
 for the purpose of being delivered \i\) to justice according to the provisions of the 
 said Convention." 
 
 " It shall be lawful for one of ller 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 tiie ollicer .administering the 
 Government of any such Colony or Possession, by warrant. &,(•., to deliver up 
 offenders to the authorities of France." 
 
 ./e prends done la liberty, M. le Secretaire Provincial, de vous prier do vouloir 
 bien requerir de son Kxecllence M. le Gouverneur-deneral, en vcrtu des pouvoirs 
 que lui contl^re la susditc Convention. Ic w.arrant necessaire pour arrfiter et extradcr 
 ensuite le susnoinme Krncst Surcau I^mirandc. 
 
 .ic vous serai oblig<! de me faire parvcnir ce warrant le plus tfit possible. 
 
 Je erois utile de joindre ici le mandatd'arrOt emanedu tribunal civil de Poitiers, 
 et dument legalise par le Consul de Sa Majesty Uritannique i Paris. Veuillcz, je 
 vous prie, me renvoyer cette piice avec le warrant du (>ovcrneur-Gen<5ral. 
 
 Jc saisis, &c. 
 Le Consul-G(>neral de France, 
 A I'Hon. William Mac Dougall, (Signe) FRED. GAUTIER. 
 
 Secretaire Provincial. 
 
 No. 2. — Waukant by the Goveknor-Genkral. 
 
 Province of Canada. 
 
 (Seal.) 
 
 BY hi8i Excellency the Right Honourable Charles Stanley Viscount Monck, Haron 
 Monck, of Ballytrammon, in the county of Wexford, Governor-General of 
 British North America, and Captain-General and Govcmor-in-Chief in and over 
 the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and the Island of 
 Prince Edward, and Vice- Admiral of the same, &c. 
 
 To all and singular the Justices of the Peace and other Magistrates and Officers 
 of Justice within their several jurisdictions in the Province of Canada, greeting : 
 
 Whereas one Earnest Sureau Lamirande, late of Poitiers, in the French 
 Empire, stands accused of the crime of forgery, by having, in his capacity of cashier 
 of the branch of the Bank of France at Poitiers, made false entries in the books of 
 the said Bank, and thereby defrauded the said Bank of the sum of 700,000 francs ; 
 and whereas a requisition has been made to me by the Consul-General of France in the 
 Pnivinces of British North America, pursuant to the termr* of a Convention between 
 Her Majesty the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and 
 His Majesty the King of France, signed at London on the 13th day of February, in 
 the year of our Lord 1843, to issue my warrant for the apprehension of the said 
 Ernest Sureau Lamirande. 
 
 Now know y^e, that I, Charles Stanley Viscount Monck, being Governor -General 
 of the said Province of Canada, under trie authority in me vested by the provisions 
 of the statute passed by the Legislature uf the United Kingdom of Great Britain 
 and Ireland, in the session thereof held in the sixth and seventh years of Her 
 Majesty's reign, intituled " An Act for giving effect to a Convention between Her 
 Majesty and the King of the French for the Apprehension of certain Offenders," do 
 by this my warrant require you, and each of you, the Justices of the Peace and 
 Magistrates and officers of ustice within your sevei-al jurisdictions in the said 
 
00 
 
 province of Canada to aid in apprehending the said Ernest Siirenn Tinmirandc so 
 accuscfi and committing him to any one of the gaols within the said Province 
 of Canada, for the purpose of being delivered up to justice, according to the provisions 
 of the said Convention. 
 
 Given under my hand and seal at arms at Ottawa, this 26th day of July, in the 
 year of our Lord 1866, and in the thirtieth year of Her Majesty's reign. 
 
 (Signed) MONCK. 
 
 By command, 
 (Signed) E. Parent, Assictant Secretary. 
 
 No. 3.— Warrant of Police Maoisteate. 
 
 Police Office. 
 
 Province of Canada, District of Montreal, 
 City of Montreal. 
 
 To all or any of the Constables or other Peace Officers in the District of Montreal. 
 
 WHEREAS Ernest Sureau Lamirande, late of Poitiers, in the French Empire, 
 now present in the city of Montreal, hath this day been charged upon oath before the 
 undersigned William H. Brehaut, Esq., Police Magistrate in and for the district of 
 Montreal, with the crime of forgery, by having, in his capacity of cashier of the 
 branch of the Bank of France at Poitiers, made false entries in the books of the said 
 bank, and thereby defrauded the said bank of the sum of 700,000 francs; and 
 whereas a requisition has been made to his Excellency the Governor-General of this 
 province by the Consul-General of France in the Provinces of British North 
 America, pursuant to the terms of the Convention between Her Majesty the 
 Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and His Majesty the 
 King of the French, signed at London, on the 13th day of February, in il;? year ol 
 our Lord 1843, and the Acts of the Parliament of the United Kingdom ot Great 
 Britain and Ireland passed to give effect to the said Convention, to issue his warrant 
 for the apprehension of the said Ernest Sureau Lamirande, accused of having 
 committed the crime aforesaid after the ratification of the said Convention ; and 
 whereas, in compliance with ihe said requisition, his Excellency the Governor- 
 General has, by warrant under his hand and seal, bearing date at Ottawa, in the 
 said province, the 26th dayof July, in the year of our Lord 1866, required each 
 and every the Justices of the Peace and other Magistrates and officers of justice 
 within their several jurisdictions in the said Province of Canada, to aid in appre- 
 hending and committing him, the said Ernest Sureau Lamirande, to any one of the 
 gaols within the said Province of Canada, for the purpose of being delivered up to 
 justice according to the provisions of the said Convention and the Acts to give 
 effect thereto. 
 
 These are therefore to command you, in Her Majesty's name, forthwith to 
 apprehend the said Ernest Sureau Lamirande, and to bring him before me, or some 
 other of Her Majesty's Justices of the Peace in and for the said district, to answer 
 unto the said charge, and to be dealt with according to law. 
 
 Given under my hand and seal at the sa^d Police Office, at Montreal, in the 
 said district, this 6th day of August, in the year of our Lord, 1866. 
 
 (Signed) W. H. BREHAUT, P. M. 
 
 I, the undersigned Nazaire Caron, Constable, duly appointed in and for the 
 district of Montreal, do hereby return, under my oath of office, that on the 7th day 
 of August, 1866, in obedience to the within warrant to me delivered, I did, at the 
 city of Montreal, in the district of Montreal, apprehend the within-nanMd> 
 Ernest Sureau Lamirande, and brought him before William Henry Brehaut, Esq., 
 Police Magistrate in and for the district of Montreal, from whence he was committed 
 to gaol for further examination. 
 
 Montreal, August 7, 1866. 
 
 (Signed) N. CARON, Constable. 
 
 • 
 
 I' I 
 
 I h 
 
 [75] 
 
m 
 
 ;»:': 
 
 70 
 
 No. 4.^Pbtition of Fklix Gabtieb. 
 
 Prorfnce of Canada, Distrirt of Montreal. 
 
 To the Right H()iioiiral)If Cliarlcs Stai.ii\, Visooiint Monck, Uarnn iMonok of 
 Ballytrainmoii, ill the foiinty ol \Ve\ bid. (Jovenior-Ueneral ol Uritiuli North 
 America, &<•., &ic., and Cajitaiu-CiiMic al and Ciovcrnor-in-Chicf in aiul over the 
 Provinees of Canada, N()\a Scotia, Ni-w Mrnnswick, and the Ishuid of IVincc 
 Kdward, and Vice-Admiral of the same, i>ic., &tc. 
 
 The Petition of Frlix Gastier. arrcate<f nnder the name of Krnest S. 
 I^amirnnde, now detained in the couinion jail of tlie District of 
 Montreal. 
 
 Respectfully represents. 
 
 THAT on Wednesday the 1st \iif;-!st instintyonr petitioner was arrested ,at 
 La Prairie by the police of Montreal without any written warrant, at the retpiest, 
 it is said, «»f some iepr('scntati\es (,'i the Krciicli (Jovernment, us the |>etitioiier has 
 been informed, ujion the cli.nf;e of cnilH'/./liiii;- money lielongiiif;- to llio Hank of 
 France, where the said |ir('t( iitled L.Tjiirando was casliicr, and the pclilioiier also 
 understands that the said representatives of tlie French Government are about to 
 apply for a writ of extradition in order to have him the i>etiti()ner sent back to 
 France. 
 
 That as the offence styled "embezzlement," with which the said |)etitioner is 
 charged, is not mentioned in tlie Treat) bclwein Kn^Iund and France, if any such 
 Treaty is still in force, and does jet exist between tlie two countries, am! as 
 therefore it is impossible lor thc-m lo oblain his extradition, they have resolved 
 upon employinij subornation, force and violence, unlawfully and without any rij^ht 
 to kidna|> the petitioner, and without any authority to send liim to the United 
 States or France. The petitioner lias come to tiial conclusion from the fact that 
 the police oflieers who arrested tiiO j.ctitioncr have lu-en oHVred several thousand 
 dollars if they would ki/nan hiii, and brinj;- him lo the United States, which the 
 said police officers in the fidl sense of their diity sternly refused to do; and also 
 from the fact that the parties directing' the prosecution against the petitioner, 
 have boasted that they woulil l-,a\e tlic petitioner any how, whether lawfidly or 
 unlawfully, that they were bound to I'.avo him, and that they would have him, no 
 matter by what means. 
 
 Upon such a state of facts the jjctif ioncr, Unowing how jealous your Excellency 
 is of the honour of fCngland, here appeals to your Kxcellency in order that in this 
 case due precautions be ordered to be taken, so that no unlawful act be committed, 
 and that the law be strictly observed and impartially administered. 
 
 And your petitioner as in duty bound will ever pray. 
 
 Montreal, August 3, 1866. 
 
 For the Petitioner, 
 (Signed) nOUTRK AND DOUTRE, Attorneys 
 
 No. 5. — Mr. GoDLEY to Mr. Doutre. 
 
 Sir, Ottawa, August 4, 1S66. 
 
 I AM directed by the Governor-General to acknowledge the receipt of the 
 
 Ejtition, dated the .^rd of August, of Fe!i>; Caslicr, arrested under the name of 
 amirandc, and now detained in tlu- gaol of the District of .Montreal. 
 
 I have, &c. 
 (Signed) DENIS GODLEY, Governor's Secretary. 
 
 Joseph Doutre, Esq., 
 
 &c., &c., &c., Montreal. 
 
 « f 
 
 [Nos. 6 to 13, inclusive, will be found printed as '.". losures to Lord Monck's 
 despatch No. 164 of the 18th of October, page 12.] 
 
71 
 
 |'"nfk of 
 
 ill North 
 
 over the 
 
 'Viiicc 
 
 'iMcs; S. 
 Istiict of 
 
 restcfl at 
 '■';<) nest, 
 
 M'lifr has 
 Hank of 
 
 M'lt'r also 
 
 hilxnit to 
 l)ack to 
 
 tioner is 
 my such 
 ant) as 
 icsolvcd 
 'i>/i^'ht 
 - L'niled 
 
 Tact that 
 'ousaricJ 
 
 'liich the 
 
 'IikJ also 
 titioiier, 
 
 vriilly or 
 liin, no 
 
 Nn. H — Pktition of K. S. LAMinAvrtK for Relcnm'. 
 
 Province (III Canada, District dc Montreal. 
 
 A son Kxcelience Ic Tr^N llonorahle Cliarles Stanley, Vicomlc Monck, (ionvcrncur- 
 (Jeneral tie lAmei kjuo Hritaiiiii(|ne <iii Noni, el C'a|iiiaine-(ic'ner«l et (ji<iiivcr> 
 neiir-en-riiifdes Provinces dii ('.iii.ida, Nmi\eaii IJnin.swick, Nouvclle KcoMe 
 et rile du I'rince Kduuard, &ic., i^c. 
 
 La ie(|iiete d'Krnest Snrcan L imirande. actiieliemont detenu dnns in prison 
 commune du district do Montreal, 
 Expose respectiiensement, 
 
 Qin-! votre rerpiiVant est deteim druis la dite prison depiiis le ler du courant, 
 en vertii d'lin ordre ('•mam' sous l.i si;;n,iliire dc \V. 11. Un'iKiiit. Keiiver, Mnj^istrat 
 He Poli(-e, dans le piel ordre il est mentiDnm'' (jiie le dit NVm. II. hnMiaut, Kcuyer, 
 a t'mane le (lit ordre. pour so confnrmcr a un warrant ('ni.im' sous |,i si};natiire d« 
 votre Kxrellcnce, aiipin^sde laipielle il parailraif (pie I'extradition de vofre reiiuj'rant 
 aurait ('f(' sollieit('e par (piel(pies personncs pn'tendant :\<r\v an nom d'l (iouvernemcnt 
 dc I'Kmpcreiir des Fraiu/ais, sous pit-tcNte que votre reipii'-rant aurait commis en 
 Franco le crime dc faux. 
 
 Qu''ntr*anfres raisons dont IV-niimi'Tation serait iei siiperfluo, voire rc<|ii6rant 
 ne i)out ("^tre e\tra(l(5 :— • 
 
 1. I'.ircc (pie Ic Trait(' sipm' a Lnndres le i;? IVvrier, \Si:), ontre i'Aiiglctcrre 
 et la France, avait cessi'; d'exister d('s Ic 4 do .liiin dernier, lonutcnips avant 
 I'arrest.ition de votre re(pi(jrant. atfendii (pie conrormi'ment a iine (lisp(»sition du 
 dit Trait(' le (ioiivornomcnt Fram^ais a not'li(' aii nouverncmcnt Anglais son dd'sir 
 d'y mcttre iin. six mois avant Ic dit jour 4 .luin dernier. 
 
 2. P.irce (pi'il a 6t6 pnn\v6 devant le dit W II. Br^-haut, Kcuyer, {|ue In tteulc 
 personnc qui ait sollicit(^ et deman(l('' I'extradition du prisonnior est M. Abel 
 Fr(''(l(^ric Gautier, ConsuUG(!'n('ral do Franco, ri'-sidant a Queiier, (pii, de son propre 
 aveii, ne poss(^(le aucun caract(irc et n'cxcrce aucune des fonctions d'Agent Diplo- 
 matique du (Jouvemcmcnt Fran(7ais, ct que, d'apri'^s lo dit Trait(', I'extradition du 
 requerant ne pouvait Otrc demandde que par un .Agent Diplomatique du (iouverne- 
 ment do rKmpercur des FraD9ais. 
 
 3. Parce (pie d'apriis la section 3 de la loi pass('e par lo Parlement Ini|ierial 
 (6 & 7 Victoria, cap. 75), pour organiser IVxi'-cution du dit Traift', aucun juge de 
 
 Eaix oil ina<>istrat nc pouvait, nonobstant IVmanation du warrant <ie votre 
 Ixccllencc, ordonner l'appr(5hension de votre requc^rant, sans qu'il fiU prouv<5 
 devant lui, sous scrment, que la partie qui poursuivait r(!xtradition de votrj 
 requ('!rant etait porteur d'un inandat d'arrCt ou autre document judieiaire (>quiva- 
 lent emani'; d'un jugc ou d'unc auturit6 comp^tentc en France, autlicntiqu<^ de telle 
 manii^rc que ce mandat d'arret ou document (Equivalent pflt justiiier I'arrestation 
 du requ6rant, s'il C'tait en France, et que votre requ6rant a 6t6 appr<5hend<^ et est 
 encore (l(5tenu sans qu'aucun tel manHat d'arr6t ou document judieiaire ^'quivalent 
 ait jamais iti. en la possession dc la pa"tic requerant la dite extradition. 
 
 4. Parce que par la mfime loi (6 ai,.d 7 Victoria, cap. 75) il est de plus stipule 
 que pour que I'extradition soit ordonnJ'e, le crime dont votre requerant est accua^ 
 soit clairement defini dans un mandat d'arrSt ou autre document judieiaire Equiva- 
 lent, Emane de France, et que n'y ayant aucun tel mandat d'arrfit soumis aa dit 
 W. H. Br^'haut, Ecuyer, ce dernier ne peut juger du caractire de !'uifensc dont le 
 prison nier est accusE. 
 
 5. Parce qu'il est statue par la mdme loi que pour justifier le Juge de Paix ou 
 Magistrat d'ordonner la detention (to commit) de votre requerant, il devra 6tre fait 
 devant lui une preuve suffisante pour justifier I'arrestation ct la detention (appre- 
 hension and committal) de votre requerant s'il eAt commis le crime dont il est 
 accus6 dans les limites des domaines de Sa Majesty le Souverain de la Grande 
 Bretagne; qu'outre les muyens ordinaires de preuve resultant de la deposition de 
 t^moins qui connaitraient personnellement les faits, la dite loi admet commc preuve 
 les depositions qui seraient faitesen Prance et certiGdes par le juge de qui serait 
 ^mane le mandat de France pour arrdter le pr^venu, et votre requerant met en fait 
 qu'aucun t^moin connaissant personnellement les faits n'a 6te entendu devant le dit 
 W. H. Br^haut et qu'aucune deposition asserment^e et certifi^e, tel que I'exige la 
 dite loi, n'a 6t& soumise aa dit W. H. Dr6haut, Ecuyer. 
 
 6. Parce qu'en supposant que la procedure et les formalites' exig^es par le dit 
 sta'^'it auraient 6t6 suivies et remplies, ce que votre requerant nie, il ne peat ressortir 
 des laits irregulidrement d^voilte devant le dit W. H. Brehaut, aucune arcasation 
 
 L2 
 
 
 5 t| 
 
 4, '■ 
 
79 
 
 de Taux, Boit selon leu IoIh dc France, Hoit scion ccllcs dv la (Jrande Brctngne, soit 
 ■eloii ccIIph du Canada. 
 
 7. Parce que ccux qui gollicitciit I'l'Xtradition de votrc rcqu6rnnt no pouvnnt 
 fairc loyalrmcnt UMat;c du Tiailt? HUMinentionn/* pour ramener votrc re(|U^Tnnt en 
 France, attendu qu'il ne cmivrc pau i'direnuc que votre rcqu6rant aurait commise hj 
 lea TaitH dc I'accUHution <!-taicnt vruis, iU tcntent <lc (aire un uhucc abuNif et doloyal 
 dudit Trait6, en donnuiit do esHayaiit a doiuier aux TaitH reprochcs i\ votrc rciiuerant 
 la couleur d'un faux, tandiHquc touH cch faits nc puurruient constitucr (juc I oirense 
 d<iHign6c, en co jiayn, hous Ic noni dVinbc/./Jcmcnt. 
 
 N. Puree que Ich tentativen d'abuscr ainsi dcs Conventions internationnleH ct 
 spdciaieuient du Traile en (piestion ont invariablement il6 coi.damnccs et Hujoiu'cs 
 par ies plus hautes autorilo^i jiidiciaircH de la Cirande Hrctagne, ainsi que le ti'nin'yjric 
 une decision rccemment rcndue en Angleterrc par son honneur le Jujje-cn.Clief 
 Cockburn, assists- de deux autres ju{!;es de son tribunal, in re Windsor (\0, jmrt ii. 
 Cox's Criniinal Cases, p. 1 IH). 
 
 9. P.irce (pie nonobstaiil lout cc qui pn'cikle, votre requcrant a raison dccroire 
 que non-sculement Itt (ictenlion (ininnmlal voire rcqu(5rant sera arl)itrairem( t 
 ordoniK^'C, en violation dc la loi, mais que dc offorls seront fails pour surprendre la 
 religion ct bonne foi dc votrc Kxccllcncc I >uur obtcnir un ordre d'cxtradilion, avec 
 une telle precipitation (pie votre rcqui!'rant serait priv(5 dc I'occasion tie soumettre 
 8a cause ii IVxainen d'un tribunal siipOrieur au nioycn dun bref dc haln-as rorpu.'<. 
 
 A ces causes, voire rc(pi(!'ranl siij>|(lic voire Ivxcellcnce de prendre les f.iits qui 
 precedent en votre s<^'rictise considt'raiion dans le cas oil I'ordre do detention 
 (committal) serait noti(i<3 A votre Kxcellence, dans le but d'obleriir de votre 
 Kxcellenrc I'ordre dc livrer (surrender) votre requ6rant au Gouvernemenl Frainjais, 
 et dans cc cas votre ie(pieiant supplie qu'il plaisc i votrc Kxcellence donner le 
 temps ct l'opportunil6 de soiini(>llre les fails cl le droit de sa causi* a un juge ou 
 tribunal comp(>tcnt a ju^rer de I'inslance d'une maniiirc sutisfaisante, taut pour la 
 di^nit(^ du Gouvernemenl de Sa .Maj(>stc la Heine dc la Grande Brctagne et dc 
 cette colonic, que pour les iiilerels de \()tre r('({U(jrant. 
 
 Kt votrc re(pier;int ne cessera dc prior. 
 Montreal, 15 Aoul, I8(JG. 
 
 (Signd) DOUTRE AN!) DAOl'ST. 
 
 Avocals du Requcrant. 
 
 No. 15. — Mr. II. Cotton to Messrs. Doutre and Daoi'st. 
 
 Governor-General Secrt-lnry's Offlce, 
 Sir, Olt;i\va, August 17, 18fi6. 
 
 I AM directed by liis Kveellcncy tlie Governor-General to acknowledge the 
 receipt of the Petition of Krnest Surc.nu Lamirande, 13th August, and to inform you 
 that it has been Iransferiod to the Attorney-General for Ix)wer Canada. 
 
 (Signed) H. COTTON, 
 
 For the Governors Secretary. 
 Messrs. Doutre and Daoust, Montreal. 
 
 [Nos. 16 to 19, inclusive, will he found printed as inclosures to I.ord Monck's 
 despatch No. 164 of the 18th of October, 1866, page 12.] 
 
 No. 20. — Commitment of E. S. Lamiranue. 
 
 Police Office. 
 Province of Canada, District of Montreal, 
 City of Montreal. 
 
 TO all or any of the constables or other peace officers in the said district of 
 Montreal, and to the keeper of the common gaol at the said city of Montreal, in the 
 said district of Montreal. 
 
 Whereas P>nest Sureau Lamirande, late of Poitiers, in the French Empire, 
 now present in the city u[ Montreal, in tiie district of Montreal aforesaid, was this 
 day charged before me, William H. Hrcliaut, Esquire, Police Magistrate in and for 
 the district of Monlreel, on the oath of Edme Justin Melin and others, with the 
 crime of forgery, by having in his capacity of cashier of the branch of the Bank 
 of France at Poitiers, on the 12th day of March, 1866, made false entries in the 
 
73 
 
 tne. 
 
 rouvnnt 
 fTani t-n 
 
 •ll'loyal 
 
 •JHiTant 
 I'lise 
 
 lioin 
 
 fiales et 
 ejoiit'cs 
 
 ■n-Clief 
 part ii, 
 
 croirc 
 irpriK it 
 
 Ire la 
 avoc 
 iinettre 
 
 book of the HAiil hank, and 'hereby (lefrautlcil the ^ liil bank of tlif num of 700.000 
 rraitm. 
 
 Ami whcreus a rcquisi(it>i) has bcni niatle to liin F'\rcllcnrv the (iovrrnor- 
 Gcncral of this province l>y the ConHultSoneral dI FnuKM' in the Provinees of 
 British North America, pursuant to the terms of tlu* ( unvention lH<|vM>en llcr 
 MajcKty the Queen of the rnitetl Kinf;ih)m ol (in-at lirituin and In-laml ami 
 Ilia Majesty the Kin^^of the Krench, si<;ne(l at l>)nil(in on the l.lth <lav of Kctiniary, 
 in the year of Our hord lH-i:{, and the Arts of the Piiilianu-nt of the IJnitecl 
 Kingdom of (Jnat IJritain and Irchind, [i.tssed to ;;ivf ellirl to the said Convention, 
 to issue his warrant hir tlie apprehension of the stid Krnest Stir*-au l„iinirande. 
 accused of havin;^ committed the crime aforcsai'i after the ratificatKm of the said 
 Convention. 
 
 And whereas, in eninplianee with tlic said retpjisition, his Kxcellencv the 
 Governor-tienenil has, hv warrant under his haml ami seal, hearinjjilati' ,it Ottawa, 
 in the said province, the 2<itli day of .Inly, in tlic year ot" Our liord |S(i(>. n ipiired 
 each anti every the Justices of the IV'ac(! and other Magistratfs and otVicers of 
 justice within their several jurisdictions in the sai<l Province of Canada, to aid in 
 apprehending and committing him the said Krnest Sureau Limirandr to any one 
 of the gaols within the said Province of Canada, for tlu' purpose of being delivered 
 up to justice, according to the provisions of the said Convention anri the Acts to 
 give cfi'cct thereto. 
 
 And whereas it appears to the said Police !Mai;istr.iie that the acts charged 
 against the supposed oilcnder are cle.irly set forth in a warrani of arrest or other 
 eciuivalcnt judicial document issued by a competent Magistrate in Kiance; and 
 whereas divers persons ha\e been examined upon oath before mc lnH<'liing the 
 truth of the said charge; and whei' asco|iv of a deposition taken in France tou«liiiig 
 the said charge duly authenticated has been produced and iilcd before nic . and 
 whereas such evidence would be, according to the laws of Canada, sufruimt to 
 justify the apprehension and commitlnl of the said Krnest Sureau l-amirand( . il the 
 offence of which he is accused iinfi lieen comniitted in Canada; and whcnasthe 
 said Krnest Sureau Lamirande by him.scif and his Counsel has had lull ojif iiunity 
 to cross-examine the said witnesses, ami tr) adduce such evidence as he diTinea 
 advisable in his own <icfcnce. 
 
 And whereas the said Krnest Sureau Lamirande has not shown any good cause 
 why he should not bo committed for extradition according to the re(piirenicnls of 
 the said Convention and the laws passed to give effect thereto. 
 
 These arc there*brc to con.mand you, the said constables or peace olliccrs, or 
 any of you, to take the said Krnest Sureau I.amiiande, and him NMJrly roincy to 
 the common gaol, at the city of Montreal aforesaid, and there <lcliver him to the 
 keeper th(r»'o|'. together with this jjrcccpt; and I do hereby commaml you the said 
 keeper of the said common gaol to receive the said Krnest Sureau IvaniiuiiKic into 
 your custody in the said common gaol, and there safely to keep him until he is 
 delivered pursuant to the requisition .iforcsaid or by process of law. 
 
 Given under my hand and seal the 2'2nd day of August, in the year of Our 
 Lord 186li. at the said city of Montreal, in the district aforesaid. 
 
 (Signed) W. II. HRKIIAUT. P.M. 
 
 No. 2L — Petition of E. S. Lamirande for Habeas Corpus. 
 
 Province du Canada, District de Montreal. 
 
 AUX honorables Jugesde la Courdu lianc de ! Reinc siegeant dans le district 
 de Montrd-al. 
 
 La requite d'Ernest Sureau Lamirande, aetuellcment d(5tenu dans la prison 
 commune du district du Montreal. 
 
 Expose respectueusement : 
 
 Que votre requ^rant est actuellemcnt detenvi dans la prison commune de ce 
 district, en vertu de I'ordre de William H. Hrehaut, Ecuyer, Magistral <le Police, 
 duqucl ordre copie est ci-jointe et dans lequel il appert que votre requc^-rant est 
 d<^tenu sur la demandequi a ^t6 faite de son extradition sous pretexte (|ue votre 
 requ6rant aurait commis en France Ic crime de faux. 
 
 Que la detention de votn requ6rant est illegale et arbitrnire pour entr'autrcs 
 raisons les Suivantes : — 
 
 1. Parce que le Traits passc le 13 Fcvrier, 1843, entre les Gouverncmen's do 
 f" ranee et Angleterre, et mis d execution par I'Acte Imperial 6 et 7 Vieioria, 
 
m 
 
 U 
 
 Hmp. r.'i. ii ccss(' (I'rxiHicr Ir 1 .I«iiii dernier, pn mnsi'qncnrc «lc la Hi(<;nirK*nti(in Tnitr 
 
 iiiir Ic (KMivcnii'riiriit I'lam mIm an (idiivcnKMiiiMil Anglais dc nuii iiv^w d s inctire 
 ill, tiliis lie 'w inoiH avaiit ic dil jmii (4 Jtiin tlvrinrr) nitiNJ (|ii(' |i<)iirvii daiiN lt< ilit 
 Truit<<. 
 
 'J. I'.'iMi' (|n'il f-it I'Kiiim' f|iif rcvrrnditi'M dii rociin'miit n'n I'ti' ilcmaiKUV par 
 
 UIICIIII \lji'll( !)i[l!()iil!lli(|tic illl ( ioilViTlll'llKMlt KlMllrilS. 
 
 .'{. I'lirc (|in' Ir Majjistrat (|ni a oniotuu' rappn'-lifiiHiMn <'| la i|(^tiMilioii (rom> 
 miltiih <li' voire ri'(|ii('i';inl n'a recii aiicii!!'' priMi\e (|ii'.' cimin (|iii |iiiiirsiiivoiil 
 l'(v\lrailitiiiii ill) i'i'i|tii''iMii( sunt iiDiu-urs (i'liti inaii'lal ilarrcl on aiilr' (l(>i-iiiiu*iit 
 jiidiciaii'e r(|iiiv.ilnit I'tnaii'' il'iin .Iii;;e mi aiitnriti' cDmiieti'itlc dc h'riitice. 
 
 I. I'atTL- (jn'iii siip|ii)saiit (pie teiiv (pii potiisiiivcrit rcNtradiiioii dti pristumifr 
 rcqiu'raiil snioiiL poiU'iirs d'liii tv\ iiiacilal d'ariOl on duciimcnl o(|iii\alent, tH 
 maiidat dm ddriuiK-iil ii'cst jias aiitlitiiticpic dt; ii;aiiu'^ri' A justilier I'ariiMaiioii du 
 rc'ipn'-ia )l s'il riaii en I'laiiie. 
 
 '>. I'anc (lu'i'ii siippos.uil (pie tel warrani <<ii inaiidat d'ai ret cnl i'(<'- proiiv/? 
 i'trc ciitic It's inaliirt du ceiix (pii poiirsiiivenl I'l xliadilimi dn pii-xmiiicr el (pi'il fui 
 autlKMititpK" (le inaiii(ire A justilier rarrestalion du re(pi(''rant on Kraiicc. la di'ten- 
 tioii dti i'i'(pi('raiil .'ii vim do son ixtraditioa nc pen* etre l(''};alen)eiit ordoiim'e, i\ 
 
 nioiiis (iii'il lie sdil fait dcvant le Ma-rislrat o(i .li 
 
 tion 
 
 de l» 
 
 ii\ ordnniiant lellc 
 
 d.'l 
 
 eii- 
 
 I, iiiir pr(ii\.- sulli .anl>- jiair jti-.tdiet° I apprelu iision cl la dcUiUion on enipri.soii. 
 ncniont du rctpu'iaiit, pour siiljir son prnci s, si le i ririo dont il est uiciisi' avail t'tc' 
 cuininis cii Canada, vt (pi'iuKiiiK! Uli«,' |)reiive n"a I'U' laile, 
 
 ' seiicc de preiive faiie p:ir dos t('ni()itis ipii connaitraient 
 
 .iicc (pi en 
 
 I'abs 
 
 personiiellean .il les tails, la dilc loi (li el 7 \'ici.. elia|). 7')) auloriso de rec'!\oir on 
 preuve les depvjsilioiis ou copies des di'posiiions prises en France, si elles sont 
 
 ccrtil 
 
 lees par 
 
 le.li 
 
 iisre (Illl a cinaiK! 
 
 niandal d'airiH en France, el si el les sont 
 
 pronvi'-eii etre do vraies copies par la persomie (jue les prodiiit, ct (pi'il ii'a 6t6 
 proddil aiKMin ti^inoiii coiiiiaisrianl personiielleinent les Tails donl te re(pierant est 
 accuse, null jilns (praiiciinc (U'pusition cerliii('c par le .luge (pii anrait einan6 tel 
 mandat d'arret, si lei maiidal exisle, cc cpie nie le re(pieraiit, iii certifi(5e ou proiiv^ 
 vraie copie par la peisonne ijroduisanl telle (l('()osition. 
 
 7. Parcc(]u'cn supposant (jue rcxlradilion dc voire recjuc'raiit cut 4i6 dcmand<^>c 
 par uii Agent Di, ..)niati(pic, el (pie loiites les formalites dc la loi eussent it6 
 rempli»St ce cpie nie voire rcqu(5rant, les faits |)()rU's a la charge de voire re(pi6rant 
 nc consliliieruient pas, el ne [leuvenl conslituer roden^e ou crime de faux, et que 
 CCS tails n'unt i';le (pialiTK'-s dc faux que pour obtenir sous des pietextes simul^s 
 rextraditioii du requ(5ranl, la loi de France, d'Aiiglelcrre el du Canada ne 
 qualiPiant en aucune inani(ire les dils faits comme coniportant un faux. 
 
 A CCS causes voire rcquurant conclut a ce i|u'il plaisc A vos lloiineurs, ou A I'un 
 de vos Honneurs ordonner, qu'il emane sous I'auloriKi de vos Honneurs, ou de l*(iu 
 de vos Honneurs, un writ fVlmbeas corpu^i enjoigiiant au ge61ier de la prison 
 commune de ce district dc produire dcvant vous la personne de votre requ<;rant, soit 
 ^largi ct mis en liberty, 
 
 Et ferez justice. 
 
 iMontrtiaif. 23 AoOt, 1866 
 
 (Sign(5) JOSEPH UOUTRE, 
 
 A vocal du Uequ^rant. 
 
 A T. K. Ramsay, Ecr., Repr^sentant le Procureur-G6n^ral. 
 Monsieur, 
 
 Avis vous est donne que la requite ci-dessus sera pr^sent^e en Chambre k fels 
 Juges dc la dite Cour du Banc de la Reine qui sc trouveront lA ct alors presents, 
 le 24mc jour d'AoiOt courant, A 1 heure ae I'aprds-midi, au Palais de Justice, k 
 Montreal. 
 
 Montreal, 23 Aofit, 1866. 
 
 (Sign4) JOSEPH DOUTRE, 
 
 Avocat du Rcquurant. 
 
 Let Her Majesty's most gracious writ of habeas corpus issue, returnable imme- 
 diatelvt at the Judges' Chamoers before me. 
 
 Judges' Chanubers, Montreal, August 25, 1866. 
 
 (Signed) LEWIS T. DRUMMOND. J.Q.a 
 
 I, the Undersigned, one of the sworn bailiffs of Her Majesty's 0>urt of Queen's 
 Bench for Lower Canada, appointed and acting in and for the fiistrict of Montreal, 
 
 S.;. 
 
(lu hrn'hy. \uu\or m\ oalli oroffici", ctTlirv aiul nlurii that I >litl, imi tin- 23ril tJa\ of 
 Au{;;nHt, lM",(i, tMlw.cn tin- limits dI II ami TI <J ihi- < !■ ik in llic f.iniuMM. M'i»f 
 the willim original ir,ju<'lf ami iivi» iiii T K. I?amka\, Ksciuirr, Rr|iri'MMiUiiil ji- 
 I*ri»ciirciir(i<'iRTiil, l)\ !»(>(nkiiij; to ami haMun irut- ami t irliHril i'<>|tiiii llicrror 
 with Ail'itMl !)(• IJcaiiiniiiil, r,M|iiiif, Dfjiiilj I'Urk nf il,c Cmwii, at llic iillici Ji the 
 Clerk iif the rrowii, m tin- ('(nirllioiiM' of tlu- City nf Mniitieal v%!irrr llio huhI 
 T. K. Maiiisa), Ks(|iiin', k(T|>h liih i/IVkt Fur th< |iut|i()M- (»!' tii'' ohjii-l (it said 
 requete. 
 
 Miintrral, August 23. iNdri 
 
 (Siffiie.!: .fnny iiooi.aiiw. 
 
 Kailitl. (^iKcn's lieiK-h. 
 
 No. 22. — Whit dI' II.uu as ((hii'dh. 
 
 ProviiH* of Canada, Di.strirt of Montreal. 
 
 ViCToiiiA. Iiy tliP ;;r;icc of (Iixl, n| (lie I'tiiud Kiiij;iliin, of (Ileal 
 hrilaiii and Ireland (jmvn, Difciuloi' of tlic Faill.. 
 
 'I'o tlic Kccpir of our Common (laol for tlio District of"""' "' '■'"" '.'* 
 
 ,, ' !■!» ■> 1 I 11 111 I', I. '«tr ( I 
 
 .Alontrial, or to his lA-piity or Di'iiiiIk.,'^, ami to vAv\\ 
 
 of them, greeting : — 
 WK command you tlial \()ii liav! before t!i<' Ilonoiirai le 
 Lewis Thomas Diiiiiimond. one of the .lustics of onr Cimrt if 
 Queen's Bench for I.owor C.inada, at his ciiaml.ers in the court 
 house in our city *)f .Montreal, immedi.itely after tli'' receipt of 
 this writ, the liodv of Krnest Siireaii l.amiraiulc ln-iitu' c',)nimittcd . •Vvift""'' ''"t''''''' "f 
 
 ,,.,.• , I -J • • l\ ln*» I olMolUMtnt .*«liilutr« fiir 
 
 and det.'oned in our prisdii, iimler your custody la.n it is said) i.u»,i i ,ui«:., «mi ><fr n.. 
 
 toerether with the <iav and ••ause of ilh- tnkiii;i- and d.'l.iininjr of '""■•»'""•"«■'/'"«<>(•.«;. 
 
 the said l.rnest Sureau l^aiuiraiKJc. Iiy \\iialevcr name the said 
 
 Ernest Siireau Lamiraiuk- lie chilled in the same, to und'r<;() and 
 
 recei\ 
 
 anr 
 
 and there tliis writ. 
 
 In witness whereof we have caiiseil tlie f^eal of our Court of 
 Queen's Bench for Lower Canada to be lien iint<i aflixed at our 
 city of Montreal, this 23lh day of .\ii^ust, in tlie tldrtictli year 
 of our reign. 
 
 (Signed) C. K. SCIin.T.KU, 
 
 D. v.. Clerk of llie Crown. 
 
 The Return to the within writ appears by the Scliedule 
 hereunto annexed. 
 
 Montreal (iaol, this 25th day of Aiignsl, iNliC). 
 
 (Signed) LOUIS PACJKTTK, Gaoler. 
 
 >ceivo all and singular such tirmf:,s as nor said justice shall then (signmi, 
 
 lid there consider of him in that lulialf, ami thai miu h.v\ e then i «»•!■> T.i>«'ii 
 
 HMONI, 
 
 Province of Canada, District of Montreal. 
 
 Honourable Lewis T. Drnmmond, one of Her Majesty's Judges of the Court 
 of Queen's Mench. 
 
 In answer to the writ of Her Majesty ihc Qurcn i;f liiis I'i'Ai day of August, 
 commandinj;' me to bring before your Iionour the bud) of Knicat Sureau Lami- 
 rande. 
 
 I beg to state that the above-named prisoner was by me flclivered over to 
 Edme Justin Melin, Inspcctcur Principal dc I\dice of Pari.s, last night at twelve 
 o'clock, by virtue of an order signed by M. 11. J^anboin, Deputx SherilF, grounded 
 on an instrument granted by his Excellency the Covernor-Ceneral, which order is 
 in the words following, viz. : — 
 
 "To Louis Pagettc, Gaoler of the Commo:; Gao! of the Dii^triot of Monlrea}, 
 greeting: — 
 
 "By virtue of an instrument granted by his Kxcelloncy the Governor-General 
 to deliver Krnest Sureau Lamirande, now eoniiiicd in the said common gaol, to such 
 person or persons as. may be authorized in the name and on the '. ehalf of the French 
 Empire, to receive the same, and addressed to tlie .>licrilf of the said district of 
 Mdntreal, under date of the 23rd of August instant. 
 
 t 
 
 t; ' ' 
 
78 
 
 i^ - 
 
 " You arc hereby conamandcd and required to deliver the said Ernest Sureau 
 Lamirandc to Kdme Justin Mc'in, Inspectcur Principal de Police of Paris, as being 
 so authorized to receive the same, taking his receipt. 
 
 "Provided always, that the said Ernest Sureau Lamirande be detained For no 
 other cause, matter, or thing than the crime of forgery committed by him at 
 Poitiers, in the said FVencii Empire, as specified in the said instrument. 
 " Hereof fail not at your peril. 
 
 "Given at Montreal, this 24th day of August, in the year of our Lord 1866. 
 
 (Signed) T. BOUTHILLIER, 
 
 Sheriff. 
 M. H. SANBORN. 
 
 Deputy Sheriff. 
 (Signed) Louis Pagbtte, Gaoler. 
 
 No. 23.— Warrant of Extradition. 
 
 Province of Canada. 
 
 (Seal) 
 
 (Signed) 
 
 Victoria, by the grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland 
 Queen, Defender of the Faith, &c., &,c. 
 
 MONCK. 
 
 To the Sheriff of the D' 
 greeting : — 
 
 ..net of Montreal, in our province rf Canada, 
 
 WHEREAS Ernest Sureau Lamirande, late of Poitiers, in the French Empire, 
 labourer, is now detained in the common gaol of our said district of Montreal, upon 
 and by reason of a certain charge on oath, to wit, on a charge of having on the 
 12th day of March last, at Poitiers aforesaid, committed the crime of forgery by 
 having, in his capacity of cashier of the branch of the Bank of France at Poitiers 
 aforesaid, made false entries in the books of tlic said bank, and thereby defrauded 
 the said bank of the sum of 700,000 francs. 
 
 And whereas the said Ernest Sureau Lamirande, not being one of our subjects, 
 but being an alien, has, since the commission of the said crime, come into this 
 
 Erovince from the said French Empire, and the said crime of which he is accused, 
 aving been committed in the said French Empire, it is fit and expedient the said 
 Ernest Sureau Lamirande may be made amenable to the laws of the said French 
 Empire for the crime aforesaid. 
 
 We therefore command you that the body of the said Ernest Sureau Lami> 
 rande under your custody as aforesaid, you deliver to such person or persons as 
 may be authorized in the name and on behalf of the said French Empire, to receive 
 the same ; provided always, that the said Ernest Sureau Lamirande be detained 
 under your custody aforesaid, for no cause, matter or thing other than the crime 
 aforesaid. And this you are not to omit at your peril. 
 
 In testimony whereof v/o have caused these our Letters to be made Patent, and 
 the Great Seal of our said Province to be hereunto affixed, witness our right 
 trusty and well-beloved cousin the Right Honourable Charles Stanley, Viscount 
 Monck, Baron Monck of Ballytrammon, in the county of Wexford, Governor- 
 General of British North America, and Captain-General and Governor-in-Chief in 
 and over our Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and the Island v£ 
 Prince Edward, and Vice-Admiral of the sam'), &c., &c., at Ottawa, this 23rd day 
 of August, in the year of our Lord 1866, and in the thirtieth year of our reign. 
 
 By command, 
 (Signed) WM. McDOUGALL, Secretary. . 
 
 Endorsed in the margin, 
 
 '' .corded in the Office of the Registrar of the Province of Canada, this 23rd 
 day of August, 1866, in lib. I5th of Pardons, &c., folio 212. 
 
 (Signed) GEO. H. LANE, 
 
 Deputy Registrar of the Province. 
 Endorsed on the back, 
 Received 24th August, 1866, and acted upon i'iimediately. 
 
 (Signed) M. H. SANBORN, 
 
 Deputy Sheriff. 
 
 3s 
 
m 
 
 n 
 
 Ko. 24. — Affidavit of Mr, Doi lar. 
 Dans I'afraire d'Erneat Sureau Lainirandc, detenu pour Extradition. 
 
 I'rovince du Canada, District de Montreal. 
 
 •lOSKPFI DOUTRK, Kcuyer. .Vvocat ot Conseil do la Roinc. otant assermente, 
 depose «;t dit : Que dans le rours de la presonte soireo, vers liuit lieurcs et demie, 
 deux pcrsonnes sont venues trouvcr le deposant ci I'ont informi' que dos fads 
 qu'ils considcraient coinnie certains et consistant dans les pn'-paiatifs <le depart de 
 Justin Rdme K. Melin, OHiciei de Police de Paris, et ilans les (|( clarati'>ns de ec 
 dernier, les avaicnt convaincns (|uc le dit Krnest iSurean Laniiraiide allait etre 
 aniene ce soir nieme par le dit .1. K. Melin, par le chemin de fer du (Irand 'I'ronc. 
 a Quebec, et de la sur le steamer en p.- it unco demniii pour I'Kuropo; qu'- I'elari'is- 
 senu'iit du flit prisonnior est actuellcnient demandi' aux llonorables Jus^es de la 
 Cour du Hanc de la Reiiie, sur divers tnotifs demontrant i'llii'iralite de la delention 
 du dit prisonnier et (pie cctte deniaiide est pendante flov;iiit I'llonorahle li. T. 
 Drummond, I'un des dits lionoratiles ,Iiia;es; que si le dit prisonnier est enlcve en ce 
 moment a la p;arde du p^cAlicr df I;) prison de Montreal, le deposant est convaincu 
 que e'est an nioyen d'un procc'de illep^al et dans le hut d'empecher que justice suit 
 rendue au dit prisonnier. En consequence le deposant demandc rinterventioii des 
 pouvoirs judiciaircs pour cmiu'cher que le dit prisonnier soit enlev^ d la jurirliction 
 des jugcs saisis de cette affaire et a signe. lecture laitc. 
 
 (Sijrnel JOSEPH IX)UTRE. 
 
 .\ssermente devant moi. a Montreal, Ic 24 Aoiit, 1866. 
 (Sign^-) Lewis J. Drlmmonu, J.U.R. 
 
 No. 25. — OiiDKU of Judge Drum>,ond. 
 
 To the (jaoler of the City of Montreal. 
 
 I HEREIiV require and order yon to give no obedience to any warrantor 
 order which may be given to you by any Justice of the Peace, or any other 
 authority, to deliver up or release from custody the prisoner Ernest Sureau Lami- 
 rande, until I shall have given mv decision upon the demand for a writ of hnlipan 
 corpus now pending before me in relation to the above-named prisoner. 
 
 Montreal, August 24, 1866, 
 
 (Signed) LEWIS T. DRUMMOND, J.Q.B. 
 
 No. 26, — Waruant of Surrender by the Deputy Shcrifl", 
 
 To Louis Pagette, Oaoler of the common gaol of the District of Montreal, 
 greeting, 
 
 liV virtue of an instrument granted by his Excellency the Goveriioi -General 
 to deliver Ernest Sureau Lamirande, now confined in the said common gaol, to such 
 person or persons as may be authorized in the name and on the behalf of the Frtnch 
 Empire to receive the same, and addressed to the Sheriff of the said ilistrict of 
 Montreal, under date of the 23rd day of August instant. 
 
 You are hereby commanded and required to deliver the said Ernest Surciu 
 Lamirande to F.dme Justin Melin, Inspeeteur Principal de Police of Paris, as being 
 so authorized to receive the same, taking his receipt, provided always that the said 
 Ernest Sureau Lamirande be detained for no other cause, matter, or thing, than 
 the crime of forgery committed by him at Poitiers, in the said French Empire, as 
 specified in the said instrument; hereof fail not at your peril. 
 
 Given at Montreal, this 24th day of August, in the year of our Lord 18G6. 
 
 (Signed) T*. BOUTHILLIER, 
 
 SherifT. 
 M. H. SANBORN, 
 
 Deputy Sherif}', 
 
 
 I 
 
 -I ij! 
 
 [76J 
 
7H 
 
 No. 27. — JUDOMENI ()r.FLIl)(;E D.IUM.VIUNO. 
 
 Province of Canada, District of .Montreal. 
 
 In Cliambcrs. — Friday, Anpiist 24, 1H6G. 
 
 Ik'fore the Hon. .Mr. Ju.stice Druininond. 
 
 In the matter f,^ Ernest Sureaii Lamirande for Writ of Habeas C'orpus. 
 
 iMI{. DOUTIlFv on hchail of lOrnest Surean Lamirande, presents a petition 
 for llcr .Majesty's most a^racious writ of hahean rnrpus. and is heard. 
 Mr. Itamsay on Ix-half of the Crown is iieard. 
 This case is adjourned until (lie hour of eleven in tlic forenoon lo-nionow. 
 
 Satunlay, Se])tember 25, 186G. 
 
 Uefore the Hon. y\r. Justice Drummond. 
 
 In the matter of Krncst Surcau Lamirande. 
 
 On motion of .Mr. Doutre. writ of habeas corpuii issued, returnable in Chambers 
 immediately. 
 
 At 3 o'clock i'.M.. .Mr. Pagette, the <i,aoler, makes liis return, wiiich is received 
 and fdcd. Mr. Schiller, Deputy Clerk of the Crown, reads the writ of habeas corpus 
 and return, likewise an order a;iven to the kcci)er of tlie coinumn gaol by the 
 Honourable .Mr. Justice Drummond. before the warrant of tiie .SherilF founded upon 
 the last warrant of extradition had been served upon him, and before any know- 
 ledge tiiereof had been given to the judge. 
 
 This case stands until Monday, at the hour of eleven in the forenoon. 
 
 Monday, August 27, 1866. 
 Before the Hon. Mr. Justice Drummond. 
 In the matter of Ernest Sureau Lamirande. 
 This case stands adjourned until the hour of eleven in the forenoon to-morrow. 
 
 iU' 
 
 m 
 
 Tuesday, August 28, 1866. 
 Before the Hon. Mr. Justice Drummond. 
 
 In the matter of Ernest Sureau Lamirande. 
 
 The Honourable Mr. Justice Drummond pronounced the following judg- 
 ment : — 
 
 On the 26th July last a document under the signature of his Excellency the 
 Governor-General, purporting to be a warrant for the extradition of the petitioner, 
 issued under the authority vested in his Excellency by the provisions of the statute 
 passed by the Legislature of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, in 
 the sixth and seventh years of Her Majesty's reign, intituled, "An Act to give 
 effect to a Convention between Her Majesty and the King of the French for the 
 apprehension of certain offenders," setting forth that the said petitioner stood 
 accused of the crime of "forgery, by having, in his capacity of cashier of the 
 Branch of the Bank of France at Poitiers, made false entries in the books of the 
 said bank, and thereby defrauded the said bank of the sum of 700,000 francs ;" 
 that a requisition had been made to his Excellency by the Consul-General of France 
 in the Province of British Nortli Ameiina, to issue his warrant for the apprehension 
 of the said petitioner, and requiring all Ju-^tices of the Peace and other magistrates 
 and officers of justice within their several j ii'isdictions, to aid in apprehending the 
 petitioner, and committinp: him to gaol. 
 
 Under this document the prisoner was arrested, and after examination before 
 William H. Brehaut, Esq., Police Magistrate and Justice of the Peace, was fully 
 
79 
 
 Ititii 
 
 committrd to the common fyaol of this district on tlic S2n(t day of the current 
 month of Ausjnst. 
 
 On tlie foliinvinu: day. hotwoon tlio hours of )1 and 12 o'clock in tlic lorcnoon, 
 notice was ^ivcn in due lorin hy the iirisoncr's counsel to ilio ('(mihscI rhari;iil with 
 the criminal proscciitions in this district, tiial he (the said counsel lor the |)risi)ncr) 
 would pies, ni a petition to any om; of the Judges of ihc Court of (Queen's Mench 
 who niipfht he jiresent in chamhers at 1 o'clock in tlic afternoon of iheloilowing 
 day (the 24th |)iayini;- for a writ of uahfus rorim.i and tin- discharp;e ot' the prisoner. 
 
 At ilic time ;iiip'iinl('d this pciiiion wa.-. suhmitleil to me. 
 
 dr. J. l)i)nire app ared for the peliiioner. Mr. T. K. Uumsay for tiic Crown, 
 anil -Mr. Pomiiuillc for tiu- private prosecutor. 
 
 A preliminary objection, raised on the ground of insunicient notice, was over- 
 ruled. 
 
 Mr. Douire then set fortii his client's case in a manner so lucid, that I soon 
 convinced myself, alter pern- inj;- the statute cited in warrant of extradition that 
 the warrant itself, the pretended warrant uf arre.-a allej>;ed to have been issued in 
 France, — arret tir renvoi, — and ail tiie proceedings taken with a view to ohl;un the 
 extradition of tiie petitioner, were unauliiori/.ed l)v the above cited statute, illegal. 
 null and void, and tiiat the petitioner was therefore entitled to his diseh;»rge from 
 iin|)risonment. Hut as Mr. Pominvillc, w iiom 1 :-upjiosed to be actiiiii' as cdunscl 
 for the Bank of France, wislied to be lieard. I adjourned tiie discussion of the case 
 until tiie following morning. I would have i.^sueil the writ before adjourning, Itad 
 tiie counsel for tiie prisoner insisted upon i:. IJut that gcnlleinan was no doubt 
 hilled into a sense of false security by tiie indit^iiali in disjilayed liy the counsel 
 for tlie Crown, w lien Mr. Doutrc signilied to me his ajipri'iiension thai a roup dr main 
 was in contemplation to carry oil' the petitioner before his ease liad been deeiiled. 
 
 On the following morning (Saturday, the 'J5th of this month), 1 ordered the 
 issuing of a writ of habeas corpus to bring the iietitioncr before me, witli a view to 
 his immediate diaciiarge. 
 
 My decision to discliarge him i.as founded upon tlic reasons following: — 
 
 1st. Because it is provided by tiie lirst section of the Act of tlie Hvitisli Parlia- 
 ment, to give etrcct to a Convention between Her ^iajcstv and the King of the 
 French, for the apprehension of certain ollenders (6 and 7 Vic, cap. 75) ; that every 
 requisition to deliver up to justice any fugitive accused of any of the crimes 
 enumerated in the said Act, shall be made by an ambassador of the (ioverninent of 
 France, or by an -iccredited diplomatic agent; whereas the requisition Miade to 
 deliver up t:.e petitioner to justice iias beer, made by Abel F'redcric daiiticr, Consul 
 General of France, in the Provinces of Hritisli North America, who is neither an 
 ambassador of tlic Government of France, nor an accredited diplomatic agent of 
 that Government, acconling to his ow n avowal upon oath. 
 
 2nd. Because, by the third section of the said statute, it is provided that no 
 Justice of the Peace or any other person shall issue his warrant for any such 
 8U|)posed olTender until it shall have been proved to him, upon oath or allidavit, 
 that the person applying for sucii warrant is the bearer of a warrant of arrest or 
 equivalent judicial document, issued by a judge or competent magistrate in France, 
 authenticated in such manner as would justify the arrest of the supposed oifender 
 in France upon the same charge, or unless it shall appear to him that the act 
 charged against the supposed oU'ender is clearly set forth in such warrant of arrest 
 or other judicial document; whereas the Justice of the Peace who Lssued his 
 warrant against the petitioner, issued the same without having any such proof 
 before him, the only document produced before iiim. as well as before me, in lieu of 
 such warrant of arrest or equivalent judicial document, being a j)aper writing 
 alleged to be a translation into English of a Frencii document made by some 
 unknown and unauthorized person in the office of counsel for the prosecutor at 
 New York, and bearing no authenticity whatever. 
 
 3rd. Because, supposing the said document purporting to be a translation of 
 an acte d'accumtion or indictment, accompanied by a pretended warrant for arrest, 
 and designated as an arret de renvoi, to be authentic, it does not contain the desig- 
 nation of any crime comprised in the number of the various crimes for or by reason 
 of the alleged commission of which any fugitive can be extradited under the said 
 statute. 
 
 4th. Because, by the first section of the said act, it is provided that no Justice 
 of the Peace shall commit any person accused of any of the crimes mentioned in 
 the said Act, to wit, murder, attempt to commit murder, forgery, and fraudulent 
 
 M 2 
 
 I 
 
 
 
V 
 
 11' ' 
 
 
 bai)kniptr\, unless upon siirh evidciicr as, ,trcnrHiit«- to (Ik- laws of lliat part of 
 Her .Vlaji'siv's (iuminiuiis in wliicli tlic mij), -> i n ; ,i I ; ^U.iA !>.■ round, wouM 
 justify tie apprehension and committal for trial of th" (lerson so iwcusod, if the 
 crime of uliich he shall be accused ha<l liccn llicre cominitt'^fl. Whereas the 
 evidence produced against the petitioner upon ttie ae•u^atiol) ol forfjcry i)roui'iit 
 against him hefore the committing maf^istrate woiii ! nil liavo jusiilicd liim in 
 apprehending; or committing the petitioner for the criine of forgery, had the acts 
 charged a<;ainst him been <'ommitted in that pari of Her Majesty's dominions 
 where the petitioner was found, to wit, in Lower ('an;ida. 
 
 Sth. liecausc the said warrant for the extraditidii of tlu' [jetitioiicr, as well as 
 the warrant for his apprehension, does not eharq;e him with the commission of any 
 one, of the crimes for which a warrant of exirndition can he issued under the 
 stotute, inasmuch as iii both of the said warrants tlic aliened offence is diarized 
 agrainst the petitioner as " forajery l)y haviii";. in the capacity of cashier of the 
 branch of the IJank of France at Poitiers, made false entries in the books of the 
 bank, and thereby defrauded the said bank of tlie sum of 7()(),()(H) francs." 
 
 Whereas the said oifence as thus designated does not constitute the crime of 
 forgery according to the laws of Kngland and Lower Canada, for, to use the words 
 of Judge Hlackburn when ne pronounced judgment concurrently with Chief Justice 
 Cockburn and Judge Shee, in a case analogous to this (('./• /wWf Charles Windsor, 
 Court of Queen's Bench, May 18(5.')), — "■ Korgery is the false making of an instru- 
 ment |)urporting to be that which is not, it is no; the making of an instrument 
 purporting to be that which it is; it is nut the making of .an instrument whicii 
 purports to be what it really is, but which contains false statements. Telling a lie 
 iloes not become a forgery because it is re.luced to writing." 
 
 The gaoler's return to this writ of haheax corpus was that he had delivered over 
 the prisoner to p]dme Justin 31clin. Inspecteur Principal de Police de Paris, on the 
 night of the 24th instant, at 12 o'clock, bv virtue of ' i order signed by Mr. H. 
 Sanborn, Deputy-Sheriff, grounded upon an instrument i ed by his Excellency 
 tiie Governor-General. 
 
 It appears that the petitioner thus delivered up to this Krench policeman is 
 now on his way to France, although his extradition was illegally demanded, 
 although he was accused of no crime uniler which he could have been legally 
 extradited, and although, us I am credibly informed, his Kxcellency the Governor- 
 General had promised, as he was bound in honour and justice, to grant the 
 f)etitioncr an opportunity of having his case decided by the first tribunal of the 
 and before ordering his extradition. 
 
 It is evident that his Excellency has been taken by surprise, for the document 
 signed by him is a false record, purporting to havit.g been signed on the 23rd 
 instant at Ottawa, while his Excellency was at Quebec, and falsely certilied to have 
 been recorded at Ottawa before it had been signed l)y the Gov(Mnoi-(ieneral. 
 
 In so far as the petitioner is concerned I have no further order to make, for he 
 whom I was called upon to bring before me is now probably on the high seas, swept 
 awa)' by one of the most audacious and hitherto successful attempts to frustrate 
 the ends of justice which has yet been heard of in Canada. 
 
 The only action I can take in so far as he is concerned is to order a copy of 
 this judgment to be transmitted by the Clerk of the Crown to the Governor-General 
 for the adoption of such measures as his Excellency may be advised to take to 
 maintain that respect which is due to the C^)urts of Caiiada and to thr. laws of 
 England. 
 
 As to the public officers who have been connected with t(<..5 Piait-^--, ii r.\\\ 
 
 Sroceedings are to be adopted against then they will be informeo i i erejf on 
 londay, the 24th day of September next, in the Court of Q leen's B'^u a, hnlc ing 
 criminal jurisdiction, to which day I adjourn this case for lii; liier consirkratian. 
 
 No. 28. — Telegram fn>m Mr. Doutre to his Excellency the GovuRKoR-Gr kiia.!.. 
 
 Montreal, August 30, 1866. 
 MR. DOUTRE has the honour to submit the name of the Solicitor he intends 
 intrusting with the case of Lamirande in I^ndon .- Mackenzie, Treherne and 
 Trinden, 77, Gresham House, Old Bro,ad Street. 
 
 (Signed) JOSEPH DOUTRE. 
 
II 
 
 Vo. 2f»— TiiBonAM froiii Mr. Dm rni !o Itis K\ • 11 ncv f!ir' CnvnuNnnU- vrn u . 
 
 MR. DOl'THK has the honour t i ask vour I'accI|.'iic\ if it would jilcahc your 
 Kxcellen<\ n> cause the r()lh)\viiio; i. It ^rain to Ix- sent at inibiic e\|KMih( tliioiUTh 
 the .\tlai)iK I'abli', ami Tavour Mr. Doiitic with an aiiswir 
 
 " NIackenzik, TiiKHKUN. niid TRivni-R. Solifitors. l-ondoii 
 
 " .Moiitioal. Aii!;iist :«». 18()6. 
 " Krncst Snrcaii l.an>ira«do. kopt hy Iv .Justin Moliii .and .loscph Si))linL;-. on 
 steam-ship • Damascns,' Soniois Watts, master, diu' Lundondcrrv. :ii(l S-.-picMuiior. 
 "*top him hy hnlxu.s lorjins: have his rendition suspeiuied, as ille<;ai paju-rs imiih-d. I 
 
 perhaps going-. 
 
 (Signed) 
 
 .losKi'ii oDirnK" 
 
 No. 30. — Tki.eckam from Mr. noiiKE to ids Kxcelleiiey the (iovF.iisou-tiisKRAi.. 
 
 Montreal, .Vugiist ;»U. iHfifi. 
 
 MR. nOL'TRH has the honour to ask your Kxcellencv to have the following 
 words added at the end of his telegram to .Maekeiizio and ('».. in case it sliovdd be 
 transmitted as asked by previous telegram : — 
 
 "See Lord Carimrvon." 
 
 (Signed) 
 
 .lOSKPII DOUTRE. 
 
 No. 31. — Tklbgram from Mr. Godlky to Mr. Doltiik. 
 
 Quehee, August 3(», \HI')(i. 
 LORD MONCK cannot send message at public e.vpense. 
 He has already notified the Colon..'! Secretary by telegraph. 
 
 (Signed) DKXIS GODLKY. 
 
 No. 32. — Mr. Doutre to jAfr. Goolev. 
 
 Sir. .Montical, September 8. lS(iG. 
 
 KNCLOSED you will find the joint report of Messrs. Doutre and Spilthorn, of 
 their interviews with his Kxccllency on the 2.3rd August last in Quebec. You will 
 oblige by submitting it to his Excell acy for remarks, if necessary. I intend 
 sending a duplicate of that report to England, and to publish it in Canada as some 
 newspapers persist in qualifying as a fabrication the report made by Mr. Spilthorn 
 of his Excellency's promise in Ottawa of allowing to Lamirande the time necessary 
 for applying to higher tribunals. (Considering that Lamirande might sufer from 
 the doubts expressed by some newspapers about that jiromise, you will please 
 submit to his Excellency that I cannot, for the sake of minor ronsiderations, let my 
 client suffer from my silence. 
 
 I intend sending that rcpoit to England on Wednesday next, if 1 do not 
 receive anv observations upon it before then. 1 will consider that there are none to 
 expect. 
 
 If there was no objection to communicate to me the telegram of his Excellency 
 to the Colonial Secretary, in relation to LamiranK, ' wo..m1 be exceedingly obliged 
 
 for it. 
 
 i have. &c. 
 Denis Godley, Esq., (Signed) JOSEPH i.>OUTRR. 
 
 &c., &c., &tc.. Quebec. 
 
 » i! 
 
 Ml 
 
 I 1: 
 
 t II 
 
mm 
 
 h ■ 
 
 mi- 
 
 
 JoiMT RbPoht from Messrs. J. Ooi trf. Q.C, and C. F.. Spiithorv. Attorney and 
 Counsellor-at-Law, of tlu-ir Interviews with his Kxccllcncy the Govf.hnor- 
 Genebaf. of Canada on the 2<.lth of August, 18(J(i, in Qnel)cr. 
 
 Montreal, August 30, 18(J«i. 
 
 TIIK 'JDth of August, \H(iii, horns; a very stormy day, and tlieir being no 
 probability that his Kxccllcncy would conic to his ollice in town, where Messrs. 
 Dontrc and Spiithorn had enquired for him in the morning, .Messrs. Doutre and 
 Spilthorn started for Spencer Woiul, where they were received l)y Ids Kxcellency 
 nbout 12 o'clock. 
 
 On meeting them, liis Kxcellency said, that he understood the object of their 
 visit, that no man liad felt more amrieved than himself at the wrong he had been 
 Instrumental in inflicting upon Lainirande. 
 
 Mr. Doutrc then observed, thai if the warrant of his Kxccllcncy surrendering 
 Lamirandc to France, had hren the result of deliheralion on the part of liis 
 Excellency, tiicre would have been an immcdi itc end to the interview, as their 
 object in coming from Montreal was neither to blame his Kxcellincy nor to discuss 
 his action in the matter, lint in siich case he, Mr. Doutre, would be in the paiiiful 
 necessity of doubting the word of Mr. Spilt liorn. when he reported tiiat his 
 Excellencv had given him the vcrhal promise of illo^ing to Lamirande the time 
 required for submitting his case on habeas corpus to higher tribunals. 
 
 His Kxcellency there interrupted to say that Mr. Spilthorn had correctly 
 reported the result of their interview in Dttawa, and that his Excellency had really 
 promised to act as required in the petition of l.amirande. 
 
 "Then," continued Mr. Doulre. "I will feel at lil)crty to state the series of 
 facts which have induced me and my com]);inion to disturb your Excellency in his 
 private residence. We have come from ^Montreal to see if there would beany means 
 of redressing the effects of the execution of your Excellency's warrant, winch had 
 brought a deplorable conflict between the executive and judicial powers of the 
 State." 
 
 " I saw that too late, unfortunately," said his Excellency, " to prevent that 
 conflict, but ii; was far from being premeditated on my part. I will tell you, 
 frankly, how the thing happened. Although the matter rested almost entirely with 
 me, you understand that I would not undertake to decide upon a matter of law 
 without acting under the advice of my constitutional legal advisers. On the 23rd 
 day of this month, Mr. Solicitor-General Langevin brought me that warrant to have 
 it signed. I told Mr. Langevin that I had promised the Attorney of the prisoner 
 ample time to submit his case under a writ of habeas carpus, that if the warrant 
 tendered for my signature should have the eflect of interfering in the least with the 
 application for habeas corpus, I would certainly not sign it. 3Ir. Langevin told me 
 that the warrant would not interfere with or prejudice the proceedings adopted or 
 to be adopted by the prisoner ; that the warrant was only intended to be used 
 when the application for habeas corpus would be disposed of, and in case it would not 
 be granted. I have not seen Mr. Langevin since, but I must hear what he has to 
 say. He is responsible to me for his advice, and he must explain how lie has 
 brought me into this painful and false position. If it would not inconvenience you, 
 meet me at my office at 2 o'clock. 1 will be pleased to see jou. In the meantime 
 if you can suggest any practical means of redressing the wrong I have been instru- 
 mental in inflicting upon the man, I will be very much obliged to you." 
 
 When Mr.Doutre ; "'jated how it had been ascertained that theAttorney-General's 
 partners in business had been connected with the execution of the plan which |iad 
 resulted in the taking away of Lamirandc pending the demand of release under 
 habea'-. corpus, the participation of the Depity-Clerk of the Crown and of the Crown 
 Prosecutor in the execution of the plan, ever\ one of them knowing the existcncp of 
 the proceedings for habeas corpus, the preparation of a draft of his Excellency's warrant 
 by the Crown Prosecutor, and the copying of it on parchment by the Deputy-Clerk 
 of the Crown, even before the decision of the Police Magistrate had been rendered, 
 the receiving of the fees from the prisoner on the petition for a writ of habeas corpus 
 by the same Deputy-Clerk of the Crown, the Presence of the same Deputy-Clerk of 
 the Crown, and of the Crown prosecutor at the presentation of the petition on the 
 24th August; the participation of both of them in the proceedings for habeas corpus, 
 and after ail this the visit of the same Deputy-Clerk of the Crown at the residence 
 of the Deputy -Sheriff during the night of the 24th and 25th of August, with the 
 Attorney-General's partner, the High Constable, and French detective Melin, to 
 
I 
 
 I tlieii 
 been 
 
 r his 
 
 Itiieir 
 
 SCIISS 
 
 linfiil 
 
 time 
 
 obtain an order tyroundcd on his Kxrclloncys warrant ; the whole showinsf that all 
 and every one of them had eoiispircil topother to hrint; his Kxiellcncv in disrepute, 
 by treacherously causin;; liis Kxcclleiuy to coimnit a I) reach of liis royal promise, 
 and to set at dcliaiico the authority ol' the Cnurt of which they, tlic Deptity-l'lcrk of 
 tlie Crown, the Crown Prosecutor, and tlic liiijli Conslil)lc. ncrc servants in their 
 respective sphere of action. Mr. Doutrc observed, moreover, tlial knowinj; the 
 antecedents ot three of the parti ■>, concerned in tliis di-ii^r.icelul transaction, 
 knowinjj^ that the i'olicc .Ma^jistrati; and liie Dt'iiuiy-ChMk of tiie Crown had 
 already been dismissed Irom oilici' lor niaivcisalion in and brcacli of |)ubli<' trust, 
 and that the Crown Prosecutor had also been dismissed from ollico for disobedience 
 and insolence to his sujicrior otliccrs, knuwinj; that the same parties had been 
 reinstated in odice withoul havinji; in any wav removed the causes of their respective 
 dismissal, ami exclusively throiiL;;li the iniluencc of tlie Attt)riH'y-(ieneral ; he knew 
 from the first that each and all of them would be subservieiii tools in the hands of 
 the Attorney-tieneral's partners, and from the be<;innini;- he anticipated that nothing 
 short of the fair (lcalinf;s of his KxccUcncy could protect his client from all kinds 
 of attempt to evade law and ;.is(icc on the part of the Attorney-lieneral's partners, 
 aided and abetted by those cilicials. The result has proved that this anticipation 
 did not yet reach the full height of the conspirators" knavery, since the high and 
 regal position of his Excellency did not stoj) them in their nefarious designs. This 
 will not be the last his Kxcellency would iiear irom the doings of the same parties. 
 A few weeks ago the same Crown Prosecutors had aimsed his IOxceileiicy"s warrant 
 in another case of extradition. A man of the name of Merrit having lieen committed 
 for extradition, the nullity of his commitment was raised under a writ of hahenH 
 cnrpit.s, while his Excellency's warrant was asked ibr upon tiiis same commitment. 
 When his Excellency's warrant arriveil at Montreal the commitment was (piashed, 
 and the release of the prisoner ordered; but another commitment was secretly 
 obtained, and upon this second commitment his Excellency's warrant, which must 
 have been anterior in date, was rised to extradite the prisoner. 
 
 "Having thus shown to your Excellency," continued .Mr. Doutre, "how 
 justice is administered in Montreal, I will now state to your Excellency the practical 
 object of our visit. We intend telegrapliing to FiOndon through tlw^ ("able, to some 
 solicitors to take proceedings to si!S|)rnd the rendition of Lamirande if he is landed 
 in England. But there our agents will have to figlit against your Excellency's 
 warrant without any pa[)cr to show why tliat warrant should not be fully executed, 
 since your Excellency has been deceived. We would humi)l\ submit that your 
 Excellency shoulil help us In preventing that violation of the law. As to the form 
 under which your Excellency might lielp us, we would leave yonr KxccUcncy to 
 decide." 
 
 Then his Excellency told us that he would be willing to telegraph immediately 
 to Lord Carnarvon, the Secretary for the Colonies, informing him of the illegality 
 of Lamiraude's extradition, and praying him. to give to our solicitors all help in his 
 power. 
 
 This closed the first interview. In the afternoon we met his Excellency at his 
 office in town, when he told us that he was ready to telegraph, and that he was only 
 waiting for the names of our solicitors in London. As we had not yet determined 
 whom we would intrust with the case, it was agreed that we should send their 
 names by telegraph from Montreal the next morning. 
 
 His Excellency then told us that he had seen Mr. Solicitor-General Langevin, 
 and that injustice to him he desired to communicate to us the explanation he had 
 given of his conduct. "Mr. Solicitor-General Langevin suys," contiiiurd his 
 Excellency, " that when I atked him if my warrant would interfere with the 
 proceedings on hahean corpus, he understood me to ask him if a writ of habeas corpus 
 had been issued, and that he answered no." 
 
 '■'Mr. Langevin," remarked iMr. Doutrc, "knew then what was going on, and 
 what he was doing himself, and wiiether his explanation is true or plausible or not. 
 it does not alter the case as to the animus of his advice to your Excellency, but we 
 have nothing to do with that." 
 
 As we were about leaving, Mr. Doutre observed, that as liis Excellency then 
 stood before the public as ha\ing acted in violation of his promise to Mr. Spillhorn, 
 he would feel bound to explain the matter in a public way, in justice to his 
 Excellency. 
 
 '* U you intend to do that, for my own sake," said bis Excellency, " I would 
 
94 
 
 
 rather like that you Rhoulcl nbHtnin from doing it." And his Kxcolleiicy prnvc his 
 motivcH for nvoitlinp heinR mixed up in newspaper controversy. 
 
 Mr. Dotilic rppiied. that his Excellency's cicairc would be complied with as long 
 as the iiitcrrst of his client should not suffer from his silence, and we parted. 
 
 (Signed) JOSEPH nOlJTRK. 
 
 C. L. SPILTHORN. 
 
 I 
 
 No. Xi. — Mr. (ioDLRY to Mr. DoinuK. 
 
 Sir, Quebec, September 10, 1S66. 
 
 I BE(i to .ickiiouledj^c tlic receipt of your letter of the 8th instant, cnelosinji; a 
 "Joint report from .Messrs. J. Doutro, Q.C., and C. L. Spilthorn, .\ttorneys-at-Law, 
 of their interviews with I is Kxcellencv the Ciovcrnor-Oeneral of Canada, on the 
 29th of Au2;iist. IKdfi, at Quebec." 
 
 I have laid this document before the Govcrnor-tJeneral, and I am directed b) 
 his Excellency Id inform you thai though he cannot restrain you froni publisliing 
 anything that you |)lease, lie entirely denies the accuracy of the rc|)nrt of the 
 language which in your statement he is made to use, and also disavows the 
 construction which is put upon his conversation, as ailectin;^ his relations with the 
 oflicers of the Crown. 
 
 In re[)ly to your reijuest that the telegram of the (iovernor-tjencral to the 
 Secretary of Si ate for the Colonies should be communicated to you, I am toacfpiaint 
 you that his Excellency, in his message to I^ord Carnarvon, expressed liis desire 
 that his warrant for Laniirando's extradition should not he any obstacle to the 
 prisoner".s oljtaining a writ of habviis corpus in England, as his Excellency under- 
 stood that an application for that purpose would be made in tiic English Courts.* 
 
 I have, &ic. 
 (Signed^ DENIS GODLEY,. 
 
 J. Doutro. Es(|., Q C. tiovernor'i, Secretary. 
 
 &c., &e., !y.c., Montreal, L.C. 
 
 No. 34. — Mr. Doutre to Mr. Godlby. 
 
 M 
 
 ^h 
 
 M 
 
 Sir, .Montreal, September II, 1866. 
 
 I nW'E tlie honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of yesterday, 
 in which you inform mc that his Excellency the Governor-General " entirely denies 
 the accuracy of the report of the language which in our iMr. Spilthorn and myself) 
 statement lu; is made to use ; and he also disavows the construction which is put 
 upon his conversation as affecting his relations with the officers of the Crown." 
 
 You will please express to his Excellency my regret that any portion of that 
 report should be the object of either denial or disapprobation on the part of his 
 Excellency, as we have taken great care to faithfully report the conversations we 
 had the honour to have with his Excellency. Our object in laying down the details 
 of those conversations, was to make a complete record of the facts relative to 
 Lamirande's extradition. But as 1 never desired to serve any other object than 
 the interest of my client in asking an interview with his Excellency, you will please 
 state to his E.xcellency that I would very willing forego any intention of making 
 public fioin these conversations anything else but what is useful to Lamirande. 
 . The thing most tiscfnl to him was the acknowledgment on the part of his Excellency, 
 that his Ivuvlleiicy had promised to Mr. Spilthorn at Ottawa that Lamirande 
 would be allowed all the necessary time to submit his case for examination to 
 higher tribunals, under a writ of habeas corpus. 1 hope there cannct be any 
 difference between his Excellency on the one part, and Mr. Spilthorn and myself on 
 the other, about that fact. 
 
 I beg therefore to submit to his Excellency the enclosed report of Mr. Spilthorn 
 and myself, under date of this day, and I hope that by acknowledging the accuracy 
 
 * The telegram referred to will be found printed at p«g« 2. 
 
of tlir only fart stated in it, his Kxrcllcncy will j;ivo to Mr. Spilthorn nn'! myHclfthe 
 sfttisfiictioii of n-iiiainiiiij;, with ikj otiicr recollfction but that of his Excellency's 
 kir..ii)rss towani-s us in our meetings at Quebec. 
 
 I have. &c. 
 Denis (lodl.y. F:s.|., (Sisneil) JOSKPH DOUTRK. 
 
 iSccTetary to Ins Kxccllfucy 
 the Ciovernor-Ueneral. 
 
 ON tlu> 'JDlli of August, ISOO, tlif undersigned Joseph Doutre, Q.C., and 
 Ti. ('. Spilllioiii, Atlorney and C'ounscilor-at Law, had tlu> honour of meeting his 
 Kxcclicncy the (iovernor-CJonoral of Canada, fcce., at QucImc, in relation to the 
 t'Xtradilidii of Krnost S. Lamirandc, claimed by France as a fugitive criminal. 
 
 In that intervi -w his Kxcclicncy acknowledged that Mr. Spilthorn, one of the 
 undersigned, having presented a petition froi i the said I^imiranue to his Kxcclicncy, 
 about the ITtli oi' August, IKCiU, in Ottawa, praying his Kxcclicncy that in case he 
 (Laniirand.) should be commiltcd for extradition by the Police Magistrate then 
 investigating the niatti r, lie (Lainiranili) slK)uld be allowed the necessary time to 
 submit his case to higher tribunals fcr examination, under a writ of hnhcns rnrput, 
 ids Kxcclicncy had then and there told .Mr. Spilthorn that amjilc time would be 
 allowed to I.amirande for the purpose of submitting his ease as mentioned in the 
 
 said petition. 
 
 i' 
 
 lontnal, September 11, 180fi. 
 
 (Signed) 
 
 JOSKPII DOUTIIK. 
 C. L. SPILTHORN. 
 
 No. .35. — Mr. Uontv.v to Mr. Poltke. 
 
 Ciovcrnor's Secretary's Odlce, Quebec, 
 Sin, Se|)teml)er'l2, iM'JO. 
 
 I II.WK the honour to inform you that 1 have l.dd the |)apcr which you inclosed 
 to me in your letter of the 11th instant before the Ciovcrnor-Cicneral, and I am to 
 acquaint you tliat ii. is therein correctly stated that his Kxeellency told Mr. Spil- 
 thorn that ample time uoulii be allowed to Lamiraiide to obtain a writ of habeas 
 corpus before the execution of the warrant for his extradition. 
 
 1 am further to apprise you that the (lovernor-Ciencral expressly dcclincn to 
 sanction any publication of language held by him in rci'ercnce to the matter, and 
 that any such publication must be understood to he made without his consent. 
 
 I have. &c. 
 (Signed) DKNIS CODLKY, 
 
 J. Doutre, Esq., Q.C., Montreal. Governor's Secretary. 
 
 No. 36. — Mr. Dolthe to Mr. Godley. 
 
 Si!i, Montreal, September l.i, ISOG. 
 
 I n.WR the honoir to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of tiie ll'th 
 in.stant, in which you inform me that you iiave laid t!ie paper inclosed in my letter 
 of the 11th instant before tlic Governor-CkMioral, and tliat it is therein correctly 
 stated that Ids Excellency tokl Mr. Spilthorn that anqilc time would be allowed to 
 Lamirande to obtain a writ of hiiliras rorins before the execution of the warrant for 
 his extradition, and that tiie Govcnior-Geirral expiessly deciines to sanction any 
 publication of language held by him in reference to tiic matter, and that any suth 
 publication must be understood to be made without his consent. 
 
 In reference to this latter part, I beg leave to rendnd what I have said in my 
 letter of the 1 1th instant, and, to avoid misunderstanding on this matter, you will 
 please inform his Excellency that I do not intend pidjlishing anything in which his 
 Excellency might feel some interest, but the paper inclosed in my letter of the 
 nth instant and the first portion of your letter of the 12th instant relative to that 
 paper. 
 
 I have, &ic. 
 Denis Godley, Esq., (Signed) JOSEPH DOUTRE. 
 
 Governor-General's Secretary, 
 Quebec. 
 
 [75] 
 
 N 
 
'i/f 
 
 hi 
 
 
 I -.i 
 
 Hi 
 
 
 m 
 
 No. 37. — Chakor ncldrCTwml t<» the Gbanu Jury by iho lion. Li;wis Thomas Dnvu 
 MiiNn, our of the .histiccH of tlio Nuid ('oiiit, at tiiu <)|)cning of tlic Term at 
 Montreal, on the 24tli (lay of September, iHfiO. 
 
 Province of Canada, District of Montreal. 
 
 Court of Queen's Hcneli, Crown Hide.— September Term, 1866. 
 
 licnilemen of tlie (iraiid Jury, 
 
 WK nuikt all feel a deep interest in niaintaininp; the purity and eHiciency of an 
 institution sueli as tlic Grand Jury, whieli lias been established for the twofold 
 ]>ur|)OHe oi d«n<Mii)rin|^ and biin^inp; to justice all those who violate the law, and of 
 protecting from faltie uccusation all those who respect it. 
 
 The usefidnesH of this {;^reat and time-honoured institution (imperfect as it is in 
 some respects, like all human devices) cannot ite preserved, its aiiuse cannot be 
 prevented, unless the men who arc summoned to cairy it into operation have 
 imbibcil a clear conception of their duties, tlieir powers, and their immunities. 
 
 To define to you, therefore, these three subjects, to condense them in the most 
 
 Crecise and practical manner I can, after a rigorous analysis of the law and the 
 est authorities rclatin}>; tu tiicm, seems to be my first and paramount duty on this 
 as on all similar occasions. 
 
 Powers and Duties. 
 
 Your powers and duties, CJentlemen of the Grand Jury, may be defined in the 
 following manner : — 
 
 You have power, and it is your duty, to inquire into all public offences 
 committed or triable in this district, and to report them to this Court, cither by 
 indictment or presentment. 
 
 After such inquiry upon an indictment, if you (at least twelve of you) bell ve 
 the person accused guilty of the olfence therein charged against him, you should 
 return the indictment into court after your foreman has caused to be written on the 
 back thereof the words "true bill" or "a true bill," .-.nd placed his signature 
 below these words. 
 
 If you believe the accusation to be unfounded, or not sufficiently proved to 
 justify a public trial, you should return the indictment into Court as ' no bill," or 
 •' ignoramus." The latter form has, however, become well-nigh obsolete, at least 
 in Lower Canada. 
 
 Having stated that you may return into Court the result of your inquiries 
 either by iiitlictmcnt or presentment, it is due to you that I should explain clearly 
 tlic distinction to be drawn between these two modes of proceeding. 
 
 Indictment and Presentment. 
 
 An "indictment" is an accusation in writing submitted to, and after due 
 incpiiry, presented by the Grand Jury to a competent Court charging a person with 
 a jiubiic offence. A " presentment" is an informal statement in writing, by the 
 Grand Jury, a|)prising the Court that a public offence has been committed within 
 the district, and that tliere is a reasonaljle ground for believing that a particular 
 indivi'liial named or described has committed it. 
 
 Although Grand Juries have undoubtedly the right to make any such present- 
 ment, and although it is the duty of any grand jiiior, cognizant of every offence 
 not brought up by indictment, to inform his brother jurors thereof, yet the practice 
 usually followed in Lower Canada is to instruct the Crown Prosecutor, or in his 
 absence the Clerk of the Crown, to proceed in the ordinary course. If, however, 
 you dccni it proper to make any such presentment, you should annex notes of the 
 evidence taken in support of it, signed by your foreman, and you should not 
 announce, in open Court, the name of the person accused : while the Court, if in 
 its discretion it should order further proceedings, would be bound to prevent 
 
 Eublicity being given to the particulars of such a presentment until an arrest had 
 een eflected. 
 
 Certaiit Cases Excepted. 
 
 Under a recent Statute you are forbidden to inquire into any bill of indictment 
 for perjury, subornation, ot perjury^ conspizacyr obtaining money under ^false 
 
rill at 
 
 •7 
 
 prctpncrs, or for l<''i'|)inp n {jamlilin{j-lmii«r or a tIii«nr<K<rIy Iioiisp, or for nny 
 indrrrnt nmniilt, «iiiIcrs tlit- pr(»M-r<itor liiut Imth Imtiiul I \ rrp«)){nitaiicr to ap|w«r 
 to niiswcr sudi iii'lictmonts, or iiiilrxH bucIi inMirtmcnt !>• ((rrlrrrcd liy tlio ilin-tiiwn 
 or witli tlio consent in writing; of a Jtiiii;e of iho Comt of (^in'on's lUi eh. or of 
 tlio Superior Court, or of tl»« Attorncy-donrrul or ^.Miilior (ifncral "i ')\ver 
 Canada. 
 
 Phoof Rkduirrd. 
 
 No indictinont should lie rotunifd ns " a tnir Mil," ami no prr!«»'ntni.iit slinnl 1 
 be made without the concurrcnro of at least twilv<- jurors. No indictuicni sliouUv 
 be returned into Court ;is " no lull " until all tl>f witnesses named in it li;n<' been 
 heard, if |)ieseut or aeoNsible ; but you are not oblijjed to hear all siuh wiinessi'H 
 if you are fully convirK cil by the evidenrc of one or more that the aeeusetl shoiJd 
 be put upon his trial. The siler eourse, liowever, is to examine them all. 
 
 In the investigation of any chari^e, cither U|N)n an indictment or for the purpose 
 of a prcBcntmeut yoo eaii receive no evidence other than such as is given by 
 witneMHCM pnxbieed ajul Hworu before you, or furnished by confesKion n\ade u|)un 
 voluntary examination before a .Mafjjistrate, or by other Ie;;al documentary 
 evidence. 
 
 Mo afKda\it!ior depositionK should be nnreivcd by you in evidence, except such 
 as contain dyinp^ declarations in cases of alleged murder or nianslausjht. »■, Kven 
 these shuuld nut be cud as evidence before you without previous consultation with 
 the counsel for tin- Crown, or in his absence with the Clerk of the Crown, >)•• by 
 permission of the Court. 
 
 You can receive none but le^;al and the best evidence the case will admit c)f, to 
 tlie exclusion of liear-say and seciimiarv evidence 
 
 You ure not liound to hear c\itl .ncc for the defence, but it is your iluty to 
 weigh all the evidence submitted to you ; and when you have reason to believe that 
 other evidence within your reach ina\ alter the ciiaracler of the eli:irg(! or explain 
 it away, you sluiiuld order sucli evidence! to be produced. 
 
 You should return "a true bill" against no man unless upon such evidence 
 as in the aggregate would in your judgment, if unexplained or uiuontradieled, 
 warrant a conviction upon trial by a petit jury; but in cases where you entertain 
 any reasonable doubt, the jjrotcction \ou owe to the community would seem to 
 require that you should allow that balance to iiu^line a^^ainst the accused which a 
 petit jury, after a full investigation of the fuels, if in the same frame of mind, would 
 reverse in his favour. 
 
 An indictment for murder, wiiere the slaying is proved against the accused, 
 may be returned as a " true bill " for manslaughter, if you arc fully convinced th.it 
 the death involved no malice al'orethcught either direct or implied; but the safer 
 course, in the interest of the public, is to return a true bill for murder, leaving it to 
 the petit jury, under the direction of the Court, to discriminate between tlicse two 
 species of homiciile. 
 
 ti 
 
 DlTIKS APAUT from iNdUIRY INTO PuBLIC OkFEXCES. 
 
 In addition to the duties incumhent upon you in direct relation to public 
 offences, you arc also bound to inqinre into the condition and nianageincnt of the 
 public prisons, and into the cause of detention of every person imprisoned on any 
 charge and not indicted. 
 
 AssisrANCE Due. 
 
 In order to enable you to perform those high functions with efficiency, you are 
 entitled to (at all reasonable times) the advice of the Court, or of the counsel 
 representing the Crown, or in his absence of the Clerk of the Crown, and to obtain 
 the assistance of the latter (or of any other person deputed by him) in the mar- 
 shalling and examination of witnesses before you : but no other person apart from 
 the witness actually under examination should be allowed to appear in the Grand 
 Jury room while you are engaged in the performance of your duties, except the 
 private prosecutor, in cases not conducted by counsel, and you must allow no 
 person whomsoever to be present in yocr room while you are expressing }-oar 
 opinions or. giving your votes upon any matter before you. 
 
 You are also entitled to free access, at all reasonable times, to the public 
 
 N 2 
 

IMAGE EVALUATION 
 TEST TARGET (MT-3) 
 
 5^ 
 
 K// ^**^^ 
 
 
 1.0 
 
 I.I 
 
 a Ui 12.2 
 
 .... I 
 
 U 
 US 
 
 tii 
 
 1^ 
 
 ■ 4.0 
 
 L25 iU 
 
 I 
 
 1.6 
 
 6" 
 
 Hiotographic 
 
 Sciences 
 
 Corporation 
 
 23 WIST MAIN STRUT 
 
 WiBSTfR,N.Y. 145S0 
 
 (716) •72-4503 
 
^ 
 
 <^^ 
 
 
88 
 
 
 '■\ • 
 
 
 s' ' 
 
 s : 
 
 h 
 
 "I ) 
 
 K 
 
 j^irison, and to an examination, without charge, or all public records connected with 
 the performance of your duties as grand jurors. 
 
 I M)l UNITIES. 
 
 Your immunities consist principally in the protection, with which the law 
 surrounds you, against all responsibility, all liability of being questioned or called 
 ti> account in any way for anything you may say, or any vote you may give in the 
 Grand .lury room relative to a matter legally pending before you, except in the 
 improbable event of a grand juror committing perjury in making an accusation or 
 giving testimony to his fellow jurors. 
 
 Secrecy. 
 
 I need not allude to the secrecy you are bound to observe as to all your pro- 
 ceedings, for you have pledged yourselves oy the oath you have taken to keep the 
 secretH of your fellow-jurors ua well as your own, and that solemn pledge is bindinsj 
 on you, not only while you are fulfdling your duties as grand jurors but for all time 
 thereafter. 
 
 Having set forth the rules by which you are to be guided in your deliberations, 
 I come to the consideration of the calendar of ofTencesv which it will be your duty 
 to investigate; it is, I regret to say, a heavy one, comprising some accusations of a 
 most heinous character. 
 
 The instructions given to you above will, I trust, assist you in your inquiry ; 
 and you may rely upon the determination of the Court to award adequate punish- 
 ment to all who shall be found guilty of the violations of the law. 
 
 But; apart froiii these vulgar crimt^s, I deem it my duty to call your attention 
 to a startling violation of law, committed by several persons connected with the 
 administration of justice. I allude to the case of E. S. Lamirande, who, while his 
 petition for a writ o{ habeas corpus was under consideration before one of the Judges 
 of the Court, and after his Excellency the Governor-General had assured him, 
 through his counsel, that he would have ample time to obtain a decision upon his 
 case bj' this Cour*- before any warrant of extradition should issue, was forcibly and 
 illegally carried off beyond its jurisdiction. 
 
 A crime of this character, involving a flagrant contempt of the judiciary of 
 our countrv — an insult to our gracious Sovereign in the person of her representa- 
 tive, our g:)od and noble Governor-General — and a violation of tlie writ of hahean 
 corpus, the foundation of all our liberties as British subjects, demands of you, as the 
 Grand Inquest of this district, a strict and earnest investigation. 
 
 You may now retire to your chambers, where, i have no doubt, you will 
 perform the arduous labours which await you, with full satisfaction to your own 
 conscience and to the country you represent. 
 
 No. 38. — Presentment of the Grand Jury. 
 
 Province of Canada, District of Montreal. 
 
 Court of Queen's Bench, Crown side. — September Term, 1866. 
 May it please the Court, 
 
 HAVING terminated the business submitted to us, before seeking our discharge 
 at the hands of the Court, we beg leave to offer our sincere thanks to his Honour 
 the presiding Judge, for the interesting and careful charge he has pleased to deliver 
 to us on the first day of the present term. By the luminous instructions given to 
 ufc with regard, not only to our rights and duties, but also as to our immunities 
 and oblfgations, we have been much aided in the long and sometimes diflicult 
 investigations in which we have been engaged, and we trust that with the help so 
 given we may have Ijeen enabled to discharge our duties with advantage to the 
 country, as well as with comparative ease to ourselves. We cannot, however, fail 
 to express our regret that the work thrown upon us has been so heavy, and it is 
 impossible to conceal the fact, that crime, and that of the most serious description, 
 increases almost in proportion to the material prosperity of this community. In 
 particular, the jurors have seen, with some concern, the alarming increase of the 
 crime of larceny, which is in some measure owing to the facility with which the 
 
Btl with 
 
 phe law 
 called 
 in (he 
 in the 
 
 Mion or 
 
 |ur pro- 
 jeep the 
 pi nd ilia: 
 ill time 
 
 Elunder is disposed of. Much praise, however, is due to the detectives Cullcn and 
 louchard for their y.eal and in<7cnuity in flndinp; out tlic hauntH of these depre> 
 dators and bringin|; thci.i to justice. On the other hand, it is to be rcgrcttetl that 
 certain county magistrates scud up for trial at a vast expense to the country, cases 
 too insignificant for the consideration of this Court. In a word, \\c have 
 endeavoured, and we hope successfully, to keep up to the rule laid down in our oath, 
 tc present no one from malice, hatred, reward, or hope of reward, and to leave no 
 one unpresented from fear, favour or affection. 
 
 The Jurors visited (lie common gaol, and find that so far as the accomnuHlation 
 goes, every thing is in perfect order; but th-^ Grand Jury think it right to draw 
 attention to the following facts : — 
 
 Five and twenty years ago the gaol was constructed to hold 250 prisoners, and 
 on the Gth of October there were 440 inmates, male and female, besides children. 
 On the 9th instant, when the Grand Jurors went there, the actual number was — 
 females 209, males '20'',, making a total of 415; of whom there were of female 
 lunatics II, male 4 ; leaving a balance of criminals, 400. 
 
 The Grand Jurors also find tiiat in the year 1845 there were 1313 commitments; 
 in 1805 the commitments amounted to the enormous number of 4424; wliile the 
 increase in the number of turnkeys has been only two, one man and one woman. 
 
 In order to supply room for this increased number of prisoners, the debtors' 
 prison has been taken up, so that we find two debtors occuping the convicts' ward ; 
 and a woman sentenced to a fine for selling liquor without licence, which rIic 
 cannot pay, obliged to keep company with the most abandoned women aitd idiots. 
 This seems to be a hard measure of justice. 
 
 But want of space, which thus prevents any proper classification, is not the 
 only fault of the gaol, it is also very insecure. During the last year there have 
 been seven escapes; one being that of a youth who was twice convicted of larceny 
 on his own confession during this term. 
 
 The Grand Jurors feel that their duty would be only half df<ne did tiiey fail to 
 offer any practical suggestions to improve tiic prison, 'f hey therefore beg leave to 
 present that in their opinion there should be constructed forthwith a house of 
 correction for the incarceration of all those convicted before the Judge of [Sessions, 
 out of Sessions, and before the Re order; and tiiat to render the gaol more secure, 
 the enclosuir ,vall should he raiseti at least four feet, and be furnLsliod v ith a round 
 stone coping. They also consider that '' number of turnkeys and of the armed 
 guard should be increased, and tl:at _ .lousu for the gaoler should be constructed 
 in the yard apart from the prison; with these changes, and the addition ol a house 
 of correction, the Grand Jury believe the present gaol may be made to meet the 
 requirements of the district for many years to come. 
 
 Among the prisoners now confined in the Montreal gaol, are a certain number 
 of those taken during the Fenian raid in June last. The Jurors hope that no 
 unnecessary delay will occur in bringing these persons to trial. 
 
 The Jurors have learnt witli regret, that the Corporation of Montreal persists 
 in licensing houses which have been made the subject of complamt by the Police, 
 and this in violation of a bye-law of the City Council. 
 
 In conclusion, the Jurors desire to express the satisfaction they feel that the 
 excitement consequent upon the invasion of our Provinces in the month of June last, 
 by bands of wicked and lawless men, citizens of a neighbouring country, between 
 whose Government and ours no cause of disagreement existed, have now happily 
 subsided. The good faith of the American Government in maintaining international 
 obligations, together with our own watchfulness and due preparation against any 
 attempt at a repetition of such unholy designs, it is to be hoped will in future allow 
 the inhabitants of this country to pursue their -jsual avocations in peace. 
 
 The Court drew the attention of the Grand Jurors to the extradition of 
 Ernest Sureau Lamirande. They now submit the affidavit of Joseph Doutre, 
 Esq., Q.C., also their answers to a circular letter containing interrogatories for the 
 consideration of the Court. 
 
 The whole respectfully submitted. 
 
 Grand Jury Room, Montreal, October 10, 1866. 
 
 (Signed) J. W. DORWIN, Foreman. 
 

 No. .... — MoTK.N lor Copies of Pa^jicrs by Mr. Doutue. 
 
 i*roviiice of Canada, Diitrict of Montreal. 
 
 In the Court of Queen's Bench, Crown side. 
 
 Ex i'arte iCrnest Surcau Lamirande for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. 
 
 MOTION o.i the part of the petitioner, that for reasons mentioned in the 
 affidavit now filed, and on payment of the usnal fees, he be allowed to have a copy 
 «f the papers filed by the Grand Jury of this district, witii their presentment, aiul 
 of the consultation asked by the said Grand Jury, from the Honourable Judge 
 presiding; over tliis Court, upon which consultation the said Monourabic Judge gave 
 the answer ided of record in this matter. 
 Montreal, October 12, 18UC. 
 
 (Signed) JOSEPH DOUTRE, 
 
 Attorney for the Petitioner. 
 
 \:\ t 
 
 M ' 
 
 hi' . 
 "V 
 
 Province of Canada, District of Montreal. 
 
 In the Court of Queen's Bench, Crown side. 
 Ex Parte Ernest Sureau Lamirande for H.-5.bca3 Corpus. 
 
 JOSEPH DOUTRE, of the city of Montreal, Queen's Counsel, being dul 
 sworn, doth depose and say : — 
 
 That on the first day of October instant, the deponent lias been summoned to 
 be and appear on the '2nd day of the said present month, before the Grand Jur) 
 then sitting in the district for the present term of this Court, the deponent being 
 given to" understand that he was so summoned to be examined in relation to the 
 circumstances under which the said Ernest Surcuu Lamirande had been removed 
 from the jurisdiction of the Judges of this Court, while his application was pending 
 for his discharge under a writ of Imheas corpus ; that the examination of the deponent 
 was postponed from day to day until the afternoon of the 9th day of this month, 
 when he was requested to attend before the said Grand Jury; that when the 
 deponent was examined, tlie Crown Prosecutor, T. K. Ramsay, Esq., Advocate, was 
 present in the Grand Jury Room, under the pretence, as expressed by himself, of 
 marshalling the evidence, to be taken by the said Grand Jury on the subject above 
 mentioned. 
 
 That the said T. K. Ramsay did in effect take down in writing the evidence 
 given by the dcpcment, frequently interrupting the deponent, and discussing tlie 
 relevancy of the evidence then taken down; that after the deponent had terminated 
 what he considered to be the facts inquired into by the Grand Jury, the said 
 T. K. Ramsay expressed the desire of cross-examining the deponent ; that the 
 deponent then exposed to tlie Jury that as long as the facts of the case were 
 unknown to the.ii, they might see no objection in the presence of the said 
 T. K. Ramsay, in their room ; that since the deponent had related the facts then 
 written down, it was and should be manifest to them that the said T. K. Ramsay 
 had been one of the prompters and accomplices in the conspiracy which had 
 resulted in the fraudulent removal of the said Ernest Sureau Lamirande; and that 
 if the said T. K. Ramsay was allowed not only to nmrshall the evidence, but also to 
 control it, as he hod attempted to do since the beginning of the deponent's deposi- 
 tion, any person accused of ordinary crimes could claim with as much right as the 
 said T. k. Ramsay the privilege of marshalling and controlling the evidence produced 
 against him ; that the said T. K. Ramsay then persisting in remaining in the Grand 
 Jury Room, and taking part, in their inquest, the Grand Jury requested both the 
 deponent and the said T. K. Ramsay to withdraw ; and shortly after the Grand Jury 
 came in Court, and transmitted to the Honourable Judge then sitting, a paper 
 which was presumed by the deponent to be a consultation with the l£)nourable 
 Judge, by the character of the answer given in open Court by the Honourable 
 Judge ; that after the receipt of that answer, the deponent was again called before 
 the Grand Jury, where he found the said T. K. Ramsay still taking down the 
 evidence given by the deponent, and directing the proceedings of the Grand Jury 
 as heretofore ; that in the opinion of the deponent, founded on the above facts, the 
 proceedings of the Grand Jory-were brought to an abrupt and unexpected termina- 
 tion by the persistance of the said T. K. Kamsay, in controlling the proceedings of 
 
91 
 
 the GranH Jury; that the potitinnrr. Lnmirandp. has ndoptod prorpr(linc;s m 
 Englaiifli an*' petitioned Her .Mnjcsty, in order to obtniii Her protection ngjainst 
 the consequences of the conspiracy v.hich has resulted in the removal of the 
 petitioner from the jurisdiction of the Judges of this Court ; and that the petitioner, 
 in order to show to Her Majesty how justice is idministered iit this district, and 
 the participation of the Crown Prosecutor in defeating the ends of justice, is 
 I entitled to have copies of the papers mentioned in the accompanying moi ion, and 
 I JMth signed. 
 
 (Signed) JOSKPH DDUTRK. 
 
 Sworn and ncknowleds^ed licfore the Court, en the 12th day of October, iHiU;. 
 (Signed) DKssAtJi-i.Ks and Krmatinceb, 
 
 Clerk of the Crown. 
 
 No. 6. NokC. 
 
 Copy of a OESPATCH from Viscount Monck to the Right Hon. the Earl of 
 
 Carnarvon. 
 
 Quebec, October 31, 1H()6. 
 
 (No. 182.) (Received NovembcT U, 1866.) 
 
 Mr Lord, (Antwewl, No. no, November 24, 1866. page 100.) 
 
 WITH reference to my despatch No. 375* of the 25th October, I have now the • P^P' 6C 1 
 honour to transmit to your Lordship the copies of the affidavit therein alluded to. 
 
 I have, &,c. 
 The Right Hon. the Earl of Carnarvon, (Signed; MONCK. 
 
 iic. &e. &c. 
 
 ' 
 
 Inclosure in No. 6. 
 
 Affidavit of Edme Justin Melix. 
 
 Dans la Cit^ de Quebec. 
 
 Incloiure in No. C. 
 
 Province du Canada, District de Quebec. 
 
 EDME JUSTIN MELIN, Inspecteur Principal de Police, h Paris, France, 
 ^tant dfiment assermentd sur les Saints Evangiles, dd'pose et dit : — 
 
 Que le lime jour de Mars dernier, la caisse de la succursale de la Banque de 
 France il Poitiers, dans cette partie de I'Empire Fran9ais appel^e Haute- Viennc, a 
 6t6 voice d'une somme de 700,000 francs, et que ce vol a et^ fait et commis par 
 Charles F>ncst Bureau de Lamirandc, dit Lamirande, caissier de la dite succursale 
 de la dite Banque de France d Poitiers, Haute-Vienne susdit. 
 
 Que dans ou vers le mSme temps le dit Charles Ernest Sureau de Lamirande, 
 dit Lamirande, s'dcbappa du territoire de I'Empire Franpais, et se rendit r^ans la 
 Cit6 de New York, dans I'Etat de New York, Tun des Etats de la Rdpublique des 
 Etats-Unis d'Amerique. 
 
 Que le ou vers le 9me jour d'Avril dernier, le dit Lamirande fpt arr6t6 dans la 
 dite Cit6 de New York, et que pendant qu'on instruisait son proces d'extradition 
 il est parvenu, le 3me Juillet courant, a s'6chapper de la susdite cit^ et des mains 
 de la justice des Etats-Unis d'Amerique. 
 
 Que d'apres des informations qui sont en sa possession il a tout raison de croire 
 
 2oe le dit Charles Ernest Sureau Lamirande, die Lamirande, s'est r^fugid au 
 anada, et est encore cach6 dans une partie quelconque de ses Provinces. 
 
 Que de plus, le dit Charles Sureau de Lamirande, dit Lamirande, a falsifi^ 
 franduleusement les livres de comptabilit^ de la dite succursale de la dite Banque de 
 France a Poitiers, Haute-Vienne susdit, en y faisant figurer comme pr^sentes dans 
 la caisse de la dite banque cette somme de 700,000 francs susdits qu'il sY'tait 
 appropride, et qu'il s'est aussi rendu coupable d'un faux en changeant et falsiBant 
 son bordereau de situation, et qu'ainsi il tombe sous les dispositions du Traitd 
 existant entre I'Angleterre et la France pour I'extradition des criminels. 
 
 Cette deposition dtant lue le ddposant y persiste disant qu'elle contient la vdrite 
 ct a signe. 
 
 (Signd) E. J. MELIN. 
 
 Assermentd devant moi, k Quebec, ce 18me jour de Juillet, de I'annde 1866. 
 (Signd) J. T. Taschbbkau, J.C.S. 
 
92 
 
 IS 
 
 Ho 7. No. 7. 
 
 Copy of a DESPATCH from Viscount Monck to the Right Hon. the Earl of 
 
 Carnauvo.v. 
 No. 193.) Quebec, November 10, 1866. 
 
 V Lord, (R4-r«i,pil NoTpmber SC, 1866.) 
 
 WITH reference to previous correspondence respecting the case of Lamirande 
 1 have the honour to transmit herewith, for your LordKhip's information, three' 
 copies uf a letter and of its inclosurc from Mr. Ramsay, Crown Prosecutor at 
 Montreal. 
 
 I have, &c. 
 The Riglit Hon. the Earl of Carnarvon, (Signed) AiONCK. 
 
 &LC. &ic. &ic. 
 
 Inclo. 1 in No. 7. 
 
 luclo. 2 in No, 
 
 Inclosure 1 in No. 7. 
 Mr. Ra.msay to Mr. Godley. 
 
 Sir, Montreal, November 3, 1866. 
 
 AT the request of the Attorney-General for Lower Canada, I have the honour 
 to inclose you three copies of a paper fded by me nt the request of Mr. Justice 
 Drummond, c tntaining certain admissions on his part which had been previously 
 made by him in open court, in case his Excellency the Governor-General should 
 think it right to forward them to England. The value of these admissions is that 
 by my disculpation by the Judge the alleged conspiracy fulls to the ground, for 
 without conspirators there cannot be a conspiracy. Now, previously, Mr. Justice 
 Drummond had openly disculpated the Deputy Sheriff, Mr. Schiller, and the gaoler, 
 and privately he had done as much for Messrs. Pominville and Betournay. who were 
 the only other persons actually employed in the extradition of Laniirande. 
 
 I have, &c. 
 D. Godley, Esq., (Signed) T. K. RAMSAY. 
 
 &c. &c. &c., Quebec. 
 
 Inclosure 2 in No. 7. 
 
 Province of Canada, District of ^Montreal. 
 
 Court of Queen's Bench, Crown side. — September Term, 1866. 
 The Queen v. Thomas Kennedy Ra:.isay. — On rule to show cause. 
 
 IN consideration of the declaration made this morning in open court by 
 Mr. Justice Drummond to the effect that in his remarks with relation to the 
 extradition of Ernest Hureau Lamirande in Chambers, on Saturday, the 25th day of 
 August last, and on Monday, the 27th day of August last, he did not say nor did 
 he intend to insinuate that the said Thomas Kennedy Ramsay was the party guilty 
 of any conspiracy in the said affair, nor of the falsification of a public document 
 alluded to in the said Judge's remarks, nor of any act of a nature to compromise 
 his character, individually or personally. The said Thomas Kennedy Ramsay 
 withdraws whatever may be personally offensive to Mr. Justice Drummond in two 
 certain letters published in the "Montreal Gazette" on the 28th and 30th days ol 
 August last, and bearing the signature of him the said Thomas Kennedy Ramsay, 
 the said letters having been only written in answer to the remarks of the said 
 Judge, as reported in the "Herald" of thu 27th and 29th days of August last; 
 and the said Thomas Kennedy Ramsay further regrets that he should have been 
 induced by such reports to misinterpret the words as also the intentions of the 
 learned Judge. 
 
 Montreal, November 2, 1866. 
 
 (Signed) T. R. RAMSAY. 
 
No.& 
 
 rnPT of a DESPATCH from Lieutenant-General Sir J. Michil to the Right Hon. 
 ^° the Earl of Cabnabvon. 
 
 Montreal, January 3, 1867. 
 
 lv°'l or, (Received Jwiiiry 25. 1867.) 
 
 I HAVE the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your Lordship's despatch 
 No 14* of he 14th December, informing me that the Frenchman La™"''^nde »md 
 S^nlried in France and found guilty of forgery (" faux"), and sentenced to ten 
 years' reclusion. 
 
 • Fkg* 101. 
 
 The Right Hon. the Earl of Carnarvon, 
 &c. &c. &c. 
 
 I have, &c. 
 (Signed) J. MICHEL. 
 
 t75) 
 
If 1 
 
^ 
 
 DESPATCHES FROM THE SECRETARY OF STATE. 
 
 If 
 m 
 
 [75] 
 
97 
 
 . ;'. < I »; 
 
 Despatches from the Secretary of State, f U/c^aj fif-foutt) 
 
 No. 1. 
 CoFv of a DESPATCH from the Rlgiit Hon. the Earl of Carnarvon to Viscount 
 
 MONCK. 
 
 (No. «il.) 
 
 My Lord, Downing Street, September '22, I860. 
 
 I HAVE the honour to transmit to you the enclosed copy of a despatch from 
 Her Majesty's Ambassador at Paris, to the Secretary of State for Foreign Aifairs, 
 accompanied by a letter from a French subject named Lamirande, complaining of 
 his having been given up to the French Government under the Extradition Treaty, 
 and more especially of the manner in which he was removed from Canadu whilst 
 his case was still under the consideration of a Judge of the Court of Queen's Bench 
 io the Province. 
 
 I received from you a telegram, stating that Lamirande had been delivered up 
 under your warrant, and that he had sailed in the '' Damascus," owing to delay in 
 obtaining a habeas corpus, but the telegram contained no furthei particulars. 
 
 The statement made by Lamirande in his present letter, and the accounts 
 which have appeared in the public journals, give an account of the case, 
 which demands full inquiry and explanations. I have, therefore, to request that 
 your Lordship will transmit to me, if you have not done so already, a complete 
 report upon the case. This report will show under what circumstances and upon 
 what advice your Lordship's warrant was issued, and also how it happened that 
 Lamirande was withdrawn after his case was partly heard before a Judge of the 
 Supreme Court, and whether any Oflicers of Justice or persons in the service of 
 your Government had any share in that proceeding, and if so, what steps have 
 been taken in consequence. 
 
 I have, &c. 
 Vigcount Monck, (Signed) CARNARVON. 
 
 &c. &c. &c. 
 
 Inclosure 1 in No. 1. , 
 
 Earl Cowley to Lord Stanlbt. 
 (No. 249.) 
 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 honoui to enclose a copy, trans- 
 mitting a letter from a Frenchman named Lamirande, who appears to have been 
 tiven up by the Government of Canada to the French Government, under the 
 Ixtradition Treaty of 1842. 
 
 As Lamirande requests that his letter may be laid before Her Majesty's 
 Government, I inclose it herewith. 
 
 I have, &c. 
 Lord Stanley, (Signed) COWLEY 
 
 &ic. &c. &c. 
 
 No. I. 
 
 I .'. I 
 
 Inel. 1 in Mo. I. 
 
 P2 
 
ImL t la No. 9. Incloiure 2 in No. 1. 
 
 M. Laciiaui) to Karl Cowlev. 
 
 Mitoiin, PnriH, Ic 12 Soptombrc, I8«C. 
 
 J'AI rhoiuiPiir <lc fairc jinrvcnir A votrc KxrclUncp iiiic littrc (jiic Il« Sicur 
 Lnniinindf uncii-n caissicr do la Mai»(|ii(; ilc France A Poitiers, ma cuvojYp ^H)\^t 
 lui t^tro rcniiHC. 
 
 .lo n'ai pnH vu Lnmiraiide, ct jc nc sftiirni dt^K lors ricii njmitcr aux protestations 
 qu'il ('•It^p i mais si Ics laits avaiices par liii i'taicnt vrais, lis niiraierit unc };ravit6 
 <|ui frnpiHTnit nssuromeiit votrc Kxccllcncc, ct jc dois ino burner A appcler sur ccttc 
 lettro su hicnveillaalc attention. 
 
 Jc HUiH, &c. 
 KarlCWIcy. (Sign(5) A. LACHAUI). 
 
 6ic. &c. &bC. Avocat du la Cour ImpC'riale. 
 
 IneL S la No. 1] 
 
 IncioBurc n in No. I . 
 
 M. LAMrRAKDK to Earl Cowlet. 
 
 Paria, Prison de la Prdfecture de Police, 
 ElciaT.BNOc Ic II Scptcmlirc, 1866. 
 
 JAJ ut^enlevd de la 'prison dc Montr<ial,ou j'avaia Hi commiH par une sentence 
 injuHte, pour y nttcndrc mon extradition, dans dcs conditions tolles que jc crois 
 qu'en Ics laitiant connuitre & votrc Uouvernemcnt, il y vorra une violation dos lois 
 AngUiacs, et du Traits d'£xtradition ontre la Prance ct I'Anglcterrc, et qu'il pourra 
 vouB uutoriaer A me r6clan)cr au Qouvemement de I'Empercur. 
 
 La sontcnfc <|ui ni'avait commis pour iextradition dtait frapp<jc d'appel, et le 
 proctis, instruit ot d^ja plaids dcvant un Jugc d'un degrC* Rup<^ricur au premier, 
 devait se ierininer le lendemain A 1 1 houres du matin par la decision dc ce Magistrat, 
 quand se nassdrent les faits suivants. 
 
 A 1 1 neurps du soir, apr^s avoir assistt^' au ddpart simulu du train de Montreal 
 i Qu6bec. Ic Magistrat en question vint s'assurcr hii-m6mc que j't^tais bien k la 
 prison. Entre 1 hcurc et 2 hcurcs du matin, jc re<;u8 I'ordre du Directeur de la 
 Prison de me lever et de partir. L'Agent de la Police Fraii^aisc envoys k ma 
 poursuite N'empara de moi avcc I'aide de plusicurs autrcs pcrsnnnes, cela de force, 
 et sans pouvoir me montrcr I'ordrc en vcrtu duquci on m'ontratnait. On me pla^ 
 dans une voiturc, et on meconduisit A une station du clicmin de fer de Montreal d 
 Quebec (la Station St. Cliarles, je crois), ct non d la gare de Montreal. Car simulant 
 un d(!lpart, pour tromper tout le mondc et mon dd'fcnseur, ct le Juge, qui le lendemain 
 matin A 1 1 hcurcs devait prononcer sa sentence, ct I'autoritd cllc-m6me, on avait 
 fait partir Ic train a son heure habituelle, 10 hcurcs, ct on I'avait arr6t6 pendant 
 trois ou quatrc hcurcs k la station dont jc parle plus haut. On m'cnfcrma, sous la 
 garde de trois hommcs, dans un compartiment r(3scrv^ aux cniploy<!'s de la 
 Compagnic. Je vis passer un de mos.avocats k New York, Mr. Spilthorn, la seule 
 personne probablement qui ait pu r<;ussir k s'apercevoir de mon enlevement. Je 
 voulus lui pnrler ; on m'en emp^cha par la force. Arrival' i\ Qu(^bec, jc fus plac^ k 
 bcurd du "Damascus," dont on avait retard^ le depart, et 06 I'avocat, dont je viens de 
 parler, demanda en vcrtu de quel ordre on m'enlevait ainsi. Les personnes qui 
 m'entouraient repondirent qu'elles n'avaicnt pas de comptcs k lui rendrc ; qu'eUes 
 ex^cutaient des ordrcs, et n'avaient aucune pidce k montrcr : il se retira, en 
 protestant c«jntre cet incroyable abus de la force. 
 
 Arrive k Liverpool, ou ne se trouvait pus de Magistrat comp^tentpour connaitre 
 dc mon affaire, on me dirigea sur Londres, oil je devais, disait-on, trouver ce 
 Magistrat. Lk on me conduisit de nuit k un hotel, situ6 dans une rue dont j'ignore 
 le nam, anai que celui de I'hotel. Trois personnes y vinrent ; on me dit que c'^taietft 
 des avocats prevenus par une d6p{tche de M. Doutre, mon d^fenaeur k Montreal. 
 Apris une conversation, hors de ma presence, entre ces messiours et un Canadien 
 qui m'accompagnait depuis Montreal, avcc I'Agent de la Police Franfaise, ces trois 
 personnes se retirdrent, saa*) -que ^ -j^uase avoir -traemie -communication avcc elles. 
 A 6 heures du matin on me fit sortir de I'hdtel, et on me conduisit au chemin de 
 fer pour Douvres, d'oii on m'embarqua pour la France. 
 
|Uf lo Sicur 
 V03YP ,K>ur 
 
 "otcstationg 
 line jrrnshi 
 cr sur ccttc 
 
 n|K5riaIc. 
 
 e Police, 
 
 le sentence 
 'e je crok 
 on do8 lois 
 u'il pourn 
 
 'Ppel, et le 
 " premier, 
 ^agistrat, 
 
 Montreal 
 
 bieii k la 
 ■teur de la 
 yoyi A ma 
 I de force, 
 
 me plafa 
 [ontrdal d 
 
 Bimaiant 
 endemain 
 I on avait 
 ' pendant 
 a> sous la 
 ^s de la 
 > la seule 
 lent. Je 
 8 plac^ A 
 
 viens de 
 'nnes qui 
 
 qu'elles 
 9t>ra, en 
 
 oiinaitre 
 >uver ce 
 j 'ignore 
 :'^taieiit 
 footreal. 
 anadien 
 -es trois 
 ec elles. 
 3rain de 
 
 Quand j aiirai dii A votro Rxrcllcncc que la icntcncc du premier Ju^o m'incuipe 
 du crime dc Faiix que je rroiit n*avoir comotiit, ni selon Ich IoIh FrnnvaiHrn ni Mclon 
 let IuIm AniflaiHOH; (|uc dauH le proct^H intent<5 contrc moi I't New York on avait 
 mdme abannuiiM^ dc chef d'aecuaation ; que TavcHjat tic la CnurDnne h MnntrMi a 
 rentnnu luiinunio (pie \o n'nvaiH pax comuiiH ce crime: (iiu-, <i'aili«-iirs, je ne di-maixle 
 point i\ otre rendu ii i'AnxIcterre pour y itro mis en lihorlt', inais sculemcnt i»our 
 que le |)nK-(''ii inlrrroinpu d Montreal par la foree eontii.iic, ou i|tie je ^^uiH pret, ti 
 OB le pr^ift^re, li le Hubir devunt la Haute (lour d'\n(;lctcrro, uu n'iniporte quelle 
 autre juridielion, il me seniljle epic le (iouvcrncineiil de lu Heine |Miurrii etre touelie 
 dc eeH (graves nmlirs, ct voum priera de nic reelanier au (iouvernement de 
 TEinpereur. 
 
 Je prie votre Evcellence de voiiluir bieu trnntmettrc ma loltre an Gouvorne- 
 ment Anglais, et dc men accuser reception. 
 
 J'ai, &c. 
 Karl Cowley. (Signc) K. S. LAM IRAN DK. 
 
 &1C. &C. &IC. 
 
 P.S.— La pidce qui manquait aux personncs qui m'enlcvaicnt ^tait, je crois, 
 celleexig^e par lo Trait6, en vertude laquelle j'aurais pu etre arri^te rt'-gulii^rcment 
 en France souh I'inculpatiun du crime pour IcqucI on deinandait mon extradition. 
 
 Je viens d'apprcndre d I'instant qu'on devait me trauNferer deniain H la Prison 
 de Poitiers vDcpartement dc la Viennc), 011 je prie votre Excellence dc me Taire 
 connaitre le r(>sultat dc mes rtJclamations. 
 
 Mes noins et prC-noms sont, Sureau Lamirande, Charles ConHtant Frncst. 
 
 E. S. L. 
 
 No. 2. 
 Corv of a DESPATCH from the Right Hon. the Earl of Carnarvon to Viscount 
 
 MONCR. 
 
 b. 67.) 
 
 y Lord, Downing Street, Septeml)cr 27, 1866. 
 
 WITH reference to my despatch No. 61 • of the 22ii(l instant, calling lor a report 
 on the case of Lamirande, I have the honour to inform your Lordship that the 
 Secrr^tary of State for Foreign Affairs has instructed llcr Majesty's Ainhassador at 
 Paris to address a representation to the French Government with a view of delay- 
 ing any further judicial proceedings against the prisoner until Her Majesty's 
 Government arc in possession of more authentic information in regard to this 
 case. 
 
 1 have, &ic. 
 Viscount Monck, (Signed) CARNARVON. 
 
 &c. &c. &c. 
 
 No. 3. 
 Copy of a DESPATCH from the Right Hon. the Earl of Carnabvon to Viscount 
 
 MoNCK. 
 
 Sfo. 84.) 
 T Lord, Downing Street, October 27, 1866. 
 
 1 HAVE the honour to acknowledge your Lordship's despatch No. 155t of the 
 6th instant, explaining the circumstances under which a prisoner, named Lamirande, 
 was delivered by the Canadian authorities to the Ocnch police while his case was 
 under the hearing of the Court of Queen's Bench at Montreal, and before the writ 
 of habeas corpus was issued. I will only now say that I have read with great 
 concern the history of this transaction which is engaging the anxious consideration 
 of Her Majesty's Government. 
 
 I have, &c. 
 Viscount Monck, (Signed) CARNARVON. 
 
 ■be •&«. lie. 
 
 No. il. 
 
 • P»ge 97. 
 
 No. S. 
 
 t P«g«J. 
 
100 
 
 N*.4. 
 
 No. 4. 
 
 4 i 
 
 PI 
 
 r^^ 
 
 
 .S .0''. 
 
 Copy of a DESPATCH from the Right Hon. the Earl ofCAtNiJiYON to Viscount 
 
 MONCK. 
 
 (No. 110.) 
 
 Mv Lord, -, Downing Street, November 24, 1866. 
 
 HHIR Majesty's Government have had under their consideration your despatches 
 noted in the margin,* respecting the case of K. S. Lamirande recently surrendered 
 to tiie French authorities. 
 
 This person wuh n|)prehen(ied on a charge of forgery committed in France 
 under a warrant issued l)y you on rc(|uisitioii of the French Con.sul-General. He 
 was bronglit duly before a Magistrate, and on the 22nd of August committed by 
 him to gaol w ilh a view to his surrender. Hut some days bef'-re that daiL' yon were 
 informed that the prisoner intended to apply for a writ of hahena corpus (as he was 
 clearls entitled to do), :i,i 1 you lironiised that time for making such an a[)plication 
 should 1)0 allowed. 
 
 On the 24th of Auj^u.sLyou signed a warrant authorizinc: the prisoner's surrender. 
 This step you took on the advice of your lSolicitor-(-cneral, and you state that when 
 you took it neither you nor !io were aware that any applieation iiad been m.uie for a 
 writ ol' liiilieu.s vori>iiis. Voii did not take any steps to aseortain thi: jxiiiit ; but as 
 two days appeared t(( liav elapsed since the committal of the |>risoiier to gaol, you 
 considered that ample time had boon allowed to enable him to olital;, J.iat writ. 
 
 The ap|)lioation in fact was made and argued before the Court of Queen's 
 Bench at Montreal, on the very day on which you signed your warrant at Quebec. 
 The Judge '.ad reserved his decision liil the following day. Meanwhile the warrant 
 once signed by you had become available by those who were interested in its 
 immediate execution. On the evening of the 24th it was presented to the prison 
 authorities at Montreal who, of course, were bound to obey it. Under its authority 
 Lamirande was delivered over and at once sent off to France. 
 
 The next morning the Court declared him entitled to his release. 
 Various questions have been raised with reference to this surrender, which, it 
 is necessary to observe, purported to be made under atithority of tlie Imperial Act 
 6 and 7 Vict., cap. 73. For the purposes of that Act (which in this respect is 
 differently framed from a similar Act of ^^he same year relating to the United 
 States), lam advised that tiie requisiti>.» for Lamirande's delivery ought to have 
 been made not by the Consul, but by a " Diplomatic Agent," in the strict sense of 
 that phrase, and that the facts alleged against him did not constitute the crime of 
 forgery, according to the English law, on the plea of which his surrender was 
 
 claimed. 
 
 These, however, :irc matters on which I am not surprised that you should have 
 guided yourself, by the advice which vou received from your Solicitor-GeneraL I 
 can only regret that his opinion, on the faith of which your warrant was signed, 
 ahoidd have so materially differed from that adopted by the Court of Queen's Bench 
 in Canada, and by Her Majesty's Law Officers in this country. 
 
 The proceeding by which the French authorities were enabled to obtain posses- 
 sion of the person of Lamirande, requires, I am sorry to say, more serious notice 
 from me. You appear to consider that, having refjrence to the nature of the 
 offences charged against this person, to the gercral duty of contributing by all 
 proper means to the execution of substantial justice, and to the written "and 
 unwritten obligations which subsist between England and Frat.cc— two civilized 
 and friendly nations— it was your duty to allow to the prisoner little more than 
 the smallest possible time within which it was practicable for him to obtain a deci- 
 sion on his application for the writ of habeas corpus. I by no means undervalue the 
 considerations by which your judgment was influenced. I need hardly say that I 
 give you entire credn, for being exclusively actuated by them. But 1 am obliged 
 to add that 1 wholly dissent from the conclusion at which you arrived. Being fully 
 informed of the prisoner's intention to apply to the Supreme Court, it was your 
 dutv not to regulate your conduct by conjectures which any accident might disturb, 
 and" which the time required by tlic' .Judge for deliberation did in fact disturb; but 
 to take care that the authority "which you hold from Her Majesty was not directly 
 or indirectly abused to frustrate the administration of justice in a matter which had 
 
 • No 155. October G, page 1; No. 164, October 18, page 12; No. 173, October 25, page 62; No. 174. 
 October 25. page 65 ; No. 175, October 85, page 66; and No. 182, October 31, 1866, page 91. 
 
101 
 
 Vi8C( 
 
 'ount 
 
 k 24, 1866. 
 fir despatches 
 surrendered 
 
 in France, 
 peneral, He 
 imniitted by 
 |aK' yon tvere 
 
 (as he was 
 h •'•['plication 
 
 "s surrender, 
 'e that when 
 » made for a 
 ""It; but as 
 to 8:<"i'>l, you 
 lat writ. 
 
 uf Queen's 
 
 at Quebec. 
 
 the warrant 
 
 ested in its 
 
 to the prison 
 
 ts authority 
 
 ler. wJjich, it 
 [inperial Act 
 s respect is 
 the United 
 gilt to have 
 ■ict sense of 
 the irime of 
 rrender was 
 
 should have 
 General. I 
 ivas sie^ned, 
 een's Bench 
 
 tain posses- 
 ious notice 
 ure of the 
 t'.Hg by all 
 ritten and 
 o civilized 
 •nore than 
 ain a deci- 
 lvalue the 
 say that I 
 ni ()!)liged 
 teing fully 
 was your 
 t disturb, 
 turb; but 
 t directly 
 i'hich had 
 
 2; No, J 74. 
 
 been brought bv legitimate means under the cognizance of a Court of Law, and 
 was being cfleciively prosecuted by the parties interested. You observe that the 
 prisoner has no right to take advantage of his own negligence in obtaining the 
 writ oniaheas rorpiis, which would have afforded him the necessary protection; but 
 I think that you here assume a nCf^ligence on his part which as lar as the papers 
 before me enable me to judge, has had no existence. For some days you had 
 had reason to anticipate that Lamirande's person would be brought under the 
 
 Erotection of {he Queen's Bench, and !)efore you authorized his surrender to the 
 'rench authorities it would have been only a profK'r csereise of your discretion to 
 have ascertaincil whether he was or was not under that protection. The omission 
 to take this precaution has led to a most unfortunate abuse of your authority. 
 
 The probable, or even, if it were so, the undoubted guilt oi' the prisoner cannot 
 affect the question. A grtal scandal has taken place, and an insult has been 
 passed upon the dignity of the law ami the regular administration of justice in the 
 Canadian Courts. It is true, as you s ly, that a person charged witli the offences, 
 and arrested under the circumstances of this case, deserves no special favour or 
 indulgence at the hands of the authorities, but he has a right to the protection 
 which every accused person can claim under the humane principles of the Knglish 
 Ian', and any abridgment of that protection tends to shake the confidence of society 
 in the execution of justice, and inflicts a wrong upon the individual. In this case 1 
 nm obliged, therefore, with whatever reluctance, to express my decided disapproval 
 of the course which your Lordship was induced to adopt. 
 
 With the conduct of those Canadian officers who have taken part in this 
 transaction I am less immediately concerned. As from the course which circum- 
 stances have taken in this case there is no question of any demand madi by a 
 foreign Power upon Great Britain, and no question of Imperial duty arises, it 
 appears to me a matter which may properly be considered as falling within the 
 province of Canadian administration. The subordinate officers who have had a 
 share in the surreptitious withdrawal of Lamirande are responsible to their superiors, 
 and their superiors to the Parliament, the constituencies, and the public opmion of 
 Canada. Whilst I think that the further investigation into thio matter properly 
 belongs to the Provincial authorities, I feel that I should not be discharging my 
 duty if, after taking the best opinion at, my command, I did not inform you that the 
 explanations hitherto afforded by your Solicitor-General of his conduct in obtaining 
 the warruni: whilst the case was actually under the hearing of the Judge, would 
 not have been deemed satisfactory by Her Majesty's Government. 
 
 I am not obliged to express any further opinion on this part of the subject 
 beyond what is implied in the observations which I have addressed to yourself I 
 shall have performed my duty as the servant of the Queen in communicating to 
 your Lordship, to whom Her Majesty's authority is delegated in one of the most 
 important of her Colonies, the judgment of her Advisers respecting the countc 
 which you have adopted in this case, and the principles by which, in any future 
 question of a similar kind, they desire you to be guided. 
 
 I have, &c. 
 Viscount Monck, (Signed) CARNARVON. 
 
 &c. &c. &c. 
 
 No. 5. 
 Copy of a DESPATCH from the Right Hon. the Earl of Carnarvon to Viscount 
 
 MoNCK. 
 
 (No. 114.) 
 
 Mv Lord. Downing Street, December 14, 1866. 
 
 f HAVE been officially informed that the Frenchman Lamira.ide has been 
 tried in France, and that he has been found guilty of forgery (" faux "). He has 
 been sentenced to ten years' reclusion, and from this decision he has appealed to the 
 Court of Cassation, where the whole question will be considered. 
 
 I have not yet received a full report of the proceedings on the recent trial. 
 
 I am informed that the punishment of reclusion is more severe than that 
 imprisonment, and it carries with it the penalty of the loss of all civil rights. 
 
 Viscount Monck, (Signed) ' CARNARVON. 
 
 &c. &c. &c. 
 
^j; 
 
 i & 
 
 
 
 
 ? 
 
 111 
 
 c: a. 
 
 §3,3 
 fi. 8 
 
 r 
 
 a. SJ* 
 
 I 
 
 » T 
 
 \^' !' 
 
 . ^7^^;J)(,' 
 
 miV, 
 
^ 
 
 ''•11 
 
 /- :