IMAGE EVALUATION
TEST TARGET (MT-3)

^ .^i..

1.0 ^1^ 1^

I.I

1.25

^ 1^ 12.2
£ 1^ 12.0

WUu

1.8

U 1 1.6

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

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

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

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

CORRESPONDENCE

WITH THE

GOVERN f)it-GEXERAL OF CANADA

RESPBCTIMO Tin:

EXTEADITION

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

Sept. 22,

1866

•->7,

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."

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

w~^

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,

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)

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.

;

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

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.

if'

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.

•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

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

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. .

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:

)

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

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

Li 'ill

lad. 1 in No. 9.

r;
I

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

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/

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

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

•▼

i¥

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

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

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

»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

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

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

1 >i

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.

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.'

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,

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

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

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

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 :

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

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

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-

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)

jMi

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!^.

Ordor

;rs, for
oiirt.

of the
ar the

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!'

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

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 •:*!

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

-^1

\\o ,\v

[T.

jiH Ull

pnscil

•lion

litunt
jyaiit
r'lion

'St

(Ic

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

4.1

™

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.

\ .

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

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

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

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.

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 ?

(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

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: ■'

f '4.
I

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

t^n
col

18(

r(
a
il

P
P

(
I

1866.

(Sign(:o

W. H. Brehaut, P.M.

I I.

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

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

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.

'au-
lea

•Ins

ciis
nic
tts,
(lea

CCS

ct
la
i\

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

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

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 : —

■tiDtl

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

jm\

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.

Ill c»f

, 1866.

ISG'J.)

I()4,f of
niiation,
lie 18th,
s in the
applica-

NCK.

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.

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.

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\.

No. S.

'.V

No. 5.

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!

"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

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]

;»:':

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.]

|'"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

5 t|

4, '■

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

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,

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; ' '

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.

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 ij!

[76J

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'

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

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

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.

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!

I 1:

t II

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 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

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.

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.

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.

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]

'i/f

I -.i

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.

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)

K// ^**^^

1.0

I.I

a Ui 12.2

.... I

U
US

tii

■ 4.0

L25 iU

1.6

Hiotographic

Sciences

Corporation

23 WIST MAIN STRUT

WiBSTfR,N.Y. 145S0

(716) •72-4503

<^^

'■\ •

s' '

s :

"I )

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

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.

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]

. ;'. < 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.

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

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

a. SJ*

» T

\^' !'

. ^7^^;J)(,'

miV,

''•11

/- :