IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1.0 1.1 itt I&2 ■ 2.2 IIS I lU I lit Wuu ifi 12.0 i IE 1 m 1^ ii4 < 6" ► Photographic Sciences Corporalion 23 WiST MAIN STRUT WnSTIR.N.Y. MStO (716)t7a-4S03 '^ :/. ^ ^ i CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHIVI/ICIViH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiquos Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques to The Institute has attempted to obtain the best original copy available for filming. Features of this copy which may be bibliographicaily unique, which may alter any of the images in the reproduction, or which may significantly change the usual method of filming, are checked below. D Coloured covers/ Couverture de couleur I I Covers damaged/ D Couverture endommagte Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaurie et/ou pellicula Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque Coloured maps/ Cartes gAographiques en couleur Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur Bound with other material/ Reli* avec d'autres documents rr^ Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion D along interior margin/ La re liure serr6e peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distortion le long de la marge int^rieure Blank leaves added during restoration may appear within the text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted from filming/ II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajout^es lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte. mais. lorsque cela itait possible, ces pages n'ont pas 6t4 filmAes. Additional comments:/ Commentaires 8uppl6mentaires: L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire qu'ii lui a «t« possible de se procurer. Les d«talis de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-Atre uniques du point de vue bibliographique. qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite. ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la methods normale de filmage sont indiquto ci-dessous. D D D D D D D D Coloured pages/ Pages de couleur Pages damaged/ Pages endommag^es Pages restored and/or laminated/ Pages restaur6es et/ou pellicul^es Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ Pages d6color6es, tacheties ou piqudes Pages detached/ Pages d^tachdes Showthrough/ Transparence Quality of print varies/ Qualit^ in^gale de I'impression Includes supplementary material/ Comprend du materiel suppKmentaire Only edition available/ Seule Edition disponlble Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc.. have been refilmed to ensure the best possible image/ Les pages totalement ou partiellement obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, etc.. ont M film6es i nouveau de fapon d obtenir la meilleure image possible. Tl P< o1 fil Oi bi th si( ot fir si< or Th sh Tl wl M d\\ en be rig rei mi This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est film* au taux de rMuction indiqu* ci-dessous. 10X 14X 18X 22X 12X 16X aox 26X aox y 24X 28X 32X The copy filmed hare hat baan raproducad thanks to tha ganarosity of: Univanity of Toronto Library L'axamplaira film* fut raproduit grica A la gAnArositA da: University of Toronto Library Tha imagas appaaring hara ara tha bast quality possibia considaring tha condition and lagibility of tha original copy and in kaaping with tha filming contract spacifications. Original copias in printad papar covars ara filmad beginning with tha front covar and anding on tha last paga with a printad or illustratad impras- sion, or tha back covar whan appropriata. All othar original copias ara filmad beginning on tha first paga with a printad or illustrated impres- sion, and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impression. The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall contain the symbol — ^- (meaning "CON- TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"), whichever applies. Les imagas suivantas ont At6 reproduites avec le plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition at da la nattetA de I'exemplaire film«, et en conformity avec les conditions du contrat de filmage. Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en papier est imprimte sont filmte en commenpant par le premier plat at an tarminant soit par la dernidre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second plat, salon la cas. Tous les autras exemplaires originaux sont film6s en commen9ant par la pramlAre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par la derniAre page qui comporte une telle empreinte. Un des symboles suivants appsraltra sur la dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le cas: le symbols — ► signifie "A SUIVRE", le symbols y signifie "FIN". Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at different reduction ratios. Those too large to be entirely included in one exposure are filmed beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to right and top to bottom, as many frames as required. The following diagrams illustrate the method: Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent Atre filmte A des taux de reduction diff Arents. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour Atre reproduit en un seul clichA, il est film* A partir de I'angle supArieur gauche, de gauche A droite, et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre d'images nteessaira. Les diagrammes suivants illustrent la mithoda. 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 I,. ^ t ^.l mi.p»ww , Ql'- Br\V. Fortio-iv OffiCt COBHESPOKDENGE BISFBOnifO THl EXTRADITION OF M. LAMIMNDE IBOK CANADA. iScuAei u!irt\; Pretented to both Hou$es of Porliament by Command of Her Majttty. 1867. '\l' f- \y \ ,24s 0^- LONDON : •BINTID BT HABBISON AND SONS. TABLE OF CONTENTS. « < No. It Earl Cowley . . 3. To Earl Cowley 3. Earl Cowley . . 6. To Earl Cowley 7. Earl Cowley . 8. To Earl Cowley 9. Earl Cowley . 10. To Earl Cowley 11 13 13. I) ■> 14. fi >i 15. „ „ 16. Earl Cowley . 17. )i )t • 18. To Earl Cowley 19. Earl Cowley . aO. To Earl Cowley 21. Earl Cowley.. 23. To Earl Cowley 23. Earl Cowley. . 24. ,. *• . • 3*. i» »i * • 36. To Admiral Harris 27. Admiral Harris 38. To Mr. Fane. . 39. Mr. Fane . . 30. To Mr. Fane. . 31. Mr. Fane .. Date. Sept. 14, 1866 26, 27, 27, Oct. 9, 25, Nov. H, 10, 13, 15, 15, 15, 16, 16, 19, 20, 23, 28, Dec. 2, 4, 6, 7. II. 13, 19, 20, 38 Jan. 9,' 1867 11, 12, 13, Subject. Trinmiittinff copy of letter fnim Mailro Laihaud. inrloiinfr letter from M. I>aniirandp, protesting; n),'uinit liis mir- reniler to France liy the Goveromcnt of Canada undur the Ext nidition Treaty Has rt'fcrrocl the above to the Colonial Offite. Colonial Office not in possession of facts of csre. To address representation to French Government . . Inclosing copy of note addressed to Frencli (iovcrnnicnt . . Extract from " Monitcur" relative to the extradition of Lamirande . , . . . . , . Inclosing copy of note from M. de Moustier. Views of French (jovcmment. Lamirandc's trial to take place in due course . . . . . . Her Majesty's Government wish to be informed of date of trill. Desirable that as much delay as possible should take place Note from .M. de .\ioustl«r. Trial will take place on 26th of November Instructions as to coursi; to be taken with a view to obtain liberation of M, Lmnirandc Reports huving carried out instructions. Conversation with M. de Moustier Approving language to M. de Moustier. Suggestions for settling the question Not to claim surrender of M. Lamirande as of right Statement of crime with which M. Lamirande is charged . . Law Officers' opinion of the language held by M. de Moustier Legal definition of the crime of forgery Charge made against Lamirande does not bring him within the accusation of forgery . . Reports execution of instructions. Copy of Memorandum submitted to French Government. Interview with M. de Moustier . . . . Trial fixed for 3rd December. Precise natirre of charge against Lamirande . . . . . . To employ competent person to watch the trial . . M. Trcite instructed to attend the trial Approving language. Satisfaction that result of trial will not bar the surrender of Lamirande Lamirande found guilty of forgery. Return of M. Treite, who will furnish report Reported surrender to Swiss Governmeiit, by France, of criminal whose extradition had been improperly obtained. To inquire into truth of statement . . . . Letter from M. Treite, with " complc-reneiit note U If. de .Mouitier. Hequeits that the date iiiJiy bp the 14tli of .lanii.iry ..70 C'niiy cit' null' from M. Troitc rcl.itivo to the date of M. Ijiiiinaixii'M .ippi'al . .. .. ..71 Kxtrait 111 Iti;. ,• i.on. Mr. I)i);itri'. :il\ tliiir rc!■ll^:ll ,. .. .. ..89 if Correspondence respecting tlie Extradition of M. Lamirande from Canada. No. 1. Earl Cowley to Lord Stanley.— {Received September 15.) My Lord, Paris, September 14, 1866. MAITRE LACHAUD, one of the most eminent members of the French bar, has addressed me a letter, of which I have the honour to inclose a co|)y, transmitting a letter from a Frenchman named Ijamirande, who appears to have been given up by the Gorem- mcnt of Canada to the French Government, under the Extradition Treaty of 1843. As Lamirande requests that his letter may be laid before Her Majesty's Government, I inclose it herewith. I have, &c. (Signed) COWLEY. r! IncloBure 1 in No. 1. M. Lachaud to Earl Cowley. Milord, Paris, le 12 Septembre. 1866. J'AI I'honneur de faire parvenir k votre Excellence une Icltre que M. Lamirande, ancien caissier de la Banque de France k Poitiers, m'a envoy^c pour lui £tre remise. Je n'ai pas vu Lamirande, et je ne sanrai deslors rien ajouter aux protestations qn'il 61dve ; mais si les faits avanc6s par lui etaient vrais, ils auraicnt une gravite qui frapperait assur^ment votre Excellence, et je dois me bomer k appeler sur cette lettre sa bienveillante attention. Je suis, &c. (Sign^) A. LACHAUD, Avocat de la Cour ImpAiale. (Translation.) My Lord, Paris, Septemter 12, 1866. '51 I HAVE the honour to transmit to your Excellency a letter which M. Lamirande, formerly cashier of the Bank of France at Poitiers, has sent to me for communication to you- -J'^SEil • '' r'-"^^ I have not seen Lamirande, and I can therefore add nothing to the protests which he raises ; but if the facts advanced by him are true, they have an importance which will doubtless strike your Excellency, and I confine myself to drawing your kind attention to this letter. I am, &c. (Signed) A. LACHAUD, Avocat de la Cour ImpMait, [681 .„,.- B I IncloBurc 2 in No. 1. M. Lamirande to Earl Cowley. Paris, Prifon de la Preffdiirr df Police, Exccllunrc, le 11 Heptembtr, IHt{t5. J'AI M- ciilrvi' df la prison de Montr(^al, ou j'ftvaiN t'te f(iiiiiiii» par unc sentence injoflte, pour .y «ttait coniniis pour IVxtraditiun etait Irappt- d'appel. et lo proems, instruit i-t dcia iilnidc ilcvant un Ju^e d'un di-jfri' suiKTicurau iirnniir, «ii'\ait so ti-nnincr le lendimain a 1 1 iHiiri-s du matin par la dicision de ee Mafji^trat, (juand hc passercnt lc8 i'aits MiivantH. A II iuiiits du soir, aprt's avoir assistiJ au dc^jwrt simulu du train de Montreal d Queljee. le Ma^M^trat en «|ueHtion vint H'atwiurcr lui-tn^tne que j'etais Men i\ la priHon. Entre 1 lieure el L' lieures du matin, ,je rc<;u.s I'ordrc du Directtur de la Prison de me lever etde partir. L'Ajient de la Police Franeai.se envoys h ma poursuite s'empara de moi Avec l'ai«lu de plusieurs autres personnes, oeln de force, ut sans pouvoir me montrcr I'erdre en vertu duquel on m'entrainait. On tat plaqt dans one voiture, et on me condinait k ime Htation du clicmin de fer de Monti^ a Quebec (la atatioa St. Charles, je croia), et non h la f^are de iMontrtel. Car aimiilani un depart, pour troniper tout le monde et men defenuvur, et le Jngc, qui le lendemain matin ^11 heures devait prononeer n sentence, et I'autorite elle-m^me, on avait fait partir Ic train il son heure habitueUe, 10 heurcH, et on I'avait arnMe pendant trois ou quatrc heures 5 ia st^iticm dont jc i)arle plus haut. On m'cnferma, sous la garde de trois horames, dans un coiiijMirtcment reserv6 aux employes de la (Jom|)agnie. Je vis passer un de mes avocats a New York, Mr. Spil- thorn, la seule persoiine probablemcnt qui ait pu r(5usslras'apercevoirde mon enlevement. Je voulus lui parler ; on m'a cmpecba par la force. Arrive* a Quebec, jo fus plac£ \ bord du " Damascus," dont on avait retards le depart, et oii I'avocat, dont je viens de parler, dcmanda en vcrtu de ((ucl (urdre on m'enlevait ainsi. Les personnes qui m'entouraient r^pondirent ((u'ellcs n'avaicnt pas de comptes h. lui rendre; qu'clles executaient des ordres, et n'avaicnt aacune piece ^ montrer : il sc retira, en protestant contre cet incrojnaUe abas de la force. Arrivd k Liverpool, ou ne se trouvait paa de Magietrat competent pour eonm^tae de mon affaire, on me dirigea eur Londrea, eik je derais, diaait-on, trouver ce Ma^strat. IA on me conduisit de nuit k un hotel, situ^ dMS une rue dont j 'ignore le nom, ainsi «pti celtti de I'hotel. Trois parsonnea y viarent ; on me dit que c'6taient dee avocats pr^venM Ear une d^peche de M. Doutre, mon d^fenseur k Montreal. Apr^s une conTenBtuBy ors de ma presence, entre oes messieurs ct un Canadien qui m'accompagnait depois Montreal, avec I'Agcnt de la Police Fran^aise, ces trois personnes se'retirdrent, sans que je puasc avoir aucuue comnumication avec elles. A 6 heures du matin on me fit sortir de I'hotel, et on me conduisit au chemin de fer pour Douvres, d'oil on m'embarqua pour la France. Quand j'aurai dit k votre Excellence que la sentence du premier Juge m'inculpe dn crime de foux que je crois n'ayoir commis, ni selon les lois Fran^aises ni selon les ltrnte, when tlie following facts occurred :— At 1 1 o'clock at night, after having been pn-sent at the preteiidid departure of the Ifontreal train for Quebec, the Magistrate in question c:ime to assure hiniseit that I wan safe in prison. Between 1 and 2 o'clock in the morning I received an order from the Governor of the prison to get up and depart. The French Police Officer, who \\.i.', sent in purmiit of me, took possession of me with the aasistaace of several other pt rsons, by force, and without being able to show mc the order by virtue of whieh they weir carryin>; mc off. I was placed in a carriage, and taken to a station of the Montreal und Qm bcc Railway (I think the St. Charles Station), and not to tlte Montreal terminus. For, making; a false start, in order to deceive the pnblic and my counsel, as well as the Judge who wiis to deliver judgment tlic following morning at 1 1 o'clock, and the authorities tlicniselves, the tnan was started at its usual time, 10 o'clock, and was stopped for three or four hours at the above-mentioned station. I was shut up in custody of three men in a c()rn|)artment reserved for the use of the servants of the Company. I saw Mr. Spilt horn, one of my Ni'w York counsel pass by, probably the only person who had succccdiil in discovering my abduction. I wislied to s])eak to him ; I was prevented by force. On arriving at (Quebec I was put on board the " Damascus," the departure of which had bee n delayeii, and where the counsel of whom 1 have just spoken, asked by virtue of what nnitr 1 was tlius carried off; the persons who surrounded me replied, that they had no cxpliiiKitions to give him; that they were executing their orders, and bad no papers to show, lie retired, protesting against this incredible abuse of power. On arriving at Liverpool, where there was no Magistrate competent to take cognizance of my case, I was taken to London, where I was told such a Magii^tntc would be found. There I was taken by night to an hotel situated in a street the natnr; of which I do not know, nor yet that of the hotel. Three persons came there ; I was tuld they were lawyers engaged by a despatch from M. Doutre, my counsel at Montreal. After a conversiition, at which I was not present, between these gentlemen and a Canadian who accompanied me from Montreal with the French police officer, these tliree gentlemen retired without my being able to hold any communication with tbeoi. At 6 o'clock in the morning I was taken from the hotel and conducted by railway to Dover, iu <" whicii place I was embarked for France. When I tell your Excellency that the sentence of the first Judge makes me answerable for the crime of forgery which 1 do not consider I have committed, cither according to French or English laws ; that in the proceedings taken against me at New York this count in the indictment was even abandoned ; that the Grown Counsel at Montreal himself acknowledged that I had not committed this crime ; that besides I do not at all demand to be given up to England to be set at liberty there, but only in order that the proceedings interrupted by force at Montreal may go on, or that I am ready, if it is preferred, to ambmit the case to the High Court of Bngland, or it matterB not to what other jurisdiction, it appears to me that the Queen's Gorrernment may be impressed by these weighty icasou, ■id may request you to reclaim me from the Government of the Emperor. I beg your Excellency to be pleMod to tnmsmit my letter to the EagUsh Oovenuaent tmi to acknowledge its receipt. I base, ftcu (Signed) £. S. LAMIRANDE. P.S. — The document which those persons who carried me off did not possess, was I B2 1 think (hat which ia required by the Treaty, in virtue of which I could have been legally arrested in Frana; on the cliarKc of the crime for which my extradition was demanded. I have jiiKt now heard thnt I am about to be tronHfcrrcd to the Poitien prison (Department of Vienne), where I bog your Excellency to acquaint me with the result of my complaints. My name and itumamcfi arc Surreau Lamirande, Charles Constant Krncst. So, 2. Lord Stanley to Earl Cowiey, Mj Lord, Forrign Office, Septrmhrr 20, 1806. I HAVK referred to Her Majesty's Secretary of State for the ('olonial Dejjart- ment your Kxcelleney'N deMiatch of the 14th inHtiint, together with the letter therein inclosed from M. G. S. Lamirundc, protesting against his arrest and surrender to the French |>olicc authorities at Montreal, as being unwarranted by the terms of the Extradition Convention between this eountrr and France. I learn from tlic Colonial Office, in reply, that they arc not as yet in possession of any official reiH)rt from Canada of the facts of this case, and that the Governor-General of that province has accordingly been requested to scud home a coUipletc report upon it. As, however, the circumstances attending Lamirande's extradition, if correctly stated in his protest to your Excellency, alford ground for questioning the legality of his extradition, I have to instruct your Excellency to address a representation to the French Government on this subject, with the view of delaying any further judicial proceedings against the prisoner until Her Majesty's Government arc in possession of more authentic information. I am, &c. (Signed) STANLEY. No. 3. Earl Cowley to Lord Stanley, — (Received September 28.) My Lord, Paris, September 27, 1866. I HAVE had the honour to receive your Lordship's despatch of yesterday's date, on the subject of the arrest end extradition from Canada of M. E. S. Lamirande, under the provisions of the Treaty of 1843, and I inclose a copy of the note which I have addressed to M. de Lavalette in consequence of your Lordship's instructions. I have, &c. (Signed) COWLEY. Indoeure in No. 3. Barl Cowley to M. de LaoaUtU. (Extract.) Paris, September 27, 1866. ABOUT a fortnight ago I received a letter from M. E. S. Lamirande, who has lately been brought from Canada under the provisions of the Extradition Treaty of 1843, protesting against his arrest and surrender to the French police authorities at MontreaJ, as being unwarranted by the terms of the said Treaty, and requesting me to bring his protest to the notice of Her Majesty's Government. 1 Although no official information on this subject has as yet reached Her Majesty's €k>Temment, there is grave reason to doubt the leg^ity of Lamirande's extradition, and I am instructed by Her Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to request your Ex^cellency to move the proper authority to delay further proceedings 'against Lamirande until Her Majesty's Government shall be in possession of more Aathenlic information on which to found a further communication to your Excellency. I - ft No. 4. Earl Cnulry to Lord Stanley.— {Retrivnl Sfptrmher 2H.) My Ijord, Paris, Seplrmh>r_27, 186fl. I HEO lonro in mil jour LonlHhip'H attention to the inflowd »xtrnct frrnn vrstor- dty'H t'vi'iiinjir «Mlitioii of'tho " Monitfur," resjH'ctinK tlio nrn-st uiiil i-xlratlition of Ijivni- ramie, whom' tomo wiix l)roiiglit ln-t'oro vour I^ordMhip in niv il(><<))ntcli of tho ! Itlt inxtHiit. I have, kc. (Signed) roWLKY. IncloRurc in No. 4. Extnirtfrom the " Monitrur" of Sepli-mhn- 2(1, IHfiO. fiES jnurnstix du rniindn ont cnRngc' unt; iioK'tiiiqiie nsni'z vivo, a prniios dc IVxtrndition d'un onisNii-r inlidt'It- dp In Hiiiii|uc do Franoo, (|ui s'otait irfu>;io dans une lettre adrossoe nux piincipales fcuillcs du Canada par Ic jurisconsulte qui rcpn''sentait devant le triltunal do Muntrt^l la Couronno Britanniquc. (Translation.) THE newspapers of Canada have begun a somewhat lively discussion respecting the extradition of a fraudulent cashier of the Bank of France who had escaped to that country. It is well known that all the forms prescribed by law have been observed in this matter. After an inquiry and decision by a competent Judge, the order to surrender the prisoner was regularly issued by the Govemor-General of the British Provinces. The excitement t reduced about this case, and which attaches to points of procedure raised inopportunely y the prisoner's lawyers, would appear to originate in a chain of considerations foreign to the question itself. The essential points of the case have been stated with authority in a letter addressed to the principal papers of Canada by the lawyer who represented the British Crown before the tribunal of Montreal. No. 5. Earl Cowley to Jjord Stanley. — {Received October 10.) My Lord, Paris, October % 1866. I HAVE the honour to transmit herewith copy of a note which I have received from M. de Mcustier on the subject of ttt juM|u'a oc que le Gouvfmement de la Reinc ait obu-nu let* itiformationH jironros ik la mettrc en mcsure d'adrcsHcr une comma- nicatioa ult^rii-ure au Guuverncmont dc rRmporcur. M. Ic Miiii«lri' dc In Justice, k qui M. le Marquis «!o TiBvalctto s'etait empress^ dc faire part du dt'sir oxprinu' par voire Kxcellonce, a fXaniin('' aver soin les divorses phases di" cottt- artairc" ct lu- pcnse pas (ju'il exist" aucune irngularite do nature a invalider Textrndition de eet aciust-. Dans cct tint de eliosos il sorait desirable que le Gouvememont do Sa Majesty Hritaiiiii(|ue, avant do prendre aueuno deciMion, nous fit connaitre les >rriofs <|u'()n allegue, et quo dos explioations loyalos foront sans doute disparnitre. M. Haroclio ajoute, du reste, que, quant au jugoniont de Luniirande, aucune mesuro n'a (?to jiriso pour en avancer Topoque. Rlais voire Kxoollonce Bait trop bien que e'est pour Tautorite judiciaire un devoir dc se cout'orinor aux regies qui lui sent tracees. Hans y rien modifier arbitrairement, (tour ne pas eouiprondre que le moment approche ou il deviendra necos>sairc de laisser la oi Kuivro son cours. J'appelle ogalenient I'attention de votrc Excellence sur ce qu'il y aurait d'auormal do la ))art du Gouvemcment Itritauniquo, aux voeux duquel nous sommes toujours ddsireux de pouvoir def<':rcr, k remettre en question une proct'-dure dont le r<5fultat pourrait d'autant moins etre contc8t<5 qu'il s'agit d'un homme place sous Ic coup d'unc accusation si publiquc qu'U j a en quelqoc sortc flagrant delit. Agr^z, &c. (Signi) MOUSTIER. (Translation.) M. I'An.bassadeur, Pans, October 8, 1866. YOUR Excellency, in announcing on the 27th of September last to the Marquis de Laralette that one Lamirande protested against his extradition from Canada, requested that the proceedings instituted against the accused might be delayed until the GoTernment of Her Majesty were in possession of snch information as would enable them to address a further communication to the Government of the Emperor. The Minister of Justice, to whom the Marquis de Lavalette hastened to communicate the wish expressed by your Excellency, has carefully examined the different bearings of the case, and does not think that there is any irregularity of a nature to invalidate tbe extradition of the accused. In this state of things it would be desirable that the Government of Her Britannic Majesty should, before coming to any decision, communicate to us the alleged grievances which, upon frank explanations, will doubtless disappear. M. Baroche adds, however, t Jat no step has been taken to hasten Lamirande's trial. But your Excellency knows too well that is it the duty of the judicial authority to conform to the rules which are laid down for its ohscrva!!c-c without any arbitary modification thereof, not to understand that the time is drawng near wlien it will become necessary to allow the law to take its course. I ikewisc call to your Excellency's attention what an anomalous course it would be on the part of the British Government, to whose views we are always anxious to be able to defier, to bring again in question proceedings of which the result could the less be contested, as they relate to a man who lies under a charge so public that it is in some measure a case fia^rante delicto. Accept, &c. (Signed) MOUSTIER. No. 6. Lord Stmdey to Earl Cowley. My Lord, Foreign Office, October 25, 1866. HER Majesty's Qovemment are desirous of knowing, as soon as p.s8ible, whether the French Government propose that Lamirande should be brought to tnal, and when. ;r^Lord Carnarvon has not rBce i f ed from Lord Monck the particulars of the case, which he has been called upon to supply; and it is, therefore, only upon very meagre infon nnal communication to the f rendt Oovcrament. It in unilor thcHO circumstanceM vcrj desirable that as mach ilclaj a«« possible should take place in bringing the caMS on for trial I am, &c. (Signed) STANLEY. No. 7. Earl Cowley to Lord Slanley.-~{Rfri'ived Sninnher 9 ) My Lord, Paris, Sornnliir B, 1 868. WITH reference to your Lordship's despatch to me, of the L'.'ith ultimo, and to my teleijrnm of 2*25 a.m. yesteniuy morninjj. reliitive to the dato to \>v tixi-d for the trial of Lainirnnde, 1 have the hownir to inclose herewith copy of a iiote whidi I hare received from .M. do iMoustier, in which his Kxceiloncy informs nw that the Assizes at which this trial will take place commence upon the L'r, for so it h Consular us it would INLET. 5, 1866. F the 13th, id to your r Majesty's Moustier, the opinion in caution 5, 1866. " Mandat ch Consul- ime by the cording to )ed by the ment d'un i\ Poitiers, dereau de ! volee de u entre la ecution of fie fraudu- e France h lissc de la s'cst aussi ct qu'ainsi ur I'extra- lNLEY. n Inclosure in No. 12. }f. Gauiin to Mr. Mc Dougall. Monsieur, Qtiehrr, le IS Juillft, 18f>fi. J'.M I'bonncur de vous adrcsscr ci-inolus un nflidnvit fait pardovant M. Ic JuKO Tnschei call, de lu Cour Supi rieuri' a Qii('l)ec, ])ar Ic Sicu- K'hiu' .Justin Mi-lin, lii>-pocti ur Principal de Polici" (i Pari.s, a It-Uct d'oiitoiiir ram^tation i-t 1 extradition ensuite tiu noniniO Krnost Surrcau Laniirandc. C'ai..sior de In SucruiMile df la Knnijue ilo France ;■> Poitiers, Departcnicnt de la Ifaiao Vioiine, Empire Fran(;ais, K'(|uel s'est rendu eoiipalde non seulcment d'un vol de 700,000 francs nu jirejudice d*- oette !-uccur>ale de la Uanque de France & Poitiers, mais aussi du crime de fau.\ en eeriture en faUifiant ses livres et son bordereau de situation, et faisant ninsi fiffiirer coninif presente dans sa caisse la sonimc voice de 7t'0,000 francs, crime prt'vu parks dispositions du Traite d'Kxlraditiou conelu entre la France et TAn^jlcterre en IVvrier ISi:^. dont je transcris ici uno partie : " By a Convention between Her Majesty the <,fueen of (Jreat Uritnin and Ireland and the then Sovereign of France, signed at London on the J.'Wh February, Is t.'^ the ratifications whereof were e.xclianjjed at Ijondun on the LUh day of March in the same year, it was a^jreed that the Hifrh Contraetinfj Parties should, on re(|uisition nuule in tlieir name through the medium of their respective A<^ents, deliver up to justieo jiersoiis who being accused of tiie crimes of murder, forgery or fraudulent bankruptcy, cotnuiitted within the jurisdiction of the re«]uiring party, should seek an asylum or should be found within the territories of the other. " In order to carry the Convention into effect, the British Parliament, on the 22nd Augu-st, 1843, passed the Act G and 7 Viet.caji. 75, in which, after reciting the Convention, it is enacted that in case requisition be made pursuant to the Convention to deliver up to justice any person who being accused of liavincet>sairc pour arreter et extradcr ensuite le susnommi? Ernest Surreau Lamirande. Je vous serai oblige de me faire parvenir ce warrant le plus tot possible. Je crois utile de joindre ici le mandat d'arret emane du tribunal civil de Poitiers, et dument l^galis^ par le Consul de Sa Majesty Britannique il Paris. Veuillez, je vousprie, me renvoyer cette piece avec le warrant du Gouvemeur-G^n^ral. Je saisis, &c. Le Consul-G^n^ral de France, (8ign6) FRED. GAUTIER. (Translation.) Sir, Quebec, Juiy 18, 1866. I HAVE the honour to inclose to you herewith, an affidavit made before Judge Tascbereau, of the Superior Court of Quebec, by Edme Justin Melin, Chief Inspector of PoUce at Paris, with the object of obtaining the arrest and subsequent extradition of one Ernest Surreau Lamirande, cashier of the Branch of the Bank of France at Poitiers, in the Department of Haute Yienne, in the French Empire, who has been guilty not only of a robbery of 700,000 francs to the loss of that Branch of the Bank of France at Poitiers, but also of the crime of forgery, in having falsified bis books and his bpnk return, and ia C 2 12 II Ijaving thtw rfpn-scnted the stolon Rum of 7<>0.00(» francs n« still included in his cash, a crime witliiu the purview i>i the stipulations ol lli. I ,;rii i;tu>.i I'mity rnncluded between France and Knpland in February. 1843, trora which 1 here transcribe an extract :— " Bv a (.'(invention." &c. I tiicri'ftJH' take the liberty, Mr. Secretary, to bci? tlint you will bo so jrood as to request bis Excellency I he Governor-General, in virtue of tlie powers conferred on bim by the above-mentioned' Convention, to issue the necessiiiy warrant for the arrest and subsequent extradition of the above-mentioned Ernest Surreau Lamirande. I shall be oblieed by your scndini; me the warrant as soon ns possible. I think it well to inclose herewith the warrant issued by the Civil Tribunal at Poitiers, and dulv legalized by Her Britannic Majesty's Consul at Paris. Be good enough, I beg. to return ine this document, together with the Governor-General's warrant. I avail, &c. (Signed) FRED. GAUTIER, French Consul-Gerteral. No. 13. Lord Stnnlet/ to Earl Coirlrij. My Lord, Foreiyn Office, November 10, 1860. I THOUGHT it desirable that the Law Officers should be apprized of the language held to you by M. de Aloustier in the Lamirande ca.se, as reported in your despatch of the 13th instant; and i have now to acquaint your Excellency that the Ijaw Officer consider that it is impossible to deny the force of M. de IMoustier's reasoning. It must indeed be admitted that if the situations were reversed, and the restoration of a French subject, given up under the Extradition Treaty, and about to undergo trial before an English Tribunal, were demanded or requested by the French of the English Government, the latter would be constrained to reply that the Executive Government had no power to remove a prisoner from the judicial authority to which he bad been submitted, or in any way to stop the course of justice with respect to him, by whatever error on the part of the French Government he might originally have been placed within the jurisdiction of the Court. Her Majesty's Government, looking at the question in this light, could not consider the refusal of the French Government to give up M. Lamirande as atfording any ground whatever of offence to this country. Your Excellency will understand that I make this communication for your private information only. 1 am, &c. (Signed) STANLEY. No. 14. Lord Stanley to Earl Cowley. My Lord, Foreign Office, November 16, 1866. THINKING it desirable that your Excellency should be informed as to what is considered in this country a legal definition of the crime of forgery, I have asked the Law Officers to supply me with it, and also to state the bearing of that de6nition on the words as used in the Extradition Treaty with France, and on the statements of the French Consai-General in Canada and of the French police officer Melin, of which I sent you copies in my despatch of yesterday, setting forth the crimes of which Lamirande was accused. I have now to acquaint j'our Excellency that I am advised that forgery, by the common law of England, may be defined to be the fraudulently counterfeiting any written document in whole or in part, or altering or adding to it, or making it falsely to appear to be the genuine writing or instrument of some other person, with intent to defraud or prejudice another; and that by one of the statutes for consolidating the Criminal Law, namely, the 24 and 25 Vict., cap. 98, a variety of cognate acts are defined and classed under the general head of forgery ; and by various special statutes the counterfeiting or falsification of various public acts and other documents is also declared to be forgery. 13 n his cash, h ided between cl:— o ffood as to I'd on liiin by e arrest and Tribunal at good enough, rant. ER, mi-General. r 10, 1860. the language our despatch Law Officers r >• le restoration undergo trial " the English remment had ie bad been by whatever placed within 1 not consider g any ground • your private The term "forpicry " in tlu' .<.lat»t>' for giving fll'oct to tln< Extradition TroiUy with France would, 1 am advised, inrlutlo all tbi> ul)o\ e oum's. But a mere i'aUe stAteincnt in writing, which doc* not purport to be the writing of another person, is not forgery : for instance, if a man fraud ulently >i>rns tlie name of A. B., without authority, to a bill of exrhange. it is forgery ; but if he frumlulently signs the bill in his own name, "per procuration of A. B.," having no authority, it is only a false statement and a fraud, but not a forgery. 8o, if a ]K'rson makes a false entry in a banker's i)ass book, as if it were, and purporting to be, the banker's entry, with a view to defraud, it is forgery; but if he makes a false entry in his own book, and pur|M)rting to be his own entry, with the like intent, it is a fraud, but is not n forgery. According to the opinion of the Court of Queen's Bench, a forgery, to come within the French Extradition Treaty and Statute, must be what would be considered forgery according to the law of England na well as of France; but I am informed that this opinion is rather questionable. But as regards the question now ut issue, it would appear from the statements made in the letter of the French Consul-General and in the deposition of the French police officer, that Lamirande was not charged with or guilty of forgery, or counterfeiting the entry of any other person; but that be was charged with embezzlement and with making fraudulent and false entries in his own books, which would not be forgery according to the law of England within the meaning of the Extradition Statute. I am, &c. (Signed) STAJJLEY. No. 1 y. Lord Stanlt-y to Earl (Jon ley. My Lord, Foreign Office, November 19, 1866. I HAVE thought it desirable to obtain the opinion of the Law Officers on the question whether the charge made against Lamirande by the French Consul-General in Canada, being that of falsifying his books and bordereau, if these books are the ledgers of the Bank of France entrusted to his keeping and not M. Lamirandc's private accounts, would that bring him within the accusation of forgery ; and I have to state to your Excellency that I am informed that this would not be forgery according to the laws of England. I oc to the GoviTiior-CSeiuTul in Ciiimda uas one wholly uimuthori/ed Ity Treaty, and should never have been uiude by the Con-iil-Citneral. Nu doubt the application of the (.'unMul-fii^nirul oliould never have been lixtened to by the (iovcrnor-tienerul of ('anaty\ Govirinnent do not (teek to exonerate tlio Canadian authorities from the responsibility wliicii belonKH tu them; but Ilur Majesty'ii Uovernment Kubmit that the Imperial (Sovernnunt may fairly be asked, in dealing with tliii< (ptestiuu, to eonsider that their own Conhul-Ciencral has been party to the error, which in its results! have brought Lamirande within the jurisdiction of French Tribunals. Again, the crime of which Lamirnnde is aecusetl is thus described in the letter of tho ronsul-(Jeneral to the Provincial Sirntary of (Quebec: — " Leiiml "i speakin;; of fjimi- rande) " s'est rendu coupable non-sculement dun vol dc ""O.ottO frnncs an prejudice de la suecursttle dc la Hanijue de France a Poitiers, nniis uus>i du crime de faux en ecriture en liilsitiant ses livres et son bordereau de situation, et faisant ainsi lij;urer commo presente dans sa caisse la somnjc voice dc ""I'lOdn tranes, erime prevu iMir les dis|)ositiou8 du Traite d'Extradition conclu cntre la France et I'Angleterre en Fevricr 1843." It would appear, then, by this letter, that the oifenee with which Lamirande is charged is one of embezzlement, and making false entries in his books, and it is supposed that the ConsiU-General assumes that these otTcnces come within the legal meaning of the term "forgery," the only crime mentioned in the Treaty of 184;$ at all applicable to the present case. It may be as well to state here the definition of " forgery," according to tho common law of England. Forgery by the common law of England may be defined to be the fraudulently counterleiting any written document, in whole or in part, or altering or adding to it, or making it falsely to appear to be the genuine writing or the statement of some other person, with intent to defraud or prejudice another. By one of the statutes for consolidating the criminal law, a variety of cognate acts are defined and classed untler the head of forgery, and by various siM?eial statutes the counterfeiting or falsification of various ]iublic acts and other documents is also declared to be forgery. But a mere false statement in writing, which does not purport to be the writing of another person, is not forgery. As regards the question at issue, it does not appear Lamirande is charged with counterfcitmg the entry of any other person, which would be forgery, but that he is charged, as nas been stated abrve, with embezzlement, and with making fraudulent entries into his own books, which would not be forgery according to the law of England. No. 17. Earl Cowley to Lord Stanley. -^Received November 24.) My Lord, Paris, November 23, 1866. THE trial of Lamirande is fixed for Monday, the 3rd December. Your Lordship may like to know more precisely of what he is accused. Lamirande was cashier to the branch of the Bank of France established at Poitiers. As such he had considerable sums to receive and to pay, and consequently a deposit of a large amount was continually in his hands. The gold is tied up in bags containing a certain number of napoleons, which are liable to be visited from time to time by inspectors, who open them and see that their contents arc correct ; but these inspectors generally content themselves by opening one or two bags, and by weighing some of the others. Liimiraudc seems to have been in tho habit of taking a few napoleons nt a time from some of these bags, which he took care should never come into circulation, giving them the proper weight by the addition of lead, and placing them where there would be the least chance of their being opened. His books at the same time were kept as if the the proper amount of money was in his hands. Something having occurred to excite suspicion, Lamirande determined to abscond, taking with him a large sum of money in addition to those already stolen. I hayc, &c. (Signed) COWLEY. 16 No. 18: l^rd Stanley to Karl Cowlty. My liord. Fortign Office, Sovemher -'H, 186C. A8 in nny diHcuHHion with tho Frenrh Oovemment which may hereafU-r take place on the Hubjcct of .M, Finniirantlc's case much may turn on the precipe nature of the charge against him. niid of the evidence that may be adduced in support of it. I think it desirable that your Excellency hhould employ Home com|>etent jwrwrn to watch the trial and to report fullv up«m it ; taking care, however, in doing so not to appear to manifest any doubt ax to tde propriety of the manner in whicii the proccedingH are conducted. I am, &c. (Signed) STANLEY. r I it No. 19. Earl Coiriri/ to Lord Stanleii. — (Received December 3.) My Lord. Parin, December 'J, 1866. IN compliance with the iuHtructions contained in your Lordship's despatch of the •'c'tli ultimo, 1 have desired M. Treite to pru'^ecd to PoilierH to be present at the trial of I.nmirande. nnd to report to me full pnrticulaiH for your Lordship's future infor- mation. I have cautioned M. 'I'reitu not to express any opinion upon the proceedings ai the trial. 1 llttVC, &c. (Signed) COWLEY. No. 20. Lord Stanley to Earl Cowley. My Lord. Foreign Office, December 4, 1866. HER Majesty's Government have had under their consideration your Excellency's despatch of the 20th ultimo, inclosing a copy of a memorandum which you had communicated to the French Government, founded upon the instructions and observa- tions contained in my despntchcs in regard to the pending trial of M. Lamirande, and the question of his surrender to the British Government. Her Majesty's Government are glad to receive the assurance of the French Govern- ment as reported in your Excellency's despatch, that the trial and its result, if such result should be a conviction, will not bar the surrender of M. Lamirande. Her Majesty's Government will await, though not without anxiety, the decision of the French Government on the representations made to them; and in the meanwhile they are quite content that the discussions on the subject should be carried on in the confidential form in which they have hitherto been conducted. In conclusion I have to express to your Excellency my approval of your language to M. de Moustier, as reported in your despatch above referred to. 1 am, &c. (Signed) STANLEY. No. 21. Earl Cowley to Lord Stanley.— (Received December 7.) My Lord, Paris, December 6, 1866. M. TREITE returned to Paris this morning from attending the trial of Lamirande. 1 had the honour to inform your Lordship by telegraph that lamirande had been found guilty of forgery (" faux ") and sentenced to ten years' reclusion. He has appealed in Cassation, and the whole question will be gone into before that Court. M. Treite will furnish me with a full report of the proceedings on the trial, but it 17 takr place on >f the charge it. I think it ratch the trial ir to manifest )nducted. iTANLEY. bn 'J, 1866. lip's (lesiwtch present at the K future infor- leding's ai the 8(c. COWLEY. ier 4, 1866. r Excellency's lich you had and observa- mirande, and ench Govern- -esult, if such le decision of he meanwhile ried on in the r language to TANLEY. f ter 6, 1866. Lamirande. d been found IS appealed in cannot be ready for a tew days. I reserve all remarks until I hvre sent it to your Lordship. I will only obRcr^o that the punishment of rerlusion is more severe than imprison- ment, and carries with it the penalty of the loss of all civil rights. I have, Ac. (Signed) COWLEY. No. 22. Lord Stanley to Enrl Cowley. My Lord, Foreign ()^re, Derrmbrr 7, 1806. IT is stated in a daily paper that a few weeks since a cnniinni whose capture or surrender had been impro|ierIy obtained in Switzerland, was, nfler conviction and setitencc in France, sent back to Switzerland by order of the Ini|ierial (iovcrnment, on the ground of the antecedent irregularity. I have to instruct your Kxcellency to make immediate inquiry into this matter, and, if the statement is correct, you will not fail to call M. de Moustier's attention to it as furnishini; a strong precedent for giving up Al. fittmirande. I am, &c. (Signed, STANLEY. No. 23. Em! Cowley to Lord Stnnley. — {Received December 14.) (Extract.) Pnri», December 11, 1806. 1 HAVE the honour to inclose herewith copy of a letter from M. Trcite. transmitting a comptc-rendu of the trial of Lamirande, and containing observations upon the proceedings. This letter does not throw much light upon the matter. The case is certainly a curious one. Jjamirande was arraigned in the actc d'accu- sation for having stolen 700,000 francs from the Bank of France, of which he was the cashier at Poitiers, and of having concealed this robbery by means of false accounts rendered to his superiors. At the trial the charge of theft was abandoned, and Lamirande was tried on the charge of "faux." Probably this was done with a view of bringing the crime within the meaning of the Extradition Treaty of 184:<. Your Lordship will observe that the Court declared itself incompetent to decide the question whether the extradition of Lamirande was accomplished according to the stipulations of that Treaty. The legality of this decision will be disputed before the Court of Cassation. e trial, but it Inclosurc 1 in No. 23. M. Treite to Earl Cowley. Milord, Parix, ce 10 D^cembre, 1866. CONFORMEMENT au ddsir exprim6 par votre Excellence, je suis all(5 a Poitiers, assister aux d^bats du proces de Lamirande, ramene du Canada, et livre au Gouvemement Fran^ais. Ces d^bats, disait-on g^>n^ralement, presenteraient les plus int^ressantcs discussions au point de vue du droit international de I'extradition. EfTectivement, les d^fenseurs de I'accus^ avaient prepare tout un systdmc d'attaques centre I'extradition de Lamirande, en fait et en droit ; ils devaicnt dt^montrer que les circonstances qui ont accompagnd cette extradition constituaient des actes de surprise, de fraude, de violence, et d'outrages aux lois Anglaises. L'on devait surtout argumenter de la d6claration publique de M. Dnimmond, Jugc ^ la Cour du Banc de la Reine, lequel avait, le 25 Aodt, 1866, d^clar^ I'extradition ill^gale; bref, on devait plaider que Lamirande avait 6t6 vol6 au Gouvemement Anglais. Le mot du reste a et^ dit k I'audience ; votre Excellence le trouvera k la page 7 da compte-rendu* desd^bat8,quej'ai * Pk(re27. [681 r^ ^ ^ rr i ''hontuMir ill' Jiii nmitirr ri jnint. Aiissi. Pnttcntion |iuMi(|tic rtnil illc vivcnicnt i-xriti^!; nitti^ flic a
  • iMt-(M ntrul a MHitiiiu (|Ui' la i|U('>tiun (I'lXliaiiitKin m- |i. tutiilifr rioun ra|i|ir(rialiiutit aux |ia;;f> .*> ci •) dii cciiiiiitf-rcndu.f .\!al;{r( Ks illnrt.-- di' In diffiiM', lu ilortrinc bouliiiui' jinr M. rAvncnl-dtiiiral n ('•Uj conMU'tcc jinr un urn't lio la ('our trA>>i«i'.s. ('ft arrt'i iiic jiaraii liirn I'lindf fii droit. Hadoctiiiii c.'^t du iiiU- ( iii;toriiii' u luvi;! ii'Kul (|ue j'ui lU lliouni ur di- Houiinitri' u vutrc Excflk'iu'u le 17 Nox inLrc deriiii-r toucLanl luxtriuiitioii dc l^tniiraiidi'.| • V»gv 124. + I'agp 25. J 3t. Treile lu Lord Cotelfi/. Milnn), i'liit. If 17 .\«iri„l„f. 1K6G. CONFOIIMKMI'.NT .111 dr»if i)iir in'* I'Jprimu voir* Etci'llfiicr. j'ni tuli iu» ncin rilim tu - iniiintiruiM (Uiin lei n nit iN 1 1 li » niiiiiir* | r \iiir nil ii'v lUiit lau t{Ur>iiri'- ,i*(iir rxtrmif ini < riiiiiiii'l, iiiiniit il' iii.iiiili' c|i.c (■!■ rrimiml liii fi'it rrnlii ; .if li' iiiotil (|i r li - linnu » Ity.ili'j n'mimiptlt pat i'tr (iti-irto < lor^ rii' {'.'ini-.t'iimi on ilc rixtrnilllhui. ■Ir ii'iil triiiivi' .'iiii'iini' tiviri' dun ('»> siinlililili' I't jc ilnutr qn'il in iiintr, cur iiix' |iiir< iili' ri'i'l.iiimtHiii lorait contriiirr iinx ri'.'!i'- qui |ni- i.'.nit ii I iiiilt'i'tii'laiii't' ry«|)i'ctive ili'S l.lali«. Kii ilfri. \'[-.\:ii .iiiiiiic. nil iriniiiii'l a (•!<• livrr w Kiiiiniit ('in' coni|u'ifMl |Miur iip|in- i< r W* fufim-" priKiilnniTi s ill' la Ini i lr:ini;i re, el 111' Miiirait surtuiit Miimirtlri' >a ptiiprr jiir ilii Inn i riinii • IN ii Inti"! rvution dt'» tnriiiii li};.ili'o i-\.ft iiin iiiitri' imllnii. I.'i'Xiriniiiiiiii 1 '•I un ;ii'ii' ili (imiti'rni'iucnt it Oouvi'rnt'iiU'nt : ri'liii (|iii ii I vir nn rrlnilnil I'li ililmr* ilea rorni("> pi'olir'i'lri'^ ill III liii, rniiiiirl iilir rri-pnli^uliililt' nil liicli In ri jitli' niir crux ilr oi!. ii|ti iit> i|iii oiil null' In loi I't nit'nir \vi I'll |iiiiiit ; ninn< il nn niirnni' ri'iliiiiintion u ailri'i^rr, u ir prnpna, nn (<■ iiMrin iiiriil a i|iil li oiiinlni'l a I'll' livr^, 11 nioiii;. i|iii' I'l'MiMiiiiinn n'nil cii Inn pnr >iiili' ili' liit'iii'ini^r nouvcraint'tt' I'li ({arduiit Ir rrinuinl i|ui n infrriot Im Wi du p>yi> l)'nilli'iir«, ili'n ijiii' li rriniini'l c-t ri ntrij »ur h torritiiire. il n'a]ipartiriil plun au (iouviriiumPDt, mait au poUTuir juiliriniro, rtoiii lariiii:! I'M iiiri<5priidaiili' du pmiTuir I'xfpntif. L)' piiii\iiir cxi'i'iitit' n'a pas Ir drnit dp imi'pvndrp Ip count de la jufticp Tiii>!t'Vi« il'iin indiTldn pourium ; il nt |Nnt qup i'airc griii'i' nitit lu coiidaniBaliua, eaf W droit d'unuiati* inditiiliii'lli' avant le jugprnrnt eat deni^ •u Priiicv. r,ii npplii|unnt ci'S priiuipps ii Vnffnirp I.jimiraD(U', qup jp lie connaiK quo p.ir li :< nrit- ili's jourtiaux, je crois que le Gouvrrnrnipnt AiitlaiK ii'i'«t pus on droit dp deiiiandpr la rpstilutinn di- I'ri linninii' Lc (louveriicnipiit I'rnniyniK la ri fusprait ^ cmip lAr, car il nioina dp vioirr U-s ilioitK du pouToir judiciaire il ne pent paa uii'mp liispinrr n'liii nccusp, qui n'apparticnt qua la jiialicp. N'ayuiit VII uiu'uii iliH'uuii'iit iiflicii'l, j'iguorc Ipa coiuplicjitions que I'lifrnirp Lnniirnnilp peut ripi'ler, mail ie m'cmprcssp d'nit'omicr votre Etcellpiicp que Lamirande va procliaiiipnient ciiniparnitre dpTant la Cour de Poitiprs. Devnn* la ('our d'.Aasit'Pt, Ira d^enseun aouleTeroot probablemcnt dca incidenti et dea ditScult^ rvlatifi a I'arrpatalion ct a IVxtradlliun dp I'urruae. II est dc pes inciileiit!i ipip le (iinivcrnpmcnt Anglais pourrnit iMre interessO a ('niinniiri' et a fnire i>ppr£eier. Np serail-ee pas le las de i'aire asaister a I'audlcncp un lt'^;i^tp, ilnrpc ile siiivre hi procedure pt d'pn examinpr les plinses et In porlip li'iiule f Cost unc reflection que j'ai pris la liberli' de soumettrp a TOtre Excellence cii lu priant d'ugr^er niou reipectueux et eomplpt dCvoumcnt. (Signe) TREITE. (TranilatioD.) My Lord, Parh, November 17, 1866. AGKEEABLY with tlip desire expreaapd to me by your Excellency, I liave made very careful research in worka of reference and writers in order to ascertain if I could find tliere any mention of a caae where m Government, after the surrender of a criminal, had demauded bis rendition becuu&e the legal formalitiea had not been ohaerveil in the arri'st or extradition. I have fbund no irnce of aiich a caac and I do not think there is one, for snrh a claim would be contrary to th erulea whieli are olisi'rveil in repard to the independence of different Statea. In fact, tliu ijlate to which a criminal has been surrendered cannot be conipctent to appreciate the legal {irocediire of a foreign code, and assuredly cannot subordinate its own crinoiit trt'j.- oiitait \tan •'•I'lart' (jm- iiiiici- (Iau8 nilirr moua nm> a la ii-niiilu.t IK ml n ('■tc til droit. tif a voire iiihir, l(»6t). - IliillillU'UlM il. .iprr- afdir mIi'k ii'miraipnt l.iiimtion ioniit il r leu furinca il I'oti-i rvution ('II (li'liur* ilea iiiit Mule la loi i|iii II niminel ■iiHn*. nfrrJDt let loii leiiU'Dt, mail au imuraiiiri ; il nt 'iD«'iit eat denit- lurtiaiix, je croii r jiuliciaire il nr rtci'ltT, mail je nt la Cour de icult^i rrlitifi * lire apprC'i'ier. ocediirp ct d'cn iini'ttro a Totrc TREITE. ber 17, 1866. eful research in 1 caae where a nalitii'S bad not i be contrary to eciatR the legal 10 observance of t regard 'to the lo have broken lie Government y falsehood and » infringed the ic Govemmenl, > the indivUUwl I before trial ii 19 II taut (•<'|M'mliiiil liin- (|iif K"« priiicipcx posrs par • i'arri l-l.iiMiir.iinlf" (Vc lunti lui reitcral m- tout jwi-- accitirx uimiiiniciiicnt tlaii- In jiiri«|iruiifiii'' tt l« diHtrinc Act autfiirs. Mai^ l.i f"''iir (if ('iw-ation vn iirofliaitit'imiit Ttrc api'i l''i' a t'linnirtr un aiT^l-|irin(i|i«' sur rrltc matit'Tf si |m'II »'dftiroio. iiui.^nuc Laiiilraiu]''. ilii-i>ii, •*»• jHUirvtiit on CaHMitioii, uitisi (|iu< cila a itc atinonci!''. Aiiisi la i-<>iii|iariiliiiii do lianiiraiidi' en jiistiti' n a pas fait avaticcr la i|U(««tinn dVxtraditioii i-ntrf \v> iliiix (lOUviTm-au'ntH Anylai-* ol Kiain, lis ?.i re nVst (|ii(' Icliiry a dtk'lut't'- Liiiiiraiidc cDiiiNklilo de faux, coiifonnt'iixnt aiix flu'l's d'ai-i-UHatioti, traiiMoritii dans I'acto d'ni-cii-'atiiiii vnis Ics nunirros 3, \, r>, et •'», i-l i|iu' j'ai n |i(iit(?> iiianu^orits iiux pngCH lU vl JO (III I'omplc-iviidii,* lo<« joiiniaiix tn- li'» av.iiii pa- ripm liiiis. II faut s'iiii-liiuM- dcvaiit It' verdict dii 'liirv, i|iiiiiipril y aii di\cru'i'ncc dnns Ipsnpinioiw siir la ([Ui'ttioii dc »avoir si Ich ecritiirc-i iiiciiscinjjiTcs (jiic faisiiil {iiiiriicllciiient Ijaniiiaiide cniisliluaicnl It'galonu'iit I" criiiu' ilc tnux l-'raiKi-ai-*, ct ^iirtmit Ic crime de fnux Anylais, dit fnnjirii. Par III lecture (lc«. di'-hnts, .otre Kxcellencc verra ipic Ic l'r''>iilent dc In ('our d'Assiscs a dciiiiindi- u I'accuse si, (|U(iii|UC le vol ct I'aliu-i dc cciiiliaiu'e iic t'ii--.ciit jmis rnnipris dans le Trailc d'Kxtmdition |)iiiiiiii. la demaridc dc M. Ic President avail uiie purlcc i)nlili(|iic, rnr, si I'nccuH*'- avail (oiiscnti a ('tre \\igv sur Ics chefs dc vul et d'-iln^ di iitiaMce, il renon(;ait insn fdrlu i sc prcvaloir du 'l'rait(' d'Kxtradition, ain.si ipic Ten a avcrti I'Avoeat- Ooneral. L,- eoullit t 'iiiltait de lui-nieme, ear le (lou^erncmciil Aiiuluis na\ait plus A 9'oeeupcr de la n'clamaUoii d'tiu iiidividu (pii avail reiuuae u sc pn'-valoir dc la loi nritanni(pie. Ln (h'cliiratidii du .iuj^e Drummond n'nyant pas et('' luc u rnndiciier' n'a pu etrc pulili^'c par Ics jdiiriiaux IVancais. Cctte puliiication cut pu h s cxpoxr A iKs puur-iiilc'. pour intid(5lili; d.iii> Ics coiiiples-rendus des dt'liuts judiciaircs ; Ics fciiillcs ('traii;;i res out puhliee ectlc decluratioii par extraits. Sur la premi(Te t'cuillc ducniniitc reiulut ci-anuexc votre Kxeellenee en tiouvera unc analyse, imprimee dans uue fcuiilc llcli^c. Ay;r('ez, \-c. (?\iiiw) THFCITE. (Translation.) My Lord, Parii, Deremlier U>. IHtiti. A(il{KK.\IJLY with the desire expressed by your Kxcclleney. I went lo I'oiiiers to attend the trial of Lamiraiide, who has been brought back from Canada and gi>cn up to the French trovorniuent. These proeeediuf^s. it was generally said, would present most interesting discussions in regard to the international right of extradition. Indeed, the (Urendirs of the accused had prcjiared quite n s\~l(^ni of attacks upon the extraditi(m of Lamiraude, both as regards the facts and the law of the case. They had lo show that the circumstanceB attending this extradition constituted acts of deceit, of fraud, of vi((letice, and of outrages on the English laws. They were above all to argue on the public declaration of Mr. Drummond, Judge of the ( "ourt of t^ueens Uench. who had, on the 'J'Ah of August, ISGii, declared the extradition to l)e il]e<,'al ; n short, it was to be pleaded that Lainirande bad been stolen tiom the Knulisli (Joveriinicnt, The expression, moreover, was made use of in Court; your Kxeellency will find it at page 7{ of the Report of the proceedings which 1 have the honour to inclose herewith. I'ublic attention was also much excited, but it has been altogether disappointed. In fact the Avocnt-G(5neral, in virtue of instructions wiMiout doubt emanating from the Ministry of Justice, opposed the admission of the motions submitted by the On applying the^e principles to the case of Lnmiramle, which I only know ihr();ii.'li the lu'w^p.-iper repurU, I think that the tn^lish CiDvcrnment is not in a position to licm.iinl the n-iiir.-iiioii of ill''* igan. The Freonh Government would most certainly refuse it, for without .'ijlatiii); the right of the judiriiil power, it cannot even ilispose of un aeniseil person who belongs to justice alone. Having seen no olHeial tion in the i-leadings are in pages 5 and G of the Ileport.f In spite of the elforts of the defence the view uplield by the Ailrocat-General has been ratified by a decision of the Court of Assize. This decision ajtpears to me to be well founded in law. His view is, besides, in agreement with tlie lenai opii^ion which I had the honour to submit to your Kxcelleiicy on the 17th of November last, respecting the extradition of Lamiraudc. ll must, however, be said that the principles laid down by the Lamirande decision (by which name it will ahvay- be known arc not unanimously accepted in Jurisprudence and in the tenets of writers. But the Court of Cassation is about to bo called upon to lay down a definite rule on this matter, which is so obscure, since Lamirande, it is said, has appealed to the Court of Cassation, as has been announced. Thus the a])pearance of Lamirande in a Court of Justice has not advanced the ques- tion of extradition between the Knglish and French Governments, with the exception that tlie jury has declared liamirande guilty of forgery agreeably to the heads of accusation transcribed in the indictment in Nos. 3, 4, .>, and G, and which I have reported in manuscript at pages 19 and 30 of the Report,} the newspapers not having reproduced them. We must bow to the verdict of the jury, although there may be a difTcrence of opinion on the questiim whether the false statements made by Lamirande legally consti- tuted the French crime of falsification (•' faux"), and especially the English crime of falsification called " forgery." On reading the discussions, your Excellency will see that the President of the Court of Assize asked the accused whether, although theft and abuse of confidence might not be within the scope of the Extradition Treaty of 1843, he would consent to be tried on these two charges. The accused probably hoped for an acquittal on the charge of forgery : he refused to stand his trial on the two other charges, and the prosecution only relied on the crime of forgery In my opinion, the question of the President had a political bearing, for if the accused had consented to be tried on the counts of theft and abuse of confidence, he would have renounced ipso facto his advantage arising from the Extradition Treaty, as the Advocate-General pointed out. The dispute would naturally have fallen to the ground, for the English Government could no longer have to occupy itself with the reclamation of an individual who had renounced the advantage arising fron> the British law. The declaration of Judge Drummond not having been read at the trial, could not be published by the French newspapers. Such a publication might have exposed them to a prosecution for inaccuracy in a report of judicial proceedings. Foreign papers have {mblished extracts from this declaration. On the first page of the Report§ your Excel* ency will find an analysis of that declaration printed in a Belgian paper. Accept, &c. iSigned) TREITE. 5 Inclosure 2 in No. 23. Report of the Trial of M. Lamirande. Analyse de la DMaration du Juge Drummond, publi/e par un Journal Beige. CE document n*ayant pas 6ti lu k I'audience du proces Lamirande n'a pas ^te public par Ics feuilles Fran^aises. Celles-ci en I'imprimant, s'exposaicnt h des poursuites pour infid^lit^ dans les comptes-rendus judiciaires. " Nous rappellerons ici ce document un pen bizarre du Juge Drummond de Montreal. Cc document precise en effet toute la question relative k I'extradition. " En France, nous ne saurions, it vrai dire, quel nom donner & ce document qui ne ressemble ni par \ forme ni par le fond k I'id^e que nous nous faisons d'une sentence juridique D'aboi l I'honorablc Juge Canadien reconnait que I'accus^— ou plutdt le * Phw 44. t Page 4S. t ?«?« *3- i Page 40. \i 31 oport*) are extradition thority had sincss of a nitliin the ! discussion cneml has > iiic ti) be on which I respecting ie decision risprudence d upon to it is said, d tiie ques- •ption that uccusation reported in reproduced iflference of ally consti- jb crime of f the Court might not be tried on I charge of cution only :, for if the ]fidence, he Treaty, as lien to the ;lf with the 1 the British ;ould not be d them to a papers have your Excel- cc. FREITE. ilge. Ls ^t^ publie rsuites pour e Montreal. lent qui ne le sentence u plutdt le !4U. p^titioniiairc, commc il l'api)elle dans un laiijrngo plcin dc deference, ne jHuivant etrc amene dernnt liii etant en [ileine nier. enlevi' jmr uiie d('> phn audaeitiisi's et iuM|u'a present lieureuses entrejirij-es cfiitre la justice linnl on ail iHiiiHi!< i iitiiidii [Mtrler nu Canndn. ii n'a plus dordonnance a rciidre. " Malirre celte declaration (pielqiic pen caiidide. I'lionoralile .lin;e Dniiniiiotid se livro a une tn's-lonjruo dissertation cpii ticnt plus du plaidoyer cii di- la pol<'iiiii|Uc (|ue de rausteriti' dun document iuridii|ue. "Ce (|ui ressort de ce jilaidoyer c'est I'opinion un i)eu irritec du .lum' souteiiaiit t|iic I'cxtradition n'aurait pas ete nc('onl(?e par lui, si la eau'«c fnt rtstif cinuri. tt ccla par plusicurs iiii'tifs (jifil enoncc fort compi'iidieuseiiu'iit, ii ^avoir: 1. Que le Ctnisiilti, ueral do France h .Montreal n'avait jia-; (iiialite pour ro((U('Tir I extradition, n'i-tant pa- a:;ent diploniati(|ne accredite, coiniuo I'exi^e le Traite de 184"p: '2. Vimv <|u'on lie iu^tilie |)as un ncte aut'icntique de la niise en accusation de I'accuse ; ipi'aii lieu (|ualitii'> crimes par les lois An^lai-es et devnnt, aux termes du Traite, autoriser I'extradition. En etl'et. en Aiipleterre, le crime de faux n'est, on realit*'-, «iue datis la fabrication infidele dun document destine a etre co (pi'il n'est jias; co n'est pas la falirication d'un document ilestiue A etre ce (jii'll est. Kn termes autres et plus clairs, un mensonjie par ^crit n'est pas un faux. "Puis le Jupe Drummond rniipelle qu'il a donne I'ordrc d'amener dovant lui le p^titionnaire (I..amirande), et il ajoute : — " ' La rcjionse du jioolier a mon ordonimnce d'habcas corpus fut (|u'il avait rcmis le prisonnicr a Kdme-.Justin Melin, Insjiecleur do Police A Paris, dans la nuit du 1.'4 courant, a minuit, en vortu d'un ordre signe par le Depute SheriH' .sur un document sigiie par >L le Gouverneur General. " ' II parait, dit-il encore, (juc le petitionnaire ainsi Hvre h un agent de police Fran^ais, est maintonant on route pour la France, (|Uoi(pic son extradition fut illogaleinent deniandee, ijuoiqu'il ne fiit accuse d'aucun des crimes pour lesquols il ^iit pu 6tro legalc- mcnt Iivr6 et maljjro (pie jo fusse informe d'uuo maniere certaiue (|uc son KxcoUonco le Gouvcrnour-General avait promis — commc il y ctait tenu par lionneur ot par Justice — do donner au petitionnaire une occasion de faire juger de sa petition par le premier tribimai du pays avant tl'ordonner son extradition.' " D'apres cos imputations dirigees par un Magistrat contro lo (Jouvcrneur du ymys, on pent s'oxpliquer la violence des polomiques dans lesquelles la presse Americaine s'est cngagce. II est vrai que le Magistrat Canadien ajoute que s'il y a une faussc date dans I'arrfit du Gouverneur du Canada, il voit Ik la preuve que la religion du Gouverneur a ^t^ surprise." Compte- Rendu rfi/ Proces Lamirande, tirade la "Gazette des Tribunaux," et du Journal "Le Droit." Justice Ckiminelle. — Cour d' Assises de la Viknne. (Redaction particuli^rc de la " Gazette des Tribunaux.") Presidencc de M. Aubugeois de la Ville du Bost, Conseiller a la Cour Imp^r'ale de Poitiers. Audience du 3 D/cembre. AflFaire Lamirande. — Soustraction Frauduleusc. — Detoumement de 704,000 francs de Caisse de la Succursale de ]» Banque de France a Poitiers. — Faux en Ecriture de Banque. LE nom de Lamirande a, dcpuis quelqu^s mois, acquis une telle notori(5t^ (ju'il suffit de le rappeler pour remettre en m^moire tous les faits qui s'y rattachent. Caissier t\ la succursale dc la Banque dc France de Poitiers, il disparait, laissant dans sa caisse un deficit considerable ; il fuit, il traverse les mers ; il se refugie d'abord en Angleterre, puia en Amerique. Des agents Fran9ais le suivent k la piste, le font arretcr, mais avant qu'il leur soit livr^. des conilits s'elevent entre les diverses autorit^s d'Amerique, d'Angleterrc, et de France sur la question d'extradition, et ce n'est que lecemment qu'ils ont 6t6 videb et que Lamirande a et^ rendu k la justice de son pays. Tel est le sommaire, bien ahrigi, f-»Wpi '12 dcR loiiffK pr^JlirniiiftireH de c»Uc grave affaire, lufli^ qui, cc nous seniblv, doit suffirc, au moineiit on U-n ilelmts hVn)r«;;eiit. |»our la signaler ii raltciition puliliciuc. I'liu loiile ediiiiiltralile se prosse a»x al)ords du Palais de .lu^tiec. dans I'espoir (i'nssistcr 11 I'cs trravi's (l('!iat>. II ne pouvait en etre autr.njeiit dans la ville nii TaeeuHd a ('•U' si lon:;teinps I'onnii, ft oil. en nit'nie temps qu'il avail eonciuis uue po«ili«in touto dc confianee, il avail sii ;:ajrner I't'stinie d'un grand nonibri- de ses luiltitaiiti. Le >i(;;i' till . .iiii^tere Pul)lic c-t (>i'eii])e par M. Uant, preniitfr avoeat geiu'-ral. M. le I'roeureur-Gf'MM'Tal Dauiav assiole a I'audiencc. Me. Luliaud v-t charge de la defense de I^niirandc, (jui a an>si pour avocat Mc. Fx'petit. ancieii bitonnier du barreau do Poitiers. An moment oil I'aecuse est intnKiuit dans le ttalle d'audience. un viiniouvement de curiositi? He inanif"<'sle dans tontes le- parties de I'ttuditoirc ; toutes Its tites se dressent, tfuiM les regards ie clierclunt, et un long temps s'ecoule avaut (jue soil ealnie ee premier 61an de la curioMte ])ubli<|ue. Lamirande, tiont la tournur*- et les manieres annoneent un honime distingue, e.-t de taille moyenne; il a les eheveux bruns, le front haut. le teint pale ; ses traits reguliers annoneent la tinesse et l.i vivaeite. (Jeux des babitant> de Poitiers qui I'ont coiiini. disent avoir de la peine a le reconnaitre, tant ils le trouvont ebange et uniaigri ; cependant il u'cst pas abaitu et i! siniMe n'avoir rien perdu de son tinergie. ApriiH que le jury a pris siege et (|ue I'idcntite de laccus^ a ete eonstatec, lectu e est donnee, par le greffier de la Cour, dc I'arret de renvoi et dc I'aete d'accu^ation ; ce dernier doeument est ainsi eonyu : — " Le lundi. 1- Mars 18t dc its n'yiilicrs iiiinii. (iisent cc'pendant il t('(', U'ctu e I'U-ation ; ce liatKjiu' de 11 iiiiliion en 3 kiuk'niain, destination. lillion t'li or. la cnsuite la ■cteur Haillj, anient, ([u'il rctoiir a!-ficz ju'c'tant forc^ [> f'aiic op(';rcr i temps pour cyiioux, avec ect, puisqu'il lie son nevcu lea plus vives (los cVlO.OOO n les reni])lit les ciiujuante ur camion, mgeries. L^, lent un poids ecteiir en lut Dches, en tira til 200 francs, irent avertis ; i reconnurent lis reoonnu- les en pieces 3 2 francs, et ours Buivants, 2 do 21l),000 s la clef qui ;iment devait er, maiide de ouverture du restait que nineusc pour 98 etre enlcvic. On ciin-tata. dc plus, IVxistcnce de deux sacs jmraissaiit icirp)i> dc pitVe* d'or, et ctiquelcs •jo.itod francs; inais on nc tarda pas a s'lipercevoir ipic Ics rouleaux de pieces d'or aviiicnt etc iiiiipiacct-s. dans Ic fond tics sics, p:ir des ciirtunclu's tU- pii-ces de - fi;iiic> cl lie .On cciitiims, i'!iveloppcc> d'alionl d>- [Kipicr l>ianc ct in>iiilc dc |).ipier bleu, dc iiianiire a avoir un poids parfaitcnicnt c;.mI, .i un ccntiirramnu' pn'-. a cclui il'une sominc dc 2"i.i>ii0 franc> en nioiiiiaie d'or. I'nc vcriiicalion exacle et niiniitieu.se dj-moiilra que le.i dctouriicments opi'res dans In caLsse s'elevaient a la soiiinic ile 4H5,OiM( fiaiic-.. ■' Aiiisi doiii', soit dans la cave, soit dans la caisse, en espoccs nlctalliqlle^ ou billet--, uuc soiiiiiic totale dc 7"l,*""t francs avail I'tc -oustraitt au I'lijuilicc d»' !a liaiif|Ue. ■' IXvaiit ces con>tatatiii!is, aucun iloutc u'ctait possiMe ; la fuite du caissier <5tai1 ia pieiivc di' sa culpabiliie. "II etait d'aillcurs manifesto quo le cais-^ier seul avait ]iu conimctln' cvtt" immense spoliation. |)'uii'' part. Lamirandc avait cxclusivcnieiit la :ri'>ti'in dc la ca'i->i' cMiirante. qui avail cf<' video (lans la iournce dn 12 Mars; d'autie |)ari, iui scul avait pu (qirrcr, soit 1 alteration d'un jjrand nombrc de sacs d'arjrent. soil reidevenicnt des sacs d'tir. II Iui etait facile dc les sou-traire dans la eave, ou il prc->idail aux d< pots et aux envois d« fonils, pendant qu'il s'y trouvait seul, eu protitant de I'absenee du diroeteur et desemployui cliarjurcs du trani]»ort (les sacs. " La fuiu lie liamiraiidc fut tout a coup piecipiiee par I'ordrc iinpr^'vu d'exiK'dicr 600,000 francs a Anfroulcnic, car il dcviiit evidiiit jiour Iui que I'envoi d'uue soiiimc uussi forte, eiitamant l-s reserves en e-speccs d'arfrent (lejio-e'cs dans la cave, devait iicees-saire* ment comiircndre les sacs alteres et amener la dccouverte de Li fraudc. '• Ijamiraiide n'a pas a repondrc seulement dcvanl la justice des soustraetious ciiomics dont il s"e-t rendu coupalile. Scs fonctions de caissier lOltlijjeaient a reniettre cliaque jour a la dirci-tion un bordereau de situation dans le(|uel il certifiait I'etat des diverses caisses do la Itauipic, en indiquant, par raturc de valiurs, les sommes ou les etl'i ts qui s'y trouvaicnt deposes. U a commis une serie quotidienne dc faux, en eiionyant elia(iue jour dans Ic bordereau une situation qui avait cesse d'etre exactc par suite do scs proprcB detournements. Le jour memo de son depart, il remettail encore ii son dirccteur un bordereau de siiuation eertifie et siur objet de recevoir et de constater. " »}. D'avoir nux ni<*mcs «!!poques et au nit-mc lieu fait usage de cos pit'-pcs fausses, saohant (|u'i'llos t'taient fau.-wes. en les reniettant au Dirccteur ale dc la Ranque dc France h Poitiers, pour ctablir la i^ituation de la caissc de eel ctublissemcnt aux jours indi(|U('>s. " Fait au prquct dc la Cour ImpL>rialc de Poitiers, Ic 23 Septcmbrc, 18G6. " L'Avocat-Gen^ral, (Signd) "CAMOIN DE VENCE." Pendant la lecture de Tacle d'accusation, que I'auditoirc a ecoute dans le plus rcligieux silence. Taccuso a parii profondenient emu ; presque constammcnl il a tenu la Wte baissee, appuyee sur unc main, passant frequemment son mouclioir siir son front et Hur ses yeux. Nous devons niontionncr qu'au moment du tirapc du jury. Me. Lachaud, au nom de Laniirande, a deniainle acte de ce que sa pr6sence et celle de I'accuse ji ce tiraije ne derail prfjjudicier en Hen aux conclusions exceptionnelles qu'il Iui plairait poser avant d'engager le deliat au fond. Acte a etc donne de cettc reserve, ot M. ic Pii^idcnt a ordonne que mention en serait faite au plumitif de I'audience. M. le President rappelle ^ I'accuse Ics divers chefs d'accusation relcves centre Iui, au nombre de six soustractions fraudulcuses et faux. Laccusc'! ne fait aucunc observation. Me. Bourbeau, avocat, sc presente, assiste de Me. Pinchot, avoue, qui donne lecture de conclusions tendantes a ce (lue la Banque de France soil adniise a intervenir conime partie civile et a ce qu"il Iui soit donne acte de ses reserves de conclure, dans? le coursdcs uebats, a tels dommages-interets, qu'il Iui plaira fixer. M. le President. — La parole est a M. le Premier Avocat-G<^'neral. Me. Lachaud. — Pardon, M. le President, je dcmandu la paiule pour po.icr li;s con- clusions suivantcs :— Atteiidu (ju'il est de principe que les Cours d'assises sont comi)ctenles pour apprd'cier si I'extradition des accuses a etc reguliere, ou si, au contraire, elle n'a pus ete le resultat de lu traude ou dc la violence ; que ce principe a ete rcconnu par la Cour de Cassation, notamment dans son arret du J) Mai, 1845; En fait: Attcndu que Laniirande, caissicr de la succursale de la Banque de France a Poitiers, renvoye par arret de la chanibrc des miscs en accusation devant la Cour d'Assises dc la Vienne, sous diverses inculpations, s'etait refugie au Canada (possession Anglaise) ; Qu'une demande d'extradition avait (5t6 formee contre Iui, en vertu du Traite passe entre la France et la Grande Bretagne, ^ la date des 18-21 Mars, 1843 ; Que ce Traite, qui indiquc les formes niicessaires a observer dans les deux pays pour arrivcr a I'extradition, porte textuellement, Article ler, § 2, en ce qui concerne la Grande Bretagne : "En cons(5quence, I'extradition ne sera effectuee, de la part du Governement Britanniquc, que sur le rapport d'un juge ou magistral commis h. I'effet d'ontendre le fugitif sur les faits mis ii sa charge par le mandat d'arret ou autre acte judiciarc egale- ment emane d'un juge ou magistral comp, pour rciirciidrc rnuiiioncc 1 1 imnioncTr sji sentence ; Attenilu (]m\ dan-; !n snirre du -4 Aoi'it. avniit In decision du jnpc, (jUi scul arait qunlile piiiir htntiuT liilinitiveuient, dcs agents de pcijice >iiiri'iit >i>*'>; iju'W ri!-sulte encore de ei'ttc deei-ion tiue M. Druniniond a diTlnre n'y avoir lieu ii extradition, par plii-^ieurs motifs con>ii;n('s dans son iu;;einenl. et tires, soit dc la forme dc la (leniande, snit du fond, en ce que les iaits precises ne constitunient pas I'un des crimes pour le'Cinclles rcxlradition pent etre aecordee ; Atleiulu quVn IVtat, la Cour d'Assiscs est appelOe a apprecicr si I'extradition dc Landrande pent etre deolavee le;ra!e ; (^u'li e-t eviiK'iit (|u'el!c ni saurait I't'tre. alors (jue Ic .jn2;c regnlierenicnt saisi par toutes les ])arties. ct qui devait en counailrc detinitivcmcnt, a prononce (pi'il ny avail ])as lieu de i'aceorder; (.^>u'un aeie ilc violence, ilont il est impossible (|uc I'Ansletcrrc nc dcmandc pas compte a ses agents ne saurait prevaloir contre une decision judiciairc et placer la force et la subornation au-dessus du droit ; (^)ue quelles (jue soient les fautcs ct Ic crime dont est accuse Laniirnnde, ce nc pent etre nn motif pour violer, en sa personne, les regies les plus ordinnires du droit ; que Ics Traitis internationaux d'extradition n'ont ]ms pour but dc proliter aux accuses, niais surtout tie repondre aux iiitcrcts les plus elcves des rapports ct dc la liberie dcs nations entre elles ; Atteiuiu qu'on oljjeetcrait vainenicjit que Laniirnnde a ete livre aux agents Fran^nis en vcrtu d'un ordrc sigue le -'^ Aout, ISCiiJ, par le Gouvcrneur de Canada ; (|u"il requite ' 26 «aur«ii'nt critiqucr lii puissance dos mc^urcs r|ii*(in Iciir a ni)i)li(Hi('cs, en dehors do noire tcrritoiro. fVjiiimciil Ii's ^la^istiats I'rniiriis juiioraieiit-il-i di; la K';;aiit,' do ccs artcs ? lis nc le |Miuriaic"il ui uii point de vuc de la loi Fraiirai-c, ni cii appri'ciaiit la loi etranuere. 11 y a i-neorc iiri motif plus saisis-ftnt (|ui rcpoiis e la coniptti'iicc ; Ics mcsure-. prises par I'l'lrai^^cr Tout I'tr sur la dontandc (!ii (inuvirn. nu'iit Fran(;ai>, el il'ailii'urs, los a<'t('.s coui)al)l('s cniniiiis a I'l-trangor Hont i'oui[d(liMni'nt iniHli'.'rLiits, ci ils ('■chappcnt eiiiitrt'- mcnt a imtro appr'Tiation. f-ainiranili' a si biun coniui raclc d'accnsaiioii sur lifiiud ('uiii loiidi'L' I'ordonnaiu'i' de prise de corjjs, ([iic stin Avocat Aini'iicaiii a ('to aecuse d'avuir voli- cetle pii'ce, ct cut ordoniiance lui a rte sij^nifiec sins protestation de sa pait. M. l'Av(icat-( Mineral dcniisndi' ;'i (pii 1 textc (K' loi on jxiiirrait aviiir reeoiirs pour apituyer cette jirrti-iition de i'aire ree.)miuire l/iniirande a la rrontiere. Mainteiiant, nous avons a nous den.ander (|iiels Mint les droits de I'estradi' ; a-t-il Ic tlroil (If dire qw Ton avicde en sa personne les Convention., eonclnes eiitre la Franee et I'Auifleterre ? Ia-s eonclusions le pretendent, mais est-ce quo Textrade a ite partie dans ces Conventions; Tun ou I'autre des (Jouvernements jicut ,«eul rcveiuli(|Uer ees droits. Pour I'extrade, il r^'Jeviont depuis sa rentree sur le tenitoiri', ua simple acense qui doit ttrc ,iuj;e. .M. I'Avocat-f !('•:. I'ral eit ' a I'aiipui Dalloz ("Traite International," page 18-1); un Arret dc Cassation, is.'n' (Morin, pauc jO-*). -Mais si les nctes eoniniis a I'etrangcr sont indiirerents pour la justice Franraiso, il n'en est pas de nienio pour le (iouvernemcnt etranger. Sil y a eu f'raude, violation de territoire, dans I'extradition, il pent on resulter nienie un ra.'-tis brUi. Snp|)osons ((u'un (louvernt'inent t'lranger ait a se plaindre d'un i)areil grief; a (|ui s'adressera-t-il pour le redrosser? A unc Cour d'Assises? Poser eette question, (''<'^t la r<5s()udre. C'esl direelement que le Gou\erneincnt etranger viendra deniauder rep;,; tion au (Jouvernenienl Franc/ais, ct remnniuez (jue e'ost la le seul plaignant (jui puisse Jtre accepte par rinterniuliaire de scs Agents Diploniatiques, I'extradition n'ajant aucunc ospece tie droit. Vons ditcs (p!c le Traite a ete viole; mais, pour c.!.\ i! vous faut interpreter le Traite; les Tribuuaux le peuvcnt-ils ? Voici ce (pie je lis dans Dalloz, " Traitij Internationa','' No. l.^Vi* : — " Ij'interpretation dcs Trait(Vs Diplonuitiques est en dehors dc la competent des Tribunaux soit judiciairos 9oit adniinistratii's," &e. Nous avons u nous deniandcr maintenant cc que fcra leGouvernemont Fran(;'ais saisi d'uno rJelaniation de cetle nature. S'il trouvc les grid's fondes, il viendra tievant la justice et (lira par I'organe dc son Excellence le garde des secaux : — "Cet lioninie, jc I'eideve ii votre juridietion eu vertu du droit des gens, supericur aux droits des parti- culiers," En ed'et, rEnipereur ayant Ic droit de former des Traitesivec les nations i-trangercH, a le droit de faire tout ee (;ui est ni'c.ssairc pour I'exiJeulion de ces Traitcs. 11 y a plus, Iors()n'^ 1. ' .ernement Francais a obtenii une extraditiim, il pcut encore venir dire au Ju • ..i - j'l' ores', -^et accu.-e que sur les faits dc faux, puree (\\XQ c'e.st sur ees faits h-^niv icu. qut j'. > "^'tenu I'extradition. Devant cette iii •.■■'.( lUoii > ui^Jvaieju. la justice s'abstiendra. ]\rais .'!, au lieu ''o t.iiir •■■'. '" •■:^e. le Gouvernenient garde lo silence, si ccs griefs nc lui paraisscnt pas f(Mi(l(' ;, .: j.i '. \ ■ suivra son Cours, no connaissant que les r('gles legales du droit posilif. Les consL-quenccs possibles nc regardent en rien la justice. Nous mettoi'.s eette (^pinion peut-etre un pen hasardeuse, sous I'egide de la doctrine et de la jurisprudence. II s'agissait d'lm individu poursuivi pour faux ct d(!'tourncment dc mineurc (1845) II fut extrade de Toseane seulement pour crime de faux. La Cour de Besaneon appr(5ciu <;u'il n'y avait pas crime de faux, mais au contrairc des presomptions tres graves d'enleve- meut (le niineure. La Cour dit que cet individu ne serait mis sous pri.se de corps que pour enl(jvement dc mincure seulement et quil ne serait juge qu^ par enntumace. Le Procureur-Centiral se pourvut contre cet arret, que la Cour de Cassation blftma dans lea tcrmes que vouz allez voir. (Arret, Cassation 1845.) M. r Avocat- General donnc lecture de cet arret ct des observations de Dalloz : — " La misc en jugement pcut etre une violation du Traits, mais la justice fait son devoir ; ce sont la des questions u debattre de Gouvemement k Gourernemcnt." t'liiurc- (\ltc dix'triiu'. ))OHt-i*lre (in pcu troji jib'iohu', est oomhatUie |>nr donx (ieci^iivtriic- nit'iit »il avDuc ci'tti' inoun-, sil In tifiit jiour n'fr'i litre ; \<>\\a, Mcs-ifiirs, la mmiIc n'srrve a lain-. Voila si Ion nous <|iu>lU' I'st la (li)ctriiu' (]iii so dt'-gnf^o iloh dfiix sfules tli'fiMoiw que lOn puissc nous oppiisor, tons allcz en jujjer : — M. lAvocatCii'iieral donne leeturc du proton »lc rafliiire Dorincmm (Dalloz, " Traits liitornati(»nal,' pajrc ii'j'.'' No vdvoz-voiis j)iis dans oos fnits la confirmation do la dootriiio ([uo nous vous oxpo- HJons lout a i'iu'uro. II est, covtain ([iic. dans cottcoxtradilion, lodonvorneniont Hah rest^ eomplitoniont otraiiirrr. ot cost pour oela (jue la justice intorpcllo Ic (iouvirnoiiiont et lui dcniando s'il nvoiio la nicMiro prise. M. i'.\\oi'al-(!v'iicrai oito un arrrtdo la C'our d'Assizosilo rArir;fodu 17 Fi'vrior. 1845. (Affaire Lnujro.) Me. Larhnud. — f'ost larrtt (juo jinvocpio dans inos conclusions ; il c*\ du {» Mai, 184r>. M. I'Avoc.it-tjioiu nil apros avoir donii:'- loctiiro do cot nrrot on tire los nu'*inos oonse- quenoi's (pie du proc'dont do'-umeiit. Ia' Siour Lnus(', o\-dossorvant, jtoiir'-uivi pour leiitaiivo do vitil, sotait rolutrio dans lo \\\\ d'.\ndorro : il avail i't«' arrete par un jiisre de pai\ Fraiioais. avoo i'autori-alion du Sviidicdo la Hoiuildiquo d'Andoiio. l.aCour {{ovale ordonna un sursis pour savoir si ootte arreslalion olait avoui'o par If' (iouvoriioment (pii ii'y avail pris aucuiie part. J^a Cour do Cassation appreoiant los droits do Siize- rainoto de la J'rance sur le petit tcrritoire iioutie d'Andorre, ju^ea (pie Tarrestation otait legale. *^(i point otabli, si, an lieu de pardor Tinaoiion, lo (jouvoriuinont viont vous dire, c"ost nioi (|ui ai obtcnu ootte oxtradilioii ol (pii on assuino la risponsal)ilil('', la jiistioc doit suivro s'ln oours ot n"a pas a douiandor si U's aotos di' loxtradiiion out ('tt'' eont'ormos aux Traitos, ot clio iii' pout iiirino ailiiiLtlro aiioiin d^'bal siir oo tcrr.-.iii, (pii n'ost jtas le sion. Nons n'avoiis ro(;u auoun niandat jioiir suivro la di'-fonse sur cos fails nomliicux qu'olio nous a ('luinn'rc-s, aiiotio irraudo surprise, ot auxipiols nous no serious sans doute ])as eml)arrass('s de Vv'-pondro, si telle otail iiolro mission ; nmis il y a jciur nous (piclipic ohcso (pii lU'passo tout, cost uiiO prorognllve n'ouvonu'inout'ilo a laqiiollo nous n'avons rien a voir. M. lo preinior Avocatd'i'm'ral domic locturo d(' p'usicurs docuinoiits ollioiels t'talilissant (pie lo (Jouvorncniont rran(|'ais a pris uno part active ot diri'cto ii riiisiaiice on extradition contro Laiiiirando, ot outre autros. iruiio lottro do son I'^X'-elloiuH' le (lardc dos Scoaux. Dans cotte lottro, dit AI. rAvncat-Ck'in'ral, l:i partio drs tails c.>t jnironient <;nioioiiso pour l:i justice ; iiiai^ CO (pi'il I'aut oousidtTcr siirtout c'est raot.' uouvoriiomcntal rovoii(li(piant pour le Gouveriieniont Frau(7ais hi responsabilito de la mesurc d'extnulition vis-a-vis des Ciouvornonionts ('tranfrors. >l()Us aurioiis lini si. 'i r.iiio'.i do cotte lottro, nous nj devious vous Cairo rmiarquor que M. le (Jardo des Seoaux di'-olaiait (juo liaiiiiraiido lu' di vait (tro jiinv' i>ises a un pouvoir discretionnaire; il nceepte eompli'tement nion droit de reelamation. Seulenient, eonunc il prevoit qu'il peut y avoir lieu a certain dehat-i dipIoma(i(iues, il dit qii'en certains eas il pent y avoir lieu i» aecorder un sursis. Enfin, comnie ^1. rausliii ih'lie ne touehe jamais i\ une nialiere sans I'epuiser : il ajoutc que, tout en accordant le droit de reclamation, il fttut que I'exception soit scricuse et de nature a suspendre le jugement du i'ond, •Fe craiiis qu'on nc voie dans liamirandc (|ue le criminel, «|u'un lioninie (jui inspire pcu lie sympatliie. Que I'ait ici le pers()nna;?c ? ouhliez riiommc ; au lieu d'uii crime dc cupidite, (p>e demain vous ayez a juijer un crime de passion, et la these de M. I'Avocat General n'a plus d'ajipui ; que serait-ce done s'il s'ajjissait d'un ])roct^s politique .' Jc nc veux pas insister davn'ifaf,o ; mais, ne louMiez pas, mosieurs : dans cettc aiTatre, tout est grave ; un peuple \oisin. un grand peuple pese en ce moment nos paroles; il faut qu'il les trouvc a la hauteur des respects dont il a I'habitudc d'entourer ees deux grandes hascs dc la soci(5te, la liberte de tous et la loi pour tons. Je j)ersiste dans nies conclusions. Me. Bourbcnu, avocat de la partie civile, declare s'.associcr au niinisterc public ct repousse les conclusions au point do vue de I'annulation de I'extradition et au ponit de vuc du sursis. Me. Lepetit, I'uu des defenscurs de I'accuse, replique, et dans une arciimcntation vivo et prcssee, nppuyt5c de I'opinion de MM. Dalioz et Faustin llelie, et de la doctrine de I'arret de la Cour de Cassation de 184"), soutient que la Cour d'Assiscs est competente pour connattrc de- Texccption de la nullite de I'extradition, non pas en ee sens que la justice aurait le droit de critiqucr les actes diplomatiques, niais en ee sens qu'elle peut examiner si les formes edictees par les conventions Internationales ont ett3 observee, en d'autres termes, s'il y a cu tVaude a la loi. La Cour se retire dans la chambrc du conseil pour deliberer sur rincident. A trois heures et demie, I'audience est rejjrise. M. le President prononce I'arret, ainsi con(;a : — " Attcndu que par un arret de la Cour imperiale do Poitiers, chambrc des misos en accusation, en date du 2!)Mail8G6, le Sieur Surreau, dit Laniirande, aolo renvoye devant la Cour d'Assises dc la Vienne, sous la triple accusation de vols qualiKes, abas dc contiauce qualifies, et faux en ecriturc dc commerce ou de banquo ; " Attcndu, qu'cn consequence dudit arret, il a et^' redige par le procurcur general un acte d'accusation en date du 23 Septembre 18G(5; " Attenduci^ue ces deux pieces ont ete sig nifi^'cs a I'accuse par exploit du 24 Septembre, et que Ic 24 du meme mois le dit accuse a etc interroge par le President des Assises. conformement aux Articles 29'\ 204, 29 j et 29G du Code d'instruction criminelle ; " Attcndu. des lors, que I'affaire se trouve en I'otat et quelle a ete reguliercment portee au role de la presentc session ; " Attcndu, n(5anmoins, que, par des conclusions posees a raudience, les defenscurs de Lamirande ont demande h la Cour de pronoiicerla nullite de I'extradition dont I'accuse a ete I'objet, et, tres-subsidiairenient dc surseoir au jugement de la cause jusqu'a ce qu'il ait «.He statue par qui il appartiendra sur la validite de cette extradition ; " Attcndu, en fait, qu'il r(5sulte des documents de la cause et, notammcnt de la depeche minist^riellc du 25 Novembre 1S6G, que, sur la demande du Gouvernement Frangais, Lamirande, jilace dans les liens d'un arret de mise en accusation, comprenant des fiiits de faux en ecriture de commerce ou dc banque, aete rcmis parle Gouvernement du Canada, ou il s'etait refugie, Ji la disposition de I'autorite Fran^aise ; " Attendu que, ti la suite de cet acte dcxtradition, le Gouvernement Imperial a lui-meme remis cet accuse entre les mains de la justice, pour qu'il eiit a repondre devant la juridiction competente des crimes de faux en ecritures de commerce ou de banque qui ont motive son extradition ; M 3: " Attendu, en droit, quo los Trait«''s d'cxtmJition sont dcs nctcs do haute ndministrntion intervcnus cntro «leux puissaiu'cs, dans un iiitt'-iiH (;i-iural do nmralite ft de si-curitt' socialc ; que les fornifs i-t los conditions on Kont nj^lt'c-i. non nu profit ilos accuses, qui no IK'Uvenl, par leur fuito a I'l'tranRor, so crior mi privihjjo contro la ,iu>tico (lo lour pavo, inni.s au point do vuo dos nooossitos iutornationalos ou dos convenances rtoiproqucH di'» Gouvornonionts ; " Attoiitlu (pic lo i)rincipe londamcntal do la Ki'-paratiou dos pouvoirs s'opposc ik cc uo la justice I'ranruise piiis^o s'imniiscer dans I'iiitorpretation et lappiication des actcs u (iouvernonienl cpii li\ront iosuccusos ii sa Jurisdiction ; " Attendu ([Uo, par le fait nu'nio do la ronnso d'un accuse a sos jupos nnturols, Jo Oouvcrnemcut Imperial consacro la n'uiularito do son oxtradilion, et quo cotto decision, qui rcntrc dans la tonipetencc exclusive du pouvoir cxecutif, ne pout etrc I'ohjet d'aucun recours ; 'Par CCS motifs, la Cour rejotto los conclusions tant principalos (pjo snbsidiaircs fonnulees par la defense do l.atnirando, et ordoniio (pi'il soit passe outre aux deltats." M. le I'rr'sidciit : Accuse, vous avez onlondu ; vous jtouvez nc repondre tpio sur les faits relatifs aux crimes de faux. Ktes-vous dispose a repondre t\ toutes les autres charges consif^neos dans Tacti- d'aceusiition ? Lumirandi': Jo >uis piet a n'ljondre sur tons los faits. 3/e. Ltichnud ■ Je no puis laissor onjjnger mon client sur ce terrain. .lo soutions que la Icttre du (Jardo dcs Sceaux n'a pu faire renvoyor F^amirando devant los assises (pie pour crime do faux. II ne pout appartenirii personno, pas plushM. le Garde dos Sceaux (ju'il tout autre, de violer la loi. M. le l*resident : Cost pour cola que j'ai (-onsultt- Ijainirando, lui laissant toute sa libertt- d'agir. Me. Lnchnud : Jc pcrsisto dans ma protestation, M. le Pr(5sident, et, s'il le faut, je poserai des conclusions In's concises pour la bien d('terminor. lianiirando ne comprend pas les e()ns(jquenccs de son accjiiiesconient ; il appartient ii ses dt-fenseurs do les lui faire conii)rendre. Je ne domando qu'une suspension de cinq A six minutes pour rtdiger mes conclusions. Ml: Lepetit : Je m'associo conipl(;temont aux observations de ^le. Lachaud, et je mc joins i\ lui pour dcmander le temps decrire nos conclusions. Apres (|uelqucs minutes do suspension, Taudience est reprise. 3/. le Pre'nident : Accus(} Lamiiande. jo vous rt^pote ce (|uc jo vous ai d('ja demands : consentcz-vous a Otro jui^d- sur tons les chefs de Paccusation dirigtjc contro vous ? Lamirande : Je n'ai ni a conseiiur ni u ne pas consentir. Me. Lachaud : \ oiei les conclusions que je prends au nom dc Lamirande :^ " Attendu que liaminindo est renvoye devant la Cour d'Assiscs de la Vienno, sous la triple accusation dc detourncmcnts, de vols (luulitiC'S et de faux en eeriture de commerce ou de baiKpio ; " Quo I'arret lui a (!'ttj signifie et qu'il comparait devant le jury sous cctte triple accusation ; " Attendu qu'il nc sanrait etrc au pouvoir do personne de divisor ou de supprimcr unc partic dc cos divers cliels d'accusation ; " Que Lamirande n'a pas A consentir ou a nc pas consentir 4 etrc jug(!' sur les crimes relev(5s contrc lui, d'abus de conlianco et dc vols qualifi(}s, mais qu'il a int<"ret u ce que le jury soit appole a vidcr toute I'accusation; " Que s'il est viai, commo vient de le d(5cider la Cour, que les TraitiC-s d'extradition ne peuvcnt jamais etrc intcrprotcs par les tribunaux, il n'cst pas acceptable (juo, devant la justice .saisie r^gulierement, on puisse, a Icur sujct, modifier unc accusation ; " Attendu que la Icttre do ^I. le Garde des Sceaux ne rcnferme que des instructions donn(5cs k M. le Procureur-GL-nt'ral et ne saurait en aucune maniere emiiecher l'ex«5cution i\'\in arret de la Chambre dcs Miscs on Accusation ; '• Par cos motifs, diie quo tons les chefs d'accusation scront soumis au jury." Me. Lachaud, apros avoir hi ccs conclusions, dcmande a les dcivelopper. M. le President : JI. rAvocat-G(;neral a peut-etre aussi des requisitions a prendre. A/, le Premier Avorat-Gc'nc'ral : En ofl'ct, nous requ(irons qu'il plaise a la Cour disjoindre les faits relatifs aux soustractions fraudulcuses et aux d(;tournements, et ordonner que Lamirande no sera juge que sur les faits relatifs aux faux. Apres que Me. Lachaud a d(ivelopp(j ses conclnsions et que M. le Premier Avocat- Gen(5ral a soutenu ses r(3quisitions, la Cour d(5libere da nouveau et rend un second arret qui repousse les conclusions de la defense et fait droit aux requisitions du Ministere Public. M. le President : Ici, Messieurs les jur('s, voire rdlc va commenccr : jusqu'i^ present ih 80 ro'im n'RYCT ]>iim ru k voim pr^>crnjicr dt-s dircrn iiicidcrils (|iii oiif siirjri dniis l«'s d imts ; il ii|>|iiirU'iiiiil •■xclusivcinciil it la ('our lien coniiiiiui' it dc Ics appn Cicr. Miiiiiloniint, Mi'MMi'iirs. c'ot u voUK di' litVidfr sur In ^uilc dc t-cs di'-lmts, on vous rn|»;)t'liiiit i|ue, i'<»lil'i»riiii'MruMil a rurri'f <|iu' vicnt de icudri' hi < our, voit^ ii'iivcz a ii|i))rt'i'it'r ot a jii^jrr qui- li'H i'liarif«'K t xfhiNivciiuiit rolativos au\ criiiH- dc l.uix oin'cTiturt's du iMimiu'rce ou dr Imiitjiic ; tMiiic- Ics iiiitit's t'tfinf ('cnrtrTS jmr rnrnt. La fMirdlc CHt doiiiK'i; an Minist(>ri> I'uldic. M. /<• I'rniiier Avoriit'dnU-ral : Mc^^ieii's li-s jun' •. la ffriivitt' do cetto nffiiirc. Ics iirc<)n>l.in('cs iioii inoiiis i.'rav.s cjui s'y rattachont, ni'()blij;(.nt il invudro la paroK' pour yous vn })n si'iilt r i'oxposi;. Ii«iiiirnndf avail t'lo rcnvoyi^ dovniit votis jioiiv icpandro dc six chots dislinotK d'licou- Katioii : niui'*. cDinnit' M. le Pn'-iidcnt viciil dc vdii.-t IcvpliiiiuT. ct ccia en contorniiti' dc I'arrt't (juc la Cimr vicnt dc icntlrc, nous n'luniz a ciiiiniiilrc (pic dcs cliiU';;os (]ui kc nittaclicnt mix I'aux. ('ci)endant, vous Ic C(ini|ircncx, Iiiin (pic vons nc sovcz paH nppclcs u statucr Miir rcnseniMe den olinrffcs priniilivcs dc riic'cusati, Lainirande fill dioisi IMUir en Iciiir l;i r:us-p])ant, ics tail-i indicpi.'s par I'lictc ])our t done dans son bureau qucJjainimnde enlevaitL'OO francs sur le sac de 1.00(» i'ranes, on ]irenant soin de iJiinimicr la dimension iles sacs; puis, (piand cos sacs etaient de-cendus a fi cave, que les portL'> en etaicnl fcrnu'e ;. il (k'veuait inipossil)le de dcviner de (luelic main t'lait partie la fraude. amirandc avail f\f2. Noii, j'avai-< uni' ilc cos t-lcf- ; K- I'iiiu tnir mail raiitn-. /). A (|iiill(' i-iioijin' ;i\iz-\<)u. comnu'iicc ii jrcmlii' tics I'undH iliiiis U-s Mrrts (la Ciivi') ? — /'. .If (Tdis (jin' (•'••r.l ail ((iiiimi'iici'inciii ilr l>tij. J), II V a III all^^i tli'^ iUtduriii'iiifiits ilaiis la nii^hc coiiraiitc ; a (jtn-iio i'|)o';ni' lis nvc/. voiis i-uiiiniiiic's,' — /'. Li- TJ Mars, isii.'i, ct j'ui I'dntimif ili|iiiis; iimin .i'<»-'i"'TaiH fimiipiirs rciM|i!iU'cr los i:iis d'or (If la raissc couraiito, [wr iK •- .sac* d'argi'iit (iiio i'..arai«4 tail iinritT a la I'avf. /). Mai^ riMiii)la'!'r. cc ii'i'tait pis rcstitiuT ?—>/?. .Ic Ic ^ais ; j,> n i-sji, rais \);u ri'stilucr ; ll.ai^ jc v.i'.i! i: . ivtanlcr lo phi-* |iit>silil,. h. imnmMit "ii Je pniirrais itvc (I'liuivcrt, I't c'o^l piitirqiioi jo c'KTohais tiniimiis a ivilir lo dfticii dans |;i cais-i.' iv.uruiili', pouvail d'mi jimr a I'autro ("Ire vcritli'T ; taiidis (|Ui' if dt'tii'it h'cn" taut (|iii' uv.u urn fspj'ccs drjiiLrc's a la i-avf, jf po'.ivais o.spi'riT (pu' ma tVamli' a.irait im iIiiit;- tiiiiu Ue- mcMit. I) Oil a rt'iiianpti' (pu- K's sacs alleles «Ic la cave ctaiciit places mhis Ks :iali\'s. (VIn c.>t si vrai, (lu'on a (nuive dos sacs dmit la tidlo etait poiiirio, co qui fait ^-upp •tr (pi'ils y etaicnt depiiis liiiii;teiMps .' — 1{. .le n'avais ]ias pris celte prtcaiilii>u ; h-s ,iu's poiirris peiiveiit Tavoir eU- en pen de temps, par -,nite de la tempir.iliire lie la cavi*. /). Iviiiii. vtins re<''aMiai..sez (pi- (lei»uis frois ans on tiois ans et deiiii. \iuis prciiir;*. dans los n'-erves de lu m rre, el ipic dejiuis Mars isn."; vons avez praliipi'- an-si des de(<»nrncnioii(s dans la caii-se C'lurante? — Ii. .le le reconnais. /). I'oiir les ronleaiix d'or, voiis pratitpiicz ainsi: vons hrisicz nn rimleaii, vraw en onlcvic/: plusiciirs pieces d'or, et vons nniijlacii'z le jxjids do ees pieces i)ar dn paiiier. I)c cette siirte. si I'on cut pese jes rouleaux sans les onvrir, on eiit Ironve le poids, a im ceiilijirainme pres. Cela inditpie uiie ;j;raiide liaMtnde. ('omlden vons iailait-il de tomjis pour all^Tcr aiusi un sac d'or conlenaiit l'O,0O0 francs t — R. A pou prrs di\ minutes. /). Cela pnrait imi)ossible ; vous avcz du y consacrer plus dc temps ? — II. Si j'y mc'ltais plus de dix minutes, je n'y mettais pas un ,000 i'rancs paur rC'scrvo dans le cas oil j'aurais plaido I'cxtradition, ou me los rondre ; ils ont rendu L'5,000 francs, et lo rcste est dcmeuro entre lours mains. D. Qu'avez-vous fait du restc dos sommes emportocs ? — R. J'ai donnij 10,000 francs h dos feninios ; j'ai dissipe, j'ai joue, j'ai pay*' dos dettes consid(irables. D. Qui vous a \o\6 s" — -lo no puis pas lo dire ; pour arriver aux voleurs, il faudrait traverser dos innocents. D Pourquoi jouer, puisquo vous avioz ii votre disposition des sommes consi- derables?— K. On savait que jo netais pas riche; je dopensais boaucoup; j'ai jou(} pour fairo croire que je gagnais beaucoup et quo jc trouvais dans le gain du jou do quoi satisfairo u mes depenses. D. Vous ditcs que vous avoz payti vos dettes, et cependant elles sont loin d'etre <5telntes. — R. Cola est vrai ; niais si j'ai encore des dettes pour environ 30,000 francs, j'en ai payt' pour des sommes bion plus considerables. D. Pour couvrir vos detourncments, reconnaissez-vous avoir, depuis pros de trois ans, fait des bordereaux de situation dc caisse inexacts ? — R. Les bordereaux ne sont pas inexacts. Cos bordereaux devaiont servir plut6t h me perdre qu a ddguiser la verite. D, Jc le sais; ce n'est pas la la question que je vous adresse. Je vous demande si, sn 32 Rur le VII ilo p<*« hordorpniix. on pniivftit Hftii|v;oniicr If •li'-firit dos rais^ps? — R, Non, siinii doutc ; niiiis la hitiiulion inili(|Ui:e iIiuih iiu-s iMiniiTi'aiu M-rnit oxnctc m'H no mnnijiiait rion dan^ lo<4 rniHS(><« I'mir nioi, Ic crinif a commence aux (If'-tuurnomontv mam iion quand j'ai fait imps iMinlprcaiix dp sitiiaJion. J). mnii.i iin fans ni pn «''iTi(un' df prtmnuTPP. iii pm I'pritiirf iIp Iiuikjup. I). ('p«t la une diNCUHMon de droit qiiil laut laiMscr a vo-t dt'fenMi-urs. Appplez iin tPMKiin. Me. Litrhrind. — Panlfin, M. Ip IVsidpnt. Voulpz-voim niP pcnncttrp un mot f M. Ir I'r/Miitrnl. — .Ip up crois pas (|iu' pp suit Ii- nionu'iit. llnitr*' Lapliaud. Me. Lachaiid. — .rinsiitp, M. Ip l'n»idpiit, jp dois insistpr. I'e qiip j'ai dirp est trps- gravp. M le Pir'sidenl.—Yiitro plipiit a rti- interrojip Hur un fait aiKpicl il n'a pas voulii rt'pondrp. Nous np |W)uvoiis pprinpttro a son avopat »Ip rt'iioiidrp pour liti. Me. l.iirhiiHil. — '\i' up vi'iix pas me pliari,'pr dp ri'iimidri' |iour lui, C'p que j'ni h dire no ppul iiiiirp ni a lui ni a porsonrip. .I'ai la UO.'.'UO iVaups (Maitrp liaphami pose dpvant lui un iia(|Uit dans unp Piivploppp dp pnpior). Jp veux Ips domicr, Jp Ips donnp, pt en attendant quils arrivcnt h Ipur dpstination a titrp de restitution, Jp Ips dppnse entrc lea mains do .Nlaitre llourhcau, avoeat dc la partic civilp. (A]iplaudi.ssi'incnts dans Ip fund dc la Hallp). Mf. Rourlii-iiii. — .le n'ai pas qualitp pour Ips reppvoir. II faut Ics rcmettrc plutot cntre li's mains dp M. le Dirpptpur dp la ibn(|up, qui pn donncra rp(;u. .\fc. l.nchituil. — II n'pst pas lipsoiu de rpru. (M. Ip Dirpctpur dp la Hantiue ouvre le pa(]UPt ct appcptp les billets de banquc qui y Bont rpnfprnu's.i M. Ir Pre'sidrnl, a hamirande. — II inaiiqup encore environ 120,000 francs. Qu'avcz- Tous fait tie pptte somnic '{ Ijiinn-itudf. — .Ic no puis quo ropptor pc ([ue j'ai dpja dit : jo no puis pas le dire. Mr. Larhaitd. .Fo dois ajoutpr (iuoi(|UPs mots j)our pxpii(|upr eetto restitution dc llO,20i» i'ranps. On nous a dit un mot, A Maiire fippolit et ii moi. Nous avons couru au-devant tlu vol ; on a chcrphe partout, mi?inc sur los toits. Nous avons domandu h Lamirando s'il voulnit nous nomnipr la personno Ji lariuellp il avait contie pette sommc : " Non ! non !" n-t-il dit, '* plutot la mort. C'ette personnc a (5te voice ellc-ineme, je no vcux pas (lu'olle soit eonipromise," Alor* nous nous sonnnes attaclips a pptte mission, et nous avons rctrouvc cos 110,200 francs que jo vicns do donnor. .rajoute que Lamirando n'a jamais eu cettc Aomme on sa possession pt (pie, s'il nous 1*.-' t iljinnii.iJo. nous nc la luiaurions pas donnec. (Mouvcment dans rauditoirc.) A/, le Pre'isident. — Appclez un temoin. Audition dcs Te'moins, Le premier temoin entendu est M. Dubois dc Jancigny, Inspccteur dc la Banquc de France, pclui qui a accoinpagne I'ouvricr mecanicion ai)pele A Poitiers pour ouvrir le eouipartiment supcricur de la caissu courantc, dont Lamirnnde avait cmporto la clef. Ce temoin confirmc tous Ics details donncs dans I'actc d'accusation sur lea contesta- tions du detieit trouve a la suite du d^'part de Lamirande. M. le Pre'nident. — Le bordereau quotidicn de la situation de la caissc est-il unc pidcc obligatoirc pour lo caissier ? Le le'inoin. — Tout ee qu'il y a de plus obligatoirc; c'est sur le vu de ces bordereaux dcs supcursalos que la Banquc de France fixe le taux de resconipte. Le double de ce bordereau est cousignc dans un livre de la succursale. Me. Lachaud. — Les instructions de la Banque sont-elles les memes pour toutcs les succursalcs, pour rctablissemcnt en double dc la situation quotidienne ? Le le'inoin. — Les monies, depuis trois ou quatrc ans, je crois ; avant la transcription du bordereau sur un livre reli6 n'etait pas obligatoirc, quoique dans plusieurs succursales les directcurs rcxigeasscnt. 3/. le Pre'mlent, au temoin. — II est rcconnu, par les aveux de Lamirande, que vos previsions etaient exactes, en ce sens que les premiers detourncments remontaient d plus de trois ans. Maintenant, dites-nous s'il a pu consommer ces d^toumementa sans passer dc fausses ^critures. Le teniotn.— C'^tait one consequence nucessaire des detournements ; sans les » ait rivn la** mon niniit un Appclcr. t? est tri'8- as vouhi "ni i^ (lire *c 4U!vnnt ni', I't en entrc Ico e fond do trc pintot iquc qui y Qu'ftvcz- dire. itution do k'ous eourii ikMnaude ^ te somme: imc, ,jc nc Irouve CCS eu ccttc aa donnec. Banque de )our ouvrir emporte la ;s contesta- 1 unc pidcc bordereaux Dublc dc ce ir toutcs lea ranscription succuraales dc, que vos aient h. plus sans passer : sans les cuKsier <|iii fii II uiie luitre. P)»t-('»' pns piir Miitc de ectti' n'spntimiMlitt'' divist'c (|iii' I'iiiirifn dircrtiMir, hordrrcaia f»UH»eN, on se sernit a|»cr(,'n lotit de suite dun detordre dan* In eni'*«e ; on t'l^f controls, on eut diVouu-rt la frnude, et l. Iionlert'iiiix dc «itinili<>n.' inin de t'liciliter noH detouriienienls, en roiiilnienl In dei'itiiverti' plii-> fmile, cnr. iiimiti-t-il, tii rap|ir(iehiint le» l»orderea\i\ tie I'etnt dc In eniHsc. on piunnit ««• reiulri' (•on\iitr ; un siinplf pexaye suHiH4iit. — W. Ce niisonnenient serait in>«teHionavnil eu de* soupi nns : tnai>. les liorderenux maMi|uant le dftieit nc pouvnimt qu'aider a In t'rnndc. />. lianiiramlc a*one les dt'tourncnu'iit-. eela sc continiinl, il ii'i".i pn* poursuivi sur oes clicts. nulls il nic Us 1imi\ pour Icxiuds il c-t poiirsuixi; on cunipicr'd ^i tacticiue. — • Ii. Dans mon opinion, K's ilcux liiits. cclni dc ih tonriu'ni'iit it nlui lir l.tiis. nc pcuvcnt se scpnrcr; Inn est venn en aide a I'antre. /). Kxpliqucz-nous <|n<"lle est In rcs|M)nsal»ilitf dii ciii-.,icr ct i|U!iiit i\ \^ /. M. Hoilhi. — Messieurs les jnrcs, ill Mars dernier, j'ni rccu I'ordre dc In nanipn' de Franee de faire des envois a la sneenrsale dWnfjoult'nK', I'un dc l.dOO.nOt), rautre de flOtt.OOO francs. lie jour nu-nie ji- prcvins Lamirande, mon enissier, tic faire pour lo lendemnin IL', I'envoi »le I.OOO.OOO francs, ct dc ])rcpnrer. jMUir le Mardi l:l, eelni dc .'iOO.OOO francs. (Vs ordres donm's, nous arrivons an .Mardi l.'K oii dans la matinee je reeois une lettre de M. I^andiande, qui me previent qn'il a et(' oldiifc d'aller subitcnient ;\ ('hatcllernnit, laissant ses elefs a M. Qnevrianx. elief de eomptaliilitc, ct le soin d'ojx'rer I'envoi h An;ardi\t d'indiquer de prendre les saes altores. II nurait fallu avoir des souptjons sur lui pour contrecarrer ses indications. M. le Pre'sidenl. — .Accuse, (pi'avez-vous a dire sur cettc deposition ? Lamirande. — Uien, Monsieur le President, que dc temoigner d M. Bnilly mon j)rofond regret dcs consequences que ma eonduite a cues pour lui. D. Ces regrets Hont venus bien tardivcment. Le 1'3 .Mars, alors (pie vous avez si bicn pr^pnre votre fuitc, en emportant de votrc eaisse plus de 400,000 francs, vous n'avez ims song«i ;\ la rcspon.sabilitd- tpii allait tombcr sur lui. — 7^. .ie n'ni |)as |)VL'pan'' ma fuitc ; je I'ai subic nvec nt/eessitt' ; il fallnit me tucr ou fair. . D. Mais pas avee 400,000? — R. .Ic pouvais ])rendrc o,(tOO,00(l. (Mouvcmcnt dans I'nuditoirc.) D. Ainsi, il faut loner votre discr(itifm ? — R. .le no clicrciie pas de louanges. inais je [G8] F 94 v«m dire que, dans rtxtrCnie n''ces.sit(;' oii je rnc trourais, ie no pouvais partir les mains vidcs ; mail (\ni- >-i j 'avals rir nn volour, jaiiriiiiH jirin tout cc (|Uf je poiivais prendre. .M. Huilly cfuitirinc i|U(' Ic- t'aiix ImnliTii.nx ;i coiitiaiicc t-i vt-nir n\ aide a la niiitinuatioii ilc- ilt tourin'mciit-i. 3/. (Ir (irttry, tivsurnr jidi/iur ijnwriil u I'oitirrs — .if siiis rcccvcur df la Vicnno dcpuis 18(!.j I't I'l-nscur do la succursale dc I'oitii-i-*. ("eht vu cctto di-niirTc qmilit(^ quo j'tti cu occasion d'avoir (lucliiucs V. lation> avcc lianiirandc. .Ic nc connnis ni sa ja-rsonnc ni SOS antecedents. Lo i;$ Miifs dernier, je tus appelc a la succursnle \)nr M. le Direrteur. lii on nt'appril, (|u'a propos d'lui envoi (i':ir;:eiii a Annoulcnie. dc .">tni,(H)(» IVancs, on nvait roconnu (jirun ;;raii(l nonilire de sacs ne coutenaient jias les S(tnnnes f|u'ils devaient contcuir, et qui; Ic caissier Lainirande av.iit ecrit Ie niatm au directcur (pi'il etait parti suliiteinent pour Chatellerault et avail laisse les clef's de sa eaisse a M. Qr 'sriaux, cliefde eoniptahilile, en Ie priaiit de I'airi- i'en>"i des ")OU.(i»h» francs ."i An^:onli le. .renp:aj^cai aussitol M. le Dirccti-nr liaillv a alter lain- sa declaration a .M. Ic I'rocuieur Imperial, on je raeconipa!;nai. On adressa a.issi unc di'peehc a la Mancjue pour envover ini inspccfour et un ouvrier pour ouvrir le compart iinent superieur dc lu cais.se eourantc dont liumirande avail emporte la clef. T.iC reste de la (lejiositinii de ee li''miiin ne rcpo->o (pie sur des t'aits deja counus. .M. I.anil)ert. .\dniiiiistialeur de la s\iecursale, a Poitiers, ancion mugistrat, est appcle ;i la harrc. .V. le Pivikk).l. — Deja plusieurs l(hnoins out depose des i'aits a propos dosquols vous (tes appele a t'aire votre declaration. Nous vous en<;a!ieons a la resumor en aussi pen de mots qu'il vous sera possilile. Al. Lainberl. en cU'et. ne tail i|U'j contirmer ci' qui a etc dit par les j)reecdunts temoins, taut sur le niecani-me tie la eomjttabilite de la succursnle, du niouvement des fond.s, que sur la rcsponsaliilite inconiiiant au caissier et sur les circonstancos qui ont Jimcne la decouverte des Iraudes. .V. Ir Presiili'Hf. — I'ltes-vous dcpuis lonylemps admin intra tour de la succursalc ? Lr le'inoin.— De]iuis sa creation, MoiL-ieur le I'residcnt. M. lr Pn'.-irliiil. — .Vvc/.-vous fait (piehpiefois des verifications do la eaisse ? Lr ti'iiiiiiit. — .laniais, M, le I'resident. excepte cello faite le \'^^ Mars, ii laquoUo j'ai i'te appele apres la fuito de Laniiraiiile. D. En quo! consistent les fonctions d'administratour ? — li. Uniquement a s'assurer de la solvabilite des persoiiiies ([ui ])resentcnt des elfets a roscompte. M. Queyriaux, ancion chef de I'omptabilite de la suocursalo, banquior a Poitiers, est appolo. M. le Prhideiit. — Vous etcs appcle dovant nous, monsieur, pour nous donner des details sur la c()in])tabil;tc de la suocursalo. M. Queyi-ianx. aiues avoir rai)pele les faits (pii ont pr(5code et suivi la fuito de Lamirande, ajoute : Kelaiivenient a la couiptabilite voici cc qui so passait : M. Lamirande comnie caissier, me donnait les pieces ; j'en passais les ecritures sur mos livros, et le soir je oontrolais mon s laqucllc j'ai a s'assurer Poitiers, est donner des la fuitc de Lamirande, es, et le soir deux soldes vec le voire, mpl^tcment ; j'ai eiitcndu it beaucoup. igers ? ngouldme, je Mueoup joue » ete charg^ C'est lui qui, 11 contirme Le nieur Snrrauh. {rar(;'on de (•ai'*s<' h l« «.ui>iir; [mpicrs ' Lamirinidr. — J'avais nnt'aiiti des reciis d'arireiit que j nvai^ iirete. .\/. le I'lr'.^irlfnt. — .Ti' lie efini])rciids pus; liniler des rei;u- d'arirent pret^' ? Loiiilrandr. — d'avais perdu c()ni])!('ti'in(til la teti-. M. le Prisidrnt. — Pas trop: tons les preiiaralii's que mmis avez t'aits jiour voire fuitc prouvent le contraire. Liiwirniiilp. — .ie declare ([Ui' j'avais la l'''te perdue: tome ma conduite. apres m» fuite, la Men ])ripnv('. Lu parole est donnee a Me. IJoiirlieau, avncai de im IVrvnie de Franco, partie civile. Me. linurhcdii. — de vien^ devaut vou-. pmir la Maii(|iie de France, defendre de giandH interets. dcs inlerets nioraux et des intiTi-ts nuit''riels, auxqneU. pour ces derniers, il a ete donne un coniinen.'einent tie reparation. C"est une dc'ploralile liistoire iiiie celle de l.ninirande ; en lui vnus n'avez jias .'i punir un ecart. un nionieiit d'ouliH, ni lis une lun^ui' ~iiite de nn't'.iits, une ))ersev(''rancf dans le mal qu'on pourrait diri' inexoralile. <'1kz iiii. aiiciui renioiil-, .nncun ('clat de !u conscience pour larreter ; en Irois ainues il a dii.-ipidi' Jjii.tinii I'rancs. el eela par des inaiuruvres journalieres. II K's exiilique, coninient .' par la pa.s^ion dn Jen. I.e jeu n'est pas une excuse, il ne pent etre qn'iine < Npliealiin). In i( ur airive uu jl lu' ])eiil plus eontinucr ses detourneinenls, ct il fiiit. sans ])eiiser (juil lais-ail derrierc lui des t'ainilles desolees, celle de son niallieureux direetenr et la sienne. 11 part ; ce nesl pas anx sjens (ju'il va faire SOS adioux. niais il va les adrcsser k deux feuinies de celle vilie, stir lesquelles il fait tomber la pluie di- Danae. Snivons-le un nionienl : il ie deiix mots, inaitre Pourheau, venillez passer. .\fe. Boiirlieaii . Eh bien, ne jiarlons pas de rcxlradition ; ne parlous pas non plus des vols, des soustriclions fiaudulouses, des ilelourncinenls, el puis(|ii'il ne pent desorinais 6trc poursuivi que pour des faux en eeritiires de comnierce ou de banquc, discutons lu que.stion do faux. Co crime ost-il doutoux apres les e.xidications qui snnt lo r«?sultat des debats ? Nous n'hesitons pas a declarer quo, pour nous, il no saurait faire romiire d'un doutc. II a fait de faux etats de la situation de sa caisse; cola est constate, il Tavonc. Dans quo! but? dans un soul but, celui de cberclior une ])rotection do scs detournemenls, dans I'alteration de ses ecriluros. Ainsi. quand il annoneait par ses ecriturcs la presence do tant de .sacs de 1,000 francs, alors qu"iin grand nonii)re de ces sacs ne conleiiaient ebacun quo 800 francs, no coninieltait-il pas un faux ? \'oyoz-lo dans son Imreau, soil jirelcver 2M francs 8ur des sacs do 1,000 francs, soil transronner des rouleaux d'or en rouleaux d'argont, et faire transportor tontcs cos valours dans les caves, voila lo vol, vfiila le dotournement ; mais apres, quo faitril ? U proud la plume el nnntionne siir son livro do caisse et sur ses bordereaux de situation des sommos (pii n'existent plus, |)uis(|u'il les a detournoos. Et eela ne s'appollorail pas un faux, et jiourquoi ? osl co que la Hanque do France n'est pas une sociote eommorcialc ? ost-ce qu'eile no fail pas le commerce des valours d'or et d'argont ? Fst-cc que Lamirande n'elail pas le coinmis dune sociele eommerciale ? A toutes ce* questions, , v no pout repondre (jue jjftr raf^irmalive, Non, il ne pent pas etre dit que pendant trois ans un caissier aura pu eerire un eiicaisso monsonger et en d<5ficjt, et qu'il ne sera pas un faussaire. Voyez quelles ont I'ti' les conscuiuonces de ces faux. A I'aido de ces faux, il a pu faire passer de la cais.«e eouranto, dont il avail soul la resj)onsabilito, dans la caisse de la reserve, dont la rcsponsabililo etait partagee avee lui ])ar li,' direclour, un chiHre de plus de 200,000 francs; ot voila comment Ikl. Pailly, i'lionnele directeur. deineure moralement responsablo do celle sommo iju'il n'a jamais rf>r;uo. Entrant dans la question do droit. I'avocat cile un arret de cassation de 1841, qui proclamo quo les mentions fausses faites par un coininis sur dos livros dv comnierce consti- tuent un faux en ecriture de comnierce. Dans rospece citeo, il s'agissait d'un commis qui, sur les livres de sou patron, avait porte conime vendues des marclmndises qu'il avait F 2 3f> diTolK-t'H. La C'our do Cahsation a ilwitlr qiict-i'ln const itunit iiii faux, j»ar cette considt- ration (|ue les meiitioii.s fausso farhaiontlavrritf. it, iK- plus, |»iiuvnii'iil iutluire on errour If nc;;(MMant sur .s4i vcritalile iiositiim i-onuiuTi-iali'. L)ans cotto ciroonstanoo, conimt' dans rt'lle oil nous |»la<'f If diliat, If faux est un niovfU de pmtf^icr un vol oomniis ou a L'oninicttrf. .Ini fait niii dcnioii-^tratiou, mfssicurs, ct j";ii iiKHihi' les |)i»-Judicfs «|Uf |i(UVt'Ut caUMcr U's lausSfs tcritiiifs fu iuatifri' df ctMuiiifiVi.'. L.iniiraiidf flait uu volour. il fallail nfCfssaircnifiit (|u'il dfviiit luussaire. I'ar its I'mix. il a causr un triplf pri'juiliff il la l>anfCoud jjiijudioo on lui lais>aut ij,'noifr la situation vraio dc ^a su'-i-ursak- ilf l*oilifi>. iytiorancf (|ui rfiniH-fliait do n'paitir sfs fonds la oii ils pouvait-nt t'tre uIiU>, ( t fuliu un tioisitMUf prfjudiff, cflui-lu caiiM- a un fUiplov«'- suporifur do la banijue, a Ihonorablo M. liaill.v, (jui, UK-nif aprrs la pfrtf de ses foiu-tions do confiancc, restf sous le eoup de la responsaltilite morale d'une partie des int't'aits de son oaissier infid(>le. .I'ai terniine nia tiU'hf. \ai probite proverbialo do ee beau pays du Poitiers a leru une < Tuelle atteinte. Pendant trois ans un iioninif a pu travaillor dans ronibie ii lui faire eette eruelle injure ; niais, <"onunc toujoui '. il est arrive ipio la justiee, apimyce par I'opinion publiciuo, a decouvert le eoupable, et iiujourdliui il vous est livre. A'ous le juuerez bleu, messieurs, ear je sais (jue votrc decision sera j^uidee jtar la conscience du juLje ft rindi<;nation du eitoyen. L'audieiiee est renvoyee it demain dix hoiues ft demic. Audience du 5 De'cembre, li'audiencc est ouverte a ouzo heures, an milieu de Tenioticm suscitee jMir I'ineident qui a amene la rcHtitution de la sonimo de nO,l'(»(» francs. M. lo Premier Avoeat General Gast a la jwrole, et s'exprime ainsi : — Harement, dans une atlaire criminelle, le jour de la justiee a ete plus vivement desire, plus impatiemment attendu, (jue dans celle (jui est en ce moment soumise a voire appreciation, Cc ii'est pas (juc cette afl'aire renfenne un de ees forfaits qui jettent dans les i)opulations la consternation et repouvante ; mais. sans offrir cette horrible pravite, cette cause a le triste privilejj«! d'avoir excit6 au plus liaut jwint l'indi;:;nation publi(|ue. lliktons.nous de le dire, cette indignation honorc le cceur humain. 11 est, en ett'et, do ces spectacles contre les«|ucls le cocur humain sc soul^ve avec vehemence. Les attentats de Lamirandc ont sonlcve I'opinion publicjue. A I'ase ou la raison est arrivee a t«)utc sa maturite, Larairande avait ete place dans un poste de coufianee (jui lui livrait la garde d'inmicnses richcsses. La pntbite do sa gcstion seniblait garantie, non-seuloment par les precautions les plus severes, niais aussi par les sentiments d'honneur et de delicatessc qu'il avait puises dans sa respectable famille. Qu'est-il arrive ? Lamirandc s'ost trouv«5 place, un jour, outre le desir de satisfaire ses ignobles instincts et le devoir de respecter les tresors confies a sa garde : il est arrive que la cupidite I'a emporte sur le devoir. Lamirandc a franchi I'abime ouvcrt devant lui, et apr^s avoir portc une main criminelle sur le tn-sor dont il ctait le gardien, il sost fait faussairc. Une fois engag6 dans cette voie criminelle, I'accusc y a persisto jusqu'au moment oil ses crimes ont etc decouverts, et Lamirandc a couronne tons ses crimes par tm crime plus enorne encore ; il a voulu s'assurer une grasse opulence sur une terre ("•trangore, pour continucr les debauches auxquelles il etait habitat. Mais le Gouvernement a compris qu'il etait indispensable de demander rextradition dc Lamirande. Ah ! s'il suffisait de franchir la frontioro, cc serait I'impunite sociale accord^e aux plus grands criminels. Aussi I'extradition se propage de jour en jour. Notre homme d'Etat le plus eminent I'a dit ; " Ti'extradition, c'est I'assurance mutuelle contre I'ubiquitd du mal." Vous savez cependant le scaudale (|iu a oclate sur la terre etrang^re ou lamirandc s'etait refugi6. Vous sav»z comment, avec I'or qu'il avait vole 4 la Banque de France, Tjaniirande a soudoye toute une legion de suppots qui se mirent k chicaner sur les condi- tions de I'extradition. Refugio au Canada, il fut enfin livre ii la France, et aujourd'hui Lamirande attend le juste ch&timent (ju'il a encouru. Ce n'est pas une oeuvro de vengeance que nous voulons, c'est une ceuvrc de justice. V'ous le savez, Lamirandc ne pent etre juge par vous que pour le crime de faux. On vous a dit que la grjkce du repentir a sublter ent touche ce criminel ; on vous promet que s'il est acquitte sur le chef de faux, il viendra s'olfrir en holocauste quant aux autres liefs de I'accusation. Suppusuns que ce ne soit pas 1,\ une strategie d'audience, suppoHons qu'il veuille plus tard se faire juger pour les crimes de vol et d'abus de confiance, ce ne serait pas une 37 rnixdn noiir TnoquittiT sur la (|uestion de faux. Kn oHt't. |K)ur nou^, le criiiu- do fniix ist til' touu- t'vidcuce. C\>innu'iit ! il nV a jias dc crime de faux dans cottc alliiire ■' Noii-i tin caissicr qui rdiiimcl tinis Ics jours dos soustraotions dnus su faisso. (jui viont tous les jours cortilier a son clu't'. dans >(>-. ('•(•rituri's. ([lie tout est exact ; rai-ciiM'- taisait dan- >a cuiMM- den oiK-ra- (ions ( riinini'lK's (jui notaii'nt pas rcproduiiis daiis ks icriluios. Lo ccriluris soul it doivi'tit I'tro l.'i ]))iotu<;ra|)liic de la caisso. \'oila ri' ijuc dit lo lioh si'n.-;. A Vdtn- audiciii'e d'liior, vous avez I'litiiidii ime di'iiiciii-lratio i niauistrale do I'exis- tence dii tiui\. II v a d'aliord une eoiisidiTatioii (|iii a une vaieiir si-rifuse. Uiie jiroct'- ilure eriininiilo. a", nut d'arriver aux assises, subit uiie double epreiive : la premiere est (elle de riustruetion ; puis, si lo fait coiistitue un eriuie, la jiroci'tlure est soiiiuise a la ('our imiM riale, ohaud)re des nuses en accusation. Cette niarelie a eti' suivie dans latlaire Laniirande. Aprils avoir passe en revue toutcs les jdiases de la proei'dine, .M. i'Avocat CJeiu'ral <'xaniine cpiels sont les caracteroa du faux, en droit, ot il applit|Ue les prineijies aux lulls de la cause. II fait remarquer ensuite (juelie a Hi- IVnorinite du prv'Ju liii' cause a la J?aiM|ue de France. fjauiirande a preeipitc son pere dans le plus atlreux descspoir ; il a deshonore son noni. Mais le eliutiment ue s'est pa.s fait ntteudre. II a ete frappe de reprobation nieine par cette ignoble cr(5ature qu'il cntretenait. qui vivait de prostitution, et qui, en appreuanl son arrestation, a dit : "Cet honimc n'a jms de cieiir ; je erovais )|u'il aiinait son ptirc et sa mere : il n'aime per.sonne." damais accuse nc s'est prescnte devant le jury avec une iwreille accumulation d'attentats. II a accompli ses crimes avec une assurance, avec une inirepidite sans ('•gales. Son calme ne la jamais abandonne, et tout dans raHiiire demontrc la premedi- tation de I'accHse. Quel est done le mobile qui I'a fait agir .' C'est le mobile le plus vil, la soif des plus basses jouissances, des plus ignoblcs voluples. Sans parlcr des plaisirs de la cliasse. il lui fallait les emotions du jeu; il lui fallait les ratiinements de la iuxure la plus eflrontee. A ce debauche <5m6rite, il fallait deux concubines richenient entretenues. S'expli(|uant sur I'incidcnt rclatif a la restitution des 1 lO.l'OU francs, M. I'Avocat General dit (ju'on a voulu faire un coup de theatre. Cette restitution, c'est le fait d'un v(deur *(\2 Tjamirande a •'•ti'- irri'i)r()chablo. Ses petitcs dettCH ont auffinciite. II ne nc. donnait pas le luxo, inais liicn In lionte dc deux oonouhinos. II y en a une ijuo jc plains; il y en a iir.i' nutic ilotit ji' in' pnrlc jjas, »t i' a ,M. rAvoont-CiuiuTal le droit dc iii(']pri«i'r tout a fun ai^o. I'n j'Hir, alois <|irii ctait liarnlr do toutfs \n\rU, an milioii de si-s ]ir('ii-, il y a ini dtlicit, il lui iiiaiKjiu- ."i.Ooit train's, (.'c n't'^t pas boaucoii]) (inns une coiniitaliiiitc coninu! cclK' di- la Hniiijuo. Kperdi., n'osant plus iniposer a .-.a thniillo tin sacriiici- nouviau, il a voli'-, LamnK' ('tail ouvort. Qiinnd on a fait Ic pnniicr i)a> dans (•••ttc >oif, la porvtrsiti'- inarclu' ; \v mal nous puusso, nous devpiioiis son osclavf. ("i-st cc (pii est arrive li co niallicaroux. Aj)ri'.s avoir comldt'- le df'^ficit, il a ]»nyt' scn dottfs, il a jour ; il a coniptc' sur la fortunt', il a pordu, el, apres avoir perdu lOO.ndO frniics, de fauto en t'aute. de chute en <'hute, il en est arrive a ce d(5part .,ue vows sa\(z. Otte terrible affaire sera jmur tout* les enissiers une grande lumiere. Lor fails vous discnt que Ic; prmiutions de Fianiirande etaient derisoire.s. II coupait les sacs, il chanpeait Tor en arjj;en( ; inais im pouvait verifier. 11 etait ix la discretion de la premiere visite seiv-usc. Vous vous rappelex, la tuite di' riamirande, aliaut. dnns le trouble de sa conscience, dierclier un asile au Canada, tralii par tous. (.Vest une ajjonie si cruelle <|Uo je inc dcmande s'il ne vaut pas niieux etre siir ce banc d'ignoniinie. (^uand on I'a arrele au Canada, savez-vou- <•(• (ju'il lui re>tait ! l)ix-huit francs, a lui qui avail eniporte d'ici un demi-niilliun. Kt (juand il a <'crit a ces luunnics, ([ue je n"api)ellerai pas, nioi. des avocats, pour avoir une jjctiie soniuie, il n'a pas re^u de reponse. N'olia les niiseris (|u"il a Mibies. Quand il est rcvenu en France de roupahlc do faux, si le faux a vtv (.'oiiuiiis. Hussurrz-vou^. jc iic vcuv ]>i\- I'iiupuiiitc pour eel homnio. II lie s'tti Ira pas. il nc lo veut pas. it jo nc le vcux \fn^, nioi. \'<>il;"4 Ia (ii'i'laratioii quo j'a reoii iiii>sioii do voiw liro an uoni do i.amirimiio, it j'oii:,Mi;o pnur lui ma parolo : — "Jo sous-iifjno, Surroau-Laniirando (Kriiost-<'lmrli'--('i)ii-taiit^. (h-claro solonnolloniont quo si Io vordiot du jury ''i>('lii'o';. ot c|iic jo jirotosto n'avoir jamais on I'intontion do oonuiiotlro. »"'n 'mi. '•Poitiers, 4 Dr'ceinbre, 18()0. (Signo) •• l-'.Mii:.\Nnr. ' All! M. rAvocat-Cionc'-ral. ost-oo (|ue vous navoz pa- <'(>inpri> ma ■situation dans ootto afliiiro .^ Nou-* ii'avons pa-^ voulu iiou^ oniIm-;(|Ucr diMTicrc i\{-- Traitt'-; d'Kxtrn- dilion. Arrioro! arrii'-ro! nous navons pas rcoours a dv tols movon-;. ("ommc los ma ou d'antrcs. .lo voux (pril ait lo iK-nofioo do sou oourau'o ; j'c voux tpiapri's lo vcrdici du jnrv il -loit liliro do par la Ioi, mais quil soit prisonnior do par la justice ot ]:nr ^u Vdloiiti'. N'ous autro^. avocats. nous oomprenons avant tout la inisorioorde. Lo (h'tonsonr d'uii aocusi'' lo sotitiont, le reli'vo (levant tons; it lui parlo du romords. do Dion, do r(X])iatiiiii. Xous sonimos los m(''docins do riinio, heuronx ot tiers do lotro. ('et homnio sera acipiiUi'. niais jnstioo sera faito dans trois mois. .I'ai |>lai(I('' nion ^irooi's roniiiic jo I'liiU'iuK- j'ai ilit la vi'-rito. Dans trois mois nous lie dirons pas quo la Ioi est pour nous, mais (|n'cllo est oontro nous; nous cherclienms. sans doute, il attcndiir le jurv dans uno cortaino nu snro pour tant dc soutlhinoos. All! le mailieureux, si vous saviez oe <|iril a soiitlort ! Oiii, avant darrivor sur ce bane, ii a trouvt*' liicr dans sa prison cos trois lettres (|iio ji- veux nous liro. \]\\ lisaiit ces lignes, j'otais emu au fond do lame, et vous partauoroz mmi emotion. Voici d'abord la lettre de la sainte ini^re de Ijamirande : — '•Trop chcr ct malheureux enfant, "Jo n'avais pas attendu le cri de ton occur pour to pardonnor ta faute; men ame est reniplie pour toi d'uuo immense compassion on sonj^oant au sort que tu t'es fait et aux souffrances que tu t'es attiroes. " J'adresso au Ciel une ardente \mvTO pour (juc tes ju:;of. soieiii indulgent.s, et que Dieu to pardonnc comme ta mere ta pardonno. (Sigiie) "A. S. liA.\iiUANi>E." Voici la lettre du vieillard a son fils : — "Jesavais bien (jue I'heure du lepcntir viendrait avanl I'honn' do la justice, et nion ))ardon, malheureux enfant, t'(itait ac(|uis du jour oi'i tu rocunnaitrais ton errour. J'ai soufl'ert plus que toi des mis^res qui devaient etre la suite dv ta honto ct de ta fiiite. Je soutfrirai encore des affreuses souffrances ((ui vont t'otro imposi'es. Je no men plaindrai pas si tu sais supporter avec (lignite ta mis(jro ct porsister dans ton rcpenlir. " Je n'ai pas besoin de to dire (|uo nous t'aisons tons des vanix pour que tes jujiyes soient indulgents et tf tiennent compte dune vie houora'ijlo juscjuau jour oil tu as manque a I'honneur et a la probitc. '• Sois repentant et Dieu te viendra en aide. '• Ton malheureux pt^re, (Si-n.-) "S. Lamibande. Lc fr^re de Laiuirande, enfiii, lui ecrit ce (lui suit : — " Mon pauvre irm, " Tes souffrances pa.s.stjcs, tes souffrances aujourd'lmi bien pins poiunantes encore, remplissent iiotre ame dc piti(3 pour toi ; mais ce n'est jias a cause d'olles (|ue nous te pardonnons. (/est A cause de ton repentir (jue nous orovons sincere ct coniplet ; c'est la qu'est ton refuge, cost par la seulement que tu peux retiouver la paix aveo toi-menie. C'est par la que plus tard a force de courage, de patience, ot dabnoyation, tu peux te 40 rcfftirc uiio diKnilr. Nous tc soutiondrons dc tout notrc pouvoir dans rapcomplissi'mont |itc : Mv vous. Mos^ii'urs, paroo (|Uo vous ot- francs in silver would Imve to l>t' senl to tlu' s4inic |ilnce, I^amirande made, during tlie day, the neceswiry prcimnitions lor the dJNpntili ula million in gold. In the cvoning ho plandi'ctinely Kit liis jMt.xt, took tlio rnilway, niid niiclied the frontier. Ilel'ore sinrliii'; he had h-ft a letter addres-id to the diieetur M. Mnilly, in which he ot^ited that lie was unexpectedly oblii,'fd to (ro to Chatellernult, that lie had left \m keyn with M Qmrieu.v, chief aei-ouiitaul, and ihiit lie woidd relnrn Mion eiioii;;h to make up his cash aeeount. At the same time he had written to M. Querieiix that being old iged to leave tor Cliatelii'rault he bi'gjjed liiiu to act as eashicr on the morrow and to superintend the dispatch of the money liy the alli-iidaiitsof the Imiik : h<' .iddi d that he would arrive in time to draw up the daily report. 'I'liis letter was taken liy a mi-Mii^rer to M. Qnerieux with the keys «liicli openi'd llie lout r fotniiartiiieiits of the current ca.sh ('caisse eouiaiite'). Lamirande's sudden departure could luil at tirsl appear suspicious, for he had takea the precaution of ti'llin;; several ])cople the falsehood that his nephew was very ill nt Chatelleraull, and thiit the state of the child caused him jfreal anxiety. On the IJUh of March, the employes of the hank iirocceded to remove the .'ud.iMKi francs which had to he sent to An.ixouleme. Sacks were rcaily : they were (illcd In the nuiiiber of "jO. by taking' from the cellars ."lOO bags of l,()Ol( francs each, and the •"<» ^aeks, which ought each to have weished oi> kiloj^rammes, were placed upon a truck accompanied by a clerk and an attendant, and taken to the Hureau des Messam'ries. There they were weighed and it «as immediately I'ouiid out that inii.>t ol I hem weie under «i'ii;lit. sliowing a deficit of about l.',0()0 francs jier sack. Tlie director wa- informt d of this; he immediately had the whc |in|icr'< liv rctnittiiij; returuH which concealed the fraiiiluleiit ali-.lraciiniis and eiiil)cz/,leinenls of which he i> ijuiltv. •' CoiisKjiieiitly Laiiiiiandc is accuseil : — " I. Of tiavin;; nt Poitiers, within less than ten venrs. tVniidulenlly nhstrueted divers sums in ;^old or silver coin fioin the sale or cellar of the Hrancli liank of France, to the los> of thai e-taidislinient. Of iiaviiii;- cotmnitted these frninlulent iihst ructions, under this eircinii>ance, that he was tliun the salaried eu-hior, or servant at wages, ol the said Bank of I'm nee. " •_'. or liavinji- at Poitiers, within less than ten \enrs, and especially on the 12th of March, I'^fiti. emliczzlcd or nindc awa\ with, to the prejudice of tin' Hank of France, the proi>iieior- tlu'icof, fund.-, am! iiou- placed in tlu' current rii«li of the branch at Poitiers, whicli had otilv liecn reniilU-d and condJcd to hint for parp isi's of deposit and demund, on the understanding? of his ri'turniiiij, or prodiieinu'. or nmkinp; some appointed eniploy- nient or ii^i.' of then;. 01' ha\ini; committed tlu' aliove >pccitie(l endiez/lemenls, under thi.-. circiimslMnce, thnt he was then ca>'iicr or jiuid clerk of the said 15aiik of France. '•or liiviMLT at Poitier-. on Murch 1.', l.'-titi. in the return sifiiicd hy hiiu, which it was his duty ro draw up and certify each uins abstracted «ir embezzled by him, and of bavinj? thus fraudulently ehanj-od the dedaiatiou and facts which it was the object of this report to receive and verify, " 4 Of liavinaf the "^ame day, nt the same place, made use of this fictitious paper knowini; that it was fictitious, by remitlinfj it to the Director of the Branch Bank of France al Poitiers, in order to show the state i)f the cash at that establishment on tlie 12th of March. IftiC. •' '>. Of having at Poitiers, within less than ten years, and anterior to the 12th of March, 18t)(j, in several returns signed by him - which it was his duty to draw up and certify each day a-s cashier of the Branch Bank of Fiance, in order to show the cash in hand nt the said branch — fraudulently inserted the false declaration that the cash in hand amounted to a sum larger than that which existed in reality ; whicli amount was less thau the ligures recorded by all the sums abstracted or embezzled by him. and of bavins thus fraudulently changed the declarations and facts which it was the object of this report to receive and verify. " (5. Of having at the same period and at the same place made use of these fictitiotiB papers, know ing that they were fictitious, by remitting them to the Director of the Branch Bank of France at Poitiers, in (irder to establish the state of the cash at that establish- ment on the days indicated. " Given at the bar of the Imperial Court of Poitiers, the 2,')rd of September, 1866. (Signed) . '-CAMOIN DE VENCE, Avocat-Ge'ne'ral." During the reading of the indictment, which was listened to by the audience in the most profound silence, the accused appeared to be deeply moved ; he almost always kept his head down, resting on his hand, frequently passing his handkerchief over his eyes and forehead. It ought to be stated that on the jury being empanelled, Maitre Lachaud, in the name of Lamirande, requested that note might be taken so that his presence, and that of the accused, at this em|)anelling should not in any way prejudice the motions in excep- tion (" conclusions exceptionnelles '') which he might choose to submit before entering upon the actual pre ;: odings. Note was taken of this reservation, and the President ordered that it should mentioned in the minutes of proceedings. The President then recapitulated to the prisoner the different heads of accusation brought against him, to the number of six fraudulent abstractions and forgeries. The prisoner made no observation. Maitre Bourbeau, advocate, came forward, attended by Maitre Pinchot, attorney, and read motions to the effect that the Bank of France should be allowed to amiear as G 2 |l \h 44 proHocut'.r, and t'int rcoonl should be made of their roHcrvations to fix during the course of the dehalfs sucli daniagen as they should think fit. 'I'lir Prrsithnt. — It is for the first A vocat- General to speak. Miiiire iMrhnml. — I'ariion me, M. le I'resideut, I rcqueiit permission to sj)eak in order to submit the follitwiiif? motions : — Si'i-iiig that it is I'slalilishcd as a principle that Courts of Assize are competent to judgo Mlu'tlier the extradition of accused persons has been conducted in n regular manner, or whellur, on the contrary, it has been the result of fraud or of vicdence ; that this principle has been recognized by the Court of Causation, especially in its Decree of the Uth of May, 184r> ; In point :— Seeing that Lamirandc, ion was attacked before the Superior Judge of the Queen's Bench, Mr. Drummond, and that from that time a regular ai)peal was lodged against the decision ; Seeing that Judge Drummond heard the cause on the 2Mh of August, inHO, that all parties appeared through their respective representatives, that the tlemand for extradition was su|)poited, opposed, and discussed; That at that stage, after a long sitting, and when the trial had been accepted by all, on the re(|ucst of M. Pomainville, counsel for the Bank of Prance, who was desirous of making some further observations. Judge Drummond, when about to give judgment, in consideration of the lateness of the hour (7 o'clock in the evening), postponed the remainder of the hearing and his decision till the next day the L'oth ; Seeing that during the evening of the 24fh of Augu.st. before the decision of the Judge, who alone was qualified to give a definitive decision, police agents dragged l^ami- rande foreil.dy from prison, that he was brought to France, and notwithstanding his protests handed over to the French police ; Seeing that all these facts cannot be contested, that they are proved by the Judgment delivered by Mr. Drummond on the 28th of August, 1860; That it results, moreover, from this decision that Mr. Drummond has declared that there were no grounds for an extradition, for several reasons, given in his ,Judgment, and founded either on the form of the demand, or on the main issue, in that the acts cited constituted none of the crimes for which extradition could be granted ; Se 'ing that at present the Court of Assize is called upon to judge whether the extradition of Lamirande can be declared legal ; That it is evident it could not he so, since the Judge before whom tiie case had been duly brought by all parties, and whose duty it was to decide definitively upon it, has declared that there was no rea>on for granting it ; That an act of violence, for whicli England cannot fail to call her Agents to account, ought not to prevail ever a judicial decision, and thus make force and subornation superior to right ; That whatever may be the faults and the crimes of which Lamirande is accused, they can form no reason for violating the most ordinary rules of justice ; that the aim of international Treaties of Extradition is not to give advantage to accused persons, but above all, to respond to the highest interests of the reciprocal relations and liberty of nations : Seeing that it is in vain to object that Lamirande was handed over to the French Agents of Police by virtue of an order signed on the L'3rd of August, 1866, by the 49 L'ludcd Governor of C'nnada; that it reniilts from the sentence delirered by Mr. Drunimond that the date home hy this order i;* nut the reiil one; timt it was given after the 'J trd of August ; tliat the CSuvernur'M signature could only have l>eeii ohtained hy underhand meanH ; Seeing, moreover, that the very terms of tlie Treaty of li*|:^ do not permit the Ooveriior-tJeneral to deliver up an accused person for extradition hcfore tiie judicial decision has heen pronounced liy the proper .Iiuige ; tliat on the -ith of August the ca.so came before Judge Drummond ; that the Rritisii (iovernnient, represented liy Mr, Kainsay, Queen's counsel, the Bank of France, representeil by M. I'oniiiinviile, advocate, Fianii- randc himself represented by Mr. Doulre, advocate, — were heard, and that tliey argued the question of the legality of the extradition before thai Magistrate ; That from that moment until after the decision of .fudge Drummond, it ^«ns impos- sible to dispose of Lamirande without violating al once both law and justice ; That it may please the Court, for these reasons and for others which it may think fit to add, to pnmounce the extradition null. And. (piite collaterally, seeing that — to suppose an impossibility — the Court sliould declare itself incompetent to iironounce the extradition null by reason of the (li|iloinatic character of that act, it cannot ignore the fact that the circumstances attending this extradition may be of a nature to render it null ; that it would then have to be submitted to the attentive examination of the two (Jovernmcnts of France and (Jreat Mritaiii, and in that case to grunt a postponement until it shall have been decided, with all reserva- tions, by those to whom it shall belong. After the reading of these motions. M. (5ast, the Avocat-Gcneral, immediately asked for permission to sjx'ak in order to oppose them : — Gentlemen, he .said, against these motions we have to bring some interlocutory motittns. We come forward to a>k the Court not to allow them to be argued. Tlie.se motions do not take us by surprise. From his first examination the accused asserted that he could not be tried in France. The prisoner's honourable counsel had informed ns of these motions, which are like pleadings, and the object of which is that the Court sliouhl declare itself conipitent to judge of the legality of the extradition, and collaterally grant a postponement. In order to discuss the comiictency of the Court in this respect, we will examine the laws relating to extr.idition, the [towers of tiie jiniicial iiuthorily, the rights of the indi- vidual delivered up, and the privilegis of the French (Joveniment. Penal laws are exclusively territorial ; this principle is incontestable. Miyond the frontiers of each State penal laws are paralyricd, and this is the principle behind \>hich fugitive criminals shelter themselves: eonsecpiently, tliese criminals cannot crilicize the force of the measures which have been applied to them beyond the limits of our territory. How could French Magistrates judge of the legality of these acts .' They could not do it either from the point of view of French law, nor in judging of foreign laws. There is another reason still more conciu-ive, which di>poses of the (piestion of competency. The measures taken abroad were at the retpust of the French Govern- ment ; ""d, moreover, culpable acts commiltetl abroad are (|uite indiHerent to us, and they are quite beside our judgment. Lamirande was so well aware of the indictment upon which the warrant for his arrest was founded, that his American advocate has been accused of having stolen that document, and he mode no protest when the warrant was served on him. The Avocat-General asked to what rule of law could recourse be had to support the claim to have Lamirande reconducted to the frontier. Now we have to ask what arc the rights of the individual delivered up r lias he a right to .say that in his person have been violated the Conventions concluded between France and England? The motions pretend that he has; but was he a party to these Conventions ? One or the other of these Governments can alone vindicate these rights. As for the individual perison given up, from the moment he again sets foot in his country, he becomes simply an accused man who has to be tried. The Avocat-General quoted in his support Dalloz (' Traite International," page 184) ; " Decree of the Court of Cassation," 18.52 (Morin, page; 502). But if acts committed abroad are matters of indifi'erence to French justice, it is otherwise with the foreign Government. If in the extradition there has been fraud or violation of territory, even a casus belli may be the result. Let us suppose that a foreign Government had cause to complain of such a grievance, to whom would it apply for redress ? To a Court of Assize ? Simply to ask the (juestion is to answer it. The foreign Government will come direct to the French Govoiunient I- M to n'-k for rcdti*-' . n-nl Iriki" luili'i' flwit tlii> is (lie mily Plainfitl" wliicli onn bf rcco^rnizctl through ilif iiiftliiiiii of lii^ f)i|iliiiii;iiif AjiciiN, cxtrntlitidii Imvini: no kiml of rijjlit. Yon a>.-.irt llmt tlic 'Irciitv Ii.ih Iipen violntod ; Imt fur thnt ynu must luivc tho Tn'iil\ iiiliT|ir' ted. Clin tin- triluiniiU do ho / Hen i.wli.ii I ititd in |);il!o/. ••'I'inil*'- Intornntiotml, " Vo. l.*;:.' - '• Tin- intorjtrptnfion of Dip'i itntic Tronlirs is lu'voml ihc conipcti'iicv of trihuiiiils, nluthtTJiidi-irtl orndminis* Irative, " He. We Imvo nun (.> a«k oursclvos wluit tlip Frcncli OovcrnuM'nt will do if a claim of Jhis ti.iinrc !•< iirclcncd. If it finds thiif (Iuti- is loiindiition I'li/ the gritvanri's, it will go lidiiri' Cic Cniirts, nnd iir ihnMii;|i his I'Affllrnn- tlir Kt'c|icr ol tlii' Souls, " 1 niilidraw lliitt in.in ii'nn ,\i>nr jiirisdictioti l»v riiiht of tlic law of iintions, "liich is siiju-rior to the riplits nf individunls." In fuel tlio Kin])ciT>r, iiosiossinj;; the riiriit of niakinir Treaties with forcinii nations, liiis th- riyhl of doinu all that is mrossarv lor tlic execution of tliosc Treaties. .MoiiMivrr, win ;i I he I'niieli ( loNeintiu lit has idilained a surrender, it can jjo and say to tlie jiny, •• Viin »i!l only try the aeeii-.ed on ihir eliarj;e of lory;ery. Iiueause «e liuve obta ried hi- '-urrender only on thai i'liar;(e." in iiresefice ol that intervention alone justice will refrain. ]h\ if instead of holding this Ianu:nn'ie (Jovernnient is silent, if these n-rievances appear lo it '.Nirlioiii fi)iindafii)ii, jii^tiee «ill take its conrse, 'eco'-ni/inin- hut ih.e lejjal rides ol" positive riixnt. I'osvilile er)Tisei|uen<'es have tio inilnenee on justice. We place tiiis p rhii|i-- rather ho;(l ojiiiroii iiinier tiie avuis ol' iloelvine ami iurispriidenee. All individual was proseeiitod for forgery nn I the aliiluetion of a jjirl nnd.cr ajje (IHt.>). lie \\.is delivered uji IVoni Tn-rany only for the erinie of forijery. The liaw Oouit nf l!esaiif;()n decided tliat there was no case of roij,'ery, hut, on the other hand, that th< re were \ery i;rave suspicions ofahduction of a minor. The Coiiri iinlevcd that the individual ^liould he arrested only for ahdnetion. and that he sliHiihl only he judged hy defaiill Tin I'rocurenr-Cu'neral hied an ap|)eal ajjiiinst this decision, which was rcverseil in the Court of Cassation i'l the following terms: — [Drrrrr, Court of Cnissation, 1845.) THK .\v(icat-( .lernl rend that Decree and Oalloz' ohservations: — " The indictment may he in violation of the Treaty, hut the law takes its course ; those are ipiestions to he discusseil between Government and Oovernment." Tliis doctrine, a little too absolute perhaps, is contested hy two decisions whicli I am goinjr to read to y(ui ; and from which it follows that if an extradition has taken ]ilacc without the intervention of either of the two Gevernments. the Law Courts would have the ri^fjit of askiuii' whether the (Jovernment recnjinized that proceedinji^ and considered it regular. That, fjentlemen, is the only reservation to be made. That according to our opinion is the doctrine which results from the (mly two decisions which can be brought against us. You shall judge for yourselves. The Advocate-General then read an account of the Dcmienon trial. (DaUoz, "Traite International," page .')97.) Do you not see in those facts a oonllrmation of tho doctrine which we just now explained to you. In that case the Government had certainly nothing whatever to do with the extradition of the accused, and it was on that account that the Law Courts appealed to the Government and asked it whetlier it recognized the measures which had been taken. The Avocat-General quoted a Decree of the Court of Assize of Ariege of the 17th February, 1845 (Laug6 case). Me. Lttchaud : That is the Decree which I refe; to in my motions ; it is of the 9th May, 1845. The Avocat-General, after having read that Decree, drew from it the same results 08 he did from the preceding document. The Sieur Lauge, ex-officiating priest, prosecuted for attempted rape, tied for refuge into the Val d'Andorre ; he had been arrested by a French Justice of the Peace under the authority of the Syndic of the Republic of Andorre. Tlie Conr Royale ordered a postptmement to find out whether that arrest was recognized by the Government, which had taken no part in it. The Comi of Oassation, in consideration of the suzerain rights of France over the small neutral territory of Andorre, decided that the arrest was legal. That point settled, if, instead of remaining inactive, Government were to say to you, wc have obtained the extradition of that man and assume the responsibility thereof, the law must take its course and is not to ask whether the extradition proceedings were in 17 *'iiiir<>rniit\ with 'I'lvuli nl it caiiiiol cvin alK>u anN (U'Ikiio oii ilial ^iiltjcil. wUikU in not within its proviiuv. \V»' h!i\c ii'il riH'i'iM'il nn_v iii'lructinii-, to I'lil'ow the ('cniiiMl Inr thr tli'lviif*' in it'ijuiil to lliii'f iiniiKTiiii^ I'lic'lv wliich thi'N hmr ciMimcraU'il ti> ii-^ to our i^rrai --iiiiiri^f, ami whicli we sliiiiilil (loiil)lii.'>-< have iio (iilli('iilt,\ in aiiKWirin;; il' »iu'h vM-if otii l)U-iiu>"«. lint for us liitTi- is >oinilhiny; that o\i'rriili> all a pi('ro;;atiM' of llu- (Joviriiiiuiit «ilh which it is not lor lis to nicihllc. 'riio lir-l .\\ocnt-(j«'nirMi ic.ul sivi'rnl odicinl ilociiiiu'nt« provin;; thnt the I'li'iirh Guvrrnnifiil look an activr ami inuncdiali' |iarl in o!>tainiiiL; llir I'Mrailiiion oj' l.atniramti', nmi aiiionjx^l othcr^ a letter IVoin lii«. lAciHeiicx tl)'' Kii'|ifr ot' the S.;i!v. In that ii'ttir, said the \\iicat-hoiihl liaAe linisheil if we were not lionml. on are, Mini of that h tier, to reiniml voii that the Kt'eper ol' the Si als lias (h'claretl that Kaniir.imle -lioiiiil onl^ lie tried iin tin.' rhar^re of i'orgcrv, unle.ss ho accept of lii> own free will tie- deei^inn of the jiirv on the f]iarj;i's of liroach o' st and theit. This would seem lis in contr.'idiclii/n \\ith ourselves, since we niaiiilaiin u lliat the pi'i'son snrrcmkr 'xtriiditiou could have im vli:ht- whalwi r lo appeal to, That is a form of ri'sjuct lowanl- tlii' fiirei;;n (lovernnient \\hieh oni_\ ailo\U(l the e .trii- dilioii of the aecuscil ou llii-- cliarirc of foruerv ; hut the consent ot' the aeeu^ed may do away with that prohihition. founded on resjiect for international ri^dit-. The .\dvocatc-(ieiit'ral iiiiotcd the Mecrees ol I'^'il Vjnnailre decree), of 1h,*»2 (Darreau decree), and of \si\^> ( . . . decree), dei'ii'cs which decide liml niea^nre- of extradition are heyoml ail cnntrol of the judicial authorities. The motions are therefore not udIni^^.il»le, and it is for tiie (oiirl to declaii' its incompetency, a; d to order that no further proceedings he laki'ii thereon. The Presidint . Afaitre Fiachaud, il is for you to speak, Mr. Lilt baud: fJentlemen of the Court, the motions ^vhi(■h I have drawn n|> are not ilie work of Laiuirande, they are tin' work of his ('oiin^el. Ili> Counsel decided to submit them to you, because they thoimht that lhoii;j;h the defendant may be unworthy, thoufjjh his crime may be odious, yet that behiiul him I here is t!ie law. Now, when the law is scandaloUHly violated I have the ri;ilit to complain and I do complain. The man whom I come here to defend has been stolen from l'jii;land. Till- Pirsldeni : Maitre Ijaehaud. I cannot let that word pass. Yoii an ariruini;. not for the jury, l)ut for the Coiut, and upon the tpiestion of comiieteiicy onlv I'ieaM.' to recollect this. Mc. Lachitud : T liavo not forj^otten it, Af. ie President. I said liiat llii- man hnJ been stolen from Kngland because T have there a document which pro\e;; it. a iKi'i>ion of an Eii;;li>h Judiije, which 1 will not road out oi" deference to the (.'ourt, but wiiich never- theless exists, and proves to mc as it will do to all when it heeomes known, the truth of what I have advanced, I shall say no more on this point, and I hasten to aiiswiT the Av ; they Hhouid not find thcrn falling ahort of that respect with which they are nccustonied to Kurround those two grand bases of society, the liberty of all and the lav for all. I persist in my motions. Miiitre IJourbeou, Advocate for the prosecution, declares that he took the side of the Jjaw Ofticers, and rejects the motions with regard to annulling the extradition and with regard to the adjournment of the trial. Maitre Le])ctit, one of the Counsel for the defence, replied, and in a warm and animated argunicnt grounded on the opinion of MM. Dalloz and Faustin Hdlic, and on the doctrine of the Dccreo of the Court of Cassation of 1845, maintained that the Court of Assize is comiietent to entertain the exception as regards the nullity of the extradition, not in the sense that the l.nw would have the right to criticise diplomatic acts, but in the sense that it may inquire whether the forms laid down by international conventions have been observed, in other words, whether the law has been imposed upon. The Court retired into the Council Chamber, to deliberate on the point. At half-past 3 the sitting was resumed. The President pronounced the decision, couched in the following terms : " Seeing that by a Decree of the Imperial Court of Poitiers, Chamber of Indictments, dated the ^t^tli May, 18GG, the 8ieur Surreau, called Ijamirande, has been sent before the Viennc Court of Assize, under the triple accusation of aggravated theft, aggravated breach of trust, ,r. " ".>rgery in commercial or in banking accounts ; "Seeing tL:i "t .consequence of the said decree, an indictment has been drawn up by the Procureui- .neral, dated September 23, 186G; " Seeing that those \wo documents have been communicated to the accused by the summons of the 24th of September, and that on the 24th of the same month the said accused was examined by the President of Assize, in conformity with the Articles 293, 294, 295, and 296 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ; " Seeing that from that time the case was in a proper form to be tried and has been regularly set down for trial at this session ; " Seeing, nevertheless, that the Counsel for the defence of Lamirande have by the motions submitted at the sitting, demanded of the Court to pronounce the extradition of the accused invalid, and quite collaterally, to put off the trial of the case until a decision be come to by the competent authority as to the validity of that extradition ; " Seeing, that in the matter of fact, it follows from the documents in the case, and especially from the ministerial despatch of the 25th November, 1866, that on the demand of the French Government, Lamirande, put under arrest on an indictment comprising charges of forgery in commercial or in banking accounts, was placed by the Government of Canada, where he bad fled for refuge, at the disposal of the French authorities ; " Seeing that immediately after the extradition had taken place, the Imperial Government itself delivered the accused into the hands of justice, in order that he might answer before a competent tribunal for the crimes of forgery in commercial or in banking accounts, the crimes upon which the demand for his extradition were founded ; " Seeing, that in the matter of law, Treaties of Extradition are high administrative acts agreed upon between two Powers in the general interest of morality and social security, that the forms and couditions thereof are regulated not for the advantage of the persons accused, who cannot by taking refuge abroad obtain impunity for themselves from the law of their own country, but by the consideration of the international requirements or of the mutual observances of the Governments ; " Seeing that the fundamental principle of the separation of authorities is opposed to the possibility of the French Courts of Law interfering in regard to the interpretation and the application of the acts of the Government which gives up the accused to their jurisdiction ; " Seeing that by the very fact of delivering an accused person into the hands of his natural judges, the Imperial Government confirms the regularity of his extradition, and that that decision, which lies within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Executive authority, cannot be the subject of any appeal ; " For these reasons, the Court rejects the motions, both principal and collateral, drawn up by Lamirande's Counsel, and decrees that the trial be proceeded with." The Pretident. — Prisoner, you have heard what has been said. You need only answer as to the facts relating to the forgeries. Are you willing to answer to all the oUier charges recorded in the indictment ? Lamirande. — I am ready to answer as to all the facts. Me. Lachaud, — 1 cannot allow my client to commit himself on that ground. I 4» maintain that the letter of the Keeper of the Seals could only cause l,aniiran»lc to he sent before the assizes for the crime of forgery. No one can have a rijj;ht, the Keejier of the Seals no more than anybody else, to violate the law. The President. — It is for that reason that 1 consulted T^mirande, leaving him his full liberty of action. Me. Lttchand. — 1 persist in my protest, M. le President, and, if necessary, I will make some very jirecise motions in order to define it dearly, linnurande does not understand the consequences of his acquiescence ; it is the b\isiiiess of his Counsel to make him understand them. I ask only for a delay of five or six minutes iu order to draw up ray motions. Me. LepetU. — 1 entirely concur in and adopt the observations of Maitrc Lachaud, and I unite with him in asking for time to write out our motions. .\fter being suspended for a few minutes, the sitting was resumed. The President. — Prisoner liamiranue, I rei)eat what I have already asked you, do you consent to be tried on all tin- chariies brought against you.' Litiiilvundv. — I have nether to consent nor not to consent. Me. Lachaud. — Here are the motions, which I submit in Lamirande's name : — " Seeing, that Lamirande has been remitted to the Viennc Court ol Assize for trial on the triple charge of embezzlement, of aggravated theft, and of forgery in commercial or in banking accounts ; " That the Decree has been communicated to him, and that he ajipears before the jury on that triple charge ; " Seeing that it cannot be in the power of any one to divide or to sujjpress a part of these several counts of indictment ; " That Lamirande has not either to consent or not to consent to be tried for the crimes brought against him of breach of trust and aggravated theft, liut that it concerns him that the jury should be called on to settle the whole charge ; "That if it is true, as has just been laid down by the Court, that Treaties of Kxtradi- tion can never be interpreted by Courts of law, it is inadmissible thai there should be. on their account, the power of modifying a charge before the Court of Law where the case has been regularly brought ; "Seeing that the letter of the Kee])er of the Seals contain> < iily the instructions given to the Attorney-General, and could not in any way impede tlie carrying out of a decree of the Chamber of Indictments ; " For these reasons that it be ruled that all the courts of the indiofment be submitted to the jury." Maitrc Lachaud, after having read these motions asked leave to argue them. The President: The Avocat-G^neral, perhaps, has also .some rctiuisiiions to make? The First Avoeat-Gene'ral : In fact, we require that the Court may be pleased to separate the facts relating to the fraudulent abstractions, and to tlie embezzlements, and to order that Lamirande shall only be tried on the facts relating to the forgeries. After Maitre Lachaud had argued his motions, and the iirst Advocate-General had maintained his requisitions, the Court deliberated again and pa4i>ed a second decree which rejected the motions of the defence, and decided in favour of the retjuisitions of the Law Officers. The President : Here, gentlemen of the jury, your part begins, hitherto you have had nothing to do with the various points which have arisen during the discussions ; they were within the exclusive cognizance of the Court. Now, gentlemen, it is for you to decide on the rest of the arguments, bearing in mind that in conformity w ith the decree which the Court has just passed, you have but to consider and determine, exclusively, the charges relating to the crime of forgery in commercial or in banking accounts : all the other charges having been set aside by the decree. It is the Law Officers' turn to speak. The First Arocat-Ge'n^ral : Gentlemen of the Jury — the importance of this matter, and the circumstances no less important which are connected with it, make it necessary for me to address you in order to explain how the case stands. Lamirande haJ been sent before you to answer six distinct counts of indictment ; L.U .... i.: President has just explained to you, and that iu conformity with the decree just pa.ssed by the Court, you will only have to take cognizance of charges relating to the forgerios. You understand, nevertheless, though you may not be called upon to decide on the whole of the original charges of the indictment, that I must give you a couiplc^*; statement of the facts. The Avocat-General, after having explained that the branch of the Uank of Kranee at Poitiers was founded in IS.'iS, and that from that time Lamirande was appointed ca^ll- [68] II t so keeper, rejtroiliiced. with remnrkH thereon, the lhetf< alleged in the indictment. He gave some (letiiils rc^ix-cting tlic way in wliieli the eiirrent eiish lU'cuimt was kept ; lie ileserihed the eclliii- wliere the s-iiver >)Kcie hum locked up, the \nvj:s which contained t!iis specie in sums of l,ftOO i'lancs, their size and shape, us well as tho . of the sacks in which they were stowed wiicn a lari':c remittance of silver had to be made. The Counsel for tlie prosecution explained al'terwurd^ h.nv fiamiiunde was able to purloin considerable amounts of silver as well as of irold specie, lie maintained that the purloining could only have been eU'ecled liv I^mirande in his own ollice, where he often found himself alone and witlmut control. In fact, that he c(mld not have purloined any of the silver specie after it had been taken down into the cellar in ba^s of 1,000 francs, us he never went alone into thi; cellar ; there were three keys to open it, and three employes of the bank were necessary to effect the opening. It wus, then, in his own office that liamirande abstracted 200 francs out of each 1,000 francs bag, taking care to reduce the size of the bags; afterwards, when these bags had been taken down into the cellar, and the doors were .shut, it became impossible to guess by whose hands the fraud had been committed. Ijamirunde acted with great skill in thus conducting his operations ; he made it impossible for the bank to discover the guilty party ; and if he had not discovered himself by his flight, no one knows who might iiave been suspected in regard to the silver specie locked up in the cellar. With regard to the gold specie, said the Avocat-CJeneral, it is known that he replaced by paper the weight of the coin which he abstracted. The Avocat-General finished by recalling to mind that it was to conceal these defalcations, both in silver and gold, the total of which amounted to more than 700,000 francs, that he committed all the forgeries which the indictment imputed to him. After calling over the witnesses, to the number of nine, the sitting was adjourned to the next day. !<{lting of 4th December, Yesterday's sitting, which was cntirelv occupied by points affecting questions of law, could but little interest the audience; nevertheless the public excitement had not subsided, and the crowd to-day, desirous of securing places in the Hall of the Assizes — a rather small one — wus not less considerable, 'i'lie first row of seats in the gtdlery over the principal entrance, reserved exclusively for the use ol' ladies, was quite full. Reserved places on the right, on the left, and behind the seats of the Court, were occupied by magis« trates, public functionaries, and officers of rtiuk. Proceedings were commenced by calliig over the names of the witnesses, nine in number, who were conducted to the room set apart for them. Examitiation of the Accused. -At what date were you appointed cashier of the Branch Bank at branch, which was The President. Poitiers ? Lamirande. — Eighteen months before the creation of that establisiied in August 1858. Q. Tell us in what your functions consisted. — A. To receive into and to pay out of what is culled the current cash ; the surplus of the current cash went to the auxiliary chest, and thence to the cellars. Q. You were not the only person who held the keys of the cellars and the auxiliary chest i—A. No ; 1 had one of the keys, the director had the other. Q. When did you begin to abstract funds from the safes (the cellar) .' — A. I think it was at the beginning of 18G2. Q. There were also defalcations in the current cash ; when did you begin them ? — A. On the 1 2th of March. 180.'), and I have carried them on since; but 1 was always hoping to substitute for the bags of gold of the current cash, bugs of silvei-, which I should have had taken to the cellar. Q. But to substitute is not to restore ? — A. I know that ; I had no hope of restoring, but I wished to delay as much as possible the moment when I could be found out, and that is why I was always endeavouring to cover the deficit ii^ the current cash, which might be checked any day, whilst so long us the deficit only existed in the specie deposited in the cellar I could hope that my deception might last for ever. Q. It has been remarked that the bags in the cellar which had been tampered with were placed under the others; that is quite certain, for bags were found with the stuff rotted, which leads to the supposition that they had been there a long time? — .-1. I did not take that prcoaution; the rotten bags may have become so in a short time on account of the temperature of the cellar. 51 Q. In short, you acknowledge that for the past tlirec years or tlirce years and si-half on used to take from tin reserves in the ?iift'. and tliat sinee Mureh, 1805, you have also eniliezzlcd fioiii tlie ciirroiit (■a>l)? .1. I neknowledee it. Q. With icirard Id tin- roideauv of gold, yoii went to work in this manner: you 0])en('d a rouleau, you took out several jiieces of •;oid, and vou replaced the weight of chese piiccs hy papor in .ie.eh a way that it these rouleaux had heen vvciuiiod without In ins; opened, (tic wi'iirht would l.ave Itu'ii found correct within aln^ut a ci-ntimiunnie. 'I'liat Hhows loiiif practice, liu'v much tiuie did you rctjuire to tampe,' in tiiis way with a has; of ?oId contiiiniii^- 'M,UOO IVancs .' — .(. Ahont ten ndnutcs. Q. '\".'.:\\ apj)eais impossihlc. yon must surely have d', voted niore lime to it .' — A. If I took nioic (hail ten minutes, I did not take a quarter of an hour. Q. What numher of Iiauk notes did you iibstraet from the ciish in use .' — A. 1 do nut (•!e;r.l\- renuiuher whether it was -l'i'>,()()0 or 4Hy,()0U fniiics. Q. 1 am ahout to ask you a very important (jnestion which I hej; you to answer frankly. V.'liat have you done with the suuis of money you eariicd oi!" witli you .' — A. I spent liiem first of all in travellirii:. I houijht some clotiies. In England I save au interpri ter 7,000 francs. Then 1 liad ti-aveiiin;,' expenses umountini^ lo .'-i.UdO or 4,t)0(' francs. 1 spent u i;rcat deal in London, passin:; wlioie nights wilhuut sleep, nine nights running. It is impossihle for nw to say how much money 1 spent ilurinLT that pciod. On my passage Jrom luigland to America I lent (i. ()()() tVanes to a Canidian who was ^oiuL: liome. Tiiis sum he lias restored to the himk. T/ir Pri'^'idiT.I. — Let us not -pel di of what has heen restored. What have vou done with the remainder of the 4*l'),()()(l or 4S"),00(l francs you tooli with you on your departure! — A. 1 gave ly 1,000 liarics to my lawyers iit New York. Ml'. Lachauil. — Those fellows are not lawyers. The Pregident. — New York 1 .wycrs. Ml'. Luchiniil. — 'I'hey do no not deserve the name. They are complices in the robbery. Till' Presiclevf. — What has become of those 191,000 francs ? A. They wer]>lansc in tlip hotly of the hall.) Me. limirbenu. — I am not ('iii|)owered to receive tiu-m. 'J'liey had better lie placed in tlic hands of the Director of the Bank, who will i^ivc a receipt for them. Mr. Larliaiul.— There is no need of a receipt. (The Director of the Bank opened the parcel and took ihurge of the hank notes inclosed in it.) The Presidenl to Laniirande. — There is still missing about I'iO.OOO trancs. What have you done with that sum .' Lumirundc . — I can only give the same answer as belore ; I cannot say. Mc. Lacl'turl. — 1 should add a few words in explanation of this restitution of 110,200 fnuics. A hint was given us, to Me. Lepetit and to myself. We followed up the tracks of the robbery. Every plate was searched, even the housetops. We asked lamirande if he would give us the name of the woman to whom he had entrusted this sum : " No, no," said he, " I will die first. That person has herself been robbed, and I will not have her compromised." We then devoted ourselves to this object, and we recovered the 1 10,200 francs which I have just given up. I must add that Lumirande never had tliis sum in his posses- sion ; and that if he had asked us for it, we should not have given it to him. (Sensation in Court.) The President. — Call a witness. Examination of Witnessen. The first witness examined was M. Dubois de Jancigny, Inspector of the Bank of France, the same who accompanied the workman who was sent to Poitiers for the purpose of opening the upper compartment of the current cash, the key of which Lamirande had carried off. This witness confirmed all the details given in the indictment as to the verification of the deficit discovered after the departure of Lamirande. The President. — Is it obligatory on the cashier to furnish a daily Return showing the state of the cash ? Witness. — Nothing is more obligatory ; it is by these branch Returns that the Bank of France fixes the rate of discount. The duplicate of this Return is entered in a book kept at the Branch Bank. Maitre Lachaud. — Are the instructions of the Bank the same for all the branches as far as relates to making a duplicate of the daily Return ? Witness. — I think they have been the same for the last three or four years ; formerly copying the Return into a bound book was not obligatory, although it was required by the directors in several branches. T^te President to the Witness. — It is shown by the confessions of Lamirande that your anticipations were well founded, inasmuch as the first embezzlements go back for more than three years. Now tell us whether he could have effected these embezzlements without rendering false accounts. Witness. — It was the necessary consequence of the embezzlements; without the falsified Returns in would soon have been discovered that there was something amiss in the cash ; there would have been an examination, the fraud would have been discovered, and Lamirande would have been arrested. Q. Lamirande pretends that the daily Returns, far from facilitating his embezzlements, made discovery more easy ; for, he adds, by comparing the Returns with the state of the cash, an account might have been taken — simply weighing the money would have been sufficient. — A. This argument would be valid if suspicion had been entertained ; but the Returns by concealing the defiicit, could not but aid the deception. Q. Lamirande acknowledges the embezzlements — his reason is apparent ; he is not prosecuted upon those counts, but he denies the forgery for which he is prosecuted — his tactics are understood. — A. In my opinion the two facts, that of embezzlement and that of forgery, cannot be separated ; the one came to the assistance of the oth r. Q. Explain to us the nature of the responsibility of the cashier, both as regards the current cash and as regards the money in reserve. — A. With regard to the current cash, which is in the cashier's office, the responsibility falls personally and solely upon him. It is not the same as regards the funds in reserve (in the cellar or the safe) ; here the respon- sibility is divided between two persons, the director of the branch, who has one key, and the cashier, who has another. Q. Is it not in consequence of that divided responsibility that the late Director, M. Bailly has been replaced ? — A. Yes, M. le President. of 53 M. Itailly, who hn.s been for fifty-two years ft landowner at Angers, late Director of the Branoli Bank of Poitiers, was railed to the bar. The President. — Tell us what you know. A/. Bnilli). — Gentlemen of the Jury, on the 11th of March last, I received an order from the Bank of France to dispatch to the AngoulCme Branch, tirst 1,000,000 and then 500,000 francs. The same day I gave directions to Lamirandc, my cashier, to dispatiih on the next day, the 12th, the 1,000,000 francs, and to make preparation for the dispatch of the 500,000 francs on the 13th of March. The issue of these orders brin^ us to the 13th of March, on the morning of which day I received a letter from M. Lamirande, informing me that ho had been suddenly obliged to go to Ch&tellcrault, leaving to M. Queyriaux, Chief- Accountant, his keys, and the duty of dispatching tiie 500,000 francs to AnKouleme. Here the witness entered into the details given in the indictment, of the discovery of the frauds perpetrated in the bags of silver destined for Angouli'ine, and, at a latter period, in tiie hiigs of gold. In the bags of silver 200 francs were uniformly missing per bug ; in the bass of gold, the weight of the abstracted coin was replaced by iin ecjual weight ul siivei- coin and paper. These frauds could never have been committed either in the cellar or in the safe ; it must necessarily have been in his office that this operation was i)crformc(l and when the bags were thus altered, but weighing their proper weight, the attendants carried them into the cellar or to the safe, and the doors once closed Lamirande was out of danger, for from that moment the responsibility was divided between him and me. I never intrusted my keys of the reserve to Lamirande, in whom, however, 1 had the greatest confidence. The President. — The cashier then was personally responsible for his current cash ; and as regards the reserves you shared the responsibility with him ? The Witness. — Yes, M. le PnJsident, this is the case in all the Branch Banks. I was myself for a long while cashier in a branch, and was responsible for my current cash. Q. How is it that Lamirande was able to continue his embezzlements for more than three years, which is proved in the first instance by his confessions, and secondly by a certain number of the bags found in the cellar being so old ? — A. The cashier has the superintendence of the movement of all funds. When we went down to the reserves he it was who pointed out the divisions from which the bags to be sent away were to be taken. It is quite natural that he should take care not to point out for removal the bags which had been tampered with. To have interfered with his directions suspicions must have been entertained of him. The President. — Prisoner, what have you to say on this deposition ? Lamirande. — Nothing, M. le President ; except to express to M. Bailly my profound regret for the consequences which have been entailed upon him by my conduct. Q. These regrets have come very late. When on the 13th of March you had so well prepared your flight, you did not think of the responsibility which would fall upon him by your carrying off more than 400,000 francs from your cash ? — A. I did not prepare for my flight, I yielded through necessity ; I had the choice of suicide or flight. Q. But not with 400,000 francs?—^. I [might have taken 5,000,000. (Sen- sation.) Q. So your discretion is to be praised then ? — A, I do not look for praise, but I wish to state that in the dire necessity in which I found myself, I could not leave with empty hands ; but that if I had been a thief, I should have taken all that I could lay hands on. M. Bailly gave evidence in confirmation that the falsified returns of the state of the cash delivered to him each day by Lamirande, could not but lull him to confidence and aid in the continuance of the embezzlement. M. de Or^try, Treasurer and Paymaster-General at Poitiers. — I have been receiver at Vienne since 1865, and inspector (" censeur ") of the branch bank of Poitiers. It is in this latter character that I have had occasion to have some relations with Lamirande. I do not know him personally, nor am I aware of his antecedents. On the 13th of March last, I was sent for to the bank by the director. There I was informed that owing to the dispatch of 500,000 francs in silver to Angouleme it had been discovered that a great number of bags did not contain the sums which they ought to have held, and that the cashier, Lamirande, had written in the morning to the director to say that he had left suddenly for Ch&tellerault, and had left the keys of the cash witii M. Queyriaux, chief accountant, at the same time begging him to tuidertakc the dispatch of the 500,000 francs to AngoulSme. I at once got M. Bailly to go and make a declaration before the Procureur Imperial, where I accompanied him. An express was also sent to the bank requesting them to send an inspector and a workman to open the upper com- partment of the current cash, the key of which Lamirande had carried ofi*. P 54 The remainder of this witness's deposition only refers to what is already known. M. I,aml)ert, ninnaser (" administmteiir ") of the branch at Poitiers, formerly a matri^trntr, wns called to the bar. The I'lmideiit. — Several witnesses have alrctidy deposed to the facts of which yoii arc called to make your declaration. We request you to sum it up in as few words as possible. M. Lambert, in fact, only confirmed what bad been said by the previous witnesses, as well upon the working of the acroimts of the branch, and the removing of funds, as upon the responsibility incumbent on the cashier, and the circumstances which led to the discovery of the frauds. The Prrnidrnt. — Have you been long manaper.of the branch? The IVilnrsii. — Since its formation, M. Ic President. The President. — I lave you sometimes veritied the cash ? Tlie M7'/iM«.— Never, M. le President, except on the 13th of March, when I was called upon to do so aftor the fliijlit of Lamirande. Q. What arc the duties of the manager? — A. Solely to assure himself of the solvency of persons who present bills for discount. M. Queyriaux, late chief accountant of tlic branch, banker at Poitiers, was called. The President. — You are called before us, Sir, to give us some information on the management of the accounts of the branch. Al. Queyriaux, after having referred to the facts which preceded and followed the flight of Lamirande, added : \Vith regard to the accounts this was the arrangement : M. Lamirande, as cashier, gave me the papers ; 1 entered the accounts in my books, and in the evening I checked the balance of my account by that of his cash-book. It was necessary that the two balances should agree, and they always did so. The President. — But in order that Lamirande's balance should correspond with yours, it must necessarily have been false. M. Queyriaux. — Doubtless, but I was not aware of the falsity. Q. How did Lamirande conduct himself at Poitiers ? — A. I was perfectly ignorant on the subject. It is only since his flight that I have become aware that he spent a great deal of money. Q. It is said from 60,000 to 80,000 francs a-year ?— .(4. That is what I have heard said, but only since his disappearance. Q. And of what nature was his expenditure 1^—A. 1 have been told that he gambled away a great deal. Q. Sixty thousand francs, it is stated, at one time, either at Angoul^me or at Angers ? Lamirande. — I have never been at Angers ; and nowhere, not even at Angouleme, did I ever lose 60,000 francs. Me. Lachaud. — It matters little. What is certain is, that you have played and lost a great deal. Lamirande. — I own it. M. Mar^chal, a clerk at the branch bank, who had to go to the railway with the 500,000 francs dispafched to Angouleme. and who, on weighing the bags, found out that from 55,000 to 60,000 francs must be missing, conflrmed these facts. M. Sarrault, attendant in the cash department of the Branch Bank, and Barry, the doorkeeper, likewise went with the 500,000 francs. Both confirmed the facts stated by the clerk Mareehal. Sarrault, who besides being an attendant in the Cash Department, was at the same time Lamirande's private servant, added that the day after Lamirande's flight, on going into his room, he remarked that papers had been burnt in the grate. The President. — Lamirande, what papers were those? Lamirande. — T had destroyed acknowledgments for money which I had lent. The President. — I do not understand ; what I bum acknowledgments for money lent ? Lamirande. — I was completely bewildered. The President. — Not so completely ; all the preparations you made for your flight prove the contrary. Lamirande. — I declare that I was bewildered ; the whole of my conduct after my flight leaves no doubt of it. Maitre Bourbeau, counsel for the Bank of France, was called on to speak for the prosecution. Me. Bourbeau. — I appear before you on the part of the Bank of France; to defend great interests, interests moral and material, for which, as regards the latter, some reparation has been commenced. 55 The story of T^niirnndc is u sad one. You are not called upon to punish in him II more deviation, a moment of forpfethihicss, l)iit a lon^ scries of misdeeds, a perseverance in evil wliicli midit be eiillcd incorritiihle ; no retnorsr, no twinires ot conseieneo. ever iiiiidered him ; in tince years lie lias s(|ii;iii(liie(i ■JHt.OOO trnncs. and that by means of daily tiieks. llow does he explain them? By bis pas>ioi) tur play, (Jamblinj? is not an excuso, it eaii be but an explanation. A day arrivt^ wlu'u be ean no loiiiier continue bis emhez/lements, and be takes Higbt, without considiriii^ that he leaves behind him disconsolate lannlies, bis own and that ot bis unhappy Direetor. He departs ; it is not to his own family that lie !;ik>s to bid farewell, but to two wonuii of that town, upon whom he rains down Danae's golden sliower. I.et us for a moment follow him : lie leaves Poitieis ; he goes first to Enj^land, then to Eni;lish America — to Canada. There he becomes the subject of a demand for extradition on the part of the French Government. An incident happens The PrMi(/CTi/.— Do not touch upon the question of extradition. You are aware of Be good enough to pass the decision passed by the Court yesterday. Me. Bourbeau. — I only wished to say two words. The President, — Not even two words, Maitrc Bourbeau. that over. Me, Bourbeau. — Well, let us say nothing about the extradition ; let us also be silent on the subject of the robberies, fraudulent abstraetior.s, and embezzlements ; and since henceforth he can only be jirosecuted for forgeries in commercial or in banking accounts, let us discuss the question of forgery. Can there be a doubt as regards this crime after the explanations which have resulted from these discussions ? We do not hesitate to declare that, as far as we are concerned, there cannot be the shadow of a doubt. He made false returns of the state of his cash ; that is proved, and he confesses it. With what object? With the sole intent of seeking protection from the consequences of his embezzlements by falsifying his accounts. When, therefore, he showed by his accounts the existence of so many bags of 1,000 francs, whilst a great number of those bags only contained 800 francs each, did he not commit forgery ? See him in his otfice, whether abstracting 200 francs from bags of 1,000 francs each, or transforming rouleaux of gold into rouleaux of silver, and having these effects taken to the cellars, there is the robbery, there is the embezzlement. But afterwards, what does he do ? He takes his pen, and enters in his cash-book and his returns sums which exist no longer, since be has embezzled them. And shall not that be called forgeiy, and why ? Is not the Bank of France a commercial Company ? Docs it not trade in the value of gold and silver ? Was not Lamirande the clerk of a commercial Company ? Tq all these questions the answer can only be in the affirmative. No, it cannot be said that for three years a cashier can have written a false account of a deficient balance in hand, and yet not be a forger. See what were the consequences of these forgeries. By the aid of these forgeries he was enabled to pass from the current cash, of which he had the sole responsibility, to the cash in reserve, the responsibility of which was divided between him and tiie director, u sum of more than 200,000 francs, and this is hr-v the upright director, M. Bailly, rests morally responsible for that sum which he never received. Entering upon the question of law, the Advocate quoted a decree of the Court of Cassation of 1841, which declares that false entries made by a clerk in commercial books constitute a forgery in commercial accounts. The case cited, relates to a clerk who entered as sold, in bis master's books, goods which be had stolen. The Court of Cassation ruled that that constituted a forgery, in as much as the false entries concealed the truth and, moreover, were calculated to mislead the merchant as to the true state of his affairs. In this case, as well as in the one which we are discussing forgery is a means of concealing robbery, either committed or about to be committed. Gentlemen, I have ended my address, and I have demonstrated the injury which may be caused by false accounts in conancreial business. Lamirande was a tliief, he was necessarily obliged to become a forger. By these forgeries he has been the cause of a triple injury to the bank : first, an injury in regard to money, then a second injury in leaving it ignorant of the true state of the Poitiers branch, ignorance which hindered it from apportioning its funds where they could be of service, and lastly a tliird injury, that caused to a superior officer of the bank, the upright M. Bailly, who, even after the loss of his confidential employment, rests under the stroke of the moral res[)onsibiiity of part of the misdeeds of his faithless cashier. I have accomplished my task. The proverbial honesty of lair Poitiers has experienced a cruel blow. For three years an individual has laboured secretly to infiict upon it this cruel injury ; but as is invariably the case, justice, supported by public opinion, has discovered the criminal, and to-day he is handed over to you. Gentlemen, you will do him justice. 11^ 1' 50 for I know that your decision will be guided by the conscience of the judge and the indignution of the citizen. The Hitting wiut [lOBtponed till the next day ut hulf-post ten. •Silting of December 5. The Hitting commenced at 1 1 o'clock amid the excitement caused by the incident which led to the restitution of the sum of 1 1 0,200 francs. M. Ir Premier Aiocnt-Ge'neral Gant commenced and expressed himself as follows : — Rarely in a criminal case has the day of trial been more anxiously desired, moic impatiently looked for than in this one which is now submitted to your judgment. It is not that this case involves one of those atrocious crimes which spread consternation and terror through society; yet without possessing this fearful importance this case has the sad privilege of having raised public indignation to the highest point. Let us state at once that this indignation docs honour to the human heart. It is, in truth, one of those spectacles that are revolting to the feelings of our nature. Public opinion has been outraged by Lamii-ande's crimes ; at ati age when the powers of his mind had reached their full maturity, Lamirande was placed in a confidential position which entrusted immense riches to his care. The severity of the precautions as well as the sentiments of honour and delicacy which he had imbibed in his respectable family, seemed to be a guarantee for the fidelity of his conduct. What has happened? Lamirande found himself one day hesitating between the desire of yielding to his ignoble instincts and the duty of respecting the treasures entrusted to his care. It so fell out that avarice prevailed over duty. Lamirande crossed the abyss that lay open before him, and after having laid a guilty hand upon the treasures of which he was the guardian, he became a forger. Once engaged in this criminal course, the accused persisted in it up to the time when his crimes were discovered and Lamirande crowned them all by one yet more heinous. He wished to assure himself a rich indepen- dence abroad in order to continue the debaucheries to which he was accustomed. But the Government felt that it was indispensable to seek the extradition of Lamirande. Ah! If to cross the frontier were sufficient, the greatest criminals might count on social impunity. Hence the principle of extradition is daily gaining ground. Our most eminent statesman has said " Extradition is a reciprocal guarantee against the ubi(iuity of evil." You are, however, aware of the scandal which has arisen in the foreign country where he took refuge. You know how Lamirande, by means of the gold which he had stolen from the Bank of Fnmce, was enabled to hire a whole host of instruments who set about quibbling over the conditions of the Treaty. Having taken refuge in Canada, he was at length delivered up to France, and now Lamirande awaits the just chastisement which he has incurred. We do not ask for vengeance, but for justice. You are aware that Lamirande can only be tried by you for the crime of Ibrgery. You have been told that this criminal hat; been suddenly touched with the spirit of repent- ance. You are promised that if he ?s acquitted upon the charge of forgery, he will come and oQ'cr himself up as holocaust on the other heads of accusation. Let us suppose that this is not a forensic stratagem ; let us suppose that he may be willing to be tried hereafter for the crimes of robbery and abuse of contidenee, that would be no reason for acquitting him upon the question of forgery. In fact, in our eyes, the crime of forgery is clearly proved. What ! — there is no crime of forgery in this case ? Here is a cashier who every day abstracts money from his cash — who daily certifies to his Chief in his accounts that all is coi-rect ; the accused was carrying on criminal operations in his cash without reproducing them in his accounts. The accounts are and ought to be a photograph of the cash. This is dictated by common sense. Duiing yesterday's sittings you heard a magisterial demonstration of the existence of the forgery, Theie is, first of all, a consideration which is of serious importance. A criminal procedure previously to its coming before the assizes has to undergo a double test : first, the preliminary examination ; then, if the deed amounts to a crime, the procedure is submitted to the Imperial Court, the Chamber of Indictment. This course has been followed in Lamirande's case. After having passed in review all the different phases of the procedure, M. i'Avocat- General examined into the character of the forgery as regards the law, and applied its principles to the facts of the case. He then drew attention to the enormous injury occasioned to the Bank of France. Lamirande has precipitated his father into the depths of despair ; he has dishonoured his name. But chastisement was not long in overtaking him. He received reproof even 57 from tliat sliumcles.s crcaluiv whom lie kept, who was hviiif^ by prostitution, uiul who, on karning his arnst, siiid : *' 1 hat man has no heart ; I tliouirlit he lovrd his father and mother : he luves no one." Never has a prisoner appeared het'ore a jury witli such an aeeunudation ol' eriines. He has aeeomphshed tliese erinus with unrivalled intrepidity and assurane( . His eoolness never abandoned him, and everything shows the premeditation of the aeeiisi'd. What was hi.s motive of aetiou f His motive was the most vile, a tllir^t tor the basest enjoyments, the most ignoble lusts, not to inentioi\ the |)leasuiis ot the eliase, the exeite- ment of the gaming-table was neeessary to him; he required the relini'inents of the most shameless luxury. This finished debauchee must needs have two cx|K'nsively kept mistresses. Expatiating on the eircmnstanees attending the restitution of the I lo,2(>0 franes, M. rAvocat-General said that it was meant for theatrieal cH'eet. 'i'hat rt'stit)ition was the act of a thief who, finding that he is pursued, abandons a portion of his booty in order to save the rest. Liimirande would lain loiilrive to reap the benefit of extenuating circum- stances, but the accused is unworthy of it. and the jury will show him no j)ity. The crimes of the accused have resounded everywhere ; the penalty should fall on him in all its weight. You will assure to society, to public eonseienee, the reparation which is their due. Me. Lftchauil, Lamirande s counsel, expressed himself as follows: — We, on the side of the delenee, have ever recognized the gravity of this case. A cashier who forgets his duty, who betrays the confidence reposed in him, — nothing is more sejious. We should not deserve to lie French advocates if we did not agree with those who administer the laws on all that touches honour, probity, and loyalty. IJut in order that justice may be impartial, she must take everything into consideration; she nmst weigh everything with the greatest care. Justice is the most important thing in the world, for it belongs to God. But after having acknowledged the enormity of the crime, you must take account of the accused, of his life, his weakness, Ids unheard-ol' sufferings. Unless you take all this into account, it will be not justice, but vengeance, which M. I'Avocat- Gen^ral desires no more than I do. The wretched man whom I defend is 42 years of age. Of his I'amily I will say nothing. Who is there here who does not know that everybody pities, esteems, and loves his venerable father, whom God has allowed to live too long, since he witnesses the dishonour of his name .' I will not speak to you of his jiious mother, nor of his brother — a most worthy man. The wretched Lamirande stands before you under the weight of a teriible accusation. Let him accept this new indignity, and let it be to him the most inefiiieeable of misfortunes. When the storm lowered over this unhappy family, people were considerate towards them ; I mention the fact as an honour to the country. Alas ! Lamirande knew not how to be a son worthy of those good |)eople. His youth was marked by deviations, by follies, by prodigality ; and when, in 18.08, he was made a cashier, he owed more than .00,000 francs. The wish to benefit this young man led, perhaps, to the commission of an imprudence. The cashier should be a man of unassuming habits, of frugal life. He is the most perfect representative — he ought to be so — of accuracy and modesty. That man who will see open before him the treasures of the Bank of France, he will struggle for a long time ; when he shall succumb you will call him a criminal. Ah, these treasures ought not to have been entrusted to him. Up to 1862 Lamirande's conduct had been in-eproachable. His small debts increased. He did not, indeed, indulge in the lu.\ury, but in the disgrace of two mistresses. One of them I pity ; of another I do not speak, and for her I leave to M. I'Avocat-G^neral the right of expressing all his contempt at his ease. One day when he was harassed on all sides in the midst of his engagements, there was a deficit ; he was short of 5,000 francs. That is not much in accounts such as those of the Bank of France. Distressed, not daring to impose a new sacrifice on his family, he committed a theft : the abyss was opened. When the first step in this path has been taken, wickedness strides on, evil urges us forward, we become its slave. That is what happened to this wretched man. After having provided for the deficit, he paid his debts ; he 'jT'imlilpd. he reckoned on good luck, he lost, and after having lost 100,000 francs, from fault to lault, from fall to fall, he at last took to flight, as you know. This terrible affair will serve as a great example for all cashiers. The facts of the case show that Lamirande's precautions were ridiculous. He cut o])cn the bags, he replaced gpld by silver, but examination was possible ; he was at the mercy of the first serious inspection. You recall to mind Lamirande's flight ; going in his uneasy conscience to seek a refuge in Canada, betrayed on all sides. His suflferings were so severe, that I ask mvself [68] 1 >. M wlu-tlier it Ih- not pret'erahlc tn Htand ut that bar of iiil'amy. When he wan taken into cuKtody in C'anachi, how iiiiich think yon he had It-rt ? Eiglitccn IrancH; hi- who carried off hah a iiiilliiiii. And whtii lie wrote to thoi-c men, whom I certainly shall not call IttwyerH, for u Mnall miiii. Iu' rccfived no answer. Tliese are tlie iniserie> wiiieli lie litis e.x|HTieiiee(i. Wiien he came back to France in raus, the I'oiice Ai^ent was forced to lend liiin eloliies to enahle hitn to embark in the boat which i)i'oiiKhf iiim into F'raiiee. Alas! what a h ->i)n! 1 miiilil speak of vesterday'i* incident. N\'e nii^rht ask ourselvi s, my eolieaj^ue and 1, how we iitive been bcncKted by the restitution made in Court yesterday, if the Counsel tor the dclence weie not men of upright chaiaeter (for which we thank nuhody), tlierc mi;;ht he daii^er in acting as is right. No, no, M. I'Avocat-Cicnerai, wc did not want to produce a tlieatrieal ett'ect. The money was handed into Court because we did not tliink it projier to give it up sooner. If wo restored that money, it was because we, and not l.amirande recovered it. Let mc say to my eollcajjiucs at the bar, thai whicii we have done with hetut anil honour, you would have done likewise; but many sleepless nights you would have p,.s-.icl in eiins^i|uentv', 'I'hese are the facts: I, gentlemen, am proud of them, and my colleai;ue Lepetit is as proud of them as 1 am. We in France are not Yankee lawyers. Three heads of accusation have been laid to the charge of I^mirande — theft, embez/.lenuMit, and forgery. The Counsel, ailer having laid aside the two first heads, examined the legal character of forgery. Article 147 punishes (why should 1 not say so? there is nothing that I am aware of to prevent it), Article 147 of the Penal Code punishes the crime of forgery with penal servitude for u term, liut where do you find perversion of tiic truth ? The cash-book is correct ; the returns include the amount of capital in all the cort'ers of the Bank. Now, you are aware that there were three divisions of the cash. The Accountant's documents alone served to make out the return. As trt tlie cashier's accounts they were right. But where is the obligation, the discharge '(' Show me the engagement in favour of or against any one. They have told you that there was therein a complete discharge imposing the responsibility upon one who oui^ht not to have borne it. This pretended discharge, of which you have been told, cannot then imjiedi" you. Hut where then is the injury t I appeal to Maitre Bourbcau, who is my colleague, and with whom I can allow myself greater latitude than witli tin- Avocat-General. Is it because there may be a moral injury that it can be said tliat there is a real injury, as the law understands it? Oh ! but it said, you have imposed on ihe Hank. I answer iliat the Bank is not the less rich for a million more or less, so long as its credit is not atiected. Yes, 1 have imposed on the Bank, I have imposed on it by robbing it, but nut by forgery. The Bank of France has curreiit accounts, ll the current account is not correct, there may be a wrong, a perversion of truth. Tliat is a forgery. But to have perverted truth, and to have caused a moral injury, is not suHicient. The lie in writing is not sufficient. That may be a swindle, it may be a fraudulent scheme. Well, the cashier's book, my own book, has not been falsified. What you attack are the internal accounts of the Bank. But the unhappy man there, however guilty he may be in your eyes in a moral point of view, is nevertheless not a t'orger. Above all, the jury are bound by their oath, if forgery has been committed, that man must be judged guilty of forgery, lie assuit'd, I do not seek impunity for that man. He will not get oft', he does not wish, and I do not want it. Here is the declaration which I have been connnissioned to read to you in the name of Lamirande, and I pass my word for him : — " I, the Undersigned Surreau Lamirande (Krnest Charles Constant), solemnly declare that, if the verdict of the jury wlio have to determine on the crime of which 1 am accused, and which I protest 1 never intended to coinmit, is in the negative, I do not intend to avail myself in any way of the privilcije of the Treaty of Extradition wiith Kiiiiland; that, on the contrary. 1 ask in that case to be tried by the Court of A.ssize ot \'iennc for the acts of embezzlement and theft which are laid to my charge by order of the Court of Indictment. " I am, therefore, prepared to sun-eiider myself as a prisoner, and I request my Counsel to place this declaration in the hand of the Attornev-Gcneral. "Poitiers, December 4, 186(i." (Signed) " Lamirandb." Ah ! M. rAvocat-General, did you not understand how I was situated in this matter ? We did not wish to shelter ourselves behind Treaties of pAUr.dition. Away! Away ! We do not have recourse to such means. ^Ve wear the long robe as well as magistrates. The colour is of no consequence ; conscience is everything. In three months Lauiiraude will be here, and you will try him, — you or others. I to ed all in mt v'» hy of is 'he If to avo lire of avc Iter ft9 wish him to have tlu' lionrfif of his coiiiam': I «i'*li him, aOci- tlic verdict nf the jury, to lit free hdoro the law, liut to he a |iri»()iitr hetoro jti>-ti('i' and in lii-i t)\vii trie will. NVc advi'cntrs apprt'ciaff ah^vo all tliir'."« roni]ia'»«ioii. Tin' advocate for an acciisfd man al;s tii liiiii ct itMior-i;-. of (lud. and of atuncmt lit. iii(iul.;('ut, and tliat (iod may " A. S, Lamiiia VI).' tlif iionr of j'.i'^tici' ; and. sustidns uni! .nu-i-s lii-.i ; lie spo; We UK! pliysifians of the mind, liappy and pruud to lie so. 'I'h.it man \\ili he a(ay that the law is fur us, hut that it is u^aiiist us; no duuht wu hiadi cnduuvoui, in n curtain measure, to Mii'len the luaits of the iury towards so mueli ^lllHrin^r. AIii-. for the unhappy nrin I if ymi (ii.Iv hnev wlmt he has sull'iiedl Ve^, betorc taUin;{ h'.- place en that iK'Uch lie louiid u-stinlay in his pii>oii tl„se tinre letter-, which I w".-!i to r.iid to yon. \Viiii>,t reading; the-c lines I was deeply moved, and yuu will shuri; my emotion. lliiv Is, lirst, the kttc.' of Luniiruniie'.i pioiir. mother: — " Dcarc.-i, niiiiappy ciiiM, '• 1 did not Wi'.it for your cry of lamentation hctovc? I'orifivimr your crime ; I feel an intense (onipas-iou .'or you in thinkiii^i of the lot which you have prepared foi' your-elf, and the suti'erini;> whieii you have l)iou:,'ii! upon yourself. "I fervently pay Heaven that your jud'.;es may he forgive you as your mother i'or;^lve: y.u. (Siijncd) Here is the cdd man's letter to his son : '• I well knew that the hfuir of repent anc'e would pre unha|i])\ child, I lor^cave you from the day in which y(Ui acknowledtjid your iwor I have suffered in a deei)er di^reu than yuu the miseries which are tiie inevitahle conscipienee; of your sh;une and of your fiii;lit. 1 shall sMth-r still I'roiu the terrihle penalties which will he ieflieted en vcju. I shall not com] Iriin if you can support your sull'erinjjjs with dii:nity, am! continue in your repentance "1 need not tell you that v.eall pray that vonr .Ir.Jiic may he indul_'ent, and (!. IN <-om|ilinn('c with tli<> inNtntctinns ciiiitiiiiu-il in your l*taiil, to iiHuiirc into (In- (dr-(!ctiu'>tntfiiuiil of n diiiiv \m\H'T thnt, a lew Hci'ks sinci', a crimiimi wlioso caiiluro or surninU'r Imil lit-i-ii iiii|)roiH>rly ohtniiietl in Franco was, after a conviction and sentence in Fnince. sent buck to t^wit/orlniul by order of the Imperial (Sovernnient. I ilesired M. Treite to make in(|uiries, and I now inchtse copy «»f a letter which I liave reci-ived fronj that K(^i>tl^'n><>t>> ••"om wiiiob your liOrdMhii) will ]>erccivc that he has not liecn able to find any trace of such a caH(> having occurriHl recently. M. Treite consitlers that tlic nexspajier refers to the case of Oermenon, in IHIO, of which he jjives a summary, and which tiinu-d less on the irrejjfularity of the extradition than on the principle that an accnst-d person can only be tried on the charges upon which the extradition had been granted. M. 'I'reitc also states that the only point in tliis precedent which has any bearing on liamirande's ca,se is, that it follows from it that, when the Executive declares an extradition not to have been made according to law, it can waive it, and give up the individual, I hare, Stc. (Signed) COWLF^Y. Tnclosure in No. 24. 3f. IVelte lo linrl Vovloy. Milord, PiniK, le tl D/remhre, 18G6. VOTRE Exeollcncc a bien voulu me faire une communication relative ik un erimincl «]ue le Gouvernement Fran(;ais, d'apn'^s d'un journal, aurait rendu, il y a quelques semaincs, k la Suisse, par le motif que I'extradition n'aurait pas etc reguliere — fait qui constituerait un prtW'dent pour la restitution de Lamirande. Je m'empresse de repondre a votrc Excellence (|ue, mnlgre mes rccberchcs, je n'ai pu trouver trace d'un pareil fait qui se serait i)asse recenmient. Et, i^ moins qu'il nait et6 profond<5mcnt enseveli dans les arcancs de la Cliancelleric, je ne crois pas qu'il existc, II y aura eu confusion ilans I'assertion du joiunal. Le precedent auquel il a ete fait allusion sc rapportc evidemment au proces d'un Sieur Dermenon, jugd en 1840, et dans Icqucl cc fut moins I'irregularit*!' de I'extradition qui fut en jeu (lue ic primeipc qui veut qu'un accuse ne puisse etre jug*? que pour des causes ou chefs d'accusation pour Icsqucls rcxtradition a 6t6 eflPectude, Voici I'espfice : Un criminel, nommd Dermenon, s'etait rcfugie en Suisse. II avait etc mis en accusation pour crime de banqueroute frauduleuse devant la Cour d'Assises du D(5partement de la C6te d'Or i^ Dijon. L'arrfit de renvoi devant la Cour d'Assises portait (|ue, ulterieurement, Dermenon serait traduit devant le tribunal de police corrcctionnelle pour les delitsdc banqueroute simple et d'abus de confiance. s'il eta it acquitti'- du chef de liancjueroute frauduleuse. L'extradition de Dermenon fut demande i)our ce deniier chef d'accusjxtion, et accorde par le Canton de G<5n<'^ve ; niais le jury accpiitta Dermenon. Le Procureur-G6n<;ral pres le Cour de Dijon demanda alors au Ministre de la Justice s'il fallait faire juger Dermenon pour les ddits de banqueroute simple et d'abus de confiance. Le Ministre repondit que I'accuse, n'ayant etc livr<5 que pour le crime de faux, ne pouvait etre mis en jugement pour d'autrcs causes, et qu'il fallait le reconduire k la frontiere. Mais le Canton de Geneve refusa de le reccvoir, et Dermenon fut ramend h Dijon, ou il fut traduit en Police Corrcctionnelle pour abus de confiance et banqueroute simple. Le pr^venu cxcipa de son etat de fugitif, de I'irr^gularit^ forcee de sa presence en France, &c. Le Tribunal de Police Corrcctionnelle admit les exceptions de Dermenon, et ordonna qu'il serait ramen6 ^ la fronti^rc. Mais le Procureur-Gdneral fit appel contre ce jugement, et la Cour, reformant le jugement du Tribunal de Premiere Instance, ordonna, par arret du H AoiU, 1840, qu'il fut procede aux debats, parce que, " si les Fran^ais poursuivis en France pour crimes et d61its sont protdg^'s par I'inviolabilite du territoire etranger, il ne sauraient se prevaloir de cettc inviolabilite quand le pays etranger les repousse." Dermenon se pourvut en Cassation contre cette decision, et la Cour Supreme, par arrfit du 1 Septembre, 1840, a casse la sentence de la Cour de Dijon, par le motif qu'elle aurait dfl surseoir, vil que la question h decider etait celle de savoir si le refus de Geneve *u* I 01 do rm'voir rncniHi' r(|iiivalai> ;'• iinc rxtrndition n'-iulitrc, vt (|iu' \o (Jouvoriicnu'iit wiil «'tni< (•ompotoiil h cct oH'ot. I.c |Miiiv(iir »'\<'<>ii oMiaditioii, ct il lo lit roooiidairo h uno froiititVo. Ainsi (jn'on lo voit la dootriiu' prinoipalo <|iii >o ditjano tout il'aliord do cos CaitH. o'ost (jiio lo (iouvornomotil Kraiinii- n'a pas voulii «|iio I)oiimii!iil aiiu.-.ii(n i'Avocat-ticnoral dans Ir j»rooos haininindo. qmind il soutonnit quo lautorito judioiairo otail altsoluniont inooiniatoiitp pour statuor sur dcs fuits d'oxtradition, exoopto dans un soul oas, cclui oi'i I'oxtradition avait ou liou sans que lo pouvoir oxocutif y out pris part, ot alois lo .lujfo dovait sursooir jus(|U'a ce que lo Oouvpriiempnt so Cut pnnmiicc sur la roj^ularito do I'oxtradition, l"cst la du reslc la doctrine proclann'o dans la I'anioiisc oirouiairo do la Chanoollorio du *» Avril, 1S41, laquollo met on relict' tons los points do la pratiipio do I'ovtradition on France. Ainsi s'il y a doute sur la lognlito di' I'oxtratlition, raulorilt'- judioiairo aooordoni un sursis, ct pour conscrvor intaoto la distiiu tion du pouvoir juiliciairo ot caled to the Court of Cassation against this decision, and the Supreme Court, by a Decree of the 4th of September, 1840, quashed the sentence of the Court of Dijon, because it ought to have suspended the proceedings, considering that the question was whether the refusal of Geneva to receive the accused amounted to a regular extradition, and that the Government alone was competent to decide the point. The Executive Power, in fact, decided that Dermenon could not be tried on account of the irregularity of his extradition, and ordered him back to the frontier. As you will perceive, the principal doctrine which results from these facts is, that the French Government would not allow Dermenon to be tried on charges other than those on account of which his extradition had been demanded and obtninefj. The French Government has always observed this principle, of which there are numerous instances, amongst which may be cited that of an individual who in 1815 had been condemned for crime through contempt of Court. Tho same individual was subsequently arrested of complicity in the attempt to assassinate the Duke of Wellington. The Govern- ment procured his extradition on this charge, but he was acquitted by the jury, and was able to go abroad again. But in the secoiiu place, it resull.j from the Dermenon case that the French Govern- ment would not consider as regular an extradition founded merely ou the refusal of i foreign Government to receive an accused pei-son who already had previously foynd a refuge in its territory. It further results, that when tho Executive Power finds that an extradition is not according to law, they can decline to take advantage of it, and give up the person sun-endered. This is the sole point in which the Dermenon precedent affects the case of Lamirande. It was to this Dermenon decision that the Avocat-Gen^ral made allusion during the Lamirande proceedings, when he urged that the judicial authority was altogether incompe- tent to decide upon the facts of extradition, with the single exception of a case in which the extradition had been eilected without the intervention of the Executive power, and then the Judge ought to suspend the proceedings until such time as the Government had pronounced a decision on the regularity of the extradition. Besides, this is the principle enunciated in the famous Chancery Circular of April 5, 1841, which brings clearly out all the points ot extradition practice in Prance. Thus, if any doubt arises respecting the legality of the extradition the Judicial authority will grant a delay, and in order to preserve intact the distinction between the Judicial and Executive powers, will await the decision of the latter authority, which alone can interpret international Treati».'8. There was no occasion in the Lamirande proceedings to grant a delay, for the Governmeiii, had Jcoided that the extradition was regular and had sent the person surrendered for trial. These doctrines are generally adopted by French pu'olicists, but the dispute arising from the extradition of Lamirande is also gc erally re^TCtted. If it be true that this prisoner, regularly surrendered by the proper i uthority, vfas so surrendered in a manner not within the provisions of the English law, and under uni sual rsircurastances, the French Government ought not to take advantage of that extradition. This would be the only means of preparing the way for a good Treaty, which is indispensably necessary for both sides of the Channel. Accept, &c. (Signed) TREITE, Avoeat de la Cour ImpMale. laccount [quitted Justice tcy and cred on he must lim, and Correc- accuser! nee, &c. back to e Court l?ust 14, cuted in erritory, them." [Supreme Court of question tradition, e Power, ty of his 63 No. 26. Earl Couley to Lord Stanleii, — {lieccired Drcrmher 'JO.) My Lord, Pnrix, Dcrrmher 10, IBfiO. IN takin^f leave of M. de Mouslicr ihis afternoon, 1 rocominended to his attention the last communication which I iiad made to liim on tlie snliject of I^mirande's extradition. His Kxcellency replied that the Krencli (Sovernnu'nt could do nothin;; more: that if Hit Miijcsty's Government haii any claim to nuiko ujjDn tiio Imin-riai fiovcrnmcnt in consequence of the infractiop of the Extradition 'rreiity. it siiouid lie put toiward officially and supjwrted by proofs. The Im))erial (Jovernmeut ivould be quite ready to consider a demand of the kind, and to examine it upt)u its nlerit:^ ; niul lie I'ould assure me that if Her Majesty's Government could make out a case, IjunirandL' .•. 18*30. IN the second leading article of the "Daily News ' of the Ttli instant, it is stated " it is only a few weeks since that a criminal whose capture or surrender had been improperly obtained in Switzerland was, after conviction and sentence in Frnnce. sent back to Switzerland by order of the Imperial Government on the ground ol the ante- cedent irregularity." I have referred to Her Majesty's Amliassador at Paris on this subject. l)Ut I have not been able to obtain any information of a case answering the above description, and of so recent a date as is stated in the " Daily News." 1 have therefore to instruct you to furnish me with any particulars of which you are in possession, in exslanation of the statement above referred to. I am, &c. (Signed) STANLEY. No. 27. Admiri.ll Harris to Lord Stanley. — (Received December 30.) My Lord, Berne, December 28, 1866. IN accordance '.ith the instructions contained in your Lordship's despatch dated the 20th instant, I have obtained the details of n case, doubtless the one alluded to in an article of the " Daily News " of the 7th insta:it, in which it is stated that " a criminal, whose capture and surrender had been improperly obtained in Switzerland, was, after conviction and .sentence in France, sent back to Switzerland on the groimd of the antecedent irregularity." The following are the correct details su])plied to nie by the Swiss Government : — On the 'Jotli of last .June the French Ambassador demanded the cxtraditioii of two Frenchmen, Andre JJalmont and Ferdinand Courtes, commercial travellers, arrested at Geneva on charges of "crime de faux et usage de pieces fausses," in accordance with the terms of the existing Treaty of Extraditi(m Ijctween France and Switzerland. The Federal Council acceded to the request, aiul the prisoners were handed over to the French authorities on the oth of July. On examination before the Juge d'lnstruction at Lyons it was found that the orig'nal charges could not be sust.iined ; nevertheless, thcj' were remanded to prison and siinmioned before the Tiibunul Correc- tional at Lyons on a charge of "a!>us de confiance et escroqucrie." This being in legal classification a " d^lit '' and not a " crime,' is not included in the terms of the Extra- dition Treaty ; consequently the prisoners' counsel protested, and would not allow them to plead. They were withdrawn from the bar, but the trial proceeded and they were > , h !i 64 condomiicd "en ('(iiitiiinacc." 'I'licv ai)jKak'(l tliioii;;li tla-ir cuiinsi'l in tlio Swires (iovLrii- iiiftit, who insdiictc'd tlieir Knvov at I'aris. .M. Kiin, to make a reclamation on llie HUbjt'Ct. In a note ilatud tlic 31st Aujjust, M. Kern informs the Federal Council that previoub to applying to tlu French Minister of Foreiu:!! Afliiirs he had made iiiais. II ma ete impossible den ritrouver un exemplaire ; mais commc die est trt^s longue, je vais le faire reimprimer, et aurai I'hoiineur dc vous en remettre un exemplaire, ainsi qu'a M. le Ministre do Suisse, qui m'en a prie. •le crois done ne pas (}tre t<''meraire en persistant dans I'opinion que j'ai <;mise le 10 Decembrc dernier, declarant qu'il n'y avait jms dc pr(5cedent applicable a I'afiairc Lamirande. Agr^cz, &c. (Signe) TREITE. (Translation.) M. le IMiiiistic, Parui, January 11, 18(i7. Vt)U have boon pleased to direct me to make inquiiy into a case of extradition between l''runiir()nnid to tlie constant rule ot law, of wliich I Iiave alrendy in my |)re('C(lin^ coininniiiciitions cited exiini|>l(s, ;!mi1 which is thus laid down in a Minislen;il ("iicnlnr of Scpteinlicr '>. 1>«H : " It results I'roin the piinciple th;it cxtriulition caiinfit lie u'laiited for a misdemeanour ('delit') — that if an individual who has committed an act which is criminal in France is given up to the French Government to he tried for this act, and if at the same time he is accused of u misdemeanour, he must not he tried for that misdemi anour. "The a]tj)lieation of the principle is susceptible of some iliftieiilties. It is clear that, if the niisdcnieaiiour stands alono, it will he easy to try tlic individual surrendei-ed (iir the crime only. But in certain cases the misdemeanour is connected; besides, it often becomes, by reason of its connection, an nirfiravatintr circumstance. When these ditti( ulties arise, you will refer them to nie, ami I will let you know, together with my opinion, the prece- dents of my Department." Such is tlie lunf,'uage held by the Minister of Justice to the I'rocureurs-fjcneraux : the accused persons can only be tried for tlie crimes that are provided for by Kxtradition Treaties. This Circular is very important. It sums up the whole practice in matters of extradition as it has ever been followed by tiie French (Jovenmu nt. 1 have found it impossible to ^ct a copy ; but, as it is very lontf, I am going to have it re|)rinted, and shall have the honour of sending you a copy, as well as one to the Swiss Minister, according to his recjutst. I think, then, that I am not rash in persisting in the opinion which I g-ave on the loth of December last — namely, that there is no precedent applicable to the case of Lamirande. Accept, &c. (Signed) TREITE. No. 30. Lord Stanley to Mr. Fane. Sir, Foreign Office, January 12, 18G7. HER Majesty's Government hare given their best consideration to, and have consulted the Law OflScers of the Crown on, Lord Cowley's report, contained in hi.s despatch of the 19th of December, of his conversation with M. de Moustier respecting the case of M. Lamirande, and they gather from it that unless a fonnal application for the surrender of M. Lamirande is made to the French Government, that object will probably not be effected. Her Majesty's Government would have much preferred that the question .slionld have been set at rest, as it has hitherto been di.scusscd, by informal rather than by oflicial representation on their part ; but as the French Government seem to consider the latter course preferable, I can no longer hesitate to say that although even now Her Majesty's Government are advised that they cannot demand the surrender of M. Lamirande as a matter of right, yet it is their desire that you should at once make an othcial request for his surrender. You will observe that Her Majesty's Government contend that the extradition of M. Lamirande was unauthorized by the Treaty of 1843, and by the Statute giving effect to that Treaty, on two grounds : First, that the demand made for his extradition was not made through the intervention of such a Diplomatic Agent as is contemplated by the Treaty, and the British Statute confirming it : and. Secondly, that the offence charged against M. Lamirande was not the oflenee of "faux," or forgery, contemplated by the Treaty. As regards the first point, M. de Moustier in his conversation with Lord Cowley, reported by the latter in his despatch of the 20th of Ivoveni])er, seemed di^pused to contend that the French Consul-General was, under the circumstances, an accredited Diplomatic Agent within the meaning of the Treaty and Statute. The Governor-General of Canada by appearing to treat the French Consul-General as an authorized Agent within the meaning of the Act, certainly m&de himself a party to such a construction. It is to be observed, however, that the British statute reproduces the term "Diplomatic Agents," which alone appears in the Treaty, and limits to persons so quahfied the right to demand extradition under the French Treaty. If a more coinpre- K 2 68 hciiHivc Hipnifieancc lind then been considered to bo nttached to that term, there was no reason why it should not have been set forth in tlio statute; in the same manner as in the statutt' passed on tin- self-same day, namely, tlie L'l'iid of August, li-i^.l, for .giving elfect to the Extradition Article of the Treaty with tin- United States of the previous year, no mention was inah France ; but tlic crime was commiittd iu France, the warrant was issticd by a Ma<;istrate in France, and it was prohably convejed by the person who was the bearer of it throu<;li Eni-land, or at all event> mi^lit have been so conveyed without inconvenience or sensible «1( lay, 'I'liere was therefore no necessity for disregarding, in this case, the usual practice of applying to Her Majesty's Government for the extradition of M. Lamirande under that warrant through the French Diplomatic Agent in England. On all these grounds, therefore, Her Majesty's Government trust that the French Government will be disposed to accede to the application which I have now the honour of addressing to your Excellency for the surrender of M. Lamirande. I avail, &c. (Signed) JULIAN FAJfE. No. 32. Lord Stanley to Mr. Fane. , Foreign Office, Januurij 14, 18(5". I HA'VE to acquaint you, in reply to your despatch of the 13th instant, that I approve of the note which you propose to address to M. de Moustier respecting the case of M. Lamirande. 1 am, &c. (Signed) STANLEY. No. 33. Mr. Fane to Lord Stanley. — {Received January 16.) (Extract.) Parin, January 14, 1867. I HAD the honour of receiving this afternoon your Lordship's telegram, informing me that the draft of note which I proposed to address to the French Government, upon the case of M. Lamirande, was approved ; and I accordingly sent my communication to the Marquis de Moustier without delay. Your Lordship will perhaps be good enough to direct that the date " 14th of January " shall be attached to it. It will then be identical with the note which I have addressed to the Marquis de Moustier. 91 No. 34. Mr. Fiine lit Lord Stiinlev. — {Rireived Jitnuiir'i i<>.) My Lord. Piiri», January 1.'), 1807. WITH nlirincf to my dcspatcli of tlic lltli instant, statiiij; tliat I Imd requested M. 'i'rtitc to in(iuirc into the exaet state in wiiieli M. l^iniirande's appeal is. I have tlie lionoiir to inelose iierewilh a copy of a report whieli 1 have just received from that gcntleniun . 1 have, &e. (Signed) JULIAN FANE. Inclobure iu No. .34. M. Treiti- to Mr. banc. M. le .\linistie, Jl'L suis iille liie.' au pari(ueL dii I'loeureur-CJeneml prt;9 de hi Cour do Cassation, nrinlbrnur .si Lamiiande avail I'oniie un jio irvoi t'ontrc I'arri^t (|ui I'a eoiidanine a dix aiiiHis (le leeic.-ion. La ivpon.se ayai.i ele neirutive, je |)uis, a nion letour, re'poiidre avcc eerliiudf a la (iiiestion (pie vous ave/. l)ien voidu me poser, et \()ns dire tpie la eondanination dc Lanurandc est deiinilive et ipi'eile ncst jihis suseeptibic d'aueun recours lef;al. Lc condauime a done aeeepte la |)eiiu' inlamante dont il a ete frappe ; il cut pu I'tre eondannne a vin^t annees du tra\aux forces, (jui sont ia peine ediett'e pour le faux ; niais lc jury ayant aecorde a Laniirando ie benetice tl'mic declaration de eireonstances altcnuantes, la ('our a ete obiifjee d'abaisser d'un deu're reehclle des peines et dc ne proMoncer (jue la reeliision, dont lo uiaxiniuni est de di,\ annt'cs. II n'appartient a personne de sonder les motits (pii out determine l^amirande i» ne pas se p alteriitioii or fuUifiootion of the nubstancc or the contents of u document not materially f'aMtidi ; tor cxainiilc, drawing agreements different from those settled bv tlie contraetiiiL parlies, or (leclarim!; a< true tiling* which are false. I'his di<«tii)Cti()ii in tlie eriiiie of forgery is foinulcd tipuii this axiom : " Fuisitas est fraudulosu veritatis mutatio et in alteriiis prieiiuiieium fueta." This definition, admitted hy the Treneii eriiiiinal lawyers, has passed into juris- prudence. The Court of Cassation has itself (ietiiud foruery : — " Alteration of the truth witli a criminal intention which has prejudiced or could have prejudiced another." — (Decree of July 17. \H:i:,). If I^mirundc had appealed, the Court of Cassation would prohably have applied this maxim of iiiw to him, and would have rejected his appeal. Be good enough to excuse me lor entering into all these details ; I have only given them in order to enable you to (orn> an opinion on the verdict of the jury, who, not- withstanding the absence of an actual alteration in the Dank accounts, did not the less declare Laniirande guilty of forgery. Allow me to add a li w more words. I have heard it said that England might be justified in reclaiming the jierson of Laniirande on the ground that the acts imputed to the accused, and for which he was surrendered, did not come within the terms of the Treaty of lb4<'i ; that the crimes provided for in the Treaty ought to have the same character in the two countries -, and that J^mirande, according to the law of l')nglund, was not guilty of the crime of forgery, but only of the crime of theft, since he has not actually altered the bank accounts. The argument, if produced, has no chance of being admitted. Jt would be replied that Treaties must he interpreted according to tlie common intention of the Contracting Parties. If at the time of drawing up the Treaty an interpn-tation had to he made, f^igland would have answered that she understood that her subjects accused of forgery should be delivered up, although the law of France does not punish, and docs not consider as forgery, several alterations and material fasitications committed in passports, march routes, and certificates of exoneration from militan,' service. England would only have looked at the character of the crime according to the law of England, and she would have replied that she was prepared to surrender French subjects regularly accused of the crime of forgery, such as the law of France defines and punishes as forgery, without dis- tinguishing between material and intellectual forgery, admitted by the penal theory in France, a distinction which is a matter for internal legislation, beyond the competence of foreign Governments. France will maintain that, in spite of the abnonnal circumstances which have accoqa- panied the extradition of Lamirande, she has nothing to do with acts and laws which arc beyond her competence, and that the accused, from the moment that he was rcgu.arly accused of the crime of forgery, ought to have been surrendered to her, and has been justly surrendered. Treaties of Extradition are not made in the interest of criminals, but against evil-doers. These cannot appeal to them ; the co-contracting Governments alone are qualified to interpret them, and to prevent their violation the one by the other respectively. The French Government has violated neither the law of France nor that of England. If Lamirande had been acquitted by the jury on the charge of forgery, it would have caused him to be reconducted to the frontier, without trying him for thefl and abuse of confidence. I have thought it my duty to submit these considerations to you, which are current in France. I doubt whether a demand founded on the violation of the law of England by English functionaries would be entertained. I have, &c. (Signed) TREITE. No. 35. Mr. Mackensie to Lord Stanley. — {Received January 30.) My Lord, 77, Gresham House, Old Broad Street, January 29, 1867. I AM sorry again to trouble your Lordship on this case, but having sent out to our correspondents and clients at Montreal the particulars of the trial in France, and with all the facts connected therewith, up to the 8th December, I have just received a reply to that communication, and am urgently requested to draw your Lordship's attention to the facts set out in the extract from his letter, which I now inclose. [68] L mr^m 74 My uttculioii liu been drawn tu ii )):iru|^u|ili iu tli> '* Suiidind " dI' Satunlny lost, to the effect tlmt the " Ua/cttc dis Tribunaux " savi it is OHHcrtcd that tho English Ciuvcrn- nicnt ha* niude un iipplication tor the surrender of Lainirandi'. Will \ our Lurdt• Minist^re de la .Iu'*tiee int ^aisis de la reclamation de I'AnijIuti'iTC'. Kl h! nouK en ovovoM'* ee <|iii a Irnnsiiire a ett I'j^ard, lu (lonvernement AnKlai*, pret( ndnnt (pic IVxtrudition n'aurait pan eto reftulidrcinent oonscntic, invo(juerttit deux motifs a Tappui de sa deniande. 1^ premier Hernit (pie, aux termcs du Tniite de ISj.'j entre la Fraiiee ft I'Annhiterre, I'extradition ne |)out i!tre areordcc (pie sur la deniande d'nn Aifent hiploniatiipic. Ur, la demandc d'extradition du Lamimnde a t'te lornieo par le Consnl-Citfneral de Franre an Canada. Les Con>^uls sont des ,\i;ents Coinmeniaux et iion des Ai^ents Diplomatique-*. Selon \c Gouverncment Anglain, la demande d'exlradition de Lainirande n'aurait done pas (lA 6tru accueilliu, a raison do la t'nnetion de I'Aitent (pii lavait tranMinise. Le second motif invo(pie par rAn^leferre, jionr cfaliiir I'irr^'zularite de I'extrndition (le Lamirande, serait (pie les fails i'clc\ei« ik sa cliarufc. Niln constituent le crime de faux d'apr^sla loi Fran^aixe, ne constitufiit pns le in/^mc crime d'niirfs la loi An^laiHC, et (pi'anx tcrinei du Traite de l^A'.l, l'An;,dtten'e ne s'cst cni^atfce a livrcr les aecusen (pie lorsqne Ic fait relevt? centre eux conslitnerait, d'apr^s la loi Antjiaise, nil (Us crimes enumcr^s dans le Traits. Or, la loi Anglaiso ne iccoiinait comnie tiiux (pie ralt^ration mat^rielle d'une Venture. A la ditli^renco dc I'ArticIc 47 de notre Code IVnid, ellu ne (pialitie pas crime de faux la fabrication de conventions, diHpofm6me, par lequel elle a opere I'extradition ! Ce qu'il y aurait de plus singulier dans la reclamation dc lamirande par le Gouverne* ment Britannique, ce serait la contradiction que cettc reclamation etablirait entre les principes sur lesquels elle s'appuierait, et d'autres principes, invoquOs prOcOdemment par une partie des Membres du Parlement Anglais, et mSme par quelques publicistes de notre pays. L 2 76 k Par sa reclamation, ic Gouvernemcnt Angluis voudrait rcvcnir sur un actc dmanc de lui ou de ses agents ; il voudrait reformer cet a te par Ic niotif que ceux qui I'auraient ordonne, nurtiitiit corrmis unc erreur de droit. Ce serait le Pouvoir Royal, representation Ja plus ebve'c du Pouvoir Administratit", deelarani que ses agents infericurs se sont trornpes, qu'ils ont nial proceue, ct voulant hubstitucr une decision nouvelle i celie qui avait etd prise (! abord. Si ks \gents Diploinatiques Anglais, agissant au uoin de leur Reine, rdclament un indivJ! u, iivre par l"ur Gouvciiiement ii une Puissance etrangiirc, en disant que la Reine ot Jon Cabinet— c'est-i-dire, le I'ouvoir Executif de d'Angleterrc — regardent sou extradi- tion commc ayant ete aecordee a tort, et qu'ils out decide de I'unnuler, c'est que, pour le Gouvernemcnt Anglais lui-mfirae, Ic fait d'accorUer, de refuser ou d'annulcr une extradition est un acte de souverainett-. Cette doctrine n'est pas precisenient celle qui a ete soutenue jusqu'ici par les Anglais ct par les Administriiteurs passionnes dc la constitution et des lois de la Grande Bretagne. On disait que chez nos voisins I'cxti-adition dtait unc ecuvre de justice, ct non unc mcsure administrative. En rdclamant Lamirande, Ic Gou' ernenient Anglais porterait le coup de grace a cette doctrine ; car, si Lamirande a ete livre en vertu d'une decision dc justice, comment Ic pouvoir administratif pourrait-il s'arro<;er le droit dc ju^^er, d'apprecier et de reformer cette decision de justice, qui a acquis 1 autorite de la chose jiigec .' Ou bien, si le Gouvernemcnt .Vnglais croit (\ue. dans les pays soumis a sa domination, I'extradition est oeuvre de justice, la reclamation, dont on p.icle, ne s'explicjuerait pas. Car il faut noter, d'apres ce qu'on dit de cette reclamation, qu'il n'y serait pas question des moyens qui ont etc presentes devant la justice Fran^-aise, dans I'interet de Lamirande. Ainsi, le Gouvernemcnt Anglais ne se plaindrait pas dc ce qu'on aurait execute une decision de justice, qui n'aurait pas ete detinitive, au mepris d'un appel, ou du droit d'appel de Lamirande. On comprendrait jusqu'i un certain point le pouvoir executif d'un pays, qui donne la force executoire aiix decisions de justice, venant se plaindre de ce qu'on aurait exteute une decision illaqueile il n'aurait pas communique cette force executoire, ou de ce que la force executoire, qui i, pcut einaner que dc lui, aurait ete donnee ^ tort i^ i^i sentence d'un Juge. On pourrait reponiJre a une reclamation basec sui ces motifs, que c'etait au Gouvernemcnt reclamant dc surveiller I'exe'cution des actc? de ses tribunaux ou de ses agents pdministratils sur son territoire ; niais qn'une fois ies actes executes, il ne peut plus les reformer, alors que les p.-rsonnes auxqu'Jlcs ils s'appliquent, ne sont plus dans Tenclavc de sa juridiction. Mais, nous le repetons, dans re cas on pourrait comprendre la recl.'imation jusqu'a un certain point ; tandis que, dans la reclamation telle ■^u'ellc serait formulee aujourd'hui, I'Angleterre recc»;naitrait qu'en la forme elle n'a pas d'objcction a fairc contre la decision d" Juge qui a ordonne I'extradition ; elle pretendrait seulement que le Juge :. mal statue, qu'il n'aurait pas dQ accueillir la demande. Que deviendrait alors ce grand principe de I'autorile de la chose jugee que tous les Gouvernements reconnaissent, proclament et reKpectemt ? Le Cabinet de Londres voudiait-il j)iclerdre que ^extradition de Lamirande a ^te aecordee au. mepris de la loi Anglaise ; que, dnas les pays de I'obeissance de la Couronne d'Angleterrc, les extraditions ne peuvent (Ure accordecs que dans les cas prevus par la loi ; que la loi, qui rsigle cette matiere de Pextraditioii a I'egard de la France, c'est le Bill qui a approuv6 le Traite de 18-13 ; et que ce Bill ne permciiait pas d'acjorder I'extradition sur la demande d'un Consul, pour un crime auquel la loi Anglaijc re reconnaissait pas le caract^re du faux. A cela il serait facile de rdnondre que les Puissances ctrangercs, q»ii demandent et obtiennent I'extradition des ma. itc;irs refugies en Angleterre, n'ont pas 4 se pr^occupor de la question de savoir ki les autoritds Anglaises, qui statuent sur les extraditions, ont observe ou non les lois particuli^res dc leur pa^ ^. Le Ministre Anglais ne peut pas, eu effet, soutenir qu'il y ait eu violation des principes du droit des gens, car Lamirande n'a pas ete arrachc par violence ou par surprise du sol Britannique. On comprend une reclamation diplomatique, a propos a'un fait qui a ete accompli centre ',a volonte et au mepris des droits de la puissance qui reclame. Mais on ne s'explifjue guere une reclamation d'un Gouvernement k propos d'un acte qui emane de lui. Si I'extradition de Lamirande ne devait pas avoir lieu d'apres la loi Anglaiac, il ne fallait pas la consentir ; raais une fois cette extradition operee, ii ne doit plus ^tre possible de la rttracter. A ujourd'hui, la justice Franyaise a prononc^. EUe a frappe Lamirande pour le crime de aux. Si, apr^M la decision du jury Fvanyais, il fallait remettre Lamirande en liberte, le renvoyer en Angleterre pour qu'il pat y jouir de I'impunite de ses mefaits,ce serait un scandale public. Ce ne serait qu'en gemissant que le Gouvernemv'nt Frangais pourrait accueillir la c de aient itioD ipes, ctd it un leine radi- ur le ition 77 reclamation dc I'AngloteiTC. lleureuiicment, il n'cxiste dans Ics Traitds aucune stipulation qui oblige la France it restilucr Lainiraudc. Mais si, rur impossible, la Fnincc se trouvait obligee ;» cette restitution, cc serait la condamnation In plus manifeste du Traite de 1 843. Jusqu'ii prt'sent, cc T-aite t'tait reste une lollre-morto. Le (jouvernemcnt Fran^ais n'avait pu obtenir ai cunc extrr-iition de rAntfleterre. \'«ic'i ccpcndant (ju'une extradition est accorde'e, a raison d un crime qui avait viveiiieni enui I'opinion piibii<|ue. Le coupabic, livre a Injustice Fran^aise, est CDndamne par le jury de son piys, it il t'audrait restituersa personne a rAiiglcterro pour I'empi^cher de subir sa eondnmnation ! Ce Tniite dc lHA-i entre la France ct TAnglctcTrc, (jui a ete denonee par notre Gouvernemcnt, et qui dtpuis n'a etc proroge qu'a titrc provJsoire, de six raois en six mois, doit otrc definitivement jugt. Tout en I'invoquant dans les eas qui y etaient express^ment prevus, la Fnmce, avant 186(5, ne p.)uvait pas obtenir I'extradition dcs accuses refugies en Angleicrre. Des raisons de fait emp<}cliaient toujours les deniaudes d'extradition des accuses de pouvoir reussir. On ne pouvait pas non plus obtenir lextradition des condamnes refugies dans les posses- sions Britanniques, jiar une raison de droit strict, tiree de ce que le Traite ne parlait que des accuses ct non des condanmes. De sorte (pit- soit par dcs considc'ratiuiis de fait, soit par des considerations de droit, accuses et condainnes trouvnient fi-npunite en Angleterre. Aujourd'liui, il faudrait, si la reclamation t'tait adiniso, epic rceuvre dc la justice Fran^'nise iiit arr^tee dans un nouveau ens encore ; car, il en rcsulterait lunpunite pour les accuses livres par rAnglcterre et condamiies, apres leur extiiidition, par nos Tribunaux. N'y aurait-il |)as lieu alors de rcconnaitre que I'epreuve du Traite de 1843 a etc assez longue pour la dignite de la France ? (Signe) CH. DUVERDY. (Translation.^ KxTUADiTioN OF Lamiuaxde. — WE havc announced, as a rumour which lias been generally spread about for some days past, that the English Government was about to claim from France the rcsl oration of Lainirande, whose extradition had been decreed by the judicial authority of Canada. The news is true. The Ministry of Justice has the English claim before it. And if we believe what has transpired respecting this matter, the English Government, alleging that the extradition was I'ot regularly granted, urges two reasons in support ot their demand. The first is that according to the Treaty of 1848 between France and England, extratlition can only be granted upon the demand of a Diplomatic Agent. Now the demand for Lamirande's extradition was 'nade by the French Jonsnl-Geiieial in Canada. Consuls are Commercial, and not Diplomatic Agents. According to the English Govern- ment the demand for Lamirande's extradition should not have been received, on account of the character of the a^ent transmitting it. The second reason put forward by England to show the irregularity of Lamiranile's extradition is that the acts laid to his charge, even if constituting the crime of forgery according to French law, do not amount to the same crime in English law, and that by the terms of the Treaty of 184'3, England has only bound herself to surrender persons accused of what, according to Englisii law would amount to one of the crimes enumerated in the Treaty. Now, English law onh' r;*cognizes as forgery an actual alteration in anything written. In contradistinction to Article 47 of our Penal Code, it does not conside;- the fabrication of agreements, directions, bonds, or acijuittances to con- stitute the crime of forgery ; so that in England Lainirande would not have been considered guilty of forgery. The conclusion drawn therefrom by the E'lglish Government is that the extradition ought not to have been granted, and the' ilemand the rendition of Lamirandc. If it be true that in claiming the restoration of Lamin .ide, England wishes to recur to the question of an extradition voluntarily and freely t^.anted by herself, it seems to us hardly credible that she can found her demand on the '.wo rtu.;ons on which it is pretended she relies ; for they repose on no soiid basis, and ^ .nld not resist a serious examination. The surrender of an accused person when ciaimcd by a foreign Power, is an act of sovereignty. This act of sovereignty can be carrie t out by a Government without having previously ".oncluded a special Treaty with the Power claiming the culprit. Although we might have no Treaty of Extradition with England, yet, were Frencli criminals to seek refuge in the United Kingdrin, we could ask lor their extradition, and England could give them up to us for trial in France; for the right ot granting extraditions belongs to each I 78 Government by virtue of its 9overeij»nty. It is not Extradition Treaties which confer upon the Power of the country where tin- culprits have taken refuge, tiio right of surrendering them to their own (Government. The only ohject of these Treaties is to facilitate the relations of the Contraotiiifj; Powers, and to record that they reciprocally bind themselves to use towards eucii other, in ccrtuin cases and in a certain manner, the right which belongs to them of t;rantinir extradition^. But because .i Government shall have i ntered into an arrangement with another Power to surrender criminals accused of such or such criini s when claimed in such or such manner, by diplomatic means for instance, it does not follow that this Government is unable, should it think proper, to const nt to the extradition of a person accused of a crime not provided for in the Treaty, even if the application be made in a manner oti.er than that stipulated. England linl. therefore, full power (o surrender Ijiimirande even for a crim-^ not recognized as such by tiie Knglish law, and even although the demand for extradition were presented by some one not a DiplonnUie Agent. When, therefore, in the exercise of her right, she has granted an extradition, whether in c. cane provided for by a Treaty, or whether in a case beyond ti'.e ])rovisions of a 'i'reaty, is it allowable tor her to recall the accomplished fact, and niodily the net of sovereitrnty emanating from herself, by whtch she has effected the extradition ! What is still more singular in the British Government's demand for the rendition of Laniirande is, that that demand would involve the contra- diction of those principles on which they rely, and of other ])rinciples appealed to previously by one part of tiie iiicmbers of the English Parliament, and even by some publicists of our own countiy. By their demand the Kntrlish Government wishes to recall an act which emanated from themselves or from their agents; they wish to revise this act on the plea that those who ordered it committed a legal error. This is for the Royal power, the highest repre- sentation of the Administrative power, to declare that its inferior agents have been deceived, that they have taken wrong proceedings, and to wish to substitute a decision different from that which had at (irst been taken. If the English Diplomatic Agents, acting in the name of their Queen, demand an individual, surrendered by their Government to a foreign Power, afhnning that the Queen and her Cabinet, i.e., the Executive Power of England, regard his extradition as having been improperly granted, and that thev have resolved to cancel it, it is because that for the English Government itself the fact of granting, refusing, or cancelling an extradition, is an act of sovereignty. This is not precisely the same doctrine as that hitherto maintained by the English, and by the enthusiastic administrators of the constitution and laws of Great Britain, It was said that among our neighbours extradition was a judicial act, and not an adminis- trative measure. In demanding I^mirande,. the English Government would give the final blow to this doctrine ; for if Lamirar.av- has been given up in virtue of a judicial decision, how can the administrative power arrogate to itself the right to judge, appreciate, and revise that judicial decision, which has acquired the authority of a matter adjudged? Again, if the English Government believes that, in the countries under its rule, extra- dition is a judicial act, there is no explanation for the talked-of demand. For, it is to be noticed, acco. ding to what is said of this demand that no luestion is raised on these points advanced b fore the French tribunal in the interest of Lamirande. Thus, the English Government uoes not complain of a judicial decision which was not definitive, having been executed in spite of an appeal, or the right of appeal, by Lamirande. We could understand, to a certain point, the executive power of a country which gives executive force to the decisions of justice, complaining of the execution of a decision to which it has not given this executive force, or that the executive force, which can only emanate from itself, iias been erroneouslj given to the sentence of a judge. We may reply to a demand based on these pleas, that it was the business of the Government which makes the demand to watch the execution of the acts of the tribunals or of the Administrative Agents in its territory, but that, tlie acts once carried not. they can no longer be revised, since the persons to whom they apply are no longer within its jurisdiction. But, we ivpeat, in this case the demand might be intelligible to a certain point ; whereas in the demand, j it is at present framed, Englnrid avows that blic has no formal objection to make against the decision of the Judge who ordered the extradition- she only pivtends that the Judge has given a wrong decision, that he ought not to have entertained the demand. What becomes, then, of that grand principle of the authority of an adjudged matter, which is acknowleli law ; tliat in the coiintiv under tlic sway of the English Crown extraditions can only be gninti-d in tu*i.- iiiu\ iilcd (or by law ; that the law which rcjiulatcs this matter of extradition witli re^jmt to Fnuire is the Bill which approved the Treaty of 184'}; and that this Bill d.-cs not permit the cranting an extradition on the demand ol a Consul (or a tiime whieli the English law docs not recogni/e as a forgery ? To this it is easy to answer, that foreign l^. v ,^ who demand and ol)tain the extra- dition of criminaln who have taken refngi in Knstlftiid arc not oldigid to trouble tliemselvcs with the f|uestion whether the Kngli^' utlioiities who decide on the extraditions have observed, or not, the special law nt ',,11 country. The English Minister i mdeed, maintain tiial tiicre has been a violation of the principles of international law, Im- Laniirande has nut been taken by violence or fraud from British soil. We can understand a diplomatic demani "ith . Terence to an act which has been done against the will or in contempt of tlie rij,' ' of tlie Power making the demand. But there is hardly any explanation for a demand liy a Government with reference to an act that cmana'.cs from itself. If the extradition of Lamirantle ought not to have taken place, according to tlie English law, its cons nt ougiit not to have been given. But extradition once effected, it cannot possibly be retracted. French justice has now pronounccf- •-,; >o:;'.'o. It has condemned l^amirandc for the crime of forgery. It", after tlie decisit ;i of tli . French jury, it should be necessary to restore Laniirande to liberty, to send him !. • '. to England, there to enjoy with im|)nnity the fruits of his misdeeds, this would be a public scandal. It is only with irreat reluc- tance that the French Government can entertain the demand of England. Happdy there exists in the Treaties no stipul.ition which obliges Franco to restore Laniirande. But if, through some ir.ipossibility, France found herself forced to make this lestitu- tion, this would be the most manifest condemnation of tlie Treaty of 1843. Up to the present time this Treaty had remained a dead-letter. Tlic French Govern- ment had not been able to obtain any extradition from England. Here, however, an extradition has been granted, on account of a crime that had strongly excited public opinion. The culprit surrendered to French justice has been condemned by a jury of his country, and now wo must restore him to England, in order to hinder him from undergoing his penalty ! This Treaty of 1843 between England and France, whicli has been denounced by our Government, and which has since only been provisionally prolonged, six months at a time, ought to be definitivelv adjudged. Even while appealing to it in eases which were expressly provided for in it, France, previous to 1 8G6, was not able to obtain the extra- dition of accused persons who had ti.ken refuge in England. Matters of fact have always hindered the demands for extradition of accused jicrsons from succeeding. Neither was it possible to obtain the extradition of persons wlio liad taken refuge in British possessions, on account of a strict legal technicality, derived from the fact that the Treaty only mentioned accused and not condemned persons. 80 that, whether from considerations of fact, or from considerations of law, accused and condemned were able to find impunity in England. In this instance, were the demand admitted, it would be necessary that the operation of justice should be stopped again on a fresh ground, for the result would be impunity for accused persons delivered up by England and condemned after their extradition by our tribunals. Would there not, then, be occasion to acknowledge that the Tieaty of 1843 has been tried long enough for the dignity of France ? (Signeu) CH. DUVERDY. ii(; No. 38. Mr. Fane to Lord Stcnley. — {Received February 27.) (Extract.) • Paris, February 25, 18G7. THE brother of M. Lamirande called upon me this day for the purpose of placing in my hands two letters addressed to Earl Cowley, copies of which I have the honour to inclose. The one is from M. I.amirande himself, withdrawing the application made by him to Lord Cowley in September last, that Her Majesty's Government would demand bis surrender by tho French Government ; the other, which is signed by the father and brother of M. Lamirande, transmits his letter and approves its contents. no M. Lamirande's brother, in (Idiverinp tliesc letters to me, gave expression to the strong desire entertained by his family to put a term to the unhappy notoriety which attached to their name, by causing all further action in his brother's case to be abandoned. I told him that I would acquaint your Lordship with the contents of the letters he had placed in my hands. Inclosurc 1 in No. 38. MM. G. C. and C. -S. Lumirande to Earl Cowlty. M. I'Ambassadeur, dultellerauU, le Fe'vrier, 1867. J'AI I'honneur de vous trnnsmettre ci-inclusc une lettrc de mon fils, Ernest Lamirande, par laquelle il retire la demandc iju'il avait adressde en Scptcmbre dernier A votre Excellence k Veffet d'etre reclame par Ic Gouvcrnemcnt dc la Grande Bretagne. .I'ai voulu me cbar{,cr moi-mfime d'adrcsser a votre Excellence cette declaration, dans laquelle nous constatons avec satisfaction, ma, famille (*■ moi, le desir de mon nialhcurcux tils, dc nous eviter la continuation de penibles emotions, en mettant un terme au bruit scandaicux dont notre nom a ete I'objet. Nous I'eussions vu d'ailleurs avec peine s'lloigner de nous, dont I'influence sur lui ne pent tStre que salutaire ; nous aurions craiut que rendu h la libcrte, il n'en fit peut-^tre un emploi qui lui eAt interdit pour I'avenir Tespoir de sa rehabilitation. C'est done avec notre agrement qu'il retire sa demande et qu'il a renoned tr^s librement du reste, et d'une mani^re toute spontanee, je suis heurcux de lui rendre cette justice, au benefice de la restitution de sa personne que le Gouvernemeut de la Grande Bretagne eut pu obtenir du Gouverncment Frangais. Mon fils le plus jeune, qui signe avec moi cette lettre, s'assoeie pleinement aux sentiments qu'elle cxprime. Daignez, &c. (Sign^) C. G. LAMIRANDE. C. S. LAMIRANDE. (Translation.) M. rAmbassadeur, Chdtellerault, Fehruartj . } 867. I HAVE the honour to transmit to you herewith a letter from my son, Ernest Lamirande, in which he withdraws the request which he had addressed in September laist to your Excellency, with the object of his surrender being claimed by the Government of Great Britain. I am desirous myself of addressing this declaration to your Excellency in which my family and I record with satisfaction the desire of my unhappy son to spare us the continu- ation of painful emotions by putting an end to the disgraceful notoriety of which our name has been the subject. Moreover, we should with sorrow have seen him separate himself from us whose influence over him cannot be otherwise than salutary. We should have feared that, restored to liberty, he would, perhaps, have turned it to account in such a manner as would have shut out all hope for the tuture of his reinstatement in his former position. It is, then, with our coucun-enee that he recalls iiis request, and that he, moreover, freely and quite spontaneously (I am glad to do him this justice) gives up the advantages of his it'storation to liberty which the Government of Great Britain might have succeeded in obtaining from the French Government. My youngest son, who signs this letter with me, fully joins in the sentiments which it expresses. I have, &e. (Signed) C. G. LAMIRANDE. Inclosure 2 in No. 38. M. E. S. Lamirande to Earl Cowley. M. I'Ambassadeur, Fontevrault, le 1 9 F/vrier, 1867. A MON arrivde du Canada, dans le courant du mois de Septembre dernier, j'ai eu I'honneur d'adresser de Paris h votre Excellence une demandc tendant h obtenir que le the ' 81 Gouvcrnrmcnt do la (rramlc nrctntriie voulilt bicn me r^clamer au Gouvernement Fraiirai- tt mc faiic londro h. la lilicrtc. Drcidd ii mi' snuiiK ttrc cntiiiciiu-nt aux dtcisions de In justice do mon pays, je viens nninnid'liiii ntiivr toninllemLMit ina dnnandc, it vous prior di- vouloir bicn la considdrer Cdniiiit' iiiillc I't iio;i aMiuic. C'l ttf ri'siiliition que jo proiuls, apres mure reflexion, most dictee par le repentir de luoii ciiiiu, ct jliis ( pcDio jiar mon aflbction pour ma famille, dont rintdret mc commando de I'airo ecsser la tristo puUliiito a incpiclle j'ai trnp longtemps livre son nom. \'oiiilloz, Al. rAml)as>adour, transnicttrc la presente declaration au Gouvernement de Sa ^lajcstc Britannique. J'ai, &c. (Sign^) E. S. LAMIRANDE. (Translation.) M. I'Ambassadcur, Fontevreadt, February 19, 1867. ON my arrival from Canada in the month of September last, I had the honour of addrossinp; to your Exrellcncy trom Paris a re<|uest, with the view of inducing the Govern- ment of Great IJritain to claim my surrender from the French Government and have me set at lihorty. Havjii? dooidcd to submit in every way to tlic judicial decision of my country, I now foriiiiilly witluiiaw my ro(]uost, and hi"; you to liavo tlie goodness to consider it as null and void. This determination, which 1 have formed after maturfc reflection, is dictated to me by repentance for my crime, and still more by afi'eetion for my family, whose interest bids mc put an end to the unhappy notoriety to which I have too long subjected their name. Have the goodness, M. I'Ambassao mr, to transmit the present declaration to Her Britannic Majesty's Government. I have, &c. (Signed) E. S. LAMIRANDE. No. 39. Mr. Fane to Lord Stanley.-^{Reeeived March 4.) My Lord, Paris, March 3, 1867. I HAA'E the honour to forward herewith to your Lordship copy of a despatch and its inclosuros wliich I received last night from the Marquis de Moustier, in reply to the note 1 addressed to his Ivvcellency on the 14th of Januarj' last, conveying an application on till part of lit i Majesty's Government for the surrender of M. Lamirande. AL de Moustier commences his despatch by recording a formal declaration made by M. Lamirande to the Imperial Government that he voluntarily renounces all claim to his surrender, and that lie wishes to remain in France to undergo the punishment awarded to him. His Excellent y transmits to me the written declarations which establish this fact, and states that Hei Aiajestys (Jovernment will probably consider that these documents should put an end to tlic diseu>.-ion of whieh M. Lamirande is the object. M. de Moustier is. however, of opinioii that it may be useful to examine the judicial questions rai.^ed b\ 1 lei Majesty's Government, and he proceeds accordingly to a eati-L'oiical con.-iderutiun ot them, 'i'iie conclusions at which his Excellency arrives may he thus surnniarily stated : !. That the omission to demand the extradition through a Diplomatic Agent, even if sue!', a course were invariably followed, cannot be invoked, after the fact, to annul the extradition. Ti:at saoh demands arc in certain cases made by Great Britain herself throu'rh ot'^er than a Diplomatic Ae^'-f. 2. That, iC the crime lor which Lamirande was surrendered does not constitute " forgery " aceoiding to the English law, the dictrinc affirming this proposition has not yet been established. 3. That tlie uicision of Jud'j.^ Piehaut argues the regular application of the Treaty, and that no ar:.;uincnr can be sustained on tlie pretended right of appeal from his judgment 4. '1 hat Lamiiande, before the Court of Assize of La Vienne, accepted in principle the jurisdiction of his country. His Excellc ncy concludes bv expressing the hope of the Emperor's GoTemment that ['J8] " M 82 Her Majesty's Government will appreciate the considerations embodied in his despatch, and will acknowledge that they are just in principle ; since, in point of fact, I^iniirande having formally declined to take advantaije of the results that would accrue from his surrender, tiie question no longer possesses any but a theoretical interest. I have, &c. (Signed) JULIAN FANB. Inclosurc 1 in No. 39. M. de Moustier to Mr. Fane. Paris, le 1 Mars, 1867. mecrire, le 14 Janvier dernier, pour dcmander, au Monsieur, VOUS m'avez fait I'honneur de nom du Gouvernement do i, Heine, la restitution du condamne Lamirande, comma ayant ^te indiimcnt livrd h la justice Fran9aise. Au moment, nvi je me disposais h rdpondrc h cctte communication, M. le Ministre de la Justice m'a annonc^ que Lamirande venait d'derire spontanement Ji M. le Procureur- Gdn^ral de Poitiers pour declarer qu'il renoncjait a toute restitution de sa personne. Depuis lors il a dcrit h M. Baroche pour renouveler la mfin.e demarche en termes plus explicites encore, et j'apprends que son fr^rc s'est recemment presente a llidtel de I'Ambassade pour vous eonfirmer par ses explications la tencur des declarations du con- damne dont il dtait porteur. Aueun doute ne peut done s'elever sur la volonte formelle de Lamirande do rester en France pour y subir sa peine, et les actes qui constatent cette intention seront probable- ment consideres par le Gouvernement Britannique comme devaut mettrc fin au debat dont sa personne est I'objet. Toutefois je ne crois pas inutile d'examiner les questions juridiques soulevecs par votre communication. La reclamation du Gouvernement de la Reine est basde sur deux motifs : Premi^rement, la demande d'extradition concernant Lamirande n'aurait pas et4 faite par I'intermddiaire d'un Agent Diplomatique, tel que I'exigent Ic Traite et le statut Britannique qui donne au Traite force de loi. Secondement, le crime pour lequel Lamirande a ete livre ne constituerait pas le crime de faux (" forgery ") pr^ra par le Traite. Pour ce qui est du premier point, nous reconnaissons volontiers quo la lettre du Traits ne mentionne que les Agents Diplomatiques ; mais doit-on I'intcrpreter dans un sens absolument exelusif de la competence d'agents places dans les conditions oil se trouvait le Consul- Gen«^ral de France h Quebec? Si une telle interpretation devait prevaloir, elie ne pourrait que reveler une nouvelle et regrettable lacune dans le Traite de 1843; et, a ce sujet, je dois rappeler d'abord qu'eu fait, dans le cas aetuel, les agents charges de poursuivre Lamirande et porteurs du mandat lance contre lui n'auraient pu requerir, a Icur passage par I'Angleterre, ainsi que le suppose votre lettre, I'intervention de I'Ambassadeur de France h Londres, attendu que, k ce moment, I'accu.'e etait refugie iion sur le territoire Britannique, mais aux Etats-Unis. Les mfimes agents sont passes ensuite, comme le fugitif, du sol Fdddral, directement au Canada, et la prorapte requisition adressee par notre Consul-Gdneral au Gouverneu'' de cette Colonic pouvait seule rendre I'extradition possible. Get incident montre au contraire combien le concours des Agents Consulaires peut ^tre indispensable dans les cas d'urgence, en m6me temps que la necessitc d'une interpreta- tion s'inspirant avant tout de I'esprit de conciliation pratique qui doit presider il I'execution des actes intemationaux. D'autre part I'extradition accordde en dehors d'une demande formulee par la voie diplomatique n'a en elle-m6me rien de contraire c\ la pratique suivie dans certaines circon- stances par la Grande Brctagne, soit vis-^-vis de la France, soil vis-a-vis d'autres Puissances. Jusqu'il ce jour I'extradition s'est effectuee cntre les Colonies Fran^aises et Anglaiseri sur la simple demande des Gouverneurs, sans qu'on ait eu recours i la voie diplomatique « sans que le Gouvernement Britannique ait jamais protestd contre cette maniere d<» proceder. Recemment, en 1863, I'Angleterre a etabli avec I'ltalie, relativcment h Malte, un accorc duquel il resulte que les demandes d'extradition peuvent fitrc formiil^es par les Agents Consulaires. Enfin, la clause du Traite Anglo-Amdricain de 1842, qui a trait k I'extmdition entie 83 lea deux pays, laissc supposcr, ainsi que voiis le reconniasscz, que ia faeulte dc requ^rir la remise des crimincU n'est nuHemcnt limitce aax Agents Diplomatiquca propremcnt dits. Votre lettre, il est vrai, invoque precisement u I'appui de lopinion (|ui exclut I'inter- vention des Consuls Francais los termes du S'.atut pusi^e li> 2'2 AoAt, IH43, pour la mise k execution du Trait(5 Anglo-Ami-ricain, teniii's plus etendus que ceux du statut adopts, & la m^mc date, pour donner force de loi au Trnite Anglo-Fntn^ais, ct vous infercz des d.fferences dc texte (lui resultent de ce rapprochement (jup I'iiitcntion des negociatcurs des d ux Trait^s aurait ^t^, dans un ea.«, d'admcttre rintcrvention des Consuls, ct, dans I'autrc, d^ los ^carter. A notre sens, les diSl^rences de textes qui existent entre les deux Statuts et les deux Traitds s'expliquent par des niisoiis de nature diverse, inais dont aucune ne permet de supposer que les Parties Contractantes aient entendu admettrc les Consuls dans un cas, et les exclure dans I'autre. En fait, le TraitC' Anglo-Americain est antdrieur dc huit mois au Traits Anglo- Fran^ais, et, si les deux Statuts, quoique du ni^mc jour, difli^rent dans leur redaction, c'est sans doute parce qu'on a voulu mettre chacun d'eux en harmonic avec les termes du Trait6 auquel il se r^fere. Quant aux differences de texte qui existent entre les Traites m£mes I'ArticIc du Traite Anglo-Anii'ricain ne figure pas dans une Convention specialc d'ext.'adition. Cet Article, occasionnellement introduit dans un Traits de Delimitation avec le Canada, conclu k Washington, d^signe, en eifet, d'une nianiere gen^rale, les autorit^s de chaque pays commc aptes u requdrir ['extradition, tandis que tous les Traites sp^ciaux sur la mati^re, conclus par I'Angleterre avec d'autres Puissances, France, Prusse, Danemark, emploient I'expression " Agents Diplomatiques." Mais cette formule ne peut avoir qu'une port^ indicative ; car quelle raison pourrait-on invoquer pour justifier I'admission des Consuls des Etats-Unis tandis qu'on excluerait ceux des autres Puissances ? Mais si Ton suppose m^mc que le Traite de 1843, en se servant du mot "Agents Diplomatiques," ait eu pour but de tracer une r^gle invariable, il ne s'en suivrait pas que, lorsque la remise de I'inculpe a et^ eifectu^e, et surtout apr^s que la justice ^trangire a prononc^, I'extradition dOt ^tre annul^e pour cette irregularity. Eu nous pla^ant avec le Gouvernemeut de la Reine sur Ic terrain de droit strict, il nous est permis de faire observer que, g^ndralement, en mati^re de procedure, les formalit^s ne sont une cause de nullitd qu'autant que la loi I'a formellement declare, ou que rirregularit<3 signal^e porte atteinte & un principe g^n(^'ral de droit reconnu dans un pays. Or, d'une part, le Traits ne contient rien sur les consequences attachees ^ I'inobservation de la voie diplomatique, et, de I'autre, cette mSme inobservatiou est admise par I'Angleterre avec les Etats Unis, d'une mani^re g^nerale, avec 1' Italic pour Malte, enfin avec la France elle-mSme dans les rapports des Colonies Fran^aises et Anglaises. Le Gouvernement de 1r Reine all^guc, en second lieu, (}uc les faits imputes h Lamirande ne constitueraient pas le crime ue faux ou " forgery " pr^vu par le Traits, ence sens qu'il n'y a pas faux d'apr^s la loi Anglaise. Nous n'entendons point afiirmer a priori que les faux couiiiiis par Lamirande soient prdvus et punis par la legislation Anglaise ; mais il y a lieu de consid^rer que le Gouverne- ment de la Reine ue produit k I'lippui de sa th^se aucun texte ni aucun avis officiel et motiv^ ^manant d'une autorite judiciaire, tandisque, au contraire, il y a chose jug^e dans notre sens, la decision du Jugc Brehaut creant une pr^somption grave et serieuse en faveur de l^gitimite de I'extradition. Au reste, en nous attachant au sens litteral du Traite de 1843, I'extradition de Lami- rande nous parait parfaitenunt reguli^re. Que dit, en effet. le Traite ? Que I'extradition s'effectuera de la part de I'Angleterre " sur le rapport d'un jw^j^ ou magistral comniis k I'effet d'entendre le fugitif soi' les faits mis a sa chai^ par le niandat d'arrlt." Ce rapport a ^te fait par le Juge Brehaut, et c'est sur ce rapport que le Gouvemeur de Canada a livre I nccuse. Nous etions done dans les termes du Traite; on oppose, il est vrai, (ju'il y a«»it appel devant un juge sup^rieur. Mais, strictenient, d'apr^s la lettre du Traits, nous :!ommes fondes k soutenir que ce droit d'appel n'existe pas, et, en effet, si ce droit extate, ftiudra-t-il que le Gouvernement qui reclame un accus^ k I'Angleterre le suive devant tous les degres de juridiction qu'admet la procedure Anglaise 1 Ce r^ultat n'est point k craindre, sans doute, quand il s'agit d'un coupable sans ressources. Mais mille moyens de procedure sont offerts, Lamirande en est la preuve, k celui qui a trouve dans son crime m^me les elements de ndKSse propres a faire face k ces d^penses, de sorte «|ue, en tin de compte, par un renversement de toute id^ de justice, les chances d'extradi- Hon seront parfois en raison inverse de la grandeur du crime. En tout cas, pour en revenir k I'esp^ce actuelle, on ne peut all^guer I'avis contraire du Juge Drummond pour Topposer a celui du Juge Brehaut, parce que cet avis, readu [68] N n^ 84 Bprli coup, en dehors de la pn^nce ties parties, di^pounru d 'impartiality d'ailleurs, s'il (ant en croire tous les coinptcs-rendus publics a cette occasion, ne saurait avoir la valeur d'une d^iiinn de tribunal d'nppel. En presence de la cboso jugdc;, Tupinion des jurisconsultes qui ont ^t^ appel^ k donner un avin aiitorisr, pourrnit seuie nous flxcr sur le point de droit, le point de fait n'ayant point 4t6 I'objet d'unc verification contradictoire : — II est pour nous d'unc importance majeure de pouvoir verifier si les fulsitieations qui en France cutrainent une peine crimihclle, et que In Cnur d'Assises de la Vienne a frapp^es do dix ans de r^clUaiotl« nc constituent pas un crime de faux d'apr^s la loi Anftliiise. Unc nutorite Coloniale Anglaise s'est crue suffisamment saisie par la requisition de nbtre Consul-G^ndral pour deiivi-er un warrant au juge competent. Celui-ci a rendu Uh jugement exdcutd par la meme autorite administrative avant toute decision contraire d'un autre tribunal dont roeuvrc tardive n'a aucune vulcur k'aale. L'extrad^ a s^journ^ sept jours sur un b&timent Anglais, et trois autres jours sur le sol Anglais dc Liverpool ii Londres, escorti; par des agents Anglais. Des conferences ont eu lieu entre des magistrats, des attorneys et les agents Anglnis. Enfin il est certain que des membres du Cabinet Anglais ont (^te interpelles par depCches t^iegrapbiques et ont cu & r^pondre aux reclama- tions des ofhcieux qui sc doniiaieiit la mission d'ngir pour Lamirande. Tels sont les precedents apr^s lesqucls la restitution de I'cxtrade est redamee sous pr6tcxte d'erreurs, soft du Gouvcrneur- General du Canada, soit du jugc qui a statu^. II y fenoorc lieu de noter que Lamirande, qui a avoue k I'audience sea vols et ses fauxj ne s'est m^me pas pourvu en cassation contra I'arr^t qui I'a frapp^. Enfin Lamirande a accept^ le d^bat sur les faux, ainsi que cela resulte d'une declaration formelle de sa part depos^e publiquement k I'audience de la Cour d'Assises. Vous trouvercz ci -joint une copie dc cettc pi^ce. Elle prouve qu'apris les contesta- tions de son avocat en date du 3 Decembre, Lamirande a accepts, le 4, le d^bat sur les faux et, en cas d'acquittement mdmc, sur les vols, de sorte que son acquiescement nous aurait obliges k le garder, s'il eUt 6tA acquitte, et k le juger sur les accusations que le respect des Traites nous emplchait dc sommettre au jury dhs I'ouverture de la session. En resume : Le defaut de demande par la voie diplomatique, fdt-elle un r^gle invariable, tie saurait £tre invoque apr^s coup pour annuler I'extradition. La r^gle contraire est d'ailleurs pratiquee dans certains cas par la Grande Bretagne. Si le faux pour lequel Lamirande a ete livre n'est pas un faux d'apr^s la loi Anglaise, o'est une doctrine qui reste k etablir. II y a, au contraire, chose jugec en faveut de I'application regulie*edu Traite, et on ne saurait ai^er du pr6tendu jugement d'appel. Lamirande a accepte, en principe, la juri- diction de son pays devant la Cour d'Assises de la Vienne, Le Gouvernement de I'Empereur est done fond6 k esperer que le Cabinet Anglais appreciertt cet ensemble de considerations et les reconnaitra comme justiflees en principe } car, en fait, Lamirande ayant renonce formellement au benefice de la restitution, la question n'a plus qu'un inter6t theorique. J'ai I'honneur de tous communiquer ci-annexee une copie certifiee de la lettre adress^e le 10 Fevrier, par Lamirande, k M. le Procureur-General de Poitiers, ainsi que sA seconde lettre du 10 it M. le Garde des Sceaux, et une autre de son p^re du 20. Agreez, &e (Signe) M0U8TI£R. ^Translation.) Sir, Part*, March 1, 1867. YOU did me the hotiour of writing to me on the 14th of Jatiuary last, to request in thd name of the Government of the Queen the surrender of the condemned prisbnw Lamirande) bs having been unduly given up to French justice. When I was on the point of ailswering that communiciitioni the Minister of Justi<}e informed me that Lamirande had just written of his own accord to the Procureur-General of Poitiers to declare that he renounced all claim to his surrender. Since then he wrotb to M. Baroche to renew that declaration in terms still more explicit; aud I leatn that his brother recently called at the Embassy in order to ratify and explaito to yoU the purport of the convicted prisoner's declarations of which he Was the betiren Tb^re can be no doUbt) therefore, as to the formal wish of Lamirande to remain in France to undergo his sentencOt and the KHtish Government will probably consider that the documents which establish that inteutioQ ihouid put an end to thie discussion of which he h the object. Nevertheless I do not believe it useless to examine the legt . questions rtdSed by your oommunication. The daniand of the Queen's Qovenunfent is bosed on two grounds :-^ f'7 .; lUt rune fBit I'uiic una biotit ^n de uh Id'un sept )Ol h trata, [biaet taina- It l08 surs, 85 First, that the application for Lamirandc's extnidltion wm not made through the inter- vention of a Diplomatic Agent, such as is required by thcTivaty and by tiic British Statute giving effect to the Treaty. Secondly, that the crime for which Lomirande was given up did not constitute the crime of ftirgcry (" faux "; contemplated by the Treaty. In regard to the first point, wo allow willini^ly that the text of the Treaty only men- tions Diplomatic Agents ; hut ought it to be interpreted in a sense absolutely excluding the competency of agents placed in a similar position to that of the French Consul-Gvneral ut Quebec ? If such an interpretation should prevail, it could only reveal a now and lamentable omission of the Treaty of 1843 ; and in regard to thi!< I must first call to mind that in point of fact, in the pn>sent instance, the persons charged with the pursuit of Lamirande, who were the bearers of the warrant issued against him, could not have requested on their way through England, as your letter supposes, the intervention of the French Ambassador in I^ndon, inasmuch as at that time the accused had fled nut to British territory, but to the United States. The same persons afterwards, like the fugitive, went over direct from Federal soil into Canada, and it was the prompt requisition alone addressed by our Consul-General to the Governor of that Colony which couUl have mode the extradition possible. That incident, on the contrary, shows how indispensable in cases of urgency the action of Consular Agents may he, and at the same time the necessity of an interpretation breathing above all things that spirit of practical conciliation which should preside over the execution of international acts. Besides, an extradition granted without a request made through a diplomatic channel has nothing in itself opposed to the practice followed under certain circutnstances by Great Britain either towards France or other countries. To this day extradition is carried out in French and English colonics on the simple request of the Governor, without recourse having been made to a diplomatic channel, and without the British Government ever having protested against that way of proceeding. Recently, in 1 8G3, England entered into an agreement with Italy rcspectint; Malta, whereby applications for extradition could be made by Consular Agents. Lastly, the clause of the Anglo- American Treaty of 1842, which refers to extradition between the two countries, leaves it to be supposed, as you allow, that the power of requesting the surrender of criminals is by no means limited to Diplomatic Agents, properly so called. Your letter, it is true, invokes especially, in support of the opinion which would exclude the intervention of French Consuls, the terms of the statute passed on the 22nd of August, 1843, for carrying into effect the Anglo-American Treaty — tcrnu more comprehensive than those of the statute passed the same date to give the force of law to the Anglo-French Treaty ; and you deduce from the discrepancies of text which result from this comparison that the intention of the negotiators of the two Treaties must have been, in the one case, to admit the intervention of Consuls, and in the other to shut them out. In our opinion the discrepancies in the text which exist between the two statutes and the two Treaties are explained by reasons of an opposite nature, but of which neither admits of the supposition that the Contracting Parties intended to admit Consuls in the one case and to exclude them in the other. In feet, the Anglo-American Treaty is anterior by eight mouths to the Anglo-French Treaty, and if the two statutes, although of the same date, differ in their wording, it is doubtless because it was intended to frame each in harmony with the terms of the Treaty to which it refers. As regards the discrepancies of text which exist between the Treaties themselves, the Article of the Anglo-American Treaty does not figure in a special Extradition Convention. This Article, casually introduced into a Boundary Treaty with Canada, concluded at Washington, designates, in fact, generally, the authorities of caoh '^'•'jntry who can properly demand extradition, whilst all the specific Treaties Qp this subject, concluded by England with other Powers, France, Russia, Denmaric, use the expression " Diplomatic Agents." But this form of expression can have but one Qieaping ; for what reason could be invoked to justify the admission of the Consuls of the United States whilst those of other Powers were excluded ? But even if we suppose that the Treaty of 1843 by the use of the words " Diplomatic Agents " intended to lay down an invariable rule, it would not follow, after the accused has been handed over, and above all after foreign justice had pronounced its decision, that the extradition should be annulled on account of that irregularity. Whilst placing ourselves with the Government of the Queen upon the groqnd of strict right, we m^y be allowed to observe that generally, in matters of legal procedure^ formalities are only a source of invalidity, in so far as the law Lus formally declared them N 2 1 1- ■ 86 r ill to be 80, or when the irregularity in rjuestion nttucks u general legal principle recognized in the country. Now, in the first place, the Treaty containfl nothing upon the consequences entailed by the non-observance of the diplomatic channel ; and, in the second place, this same non-obsen-ance is sanctioned by England towards the United States, in a general manner towards Italy for Malta, and, lastly, towards France herself in the rclutions between the French and English Colonics. Tlie Government of the Queen alleges, in the second place, that the acts imputed to Lamirundc would not constitute the crime of " faux," or forgerv, as contemplated by the Treaty, inasmuch us there is no forgery according to the law of I'iUgland. We have no intention of affirming it priori that the forgeries committed by Lumirande arc foreseen and punished by English legislation ; l)ut we are justified in titking into our consideration that the Government of the Queen brings to the support of its position no reference nor any official o|)inion originated by or emanating from a judicial authority, whilst, on the contrary, in our opinion the decision of Judge Br(;haut is a settled fact, creating a grave and serious presumption in favour of the legitimacy of the extradition. Moreover, in odhering to the literal meaning of the Treaty of 1843, Lamirande's extradition appears to us perfectly regular. What, in fact, does the Treaty say ? That the extradition siiall bo curried out on the part of England " on the report of a Judge or Magistrate duly authorized to take cognizance of the acts charged against the fugitive in the warrant of arnist." This report has been made by Judge Brehaut, and it is upon this report that the Governor of Canada has handed over the accused. We were therefore within the term of the Treaty ; it is true, that it is argued that there existed an appeal to a superior Judge. But, strictly, according to the letter of the Treaty, we are justified in maintaining that this right of appeal doce. not exist ; and indeed, if this right does exist, is it requisite for the Government which claims an accused person from England to pursue him through all the judicial steps authorized by the forms of English law ? This result, doubtless, is not to be feared when it is a question of a criminal destitute of resources. But Lomirande is the proof that a thousand ways of procedure are open to him who has found by his crime itself the elements of riches necessary to meet his expenees, so that at last by a complete subversion of justice the chances of extradition will some time be in an inverse ratio to the magnitude of the crime. At all events, to return to the actual case, the antagonistic opinion of Judge Drummond cannot be alleged in opposition to that of Judge Brdhaut, since that opinion given, too late, in the absence of the paities, wanting moreover in impartiality, if all the reports published on that occasion are to be believed, cannot Iiave the force of a decision by a Court of Appeal. Having before us the matter adjudged, the opinion of the lawyers who have been called upon to consider the question could alone determine us on the point of law, the point of fact never having been the subject of adverse examination. It is of greater importance for us to be able to discover whether the falsifications which in France entail a criminal punishment, and which the Court of Assize of Vienne has chastised by ten years of confinement, does not constitute the crime of forgery according to the English law. An English Colonial authoritity thought himself sufficiently justified by the requisition of our Consul-Gcneral in delivering a warrant to the proper judge. The latter gave a decision which was executed by the same administrative authority before the appearance of any contrary decision of another tribunal, whose tardy proceedings have no legal value. The person thus given up remained seven days in an English vessel and three more days on English soil, between Liverpool and London, escorted by English agents. Conferences were held between the magistrates, the attorneys, and the English agents. Lastly, it is certain that members of the English Cabinet were questioned by means of telegraphic despatches, and had to answer the objections of the officials who took upon themselves to act for Lamirande. Such are the antecedents, after which the restitution of the person thus given up is claimed, under the pretext of errors committed by the Governor-General of Canada or by the Judge who gave the decision. There is, moreover, occasion to remark that Lamirande, who has confessed his theft and forgery, has not even appealed against the sentence inflicted on him. Finally, Lamirande has accepted the trial on the charge of forgery, as appears from a formal declaration on his part, publicly given in the session of the Court of Assize You will find annexed a copy of this document. It proves that, according to the statement of his counsel, dated December 3, Lamirande accepted, on the 4th, the trial on the charge of forgery, and, even in the case of acquittal, upon that of theft ; so that his 87 ac(|uiescence would have obliged us to keep him, hnd he been acquitted, and to try him on those charges which rc8|>cct for the Treaties prevented us from submitting to the jury from the opening of the session. To recapitulate : The omission to make the demand through a diplomatic channel, even were it an invariable rule, could not be urged post facto to annul the extradition. The contrary rule is, moreover, practised in certain coses by Great Britain. If the forgery (cr which Lamirande has been surrendcrefl is not forgery according to English law, it is a doctiinc: which remains to be established. There is, ^n the contrary, a decision in favour of the regular application of the Treaty, and we cannot argue on the pretended judgment of appeal. Lamirande has accepted, in principle, the jurisdiction of his country before the Court of Assize at Vienne. The Government of the Emperor has, therefore, reason to hope that the English Cabinet will appreciate these various arguments, and will acknowledge them ns justified in principle ; for, in fact, Lamirande having formally given up his claim to the benefit of surrender, the question has no longer any but a theoretical mtcrest. I have the honour to transmit to you, herewith, a certified copy of the letter addressed on February lOth by Lamirande to the Procurcur-Gdndral of Poitiers, as well as his second letter of the 1 9th to the KeeiMsr of the Seals, and another from his father of the 20th. (Signed) MOUSTIER. Inclosure 2 in No. 39. Declaration of M, E. S. Lamirande. JE soussign^, Surreau Lamirande (Ernest Charles Constant), declare solennellement que si le verdict du jury qui doit statuer sur les faux qui me sont reproch^s et que jc protcstc n'avoir jamais eu I'intention de commettrc est n^gatif, jc n'entends en aucune mani^re profitcr du benefice du Traite d'Extradition avec Angleterre ; que je demande au contrairc dans cctte hypotht^sc k dtre jug^ par la Cour d' Assises de la Vienne pour les faits de ddtournement et dc vol qui sont relev^s contre moi par I'arr^t de la Chambre des mises en accusation. Je suis done pr^t h me constituer prisonnier et je prie mes ddfenseurs de d^poser cette declaration entre les mains de M. le Procureur G^n^ral. Poitiers, le 4 Dicembre, 1866. (Sign^) E. S. LAMIRANDE. (Translation.) ., I, THE undersigned Surreau Lamirande (Ernest Charles Constant), declare solemnly that, if the verdict of the jury who are to decide on the forgery which is imputed to ine, and which I protest never having intended to commit, is in the negative, I do not intend in any way to profit by the benefit of the Extradition Treaty with England ; that I demand, on the contrary, under this hypothesis, to be judged by the Court of Assize of Vienne for the acts of embezzlement and of theft which have beep brought against me by the decree of the Chamber of indictment. I am, then, ready to constitute myself a prisoner, and I beg my counsel to place this declaration in the hands of M. le Procureur-Gln6ral. (Signed) E. S. LAMIRANDE. Poitiers, December 4, 186G. M Inclosure 3 in No. 39. M. E. S. Lamirande to M. Damuy. le Procureur-G^ndi-al, Fonlevrault, le 10 Fe'vrier, 1867. J'APPRENDS k I'instant que le Gouvernement Anglais a adress^ une demande en restitution de ma personne au Gouvernement Fran9ais. D^sireux d'^viter la continuation d'une publicity pJnible pour ma famille et bien decide k expier mon crime, en subissant la peine qui m'a et^ infligde par la justice de mon pays, je declare renoncer, formellement, d^s aujourd'hui, au benefice de cette restitution, si elle devait avoir lieu. Je viens vous prier de vouloir bien transmettre la pr&ente declaration k son Excellence M. le Garde de Sceaux. J'ai, &c. (Sign^) £. S. LAMIRANDE. 1^ -> IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1.0 1.1 mm W22 ^ m Hi ■il IL25 HI 1.4 ■ 2.0 I 1.6 Hiotographic ScMices Corporation 23 WIST MAIN STRin WIBSTm,N.Y. I4SM t716)«72-4503 ^ '^ q'^ >.\ ^. 4^\ ^ '^> ^V^ ^ o^ < ^ M^ 1 I) • S.i f frrensUtion.) M. I« PH»iiwif-aAiA«»I. IhnltvrmH, Feknry 10, 1807. I HAVE just learnt that the English Government have addressed a demand to the FMnoh Government for the surrender of my person. Being desirous of avoiding the continuance of a pubhoity painful to my ftmily. and quite decided to expiate my crime, by submitting to the penalty which baa been inflicted on me by the justice of my country, I deelaiv that I formally renounce, from toKiay, benefit from that surrender, if it should take place. I now beg yon to have the goodness to transmit the present dedaraiion to his BxceU lenmr the Keeper of the Seals. (Signed) E. 8. LAMIRANDB. Indosure 4 in No. 39. M. E. S. Lamirandt to the Keeper of the aealf, Minister of Justice. M. le Ministre, Fontcvrault, If 19 Efvritr, 1867. J'AI I'honneur de vous informer que jc renonce d'avance ct dc la manidre la plus formelle h la liberty que pourrait mc rendrc, si elle r^ussissait, la demande formee par le Gouvcmement Anglais en restitution dc ma personne. Ma renonciation a pour mobiles I'int^^t de ma famille, k laquelle je desire 6viter la continuation d'une publicity bicn pdnible pour elle et Ic rcpentir sincere et complet par lequel je vcux t&cher d'expier mon crime. Cette determination est do m« pfirt parDutemeqt Hbre et r(&flective. C'est done de mon propre mouvctnent, iud^pendamment de toute influence, que je d^lare me sommettre aux decisions de la justice nan9aise et en accepter, ^aivs r&qrve et sans arriere-pensee, toutes les consequences. (Sign^ ' ?'. S, LAMIRANDB, (Translation.) M. le Ministre, F-\ntevrault, February 19, 1867. I HAVE the honour to inform yoi) that I reqounce beforehand, and in the most formal manner, the liberty which the demand framed by the English Government for the surrender of my person, if it were successful, might restore to me. lie motives of my renundation are the interest in my family, for wbom J wish to avoid the continuance of a publicity very painful to them, and the sincere and complete repentance by which I wish to try and expiate my crime. This determination on my part is perfectly free and deliberate. \t is, then, by m^ own deed, indepenaently of any influence, that I declarel my decisions of French justice, <|nd acci submissioQ ^o the crrihe fettaie^ of all {ta consequences, acceptance, without reserve a{id|without (Signec}) E. S. LAMIRANDB. Inclosure 5 in No. 39. MM. C. O. and C. S. Lamirande to the Keeper of the Seifls, Minitter of Justice, M. le Ministre, Chatellerault, le 20 F^vrier, 1867. J'AI I'honneur de vous adresser ci-incluse une lettre de mon iils, Ernest Lamirande, par laquelle il renonce d'avance au b^q^fioe de U demande du Gouvernemeut Anglais en restitution de sa personne. Si auelque chose pourrait i^parer le mal que ce raalheureux 61$ m'a ftit, wui qu'k ma fkmille, ce serait son repentir. Aussi voyons nous avec s^Usfhction cette determination, que je m'empresse de transmettre it votre Excellence. Elle aurii un rtfsultat auquel nous attachons un grand prix, celui de fliire cesser enfin le bruit qui s'est produit autour de notre nom. De plus die indique un retour k de bona sentiments pnisqu'elle a le m^rite de la spontaneity et qu'elle est inspiree par I'interAt de sa ihmille et par un sincere d^sir d'expia* tion. J'ose esp^rer, M. le Ministre, que le repentir dont fait preuve aujourd'hui mon malheurvwv &$ Un urfSera pour plus tard un titre k la ciemence de Sa Majeste rEmpereur* 89 1867. M to the fding the ime, by J country, |it ahoald is Bxcel. kNDB. Men plus jeune fil« qui signe avec moi ccttc leltre partagc tous les sentiments qui y sont exprim^. Veuillcz, &c. (SignO C. G. LAMIRANDE, Ancien Maaitlrai. C. S. LAMIRANDE. (Translation.) M. le Ministre, Chdttllerault, February 20, 1867. I HAVE the honour to address to you the inclosed letter from my son, Ernest Lami- rande, by which he gives up, in anticipation, all claim to the benefits of the demand by the English Government for the surrender of his [lerson. If anything could repair the harm which this unhappy son has done to me as well as to my family, it would be his repentance. Therefore we regard with satisfaction this determination, which I hasten to transmit tb your Excellency. It will have a result to which we attach great Value — that of putting a stop at last to the reports which have been circulated in conncctioh With our name. In addition, it indicates a return to proper fcelingj since it possesses the merit of being spontaneous, and of being inspired by interest in his family and by a sincere desire for etpiation. t venture to hope, M. le Ministre, that the repentance of which my unhappy son now gives a proof will create for him at some future time a claim on the indulgence of His Majesty the Emperor. My youngest son, who signs this letter with met shares all the sentiments which are exprtessed therein. (Signed) C. G. LAMIRANDE, ex-Magistrate. C. S. LAMIRANDE. No. 40. Lord Stanley to Earl Cowley. My Lord, Foreign Office, March 20, 1867. MR. FANE transmitted to me in his dcspateh of the 25th of February two letters from M. Lamirande and from his family, withdrawing the application that the former had made in his letter of the 1 Ith of September last, for the interference of Her Majesty's Government to obtain his release as having been unduly given up to the French Govern- ment under the Extradition Treaty of the 13th of February, 1843, Mr. Fane further transmitted to me in his despatch of the 3rd instant the answer of the French Government to the application, which, by my instruction of the 12th of January last, he was instructed to make for the surrender of M. Lamirande. Whatever exception Her Majesty's Government might, under other circumstances, hare felt disposed to take to the statements made by M. de Moustier in this answer, with the view of controverting the grounds on wliich they rested their application, the request now made by M. Lamirande himself, and by his family, that the application should be with- drawn, would render it a matter of great difficulty on the part of Her Majesty's Govern- ment to pursue a controveidy on the subject with the Government of the Emperor, since the person on whose behalf the controversy was commenced urgently entreats that it should be abandoned. At the same time, however. Her Majesty's Government must guard themselves from appearing to acquiesce in the doctrine and principles on which the French Government justify their refusal to set M . Lamirande at liberty ; and I have accordingly to instruct your Excellency, in acquainting M. de Moustier that Her Majesty's Government no longer insist upon their application for his release, to add that their abstaining from doing so must not be construed into an admission on their part that there were not sufficient grounds for insisting upon it. I am, &c. (Signed) STANLEY. •"iSf^JII VI ill i ■I s g 8 8 ? s: i QD Ok 9 -I 5* 2 11 a"! B ^ O S* g EQ