DIPLOMATIC CORRESPONDENCE. 



DRAYTON, PERCIVAL. 323 



that he was in Halifax in May;, with the same ex- 

 pressed intention ; that he received his appointment 

 and three letters of instructions at Richmond in June ; 

 that he returned to Toronto with his papers in July; 

 that he was in Chicago with a large number of Con- 

 federate soldiers in August ; that he was at St. Cathe- 

 rines in Canada, where Mr. Clay resided, in Septem- 

 ber; that he was in Montreal about the beginning of 

 October, at St. Johns, C. E., on the llth of October, 

 and at St. Albaus on the 19th of the same month. 

 That Spurr, Huntly, and Teavis were also seen iu 

 Canada; Spurr in Toronto in the winter of 1863-' 64, 

 and Spurr, Teavis, and Hutchinson at St. Johns at 

 the same time with Young, though leaving that place 

 separately, and that they also were at Chicago in 

 August last. 



4. That large numbers of Confederates collected at 

 Chicago in August for the purpose of releasing the 

 prisoners at Camp Douglas. That up_on the failure 

 of that enterprise the expedition against St. Albans 

 was organized there by Lieutenant Young from 

 among the Confederates, he raising his party there 

 under instructions from his Government, which he is 

 proved to have exhibited as his authority, and in his 

 capacity as a commissioned officer, which is proved 

 to have been known among the Confederates there. 

 That he the_n reported the formation of his company, 

 and his doings generally, to Mr. C. C. Clay in St. 

 Catherines, from whom he received a memorandum 

 approving them, and authorizing the expedition 

 against St. Albans ; which it i9 also proved he also 

 then did verbally, and that Mr. Clay gave him a check 

 for $400 for his expenses. 



That if the case rested solely upon the evidence for 

 the prosecution, which merely established the taking 

 of Breck's money by violence, and if as was con- 

 tended by the applicants he had no right to look into 

 the whole of the facts connected with the case, it 

 would be his duty to commit the prisoners; but that 

 he held that he was bound to consider the preten- 

 sions of the prisoners, namely, that they were not 

 robbers, but soldiers and subjects of a belligerent en- 

 gaged in a hostile expedition against the enemy, un- 

 der the authority and on behalf of their Government ; 

 and that the act charged was a mere incident to that 

 hostile expedition; and that though he had no power 

 to try the case, he must necessarily so far investigate 

 it as to ascertain whether or no the offence commit- 

 ted fell within the provisions of the treaty. 



That a state of war existed between the Northern 

 and Southern States, usually described as the Fed- 

 eral and Confederate States ; that the British Gov- 

 ernment had recognized this state of war, and the 

 contending parties as belligerents ; and that as bel- 

 ligerents the Confederate States were entitled to all 

 the rights incidental to that quality, and to a recog- 

 nized state of war, among which must be claimed 

 that of raising armies, and in so doing of appointing 

 officers and levying soldiers ; and also that of carry- 

 ing on the war in such manner quoad the other bel- 

 ligerent as they may deem fit ana proper. And that 

 no neutral or other power had any jurisdiction or 

 right to adjudicate between the belligerents upon the 

 measures which either of them might choose to adopt 

 in so doing. 



That under the circumstances already shown to 

 have been proved, the foregoing rules are applicable 

 to the case now under consideration, and that as 

 Lieutenant Young was a commissioned officer of one 

 of the belligerent armies, in command of a party of the 

 soldiers of that army, carrying out a hostile expedi- 

 tion planned in that capacity, and submitted to and 

 approved by the agent of his Government, to whom 

 he had been referred by that Government for instruc- 

 tion for his guidance ; his acts on that expedition in 

 the enemy's country, in so far as they have a hostile 

 character, do not fall within the purvieu of ordinary 

 criminal law, but within that branch of international 

 law which treats of the laws of war. But that whether 

 or no those acts were in accordance with the modern 



or other usages of war, is a question to be settled be- 

 tween the belligerents by such means as the law of 

 nations and the rules of war indicate, and not by a 

 judge in a neutral country ; and that the obligation 

 of taking this view of the law is imposed up_on this 

 country and upon its judges, by the recognition by 

 the Imperial Government of the belligerent character 

 of the Confederate States. 



That the attack on St. Albans must, therefore, be 

 regarded as a hostile expedition, undertaken and car- 

 ried out under the authority of the so-called Confed- 

 erate States by one of the officers of their army. 



That it was, therefore, both a belligerent act of 

 hostility and a political offence, quoad the State DOW 

 demanding extradition, and that the Ashburton 

 Treaty did not contemplate, uor do the Statutes 

 of the Province authorize the extradition of belliger- 

 ents or political offenders. 



That if any violation of the laws of this empire, 

 with regard to the preservation of neutrality, was 

 committed by the prisoners, which seems doubtful, 

 as the expedition was organized in Chicago, and as 

 only a portion of the party is proved to have passed 

 through Canada, and that separately ; that fact would 

 not, in any respect, affect the question of their liabil- 

 ity to extradition as that must depend upon their 

 acts in the territory of the State demanding extradi- 

 tion, and upon the character and intent, in and with 

 which those acts were committed ; and that such 

 breach of neutrality, if it existed, could only be com- 

 plained of and punished by our courts, at the instance 

 of pur own Government, as a violation of its law, and 

 of its dignity and sovereignty. 



That there is no proof of record that the prisoners 

 acquired any domicile in Canada, or lost their na- 

 tional character by any residence here. That so far 

 from there being animus manendi, the animus rever- 

 tendi was plainly indicated ; and, in fact, that under 

 the circumstances proved, the acquisition of a domi- 

 cile here would not affect the question of extradition, 

 though the prisoners might be violating the laws of 

 the country. 



That the extraordinary change which has taken 

 place in the United States must have an important 

 bearing upon questions arising under the Ashburton 

 Treaty, when acts for which extradition is sought 

 under the treaty are only claimed to be criminal by 

 one section of the State which was a party to the 

 treaty, while they are approved of and regarded as 

 meritorious by the other. 



That, therefore, the prisoners should be discharged. 

 (See BRITISH NORTH AMERICA.) 



DRAYTON, Capt. PERCIVAL, U. S. N., chief 

 of the Bureau of Navigation, born in South 

 Carolina, August 25, 1812, died suddenly at 

 "Washington, D. C., August 4, 1865.- He was a 

 son of the Hon. William Drayton of that State, 

 member of Congress from 1825 to 1833, and a 

 prominent member of the Union party in op- 

 position to nullification in 1830, and who, on 

 account of his sentiments, removed from the 

 State to Philadelphia, succeeding Nicholas Bid- 

 die as President of the Bank of the United 

 States. Young Drayton was possessed with an 

 active, untiring, and rather acute intellect, and 

 his knowledge of languages was quite exten- 

 sive. He entered the navy as midshipman in 

 December, 1827, was promoted to lieutenant in 

 February, 1838, and from that time to 1852 

 was successively attached to the Brazilian, 

 Mediterranean, and Pacific squadrons. He was 

 then ordered to the National Observatory in 

 Washington, whence he was assigned to ord- 

 nance duty in New York. His promotion as 



