Lamothe, who was Chief of Police of the city of Montreal at the time of the raid, distinctly says [Dep., p. 2]:

"I knew nothing of the intended raid upon St. Alban's before it transpired; I knew by rumour before, that a raid at some point was in contemplation. My conclusion that the St. Alban's raid was fully organized in Canada, was formed from facts which came to my knowledge after said raid."

Prior to the raid he knew no fact tending to reveal it, and states no fact imputing such knowledge to the Canadian authorities. He had heard rumours of a contemplated raid at some point which the rumour did not indicate, and though he did not know any of the raiders before the raid, from the manner in which the Confederates met together at the different hotels, &c., he had no doubt that they were acting in concert; and it is upon such a foundation as the above facts afford, that he made the statements in his affidavit relied upon by the United States. As to the knowledge of the Government, he only says that the hostile intentions of the Confederates must have been known to them, " as they were known generally upon the streets of Montreal." Evidently the "hostile intentions of the Confederates," which he supposes must have been known to the Government, because "known generally upon the streets of Montreal," were only their general feelings and purposes of hostility against the Government of the United States, and not any particular plan or intention in regard to St. Alban's.

Rynders [Dep., p. 62] swears to his affidavit without addition, amendment, or alteration. In this affidavit he states that his estimate of the number of Confederate refugees in Canada was 20,000, and of these not less than 500 were in Montreal. [Sir John McDonald thinks that the whole number in Canada did not exceed 5,000.] Rynders continues [p. 49], "I know that for a long while prior to the St. Alban's raid, which took place on the 19th of October, 1864, those men were concocting raids at Montreal aforesaid upon the border towns of the United States, and this fact became a matter of considerable notoriety in the said city of Montreal." He then goes on to state some facts in regard to the Johnson Island raid, not in any way explaining his pretended knowledge as to the St. Alban's raid; and on next page, referring to Colonel Ermatinger, he reports him to have said in a conversation which took place about four weeks before the raid:-" We [meaning the Canalian Government,] knew all about these contemplated raids. Let them go on and have a fight on the frontier, &c." [p. 51], and witness adds:-"I have no doubt that Colonel Ermatinger knew the exact point at which the southern soldiers designed to make their attack at the time, which afterwards proved to be St. Alban's, Vermont." After stating that the Confederates were acting in concert and together, and were fully organized within the territory and Province of Canada, and that their combination and organization, purposes and intentions of committing acts of forcible depredation and war upon the territory of the United States of America were

* *

known to the Government officials of Canada before the St. Alban's raid," and "that if there had been any steps taken by said Government of Canada to prevent said raids, or contemplated raids, upon the territory of the United States, the St. Alban's raid He concludes:-"I further say that would never have occurred." I know that said St. Alban's raid was fully organized in said ProOn his cross-examination, referring to the convince of Canada." versation with Colonel Ermatinger, he says:-" The talk was grounded on the fact that so many Southerners were gathered at Montreal. I don't remember that St. Albans or any other particular place was named where the raid would take place, but only on the frontier." Again, "I have no other reason to believe that Colonel Ermatinger knew of the raid on St. Alban's, except that he told me, not a week before the raid, that there would be a fight soon, and his associations with the Southerners." In answer to the question, "What reasons have you to believe that he knew the point of attack would be St. Alban's ?" he says:-“ It was because it did take place so soon after at St. Alban's." In answer to the question: "Did you know any more in regard to contemplated raids than what was known or spoken of commonly on the street?" he says:-"No more than what I heard the Southern people say, that there would be a raid soon, and what I heard Colonel Ermatinger say to the same effect." Being asked, " Do you know anything of the organization in Canada which occurred before the raid, or did you get your information afterwards," he My information was afterwards." In his re-examination, he says:-" By organization, I mean a large number together. I have frequently seen twenty-five of the leading Southerners in consultation." This witness states that he has known Sir John A. McDonald for thirty years.

answers:

We have thus candidly reviewed the testimony of both these witnesses, Lamothe and Rynders, and we confidently ask, what fact does either of them establish as within his knowledge, or that of the Canadian authorities, tending to impute complicity or negligence to these authorities in respect to the St. Alban's raid, or to show that the said raid was organized in Canadian territory? They equally and distinctly disclaim any knowledge of any such fact prior to the occurrence of the raid. The impressions and speculations since the fact, to which they have been led by the natural inclination to magnify their sagacity as detectives, can surely not establish any foundation for these claims. The only fact which they seem to have known was one of public notoriety, viz., that a large number of citizens of the United States, refugees from the States in rebellion, had at various times and places appeared in Canada and were resident there. If there was anything in their conduct or deportment leading to a reasonable belief that they were occupied in preparing or setting on foot acts of invasion and violence against the United States, it was plainly their duty to denounce such acts, in order that the guilty parties might be arrested. It has not been, and cannot be, denied that such acts would have been a violation of the law of nations, and, therefore,

a crime by the common law of England, even though the same might fall short of the precise terms of the Act of Parliament. Even now, these witnesses state no such acts. But the United States, through these claimants, call upon this Commission to imagine and presume such acts, in order to warrant against Great Britain a conviction of the serious offence of a breach of the duties of neutrality as recognized by civilized nations. The fact that Mr. Rynders saw, from time to time, as many as twenty and twentyfive Southern refugees talking together in public places [which he calls "in consultation,"] could surely not warrant any interference with these persons in any civilized country recognizing the principles of personal liberty. It would be unheard of either in the United States, or in England, that arrests should be made on such a fact.

Although Mr. Rynders speaks of the organization of the Southerners so positively in his affidavit, yet, in his deposition he plainly shows that he knew of no such organization, and being reexamined, he says:-"By organization, I mean a large number together "[p. 67]. This witness, whose testimony is so much relied upon on the subject of organization, thus shows his ignorance of even the meaning of the term. This large number he limits to twenty-five at a time of a population which he does not scruple to estimate elsewhere at 500 at least in Montreal, and 20,000 in Canada.

As to Judge Coursol's alleged admission, the whole case for the defence rests upon the following passage in the deposition of Mr. Albert Sowles :

"I further say, that while in conversation with Judge Coursol on the occasion of my first going to Montreal, he informed me that these 'Southerners had been about the city of Montreal in large numbers for a long time, contemplating or getting up these raids, and if proper measures had been taken, their plans could have been found out and frustrated.'"

This account of the fragment of a conversation which took place nearly eight years before, does not impute to Judge Coursol the statement of any fact of which he had knowledge, except that numbers of the refugees were, and had been, about Montreal; a fact in itself perfectly innocuous. Seen by the light of the subsequent events communicated to Judge Coursol by Mr. Sowles, the former may reasonably have inferred that, in the intermediate time, during their residence in Montreal, the Southerners "had been contemplating or getting up these raids." But he states no other fact than the simple one of their presence in Montreal, which received its colour from the facts then recently occurred. And according to Mr. Sowles, he proceeded to express the opinion then, perhaps, entertained by him," that if proper measures had been taken their plans could have been found out and frustrated." What these measures were, which, in the light of subsequent events, Judge Coursol thought would have resulted in the frustration of their plans, he does not state or intimate. He may or may not have been correct

in this opinion, if he entertained it and expressed it. At best it is but the expression of an opinion after the fact, and imports no previous knowledge. Nor is this Commission authorized to assume that it was well founded in fact-still less that it is a conclusive admission of such negligence or want of "due diligence," as fixes upon Great Britain international culpability. That is a question which the High Contracting Parties have submitted to this tribunal, and its judgment will be based upon facts proven, and recognized principles of international law. The idea is novel, at least, that such a duty can be performed by adopting in lieu of evidence, such an opinion as that attributed to Judge Coursol. If the United States really thought it important to prove the fact that Judge Coursol expressed it in conversation with Mr. Sowles, and that the opinion was founded upon facts within the knowledge of Judge Coursol before the raid, it is amazing that they should have contented themselves with what Mr. Sowles states, which, we have seen, does not embrace or import any matter of fact, as within the knowledge of the Canadian authorities prior to the raid. It is, doubtless, adroit to endeavour, as the brief for the United States does, to shift at this point the burthen of proof, and to ask why Great Britain did not examine Judge Coursol on this point, but the answer to this question is obvious. This testimony of Mr. Sowles did not seem to us to establish, or tend to establish, any fact material to the question of the validity of these claims. If we could have foreseen the use which would he attempted to be made of it by the superior ingenuity of the Counsel for the United States and the claimants, we might have called Judge Coursol to forestall their argument. But it never occurred to us to be of the slightest importance whether he did, or did not, in that conversation, say that there had been large numbers of refugees in Montreal, and that it was his opinion, now that this raid had been made on St. Alban's, that they had been contemplating or getting up such raids, and that, if "proper measures had been taken, their plans might have been found out and frustrated."

It would have been still, in our judgment, incumbent on the United States to prove, if they alleged it, such facts as would have vindicated such an opinion, and would have made it the opinion and judgment of the Commission upon the facts.

Great stress is also laid upon the inefficiency or infidelity of Colonel Ermatinger. This gentleman, for several years deceased, was a stipendiary Magistrate, and the following extract from Sir John McDonald's testimony will show the qualities which he possessed, and his fitness for the position which he was selected to fill:

Q. "From your knowledge, what was Colonel Ermatinger's character as an officer?

A. "He was selected for his position as being a very active man, and a good cavalry officer, and therefore supposed to be specially adapted for frontier service; he was a native Canadian, and knew the habits of the people; he was a gentleman of very good character socially, both in his civil capacity and as a soldier,

and was therefore selected for the position; he was a zealous officer, aud I believe would and did carry out instructions given him faithfully and zealously; he was, as Rynders states, a person of social habit and fond of conversation; he may have said, and I dare say that he did say, that he apprehended disturbances from these refugees, and from the refugees generally; it was in consequence of the apprehension of such outrages by these people that he got his appointment; if he had any failing, it was that he was rather inclined to gossip."

He was appointed upon the recommendation of Sir George Cartier (see p. 5, Dep. of Sir G. E. Cartier).

There can be no doubt of the good faith and discretion with which he was selected, and nothing can be found in the evidence tending to show that he did not honestly and zealously discharge his duty. That he threw himself in the way of the Southern refugees, and was occasionally seen drinking with them, was quite within the scope of his duty. Sir John McDonald (p. 12) says: "It would be considerably in the line of his duty to throw himself in the way of these people." All that can be truly said in the premises is that, notwithstanding his zeal and fidelity, he failed to discover any indication of the projected raid on St. Alban's, or any other fact authorizing legal proceedings, either against these particular raiders or any others of the Southern refugees.

As to Colonel Ermatinger's duties, &c., we have, in addition to the memorandum referred to in the brief for claimants, and the report of Sir George E. Cartier, under whose recommendation Ermatinger was appointed, the deposition of Sir George E. Cartier, who gave instructions to Ermatinger.

He says (p. 25): "With regard to the eastern frontier between Lower Canada and the United States, on my suggestion, as far back as about the beginning of October, 1864, Colonel Ermatinger had been appointed stipendiary Magistrate, having instructions and orders to watch closely, with a sufficient number of policemen and detectives, the doings of ANY ONE in the districts lying between the city of Montreal and the eastern frontier of the United States."

There is nothing in the memorandum referred to in the brief for the United States inconsistent with this testimony. It may well be that the practice of kidnapping British subjects by violence or false pretences was the special cause of the appointment of Colonel Ermatinger; but the memorandum referred to itself states that he was to receive instructions from Sir George Cartier, and that gentleman gives the above testimony.

Against this testimony it is vain for Counsel to oppose the mere assertion that his duty did not extend to watching the conduct of the refugees on the frontier as well as that of those persons engaged in "crimping."

When the Counsel for the claimants goes on to state that Sir