The Sun.
London, England, 1864-12-27 00:00:00

The Confederate Raiders in Canada.

' On Tuesday, the 13th of December, the case of
the alleged raiders in the St Alban's affair was re-
opened at Montreal, before Mr Justice Coursal, in
the presence of a large number of spectators, by
whom the greatest interest was taken in the pro-
ceedings. At the outset of the investigation Mr
Kerr took an objection to the jurisdiction of the
Court, and denied his honour's right to sit there at
all on this matter.
Mr Darlin, on the other hand, contended that,
after having granted a delay of a month, they were
now in a position to hear evidence for the defence,
and not a legal argument.
Mr Kerr, after a brief discussion, was allowed to
go into the argument as to the jurisdiction of the
court.
The Judge said that this was a matter of the
gravest importance, involving the validity of the
proceedings from the commencement. For the
purpose, therefore, of considering it further, he
would adjourn until two o'clock p.m.
At two o'clock the Court reassembled, when Mr
Justice Coursal said he had given the argaments on
both sides his most serious consideration, and had
arrived at the conclusion that he was bound to obey
the Imperial authority. In a national question like
that before him, the Imperial Act was absolutely
supreme and must be his guide. The case, he said,
was an exceptional one—and being a treaty matter
between the two nations he could do no other than
allow their own provincial Act to give way to the
Imperial Legislature. The Imperial Act must rule
herein, and that Act required that the warrant
under which the prisoners were arrested should be
signed by the Governor-General. If the court could
have reserved the point for a higher tribunal, it
would gladly have done so—but, inasmuch as the
liberty of the subject was involved, there admitted
no delay, and as he had not had the warrant of
the Government, he had come to the conclusion that
the court had no jurisdiction in the case, and he
must order the immediate release of the prisoners.
The announcement of the Judge was received
with applause by many persons in the densely
crowded court, but the demonstration was instantly
suppressed.

Mr. Derlin then, in an earnest and impassioned
speech, implored his honour not to discharge the
Prisoners upon the remaining indictments, but in
justice and fairness to the counsel for the United
States, and to those for the private prosecutors (the
banks), to allow of a hearing. Should it be said in
an English court of justice that the judge, having
• decided in favour of the prisoners in one case, im-
mediately discharged them in six others ? What
would be said outside? The counsel for the defence
themselves knew that the course which the court
had taken was unprecedented. Had not his honour
issued six warrants, and yet he had but one warrant
before him ? He called solemnly on the court to
hesitate. He (Mr. Derlin) could not remain
silent while thirteen men, charged with robbery
and even murder, were allowed to go at liberty
without their several cases being investigated.
Our good name for justice and fair play was at
stake, and though some among us might be
sympathisers with the prisoners he had yet to
learn that they set at naught the jewel, fair
play. He again called upon the court to hesitate
before discharging these men, and give the counsel
for the prosecution a chance of being heard, for
here the most important interests of all were at
stake, viz., international ones. If the court should
persist in doing this, then we must be prepared to
take the consequences. No country had dealt fairer
with England in extradition matters than had the
United States. Their judges combined to give
effect to the Extradition Treaty. The judges of
our Supreme Court had concurrent jurisdiction with
his honour, and had the counsel known of the pro-
bable course of his honour they would have desired
court the
to allow these judges to have a seat on
the bench along with him. Mr Derlin again, for
the last time, besought his honour to hesitate be-
'ore he finally ordered the liberation of the pri-

soners.

Mr Johnson, Queen's Counsel, after remarking
upon the responsibility 74 hicli attached to those
representing the United States, and those who re-
presented private interests merely, expressed his
opinion that Mr Derlin was mistaken in the view
he took of the judgment of the court. The court
meant that the prisoners were discharged on the
one charge which had been investigated.
The Judge here observed that Mr Derlin had
rightly understood the judgment of the court, which
was that the prisoners were discharged on every
case before him. •
The counsel for the prisoners objected to any call-
ing in question the judgment pronounced by the
court, and Mr Rose, counsel for the United States,
said he did not intend to call his honour's judgment
in question.
The Judge declined to hear further, saying that
if he had no right to arrest these men on one charge,
as he held that he had not, then neither had he a
right to detain on any other. These men had been
arrested on magistrates' warrant, upon his own,
and then on motio❑ of the police, and now,
when his honour's own jurisdiction was called
in question, because his warrants were null and
void, he saw that he bad been mistaken. And
it was the duty of every British judge, on find-
ing that, to rectify his error:. The court there•
fore, ordered that the prisoners be immediately
discharged, and was prepared to incur the respon-
sibility of its own act.
The prisoners were released a few minutes after-
wards, and were congratulated by their friends and
acquaintances on their liberation.
The Tribune, in reference to the above judgment,
says :—" We know nothing of what actio❑ the
Canadian authorities may now be disposed to take,
but the Administration at Washington may now,
perhaps, inquire of Great Britain whether she jus-
tifies this refusal of one of her judges to try a case
of arson and robbery committed by men within her
jurisdiction, because the acts were perpetrated
within our borders ; and whether, if the refusal is
to rest on the ground that these were the acts of
belligerents, she means to permit war to be waged
upon the United States from her territory and by
men amenable to her laws ?"

THE FOREIQY•OFFICE.--Mr. Murray, the As
sietant-Under•Secretary at the Foreign-office
(whose accident wh le out shooting on Saturday, the 10,h
inst., at Mr Higford Burr's, Aldermaston Court, near
Reading, has already been noticed in our columns), sus-
tained such injury to his left eye as completely to destroy
the sight. By the advice of the eminent surgeons called
in he has undergone the operation of having the eye re-
moved. This operation was skilfully performed, and he is
going on favourably,