The Sun.
London, England, 1865-01-12 00:00:00

-...
114
..
.....-;
i
~,,,---
11.!7 ~.,': ...t.:,,...-, ..-,....
, -1; , , :
,
/ it' 44' ."--.!
-',',
.fi '.; •
) L

3,
/„.„. /, •

The . Alban's 1 aiders.

The trial of Lieut. Young and the other recap-
tured raiders commenced on Tuesday, the 27th of
December, in the Superior Court at Montreal, be-
fore Mr. Justice Smith. It was stated that there
were several charges against the prisoners, but it
was contended on behalf of the prisoners that the
only question to be raised before that Court was the
extradition of the accused, whose conviction on six
charges would be no better than conviction on one.
A commitment on one would answer all the pur-
purposes of the counsel for the United States.
Judge Smith said there were but two warrants
before him, and the case of Brecks stood first for
examination. So far as both were concerned, the
choice lay between them.
It was then decided to proceed with the case of
Brecks.

Cyrus N. Bishop, teller of the St. Alban's Bank,
w s sworn,—He related the facts with regard to the
Ibbery of the bank by Collins,' Spurr, and three
other raiders on the day of the St. Alban's raid.
While the parties were in the bank a merchant,
named Samuel Brecks, came to the door, rapped,
and was admitted by the raiders. They then seized
him and demanded his money, which he stated was
private property. Witness told Brecks it was better
for him to give up his money, which he did. Wit-
ness learnt that it was $4OO United States' currency.
The parties threatened that if Brecks gave any alarm
they would shoot him.
In re-examination Bishop stated that the raiders
were dressed in plain clothes.

On Thursday Joseph F. Butterworth, a Confe-
derate soldier, of Kentucky, was examined. He said

he knew several of the prisoners, Young and Spurr
particularly. His evidence was to the effect that
the prisoners had admitted to him that they went
to St. Alban's for the purpose of taking the money
from the banks and burning the town. He also said :

" When I saw Spurr and Young in Chicago
during the time of the Convention I understood that
they were there for the purpose of releasing the
Confederate soldiers at Camp Douglas. There was
an organisation then going on for that purpose. I
was told by some of my friends whom I knew to be
Confederate soldiers, and also by Young and Spurr,
that they were in the Confederate army. I was
informed during the time I was in Chicago that a
raid or raids were being organised there for the
purpose of plundering and burning Northern frontier
towns. I was aware that Young and Spurr were
then engaged in organising such raid or raids."
The trial was proceeding with the greatest
despatch.
At the opening ofthe Assizes at Toronto, Judge
Morrison, in the course of his charge, characterised
the way in which the raiders had been discharged
as " very extraordinary and precipitate," and allud-
ing to the plea that the doings of the raiders were
acts of war he said—

" Without admitting for an instant that, even if
they were, it would form a ground for their dis-
charge, I fail to see that, while the actual seat of
war is several hundred miles distant from our fron-
tier, a mere incursion of a few men, secretly con-
trived and without the ordinary features or emblems
of a warlike expedition, resulting in an inroad upon
the territory of a neighbouring country, and the
taking of the lives of non-belligerent and unoffend-
ing citizens and the plundering them of their pro-
perty, and escaping into this country with their
plunder,—l say I fail to see that such acts are en-

titled to be treated as acts of war. If it were other-
wise, the most monstrous and revolting crimes
might be perpetrated under such pretexts, and being
committed on the borders of friendly and contiguous
States, as in the present instance, the offenders
would escape the punishment that such crimes
deserve. War, as understood and carried on among
civilised nations, has enough evils and calamities
without extending its horrors to murder and
robbery, such as I refer to. As well might it have
been argued during the Crimean War that if a few
desperate men entered any part of our province
from the United States and murdered and robbed
our people, and immediately fled thereafter within
the American frontier, they were, under the pretext
that their crimes were acts of war in aid of Russia,
entitled to protection, and not within the treaty.
One's . common sense revolts at any law, interna-
tional or otherwise, being invoked to protect the
perpetrators of such atrocities and crimes from being
amenable to the laws of the outraged country."