Lancaster daily intelligencer. [volume] (Lancaster, Pa.) 1864-1928, 1882-03-30
AMERICAN RIGHTS.
THE CASE OF DANIEL McswEENEY.

THE CASE OF DANIEL McsWEENEY.
Our Esslish Minister too Slow in the Motion.
n. Y. Sun.
Daniel McSweeney is an American citi-
zen of Irish birth, who resided twenty
five years in California previous to his
visit to Ireland, where he was arrested
last June on suspicion of some underlined
offence under the coercion act. Many
prominent citizens of San Francisco, and
the whole California delegation, Demo-
Gratis and Republicans, appealed to the
department of state in his behalf.
So far as an effect was produced, this
appeal might as we'll have been addressed
to the foreign Office in London. Mrs.
Julia McSweeney, an American born, ad-
dressed an urgent letter to Mr.. Blaine in
August last, reciting the outrage on her
herself and her children. Mr.. Blaine
treated that letter with scornful silence
because it was filled with pungent truths.
his energies in behalf of Shipherd's ::Pe-
claimed every thought, and American
fate.
Mr.. Lowell followed Mr.. Blaine's in
structiOns to the letter, and when notified
by Lord Granville that sin no case could
information be given beyond the state
ments of the warrant of arrest" our min
ister considered it "futile TO mako any
further application in these cases. He
dropped them, and seemed to be glad Of
the excuse for not reviving al Improbable
discussion.
On the 9th inst. the Senate passed the
following resolution
Resolced, That the secretary Of state
be and he is hereby instructed to ascertain
the cause for the alleged imprisonment Of
Daniel Nc Sreeney, and make report to the
Senate at the earliest day possible
Mr.. Frelinghuysen has answered that
resolution by sending in a telegraphc cor
respondence between him and Mr.. Lowell
of the Sd and 4th of March-five days he
fore it passed-which in no sense is reply
to the Senate's call. That telegraphic
correspondence is the very reverse of cred
liable to the department of state, in view
of all the facts connected with the treat
ment of our citizens.
Instead of demanding the reasons for
their imprisonment, as the act of 1868 d.
reefs, Mr.. Frelinghuysen dodges his duty,
saying g The President hopes that, with
out discussing the applicability of the ex-
listing coercive statute to citizens of the
United States, tho lord lieutenant of Ire
land will be instructed, under the first
section of the act, to exercise the discre-
tionary powers conferred thereby in these
and all cases Of imprisoned Americans, by
ordering prompt trials.
This gingerly action is not responsive to
public sentiment. nor is it defensive of the
rights of our outraged citizens. 1t is al
most apologetic in tone. We are not in a
position to ask lavors, but to insist upon
the liberty of these citizens, unless clear
proof is produced of their guilt upon spe.
cific charges.
So far as the papers communicated by
Mr.. Erelinghuyseu go, and the presidents
message is dated on March 20, no step has
been taken to carry out the resolution,
and no answer has been given. There was
abundant time to hear from Mr.. Lowell by
mail 1t is evident there is no desire to
press this question at Washington, and
the secretary of state is reluctant to touch
it.