Edwards Pierrepont to Sworn before me. J. T. INGHAM, Chief Magistrate, December 22, 1876

No. 152. Mr. Pierrepont to Mr. Fish.

Sir: I have the honor to inform you that, in my dispatch No. 76, dated November 30, 1876, I inclosed a copy of a note from Lord Derby, stating that the home department had issued orders for the apprehension of Winslow, Brent, and Gray, whose extradition has been requested by the United States Government. On the same day (November 30) I advised you by cable that the home office had ordered the arrests.

On the 4th of December, 1876, by cable, I acquainted you that Brent had been arrested, heard, and committed to await extradition at the end of fifteen days. Copies of the depositions taken at this hearing are herewith inclosed.

In my dispatch No. 80, December 5, 1876, I gave particulars of the case and of the general course of proceedings here in extradition cases.

In my dispatch No. 81, December 7, 1876, I stated that after the expiration of “the fifteen days” Brent would be delivered over to an agent of the United States under a warrant of extradition, and without any stipulations or conditions whatever.

In my dispatch No. 86, of the 12th instant, I inclosed copies of the papers received up to that date from Lord Derby in the case of Brent.

The “fifteen days” did not expire, as the law is construed, until the 19th of December expired.

On the morning of the 20th of December I wrote to Lord Derby a note upon this subject, and, to facilitate the matter, I also sent a note to Lord Tenterden. I received, on the same day, an answer to these notes from Lord Derby, who made an inquiry as to the person to be appointed to take Brent to America; to which I returned an immediate reply. A copy of this correspondence is given with this dispatch.

The next day, to wit, the 21stof December instant, Lord Derby sent a messenger with the extradition warrant; a copy of which I also inclose. The messenger was accompanied by Mr. John Shore, the inspector of police mentioned in the correspondence, in order that I might make the proper appointment and give the necessary directions. I executed the formal appointment of Mr. Shore, of which I send you a copy, and forthwith dispatched to you a cipher cable, as follows:

Lord Derby has signed extradition-warrant. John Shore appointed to take Brent. Sails from Liverpool Saturday, in Parthia. More after actual sailing.

Lord Derby’s warrant seems to have been dated the 20th of December but I had no notice of it until the 21st, when I cabled you without delay. If the newspapers knew it before I did, they must have had ic from some clerk in the foreign office before I had notice that the warrant was issued.

I have arranged to receive notice by telegraph when Brent actually sails, and shall advise you by cable.

You will observe that Lord Derby signs this warrant of extradition. I am told that the home secretary usually signs them, but the act allows either of the principal secretaries of state to sign such warrants.

I have, &c.,

Deposition in relation to the arrest of Brent

Metropolitan Police District, to wit:

The information of William J. Hoppin, taken on oath this 30fch day of November, in the year of our Lord 1876, at the Bow-street police court, in the county of Middlesex, and within the metropolitan police district, before me, the undersigned chief magistrate of the police courts of the metropolis, sitting at the police court aforesaid.

This deponent, William J. Hoppin, on his oath, saith as follows:

I am the first secretary of the legation of the United States. I produce the copy of a telegram received on the 5th day of March, 1876, from the Hon. Hamilton Fish, Secretary of State, in cipher, charging Charles I. Brent with forgery and the utrerance of forged paper; and I am enabled to state that the said telegram is from Mr. Fish from the fact that it is in the cipher used between the State Department and the legation.

The American Government are now willing to receive this fugitive criminal for the purpose of prosecution.

Metropolitan Police District, to wit:

The examination of John Shore and another taken on oath this 4th day of December, in the year of our Lord 1876, at the Bow-street police court, in the county of Middlesex, and within the metropolitan police district, before me, the undersigned, chief magistrate of the police courts of the metropolis, sitting at the police court aforesaid, in the presence and hearing of Charles Inuis Brent, who was brought this day before me, pursuant to the extradition acts 1870 and 1873, accused of the commission of the crime of forgery and utterance of forged paper within the jurisdiction of the United States of America.

This deponent, John Shore, on his oath, saith as follows:

I am an inspector at Scotland Yard. I took the prisoner in custody on the 8th of March at Queenstown. I had then a warrant signed by Sir Thomas Henry similar to the one I produce. I read the warrant to him and told him I should have to take him to London. He was in the custody of the Irish constabulary; they handed me hit or exchange on Drexel, Harges &, Co., Paris, for 29,000 francs and upward, and £56 10s. in English gold, $11.25 American money, and revolver, all of which had been found on prisoner. Between there and Dublin I noticed prisoner was wearing a gold watch and chain, which I took from him; also, two rings and a pin. On the way between Queens-town and London he told me he was Charles Innis Brent; that he had been a clerk in the Tobacco Bank, Louisville, Ky.; that he had obtained leave of absence on the then yesterday fortnight to the following Monday, and that he proceeded to New York after cashing a draft belonging to the bank, and that he signed the name of the firm, bought the draft on Paris before referred to out of the proceeds of the draft, also the English gold and the gold watch and chain he was wearing.

I was present when the prisoner was examined before Sir Thomas Henry, and I remember Mr. Eugene C. Warren being examined by Sir Thomas in the presence of the prisoner, and in my presence he identified the prisoner as having been a clerk in the Tobacco Bank. I remember the whole of the American papers in the case were produced, and he and another gentleman swore to their correctness. It was said in prisoner’s presence what the amount of the check was. I have now apprehended the prisoner under Sir James Ingham’s warrant on Saturday last at Canterbury Barracks. I showed him the warrant, and he said he knew there would be a settlement between the governments about these extradition matters this last month.

And this deponent, Samuel Mullins, on his oath, saith:

I am a solicitor at 11 Queen Victoria street, E. C. I was present at the examination of prisoner before Sir Thomas Henry in March last. A draft was produced for the sum of $15,000; that draft was annexed to the original documents which came from America; these documents, with the draft, have been sent back to New York.

In the presence of prisoner I heard the American depositions read in which Mr. Warren, who purported to have signed the check or draft, said his signature was a forgery.

The prisoner, having been duly cautioned, saith:

All I have to say is I was three months in the house of detention, from 10th March to 19th June; that I was released then because our governments could not come to an agreement about extradition. On the day of my release I signed a paper authorizing Detective Shore to return the draft, moneys, the watch and chain and rings to be restored to the Merchants’ National Bank, New York City. Since then I have learned they have received this property. I would like to go back as soon as can be arranged without waiting the fifteen days.