Frederick T. Frelinghuysen to Sackville West, March 28, 1882

Mr. Frelinghuysen to Mr. West.

Sir: I had the honor to receive on the 25th instant your note of the 24th, in relation to the imprisonment at Detroit, Mich., of a British subject, named William Lane, who, it is stated, has been hitherto unable to obtain trial on the charge under which he has been held since the 18th June last. I immediately addressed a telegram to the attorney-general of the State of Michigan, acquainting him with the purport of your note, and expressing the desire of the President to learn the facts of the case, and to have the best exertions of the State authorities used to secure to Mr. Lane the early trial which he asserted he was unable to obtain.

I am now in receipt of a telegram of yesterday’s date from Mr. J. J. Van Riper, the attorney-general of Michigan, who, it seems, at once went from the capital of the State to Detroit, to investigate the case in person. The facts, as very fully reported by Mr. Van Riper, are as follows:

William Lane, the accused, had formed an attachment for the wife of one George W. Allen, also a British subject. On the 16th June, 1881, Lane and Allen were out together in a boat. Lane prepared in a cup a drink which he represented to be lemon juice, but which contained a large quantity of morphine, and gave it to Allen, who swallowed the liquid. Violent vomiting ensued, which saved Allen’s life, although his recovery was long despaired of, and he has not yet recovered from the effects of the poison.

Lane was arrested on the following day, 17th June, 1881. He made a written confession that he had poisoned Allen, adding that his intention was, when Allen should have become unconscious, to tip him out of the boat. He subsequently withdrew his confession, saying that he did not know what he said or wrote. Mr. Van Riper has seen this written confession.

Lane was arraigned for trial on the 29th September, 1881. Since that time repeated continuances have been had, but in every instance at the request of Lane’s attorneys, and never on the application of the prosecution. The case is, however, now on trial; it was begun on Friday last, the 24th instant; was continued on Saturday, and was on trial yesterday. The State’s attorney-general finds no blame attaching to the authorities for the delay in bringing Lane to trial. The low state of Allen, who was suffering from the poison, prevented the case from being set down for trial earlier than the 29th September, 1881, in the absence of the principal witness, while since that date the dilatory motions, as before said, have come wholly from the side of the defense.

I have acquainted Mr. Lowell by telegraph of the investigation ordered on receipt of your note and of its result, in order that Her Majesty’s Government may see the jealous watchfulness which this government is disposed to exercise when the inherent right of any accused person, and especially a subject of a friendly state, to a speedy trial on the charges preferred, is in question.

I have, &c.,