The Press. — London, England, 1856-06-21 00:00:00

JUNE 21, 1856. THE DISMISSAL OF MR. CRAMPTON. WITH the return of Mr. Crampton to this country a despatch was received by Mr. Dallas from Mr. Marcy, to be read to Lord Clarendon, in reply to Lord Clarendon's ultimatum of the 30th April. Mr. Marcy commences by expressing the satisfac tion of the President at the conciliatory spirit of Lord Clarendon's note, at the desire manifested to maintain friendly relations, anti at the unequivocal disclaimer of the English Government of any intention to infringe the law or disregard the policy of the United States. "The ground of complaint is thus," says Mr. Marcy, "so far as respects her Majesty's Government, removed." But the President cannot concur in Lord Clarendon's view of the conduct of Mr. Cramp ton and the consuls, and after the most mature con sideration declines to change " his view of their conduct or his purpose in relation to them." Hence, argues Mr. Marcy, the matter resolves itself into a mere difference of opinim between the two Govern ments as to die complicity or non-complicity of Mr. Crampton and the Consuls in illegal proceedings in the United States, arising from adifferent appreciation of the proofs by which the charges against Mr. Crampton and the Consuls are sustained. Mr. Marcy then reviews the points of the case at length, and flatly denies Lord Clarendon's assurnpti in that the evidence against Mr. Crampton and the consuls was mainly sustained by Hertz and Strobel, two witnesses unworthy of credit. Their testimony, says Mr. Marcy, " was quite a secondary and unimpor taut part of the evidence adduced ;" the charge—of conducting an extensive system of recruiting, and employing numerous agents, and keeping those agents employed atter it was well known taey were constantly infringing the laws of the United States, by obtainint , recruits for a pecuniary consideration— being supported " by other witnesses, by original letters of Mr. Crampton and others, and by the undenied and undeniable acts of Mr. Crampton himself." As to the " infamous characters " of Strobel and Hertz, Mr. Marcy retorts that, at least, they were the agents selected and trusted by Mr. Crampton to carry out most important concerns, and that Strobel was not only intimately associated with Mr. Crampton, but had the rank of captain in the foreign legion con ferred upon him by the Queen. Then, as to the ignorance of Mr. Crampton of the illegality of the proceedings, Mr. Marcy observes, that although at the trials which took place in May at New York and Philadelphia certain British agents were com mitted for violation of the municipal law by illegal recruitments, yet similar acts of recruitment were continued throughout the States up to September : Who ( asks Mr. Marcy) is to be held accountable for these unlawful acts? Were they all performed by volun teer and irresponsible persons. as argued in the Earl of Clareudon's despatch of the 16th of July? That cannot be admitted, for the conclusive reason that they received pay from British officers, and of course were employed by some responsible agents of the British Government. The Earl of Clarendon, in behalf of her Majesty's Govern• ment, disclaims all intention to violate the laws, compro mise the neutrality, or disrespect the sovereignty of the United States by the enlistment of troops within their territory. The President unreservedly accepts and is full• satisfied with this disclaimer. Of course, the nn lawful acts in question were not authorised by the British Government, bat the fact is nevertheless well established that they were done, and done in the name and at the expense of the British Government. Who, then, is responsible for these acts? Were there nn direct proof, though there is much of that character, the inference would be irresistible, that, not being authorised by the British Government itself, they were the unautho• rised acts of the British agents in the United States. Sach agents, having acted in wilful disregard of their Government in thus infringing our laws, may have failed to inform their Government that what they had under taken to do could not be done without infringing those laws, or by mismanagement, indiscretion, or over•zeal, they may have participated in such infringement, though well knowing it was contrary to the wishes and express orders of their Government. However this may be, it is certain that agents existed, because their acts appear. Who were those agents ? Of this we are not left in doubt. By permitting these recruitments to continue after the result of the May trials, whereby a continuous ♦iolation of the law was perpetrated, and by neglect i ug to observe the orders of the British Government to stop recruiting the moment its illegality was pronounced by the proper authorities, Mr. Marcy contends that Mr. Crampton's responsibility is obvious, while the same considerations apply to the consuls at New York, Philadelphia, and Cincinnati. Mr. Marcy then complains of a want of frankness evinced by Mr. Crampton in not at first disclosing the measures he intended to pursue within the United States in execution of the act of Parliament for raising a foreign legion; reitetates the Presi dent's conviction of the responsibility of Mr. Cramp ton and the Consuls, and asserts his determination, for the best interests of the two countries, to imme diately remove "those very unacceptable officers" Irotn their posts. Mr. Marcy then concludes his THE PRESS. despatch with an expression of the earnest desire of the President to maintain friendly relations with Great Britain If, in the earnest desire to act with all possible courtesy towards her Majesty's Government, the Pre.ident could have suspended his determination in the case in order to submit the new testimony, which he is confident would have been found sufficient to induce compliance with his request for the recal of the British Minister, he is pre cluded from any such thought of delay by the exceptional character of the despatches of that gentleman, copies of which, having been recently laid before Parliament, have thus come to the knowledge of this Government, and which are of a tenor to render further intercourse between the Governments through that Alinister alike unpleasant and detrimental to their good understanding. The Presi dent has, therefore, been constrained by considerations of the best interests of both countries reluctantly to have recourse to the only remaining means of removing, without delay, these very unacceptable officers from the connection they now have with this Government. This course has been deemed necessary on account of their unfitness for the positions they hold, arising from the very active part they have taken in getting upend carrying out a system of recruiting which has been attended with numerlus infractions of our laws, which has disturbed our internal tranquillity, and endangered our peaceful relations to a nation with which this Government is most anxious to maintain cordial friendship and intimate commercial and social intercourse. He has therefore determined to send to Mr. Crampton, her Majesty's diplomatic representative, his passport. and to revoke the e.repeators of Mr. Matthews, Mr. Barclay, and Mr. Rowecroft, British Consuls at Phila delphia, New York, and Cincinnati.—l am, air, respectfully, your obedient servant, W. L. Maacr. George M. Dallas, Esq., London. THE CENTRAL AMERICAN QUESTION. A DESPATCH from Mr. Marcy upon the Central American question accompanied the foregoing. Mr. Marcy opens by stating the regret. of the President at Lord Clarendon " resting his case upon the single position of particular hypotheses touching the construction of the convention." He received this announcement with " surprise and regret," and would at once have regarded it as an abrupt termina tion of all correspondence on the subject, had not Lord Clarendon concluded by stating that "the British Government yet saw no reason why a satis factory adjustment of the question should not be arrived at." This language yet left hope for an amicabl' settlement; and though the President would have been better pleased if Lord Clarendon had intimated the means whereby so desirable a consummation could be achieved, he is induced to infer that " arbitration by a third power " is meant. To that proposition he responds—What is it which shall be submitted to arbitration'— Lord Clarendon, in his letter to Mr. Crampton of the 10th of November (observes Mr. Marcy), seems to assume the difference between the two countries is merely of the interpretation of the convention of April 19, 18.50; but that is not so understood by this Government. If, indeed, it should be determined in any way that the American _ construction of that treaty is correct—which is, that what ever may have been the state of things previous to its date, yet after that neither the United States nor Great Britain is to hold any possessions in Central America; that when the two Governments agreed that neither will ever occupy, or fortify, or colonise, or assume, or exercise any dominion over Nicaragua, Costa Rica and the Mosquito Coast, or any part of Central America, the stipulation comprehends as to the acts enumerated, prohibition of their continuance as well as their initiation, without which there could be no effective neutralisation of the American isthmus. If, I say, such were the agreed or settled interpretation of the treaty, then, indeed, such determination would conclude all ex• isting difference. and settle it in accordance with the views entertained by the United States. But, on the other hand, it is not easy to see how the adverse construction, if it were adopted by an arbiter, could terminate the difference Lord Clarendon conceives that the treaty was merely pro• speetive in its operations. So it undoubtedly was in one sense ; that is, that its engagements only took effect at the time of its execution, and did but apply to all future time. But when he goes on to infer that the treaty did not in any way interfere with the state of things existing at the time of its conclusion, he not only assumes a consequence which does not flow from the premises, but he also assumes a state of facts which is controverted by this Government, and a determination of which cannot derive the least aid from the interpretation which he claims for the con vention. Mr. Marcy then contests the assertion of Lord Cla rendon that at the conclusion of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty Great Britain held possessions in Central America. The claim of protectorship to the Mosquito Indians Mr. Marcy declares, if admissible to one con tracting party, is equally so to the other, and that the United States might, in that case, for controlling reasons, be impelled to undertake a counter protec torship of the Mosquito Indians. The limited occupation of Belize, Mr. Marcy admits, was agreed to by the Clayton•Bulwer treaty, but he denies that those rights admit of pretensions to extended territory in Honduras, as Belize is not, and never was, any part of Honduras. With respect to the Bay Islands, the two Go vernments, Mr. Marcy acknowledges, are at direct issue. The Government of the United State. believes 591 that the Bay Islands belong to the State of Honduras, and he contends that, as the British Government, in a despatch of the 2nd May, 1854, admitted that Ituatan was claimed and militarily occupied by the former republic of Central America as successor to the rights of Spain, occasional acts of military autho rity by captains of British men-of war, or of civil authority by the superintendent of the British station of Belize, are insufficient to determine a title against the admitted counter claims of the State of Honduras ; and hence the occupation and colonisation by Great Britain of that part of Central America is regarded by the Government Df the United States as in direct opposition to the tenor of the Clayton.Bulwer treaty. Mr. Marcy remarks upon the whole question, and particularly with regard to the proposal for arbitra tion:— Upon this retrospect of the several points of difference between the two Governments, the President is not able to perceive that any useful result would ensue, either from calling on a third power to say whether the convention is or is not prospective in its operation, in the sense of that idea as Expressed by her Majesty's Government ; for if that question should, by any pasibilitz, happen to be re solved in favour of Great Britain, all the substantial points of difference between the two countries would remain un touched ; as, being wholly independent of the question of construct:on, the dispute would still exist as to what right ful possessions, at the date of the convention, Great Britain actually had in Central America. And if it is now con tended by the British Govermnent that in the name of the Mosquito Indians Great Britain inty take with military force and hold San Juan or other points in Central America, such pretension would be so totally irreconcilable with all idea of the independence and neutrality of the isthmus as to render the conventions worse than nugatory to the United States. Instead of submitting to arbitration a pretension involving such consequences, or in other way consenting to restore to effect the treaty, with such possi ble construction, it would, in the judgment of the Presi dent, be his duty to propose its amendment, so as to release the United States from obligations not atten,led by any benefits, and which obligations, thus unattended, the United States did not intentionally incur, they having en tered into treaty only on the supposition that absolute reciprocity of restriction was incurred by Great Britain. I repeat, if the treaty could, by any possibility whatever, have the construction of leaving Great Britain in posses sion or military control of the Atlantic cot.st of Central America in the name of the MoAquito Indians, and with powers to colonise insular positions commanding it, on the ground of their having been " spontaneously occupied by British subjects," while the United States are restrained from all such rights of control and acquisition, that, in the estimation of the President, would be to deprive the treaty of moral force, both because it would thus cease to have reciprocal effect, and because the United States did not intentionally enter into any such engagement ; and if such were a possible construction, whether it would not then become the duty of the United States to seek for the most honourable means of being discharged from such obligations, and render themselves perfectly free to re establish their proper relations as an American power to the transit routes of the American isthmus, and the general independence of America. In fine, the President cannot consent to any act which implies the existence of a possi ble doubt as to this point, as the convention of 180, con strued in the sense above supposed, would not be the treaty into which the United States entered. nor can he do anything which could be taken to admit, either directly or impliedly, that there is a question in his mind relative to the true construction, and he feels bound to take care that, in entertaining the present proposition of arbitration, he shall not be understood as actuated by the slightest feeling of distrust regarding the treaty rights of the United States ; but the President is not prepared to say that some of the questions of fact, concerning which the two Governments differ, may not be conveniently determined by arbitration, or by some analagous method. In conclusion, Mr. Marcy observes that the Presi dent would prefer that a scientific commission should settle the rival claims as far as geographical boun daries were concerned : The President does not doubt that any one of the powers of Europe which should consent to undertake the task of such arbitration as is now proposed would perform the duty with perfect impartiality ; but to apply to any power to do this would be to ask of them an act which. if granted, would add to their own domestic duties the labours and burden of settling the complicated differences of other Governments. He would greatly prefer that, in a controversy like the present, turning on points of political geography, the matter should be referred to some one or more of those eminent men of science who do honour to the intellect of Europe and America, and who, with the previous consent of their respective Governments, might well undertake the task of determining such questions to the acceptance as well of her Majesty's Government as that of the United States. You are instructed, therefore, to enter into communication with her Majesty's principal Secretary of Foreign Affairs. in relation to Celled America, in order to ascertain, in the first place, whi • her the existing differences cannot be promptly terminated by direct negotiation, and if they cannot, then to discuss the conditions of arbitration upon those points of difference as to which alone this method of settlement seems requisite or applicable ; it being assnred that other points of diffe rence would, after that, yield, as a matter of course, to con ference between the Earl of Clarendon and yourself, con ducted in the spirit of cordiality and frankness which belongs to your personal relations, and which the true intertits both of the United States Britain.--T am, sir, respectfully, your obedient W." Geo. M. Dallas, Esq., &c., London. ch is dictated by ales and Great lent servant, W. L. MaszY.