The Press.
London, England, 1856-06-14 00:00:00

THE PRESS.

wise viewed than as an infraction of them.
Mr. CRAMPTON seems to have supposed that to
inform masses of men that they would be
accepted as reeruits at Halifax, and to supply
them with money to get there, on the under-
standing or agreement that they would then
enlist, could not be brought within the mean-
ing of the States' statute. Yet that he should
have fanned such an opinion, in the face of the
legal opinion (p. T), by which ho professed to
govern his course, seems incomprehensible ;
for that opinion expressly states that the
words

" hiring or retaining" in this particular connection would
be construed with a view to prevent the evaision of the
statute, this being the evident intent of the prohibition we
are considering I think the words " hire or
retain " susceptible of a very broad interpretation in such
a statute. I incline to think they would be held to reach
every case of payment, expenditure, or other valuable con-
sideration (however ingeniously devised) moving from the
party charged to another person to the end and with the
intent that such other should " go beyond," tc.
It would puzzle human ingenuity to devise
a form of words which would more clearly
bring the plan concocted by STROBEL, and
approved by Mr. CRAMPTON, within the intent
of the statute.
It has been said, in defence of the procedure
of the British Minister, that he had made
Mr. MARCY acquainted with his proposed
course of action, and had met with no oppo-
sition from him. We are sorry to say that the
assertion is not true. On the contrary, the
Foreign Minister of the United States had
reason to complain that he was deceived. On
the 22nd March (1855) Mr. CRAMPTON showed
to Mr. MARCY a handbill issued by one ANGUS
MAcDoNALD (p. 10) stating that he had opened
a " passage office " for the conveyance to
Halifax of men wishing to enlist. Mr. CRAMP-
TON assured Mr. MARCY of his disapproval of
its having been issued (p 131); yet it is impos-
sible to say in what respect it 'differs from the
advertisement issued by MARTIN at New
Orleans with Mr CRAMPTON'S express sanction
(p. 191), except in being a little more open as
to its object.
Again, at the commencement of May, Mr.
MARCY was told by Mr. LUMLEY (p. 12) that
Mr. CRAMPTON had gone to Halifax, expressly
to prevent any infraction of the neutrality
law ; and at this same interview Mr. LUMLEY
read Lord CLARENDON'S despatch (p. 11), sta-
ting that " the law of the United States with
" respect to enlistment, however conducted, is
" not only very just but very stringent, ac-
" cording to the report which is inclosed in
" your despatch; and her Majesty's Govern-
" ment would, on no account, run any risk of
" infringing this law of the United States.l'
Coupling these assurances to Mr. MARCY
with the issue of the form No. 1 (p. 195),
in which Mr. CRAMPTON stated, " I have
" received no instructions from her Ma-
"jesty'sGovernment which would authorise me
" to take steps for the enlistment of men or
" the engagement of officers for the British
" army," can we wonder that Mr. MARCY
should have felt indignant when he learnt
that Mr. CRAMPTON, at Halifax, had been con-
cocting schemes with STROBEL to evade the
law, and when he found the extent to which
recruiting had been carried on by persons
whose connection in some shape with the
British Legation could not be doubted?

Mr. MARCY'S own language was always ex-
press. He said (p. 192)

That there is no law in the United States to prevent any
number of persons emigrating, of their own freewill, with
the intention of enlisting in a foreign country; but that
nothing in the shape of recruitment within the United
States will be permitted, and that any attempt to
evade or infringe the neutrality laws will be severely
punished.

On this subject the language of Mr. MAacv
has been consistent throughout, and it is
quite intelligible how with his views he may
have thought that nothing short of the re-
moval of Mr CRAMPTON and the three Consuls
would satisfy the United States Government
for the attempts made, at least, to evade the
law he had declared his determination to
uphold.
Mr. CRAMPTON'a mistakes were the inevit-
able result of the unfortunate position in
which he was placed. It was impossible for
him to make the slightest attempt to give
effect to the Foreign Enlistment Act, and to

SATURDAY,

rulfil what he was plainly told were the wishes
of his Government, without the hazard or the
certainty► of running counter to the law he was
desirous of respecting. And this at last was
seen and acknowledged by Lord CLAREN;
DON himself. In hie latest despatch he writes
to Mr. MARCY ,(p. 261) ;
It was seen that however strict might be the orders of
her Majesty's Government, that nothing should be done in
contravention of the laws of the United States, and, how-
ever scrupulous her Majesty's officers in America might be
in obeying those orders, yet a misconception of the precise
bearing of those laws might lead some of those officers un-
intentionally to overstep their limits, while other persons,
either from honest zeal, or for the sake of gain, or from a
desire to entrap her Majesty's officers, might do things at
variance with the provisions of those laws.
What a testimony is this to the wisdom of
the Enlistment Act ! It could not be carried
out even in so free a country as the United
States without the certainty of violating the
laws, and giving just cause of offence to the
Government of the country.
The Government of the United States is
not unreasonable in desiring frank reparation
for the wrong which has (unintentionally)
been done it, and such reparation would
we ithink be most fitly made by a deliberate
vote of the Legislature, that British officers
in endeavouring to give effectto the Foreign
Enlistment Bill in the United States afforded
just cause of dissatisfaction to the Govern.
ment of that country.

IN

INDIAN SALT REPORT.
AFTER three years of very patient waiting,
Parliament has been favored with the Indian
Salt Report. Had it been the pleasure of the
Directors, all the information required for the
understanding of the subject might have been
furnished in three days ; for to the India-
house the salt question is not a new one, and
there was everything that was to be said on
it already lying in the archives of Leadenhall-
street and of Cannon-row. But there is a
wonderful difference in the pace of India-
house progress when a job has to be perpe•
trated, and when a reform has to be intro•
duced. As might be expected, the Report
settles nothing. The Commissioner has no
objection to the Government ceasing to be the
manufacturer of salt, so that it receives the
same revenue from it by way of an excise. He
would also willingly see the tax in Bengal re-
duced by a fifth, it being as it is a fourth
greater than the tax levied under the Agra
Government, twice and a half as great as that
levied in the Madras Presidency, and more
than three times the amount taken under the
Government of Bombay. To this latter pro-
position, however, the Government of India
have given a decided negative ; and so matters,
except as relates to the mere question of manu-
facture, are to remain precisely on their
ancient footing. English salt will continue to
be excluded almost entirely from the market
by the enormous duty, and the ryot will still
be subject in the fullest extent to the intolera-
ble grievance which now oppresses him.
That it is an intolerable grievance is admitted
by the Directors themselves in a letter written
by them, which is quoted in the Report, when
in 1824 the question of establishing the mono-
poly in Bombay was before them. They
therein frankly allowed that in the then cir-
cumstances of the larger portion of the terri-
tories under the Bombay Presidency the pro:
posal was premature, as " in districts recently
" acquired, and still in a great measure un-
" settled, the taxation of au article necessary
" to subsistence must, the Court apprehended;
"be considered grievous and oppressive.'
In other words, the Court confessed that they
knew that the Mahrattas, then recently subjul
gated, would fly to arms to resist the imposi-
tion, as the people of the Trans-Indus pro-
vinces did after their annexation—a resist-
ance iu which they were successful. Indeed,
the Bombay Government, as it is, only levies
three-fourths of the amount of duty which it
is empowered by Act of the Legislative Coun-
cil to levy, owing to an outbreak at Suratom
of its oldest dependencies having shown it
that, even with the most passive and unresist-
ing, oppressive taxation has its limits which
cannot safely be passed.