The Northern Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1856-06-16 00:00:00

MR•

Smers.—A message was received from the President
informing Congress that he had ceased to hold intercourse
with the Minister of the British Government, and deems it
proper to lay before them the considerations of public duty
which have led to the adoption of a measure of so much

importance.
The following is Mr. Marcy's despatch to Mr. Dallas :

MARCY TO DALLAS

Department of State, Washington, May 27, 1856.
Sir,—The President has carefully considered the note of
the 30th ult., addressed to you by the Earl of Clarendon,
Her Majesty's principal Secretary of State for Foreign
Affairs, relative to the questions which have arisen between
this government and that of Great Britain, on the subject
of recruiting within the U❑ited States for the Brilish Army,
and has directed me to present you his views thereon, for
the purpose of having them made known to Her Majesty's
government. He has been much gratified by the conciliatory
spirit of that note, and by the desire manifested by the
Earl of Clarendon to a4ljust the existing difficulties,
and preserve and strengthen the friendly relations
between the United States and Great Britain.
The vast interests which the governments and
people of both countries have in upholding and cherish-
ing such relations cannot be more solemnly impressed upon
her Majesty's government than it is upon that of the United
States. The unequivocal disclaimer, by her Majesty's
government, of any intention either to infringe the law, or
disregard the policy, or not respect the sovereign rights of

the United States, and their expressions of regret, if contrary
to their intentions and to their reiterated directions, there has
been any infringement of the laws of the United States, are
satisfactory to the President. The ground of complaint, so far
as respects her Majesty's government, is thus removed, but
the President extremely regrets that he cannot concur
in Lord Clarendon's favourable opinion of the conduct of
some of her Majesty's officers, who were, as this govern.
ment believed, and after due consideration of all which has
been offered in their defence, still believes, implicated in

proceedings which were so clearly an infringement of the
laws and sovereign rights of this country. In respect to
such of the officers and agents as have no connection with
this government, it has nothing to ask from that of her
Majesty's ; but the case is different in relation to Mr.
Crampton, her Majesty's envoy extraordinary and minister
plenipotentiary to this government, and the consuls at New
York, Philadelphia and Cincinnati. The President is gra-
tified to perceive that her Majesty's government would not
have heeitatei to comply with the request to withdraw
these officers from their official position, if it had entertained
the views here taken of their conduct in regard to recruiting
contrary to the laws and sovereign rights of the United
States. I need scarcely say that, in making this request, no
interruption of the diplomatic relations between this govern-
ment and that of Great Britain was anticipated; but, on
the contrary, the President was, and is, sincerely desirous
to keep them upon a most friendly footing. Mr. Crampton's
withdrawal was agked for expressly upon the ground that
his connection with the affair of raising recruits in this coun-
try for the British service, has rendered him an unacceptable
representative of her Britannic Majesty near thisgovernment.
For the same reason the withdrawal of the three British
Consuls was also requested. These officers were, as this
government confidently believes, deeply implicated in
proceedings contrary to law and sovereign rights of the
United States, and contrary, as it now appears, to the
intentions and reiterated instructions of their own govern-
ment. It was their personal acts, not the less objectionable
for having done contrary to the direction of her Majesty's
minister, which rendered them, in their official characters
and positions, unacceptable to this government, and induced
the President, for that cause, to solicit their recall, believing
that by this course, he was contributing to the common inte-
rest and harmony of the two governments. He has not, after
mature deliberation, been able to change his view of their
conduct, and cannot, therefore, change his purpose in rela-
tion to them, though their conduct related to, and, in fact,
originated in a difficulty which disturbed the cordial
harmony and good understanding between the two countries.
It constituted a decided objection to them of a personal charac-
ter, which loses none of its force by the satisfactory adjustment
of that difficulty. The only embarrassment which attends the
case is the difference of opinion between the two governments.
As to the complicity of these officers in illegal proceedings
within the United States, in reviewing the subject the
President was disposed to avail himself of any reasonable
doubt which could be raised in his mind in order to bring
his opinion in this respect into conformity with that
of her Majesty's government ; but, after careful considera-
tion of the case, he has been unable to change the conclu-
sion to which hei bad previously arrived. The difference of
opinion may, in some degree, be ascribed to the difference
in views of the two governments. In respeat to the
neutrality laws and sovereign rights of this country, it is
not proposed, however, to continue the discussion upon
that subject. The conclusion of the President, stated in
my despatch of the 28th of December, to your predecessor,
in regard to the construction of that law, and extent
and character of these rights, remain unchanged,
and he cannot forgo the duty of using all proper means
to sustain and vindicate them. The main cause of
this difference of opinion is the different application
of the proofs by which the charges against, her Majesty's
diplomatic representative and consuls are sustained. Lord
Clarendon asks this government to regard the .bare declara-
tion of these officers as of sufficient weight to countervail
evidence against them. Their denials are presented in his
despatch of the 30th of April, and they have been communi-
cated to this government, but deemed to be special, and
not to traverse all the allegations against them. They
deny that they have infringed our neutrality by enlisting
persons within the United States for British service, or
hiring or retaining persons to leave the United States
for the purpose of being enlisted in that service. Tho
charges against them are much broader, and embrace
the offence of violating the laws and sovereign rights of the
United States, by abetting within our territory and con-
ducting an extensive system of recruiting, whicli was not
and could not be carried into effect, without infrir,ging upon
our laws and rights, by employing numerous :Tents to
engage persons for pecuniary and other considerations to
leave the United States for the express purpose of entering
the British army, and by keeping these agents iu their
employment after it was well known that they were con-
stantly infringing our laws. The denial of the implicated
officers only covers a part of the delinquencies imputed, but
conforming the exculpatory declaration to the simple charge of
having violated the provisions of our neutrality act, it does not
merit the consideration which Lord Clarendon ascribed to it.