The Sun.
London, England, 1856-01-15 00:00:00

RECRUITMENT.

One other subject of discussion between the United
States and Great Britain has grown out of the attempt
which the exigencies of the war in which she is engaged
with Russia induces her to make, to draw recruits from
the United States.

It is the traditional and settled policy of the United
States to maintain impartial neutrality during the wars
which from time to time occur among the great powers of
the world. Performing all the duties of neutrality towards
the respective belligerent states, we may reasonably expect
them not to interfere with our lawful enjoyment of its
benefits. Notwithstanding the existence of such hostilities,
our citizens retain the individual right to continue all
their accustomed pursuits, by land or by sea, at home or
abroad, subject only to such restrictions in this relation as
the laws of war, the usage of nations, or special treaties
may impose ; and it is our sovereign right that our terri-
tory and jurisdiction shall not be invaded by either of the
belligerent parties, for the transit of their armies, the
operations of their fleets, the levy of troops for their ser-
vice, the fitting out of cruisers by or against either, or any
other act or incident of war. And these undeniable rights
of neutrality, individual and national, the United States
will, under no circumstances, surrender.
In pursuance of this policy, the laws of the United
States do not forbid their citizens to sell to either of the
belligerent powers articles, contraband of war, or to take
munitions of war or soldiers on board their private ships
for transportation ; and although in so doing, the indi-
vidual citizen exposes his property or person to some of the
hazards of war, his acts do not involve any breach of na-
tional neutralit, nor of thethselves implicate the govern-
ment. Thus, during the progress of the present war in
Europe, our citizens have, without national responsibility
therefore, sold gunpowder and arms to all buyers, regard-
less of the destination of those articles. Our merchant-
men have been, and still continue to be, largely employed
by Great Britain and by France in transporting troops,
provisions, and munitions of war to the principal seat of
military operations, and in bringing home their sick and
wounded soldiers ; but such use of our mercantile marine
is not interdicted either by the international or by our
municipal law, and therefore does not compromise our
neutral relations with Russia.
But our municipal law, in accordance with the law of
nations, peremptorily forbids, not only foreigners, but our
own citizens, to fit out, within the limits of the United
States, a vessel to commithostilities against any state with
which the United States are at peace, or to increase the
force of any foreign armed vessel intended for such hostili-
ties against a friendly state.
Whatever concern may have been felt by 'either of the
belligerent powers lest private armed cruizers or other ves-
sels, in the s rvice of one, might be fitted out in the ports
of this country to depredate on the property of the other,
all such fears have proved to be utterly groundless. Our
citizens have been withheld from any such act or purpose
by goo .l faith and by respect for the law.
While the laws of the Union are thus peremptory in
their prohibition of the equipment or armament of belli-
gerent cruisers in our ports, they provide not less absolutely
that no person shall, within the territory or jurisdiction of
the United States, enlist or enter himself, or hire or retain
another person to enlist or enter himself, or to go beyond
the limits or jurisdiction of the United States with intent
to be enlisted or entered, in the service cf any foreign state
either as a soldier, or as a marine, or seaman on board of
any vessel of war, letter of marque, or privateer. And
these *allotments ate also in strict conformity with the law
of nations, which declares that no state has the right to
raise troops for land or sea service in another state without
its consent, and that, whether forbidden by the muncipal
law or not, the very attempt to do it, without such con-
sent, is an attack on the national sovereignty.
Such b3ing the public rights and the municipal law of
the United States, no solicitude en the subject was enter-
tained by this Government, when, a year since, the British
Parliament passed an act to provide for the enlistment of
foreigners in the military service of Great Britain. No-
thing on the face of the act, or in its public history, indi-
cated that the British Government proposed to attempt
recruitment in the United States; nor did it ever give
intimation of such intention to this government. It was
a matter of surprise, therefore, to find subsequently that
the engagement of persons within the United States to
proceed to Halifax, in the British province of Nova Sco •
tia, and there enlist in the service of Great Britain, was
going on extensively, with little or no disguise. Ordinary
legal steps were immediately taken to arrest and punish
parties concerned, and so put an end to acts infringing the
municipal law, and derogatory to our sovereignty. Mean-
while suitable representations on the Subject were ad-
dressed to the British Government.

Thereupon it became known, by the admission of the
British Government itself, that the attempt to draw re-
cruits ftom this country originated with it, or at least had
its approval and sanction ; but it also appeared that the
public agents engaged in it had " stringent instructions"
not to violate the municipahlaw of the United States.
It is difficult to understand how it should have been sup-
posed that troops could be raised here by Great Britain
without violation of the municipal law. The unmistakable
object of the law was to prevent every such act, which,
if performed, must be either i❑ violation of the law, or in
studied evasion of it ; and, in either alternative, the act
done would be alike iDjurions to the sovereignty of the
United States.

Meantime, the matter acquired additional importance by
the recruitments in the United States not being discon-
tinued, and the disclosure of the fact that they were prose-
cuted upon a systematic plan devised by official authority;
that recruitingrendezvous had been opened in the principal
cities, and depots for the reception of recruits established
on our frontier; and the whole business conducted under
the supervision and by the regular co-operation of British
officers, civil and military, some in the North American
provinces, and same in the United States. The compli-
city of those officers in an undertaking which could only
be accomplished by defying our laws, throwing suspicion
over our attitude of neutrality, and disregarding our terri-
torial rights, is conclusively proved by the evidence elicited
on the trial of such of their agents as have been appre-
hended and convicted. Some of the officers thus implicated
are of high official position, and many of them beyond our
jurisdiction, so that legal proceedings could not reach the
source of the mischief.

These consideration; and the fact that the cause of com-
plaint was not a mere casual occurrence, but a deliberate
design, entered upon with a full knowledge of our laws and
national policy, and conducted by responsible public func-
tionaries, impelled me to present the ease to tho British
Government, in order to secnro not only a cessation of the
wrong, but its reparation. The subject is still under dis-
cussion, the result of which will bo communicated to you
in due time.

I repeat the recommendation submitted to the.last Con-
gress, that provision bo made for the appointment of a
Commissioner, in connection with Great Britain, to survey
and establish the boundary line which divides the territ,ry
of Washington from the contiguous British possessions.
By reason of the extent and importance of the country in
dispute, there has been imminent danger of collision be-
ta een the subjects of Great Britain and the citizens of the
United States, including their respective authorities in
that quarter. The prospect of a speedy arrangement has
contributed hitherto to induce on both sides forbearance to
assert by force what each claims' as a right. Continuance
of delay on the part of the two Governments to act in the
matter will increase the dangers and difficulties of the
controversy.
Misunderstanding exists as to the extent, character, and
value of the possessory rights of the Hudson's Bay Com-
pany and the property of the Puget's Sound Agricultural
Company, reserved in our treaty with Great Britain rela-
tive to the territory of Oregon. I have reason to believe
that a cession of the rights of both companies to the United
States, which would be the readiest means of terminating
all questions, can be obtained on reasonable terms ; and,
with a view to this end, I present the subject to the atten-
tion of Congress.
The colony of Newfoundland, having enacted the law
required by the treaty of the sth of June, 1854, is now
placed on the same footing, iu respect to commercial inter-
course with the United States, as the other British Noith
American provinces.
The commission• which that treaty contemplated, for de-
termining the rights of fishery in rivers and months of
rivers on the coasts of the United States and the British
North American provinces, has been organised and has
commenced its labours ; to complete which there is needed
further appropriations for the service of another season.
SOUND DUES.

In pursuance of the authority, conferred by a resolution
of the Senate of the United States passed on the 3d of
3/area last, notice was given to Denmark, on the 14th day
of April, of the intention of this Government to avail itself
of the stipulation of the subsisting convention of friend-
ship, commerce, and navigation between that kingdom and
the United States, whereby either party might, after 10
years, terminate the same at the expiration of one year
from the date of notice for that purpose.
The considerations which led me to call the attention of
Congress to that convention, and induced the Senate to
adopt the resolution referred to, still continue in full force.
The convention contains an article which, although it does
not directly engage the United States to submit to the im-
position'
of tolls on the vessels and cargoes of Americans
passing into or from the Baltic Sea, during the continuance
of the treaty, yet may, by possibility, be construed as im-
plying such submission. The exaction of those tolls not
lining justified by any principle of international law, it be-
came the right and the duty of-the United States to relieve
themselves from the insolication of engagement on the sub-
ject, so as to be perfectly free to act in the premises in such
way as their public interests and honour shall demand.
I remain of the opinion that the United States ought not
to submit to the payment of the Sound Dues, not so much
because of their amount, which is a secondary matter, but
because it is in effect the recognition of the right of Den-
mark to treat one of the great maritime highways of na-
tions as a close sea, and the navigation of it as a privilege,
for which tribute may be imposes upon those who have
occasion to use it.
This Government, on a former occasion, not unlike the
Present, signalised its determination to maintain the free-
dom of the seas and of the great natural channels of navl -
Ration. The Barbary States hid fora long time coerced
the payment of tribute from all nations whose ships fre-
planted the Meditei ranean. To the last demand of such
Payment made by them, the United States, although suf-
fering less by their depredations than many other nations,
returned the explicit answer that we preferred war to
tri-
bate, and thus opened the way to the relief of the com-
merce of the world from an ignominious tax, so long sub.
mitted to by the more powerful nations of Europe.
If the manner of payment of Sound Dues differ from that
of the tribute formerly conceded to the Barbary States,
still their exaction by Denmark has no better foundation
in right. Each was, in its origin, nothing but a tax on a
common natural right, extorted by those who were at that
time able to obstruct the free and secure enjoyment of it,
but who no longer posssess that power.
Denmark, while resisting our assertion of the freedom
of the Baltic Sound and Belts, has indicated a readiness
to make some new arrangement on the'subject, and has
invited thAtoOvernments.interastedlAnolnding the United
States, to be represented in a convention to assemble for