The Sun.
London, England, 1856-06-16 00:00:00

Naval and Military Intelligence.

Her Majesty's steam store-ship Industry, Mr. G. H.
K. Bower. Master, R.N., commanding, arrived at Spit-
head on Saturday night from the Black Sea, laden with
spoils from the late docks ;tad yards of Sebastopol. She
left last evening for Deptford, to discharge her storm
Mr. warn?, Vice-Consul of Bengasi, and Commander
Lacy, R.N., late First Lieutenant of her Majesty's ship
Furious, were the only passengers by the Industry.
Mr. Bower has well earned some better reward for his
long and arluous services than the command of suoh a
ship as the Industry, and the pay he merely receives in
that position. He was master of Sir Edmund Lyons's
flag-ship Agamemnon from the time she left Eneand
until Sir Edmund conferred upon hire his present
appointment, and was present at every engagement
during the war in the Crimea; his general services during
his years afloat are all of the most commendable cha-
racter. So active and skilful a navigating officer, peal
sessing the high opinion of such a chief as Sir E. Lyons,
surely cannot fail to meet with encouragement from the
Lords of the Admiralty.
Doke of Wellin
shipPof Rear-Admiral the Hon. Sir R. S.
gton, 131, Captain
Callidewrel‘lli,acjeßst.y.'silashgi
Dundee, K.C.8., is expected to leave Spithead for Lisboa
in a day or two.
The steam.transport Queen of the South, N.. 18S
Capt. Beal, arrived at Spithead yesterday afternoon from
the East, with SO officers, 5 servants, 159 troops. and
219 horses, principally of the A. and B batteries of Royal
Artillery.
The steam-transport Trent, No. 94, arrived at Spi
head yesterday afternoon from the East, with Well
officers, 217 men, and 185 horses of the Royal Artillery.

THE DISMISSAL OF MR. CRAMPTON.

The following the despatch of Nit% Marcy to
Mr. Dallis, informing him- of the determination .of,
the American Government to dismiss Mr. Cramp-
••

ton.
THIRTY-FOURTH CONGRESS.
WASHINGTON, MAT 29.

A message was received from the President of
the United States, informing Congress that he has
ceased to.hold intercourse with the Minister of the
British Government to Washington, 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.
Among the documents transmitted by the Presi-
dent is the following despatch from Secretary
Marcy to Mr. Dallas s---
"SECRETARY MARCY TO MR. DALLAS.
__

"Department of State, Washington, Tuesday, May 27. .
"Sir,—The President has carefully considered the note
of the 30th ult., aclilressed to you by the Earl of Claren-
don, her Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for Foreign
Affairs, relative to the questions which have arisen be-
tween this Government and that of Great Britain on the
subject of recruiting within the United States for the
British army; and has directed me to present to yon his
views thereon, foi the purpose of having them made
known to her Majesty's Government. He has been much
gratifies by the conciliatory spirit of that note, and by the
desire manifested by the Esrl of Clarendon to adjust the
existing difficulties, and preserve and strengthen the
friendly relations betwen the United States and Great
Britain.
"The vast interest which the Government and people of
both countries have in upholding and cherishing such rela-
tions cannot he 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 to 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 infringementof 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 re•
moved. But the President extremely regrets that ho can-
not concur in Lord Clarendon's favourable opinion of the
conduct of some of her Majesty's officers, who were, as this
Government believed, and, after due consideration of all
which has been offered in their defence, still believes, im-
plicated in proceedings which were so clearly an infringe-
ment of the laws and sovereign rights of this country.
" In respect to such of these officers and agents as have
no connection with this Government, it has nothing toask
from that of her Majesty ; but the case is different in rela-
tion to Mr. Crampton, her Majesty's Envoy and Minister
Plenipotentiary to this Government, and the Consuls at
Nee' York, Philadelphia, and Cincinnati. The President
is gratified to perceive that her Majesty's Government
would not have hesitated 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 Government and that of Greet Britain was anticipated;
bat, on the contrary, the President was and is sincerely
desirous to keep them upon a most friendly footing.
"Mr. Cramptcaa's withdrawal was asked fo -expressly ripen
the ground that his connection with the affair, raising re-
cruits in this country forth° British service, hasrenderedhim
an unaceeptable representetiveof her Britannic Majesty near
this Government.' rorthe same reason the withdra walof the
three British Consuls was also requests I. These officers
were, as this Government confidently believes, deeply im-
plicated in. proceedings contrary to the law and sovereign
rights of the United States, and contrary, as it now appears,
to the intentions and reiterated instructions of their own
GovernMent. It was their personal acts, not the less ob-
jectionable for having been done contrary to the directions
of her Majesty'S Minister, which rendered them in their
official character and position unacceptable to this Govern-
ment, and induced the President for that cause to solicit
theirrecall, believing that by this course he was contri-
bating to the common interest and harmony of the two
Governments. He has not, after most mature considera-
tion, been able to change his view of their conduct, and
cannot therefore change his purpose in relation to them;
though their conduct related to, and in fret originated, a
difficulty which disturbed the cordial harmony and good
understanding between the two countries. It constituted ,
a decided objection to them of a personal character, which
loses none of its force by the satisfactory adjustment of
that difficulty. The only embarrassnient which attends the
ease is the difference of opinion between the two Govern-
ments as to the complicity of these officers in illegal pro-
ceedings within the United States. In reviewing this
subject, the President was disposed to avail himself of any
reasonable doubts which could be raised in his mind ie
order to bring his opinion in this respect into conformity
with that of her Majesty's Government ; but, after mead
consideration of the case, he has been unable to change
the conclusion to which, he had previously arrived.
"The difference of opinion may in some degree be as-
cribed to the difference in views of the two Governments in
respect to the neutrality laws and sovereign rights of the
country. It is not proposed, however, to continue the dies
Cussion upon that subject. The conclusions of the Presi-
dent, stated in my despatch of the. 28th of December to
your predecessor, in regard to the construction of that law
and the extent and character of these rights, remain un-
changed, and he cannot forego the duty of using all proper
means to sustain and vindicate them.
"The main cause of this difference of opinion is the dif-
ferent appreciation of the proofs by which the charges
• against her Majesty's diplomatic Representative and Con-
sul; are sustained. Lord Clarendon asks this Government
to regard the bare declarations of these ofac3rs as of suffi-
cient to countervail evidence against them. Their
denials, as presented in his despatch of the 30th of April,
(and that is all which has been communicated to this Go-
vernment on the subject,) seem to be special, and do not
traverse all the allegations against them. They deny that
they have infringed our neutrality law by enlisting persons
within the United. States for British service, or hiring or
retaining parsons to leave the United States for the par-
psse of: being enlisted in that service. -
" The charges aeainst them are much breeder, and em-
brace the offence of violating the laws and sovereign rights
of the United States, by setting in operation- within our
own territory and conducting an extensive system of re-
cruiting, which was not and could not be carried into eff.ict
• ,without infringing upon our laws and rights ; by employe
lug numerous agents to engage persons, for pecuniary and
. other considerations, to leave the United States for the-
express puepose of entering into the British army ; and by'
keeping these agents in this employment after it was well
driown that they were constantly infringing our laws
The denial of the implicated officers only covers a part of
:the delinquencies imputed to them, but, confining the ex-
culpetory declaration to the Pimple charge of- having vie.
lated. the provisions of our neutrality act, it does not merit
the consideration which Lord Clarendon has ascribed to it.
" By adopting Lord Clerendon's construction of our neu-
' tratity law; contained in his note of the lath of November.
;which rendere sit almost nugat.;ry, anti contrary to thatt-of
this Covernment and of its judicial tribtlnals, these efficere
'have hot probably found much embarrassment in meeting
lhe'dharges with a general denial—but giving to the decia-
,, ration, 9f xtr, Crempton and the Consuls all the considers-
': Aipiieebseh can be fairly claimed for it under the circuits-
, etaiscbs of the case, it cannot counterbalance the unitn-
- 'peached and well-sustained evi fence which establishes tin
charges against these officers of having infringed the laws
and sovereign rights of the United States.
"Loi'd Chrendon's note to you of. the 30th of April con-
veys the itnpressi6ti that the evidence by which the OffiiLlT'S
are implicatei is derived from one or twa witnesses, whose
credibility has been assailed., This, lowevei, is not a ear-
_ Peet view of the fad's. By examination pf my deepatch of
' the 23th of December, it' will be' perceived-that these wi t-
neisee-were strongly confirmed, and that there are proof 3,
Wholly independent of their testimony, abundantly suffi-
'Vent to establish the compliiity of Hr. Crampteu and the
Consul's iri•tbeir'infrineeinent of the laws and sovereige
rights of the United States.' :
"I trust that it will not be questioned that it ,belongs
isitcliniVelY to this Government and its judicial tribunals
to give-a construction to its rhuaicipahlaves, and to det2r-
what acts done withinits jurislictionare an infringe-
ment of these jaws. This is a-matter which concerns its in-
ternal administration, and it cannot allow the agents of any
foreign Power to controvert that construction and justify.
tlo3ir conduct by a different interpretation of our laws,
which virtually renders them ineffective for the purposes.
intended. The,Earl of Clarendon informs you, in his note
ef-the'-30th orApril; that Mr: Crampton positively denies
of the acts of illegal enlist-the eharmeoftomplicity. in any
merit in the United States, and that the three Consuls
inin-
culpated
do the see. He assumes that the charge against,
them is austaineit Mainly by the evidence of two persons,
Strobel and' Hertz, whom he conceives to be unworthy of
eTedit,and he appeals to the American Government to accept
as conclusive declarations of the Ministers and Consuls.
"I am instructed tcssay- that these consi leratione do,not
relieve the President's mind of the nnfavontable impressions
produced by the conduct of these gentletrien in relation to
foreign recruitment in the United States. It wilt be seen,
by referring to my despatch of the 28 t h December, in which
the grounds of charge against Mr. Crampton were fully -
atteted, that the testimony of Strobel and Hertz was quite
a secondary and unimportant part of the evidence adduced,
. 41! charge being supported, independently of their testi-
nifty, by other witnesses; by original letters of Mr. Cramp-
- tan and others, and by the undenied and undeniable acts
oriZe: Crampton. As to Strobel and Hertz, however, it
may be observed, the documents transmitted by Lord Cle-
rendon as proving these persons unworthy of credit are
entitled to but little weight, consisting as they do of ex
2Arte affidaviti, detailing matters mostly of hearsay; and
whatever may have been the character of those persons it
by no means follows that they did not testify to the truth.
"They were agents selected and trusted by Mr. Cramps
ton himself, and to them ho committed most important con-
cerns. Such an endorsement should countervail the im-
peachment of their veracity, founded on loose,
,hearsay
re-
ports- Nor does itseem to be a thing of ranch moment, •
relation to the present question, that Strobel, inconsme-
(pence of imputed misconduct, was dismissed from employ
ment by the Lieutenant,Governor of Nova Scotia, and es:.
terwards endiayoured to obtain money from Mr. Creasy-
• ton. ,The fact remains that he held a commission in the
British Foreign Legion, and that, as is clearly proved an,;
not denied,,he maintained, as recruiting officer, and fora \
considerable period of time, association, personally or by-
correspobdence, with Mr. Crampton.
"The employment of Strobel, by Mr. Crampton, their
long association in the joint work of recruiting in the
United States for the Foreign Legion, the distinction of
her /Ilejeety's commission of captain in the corps conferred
on Strobel, would seem at least to deprive Mr. Crampton
of the right to deny his Credibility as a eitness. But there
is a large and more comprehensive class of consideratioce
applicable to this, particular question. For a period Of
nearly five months, that is, from about the coddle of March,
1855, to the sth of Angtiet, 1855, the pence and order of
this country were disturbed, especially the cities of 808-
ton, Newyork, Philadelphia, and Ciucinnati, by the ne-
awfal,acts of nurnerons persons engaged in raising recruitee
or in being recruited for the British Foreigfr tegiOn. They
were supplied with. ample funda by British aeeets. and
these-obstinately resisted and sat at naught all efforts
of the local authorities of the United States to put a stop
to their proceedings, nor did they desist until they received
orders to that effect from the British Government in the
month of August.
"The recruits thus unlawfully raised in theU cited States
during all that time were conveyed
by British agents' to
Halifax, and there enrolled in the Foreign Legion. All
these acts, as well as their illegality, were
notorronsLong
befatia:the.erial of Hertz in Septet-I:her, and of Wagner-in
October, they.must have been brought to the particular
notice of Mr. Crampton, the British Consuls, and other
agents, by the preliminary judicial inquiries which took
place both at New York and Philadelphia. In consequence
of steps to that effect taken by ma on the 21(1 of March,
the proper instructions were issued on the 234, and prose-
cutilinliibmmenced in khilailelpbia o the 30th of March,

and in New York on the sth of April. As an example of
the characterlof these proceedings, their notoriety, and
their comprehensive legal effect, what occurred in May
deserves particular notice.
" At New York, on the 15th of May, a number of per-
sons, namely, Godfred Witchier, Wilhelm Schumite,ker,
Julius Parkus, Oscar Cremey, and Andrew Lutz, were
examined before Commissioner Betts, on a charge of re-
cruitment for the service of Great Britain. Eminent
counsel were employed by the accused, who argued that
no offence had been committed, because it did not appear
that any valid contract of enlistment had been consum-
mated ; but this ground of defence was overruled by the
commissioner, who, though he discharged Wachier for de-
fective evidence, committed Lutz, Schumacker, Cremey,
and Parkus.
"At Philadelphia, on the 25th-of May, three persons—
Hertz, Perkins, and Bucknail—having been arrested on
the charge of illegal recruiting in the service of Great Bri-
tain, applied to the Circuit Court of the United States,
by habeas corpus, to be discharged from custody. The
presiding judge, the Hon. John K. Kane; on the examina-
tion of the evidence taken in the case before a commis-
sioner, found the proofs were sufficient to bring the acts
of Hertz and-Perkins within the conditions of the law,
but not so to Bucknail ; accordingly the latter was dis-
charged, but the two former were committed for trial.,
" Thus, so early as May, it was judicially shown that
what was doing in this respect was unlawful. Mr. Cramp-
ton was acquainted with these proceedings, and was thus
sufficiently admonished that the acts of recruitment car-
ried on under his authority did in fact, whatever may
have been his intention, constitute a violation of the mu-
nicipal law of the United States. This had been decided
by the Courts of the 'United States, and was publicly and
extensively made known. It is not controverted—indeed
it is admitted, that he had the recruiting business in his
charge and under his controul ; yet he permitted it to be
continued, although judiciously determined to be unlaw-
ful, through the months of May, June, July, and August.
"Now this long series of acts, unlawful and otherwise
prejudicial to the good name and tranquillity of this coun-
try, were performed by persons who were liberally paid by
the British officers, and many of whom actually entered,
the military service of Great Britain. That was incon-
testably proved on the trial of Hertz and Wagner, by evi-
dence which has not been and cannot be impeached, and
although the evidence adduced on these trials does not
need corroboration, still it may not be amiss to add that
much other evidence to the same effect is in possession of
this Government, some of which is annexed to this des-
patch, in the form of documents responsive to those ac-
companying the letter of the Earl of Clarendon.
" Who is to be held accountable for these unlawful acts ?
Were they all performed by volunteer and irresponsible
persons, as argued in the Earl of Clarendon's despatch of
the 16th of July ? That cannot be admitted, for the con-
clusive 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 Government, disclaims all inten-
tion to violate the laws,, compromise the neutrality, ordis-
respect the sovereignty of the United States by the Enlist-
ment of troops within their territory. The President un
reservedly accepts and is f ally satisfied with this disclaimer.
Of course the unlawful acts in question were not autho-
rised by the British Government, but the fact is never-,
theless well established that they were done, and done in
the name Aid at the expense of the British Government.
" Who, then, is responsible for these acts? Were there
no direct proof, though there is much of that character,
the inference would be irresistible, that, not being autho-
rised by the British Government itself, they were the un-
authorised acts of the British agents in the United States.
Such agents, having acted in wilful disregard of their Go-
vernment in thus infringing our laws, may have failed to
inform their Government that what they had undertaken
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 know-
ing 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 ware these
agents? Of this we are not left in doubt.
"In the documents on the subject recently laid before
Parliament it is distinctly stated that the enlistments in
the United States did not stop until Mr. Crampton gave
orders for their cessation on the sth of August. He heel
the power to stop the acts of enlistment. He knew the
proceedings were, from the commencement, exceedingly
offensive to thie Government, and that it was devoting its
asitiveanergies to arrest him. He was bound to know—he
could not but know—what was notorious to all the world,
that, through the months of April, May, June, and July,
the recruiting- agents in various parts of the United
States, and conspicuously in Boston, New York, Philadel-
phia, and Cincinnati, were keeping up a most unseemly
contest with the law officers of the United States, and
that, at least, as early as May, the illegality of the pro-
ceedings had been pronounced by the Federal Courts in
New York and Philadelphia., and yet, notwithstaedirg
this, he permitted the unlawful acts in question to go ou
without check until the month of August. For thus Ov-
ine countenance to those illegal proceedings he is distinctly
responsible.
" Bat his accountability extends yet further, for the
same documents show that the official suggestion to the
British Government of the untoward scheme of obtaining
recruits in the Uuited Steles cane from the correspon-
dence of Mr. Crampton, and of the consuls at New York,
Philadelphia, and Cincinnati, and that to Mr. Crampton
was the superintendence and execution of the scheme aim-
witted, and thus it was that he who directed had pocier to
stop proceedings, and thus from early in M trch until Au-
gust he is found busily occupied in superintending the en-
listment, partly in the United States and partly in Canada
and Nova Scotia, and in issuing instructions to the agents
engagedin that enterprise.
"It does not suffice for Mr. Crampton now to say that
he -did not intend to commit or participate in the commis-
sion of any infringement of the laws of the United States.
He was the directing head of the long-continued infringe-
ments of the law. It was under superior authority from
him. thatasta of continuous violation of law wore perpe-
trated by the inferior agents. Some of these &gems are
proved by his own letters to have held direct intercourse
with him ; and in every stage of inquiry in the numerous
cases investigated by the American Government there is
reference by letter and oral declaration to the general su-
perintendenoe of Mr. Crampton. His moral and legal re-
sponsibility are thus demonstrated. With full information
-of the stringency of the laws of the United States against
foreign recruiting, with a distinct perception of its being
all but impoisible to raise recruits here without infringing'
the laws, and with a knowleilge of the cenderonatory judi-
cial proeeedings of April and May at New York and Phi-
ladelphia; yet ho persisted in carrying on the scheme until
August, when its obstivate prosecution brought on a most
unpleasant controversy between the United States and
Great Britain ; 'and it is not the least of the causes of
complaint against Nit.. Crampton that by his acts of com-
mission. in this business, or in failing to advise, his Go--
vernment of the impracticability of the undertaking
in which he was embarked, and the series of illegal acts
which it involved, and in neglecting to observe the
general -orders of his Government, and stop its recruit-
ing here She moment its illegality was pronounced by
the proper legal authorities of the United States he was
reckless!y endaegerine the harmony and peace-of two
great nations,' which, by the character of their cone-
mei-cial relations, and by othereconsiderations, have the
strongest possible inducements to cultivate reciprocal
amity:' • •
" The foregoing considerations substantially apply to
the conduct of the British Consuls at New York, Phila-
delphia, and Cincinnati. Though of a subordinate official
character, they) are not less responsible than Mr. Cramp
ton. This continuous violation of law proceeded wain,'
their respective.consulatee„ month after month, under th it
eyes, pot only ,without any apparent effort on their part,
to stop it, 'but with more pr less of their active participa-
tioh therein. the Coneulate at New York appears to heve
been the point at which the largest expenditures' were
made, and it is proved by docurhents herewith transmitted
' that payinenfi at- that 'Consular office to some of the re-
cruiting agents; continued to be male by the secretary of
the Consul,. in the Consul's presence; from time to tined,
down to the begiuuing of Jan. in the present year.
"-The'Preeident, as has already been stated by me, can-
- not admit the force of the objection now urged of the al-
leged want 9f respectability on the part of some of the vvit-
• nesses by whore tiles-) facts were proved, awl as to whom
a prominent cause of such alleged want of respectability
aeelP4 to be the fact that their evidence has inculpated
their accomplices. in the violation of the law. The testi- ,
molly which most directly inculpates the British Consul et
New York, as will be seen by the inclos-ures herewith, is
. ludic affidavits. of the very pereons relied on by her Ma-
jeite's Government for proofs ins this case, and whose de-
positions accompany Lord Clartnilon's note to you of 30th
April. The Earl of Clarendon perfectly well understands'
that in Great Britain as well.as in the United Steles it
would be impossible to administer penal justice without
occasionally receiving the evidence of accomplices.
" In Great Britain not only is evidence of this class re-
ceived continually in state trials, as well as in inferior neat-
,ters, but rewards and other special inducements are held
out to such witnesses by not a feWprovisionsof acts of Par
diameut. -
The competency of such persons in a given case,'
and :heir credibility, are in both countries questions upon
which the court and the
jury, in their repsrpeseechtitvceaspheere
of jurisdiction, ultimately pass. In the
elusions have been established on documentary proo6ef and
other unimpeachable evidence, by proceedings before the
proper tribunals of the United States, by the verdicts of
Juries, and by the ruling ofindges, which must be held as
final in the estimation of the President. The Earl of Cla-
rendon suggests. as a consideration pertinent to this ques-
tions, that the Minister and Consuls had no means or op-
portunity of rebutting the charges thus indirectly brought
against them in the trial of the inferior recruiting agents.,
" In regard to the Consuls, the Earl of .Clarendon errs
in supposing that they had not full means and opportunity
if they saw fit, to appear and to confront and contradict
any accusing witnesses. They were not allowed to interfere
in the trials bymere letters written for the occasion, which
indeed they could not have done lawfu'ly had there been-
no such prohibition : but, if conscious of their own innoi,
cence,, and,that of the parties on trial, and that their owe
acts would bear examination, it was alike their duty and.
right to appear and say so on oath, and to contradict by
their testiniony.whatever was alleged against British officers
or agents if known to them to be untrue. Nor is it any
just cause of complaint that evidence was received upon
these trials impugning the acts of Mr. Crampton. It was
in due course of proceedings required- to be shown sa
'against the parties on trial, that the recruitments in which
they were engaged were for the service of a foreigu Go.
vernment.

ur
" Dtr.CraMpton was himself privileged from trial foraviolation of o
naunieipall
was the adrainisra for
employed were
not avr, but the persons whom he,
that cause to g 9 unpunished—nor
11012,10 oa.
eeen'utniton of penal justice to be indefinitely
fcoorutlh. le
int
fsortf3amttnaratile:nl ,
immunities which tiv,r his position and the diplomatic
peen liarlv proper that the facts
on the contrary, it was
not be
by whieb he was implicated,
should be verified in
(biutief
ffoOrrilnwohficllialhv,e
of his Government as
welrits that of the 'Unita,
remarked in his letter- of the 30th.
The Earl-of Clarendon
April that— -
• ' " c The int6ntions of the British -Gayer
arrangemen te made: to carryMene int mt' nrnent, and the I
-were not concealed from the GovernroZts inft° execution,
States; those intentions and arrangemeut°` the United .
stated by Mr. Crampton to Mr. Ilarcy in
n%vreili frankly
The 22d ~March,, HO, and the only observationsvenatio on
rebigti:Srr-
Marcy made in reply were that :the. neutrality laws of the
United States would rigidly be enforced, but that D-,----s7
nuinher-of persons who desired,* might leave the tinit"el'
Statee and get enlisted in any foreign service,'
- "It is incumbent on me to say that in this respect the
Earl of Clarendon labours under serious misapprehension,

which, while it serves in part to explain how it happens
that the enlistment went on for so many months in a man-
ner contrary to the intentions and express orders of the
British Government, also s4ves to increase the weight of
Mr. Crampton'g responsibility in this respect. I repeat
now, with entire consciousness of its accuracy, what I
stated in my letter of the 28th becernber last; that at that
interview on the 22d March—the only one I over had with
Crampton, as h 3 admits, in which the recruitment