Bloomington herald. [volume] (Bloomington, I. T. [Iowa]) 1840-1849, 1841-07-23

~ " INC OHStCe2 SsOeH Oy our secretary " Ctute
to Mr.. For, and its compatibility ,ciM the honor,
dignity, and future tcelfare Of this Republic.
look upon the . Instructions which were
given to Mr.. Crittenden, and a copy Of which
were sent to Mr.. Fox, as being THE ANSWER to
that Minister; and deem the letter entitled an
answer, and dated forty days afterwards, as
being mere afterpiece--an article for home
consumption---a speech for Buncombe, as we
say Of our addresses TO our .constituents---a
pleading intended for us, and not for the Eng
lish, and wholly designed to excuse and defend
the real answer so long before and SO promptly
1given. will give some attention TO this, SO
called, letter, before quit the case but TO!
VIII present my business is with the :. inssauc-
out vs." copy Of which being delivered to Mr..
with, was the ANSWER to his DEMAND ;
VIII agsgch was transmitted tothe British Co
vtrnment, and quoted in the. House of Com
mons as being entirely satisfactory. This quo
tation took place on the 9th day of May, seve-
raj days before the, SO called, letter Of the Oath
Of April could possibly have reached London.
Lord John Russell, 10 answer to question
from Mr.. Hume, referred to these instructions
as being satisfactory, and silenced all further
inquiry about the affair, by showing that they
had all they wanted.
hold these instructions to have been erro-
neous, in point of national law, derogatory 10
US in point of national character, and tending
to the future degradation and injury of this
Republic.
That the Secretary has mistaken the law Of
the case in conserving to the release of Mcleod
is persuasveIy shown by referring to the opin-
ions of the two houses Of Congress IN January
last. Their opinions were then unanimous in
favor of Mr.. Forsyth's answer, and that an
swer was peremptory refusal either to admit
that Mcleod ought to be released, or to inter-
fere in his behalf with the courts of N. York.
The reasons urged by Mr.. Fox, in his letter to
Mr.. Forsyth, for making the demand, were
precisely the same with those subsequently.
given in the letter to Mr.. Webster. The only
difference in the two demands was in the for
mality of the latter, being under instruction
from his Government, and in the threat which
1t contained. In other respects the two de-
mands were the same; so that, at the outset Of
this inquiry, we have the opinions Of the Sec
rotary of State, the Attorney General, aud the
body Of their friends in the two Houses of
Congress to plead against themselves.
The law OF nations is clear, and the law of
the patriot heart is equally clear. The case
needs no book, no more than the hanging of
Arbuthnot and Ambrister required the iustifi-
hammocks and marshes of Florida. A band
Of foreign volunteers, without k1owinr what
t9als~s ssysfc- guIss 10 do,e out ready TO follow
their file leader to the devil, steal across
boundary river in the night, attack unarmed
people asleep upon the soil, and under the flag
Of their country; give no quarters-make no
Observation-Disclosures not between old and
young-innocent or guilty-kill all-add fire
to the sword-send the vessel and it's contents
over in fames-and run back under the same
cover of darkness which concealed their APP
proach. All this in time of peace. And then
to call this an act of war, for which the per-
petra,ofs are not amenabe, aud for which re-
dress must be had by fighting, or negotiating
with the nation to whom they belong. This
is absurd. l. is futile and ridiculous. Com
mon sense condemns it. The heart condemns
it. Jackson's example in Florida condemns
il; and we should render ourselves contempti-
BILE if we took any such weak ard puerie
, course.
Mr.. Fox no where says this act was done
| by the sovereign's command. He shows, in
fact, that it was not so done; and we know that
it was not. 1t was the act of volunteers, un-
known toihe British Government until it was
| over, and unassumed by them for three years
after it occurred. The act occurred in Deem
Der, 1887; our Minister, Mr.. Stevenson, de-
| manded redress for it in the spring of 1888.
| The British Government did not then assume
it, nor did they assume ii at all until Mcleod
was caught. Then, for the first time, they as
| sumo and justify, and evidently for the mere
| purpose of extrcating Mcleod. The assump-
| tiou is void. Governments cannot assume the
crimes Of individuals. 1t is only as militia
| ry enterprise that this offence can be assumed;
and we know this affair was no such enter
prise, and is not even represented as such by
the British minister. He calls it a ''transac-
tom" Three times in one paragraph he calls
ita Transactions" and whoever heard of fight
orfreaba,tle being characterized as transact
tions's We apply the term to an affair OF bu-
ST. 4eftAbut never to military operation. How
ca sM have military operation without war!
wib cat the knowledge of the sovereign 3
WY ftthe forms aud prelimnares which the
laws of nations exact! This was no military
enterprise in form, or in substance. 1t was no
attack upon fort, ship of war or body of
troops. 1t was not attack Of soldiers upon
soldiers, but of assassins upon the sleeping
| and defenceless. Our American defenders OF
this act 90 beyond the British in exalting it in
to a military enterprise. They take different
ground, and higher ground than the British, IN
setting up shat defence; and are just as wrong
now as they were in the case of Arbuthnot
/ and Ambrister.
Incorrect in point Of national law, ! hold
these instructions to have been derogatory &c
us in point of national character, aud given
with most preciptate haste when they should
not have been given at ALL. They were given
under formal, deliberate, official threat from
the minister; and thousand unofficial threats
from high aud respectable sources. The min
lister says:
"But, be that as it may, her Majesty's Govern
ment formally demanded, upon the grounds already
stated the immediate release Of Mr.. Mcleod; ane