Washington sentinel., 1856-06-03

; The Earl of Clarendon perfectly well under
stands that in Great Britain, as well as in th,
, United States, it would be impossible to ad
: minister penaljustice without occasionally re
} ceiving the evidence Of accomplices. In Greal
Britain not only is evidence of this class re
ceiyed continually, in State trials as well as in
, inferior matters, but rewards and other special
inducements are held out to such witnesses by
not few provisions of acts of Parliament
The competency Of such persons as witnesses
in a given case, and their credibility, are, in
both countries, questions upon which, the court
and jury,in their respective spheres of juris-
diction, Ultimately pass. In the present case
concl dsions have been established on documen-
tary proofs and other unimpeacbable evidence,
by proceedings before the proper tribunals OF
the United States, by the verdicts of juries,
and by the rulings OF judges, which must be
held as final in the estimation OF the Presi-
dent.
The Earl of Clarendon suggests, as consi-
deration pertinent to this question, that the
Minister and Consuls had no means or oppor-
tunity of rebutting the charges thus indirectly
brought against them in the trial of the inle-
rior recruiting agents.
In regard to the Consuls, the Earl of Caren-
don errs in supposng that they had not full
means and opportunity, if they saw fit, to ap-
pear and to confront and contradict any ac-
cusing witnesses. They were not allowed TO
interfere in the trials by mere letters written
for the occasion, which indeed they could not
have done lawfully had there been no such
prohibition ; but, if conscious of their own in
nocence, and that Of the parties on trial, and
that their own acts would bear examination,
it was alike their duty and their right to
appear, and say on oath, and to contradict
I.,s sLx.ut
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 i'm
pugniDg the acts of Mr.. Champion. 1t was in
the due course of proceedings required to be
shown, as against the parties on trial, that the re-
cruitmepts in which they were engaged were for
the service of foreign Government. Mr..
Champion was himself privileged from trial for
violation of the municipal law, but the per-
sons whom he employed were not for that
cause to go unpunished, nor was the admins
tration of penal justice to be indefinitely sus-
pended on account of his position and the di-
plomatic immunities which that conferred. On
the contrary, it was peculiarly proper that the
facts by which he was implicated but for which
he could not be tried, should be verified in due
| form Of law for the information of his own
/
States
The Earl Of Clarendon remarks in his letter
of the 30th of April that "the intentions of
the British Government and the arrangements
made to carry those intentions into execution
| were not concealed from the Government Of
| the United States. Those intentions and ar
rangemeuts we're frankly stated by Mr. Cramp-
ton to Mr.. Marcy, in conversation on the 22d
of March, 1856, and the only observations
which Mr. Marcy made in reply were, that the
neutrality laws of the United States would be
rigdly enforced, but that any number of per-
sons who desired it might leave the United
States, and get enlisted in any foreign ser
! vice"
/ 1t is incumbent on me to say that, in this
respect, the Earl of Clarendon labors under seri-
Gus misapprehension, which, while it serves in
part to explain how it happened that the en-
! listments went on for so many months in
manner contrary to the intentions and express
orders of the British Government, also serves
to increase the weight Of Mr.. Champions re-
sponsibility in this respect.
/ | repeat now, with entire consciousness Of
its accuracy, what l stated in my letter of the
| 2Sth of December last: that at that interview
ION the 22d Of March, the only one l ever had
with Mr.. c., as he admits in which the recruit
ment business was alluded to) "he Mr.. Cramp-
ton had satisfied me that his Government had
no connexion with it, and was in no way re-
sponsible for what doing in the United
| States to raise recruits for the British army"
! "But am quite certain that on no occasion
has he intimated to me that the British Gov
ernment, or any,of its officers, was or had been
in any way concerned in sending agents into
the United States to recruit therein, or to use
any inducements for that purpose; nor did he
ever notify me that he was taking or intended
to take any part in furthering such proceed.
| ings. Such a communication, timely made,
would probably have arrested the mischief at
its commencement"
If he had then apprized me of the system of
recruiting which had at that time been already
arranged and put in operation within the United
States by British agents, and under his superin-
tending direction, he would have been promptly
notified, in the most positive terms, that such
acts we're contrary to the municipal law, incom-
patible with the neutral policy of the country,
violation of its national sovereignty, and espe-
cially exceptionable in the person of the repre-
sentative OF any foreign Government. Mr.
Crampton admits that i specially warned him
against the violation of our neutrality laws, but
blames me now for not then stating to him that
my construction Of that law differed from his
own; but no such difference of opinion was
then developed. Mr.. Champion on that occa
sion manifested a coincidence in the opinion
as to the provisions of that law which then
held and have since fully disclosed. He called
upon me to show a letter which he bad written
on that day to the Consul at New York, "dis-
approving the proceedings of Mr.. Angus
Mcdonald because | [hel thought those pro-
ceedings would or might be taken to constitute
n violation Of the act of l8l8"-the neutrality
law Of the United States. What we're the pro-
ceedngs Of Mr.. Mcdonald which Mr.. Champion
thought might constitute violation Of our neu-
trality2 The simple issuing Of a hand.bill spe-
cifying the terms on which recruits would be
received at Halifax into the Queens service.
This opinion Of Mr.. Champion ascribes as much
stringency to our neutrality acts as has ever
been claimed for them by the Government or
courts of the United States. / bad then no
suspicion, nor did Mr.. Champion give me any
cause to suspect that he was acting or intended
/ a. act upor N ipta tat of that Ia which