The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1856-03-01
THE ENLISTMENT QUESTION.
opinion d the Attorney General on the Viola
tisn Of the Municipal law and the Ma
tional Sovereignty and Neutrality
Of the United States.
THE LEGAL VIEW OF THE QUESTION.
TnE PRESIDENT TO ATTORNEY GENERAL CUSHING

The lEGAL VIEW Ut &OI-oAAo4N'
TIE PRESIDENT TO ATTORNEY GENERAL CUSHING
Fxnrrlys MANSION, I
WASHINGTON Aug. q, 1855.
me reports of the District Attorneys of the Southern
District of New York and the Eastern District OF Penn
eylvana on the subject Of the levy OF troops In the
United states by official or other agents OF Great Britain
are returned herewith to the Attorney General; and his
sviuon Is required upon the ques ton, whether not
Ne acts reported are violation of the municipal Law
..d OF the national ignty and neutrality and
pssiay upon the question: what legal responsibility, If
any, iho.e acts asvoive on the British Minister and
British Consuls? FRANKLIN PIERCE.
Nh. CUsHNG's REPLY.
ATTORNEY GENERALS OFFICE Aug. Q, 1856.
-I have ,hs honor to submit here with the conside
Detens Of sx applicable 70 the enlistment Of troops
Tar the facts appearing the documents bsore
oosesrn the personal action either Of the British Minister
If the Biiiiah Consuls in the United States.
There NO room for doubt as to the lay regarding the
general question.
contains tho following proviAions:-
As or fs Sc 2
:sss 81 S Beyond De T rms
s e. x ss
:. soldier board Of vessel q
-. sssnse s gully Ps high
nss exceeding three years~tii Stat Large. ASS
o. course as the levy troops within the United States
1sgr Sssn 0 ssn no rsat Ran
Is the contrary Of this tho British government
sssly no,ihed by sttsr Of Mr. Marcy to Mr. Champion
08 APRIL 70, 1854 that enhstments IN the United
States would be either to Great Britain or to
Bussia. Exec Docs 1st sec, sd Ener, VOL XII, No.
In the second place. independently of municipal rsa
t0ps Of the question they constitute, whether
and consuls vo alton Of the sovereignty and OF
The neutral rights OF the United Safes.
The rule of public law is On this point and
b correctly stated follows, by Wolf
Since rsht which
lo'sed y foreign naiop 4 L no; permitted ri o
sesgn Gus. Gentun, LEAD
By va;tel:-
As cannot be CARRIED without soasrs I is eyiieas
mat Of raising troops Inter therefore belongs likewise
s.s 'fssassso sss St Pc Rs ~
aht belongs solely ne s Hson
even With ha % s oa o e &c
Hare sovereign has right give or sell h subjects to
whoever undertakes to enlist soldiers foreign country
whoas the soyereisns perrn asd m general shSey S
Asss sacred rights prince nation. This Is
SS he o s Sr w
ste. Foreign uers hsrgeo without mercy and with
ssS s@ eom Ss and supposiog even
q law q nature But II it appears hat hey
y
ss T pro ss ass Gsns en- H. '''s
By Kiuber:- .#t
entirely neutral has the right exact by force
10y ss liz purposes sf arr ths they taEs not nersrom
war and and c other o %as bere any
nsi,ary preparasns roments or collections OF troops
a. &C. 'S Ssy
e % II ns sre r s the
fDroh des Gems. Modernes dspsurope, e. 2s5)
By G. y. &c Martens
Whilst in case Of rupture between two nations neutral
ssn aSserce tre.cs prohibit during hc asia
much more forbid The OCCUPATION Of lis
3fecs da Droii des Gems, 5 SO,
By Gallant
All governments accustomed forbid, under capital
70 e military ns s % no or more se
IAN and DEFEND nsurl rsh and one inherent in
ia neuraI sovereign who leaves his subjects liberty to
engage themselves The service Of foreign behgeren vii
% b wsnns n Las
peaee; accors with the ply seal and political Soadioa q
- 1 10 assyns to one bsgsen sssceaes te
Ii Subjects % .n,ist military service Of other
may Wen be "ne War be @
ss.ss each o. which IN smiy with him prepared
'sss Sc IN
II G w5s Derive one aa
fm such provisions while The ether would pc useless
:ae s sSh l Ss al rue Of eseeaa
y 70 xss has BEEN . in
(Dei Daver de PriEcpi Neuras, y. ,5, 81, 329)
By Hautefeuille-
words The belgersn ought to abstain from he employ nens
az Gn ~ e Object . wod first nuoasy affect
.sual nation ought % IN The most complies p and
peace; word he ought TO treat them in The same man.
nss o. me ss 0s s sas snSs Fnns
dulles oi neutrality hey have The right 70 enjoy tie I'd;
81. q 9Eisss 'ss non
s,n fG% os e Sed sacred BY na
Ss q war 1ss ons n on any nos
OF hoslties directly or indirectly The passage ct
ae SOVEREIGN would constitute oenss ssans he soys
Of e neutral ps anS sss as a"s ne o
territory of neutral nations the occurrence orhos
ntes makes chan &c modification Of their rights they
.n be from m1 es1ae q The
whever nature they may be- 1he o. wss
Aely ihouid he committed AGAINST them under any pre.sx
poesssd IN ae q peaSe because war never naroy
aaecs nations at peaoe Belserenis cannot then IN any
sEmy-I do Directly FOX me operations q war but
ernd eee Of her his &c ao
bthem b. the neutral Without yi,iatag his duties
sss 11ssss as sy
sny manner whsever, Without he permission Of near
Ss sssse sna q saeh ss o
Tbe neural has the ancon,estbe right resist every
pt belserent make 70 ne bis scrrory-'1 oppose
~ the as i has @ Is
property By all the placed at his disposal by The av 70
which he 10 subject. Qbid tom 2, PIP ~, 40
lido perceive that this doctrine is explicitly pro-
uced any of the books Of law publish
ed curing the last years in Great Britain Possibly
their silence this point may be caused BY the policy OF
their country, which, under the kings OF the house OF
Hanover frequently relied upon foreign recruits IL
Of However this may be. some OF the English
works referred TO recognize the right Of every sovereignty
exclusive Of its territory and resources
(Wndmans Inter ationa Law, vol l., 64o But with
out a6verpg TO the present logical consequence OF this
right although OF them discusses fully the coaeraf
question whether State loses its neutrality by permit
ting foreign leyie and concludes properly that iii be
permitted 70 1t should he permitted TO each Of the
respective bel.igcrent Powers (Mannngs Law Of Ma
tons, biz. iii, en-. l.
In This connection the accredited English writer
sonsi ders and confutos the assumption hastily and
neousy taken up In Great Britain that doctrine to
me contrary OF this s 10 be found "a Vstse And upon
elaborate reyes OF the whole subject he oonsludes
hus:-
Foreign evies may NOT be allowed 10 one begeren
dLah