The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1856-07-19
TIE LONDON TINES.


Nothing Is more remarkable than the extreme supeGc
atty and consequent laundering dogmatsm OF this lead
ing journal of England Thus in article Of July til.
Times makes the lowing assertion:
But to say that he violating the known law Of the
United States Is saying much. 1t happens Lord
Psmsrson reminds us, that two months Afterwards this
lawyers opinion contradcted Judge Kanes delivered
from the bench-a fact which 10 not negatived by Judge
kanes subsequent charge"
Now, is not tina, inOoncevable7 Is 1t not ncopcevab
that either the Times or Lord Palmerston should to this
day. be grossly msinformed upon the material facts Of
this controversy? Instead Of its being true that Judge
Kane two months after Mr. Champion was advised by biz
own lawyer in New York that his agents would be GER
tanly prosecuted, and In all probability convcted-n
stead Of Ito being true that two months after this Judge
Kane decided the acts TO be legal bis decision was that
they were Illegal thus confirming the excellent but dsre
garded advice which Mr. Champion received from hh
counsel at New York in March,
This decision Of Judge Kane In May referred to three
cases then before him lie found that as TO one Of tho
three cases the evidence insufficient but sufficient
to the other two who accordingly bound over for
trial. and one Of them actually convicted in sepn
bsr 1t this simple fact that the Timea continue.
to Patter and to bunder falsely assuming that In sepsm
a
To show the uncomfortable stupidity Of this persistent
error Of the Times we point 10 the parliamentary papers
in Its possession, where Judgs Kanes opinion of May il
printed as al enclosure In Mr. Lumeys letter Of May 2s
to the Earl Of Clarendon. II Ia also appended to Mr.
Marcy letter Of the 2Th Of May and is specially quoted
and commented upon by him in connection with the pro
ceedngs in New York against wachter and others during
the same month, upon which Mr. Marcy makes the follow
ing remark:
"Thus early May, u was adciaily shown that what
was doing In this respect unlawful Mr.. CHAMPION
acquainted with these proceedings and thss
admonshed that the acts Of recruitment carried under
his authority did, In fact whatever may have been his inp
ton, constitute violation 81 the municipal Law Of the
United States This had been decided by courts Of tbs
United States and publicly and extensively made known
IL not cOntroverted-indeed, IL IL admitted-tbI
he had the recruiting business in bis charge and
under his control, yet he permitted IL be continued
although judiealy determined be unlawful through
the months Of MAY, June, Juty, into August"
Now il 1t not marvellous that with all this light Of The
hroadss, daylight shining pontblank in his face both
from his own documents and from ours Lord Pamsrson
should make To the House Of Commons the following a.
sariion;
Who to interpret that law n IL said that there
counsel who gave opinion but there was also udg
who gave an opinion and u Judgs Kane knew then WbE
tne law OF the United states was then u 10 clear that moth
ing was done BY our agents that violation Of the Inv
II said that Judge Kane Afterwards altered M, opinion
bat when was that In September He gaze his first opn
ion in May"
Its upon this most htuitous Of all fatuous blunderS
that Mr. Champion has been coutending for than
year. that he had violated the law be had done II igno
rany, although the eminent counsel whom be consulted
10 New York warned him before he commenced, that be
could not possibly succeed in the "scheme or device to
cover the real nature Of the transaction" which he bad
contemplation that his plan for the evasion Of the
statute" would inevitably fail however ingsnously de
vsed' and that hs conncxion with the subject how.
ever indirect family traced would than counter
balance the advantages proposed in his attempt cIeut'
the sorcign-snstment act in the United Ststes