Wilmington journal. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1844-1895, 1856-05-30
THE ENLISTMENT DIFFICULTY.

iistment Question.
! The al xously expected dispatch of Lord Clarendon
in reply to Mr.. Marcys letter on the enlistment ques
ton, is contained in the English papers received by
the steamer Fulton at New York on The 21st inst
Lold Clarendon's letter commences by acknowledg-
| ing Mr.. Buchanan's dispatch of the 29th January
with copy. of dispatch of he 28lh December, pre-
vlous Lord Clarendon says that he deferred an an
swer to that communication in order that he might
thoroughly inquire into the charges against the Brit
lsh Minister and representatives in the United States,
and TO give parties charged opportunity Of reply
ing He then proceeds 20 express the deep regret
OF the British government that they are obliged to
continue controversy which they had trusted would
He continues at great length 10 review the whole
previous correspondence, and all matters in dispute
Coming at length TO dispatch of Mr.. Marcy OF the
twenty seventh OF September, Lord Clarendon
cludes by remarkng that that dispatch indicated the
satisfaction which Mr. Marcy had declared that the
government of The United States demanded With
respect to the first part of this demand for satsfac
ton, Her Majestys governments deny that any illegal
proceedings were, so far as they knew, committed by
It's representatives officers or agents requiring them
to be dealt with offenders. His ordshp then pro-
ceeos to argue that the United States government
has itself admitted that all satisfaction that had been
claimed had long since been given. 1t might, he
says, have been naturally supposed that the CORES
pondence would have ended with that satisfaction be-
ing afforded Her Majesty's Government were, how
ever, disappointed for, January 29th, dispatch
from Mr.. Marcy, dated 28th Dec, recapituated the
complaints OF the government of the United States
and reiterated its demand. Their demand consisted
Of an application for the recall of Mr.. Champion and
the Consuls at Cincinnati, Philadelphia and New
York
Lord Clarendon then proceeds to review the laws
upon the subject, and the policy of the United States
with regard to neutrality, contrasting it with that
OF England he real questions at issue he says, are:
First, whether the British Government ANTICIPATED
any violation of the neutrality laws of the United
States, and, in the second place, whether, if the
British Government did not order or contemplate
such violation, those laws We're violated by persons
acting under the authority and appreciation of that
Government and lastly, whether if any violation of
the United States laws did take place, sufficient sat-
tstacton has not been given to the Government of
that country In reply Lord Clarendon ASSERTS viz
First, the British Government neither ordered nor
contemplated any violation of the neutrality laws but
Issued positive orders and directions to the contrary
secondly, Mr. Marcy alleges that notwithstanding
these orders Of the British Government their officers
did do that which was violation of the neutrality
laws OF the United States, and further makes this
specific charge against Mr.. Champion and the three
Consuls. Before the undersigned proceeds to reply
TO MIR Marcy's note of the 28lh December, he must
notice the erroneous construction which Mr.. M. has
there put upon a passage in the despatch of 10Th
April, 1855, from the undersigned TO Mr.. Cramptou
which was communicated by him to MIR. Marcy
The passage is follows:
O. entirely approve Of your proceedings as repor-
ted in your dispatch of the 18th ult. with respect
to the proposed enlistment in the Queens service of
OF foreigners and British subjects in the United
States"
In reference to this, Lord Clarendon proceeds as
follows
MIR. Marcy assumes, and argues upon the assump-
tion that the meaning of this passage was that the
enlistments of the persons mentioned and which
were approved of by heI Majestys government were
to take place within the United States; whereas the
sentence, according to its obvious meanings relates to
foreigners and British sub ecs resident to the United
States.
The word "in" has reference to The plae where
they resided, and not to the place where they were
70 be enlisted and If any doubt could aise in this
point, that doubt must have been removed by the
concluding passage which aCverts 10 the neutrality
law of the United States and says that Her Mairs-
tvs government would, on no account, any risk
of infringing that law. This construction of the
passage under consideration does not appear to have
occurred TO Mr.. Marcy at the time when the dispatch
OF the undersigned of the 18th April was commun-
Gated to him by Mr.. Lumley So far from it, MIR.
Marcy expressed to Mr. Lumley his satisfaction with
that dispatch, and desired that he gh be furnished
with copy in order that he might show it to his COL
leagues
The undersigned must also further observe that
Mr. Marcy in the same dispatch msconc eved the
meaning OF the expression used by the undersigned
in making the offer above referred to- that any man
who might have been enlisted within the United
States should be Immediately discharged and sent
back. The reference there made to British law was
merel y intended 10 indicate that if the persons had
been enlisted under circumstances supposed such en-
isiment had been at variance with British as well as
American law ; but the unders gued did not mean
that respect would not be paid in the discharge of
such men to the principles Of the law OF the United
States alone, should that law appear 10 have been
violated in single case
Such being The state of this matter, it is obvious
that the BRITISH government cannot Justly be charged
with any disregard to the policy of the United States
nor with any dISrespeCt OF their sovereign rights bv
taking into the Queens military service any person
who, having come from the United States freely aud
without contract or engagement into British territory
might there be willing TO enlist
With respect to Mr.. Champion the undersigned
has to state that Mr.. C. positively and distinctly de-
MES The charge brought against MIN. He declares
be never hired, retained engaged single person
within the United States for the service of Her IL
esty, and that he never cOuntenanced encouraged
any violation of the law of the United States That
charge brought against Mr.. Crampton is mainly
founded upon the evidence given by Strobe! on The
trial of Hertz and of The o.caed confession of Hertz
himself.
One of these persons, Slrobe in consequence of
his misconduct, was dismissed from employment by
the Lieutenant Governor of Nova Scotia, and after
wards applied 10 Mr.. Champion, and endeavored to
extolt money from him by threat which was OF
course dsTegarded.
The undersigned has the honor to transmit, az en-
closed to this note dc cuments which sufficiently nroye
that both Strohel and Hertz were wholly unworthy
of credit. 1t is impossible for Her Maesty's Govern
ment 10 sci the assertions of such men as these
against the declaration of Mr. Crampton, a man Of
unquestionable honor.
he undersigned must indeed remark that tie
whole proceeding in regard tn the trial of uer,1