New-York daily tribune., 1856-03-12
xrIrpFD INNOCENCE.


Hraid, which ne transfer to another column Of
this paper, against the truth OF our statements
rrspeciDe the arbitration case and the payment Of
the S1sOO damages to the owners OF the bark
Louisiana TLis letter bas one advantage over other
conmunrcatiCIs from the COnrulate-it does not
menace TIE TRIBUNE with suit for libel. But
even with this improvement il cannot be called
successful. 1t contains some statements which,
whatever their merits in The eyes of their author,
have not the essential qualify Of truth. One of
these ia, that we have implicated Mr.. Consul Bar
clay with certain transactions which never took
place "-meaDing, OF course, the charterng Of the
bark Louisiana 70 carry men to Halfax, and the
payment Of $500 by the British Government as
damages for having failed 70 furnish the men
whose transportation was thus agreed for. Now,
f such transactions never occurred, why does not
Mr.. Barclay, or NJ. Stanley or whoever it may
be- rty bis denial by the evidence of the gentle
men whom we have named arbtrators IN the
casel These gentlemen are Capt Ddnham OF the
fl In of DunIam & DimoD, and Mr. Til, OF
the firm of SpOfford, Tieston & Co. If there was
no such arbitration and award Of 81 800 against
the British Government, and no payment at all on
its account we presume these gentlemen VIII ne
ready to do justice in the premises and relieve Its
represonra ives from our imput1tons. why.
when Mr. Stanley is so loud and sweeping
in his denial of our statenents, does
he avoid bringing into court these lndsputaoe
witnesses, whose names we have gwen to tne puo-
lic1 Does he fear that their assertions might not
agree with bis own He alleges also that Dir.
Barclay has notified us that our allegations were
incorrect. This is totally devoid OF foundation IN
fact. We have not had the honor Of any commu-
nication whatever from that fHncrionary, except "a
visit from person Of very bad manners, who did
not even inform US of bis name, and gave no other
evidence OF bis having been sent by tho Consul
than to demand with peremptory pomposity the
names of our infOrmants, and to threaten US with
libel suit This possibly may be an English
style of imparting information on such subjects;
possibly Mr.. Stanley supposes that when so i'm
portaDt a parsonage as II. b. NJ. Consul
copdescends 10 send fellow to bully
the conductors Of an American journal, they
are bound to understand everything the
Consul might say if he were present and
in position to make such communications at first
hand; but for our part we disclaim all such clair
yoyance. But if Mr. Barclay had addressed to US
civil note OF explanation or contradiction, or
whatever he chose. he knows, and Mr.. Stanley
knows, that it would have been prominently pub
lisLed. 1t is our wont to give all accused parties
an opportunity TO be heard Indeed, n this very
o..o ,,-Lon onn+-ad ntinu of q uuite anOnymOus
character appeared in The Commercial Adrertiser,
we at once gave it place in our columns, with
such explanations as were adapted to enable the
public TO Judge upon its value.
The truth seems to be, however, that it is use
less for the British agents to wrggle attempt to
escape the position in which they have placed
themselves. Mr. Stanley holds the position of
a culprit in this enlistment business, aud is the
last man to be exhibiting indignation over the
allegation of bis activity i'll prosecuting the illegal
purposes of his Government. We take the fol-
lowing passage from Mr. Marcy's dispatch of the
2eth of December, which we published some days
ago along with the rest of the correspondence re-
lstng 10 this difficulty. The extract defines Mr.
Stauley's present position, as well as that of Mr.
Barclay, briefly and pointedly, and saves US the
trouble Of particularly looking up his antecedents:
The persons connected with the British Consulate
at Newfork have been actively engaged in further
ing tie recruiting scheme. Mr.. Stanley, the assistant
or clck of the Corsu has taken more open and
eff, Give part than the Consul himself, and IS aov
nnGer an indictment for violating the law against
foreign recruiting. Tie Consul, Mr.. Barclay, could
not but kn0w Of Mr. Sanleys conduct in that matter
but be still retains him in tie Consulate.
do ~ oil,
TO Mr. Barclay for the improper conduct of an EN-
ployee in Lis Office and under lis immediate and daily
Obsoy alton this Government Is satisfied that he has
Himself not only favored the recruiting for the British
amy but has participated in II. Moreover the inn
proper conduct of Mr. Barclay in the case OF the bark
Maury las Justly given offense 10 the commercial
community which he resides and with which he has
oficial communication.
For these reasons tlis Government deems il proper
to Instruct you 70 ask the Government Of Great Britain
10 withdraw Mr. Barclay from the post OF British Con-
IL at NewYork."
But Mr. Stanley, being thus under Indictment.
I'd that have reason TO assert upon the best Of
evidence denies the payment OF the 81 500 damages
by the Consulate. Strictly speaking perhaps Mr.
Barclay did not pay over the money personally,
neither perhapsdid Mr.. Stanley. atwhat of that
The case We stated was this Mr.. Howe of Nova
Scotia, came here to hunt up recruits. Expecting
to get them he chartered the bark Louisiana. But
the men were not forthcoming and so damages to
the amount of $500 were exacted and paid by
the Consulate, under the order of referees. 10
whom the case was submitted. Now we cannot
produce the private correspondence between Mr.
Howe and Mr.. Barclay or Mr.. Stanley to show
how the matter Was adjusted between them. But
who Will deny that the whole job was Joint opera
tion among these gentlemen, We will admit that
neither of the three paid over the money in person.
because it was paid by the British Government.