Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1856-06-03

point al which the largest expenditures werr made
and IT Is proved, by documents herewith tran
that payments 1T that consular office 10 some of IN,
recruiting agents continued to be made nv the sr,re
tnry of the consul aud in the consus presence, from
| time to time, down to the beginning of january d
| tn" present year.
The President. rs has already been stated by me
cannot admit the force OF the objection now urged o
| alleged want ut sprcfabty The part of some :,
| tac witnesses by whom these facts were proved
nnd as - whom prominent cause oi such ALLEGED
want of respectnb!lty to be the fact that then
evidence has incu pared their accompccs III the vlo
| atiou OF law. The testimony which most directly in
culpat-s the British consul at New York. rs will b.
perceived by the enclosures herewith is in the Ali
davIts of the Very persous relied un bv her Majesty
government for proofs in this case. and whose uepo
stl"ns accompany Lord Clarcndons note you of III,
3Oth of April.
The Earl of Clarendon perfectly well understand.
that in Great Britain, well H. in the United States
II would be impossible to administer penal iI-tc-
without occasionally receiving the evldrncr of &C
completes. la Great Britain not only is evidence o
THIS CLASS received continually in State irnis rs well
MS I'D INFERIOR matters. but rewards aud other special
inducements held our to such witnesses by NOT
| few provisions of acts of Parliament. The compe
trncy OF such persons H. Witnesses in given case
ana Their creilbIIty are IN both countries, question,
upon which the court and jury, in their respective
spheres of Jurisdiction, ultimately pass In the pre-
sent Case conclusions have been established on dOcu
mentary proofs and other uninpeachable evidence
| by proceedings before the proper tribunals Of the
United STATES by the verdcts OF iurrs. and by the
rulings of judges. which must be held as final in the
estimation Of the President.
lie Earl Uf Clarendon suggests as q consideration
pertinent 10 this question: that the minister and con.
suls had No means or opportunity Of rebutting the
charges thus Indirectly brought against them in the
| trial OF the inferior recruiting agents.
In regard 10 the c,inSus, The Earl of Clarendon
errS III snpposng that they hld not full means and
opportunity It they saw it, 10 appear and 10 confront
aud contradict any accusing 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 nu
such prohibition but il conscious of their own in
nocence and TINT of the parties trial. and that then
own acts would bear examination, il WAS alike their
duty and their right to appear aud say nah AMI
t" contradict by their testimony whatever alleged
asnins' British officers agents. if known 10 them t.
be untrue.
Nor Is It any just cause Of complaint that evidence
waa received upon these trials lRpugnng the acts oi
Mr. Champion. II was, in the due coursrnf proceed
ng>, required to be shown, against the parties on
trial. that the rrcrultneuts i'll which they were en-.
gagged were for the service Of foreign government,
Mr. Champion Was hIm.ef privileged from iral for
violation OF the municipal law, but the persons whom
he employed Were not for thai 20 uupunlsh.
ed. was the administration OF penal Justice b"
Indefinitely suspended on account of his portion, and
| the diplomatic mmunities 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 ,r
the information nt his own government, rs we'll as thai
| Of the United States.
The Earl Of Clarendon remarks, in his letter of the
| Both April that
The intentions of the British government, and lht
arrangements made to carry those intentions into
ecutnn. were nut concealed from the government U
the United States.
",Those intentions and arrangements were frankly
stated by Mr.. Champion 10 Mr.. Marcy IN converss
ton on the 22d of March. 1885, and The only obsrrva
rions which Mr.. Marcy made in reply We're, that tn,
neutrality lava of the United States would be ryiil,
enforced but that any number Of persons who desire,
it might leave the United States and get enlisted il
! any foreign SERVICE
II is incumbent on me to say that in this respect
the Earl of Clarendon lab"rs under serious Inisappre
hen,un, which, while it serves in part 10 explain
it happened that the enlislmens went IN for many
months in manner contrary to the intentions and ex
press orders OF the British government also I,
incr"nsr the weight of MIR. Champions responsibIlt,
| in this respect.
Irep-nt now, with entire consciousness Of its accu
| racy, what stated in my letter of the 2Sth OF d..
cember last that at that interview ton the Old n
March the only onr | ever had with Mr. c., as h.
admits, in which the recruitment business was auda
tu) abe MT CraUpnn) Ind satisfied me that his gov
ernneut had no conueXinn with il, M, va. III no WA
responsible for whnt was doing in the United Stat
to raise recruits tor the British army" bur | nj
quite certain that on no occasion has he innat.i /
that the British government, or any of ifs officer
was, or had been in any way concerned in srndiu
agents into the United States to recruit fh~r-in or
any inducements for that purpose; did he
notify me that he was taking, or intended u take,
part in turth-rng such proceedings. Such coInmu
nicaon, timely made. would probably have arreste,
the mischief at its commencement"
| Ii lie had then apprized Of the system Of re
cruitiny which had that time been already arrang
ed and put in operation within the United States b.
British agents. and under his experimenting drec
ton, he would have been promptly notified. in tn
mos, positive terms, that such were contrary It
the municipal law, Incompatible with the neutral po
llcy Ot the country, violation of its national sove
relgnty, and especially eIceprionable in the person
the representative OF any foreign government Mr.
Champion admits that specially warned him agains
the violation of our neutrality laws, but blames m
now for not then stating 10 him that my construction
of that law differed from his own; hut such diff+r
ence OF opinion WIS then developed. Mr.. Champion
| on that occasion manifested n coincidence in th
opinion as to the provisions of thar law which ther
held, and have since fully disclosed. He called upOl
me 10 show letter which he had written on that da
to the consul at New York, "disapproving the pro
ceedngs of Mr.. Angus Mcdonald b'cause I 'e
thought those proceedings would might be take
to constitute violation Of the act of lSlS'-the neu
trality law of the United States. What were ih
proceedings Of Mr.. Mcdonald which Mr.. Cramptn
Thought might constitute violation of our neutrality
The simple Issuing Of II hand-b specifying the term
the Qd-en's service. This opinion OF Mr. CrnmptoI
ascrlOes as much string-nry 10 our neutrality Hcis a
has ever been claimed for them by the government
or courts of the United States. ] had then suspi
con, nor did Mr. Champion give me any cause 10 sus
prci, that he was acting, or intended tn act. upon
Interpretation OF that law which would Justify the nc
| Of Mcdonald, which he then condemned, and max
that law but little better than dead letter. c"u
not but suppose that he viewed II in the same light II
| Lord Clarendon did when he wrote his despatch 4
| AIR frpm nf tha nf Apr ftur
which his lurd,hip declared it TO be mot only yer.
JUST but very stringent"
TO show that was not mistaken in this respect,
quote passage from letter Of Mr.. Champion, da' Il
the llth of March, To Sir G. le Marchant:
ANY advance of money by her Mnjesty's agents
Others in the United States would constitute an in
fraction Of the neutrality law"
The dispositions whirh accompany this despatch
made by some Of tie sgDe persons who have furnish
ed the British government with affayits to impeac
S'robe and Hertz, prove cnnclu-ively that Mr.
| CramEtcm did disbur,c various sums Of money {
agents employed in recruiting within the Unite,
| States.
|, was, indeed, appr-hcnded by me-. at TIM. time
thar vi"larions of that law would ensue. 1t cou!
| moi fail to be seen that any organized scheme ot
foreign government 10 draw recruits from the uni't'
States, though by mere invitation, would nece.snrll
tend to- and result in, violations of tn municipal law
So decided was my belief in this respect, that mra
sures had already been taken by Inc in behalf OF I'M
guvernment-as it happened upon the very day |"
the Interview with Mr.. Champion TO institute pro
secutons against persons engaged IN ms huslhcSs u
! New York and Philadelphia. then n"til"d Mr
Champion OF TINT fact as he expressly ndnns IN tn
report of that interview mad" to his government.
An altemp, is made to dedu"e an excuse for Mr.
| Crampton's course in the business ot recruiting u
,Is cnnutry from the alleged tact that he conInuni
csted to M. on that craslon the arrangements which
| had been made for that purpose, and that did II"
dsapprove them otherwise than by insisting upon
The observance Of the neutrality law o the United
| Crampton's own statement Uf what then passed. In
he defence of his conduct recently sent by him 10 hi.
Government, he makes admissions inconsistent with
the allegation that there was no concea!mrnt on his
part, and that the recruiting arrangements were c"in
muncsted TO me- He says that III is p"rir"tly tru'
that did not enter ntn any details u! the Ineanr
which were 10 b. adnpied hY her Majesty 3 govern