Fayetteville observer. [volume] (Fayetteville, Tenn.) 1850-1966, 1856-06-26
sFAEB4THVILbB, TENN: THURSDAY, JUNE st,$ 1866

~ Ns Y ~ NJ II
of the British government, ais
serves to increase the weight Of MI
Champions responsibility in this re
spect.
repeat now, with entire con
sciousness Of its accuracy, what
stated 10 my letter Of the 28th 0
Dec ember last, that at that inter
view ION the 22d of March, the on
lily one / ever had with Mr.. Ca ht
admits, in which the recruitman
business was alluded toy ''he (Mr
Crampton) had satisfied me that BIZ
government had no connection will
it, and was in no way responsible fol
what was doing in. the United States
to raise recruits for the British army
"But I am quiet certain that on nc
occasion has be intimated to me thai
the British government, or any o.
its officers, was, or had been in any
way concerned in sending agents in.
to the United States to. recruit
therein, or to use any. inducements
for that purpose; nor did he ever no
tify me that he was taking, or inten-
ded to take, any part in furthering
such proceeding. Such q communi'
cation, timely made, would probably
have arrested the mischief at its
commencement" IA,
If he had apprised me of the sys-
tenn Of recruiting which had at that
time been already arranged and put
into operation in the United States
by British agents, and under his su.
perintending direction, he would have
been promptly notified, in the most
positive terms, that such acts were
contrary to the municipal law, iu-
compatible with the neutral policy
of the country, violation of its ma
tional sovereignty, and especially ex-
ceptionable in the person of the rep
resentative Of any foreign govern
ment. Mr.. Champion admits that
specially warned him against the yio-
lation of our neutrality laws, but
blames me now for not then stating
to him that my construction OF that
law differed from his own; but no
such difference of opinion was then
developed. Mr.. Champion on that
occasion manifested a coincidence in
the opinion as to the provisions OF
that law which | then held, and have
since fully disclosed He called up
on me to show a letter which he had
written on that day to the. consul at
New York, sdisapproving the pro-
ceedings ola Mr. Angus Mcdonald
because I (he) thought these proceed
ings would or might be taken to
constitute violation Of the act Of
1818'-the neutrality law Of the
United States. What were the
proceedings of Mr.. Mcdonald which
Mr.. Champion thought might CON
stitute a violation Of our neutrality
law? The simple issuing of hand
bill specifying the terms on which
recruits would be received at Hall
fax into the Queens service. This
opinion Of Mr.. Champion ascribes as
much stringency to our neutrality
acts as has ever been claimed fol
them by the, government or courts
of the United States. had ther
no suspicion, nor did Mr.. Cramptor
give any cause to suspect, that be
was acting, or intended to act, upon
an Interpretation Of that law which
would justify the act Of Mcdonald
which he then condemned, and make
that law but little better than a dead
letter. 1could not but suppose tha'
he viewed it in the same light a
Lord Clarendon did when he wrot,
bis dispatch to Mr.. Champion Of th'
18th Of April thereafter, in which
his lordship declared it to be "no1
only very just, but very stringent.
To show that was not mistaken
in this respect, / quote a passage from
letter of Mr.. Champion, dated th'
18th Of March, to Sir G. le Mar
chant:
aAny advance Of money by he
Majesty's agents or others in tn
United States would constitute al
infraction Of the neutrality law"
The depositions which accompan.
this dispatch, made by some Of tn
same persons who have furnishes
the British government. with affida
Wits to impeach Strober and Hertz
prove conclusively that Mr.. CramE
tton did disburss various sums {