The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1856-05-22

sueh manner Is their grave ofsnse msrits" but that
sui.,ng ", ior the British army in the mode alluded
states by and agens emp yei for lhst purpose
ths pssioent ns Iass Mr. Bacbansn TO to her Ma.
and enectve to arrest their procsednRs aud
to diseharss nom service those persons It who
were eHhs 81 within the United Sta es who left the
United States under maoe to
ss soldiers in the British army"
This, then. the sasfa ction which, late tho 1ah
Of October Mr. Marcy dsca sd that which the g,v-
ernpsnr OF ths United States demanded
jestys soyernmsns deny that any Illegal u,o,seanss
were 30 far they knew, committed by It's officers
authorized agents. and therefore they have to da
vow, and no officers or sgens to deal with Offenders
With regard to the oher points specified BY Mr. Marcy
the undersigned, the 10th Of Noysnbe dsemiog 1t
So entered into detailed and, he had hoped salts
factory reply to the arguments and sasments contained
reply the Undersigned stated that the most material
point that Of the alleged recruiting had been already
dp 'sed Of nearly four months before the date Of
sat despatch the recruiting arrangements and proceed
ipgs had been abandoned by orders by her Msys
the 22d Of Juns and that the part
give because no person had to their Wedge
listed within the United statss left the Unte States
British army And he further added, that it could be
shown that any had been enlisted they should
be discharged and sent back to the United
The undersigned thus showed that the satisfaction
since been givsn 1t in the nature OF things
possible TO give It, and, in addition the satisfaction
asked or ne expressed the regret of her Msjesys
ment anything had been done BY any person. author.
lied or unauthorized which could bs considered an
fringemsnt OF the law of the United.
l. might naturally have been supposed that the
respondence would here have ended Regret had been
expressed for any infringement Of the law Of the Unied
repeated orders OF her Meesy's government to
the contrary The satisfaction which the govsrmsn OF
the United Staes after mature elaboration, had de-
manded by AM
ton granted Or had been shown 10 be imprsccabe be-
there was no man In the British service whose
enlistment contract to enlist hsd to ths knowledge
Ct her Majesys government taken place In the
specified by Mr. Marcy in his despatch OF the 18th of
July and whose discharge therefore, could form of
the satisfaction indicated by Mr., Marcy Her Majestys
government however expressed their readiness to give
which it could apply.
Her Majesty 9 government were however, disappoint-
ed that this further explanation would prove satisfactory
tor on the 10th OF Januny Of the present year Mr.
Buchanan communicated to the undersigned despatch
from Mr.. Msrcy, dated the 28th of December preceding
recapituatipg the complaints of the government
United States, and making demand in the way Of sas
faction different from those which mentioned in Mr.
Marcys Of the 18th July which were referred
to IN his despatch of the 18th Of October the sstsac
itself entitled TO claim. This demand consisted an ap-
Rlicstion for the recall Of her Maestys Minister at
Washington and Of her Msiesty's Consus st Phi!adel
aaked whether any ground had been found this
demand, or whether any new event had happened be-
which these officers Of her Majesty had been
Nothing Of the kind had taken place. and the
made against these officers In Mr. Marcys despatsh
the 28h Of December upon statements waioh vera
equally within the kno sledge Of the OF the
United States the 18th of October, when no sucn
mard was made
Before the unasrsigned proceeds to reply to Mr. Mar
eys note Of December 2s he must notice an erroneous
construction which Mr. Marcy has there put upon
passage in despatch OF the 18th April 1855 from the
undersigned to Mr.. Champion, which communicated
BY him to Mr.. Marcy. The passage is oliowA-T
AppkOv0 proceedings n
despatch No b Of the 18th ul, with respect to the
and British subjects in the United Stasosn Mr. Marcy
assumes and argues upon the assumption, that the
mssnne Of this passage was that the Of the
nsjestys government to take place within the
United States: Whereas the sentence according
resident in the United States Tue word Gin" has refer
to the place where they resided not place
arise this point doubt must have been removed
by the including passage which advera to the nsu
trali,y law OF the United States, aud says
that her Msjesty's government would on account
risk Of infringing that law. This construction
Of the passage under consideration does appear to
have occurred to Mr. Marcy q. the time when the de-
spatch Of the undersigned Of the 18th April was con-
muncsted to him BY MI. Lumley. So far from It, Mr..
that despatch and desired that be b. furnished
with copy Of It IN order that he might show 1t his
The undersigned must also further observe that Mr..
Marcy In the same despatch has msconcaived the
ing Of preston used by the undersigned making
been enlisted within the United States should Be imme
datey discharged and sent back The reference there
made to Brtsh law merely intended to indicate thst
II persons had been enlisted under the circumstances
posed such enlistment would have been variance with
British well with American law; but the under
signed did not mean that respect would not be paid, in
the discharge Of to the principles of the law Of the
United States alone should that law appear to have
In reply The general statements Of Mr.. Nsrcys dss.
patcb, the undersigned must repeat that her Majetys
government gave the most positive orders that
ahantd aNad hin oF
United sates and that the neutrality laws Of the United
States should be strictly and scrupulousy respected
and though in convsrsaton with Mr. Champion, on the
I'D OF March, 1885, he aad that he could not object to
enlisted the laws Of the United states
not nfrnged he argues that the enlistment in
Nova Scotia Of persons coming thither from the United
States was volAton of the policy of the United States
that not to respect that policy ofence the
part of Great Britain against the sovereign rights Of the
United States.
that policy naton in regard to it's internal arrange
be sought for in the laws of chat nation that
cy the State prohibit and that what those
forbid must be understood 70 be the policy Of the State
to allow. In every State whatever may be its form
reign power may impose upon the subjects or citizens Of
such State what duties, obligations, and restrictions it
may think M and it Ia neces airy conclusion that when
the sovereign power puts limit to it's enactments
whether of obligations OF prohibition, it to
its subjects citizens free in regard all
indeed admitted BY Mr.. Buchanan's note Of the 9Th OF
July wherein he lays down tbat the neutral policy OF
Unied States dened and enforced in the statute
of 1918.
Different countries have different laws IN regard to the
enlistment OF their subjects and citizens in the military
and naval service OF other States and these laws vary
cording the different policy Of these countries with
spect to such matters.
In Great Britain the law not only prohibits recruiting
enlisng within the British dominons for the
of any foreign State without the permission of the
reign bat II goes further and prohibits any subject of
her Majesty from ensting, elsewhere without the
roy permission The policy Of Great Britain hence ap
pears to be prevent British sutec from entering at
all INTO service Of foreign States without the permits
sion of the Crown.
The law OF United States appears to be different
Her Mse.ty's government understood and that under
stspdipg confirmed by Mr. Buchauans note OF the 9th
Of july that the law OF the United States only forbds
eplistnente recruit ipg and contracts engagements
within the United States and hiring retaining persons
to quit the United States with intent to enlisted
citizena NJ TTniod