The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1856-03-01

to agitate the question involved in the alleged
attractions Crimes of q national charac-
ter must involve Individual agencies. We
were not required to look beyond the per-
sons for responsible parties They enjoyed no
exemption from the effects Of guilt save that
which the statutes Of nations conferred upon
them, and these refer to the punishment and
not to the body OF the offence. So far es this
government was concerned it devolved upon
its agents to vindicate the outraged laws Of the
country; and if the comities Of States exempt
ed the offenders, OK either Of then, from the
operations Of our penal statutes, the duty Of
enforcing such remedies as were IN our power,
was stil more impecious and overwhelming.
These remedies were dismissals, prompt and
decided; but they we're not resos4ed to. The
offenders with ample proof of their completely
end guilt in the hands Of the State Department,
were treated with all che consideration due to
the Ministers and Consuls of Russia, whose
rights, with our own, were Indirectly violated.
We thus insist that our government is in
laws. There is no difference, in moral guilt,
between q wrong doer and an officer who per
mits q public statute to be violated without
exercising bis powers to bring the offender to
justice. The very extent Of guilt and outrage
which Mr.. Marcy is able to fasten upon Lord
ClareDdon's administration only increases his
responsibility for non-actdon when the evil
dence thereof was brought to his knowlede 4
It. in vain that he pleads his unsuspecting
nature and the confidential relations" sub
sistipg between himself and Mr.. Champion,
and his profound regret at being COM
PEELED to believe he had been de-
ceived; these disclaimers are wholly Z
aside by his subsequent Conduct in refusing
to exercise his powers of dismissal, which, in
fact, were his only adequate remedy. 1t is
natural indeed that her Msjesty's government,
seeing the impunity with which its agents
could disregard our rights-even after their
guilt had been judic;ally should
apply other than coDciliatory means to bring
the matter to aconclRsion. Instead, then OF
sending an apology, she sent to our waters a
powerful feet to menace our unprotected sea
board. Her conduct was that Of an insolent
bully, who, conscious of his strength, adds
insult to injury, menace to crime. And when
this signal Of the pacific policy of the British
government had been despatched, and was
found to have had little effect upon this
government, the subject was brought to the
notice Of the official London press, aud the
power of Lord Palmerston's offensive means
were declared to be amply sufficient to "sweep
US from the seas and to lay our seaboard at
the mercy of the powerful fleets Of her
Majesty"
Meanwhile, in view of these extraordinary
demonstrations, what was the American Cabi-
net doing to viRdicate the outraged honor of
our sovereignty and laws? To tue fleets
Of England we returned Mr.. Marcy's des-
patch of December %, indicating the policy
of the American Cabinet. and fixing the guilt
of the agents Of Great Britain in the enlist
ments referred to. Was this the proper RENE
dy to be applied by an injured government !?
Gen. Cass avows distinctly that Mr.. Champion
and his associates should have been sent
home. The views Of such q man are entitled
to weight. He is without rival in this couu-
try in all that relates to the rights and inter
course Of States. With the amplest ability to
maintain good cause in argument, he is suf-
fciently practical to know when arguments
should cease and action commence All the
evils which have resulted from this enlistment
affair spring from the neglect of our own
government to apply at the proper time the
proper remedy. BY refusing to make that
= %ho off, frov hot
moral accountability which is an essential in
the enforcement Of criminal statutes. 1t is
impossible to raise the guilty to the rank of
responsibility, and, at the same time, to con :
Wet him Of criminal conduct.
In regard to the Central American contro-
versy we have little to add to previo usy ex-
pressed opinions The Clayton Bulwer treaty
was one of those mistakes which people are
supposed to make who change their rulers once
in four years, and too often put into the high
est Offices men of questionable intelligence
and sagacity. II was something more than a
Monroe doctrine, which, to say the least Of it,
had the merit of boldness, dignity and firm
ness. If the principle Of that famous dogma
had been adopted as the settled determination
Of the American people, then the Clayton treaty
was surrender of that principle. We avowea
a purpose of preventing colonization on this
continent; it is manifest that if we carried out
this idea it was all we claimed. In the face
of it, Mess. Bulwer and Clayton entered into q
negotiation, and also treaty, under which
the latter alleges Great Britain agreed to
abandon her projects in Central America; but
the former, with his government, understands
it to be compact by which the United States
in some measure, agree to the occupancy Of
important places in that region by her Majes-
tvs subjects. The convention, however, has
been executed by both parties, and should
now be enforced according to its legal tenor
and effect. The construction put upon it by
the London Cabinet is so offensive to ts own