The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1856-02-29

oesysd net, sovsrssn having rsAs 70 esAaA whAs p
Haotsfsuile, nodsrn French suthes Of much reputs
ed 70 BOTH to raise rscrais in is tsrrsoriss unless It
vas 0~so ~ psees 70 b An act q bad hih which
There can b we'll founded distinction the rule Of
gerents army and sailors for its navy within neutral
country Hautsfsuills says 81
Ihe neutral sovereign under obligation prohibit and pro-
me beIhssrsnts '''"' ~ s''"''s or 10 service o
Again he says
0 The . DsH: must pros In an absolute Ne ey
rsouced BY combat, any other cause. 1882 ''''S-''
ssS Ss esS &
hsurisacon and even % those who belong to he 6sge
or ships company
Reference other writer's might be made 70 sustain
the position contended for by thus government and 70
overthrow that advanced by Lord Clarendon but the
thorty Of those presented is deemed sufficient for that
This view Of the law the subject was presented to
Parliament when the foreign enlistment bill under
debate On that Lord stanley said that the OBJ
ject proposed by 1t 10 resort to practice which,
Statesmen had not hsatased to eondsmn."
diers and salsrs By beDigerents neutral soil which
this eoveIHnent maintains and insists upon applying
There is another view Of territorial rights which Lord
Clarendon has not distinctly brought out but which he's
direct bearing upon the questions under confederation
The extent Of nations sovereign rights depends, In
some measure upon It's municipal Lawn. Other Powers
bound, not only to abstain om violating such laws,
who set in operation the scheme for recruiting this
county, which resulted nerous acts against its w
ing, expose Themselves the penalties denounced By that
nw out they violated its policy and their acts done In
lem 70 the orders Of their or in carry
sponsbity for their conduct is the sovereign right
Of every independent State, that AL foreign Power.
<Lnl-
GERS or agents to do that within their own do
mnions which would, a. natural or very probable
laws OF such State Some of the proceedings BY British
officers and agents. In regard to recruiting within the
thereof considered BY this government an infringe
ment Of their sovereign rights, and constituted one
ground Of rsnonstIsncs to her Majesty government
But Lord Carendon'B exposition Of the municipal law
OF United States respect to recruiting therein
created much surpr than the restrcdon he has
If do misconceive his meaning Lord CIarendons
Interpretation nearly annuls the clause in the act of
Congress which prohibits enlisting within the United
GERS and agents full liberty to do almost anything for
that purpose. he says
ana mat according British laws recruit cannot
.psc dGT sssn II sos a colo
The other provisions Of the Law which forbid hiring or
retaining within the United States 70 beyond
service reduced to the same irabecity BY similar
course OF reasoning. lord Clarendon says
sn 1n e. SD: S ss w
s e s9 e
listed. would be advanced at risk.
In order to prevent misconcepon IS to Lord Caren-
on and to the
Their extract from his despatch Of the 18th Of Novem
ber-
There can b question hat The who went HALIFAX
Upvsras Of hundle Ishmen in body, for nsapcs
saa 70 en- On
q s sss not nc sS or
enforce against them such contract engagement
Lord Clarendon It !; true uses language in other parts
into foreign military service within the United States or
hiring or retaining 70 leave the United States to
States neutrality law; but this admission amounts to
nothing, when AIKEN In connection with his definition OF
understand it. each acs must Be sSs result Of ys "a
contract Mine persons are not bound when they have
left the United States to perfect their enlistment then
Such contract made in the United States being ex-
pressly prohibited BY law would Of course be void.
think this conclusion fairly deduced from Lord Caren-
| BY him in different manner. ' '''-
Ihls government cannot concur In these views They
deprive the law Of the United States of AL sringency
and render It dead letter. The earlier opinion Of Lord
Clarendon in regard to that law is the which this
| government strenuously mAintains.
In bis despatch OF the 18th Of April, to which have
already referred he admits that the law Of the United
States with respect to enlistment however Is
not only very jast, but very strneentT but. a. IN
dersand his latter opinion, tie imposed very little
restraint upon the British officers and agents who
barked In the scheme Of recruiting In this country; It
left them with all the liberty they had occasion
for their purpose they could penetrate every part the
bills, ornamented with the emblem Of highlands royalty
presenting every inducement for ensting which United
States officer engaged in recruiting troops for his own
government could offer; and yet, in doing all these
tioni-so often repeated to them, aud now 20 much
relied on for their justihcaton-not TO violate the
United States law OF neutrality.
Under the construction given by her Najesys govern.
ment to that hw the Injunction not to violate could
this government available for what done
| by her Msjesty's officers and agents.
aII 81. ,s es On
November to the sovereign rights 6 the United States
the effect Of their neutrality law and the conduct of the
British officers and agents IN carrying out the scheme Of
recruiting this government is constrained to differ most
| widely nom them all.
cannot but regard the original design which had the
cticn Of the British Cabinet dangerous measure,
which khould not have been adventured without the
consent of the government. The scheme for carrying
out that design, which, 1t Is presumed devised in
the United States the British rovnces, framed in
utter disregard of the act Of Congress, and almost
every step in the progress of executing attended
by the transgreseon Of that law.
The offered by Lord Clarendon for not having
acted the complaint Of this government against the
Britith officers who engaged in recruiting within
the United States and the precedent condition be per-
formed before that complaint will be attended to- deserve
particular consideration. Lord Clarendon says:-
United sates make and distinct
charges with specifications against particular nd
vduals by name and that government will, confident,
not deny the justice and the necessity Of giving each
himself and dealing with the evidence by which the charge
may be supported.
In your note Lord Clarendon of the 9th Of july the
charges well the designation of persons less
distinctly presened than 10 the dispatches subsequently
laid before her Msjestys government; yet in Lord Car
endons reply to that note he did not object to the
charges for being indefinite the oesgnaoa of the
persons implicated for tsiny. de did deny
that the United States law had been violated but
sisted that 1t had been done by self constituted and
authorized persons, for whose acts British officers
not responsible.
In my despatch Of the 5rh of September, ad-
dressed to Mr. Champion, the charges we're re-
l peated with more distinctness, and Mr.. Champion
himself and Sir Gaspard lie Marchant both named.
Lord Clarendon appears to have understood that her
Msestys Consuls in OF the cities Of the Union
included in the charge against British officers resident
| within the United States Nothing was said In Lord
Cartndons reply to my despatch Of the 9th September
concerning his imperfect information on the subject or