Green-Mountain freeman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1844-1884, 1856-01-10
ply substitutes partial issueir ir le place of the
general one presented by the United States.


,he had such rights at the date of the treaty,
md those rights comprehended the protectorship
If tho Mosquito Indians, the extended jurisdic.
ion and limits of the Pacific, and the colony of
The Bay Islands and thereupon proceeds, by
implication, to infer that if the stpulations Of
The treaty be merely future in effect, Great Brit
lin may still. continue to hold the contested por-
lions of Central America.
The United States cannot admit either the in
erences or the premises. We steadily deny
that at the date of the treaty, Great Britain had
my other possessions there than the limited and
peculiar establishment at the Belize, and main
tain that il she had any, they were surrendered
by the convention. This Government having re-
,ognized the obligations Of the treaty, has, Of
course desired to see it executed by both parties
and in the discussion. therefore, has not look
ID to rights which we might assert independent
y of the treaty, in consideration of our geo.
graphical position, and Of other circumstances
which create for us relations to the Central
American States, different from those of any
government Of Europe The British Govern
ment in its last communication, although well
knowing tho views of the United States, still
declares that it sees no reason why conciliato-
ry spirit may not enable the two Governments
to overcome the obstacles to q satisfactory ad-
justment of the subject
Assured of the correctness of tho construction
of the treaty adhered to by this government, and
resolved to insist on the rights of the United
States, yet actuated also by the same desire
which is avowed by the British Government to
remove all causes of serious misunderstanding
between two nations associated together by SO
many ties of interest and kindred, it has appear
ed to me proper not to consider an amicable So
luton of the controversy hopeless. There Is,
however, reason to apprehend that with Great
Britain in the actual occupation ofthe disputed
territories, the treaty is therefore practically
null 50 far as regards our rights. As the inter-
national difficulty cannot remain long undeter-
mined without involving in serious danger the
friendly relations which it is the interest as well
as the duty ofboth countries to cherish and pre-
serve, it will afford me sincere qualification if
future efforts shall result in the ccessanticipa-
ted heretofore with more confidence than the as
RECRUITMENTs, ETC.
One other subject of discussion between the
United Statet and Great Britain has grown out
of the attempt which the exigences Of the war
in which she is engaged with Russia induced her
to draw recruits from tho United States.
1t is the traditional and settled policy of the
United States to maintain impartial neutrality
during the wars which from time to time occur
among the great powers Of the world. Perfor-
ming all the duties Of neutrality towards the re-
spective belligerent States, we may reasonably
expect them not to interfere with the lawful en-
ioyment of its benefits. Notwithstanding the
existence Of such hostlites, our citizens retain
the individual right to continue all their accus-
toned pursuits by land or by sea, at home or
abroad, subject only to such restrictions in this
relation rs the laws of war or usages of ma
tions, or special treaties may impose and it Is
our sovereign right that our territory or !juris-
dction should not be invaded by either of the
beligerent parties for the transit of their armies
Of operations Of their fleets, the levy of troops
for their service, the fitting out of cruisers by OF
against either, or any other act or incident oil
war. And these undeniable rights Of neutrali
ty, individual and NATIONAL the United States
will under no circumstances surrender.
In pursuance Of this policy, the laws Of tht
United States do not forbid their citizens to sci
to either of the belligerent powers, articles con
traband of war, or to take munitions Of war o.
soldiers on board their private ships for trans
|
ual citizen exposes his property or person tt
some of the hazards Of war, his acts do not in
volve any breach Of neutrality, nor of themselve
implicate the government. Thus, during thu
progress of the present war in Europe, our citi
zens have, without national responsibility there
for, sold gunpowder to all buyers, regardless o
the destination of those articles.
Our merchants have been, and still continu
to be, largely employed by Great Britain ant
France, in transporting troops, provisions an'
munitions of war to the principal seat of mill
tary operations, and in bringing home their sic
and wounded soldiers. But such use of ou
mercantile marine is not interdicted, either b
the international or our municipal law, AM
therefore does not compromise our neutral rela
tons with Russia. But our municipal law, il
accordance with the law of nations, peremptori
ly forbids not only foreigners. but our own citl
zens, to fit out within tho limits of the Unite
States vessel to commit hostiities against an
State with which the United States arc at peac
or to increase the force of any foreign arme
vessels intended for such hostilties against
friendly State.
Whatever concern may have been felt by O.
ther of the belligerent powers, lest private arme
cruisers or other vessels in the service of tn
one might be fitted out in the ports of this cour
try, to deprcdate on the property of the Other
| all such fears have proved to be utterly grounC
less. Our citizens have been withheld from an
such act Or purpose; by good faith, and by r'
spect for the law.
: While the laws of the Union arc thus pc
emptory in the prohibition Of the equipment
armament of bclliserent cruisers in our port
: they provide not less absolutely that no perso
shall, within the territory or jurisdiction of tt
United States, enlist or enter, or 60 beyond tt
limits of jurisdiction Of the United States, wit
intent to be enlisted or entered into the servit
of any foreign State, either as a soldier, or
scamen on board Of any vessel Of war, letter
marque or prvateer and these 'enactm0nts al
also in strict conformity with the law Of natior
which declares that no state has the right
raise troops for land or sea service in anoth'
} State without It's consent, and that whether 70
bldden by the municipal law or not, the very a
tempt to do it without such consents an attaC
on the national sovereignty
Such being the public rights, and the mun
ipal law Of the United States, no solicitude f
the subject was entertained by this Government
when year since the British Parliament pas
GU an act to provide for the enlistment OF 70
elgners in the military service of Great Britain
Nothing on the face Of the act, or in the publ
history Indicated that the British Goyernmer
proposed to attempt recruitment in the Unite
states, nor did it ever give intim ,tion of sue
:, intention to this Government. It Was matt,
= ol SURPRISE therefore, to find subsequently tn,
she engagement OF persons within the Unite
!, !. States to proceed to Halifax, in the Britis
: ,h rroVince OF Novia Scotia. and there enlist
! extensively, with little or no dissuise' 6rd
. . nary legal steps were Immediately taken to a
: rest and punish the parties concerned. and ,
= pus ao end to acts infringing the municipal Ia
= ana derogatory to our sovereignty. -
= !, Meanwhile, suitable representations on Il
\ suo9ec' Were we addressed to the British Cover
u inent Thereupon it became known. bv Ii
,, admission OF the British government itself tb
ii the attempt to draw recruits from this oount
e. originated with it, or at least had its annrov