The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1856-03-01

and sailors by begerens on neutral soil which this gov
ernmen maintains and insists upon applying to the pres
cnt case. 'H.# #s#''# .a#
There is another view Of territorial rights which Lore
Clarendon has not distinctly brought out but which has
direct bearing upon the questions under considerations IN
extent of nations sovereign rights depends, ia somt
measure, upon its municipal laws. Other powers ar
bound not ouly 10 abstain from violating such laws bu
to respect the policy of them. The British officers who
In operation the scheme for recruiting in this country
which resulted in numerous acts against its law being be
yond i urisdcton did not by such proceeding, expose
themselves to the penalties denounced by that law bu
they violated its policy and their acts If done in obedience
TO the orders of their government or IN carrying out III
purposes Involved that government in responsibility fol
their conduct 1t il the sovereign right of every ndepend
eni State that all foreign powers should abstain from
thorizing or instgating their officers agents do that
even within their own dominions, which would, nat
raj or probable consequence lead TO the
of the municipal laws OF such State Some of the proceed
ings by British officers and agents in regard 10 recruiting
within the United States thongh conducted beyond The
limits thereof considered by this government In
trngemen OF their sovereign rights and constituted
ground Of remonstranee to her Majesty's government
But Lord Carendons exposition Of the municipal law OF
the United States In respect 10 recruiting therein has ere
aed much surprise than the restriction he has laid
on the sovereign rights OF this country.
If do not misconceve his meaning Lord Clarendons
Interpretation nearly annns the clause in the act OF Con-
gress which prohibits ensng within the United States for
foreign service and thus leaves British officers and agents
full liberty to do almost any thing for that purpose.
He says "that enlistment in the British service Is
valid without attestatioD and that according TO British
laws recruit cannot be atesed in foreign country noI
in the British colonies without specially ydeegated
authority for that purpose"
The other provisions of the law which forbid hiring
retaining within the United States go beyond
the limits thereof for the purpose of ensting in foreign
| service reduced to the same imbecty by similar
course of reasoning Lord Clarendon says mo binding
could, therefore, be made with any within
the United Satespromses might he SO made but any
money given to enable them repair to places be-
yond the United States territory for the purpose OF being
enlisted would be advancedSat a risk" '.#
In order to prevent msconcepon as TO Lord Carendons
un To
deduced from them correct add another extract from
his despatch of the 10th Of November:
"There he question that the men who went to
Halifax free and compelled to be soldiers their
arrival Upwards of one hundred rishmen in one body
for nsance, if her Majesys government rightly in
formed refused enlist arriving there and said they
10 order to work railway They were, there
fore not enlisted hired retained as soldiers in the un
ted States no attempt was made to enforce against them
any such contract or engagement"
Lord Clarendon II Is true uses language in other parts
of that despatch which admit that enlsting into
foreign military service within the United States or hiring
retaining persons leave the United States to enlist
into such service would be violation of the United States
neutrality law; but this admission amounts to nothing
when taken in connexion with his definition of the terms
enlsting, hiring or retaining In his view, as under
stand it, each act must be the result Of valid contract II
the persons not bound when they have left the United
States to perfect their enlistment then there has been
violation of the United States law. Such contract made
in the United States being expressly prohibited by law
would OF course be void think this conclusion is fairly
dedueed from Lord Clnrendons language rather is his
This government cannot concur 10 these views. They
deprive the law ofhe United States of all srngency, and
render it dend letter The early opinion OF Lord Caren-
don in regard to that law is the which this govern
ment strenuously maintains -
In his despatch of the 18th of April to which have
already referred he admits "tba the law of the United
States with respect enlistment however conducted is
not only very just but very stringent but as under
stand his latter opinion the law imposed very little
upon the British officers and agents who embarked
in the scheme of recruiting in this country it left them
with all the liberty they had occasion TO use for their pur
pose they could penetrate every part Of the country
open rendezvous in any city publish andbls ornament
ed with the emblem Of Engands royalty presenting every
nducement for ensng which United States officer
gagged in recruiting troops for his own government could
offer and yet in doing all these things they would COM
ply with the stringent nstrueonsso often repeated to
them, and much relied on for their Justification
TO violate the United States law of neutrality.
Under the construction given by her Maesys govern
ment to that law the injunction not TO violate could have
had very little Significance and Is not admitted by this
government available excuse for what was done by
her Mnestys officers and agents.
After the most deliberate and respectful consideration Of
Lord Carendou views in his despatch Of the 10th Of No
veber the sovereign rights Of the United Staes The
effect of their neutrality law and the conduct Of the Brit
sh officers and agents in carrying out the scheme of
cruting, this government is constrained 10 differ most
widely from them ALL
II cannot but regard the original design which had the
sanction Of the British cabinet a dangerous measure,
which should not have been advenured without tile
OF the government The scheme for carrying out
that design which, II presumed devised in the Uni
ted States or the British provinces framed In utter
disregard Of the net Of Congress and almost every step In
the progress Of executing attended by the transgres
sion of that law,
The reasons offered by Lord Clarendon for not having
acted on the complaint Of this government against the
British officers who engaged in recruiting within The
United States and the precedent condition TO be performed
before complaint will be attended to- deserve pnrtcu
lar consideration. Lord Clarendon says hey Cher Maes
tys minters must therefore, request the United States
government to make and establish distinct charges
with proper specifications against particular individuals
by name and that government WILL am confident not
deny Justice and the necessity Of giving each person
implicated the opportunity Of knowing what s alleged
against himself and Of dealing with the evidence by which
the charge may be supported"
In your Lord Clarendon Of the 9Th Of July, the
charges as well the designation Of persens were less dis
tncty than in the dispatches subsequently, laid
before her MRjcstys yet Ia Lord CLARENDON
reply that he did not object 10 the charges for be-
ing indefinite 10 the designation of the persons impl
Gated for uncertainty lie did not deny that the United
States law had been violated but insisted that II had been
done by sclEoonsutcd and unauthorized persons Tor
whose acts British officers not responsible.
In my despatch Of the 5b o September addressed TO r
Champion the charges repeated with more dsunot
ness and Mr. Champion himself and Sir Gaspard e Mar
chant both named. #
Lord Clarendon appears 10 have understood that her
Maiesys eonsus of the cities Of the Union were
included in the charge against British officers resident
within the United States Nothing was said in Lord Car
endons reply my despatch Of tho 9th September con-
cerunp his imperfect information the snhject his
upcprninty to the persons complained OF did he
then call for the evidence by which the participation Of
the British officials in the nfacon Of The law OF the Uni
tod States was TO estahshed hut he aside the whole
of the evidence by tho sweeping allegation, that the prac
tces resored for obtaining II rendered ID incompetent
to establish any weounded charge against her Majesty.
servants
The ground takon In Juythst the persons engaged in
Who bnd violated the laws Of the limited States