New-York daily tribune., 1856-05-22

1has we'd thst TIE ssietfn cla ned
The oboel,, , ~ The United had long since been
,s :. far in ihe nsure % isps' possible 70 fs he
s.S IN .58iop TO the ss'c oa stsea ioI ns heo doSe
~ .nt Ier-pp authnire or unsnihota.i ~e.9 % Gu. a.
seize .a "siSy have bean ha' The 60 G
once ond here ended Regret h4d 5esh , b.d
az ,..ss pos The psve aud r.sSS oasfs
her Msr,ty Government TO ,he eoSsy .er ra4 are de-
.,;o had sem.ndes had siher been DC BE-
,ss"n .:n'sd ne .n fs1 he 0S 2 a.,.
enlist hsd TO me specified By Mr h.t
m s,,T.teh Of the Of Juy sos ae,-d ~ Nj h.cy.
fore i fern ppssSneSt n's he
~ = Ss 70 issr Issii,iAeIon also II Hny Case ~
ysG .;c.y sSsG ho % Teys. aia seR is nj. IL
che cOlhdept you'd prove satisfactory fo on tue gu OF
Jsnus q tho ESes ETs.eIs om M ey dated tbe sh OF De-
rssirg reoaJituaug the oomiAnIs OF tae uJNe'l
s.s diFeenf from tboss which were mentioned ~ Nj
n.Iey Of the l5th u Jul and Whon re ~ , m
Gtspme.t Cf UBied states bel eyed ise enuued 70
ss S,iS, " Minister At sinsoB, sud of He M4estys
Copsnls Philadelphia New ora ana OiIiunat wu
, dn.sd or whether any h.d happened between
the lSh O October and the h OF Dec "a E9ch snse
seeIs Of Ber Majesty hse been eonceLel Nonng o lhe
lnd had place the accusations made against these
% sbSeb were equally within the edge
t6s Gov, Of the United states Oh the 9ih OF octooe
he nndef sued proceeds reply to Mr. Nsrcys
note December 8 he nust notice al erroneous ontrnc oa
uLh Mr. Marcy has there put passage 10 dsprch OF
eh ne t'S d 81 by him to Mr Mercy The passge
b as follows: enurely aPIOye OF your proceedings as re-
ported your dispatch No. 81 Of the 9Th ut with respect TO
and bIiSsh subjects in the United States Nj Marcy
uuts, aid argues upon tn auinpuo t99t no meaning oi
Ibis IGsse that the enhstnents OF the persons meu
and which approved Ot by her MAJESTY Govern
ebt place Within e United otatesi whereas the
stneee secordpg s obvious meaning relates 10 foreign
Br tsh subjects resident ia the Umsd safes Ine
Ia has reference 70 the place where tney Iesae no.
10 the lace who're they be ened and any don't
could this pO that eonbt must have been removed by
tie United states 'sys that her Mestys G9yern@ent
Wouu ~ 49,, 60 = ,,
70 have eccped Mr. Marcy the time when the dispatch
him Ds b fSaley 50 far fo@ q il Marcy esp[e,sd
he nht be furnished with copy of IT. IN order that he nigh,
The UbdefsSDed must sso Marcy
IN the same d aich misconceiyod the meaning OF
presson used by the undergned IN nakng oher aboge
,e,,ed 10 nst any msn who ugat have w.thu
he United States should be Immediately discharged aud scat
back The reroLce there made to bnusn law Ts' merely
n.Dded indicate that had been enlisted under the
eirsunssnses sJPG'ea uaI en1n % wUa nav @ DSoI , ~
uncersned did not mean that respect wog not b paid in the
Discharge Of the principles Of the law OF the United
should that law appear TO have been violated III
In TeSiy to the general statements Of Mr. Marcys dispatch
the undeeLed must repeat that her Maesys Government
engaged within the territory States that
neutrality Of the UIeo States should be richly sgd scru
puooJ Iespecd But Mr. Marcy Contends that ths was
and though conversation th Dir Champion
the ga oi March 49, he said that he could not object T. any
proyd,d tie neutrality laws Of the Cned states in
peeL COMING thher flom tho United states was ation
policy United States aOd that NOT respect thai
Sss wsI b. 81 Of sSe Td es sds =. ''
Now ia reply TO this undersigned begs obsere that
the pocj OF nation IN regard its internal arrangements
sought for in that hson that what forbid
laws tnders,ooi
be the policy Of the state to allow In every stse whate or
that s0yees power nsy impose upon the subjects OF citizens
Of such what duties, obligations and escOns II
think IT. and it Is conclusion that when the
reign power ns limit TO IT'S enacments, whether Of ooigs
ee regard 70 all matters not within tue ensctmens OF the
Law This Pr eigs Is indeed admitted BY Mr 9uchansa,
policy the United stss defined snd enforced in the stat
Different counties have different laws in regard to tire
stnent OF their subjects ana eire1s ia the military aud naval
different policy OF these countries with respect TO such maeIs
ls SS the Bfi.a doiSCs IOl the Of iC'ssn
state The eImon Of the & sG, So sGGs ,S
even esewhee without the Royal Pernlssion Toe policy OF
irom all into service OF foreign sts without
he law Of the Uaitd States oppea,s be different Her
Miesiys Gosenmsn unde'ooi, sud that gnseFstandne
law OF the United States oy oIbids eIlsLmehts recruiting
and oonuOcts or enSseenents Whn the tnea sees elu
hiring Ieang persons quit the nted states "h ntont
be enlisted elsewhere, but does not forbid citizens OF tne
United sa,es who have used their natural sht OF quitting
the niiee States to enlist the of state
when they have left their country Thesovereiiu power
wed citizens with prohibtoy enactment beyond the
territory the United states but has not thought h TO do
50, and the juh sId inevitable conclusion s that what
it, might have forbidden, out has not iorSiddea II hsi
II
is the policy Of the Unted States prevent foreign eu
within United States but that 1t not the policy c the
United forbid the citizens Ot the United states TO
enst when Of the United states into the service OF ioe
should choose 5uch bsing the state 0i
this matter obvious that the britsh Government cannot
uy bc ebsed with disregard Of the policy OF the te
with disrotc 10 their sovereign nights by tsS-
ing into the Qness military service any persons who having
the Uled States freely sd with1ut contract or
engagement into British Territory uasat there be willing TO
ehlist
The real questions issue bstween her Majesty Govern
ard has OF the United states, whether tbs British
Government ordered 0, oon ml4sed auy v'n9n 9i me
Government Old contemplate violation those
sn'So,y or spprobaon Of the Briti.h Government auI
lastly, whether, violation OF the Law Of the United
States did take place sufficient satisfaction las been sven 70
the Government OF that country.
In ttssrd the first pOilt the British Government neither
ordered contemplated violation whatever OF the laws
o the United States but the Contrary ssaod the most
rePead that those laws should not bs in
frbged oy IeIsous acting under their authority.
In regard TO the second point MI Marcy alleges that not
witsdg the orders OF the British Gov officers and
thnss which were Violation of the Neutry laws of the
United States. and Mr. Marcy slecihesy msbes t charge
ssAin. her Mseys Consus at Cincinnati PhladeiPhis
and kew>rrk-
That MT CHAMPION positively and distinctly denies the charge
bossh sssins, him. he declares thai he bted
the service Of her msIy that he aud
enoeutsod a. violation Of the law q the Unite States The
chAge brou2ht against MI Champion mainly founded
evidence given by sobo the trial Of egtz,
called confession OF HeEts himself One Of persons
Strobe consequence of his mise ,nduct dismissed o
BY the LeuLI'oVeroT OF Nova SCOTS Halifax
and sfeTwaId opied o Mr. Champion AID endcaOrea eN
tori money from him by threat, whch dsre
sared. The has the honor 60 transmit en- Our
te this note documents which sufficiently prove that ho
sbe he Moys GovOruent 20 Get the Of suct
lie urarrSncd must indeed remark hst the whole pro
oeedx IN iegara 10 The tina! Herr OF such tha
.hs ~ Ms.sts Nil scr and hcr Cousnls
b. ana indeed iAoqa'ed BY the idece oi 9nscS u
Of