the United States, he was recklessly endangering the harmony and peace of two great nations, which, by the character of their commercial relations and by other considerations, have the strongest possible inducements to cultivate reciprocal amity. The foregoing considerations substantially apply to the conduct of the British consuls at New York, Philadelphia, and Cincinnati. Though of subordinate official character, they are not less responsible than Mr. Crampton. The continuous violation of the law proceeded within their respective consulates, month after month, under their eyes, not only without any apparent effort on their part to stop it, but with more or less of their active participation therein. The consulate at New York appears to have been the point at which the largest [591] expenditures were made; *and it is proved by documents here with trasmitted, that payments at that consular office to some of the recruiting agents continued to be made by the secretary of the consul and in the consul's presence, from time to time, down to the very beginning of January of the present year. The President, as has already been stated by me, cannot admit the force of the objection now urged of alleged want of respectability on the part of some of the witnesses by whom these facts were proved, and as to whom a prominent cause of such alleged want of respectability seems to be the fact that their evidence has inculpated their accomplices in the violation of law. The testimony which most directly inculpates the British consul at New York, as will be perceived by the inclosures herewith, is in the affidavits of the very persons relied on by Her Majesty's government for proofs in this case, and whose depositions accompany Lord Clarendon's note to you of the 30th of April. The Earl of Clarendon perfectly well understands that, in Great Britain as well as in the United States, it would be impossible to ad minister penal justice without occasionally receiving the evidence [592] of accomplices. In Great Britain, not only is evidence of this class received continually in state trials, as well as in inferior matters, but rewards and other special inducements are held out to such witnesses by not a few provisions of acts of Parliament. The com petency of such persons as witnesses in a given case, and their credibility, are, in both countries, questions upon which the court and jury, in their respective spheres of jurisdiction, ultimately pass. In the present case conclusions have been established on documentary proofs and other unimpeachable evidence, by proceedings before the proper tribunals of the United States, by the verdicts of juries, and by the rulings of judges, which must be held as final in the estimation of the President. The Earl of Clarendon suggests, as a consideration pertinent to this question, that the minister and consuls had no means or opportunity of rebutting the charges thus indirectly brought against them, in the trial of the inferior recruiting agents. [593] In regard to the consuls, the Earl of Clarendon errs in supposing that they had not full means and opportunity, if they saw fit, to appear and to confront and contradict any accusing witnesses. They were not allowed to interfere in the trials by mere letters written for the occasion, which, indeed, they could not have done lawfully, had there been no such prohibition; but if, conscious of their own innocence, and that of the parties on trial, and that their own acts would bear examination, it was alike their duty and their right to appear and say so on oath, and to contradict by their testimony whatever was alleged against British officers or agents, if known to them to be untrue. Nor is it any just cause of complaint that evidence was received upon these trials impugning the acts of Mr. Crampton. It was, in the due course of proceedings, required to be shown, as against the parties on trial, that the recruitments in which they were engaged were for the service of a foreign government. Mr. Crampton was himself privileged from trial for violation of the municipal law; but the persons whom he employed were not for that cause to go unpunished, for was the administration of penal justice to be indefinitely suspended on account of his position, and the diplomatic immunities which that conferred. On the contrary, it was peculiarly proper that the facts by which he was [594] implicated, but for which he could not be tried, should be verified in due form of law for the information of his own government, as well as that of the United States. The Earl of Clarendon remarks, in his letter of the 30th of April, that The intentions of the British government, and the arrangements made to carry those intentions into execution, were not concealed from the Government of the United States. Those intentions and arrangements were frankly stated by Mr. Crampton to Mr. Marcy in a conversation on the 22d of March, 1855; and the only observations which Mr. Marcy made in reply were, that the neutrality laws of the United States would be rigidly enforced, but that any number of persons who desired it might leave the United States and get enlisted in any foreign service. It is incumbent on me to say that in this respect the Earl of Clarendon labors under serious misapprehension, which, while it serves in part to explain how it happened that the enlistments went on for so many months, in a manner contrary to the intentions and express orders of the British government, also serves to increase the weight of Mr. Crampton's responsibility in this respect. [595] *I repeat now, with entire consciousness of its accuracy, what I stated in my letter of the 28th of December last, that at that interview (on the 22d of March, the only one I ever had with Mr. C., as he admits, in which the recruitment business was alluded to) “he (Mr. Crampton) had satisfied me that his government had no connection with it, and was in no way responsible for what was doing in the United States to raise recruits for the British army;" "but I am quite certain that on no occasion has he intimated to me that the British government, or any of its officers, was, or had been, in any way concerned in sending agents into the United States to recruit therein, or to use any induce. ments for that purpose; nor did he ever notify me that he was taking, or intended to take, any part in furthering such proceedings. Such a communication, timely made, would probably have arrested the mischief at its commencement.” If he had then apprised me of the system of recruiting which had at that time been already arranged and put in operation within the United States by British agents, and under his superintending direction, [596] he would have been promptly notified, in the most positive *terms, that such acts were contrary to the municipal law, incompatible with the neutral policy of the country, a violation of its national sovereignty, and especially exceptionable in the person of the representative of any foreign government. Mr. Crampton admits that I specially warned him against the violation of our neutrality laws, but blames me now for not then stating to him that my construction of that law differed from his own. But no such difference of opinion was then developed. Mr. Crampton on that occasion manifested a coincidence in the opinion as to the provisions of that law which I then held, and have since fully disclosed. He called upon me to show a letter which he had written on that day to the consul at New York, "disapproving the proceedings of a Mr. Angus McDonald, because I (he) thought those pro ceedings would or might be taken to constitute a violation of the act of 1818"-the neutrality law of the United States. What were the proceedings of Mr. McDonald which Mr. Crampton thought might constitute a violation of our neutrality? The simple issuing of a hand-bill specifying the terms on which recruits would be received at Halifax into the Queen's service. [597] *This opinion of Mr. Crampton ascribes as much stringency to our neutrality acts as has ever been claimed for them by the Government or courts of the United States. I had then no suspicion, nor did Mr. Crampton give me any cause to suspect, that he was acting, or intended to act, upon an interpretation of that law which would justify the act of Mr. McDonald, which he then condemned, and make that law but little better than a dead letter. I could not but suppose that he viewed it in the same light as Lord Clarendon did when he wrote his dispatch to Mr. Crampton of the 12th of April thereafter, in which his lordship declared it to be "not only very just, but very strin gent." To show that I was not mistaken in this respect, I quote a passage from a letter of Mr. Crampton, dated the 11th of March, to Sir G. Le Marchant: "Any advance of money by Her Majesty's agents or others in the United States would constitute an infraction of the neutrality law." The depositions which accompany this dispatch, made by some of the same persons who have furnished the British government with affidavits to impeach Strobel and Hertz, prove conclusively that Mr. Crampton did disburse various sums of money to agents em[598] *ployed in recruiting within the United States. It was, indeed, apprehended by me at that time that violations of that law would ensue. It could not fail to be seen that any organized scheme of a foreign government to draw recruits from the United States, though by mere invitation, would necessarily tend to and result in violations of the municipal law. So decided was my belief in this respect, that measures had already been taken by me in behalf of this Government, as it happened upon the very day of the interview with Mr. Crampton, to institute prosecutions against persons engaged in this business in New York and Philadelphia. I then notified Mr. Crampton of that fact, as he expressly admits in the report of that interview made to his government. An attempt is made to deduce an excuse for Mr. Crampton's course in the business of recruiting in this country from the alleged fact that he communicated to me on that occasion the arrangements which had been made for that purpose, and that I did not disapprove them otherwise than by insisting upon the observance of the neutrality law of the United States. This allegation is hardly consistent with Mr. Crampton's own statement of what then passed. In the defense of his con[599] duct, recently sent by him to his government, he makes admis sions inconsistent with the allegation that there was no concealment on his part, and that the recruiting arrangements were communicated to me. He says that "it is perfectly true that I did not enter into any details of the means which were to be adopted by Her Majesty's government to render available the services of those who tendered them to us in such numbers. There seemed to be obvious reasons for abstaining from this. Even if it had occurred to me, I should have been unwilling to do anything which might have borne the appearance of engaging Mr. Marcy in any expression of favor or approbation of a plan favoring the interests of one of the parties in the present war. All I could desire on his part was neutrality and impartiality." His reasons for withholding from me the details of the enlistment system-the most important part of it for this Government—are not satisfactory. If Mr. Crampton believed what he was doing, or intended to do, in the way of recruiting, was right, he could have had no reluctance to communicate it to me, for his instructions required him to make that disclosure. Acting in due frankness, and with a proper regard for the dictates of international comity, Mr. Crampton should, it would seem, have [600] disclosed to me all the measures intended to be pursued within the United States by the agents of his government, including himself, in execution of the act of Parliament for raising the foreign legion. Nay, he was expressly commanded by his government to praetice no concealment with the American Government on the subject. If he had obeyed these orders, all misunderstanding between the two governments would have been prevented. Mr. Crampton was the more imperatively called upon to make full explanations on the subject, not only because he was commanded by his government so to do, but for the further reason that, immediately after the breaking out of the war between Great Britain and France on the one hand and Russia on the other, he had, by an official note, addressed to me, invoked the efforts of this government to enforce upon the inhabitants of the country, citizens or others, the necessity of ob serving the strictest neutrality toward the belligerent parties, and especially to enjoin upon them to abstain from taking part in armaments for the service of Russia, or in "any other measure opposed to the duties of a strict neutrality." To this application the undersigned, by [601] express direction of the President, replied, declaring that *the United States, "while claiming the full enjoyment of their rights as a neutral power, will observe the strictest neutrality toward each and all the belligerents." Reference was made to the severe restrictions imposed by law, not only upon citizens of the United States, but upon all persons resident within its territory, prohibiting the enlisting men therein for the purpose of taking a part in any foreign war. It was added "that the President did not apprehend any attempt to violate the laws; but should his just expectation in this respect be disappointed, he will not fail in his duty to use all the power with which he is invested to enforce obedience to them." In view of this formal and solemn appeal by Mr. Crampton to the American Government, and of the assurance he received of its determination to maintain strict neutrality, it was not for a moment suspected that Mr. Crampton could misunderstand this purpose, or believe that he would be permitted to set on foot and execute, for a period of five consecutive months, a systematic scheme to obtain military recruits for the British service in the United States. That Mr. Crampton did enter most deeply into this scheme is proved by the evidence already submitted to Her Majesty's government, but is still more conclusively established by the additional proofs which accompany this dispatch. [602] What ever detraction from the value of the testimony against Mr. Crampton may result from the attempt to discredit Strobel and Hertz, is much more than made up by the additional proofs now adduced. This body of strong cumulative evidence confirms the President's former conclusion as to the complicity of Mr. Crampton and the British consuls at New York, Philadelphia, and Cincinnati in the illegal enterprise of recruiting soldiers for the British army within the United States; and the President does not doubt that when this new evidence shall be brought under the consideration of Her Majesty's government, it will no longer dissent from this conclusion. The gratification which the President feels at the satisfactory settlement of the recruiting question, in so far as respects the action of the British government itself, has induced him to examine the case again, with a view to remove, if possible, from his mind the personal objections to Her Majesty's minister and consuls. This examination has not produced that effect, but, on the contrary, has strengthened his conviction that the interests of both governments require that those persons should cease to hold their present official positions in the United States. [603] He sincerely regrets that Her Majesty's government has not been able to take the same view of the case, and to comply with his request for their recall; but it has not consented to do so. If, in the earnest desire to act with all possible courtesy toward Her Majesty's government, the President could have suspended his determi nation in the case, in order to submit the new testimony, which he is confident would have been found sufficient to induce compliance with his request for the recall of the British minister, he is precluded from any such thought of delay by the exceptional character of dispatches of that gentleman, copies of which, having been recently laid before Parliament, have thus come to the knowledge of this Government, and which are of a tenor to render further intercourse between the two governments, through that minister, alike unpleasant and detrimental to their good understanding. The President has, therefore, been constrained, by considerations of the best interests of both countries, reluctantly to have recourse to the only remaining means of removing, without delay, these very unaccept able officers from the connection they now have with this Gov[604] ernment. *This course has been deemed necessary on account of their unfitness for the positions they hold, arising from the very active part they have taken in getting up and carrying out the system of recruiting, which has been attended with numerous infractions of our laws, which has disturbed our internal tranquillity, and endangered our peaceful relations to a nation with which this Government is most anxious to maintain cordial friendship, and intimate commercial and social intercourse. He has, therefore, determined to send to Mr. Crampton, Her Majesty's diplomatic representative, his passport, and to revoke the exequaturs of Mr. Mathews, Mr. Barclay, and Mr. Rowcroft, the British consuls at Philadelphia, New York, and Cincinnati. I am, sir, respectfully, your obedient servant, GEORGE M. DALLAS, Esq., London. W. L. MARCY. [For inclosures see Sen. Docs., 1st and 2d sessions 34th Cong., vol. 14, 1855-56.] Mr. Marcy to Mr. Crampton. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, [605] SIR: The President of the United States *has directed me to announce to you his determination to discontinue further intercourse with you as Her Majesty's diplomatic representative to the Government of the United States. The reasons which have compelled him to take this step at this time have been communicated to your govern ment. |