into the service on the continent, and that the authorized agent of the government was then at Boston. I then went to Boston, and found Colonel Smolenski and Captain Carstensen. Smolenski was to raise a Polish regiment, and Captain Carstensen was to have a command in the battalion of Germans raised by Major Weisse. Smolenski introduced me to the honorable Joseph Howe, in Boston. He boarded at the Tremont House. This was about the 26th to the 28th of April last, or perhaps a day or two later. Mr. Howe declared himself to be the agent of the colonial government of Nova Scotia, and acknowledged me as staff or regimental surgeon to the Polish officers' regiment under Smolenski, and at the same time this deponent was engaged as the representative and agent, in lieu of Smolenski, at Boston. This deponent's duty, as such agent, was to receive the persons who had been enlisted and sent to Boston, to bring them into boarding-houses, ship them to Halifax, pay their debts, receive money from Clark, Jones, & Co., for account of Howe, and to pay $4 a head for each man to the agent who had enlisted them. I acted as such agent to the 18th May. I drew $327, Captain Carstensen $949, and Colonel Smolenski $465. Some of the men-say about 50 of 200 that I had sent had been rejected at Halifax, who reproached me for having inveigled them. I then went myself to Halifax. I there received permission from Governor le Marchant and Messrs. Howe and McDonald to visit Melville island, which is used as a depot for these men. I found there about 200 soldiers, who were very discontented. There was another house in Boston which paid agents' fees, viz: Sprague, Soulé, & Co.

I represented to Governor le Marchant that the men were discontented, and he promised to see them satisfied. He referred me to Mr. Crampton, the British minister at Washington, who was to refund me what I had advanced out of my own funds, and to arrange with him about the further organization. He said that he (the governor) had no further power; that the Home Office had transferred it to Mr. Crampton. I was told I would find Mr. Crampton at Washington, or at the British consulate of Mr. Grattan, in Boston, between the 5th and 15th June. Not finding Mr. Crampton there, I spoke to Mr. Grattan, who also referred me to Mr. Crampton, and said that he would not be in Boston. I then went to New York, and spoke to Vice Consul Stanley, British vice consul at New York. Mr. Stanley told me he heard and read that there was a warrant out against him; that there were many spies about, and that he had no order to pay me; and when I spoke to him about Mr. Crampton, he said that all my business with Crampton must come through him.

Sworn to before me, June 18, 1855.

Dr. M. KIECKBACH.

GEORGE W. MORTON,

United States Commissioner.

THE SEIZURE OF THE BARQUE MAURY.

Report of the Committee of the New York Chamber of Commerce, November 27, 1855.

The committee appointed by the Chamber of Commerce to ascertain and report the facts connected with the late seizure of the American barque "Maury," on the information of Mr. Barclay, her Majesty's consul at New York, respectfully submit, for the information of the chamber, the following documents:

No. 1. Mr. Hunter, Assistant Secretary of State, to Attorney General, October 12, 1855.

No. 2. Telegraphic despatch from Attorney General to United States attorney, New York, October 12, 1855.

No. 3. Attorney General to Secretary of State, October 12, 1855. No. 4. United States attorney, New York, to her Britannic Majesty's consul, October 13, 1855.

No. 5. Same to collector of port, October 13, 1855.

No. 6. Attorney General to United States attorney, New York, October 13, 1855.

No. 7. Her Britannic Majesty's envoy, &c., to Secretary of State, with four affidavits, October 11, 1855.

No. 8. United States attorney, New York, to Charles Edwards, esq., October 16, 1855.

No. 9. Deputy surveyor of port to United States attorney, New York, October 15, 1855.

No. 10. Inspectors of customs to surveyor of port, October 15, 1855. No. 11. United States attorney, New York, to Attorney General, October 17, 1855.

No. 12. Same to United States marshal, October 17, 1855.

No. 13. United States marshal to United States attorney, October 19, 1855.

No. 14. Messrs. Low to same, October 18, 1855.

No. 15. Charles Edwards, esq., to same, October 19, 1855.

No. 16. United States attorney, New York, to Attorney General, October 19, 1855.

No. 17. Attorney General to Secretary of State, October 19, 1855. No. 18. Same to United States attorney, New York, October 22, 1855.

No. 19. Same to Secretary of State, October 22, 1855.

No. 20. United States attorney, New York, to Attorney General, October 20, 1855.

No. 21. A. A. Low & Brothers to John A. Stevens, chairman of committee of Chamber of Commerce.

No. 22. Depositions of J. N. Cornell and Wm. D. Craft, police officers, before the mayor, November 23, 1855.

Your committee have sought no further evidence, as all the facts and suspicions are comprised in these papers. Proceeding to consider their import, it is to be remarked that the firm in question are American merchants of this city, having a number of vessels, chiefly employed in the Pacific, China, and India seas; being, perhaps, more largely engaged in this branch of commerce than any other house in the United States; that they are directors and managers in many important commercial institutions, are of high commercial standing, and are well known as men of probity and honor.

Your committee find that the barque "Maury" was built in this city during the past summer for this firm; that she was advertised by them for thirteen days before the date of the affidavit, under their own name, in five daily papers, to wit: the Courier and Enquirer, Journal of Commerce, Commercial Advertiser, New York Express, and Evening Post, for Shanghae, in China; was loading wholly on freight; and never having taken her first clearance, her register had not been then issued from the custom-house; that there was on board. an armament of four guns, with a moderate supply of small-arms, and also ten guns on freight, and that other cargo was being received. These guns were first placed in the lower hold, as temporary ballast; were afterwards raised to the between-decks, and were never concealed in any way whatever. Such armament and freight are not unusual for vessels bound for the China seas; and vessels similarly equipped have heretofore been despatched from this and other ports in the United States, without suspicion or notice; and, apart from other circumstances, armament and guns in the China trade afford no cause to suspect any intended infraction of the neutrality or revenue laws, nor any intended illegal or questionable employment. Your committee have not been able to ascertain, and do not believe, that there were any other facts which could reasonably lead to such suspicions in regard to this vessel. It is manifest, however, that they were entertained by the British consul here, and by the British minister at Washington; for upon the affidavits and statements submitted by these functionaries, without a full ascertainment of the truth in a matter so important, and without an inquiry from the owners, and chiefly on an oath of belief, without a statement of the facts on which it was founded, the "Maury" was taken possession of by the United States marshal, on the afternoon of the 17th of October, under process from the United States court, founded on a libel, sworn to by the British consul, as forfeited for a breach of the neutrality laws.

In view of your committee, the feelings of a respectable firm, and the character of New York merchants, have been needlessly disparaged and assailed, through heedlessness and culpable want of inquiry, or strange credulity on the part of those making the representations to the officers of the American government; for it is clear that in the lapse of seven days, between the day on which the affidavits were made and the day of the seizure, the true destination of the vessel,

and all the facts of the case, could have been ascertained. The statement of Messrs. Low, so satisfactory after the seizure, could have been as easily obtained before it was made, by a simple application to them. Their advertisements of the vessel were in five daily papers, from the 27th of September to the 24th October; and the seizure, upon suspicions so carelessly, so credulously entertained, is truly remarkable.

The appearance of the marshal was the first intimation to the house. that their standing and character had not protected them from the charge of being engaged in an unlawful and disgraceful undertaking. But these slanderous affidavits could not stand an examination, and instantly vanished before their simple statement. The exhibition of the unaccountable misapprehension, ignorance, and credulity, on which the charge was based, alone survives. The proceeding of Mr. Barclay was withdrawn on the second day-one day being lost by his unwillingness to act at all without seeing Mr. Edwards. The chamber will remark that the affidavits were all sworn upon the same day, (the 10th of October,) and that the steamer Pacific, which left this port on the 17th of October, took out the information which has caused so much excitement and alarm on the other side of the Atlantic, unless it was forwarded by a preceding steamer. This information, thus hurried off prior to the seizure of the "Maury," was ex parte entirely, and no explanation could accompany it. By a public card of the 20th instant, Mr. Barclay denies "having written a despatch to her Majesty's government in regard to that ship." Therefore, from whom it emanated, and by whose indiscretion the relations between the two countries were rudely jarred, is wholly in the dark. The letters of Mr. Barclay and Mr. Crampton leave upon them the burden of answering the inquiry. Your committee were greatly surprised to observe, by Mr. Crampton's note to the Secretary of State, that he had been informed by Mr. Barclay not only that "he has good reason to believe that this vessel (the Maury') is intended for the service of Russia in the present war, but that a plan exists for fitting vessels of a similar description in other ports of the United States, with the express design of committing hostility against her Majesty's government, and more particularly of intercepting and capturing the British mail steamers plying between Liverpool and Boston." For such a statement your committee have been able to find no warrant in the affidavit by any person, or of any fact, or indeed of any belief. They believe that no fact exists warranting any such statement, and they share a common surprise that any man living in this city, or having communication with it, should for a moment believe it. On the contrary, the committee have it from the highest authority that the government has no knowledge, belief, or suspicion that any privateer, or other armed vessel, is fitting out, or has been fitted out, in this country, for or against any of the European belligerents.

The committee further report, that the following card from the British consul appeared in the New York Herald of the 24th October, and do not find that it was published in any other paper:

"Misrepresentations on the above subject (regarding the 'Maury') having been published in various newspapers, among others that munitions of war were found on board 'secreted under a quantity of cotEx. Doc. 35-15

ton,' I desire to disabuse the mind of the public of that impression by stating that such was not the case.

"Had my endeavors, made before information was formally lodged, to ascertain the owners of the ship Maury' succeeded, the explanations which that respectable firm (Messrs. A. A. Low & Brothers) gave after the libel was filed would have been sought by me, and no doubt would have been given before, and the course which was adopted would not have been resorted to.

"A BARCLAY,

"Her Britannic Majesty's Consul.

"NEW YORK, October 23, 1855."

This publication was not in time for the next steamer, which sailed from Boston for Liverpool the same day. It is for the chamber to consider whether this card was an adequate atonement to the house whose vessel had been seized, or to this commercial community; or whether, in so grave a matter, affecting the sensibilities of two great nations, the most speedy and wide-spread recantation was not due to both-alike from the British consul and the British minister.

The government of the United States, from the time of the administration of Washington to the present case of the "Maury," during all the contests which have existed since their independence, has, without fear or partiality, strictly enforced the rigid neutrality laws of the United States.

Although lawless men have sometimes escaped its vigilance, no administration of this government has given reason to doubt its determination to maintain them. When the authorities by accident have not been able to prevent the offences, they have uniformly brought the offenders to trial at the earliest opportunity; and such trials have always been made with all the urgency which is consistent with justice.

It is due to our country briefly to recall the features of our neutrality laws. They not only express the political but commercial sentiment of the country. First enacted in 1794, they have been continued and made more effectual by repeated subsequent enactments. No laws are more widely or generally known among public men. They forbid any citizen to accept any commission to serve against any people in peace with the United States. They forbid foreigners transiently within the United States, or on board any vessel within its jurisdiction, to enlist, or to go abroad to be enlisted, in the service of any nation at war with any such people. They forbid the fitting or arming any vessel, or increasing the armament of any armed vessel, with intent to be employed in any such service.

They forbid all military expeditions against any nation at peace with the United States, from the beginning, to provide means therefor, to the actual departure of such expeditions. They forbid the being concerned in fitting out any vessel to commit hostilities against any nation at peace with the United States.

These laws are the well-known expression of public opinion, and the common sentiment of the country. They have been enforced, as occasion required, against and in favor of all nations alike-against France, our earliest ally; in favor of Spain, when we had serious