{"character_count": 2413, "word_count": 407, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9348999857902527], "ccnet_perplexity": [679.2000122070312], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}


 ish Goyernment, in cause depending aetween one of its subjects and sovereign State of the Union.- We like not the position of this affair. The Govern ment of the Federal Union has no right take sides against State in any controversy with Foreign Power, even if the State be clearly in the wrong- the General Government is responsible for the Of State, if on account of the peculiar com plexty of our nstitutions-the General Government has not the power to compel that State to make amends--therefore, when Mr. Fox tells Mir. Webster that her Majesty's Government cannot recognize New York in the pending negotiation, the answer should have been-"our constitution IS written, and the General Government of the United States is of New York, which she has right to do under the Constitution of the United States offensive the British Government, the Government of the Union is responsible"

 This precisely the situation of the Mcleod affair. The Government of New York fully concides with the views of the late administration; they are deter mined to the extent of the law to hold Mcleod per- sonally amenable for violation ofis territory The General Government has no right to interfere directly, by It's own admission, yet it does interfere indirectly, and, under strong symptoms of menace, appears as the attorney of England the Courts ofN York, in an endeavor, first to procure McLeod's &C., quitta, and that iang to carry up the cause to the Supreme Court of the United States, where the Pre- sident can finish the argument by nolte prostgu. We copy the concluding remarks of the New York Post, on Mir. Webster's letter.

 Mir. Webster's letter is characteristic. It argues the matter at great length, and concludes with pro- posing more-argumeat. It holds out nothing deci- sive to the British government. It asks how this thing can be justified, and how that thing happened, but does not even squnt at future acton In what attitude this places the United States? Her soil has been invaded at midnight the property of her eiti- zens plundered, those citizens themselves brutally murdered, and when the atrocity is confessed by a foreign power, her ministers say 'Come, let US ar- que the pointl" It is time that bolder position were taken it is time, that the perpexing negota- tionwhch has been protracted through several years assumed more defnitive form, and one more likely to be brought to an end.' ''