Lynchburg Virginian. [volume] (Lynchburg [Va.]) 1829-185?, 1841-12-23


national rights honos and consequently, nothing
which the Government Of the United States ought right
full, 10 oiect fpunthis branch 81 the subject the nn
dcrslgncd does not intend tn epat the Arguments
tanned IN hisproslons correspondence with Her Majesty =
hate Principal Secretary ii State fur Foreign FAIRS
Referring Lord Aberdeen 10 that correspondence he
viii cun'cn, himself with submitting such additional oh
servatins as his lerdshps last note has rendered
sary.
Il tho right, then. claimed by her Nl1jesty's Govern
ment less an inir,ciion II the principles Of pubic ~
and the right Of independent States Than that Of scarch
which Is dselamed
Now. Lord Aberdeen vii remark that me ripht a.
srted by hi, predecessor fyr her Naes.ys Government
Is clear and explicit II IS th. staifd IN Lord Palmers
tuu's note THAT her Mar sys Government have de-
'cided that the flag Of the United States shall excop, no
vessel whether American mol J from search by her
'Macsiys crusers IN the African seas uness such
sci shall he ourd provided with papers emitting her
ic PROTECTOR Of the flag she and proving her To
be tnl'eo States property, and navigating the occan
according TO law" OF what law, however, whether
public municipal his lordshp does notsiate, leaves
II tn he inferred. This doctrine Lord Aberdeen is
dersood 10 affirm. Now. in the first place here ID
iual denial Of the right Of vessels Of the United States 10
navigate the IN time Of peace without being sub
eced 10 detention and nation. aud without proof OF
their being the pppri, 81 aitlzens ot the United States,
and documenied according 10 law, II constitute, the
commandment oi every british cruiser the exclusive
Judge 10 decide whether such vessels IN the language OF
ih'm to the protection OF the fag they wea and proving
then 10 DC n''ed SLATE" property. and navigating the
ocean ace4.5.ng To law" v, mai essential difference
'oen, Is tc ,woen the right Of search in lis harshcs,
IN AMI that Of arrcsng the vessels oi an independent
nation on their voyagc compelling their officers ~ leave
ihcr vessels. and stbcelng thcm and their papers To
the examination and decsion Of every subordinate naval
commander l. 1t moi the right Of placing British crui
any part oi The that her MaJesty's Govern
ment may select and prescribing the terms upon which
other nations 10 participate IN the freedom olhc seas
Is it mol In tf,ct claim Of jurisdiction the whole
ofihe African coasts and seas exclusive that which
could only he enjoy ed within the acknowledged limits OF
local sovereignty TO those questions but one answer
can be given II must - In the affirmative. Bu, 10
what consequences would hot such power lead, IL once
submitted 10 Where would it end If Great Britain
exercise such power why may not other natonsdo
the Same Nhit s there 10 prevent those States,
pecialy. which hive entered into treaties for the ao
ton OF slavery in sbiecng the vessels and
oi the ned STA tcs TO similar interruptions and ombar
EASEMENTS
WHY shonli not IIayt (who has lately been induced
% prohibit tle sa irade) authorize her cruisers fol
low the example at Her Maesiy's Government By
one ol her recent w4 upon the subject, she did
similar right but II afterwards changed at the IN
s'a"e OF Great Br ain upon the ground that nation
bad The right IN m ne of Ia enforce the provisions of
Their laws aud rrs nos against States who par
hes to them, and con sequcnly not bound 10y them. In
the mole addressed hy Tire undersigned Lord Pancsi,n
v.
IN The one b. i.ol Ahc..drcn nuson was made 10 the
proceedings Of Her MAJ siy's Government under which
The llaylian Cove mn mt induced To change their
laws At that tr at least, IL liz presumed Her Nlacs
- Government h nd not determined assert this right
Of dominion over the sra. But again. why might not
the right If search for and descrers and that of
mWssncnt he dt Tended upon the principles Of the pre-
sent claim Let II snpppsed. for purposes OF llustra
ton. that ctcai In tam had entered into treaties with o
ther nannS. by W hlc the right Of search for sramcn or
Ia anf, rlntIo a.
some o the cantrac ting States order ey adc their en-
gagcncnts, should the fraudulent scot the 0aps
ai Luther nations. And suppose also, that, with the view
o enforcing these treat u.s. should b. deemed expcdent
10 assert right oi b brding and examining, upon the
high seas the We sels III nations who had not the right
and were ~" paru ~ to the treaties DOES Lord Aber
de'n or Her Mage sly = Government bceye that such
power would be Ter cd by any independent ation upon
the face Of the - nth And vet what difference would
there he between such and the under consera
ton, except thai the would relate 10 slavery and
the othif To 'mpn ssmenl lsuhlects, probably equal
y important in tho view OF Her MaJcsty's Govern
mcnt.
II was agar the exercise Of any such rphi tina, the
distinguished ursi, 10 whom reference has been mad,
declared (wt list sitting court under the law of ma
ilonS) that no authority could be found which gave any
night Of risi ainn or interruption the vessels and
NAVIGATION {" other States. the high seas except that
winch The II 9ht OF gives begerents against ncu
trails and that Great Britain had no right to force her
way 10 tho filtration Of Africa. by tramplnp upon the
rights and epcnoencc Of other nations Tor any rood
huwcyr rIr mont
pom What principles then, Of public law orof common
ehf ~ Justice. such power that asserted is 10 be
deended or Just fled Her Malestys Government have
not deemed II pedcnt To As yet has been left
to stand for lis whole efficacy upon the grounds OF exped
en'y' The II, 'dcrsgUed must therefore repeat the opn
ION, cNprsd IN his note 10 Lord Aberdeen that there is
no essential difference whatever between the right of
search and that asserted for Her Maestys Govern
nen hut Lord Aberdeen contends that in resisting
th' exercise OF this right in the form whcht has been
made TIC undersigned is necessarily PEELED claim
not only immunity Tor the FLAG of the United States and
all the pratloal adventure who endcavorinp To ST
ter themselves under it, c,t 10 maintain that Great B,;
tain herself would be bound permit her own subjects
with British vessels and British capital to carry ON tho
traffic under their own eyes. provided VS. done under
The fraudulent use OF an American tep. and his lrdshin
orh'r declares that unoss the undersigned is prepared 10
na'nin'" rlr full extent these propositions the " hole
va. Of his argument must fall To the ground
Now, the undersigned htCs observe that Lord Ahcr
deem has greatly misnpprchcud,d the principles aud
gumens contained in the note which he had the honor
addressing Ia his erdship and which it becomes proper
10 sclze the earliest moment OF correcting This the nm
dcrsgned will the more readily do, because he is per
suaded from the spirit in which Lord hberdeens NOT,
is written that he will take pleasure rectirr nm,
msaPprchenson into which he may unintent ,nay hay
been drawn Indeed. the undersigned have express
ed himself very mprrlectly, II. in downing the cht
interfering with vessels under the American FLAG he di,
not convey the opinion that he intended 10 limit his oh
lecton 10 vessels bona 6de American and not to thos
belonging Ia nations who might 1udulcnty have assum
ed the flag of the ntca States With the vessels
other nations, whether sailing under their o"nor anothe