Daily Richmond Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1840-1842, 1841-12-16
NATIONAL CoRREsPoNDENCE.
IcoscLupEp.I
MR.. STEVENSON To LORD ABERDEES

the note which Lord Aberdeen. Her Maiesiy's Pm
eip,I Secretary OF State for Foreign Affairs did him
the honor 10 address him. under date of the 18th
instant in answer to the from the undcrsis ned
of the 10Th of September, relative to the visitation
and interruption to which the vessels and commerce
of the United States have been subjected by British
eru,sers IN tho African seas, and which has been
made the subject Of complaint TO Her Maiesty's
Government; aud, having considered with the Mt
tention when their importance merits, the argu-
ments presented by Lord Aberdeen's note, the un-
designed has the honor To submit to his Lord
.hips consideration the observations which he feels
himself called upon to make.
Before proceeding to do SO however, the under.
signed will take occasion to remark that he shares
fully IN the opinion OF Lord Aberdeen as to the
importance of avoiding, in the discussion of grave
questions OF national character, every thing cal
culated to embarrass throw difficulties the way
of impartial and dispssslonate consideration. The
thcr store, with great sincerity assures
Lord Aberdeen Of the readiness and zeal with
which ne is sposed to conduct the negotiations be-
tween the two countries on his part, IN mlnne r
the most concatory and best calculated to preserve
peace; and that he should equally depiore with
Lord aberdeen that any harShncss or aSperty Of
exoressiou should be suffered TO minge IN the dis
cussion of question Involving national sensibity
OF feeling, and so Liable, as his lordship justly sup
poses, to produce excitement and irritation. He
begs ord Aberdeen, therefore, TO believe that II is
under the Influence Of such feelings, and with the
most perfect respect both Tor himself and Tor Her
MAiesty's Government, that he now proceeds to re
py To those % rts OF his lordShlp's note which he
deems II his duty to notice.
To enable nun TO DO this II may be important 10
ascertain what is the real question At issue between
the two nments, and the precise nature of the
power asserted by her Mliesty's Government over
the vessels and commerce OF the United States. 1t
may be thus orithy stated:
The Government OF Great Britain, with that Of
other Nations regarding the African slave trade as
a great evil united in measures for its abolition.
For that purpose laws passed and treaties con-
rIujed irving 10 the vessels OF each OF the contract
ing parties the mutual right Of search, under GER
tain limitations. Independent of these treaties, and
under the PRINCIPLES OF public law, this right Of
search could not be exercised. The United States
were invited to become party TO these treaties
but for which they deemed satisfactory. and
growing out of the peculiar character OF their insti-
buttons and systems of Government, they declined
doing so. They deemed It ineXpedient. under any
modification or IN any form, 10 yield the right OF
having their vessels searched or lnierfered win in
time OF peace, the high seas. With the story
of the negotiations which took place the subject
between the two Governments, Lord A erdsen is
doubtless informed. In the mean time, some OF
the Powers who were parties TO these treaties, and
others VINO refused TO become so, continued tn
prosecute their slave traffic and In enable them 10
do so with more effect, they resorted the use OF
the Gags OF oihes nations, but more particularly
that OF me Uni,ed States. To prevent this, and
enforce her treaties, Great Britain deemed II I'M
por,ant that her cruisers in the African should
navigating those seas for the purpose OF asceTtnnng
their national character. Against this practice the
Government OF the United States protested, and the
numerous cases OF which the present discussion
has arisen became subjects OF complaint and ncgo-
,iaton between the two Governments, Her Ma
iesty's Government, however, having refused TO
make reparatIon IN any Of the cases, and stl as
serting the right Of her cruisers 70 continue the
practice OF OBTAINING and eKaminry ell vessels on
Ihe coas Is and IN the African seas 1t becomes i'm
mi an
right thus claimed should be clearly ascertalned.
In the last note which the undersigned had the
honor OF addressing TO Lord Aberdeen he attempted
10 show in the frst place, that the right asserted
by Her Maiesty's Government, in Lord PGimCrs-
.on's note OF the 9th OF August was substantially
right OF search and IN the next place, that It II
was not still the right OF interference IN the manner
asserted with the vessels or flags of other nations,
not parties 10 these treaties, was not less unlawful
and unustifable.
Now, Lord Aberdeen dsclaims the right OF search |
ng American vessels upon the high seas, and adj
mits that do would be gross inlsacIion Of the
public law, and violation OF national sovereignty
and independence. But his oTdshIp contends that,
in requiring vessels sailing under the flag Of the U.
States TO submit 10 the operation OF examination. in
he manner and for the objects proposed by his Go
Sernmeni, there would be no violation OF national |
tights or honor and consequently, nothing TO which |
he Government of the United States ought right |
uly TO Object Upon this branch of the subject the
Undersigned does intend to repeat the arguments
.ontained in his previous correspondence with Her
Aaiesty's late Principal Secretary OF State for For
ign Affairs. Referring Lord Aberdeen to that cor
es pondence. he will content himself with submit
ing such additional observations as his IoTtshIP's |
asst note has rendered necessary.
Is the right, then, claimed by Her Majesty's Co.
Ternmert less infractIon OF the principles ofPub.
ic law and the rights of independent States than
nat Of search, which is dlscaimsdl
Now, Lord Aberdeen will remark, that the right
sserted 10y his predecessor for her Majesty's Go.
'ernment IS clear and explicit j. is thus stated IN
ord Palmerston's note: "rhat hGr Malssty's Co
yernmen: have decided that he lag of the United
States shall exemp, no vessel (whethcr American
1r no from search by her Maesty's cruisers IN the
AfrIcan seas, unless such vessel shl, be found piO-
yiJod with papers emitting her 10 the protection Of
he hig she wears, and proving her TO be United
States property, and navigating the ocean accord
ng 70 law" OF what law, however, whether PUB.
ic or municipal his Ordship does not state, but
caves IL "a be Inferred This doctrine Lord Aber.
zen is understood TO affirm. Now, N the hrst
lace, here - an actual denial Of the right Of YES
els OF the United States 10 navigate the oceIn IN
ifne Of peace without being subjected 20 detention
nd examination, and wi hout proof Of their being
he property Of citizens Of the United States, and
according 10 law. IL constitutes the
OF every British cruiser the * usiye
Judge 10 decide whether such vessels, in the Ian
uage Of his lDrGshiP, be properly provided with
ap.rs emitting them 10 the protection Of the n z
hey wear, and proving them u he Unrcd State
aw." Whit essential difference, then, IS there be
" cen the rght Of search IN its harshest form, and
hat NJ arresiIng the vessels Of an independent ma
ion or their voyage, compelling their officers %
cave their vessels, and sUbjcctng them and their
,apers 70 the examination and decision Of every
ubordinate naval commander is II not the right
placing British cruisers on any part o. the ocean
hat her Maiesiy's Government may select, and
the terms upon which other nations are
o participate in the freedom of the seasl Is Il not
n effect, q claim Of Iur1d.etion over ths whole o.
he African COSTS and seas, as eGClu i've as tsat
which could only be enjoyed within the nckngv-
edged limits Of local sovereign'y2 To ihs se quss-
ions but one answer can hc gwen. !. must be IN
he Affirmative. But 10 what cons gusnces would ,
not such n power cad, n once suDmtted to7--
Where would it endl lf Great British can s1sr.
se such power. why lnoy not other nations DO |
he same1 What Is there TO prevent those States /
specially which have entered into treaties for the
,bolit,on Of slavery from subjecing the vessels and
commerce OF the United States 10 similar Interrupt
lions and embarrassments1
Why should not Hayu twho has 'a,ely been ir- |
iuced to prohiDi, the slave uldo authorize her cru.
isrs 10 follow the 'Kimpc Of Her Msjssty's Gov.
,rnment1 BY one Of her recent laws upon the SUBJ
rect did INSERT similar right; but Il after.
wards changed, NJ the instance Of Great Britain
upon the ground that nation had the right in time
of peace to enforce the provisions Of their avs and
treaties nginst States Who were not parties 20 them
q ~ consequently not bound by them. In the note
addressed by tho undersigned 10 lord Pnlmerston
under date OF the 9th Of February, ls4l and refer
red 10 in The one TO Lord Aberdeen, aIIusion was
made 70 the proceedings Of Her Molesty's Govern.
rnent, under which the Haytian Government were
induced 20 change their laws. Atthat time al least
b is presumed, Her Mai .sly's Government had not
determined 10 assert this right Of dominion over the
49,, Bot again. why might not the right OF search
a 81 "a. rTt