Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1841-12-16

to law. Ii constitutes the commandment Of every Br
fish cruiser the exclusive Judge to decide whether sue
vessels in the language of his orJshp, be p-opertyPro
eided acith papers eatng item to tie protection Q
The flag they rear and prcring sm 10 he initial STATE
property, and navigating the according tAlaar
What essential difference, then, is there betwe1n tht
right of search, its harshes ton and that oil arrest
ing the evils OF independent nation on their voyage
compelling their officers TO leave their vessels, anu SUB
iecting them and their papers TO the examination ane
decision of every subordinate naval COMMANDER: Il
the e' ocean es hat her M"esys may
and prescribing the tefs upon Slher nations are
TO participate the freedom OF the seas2 Is not, IN
effect claim of jurisdiction the whole oil The Al
rcan coasts and seas as exclusive That which could
only be enjoyed within the acknowledged limits OF loca
sovereignty, To these questions but one answer can
be given 1t must be in the affirmative But Ia what
would not such power lead, once sub
mitted TO Where would IL end /: If Great Eritain
can exercise such power, why may not other nations
do the same What is there to prevent those States,
especially which have entered into treaties for The abo-
on of slavery, from subjecting the vessels and com.
Of the United States to similar interruptions anu
embarrassments
Why should not Hayti (who hasl;Stsy been induced
to prohibit the slave trade) authorize cruisers to .o!-
low the example of Her Maesys vbvernment' BY
Of her recent laws upon the subeS she oa assert
similar right; but it was afterwards cSangeo, at the
ton had the right in time of peace TO enforce inc proV-
sons of their laws and treaties against States who were
not parties TO them, and consequently not bound by
them In the note addressed by the to Lord
Palmerston under date of the 21th rep aha re-
erred TO in c one to Lord Aberdeen, ausion was made
to the proceedings of Her Majestys Government, un
der which the Haytien Government were induced 10
change their laws. AT that time at least It is presumed
Her Nlajestys Government had pot determined 10
assert this ,ipht of dominion over the sea, But,
AGAIN. why might not the right Of search for seamen
and deserters and that Of mpressment, be defended
upon the principles Of the present claim Let DC sup
posed for purposes oflusraton that Great Britain %
entered into treaties with other nations, by Ehic q,
right of search for seamen or deserteTs was 60 :.
The vessels of each other, and that some Of .ne eo,
tracing States, in order 10 evade their
should resort to the fraudulent use OF III ~ % NJ On
nations And suppose, also, that T'ti 'ne VT =. ~
forcing these treaties, IT should &c mnon The
Lah sons The vessels Of nnons WHO had not
ed the right and were not parties 10 Inc 'reates Does
Lord Aberdeen or Her Majesty government oei'eve
lint sncb mower would be tolerated any incePend-
or1 n,1;on unoa the face Of the earl And ~, what
dfarsnce would there be between such cas- had the
one under considerations except that the one ond re-
late TO slavery, and the other to mpressmes--sno-
ects probably, equally important III the we" o' i'ei
Mniesty's Government
Ii was against the exercise OF any such right that the
urst to whom reference has been made
declared, whilst sitting court under the low OF ma
tions,) "that no authority could be found when gave
any right of visitation interruption over The vessels
and navigation ofoher States on The high seas except
that which the right of war gives to begerens against
neutras: and that Great Britain had right 10 force
her way to the liberation Of Africa by trampng upon
the rights and independence Of other nations, tor any
good, however eminent.
Upon what principles, then, Of public law or OF COM
mon right justice, such power as that now assert
ed is TO be defended justified, Her NlaJes'yls 90
yernment have not deemed it exPedent to slu'e. AS
vet, it has been left to stand for lis WHOLE elhcacy
upon the grounds of expediency. The unaefhlgnen
must therefore repeat the OPINION, expressed IN ms
note to Lord Aberdeen that there is no essential differ
ence whatever between the right of search and that
now asserted for Her Majesiys Government But
Lord Aberdeen contends that IN resisting the exer-
else of this right in the form in which has been made,
the undersigned is necessarily compelled 10 c', hol
only immunity for the flag Of the u s. and all the pr
ratca Adventures who endeavoring TO shelter
themselves under it, but TO MAINTAIN that Great bri
tain herself would be bound 10 permit her own SUBJECTS
with British vessels and British capital to carry on
their traffic under their own eyes, provided IL was aone
nnder The fraudulent use Of American flag and his
ordship further Declares that unless the undersigned
nrepared to maintain to their fall extent these PROPOSE
tons the whole fabric Of his argument must al to the
ground.
Now the undersigned begs to obfcrve that Lord Alb,
erdeen has greatly Inexperienced the principles and
arguments contained in the note winch ne had The non
proper to seize The earliest moHtn correcting This
the undersigned will the morcleaxy do because he IS
persuaded from the spirit in tvheh Lord Aberdeen
note is written that lie will a pleasure IN correcting
any msapprehension into whJ, he may unin,entional-
~ have been drawn Indeed the undersigned must have
expressed himself very niPe1ee'ly II, IN denying the
right ofnererng with vessels under the American nag
he did not convey the opinion that he intendeu 10 MS
affection to vessels bona file Anecan and not to those
ti,.n,, :. might T-...Il-.i,- have 90
snmed the flag OF the United States. With The vessels
of other nations, whether sailing under their own or ano
Their flag, the Governmen Of the U. 5. can have no
authority or desire TO interfere. The undersigned there
FORE did not mean TO be understood denying TO Great
Britain, any other nation, the right of selling
their vessels Furnishing their subjects for any viola
ton their laws treaties, provided however, 1t should
be done without violating the principles Of public
law or the rights of other nations. Nor are such the
consequences which can fairly be deduccd from the
argument which he had the honor OF addressing to
Lord Aberdeen, and which his lordship seems so
greatly TO have misapprehended Great Britain has
the undoubted right and have all other nations, to
detan and examine the vessels of their own Subjects
whether slayers or not and whether with or without
flag purportins 10 be ,hrt Of the IT, S; but in doing
this il must be borne in mind that they have no color
of right, nor will they be permitted TO extend such in
reference 10 The vessels citizens ofhe u s. sailing
under the projection oc The flag of their country
If Great Britain any other nation cannot re-
strain the slave traffic Of their own people upon the
ocean without violating the rights OF other nations and
the freedom OF lne seas lHueeo,
which Lord Aberdeen speaks, will take place. This
may be deplored, but il cannot be avoided But Lord
Aberdeen asserts that l. has been the invarable prac
tice of the British Maryland he believes of all the nu
yies in the world asAr,a by visit the real charac
ter of merchant vessels met with on the high seas if
there be good TO spPrehend their illegal carac
ter. Now, the undersigned must be excused for doubt
ing whether any such FSactce as that which Lord A.
snpposes certainly not To the extent now claimed, has
ever prevailed in time sf peace. In The right of
visitation is prucsed, under the limitations authorized
by the laws of nations, but not in peace What other
nation than Great Britain has asserted or at
tempted to exercise III None, it is believed. There
is another misapprehenson aso into which Lord Aber
deem seems to have fallen that it may be important to
correct II relates to m admission which his lordship
supposes the undersigned 70 have made rs TO the ex-
tent of the abuse of the American flag for purposes OF
slave traffic. Now, the undersigned would submit,
that he did no, intend to express, nor did he any OPT
Mon as to the extent TO which the dag Of the U. S.
was abused by other nations. So far from it, he ex
pressy stated Lord Aberdeen will perceive by refer
ence to his note, that neither he nor his Government
had the means of forming any opinion upon the sub.