, 1842-01-08

III lie hiTlCdl SSuS SllOuiu hdNC luc llS!ll Ol
OBTAINING and examining all vessels naviga.
ting those seas, for the purpose of ascertain
ing their national character. Against this
practice the Government of the United States
protested, and the numerous cases out OF
which the present discussion has arisen, be-
came subjects of complaint and negotiation
between the two Governments. Her Ma
jesty's Government, however,, having refu-
sed to make reparation in any of the cases,
and still asserting the right of her cruisers
10 continue the practice of OBTAINING and ex-
aiming all vessels on the coasts and in the
African seas, it becomes important that the
precise character and extent Of the right
thus claimed should be clearly ascertained.-
In the last note which the undersigned had
The honor of addressing 10 Lord Aberdeen.
he attempted 10 show, in the first place, that
the right asserted by her Majesty's Govern
ment. in Lord Palmerston's note of the eth
OF August, was substantially a right of search:
and in the next place, that, if it was not. still
the right of interference in the manner as
serted, with the vessels or flags Of other ma
tons, not parties 10 these treaties, was not
less unlawful and uniustifiable.
Now, Lord Aberdeen dIsclaims the right
OF searching American vessels upon the high
seas, and admits that to do so would be q
gross lnt action of the public law. and a vio-
Iation of national sovereignty and independ-
ence. But his Lordship contends that. in re-
qulrIng vessels sailing under the flag Of the
United States. to submit to the operation
OF examination. in the manner and for the
objects proposed by his Government. there
would be no violation of national rights or
honor. and, consequently. nothing to which
the Government oil the United States ought
rightfully to object. Upon this branch of
the subject the undersigned does not intend
TO repeat the arguments contained in his
previous correspondence with her Maiestv's
late Principal Secretary of State for Foreign
Affairs. Referring Lord Aberdeen to that
correspondence. he will conten, himself with
submitting such additional observations rs
his lordship's last note has rendered neccssa.
nv.
Is the right, then, claimed bv her Males
tvs Government less than an inlraction of
the principles of public law and the rights
of independent St"tes than that Of search,
which is disclaired?
Now. Lord Aberdeen will remark that the
right asserted by his predecessor for her
Majesly's Government is clear and explicit.
Ii is thus stated in Lord Palmerston's note:
THAT her Maiesty's Government have de-
cided that the flag Of the United Stntes shall
exempt no vessel whether American or mott
from search by her Majesty's cruisers in the
African seas, unless such vessel shall be found
provided with papers emitting her TO the
protection Of the flag she wears. and prov
80, -. ., L. IT,it.l S.,,o. ,r,,or, al
navigating the ocean according TO law OF
what law. however. whether public or NUM-
cipal, his lordship does not state, but leaves
10 he inferred.
This doctrine Lord Aberdeen is under
stood TO affirm. Now, in the first place.
here is an actual denial of the right of YES
sells Of the United States to navigate the
ocean in time of peace, without being sub
jected TO detention and examination, and
without proof OF their being the property Of
citizens OF the United States, and documen-
ted according TO law. 1t constitutes the
commandant of every British cruiser the ex-
elusive Judge TO decide whether such vessels.
in the language Of his lordship, be '.prOperly
prorided Nth papers emitting them TO the pro-
lection Of the far they uear, and proring them
10 be United States property, and navigating
the ocean according to lap." What essen
tial difference, then. is there between the
right of search, in its harshest form, and that
of arresting the vessels of an independent
nation on their voyage, compelling their Of
fcers to leave their vessels, and subjecting
them and their papers to the examination
and decision of every subordinate comman-
der! Is it not the right of placing British
cruisers on any part of the ocean that her
Maiessty's Government may select, and pre-
scribing the terms upon which other nations
are to participate in the freedom of the seas?
Is it not, in effect, a claim of jurisdiction
over the whole of the African coasts and
seas, as exclusive as that which could only
be enioyed within the acknowledged limits
of local sovereignty? To these questions
but one answer can be given. 1t must be
in the affirmative. But to what consequences
would not such power lead, if once submit
ted TO? Where would it end? If Great Brl.
tain can exercise such power, why may not
other nations do the same? What is there
10 prevent those States, especially, which
have entered into treaties for the abolition
of slavery, from subjecting the vessels and
commerce of the United States to similar IN
uu,ns and emharrassments2