Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1842-05-02
MISCELLANY.
LORD ABERDEEN'S REPLY TO THE
NOTE OF MR.. STEVENSON.

Ahe IoHoWlhg u copy OF the reply add Tessed
by the Ear OF Aberdeen to Mr.. Everett, the sue
cessor Of Mr.. Stevenson, as American Minister in
this country:
1.-The Undersigned, &c. has The honor of nd
dressing to Mr.. Everett, &C. the observations
which he feels called upon to make in answer TO
the note OF MIR. Stevenson, dated Oh tho 2Ist of
October.
AS that communication only reached the hands
OF the undersigned on the day after the departure
of MIR. Stevenson from London on his return TO
America, and as there has since been no Minister
OF Charge d. Afiaires from the United States resi-
dent IN this country the undersigned has looked
with some anxiety for the arrival of Mr.. Everett
IN order that he might be enabled to renew his di-
plomatc intercourse with an accredited represen-
tive Of the republic, Had the undersigned enter
tanned no other purpose Than TO controvert the
arguments OF MIR. Stevenson, or to lortify his own
III treating OF the matter which has formed tho
subject OF their correspondence, he would hive
experienced little Impotence; but as it is his de-
sire to cleur up doubt and TO remove nisapDre-
heIlslon, he feels that he cannot too early aynil
himself of the presence of M. Everett at his uost
To bring TO his knowledge the true state of the
question at issue.
The undersigned agrees with Mr.. Stevenson
III the Importance of arriving at clear under
standing OF the matter really in dispute This
ought TO be The first object in the differences of
states as well as of individuals and happily il is
often the first step to the reconciliation Of The pur-
ties In the present case this understanding is
doubly essential, because a continuance Of ms
take and error may be productive of the mos, sc.
rlous consequences.
Mr.. stevenson persists in cOniending that The
British Government assert II right which is equiv.
alent to the claim OF searching American vessels
III time OF peace. IN proof of this Mr.. Steven
son refers To passage IN former note of Wis.
count Pamerston, addressed to himself apninst
winch he strongly protests, and the doctrine con-
tanned in which he says that the undersigned is
understood to affirm.
"New, it is not The intention of the unJers;gn.
ed TO inquire into the precise import and force of
the expressions OF Vlscount Pamerston. These
might have been easily explained to Mr.. Steven
son ny their author al the time they we're written;
but The undersigned must request that his doc
trlne upon this subject, and those OF the Govern
ment ot which he Is the organ, may he judged OF
exclusively from his own declarations
80 he undersigned again renounces, as he has
already done, IN the most explicit terms, any right
on the part OF the British government TO search
American vessels in Time OF peace. The rich, of
search, except when specially conceded by treaty.
Is purely beigsrenl right, and can have no ex.
istence on the high seas during peace. The I'M
ue's'g"eu apprehends however, that the right of
search 10 not confined to the verificaion of the
nationality OF the vessel, but also extends TO the
object OF the voyage and the nature of the cargo.
Inc sole purpose of the British cruisers il 10 MS
certain whether the vessels they meet with are re-
ally American or not. The right asserted has. in
truth, no resemblance to tho right of search eth.
CT III principle or IN practice. 1t is simply right
10 sailsfy the party who has legitimate right ia
knowing the Truth that the vessel actually Is what
her colors announce This right we concede ne
freely as we exercise. The British cruisers are
not instructed 10 delain American vessels under
any circumstances whatever; on the contrary
'ney are ordered TO abstain from all Interference
WIN 'hehi, Dc lhey slavers or otherwise. Bu,
where reasonable suspicion exists tina, the Amsri.
can flag has been abused for the purpose of Gov
ering The vessel OF another nation il would nppear
scarcely credible had 1t not been made nanifest
ny 'he repeated proestations of their representa-
upe, That the government of the United States.
"nich has stgmalized and abolished the trade il
sell, should object TO the adoption of such means
the truth. "s
The undersigned had contended in his former
note That The legitimate inference from the arpu.
mems OF MIR. Stevenson would practically extend
even 10 the sanction of piracy, when the persons
engaged IN should think fit to shelter The inselyes
under the flag of the United States Nj. Steven.
son observes that this is a misapprsbension an Tho
part OF me undersigned and he declares that in
aenying the RICH, Of interfering with vessels I'M
ger me American flag he intended to limit his OBJ
JocuoIs 10 vessels bona fde American, and not to
those belonging 10 nations who might fraudulent
nave assumed the flag of the United States
Dul II appears to the undersigned that his former
s'a9'nei' Is ny no means satisfactorily controyer-
ted ny the declaration OF Mr. Stevenson. How is
Tins bona tde 10 be proved Must not Mr.. Sic.
venson either be prepared to maintain that the
nag alone Is sufficient evidence Of The na,ionnli,v
OF the vessel, which, in the face of his own re-.
pealed admissions, he cannot do or must he nor
confess that the application of his arguments
would really afford protection to every lawless and
piraIica enterprise
"The undersigned had also expressed his belief
that the practice was general of aseertaining, by
visit, the character Of any vessel on the high seas
against which there should exist reasonable ground
Of suspicion, Mr.. Stevenson denies this, and he
asks what other nation than Great Britain has ey-
er asserted or attempted TO exercise such right?
In answer TO this question, the undersigned can at
once refer TO the avowed and constant practice of
the United States, whose cruisers, especially in
the Gulf of Mexico by the admission oftheir pub
no journals, are VIGOROUSLY in the habit of exam
in'hg all suspicious vessels, whether sailing under