The daily Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1841-1845, 1843-03-04
THE " PEELERSn AND THE RIGHT OF VS.
rrATION.

As he who tells one falsehood often finds il neces-
sary to tell many others to sustain II, SO Is 1t with
him who commits himself 10 the cause Of spurious
principle. Let a writer, for instance, say daily
Journalist, either in the proiundi,y of his ignorance,
the absence of his patriotism, the pienitude OF
malignant purpose, TO oppose on all practicable occa-
sons, the views and opinions of certain others-let
him. for either all of these reasons, commit him.
self against his own country and Government, IN
any controversy with foreign nation, and to be con-
sstent with himself, he will not untrequently lind
himself compelled to repeat his sophstry, his heresy
his nonsense and the exhibition of feeling adverse
to the honor OF his country, far that may hap
pen to be involved. Such is eminently the case OF
those among ourselves who have flung themselves in
to the Of Sir Robert Peel, that they might i'm
bibe his views and sentiments in respect TO what he
considers the right of vsitat,op; who retail their
own those views aud sentiments at second hand, and
who while doing this, affirm their own independence
and originality OF thought and charge those holding
adverse opinions with the mental imbecility and want
of patriotism and Independence which their stolen
ideas and borrowed language prove upon them
selves. TO wait for the " cue" TO be given from
some revered quarter, is their common practice and
this being known of them by the public, they would
fain, like the fox that bad lost his caudal extrem-
ty, bring others into the category But they
expend their efforts in vain, and waste their small
matter of strength to no purpose. We might per-
haps be content with the views already expressed
touching the British claim to the right of search
der the name of visitation but something farther
seems necessary seeing that even members of Con-
gress, such MIR. Everett, found endeayorng TO
put their own government, and their country re-
presented by it, in the wrong. They contend that
unless Sir Robert Peel's visitation claim be allowed
the slave trade cannot be put down. Do they not
know that all maritime nations our amongst
them, possess and have exercised this right We
stated this substantially in the conclusion Of former
article and that England standing in this respect on
an equal footing with other independent nations, we
,y,a, "A bar W. Il
nothing more ourselves and having equal maritime
rights with her, we unwilling TO concede the
perority which is the ultimate end and aim Of her
pretensons. Her cruisers, and tco, may
visit any vessel they may suspect or fit TO suspect
of piracy slave trading, any otter illegal traffic
practice but they must do it under known RESPONSE
by. Should the visited and detained vessel prove
honest and reparaton be demanded its refusal would
be held sufficient ground for national quarrel. Ho
nest visits, however, have been allowed by comfy,
and demands for rcpardtion have only been made in
cass of abuse and injury and certainly, so far as
putting down the slave trade is concerned neither
nor England need any powers rights in addition to
what we ,njoy in common. Touching the res ponsl-
bty under which national vessels act in visiting
vessels al sea, having referred to II day two
since, shall not be suspected of stealing the idea
while borrowing the language OF Mr.. Cushing, since
uttered the floor of the House of Representatives
He supposes British cruiser to encounter upon the
ocean anywhere the claim is not limited TO any sea ,
or part of the ocean, vessel with the American
flag her mast head, and proceeds thus to the con-
cluson Of his admirable speech on the subject -
He (the CRUISER thereupon came on board Of
her But how As an American vessel Not at
all. That he expressly disavowed having any right
TO do. As American, he pretended to no right to
put his foot upon her deck but, a British vessel
or Austrian, a Spanish Portuguese vessel
pirate. But IL, after entering the vessel, he
should discover her TO be bona fde American ship
then he would have committed an aggression upon
the United States Government and nation. He en-
tered the vessel at his peril and, if he transgressed
he owed reparaton TO the violated rights of her ma
ton, and PREPARATION, If demanded, must be made by
him or his Government
Now Mr.. C. would ask, he would put it TO the
common sense Of all men-was this right a right
Of search right OF visitation No; it was mol right
at all instead of a right, 1t was a risk-a RESPONSE
bility-a hazardous adventure For, let the purpose
Of her voyage be lawful not if he bad gone whore
he had no right TO 90, he was guilty Of a national
aggression on the floating territory Of the United
States
These were the views Mr.. G. entertained on the
subject Of dispute, and by which he was prepared to
live and die, IN peace or in He would concede
10 government under heaven, friend or foe, the
right Of visiting and searching the vessels Of the Uni
ted States. And he would here say, what he beliey-
ed that IL the admiralty Of Great Britain should give
orders to her cruisers to attempt the exercise Of such
a right it would be an aggression upon the American
Cove fnment and people and, further, il what he
should here cay might be considered as having any
weight and 10 be criticised either here or else
where he desired that that should be the understand
ing between the two Governments"