The daily Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1841-1845, 1843-03-01
From the Baltimore .9merican.
THE RIGHT OF VISITATION.

The eighth article of the treaty lately concluded
between the United States and Great Britain relates
to the subject of the slave trade and is couched in
the following words
"The parties mutually stpulate that each shall
prepare, equip, and maintain service on the coast
of Africa sufficient and adequate squadron, or ma
val force of vessels OF suitable numbers and descrip
on to carry in all not less than eighty guns to en-
force separately and respectively the laws rights and
obligations of each of the two countries for the sup
preston Of the slaverade the said squadrons to be
independent of each other, but the two Governments
stpulang, nevertheless, TO give such orders to the
officers commanding their respective forces as shall
enable them most etiectually to act in concert and
cooperation, upon mutual consultation, as exigen-
cies may arise, for the attainment Of the true object
of this article copies Of all such orders be com.
municated by each Government 10 the other respec-
lively"
1t is somewhat difficult 10 ascertain The precise
point of difference between the understanding of the
treaty this point expressed by the President OF
the United States, and the views entertained by Sir
Robert Peel. Most certainly, any claim advanced by
Lord Pamerston and his successor TO any right of
search or of visitation respect to American vessels
is here virtually eected-none at least is recognized
The National Intelgencer of Friday has the follow
ing
1.-THE misunderstanding as to the effect Of the
Treaty in the particular referred to- can only arise
IL
on the subject will for moment suppose that we
have undertaken TO spula,e for the abolition of the
right of riSi, without the existence OF which the
oce an would become wide scene of piracy plum
der, and smuggling The right Of visit for the pur-
pose Of asceraining whether national flag be true
flag or only fraud upon the nation whose flag il
pretends TO be, is necessary TO the protection and
safety Of all navigation on any The right of vi.
sit in the limited sense in which we are speaking of
it, has been always exercised by the vessels of war of
the United States, and Of necessity must have been
or our vessels of would have sailed the seas dly
and without the power of exercising single attribute
of the nationality whose emblem floats at their m asst
head
As to the ordinary customs aud oourtesies of the
sea, existing by general consent and understanding
these could not have been meant by the British Min
listers when they wished the United States TO become
n party to the Quintuple Treaty. For there would
be no need Of express and positive stipuaons to Sc
cure privileges already possessed and exercised 1t
is well known that In that treaty the limits were de-
sgnated within which the rights proposed TO be con-
ceded TO be exercised and that these limits in
cuded Southern coast, the West Indian seas, the
coast Of South America and the intermediate waters
as far the coast Of Africa and considerably below
the Cape Of Good Hope-embracng in fact the space
in which nearly all our commerce is carried on ex-
cepting the direct trade between our more northern
ports and Europe In urging that treaty upon us il
Palmerston and Aberdeen both maintained that the
right demanded was not the right Of search, but Of
visitation for the purpose Of testing nationality and
that Mr. Stevenson commended against the admission
Of any such discrimination
The United States did not become party to that
treaty nor in the treaty concluded at Washington
there any admission Of the claims advanced in the
previous discussions on the subeci. II is then ma
tural inquiry to ask-what right Of visitation is il that
Sir Rober, Peel refers to- Ifhe mean nothing more
than the right possessed under the laws Of nations and
exercised in courtesy by the national vessels Of all
countries II may be asked why should that be brought
into dispute The conditions upon which that usage
exists well known. For every abuse Of the ag-
gressor is responsible. There need be treaty sti-
pula,ions about it. But the impression on our own
minds has been that the British Government was seek
ing something than thiselse why the formali,y
Of treaty to bind by express stpulations The Uni
ted States Government has not commended for the abo-
ltion Of the right Of visit IT has hitherto existed
under the laws and usages Of nations-but against
conceding any right beyond that