The daily Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1841-1845, 1843-02-25
OPINIONS OF THE PRESS.
From the Philadelphia Ledger.
THE RIGHT OF VISIT AND THE RIGHT OF
SEARCH

III
mons, Sir Robert Peel makes serious complaint
against Our Government, for refusing to submit to
the British claim Of search Is very erroneous
y called, the right Of search. He totally dissents
from the doctrines proclaimed upon the subject in the
Presidents message at the Of the pre-
sent session; and though he treats our Government
very courteously in terms, he intimates that those
doctrines not those which previous negotiations
with our Government had led him to expect And
he makes distinction between the right OF search
and the right of risitaiion, which may seem to
of our readers. He says that the right of search
is belgerent right and therefore can be exercised
only during war and as he does not define its ex-
tent suppose that he would extend it, in confor-
nifty with the practice of the British Government, to
search of neutral vessels for British and the
property OF enemies But the right of visitation, he
says, the right to ascertain the character and den-
tity OF . vessel to ascertain il it belong TO the
ton whose flag it bears. He utterly disclaims the
right of search with respect to American vessels,
though, understand this disclaimer, it extends
only to period of peace; for he says that as bel
ligerent right, it cannot be exercised in peace,
cepting by treaty, and extends TO both vessel and
cargo. From this we infer that he does not disclaim
the right to search American vessels in time of
This distinction is not perfectly clear and would,
we believe be very much COMPOUNDED by the COM
manders of British cruisers Thus he says that the
right of search extends to the cargo; which means
that if the cargo under the American flag were not
American property, the flag could not protect it but
suppose vessel is found on the coast of
Aft lea under the American flag. Sir Robert Peel
claims the right TO ascertain if it be an American YES
sell II it be, though furnished with every prepara-
ton for the abomnabe slave trade cannot be detan
ed the cargo of preparations and merchandise for
the trade, be moested; but it, though under the Amer
flag, it belong to any other nation, may be cap
tured, or the cargo may be seized. And who is TO
judge about the identity of the vessel or the objects
of its CARGO The British commander And II he
should undertake to decide that the vessel Portu-
guese, though every thing proved il to be American
TO decide that the cargo designed for the slave
trade, though it we're shipped for no such purpose
and under such decsisn should detan the vessel the
right Of visitation and the right of search would be
rather efectually COMPOUNDED, and the former would
be converted ilto the latter. And il this right of
ristation yielded by us, its conversion into the
belligerent right of search, by British cruisers would
be continual. Our commerce. would be entirely at
the mercy of British naval officers, who, like most
naval oficers, even our own, are not too scrupuous
about RIGHT when in pursuit of prize money.
But the right which Sir Robert Peel claims as de-
fined in his speech, has no legal foundation He
bases upon a mere assumption which will not en-
dure scrutiny. He says: "Thc right claim, is TO
know whether vessel pretending TO be American,
and hosting the American flag, be bona fde Ameri-
can the right to know whether grievous wrong has
not been offered to the American Hag to know, for
instance, whether Portuguese Brazilian scboop-
er, sailing under the American flag, be really what
she seems TO be- II we admit Sir Robert Feels
premises, his conclusion is correct IL he have the
right TO know whether the American flag is violated
not, he has this right OF visitation but we deny
his premises, and consequently his conclusions. We
deny that he has any right to know any thing about
wrongs to the American flag, excepting in the case
OF piracy. Have We constituted the British navy
our police, TO take OF our ships upon the high
way of nationsf Have invested il with the pow
er Of Furnishing wrongs 10 our flag Certainly not
If our flag has been violated, we, and alone have
the right to punish the volators. We are compe-
tent TO indicate its honor and safety and have not
yet delegated, and probably shall delegate 10 any
other nation, the guardianship of our honor, or
the right TO punish those amenable TO our own laws
We were the first nation that denounced the slave
trade as piracy, and passed laws to punish pirates
our own citizens concerned in it. And having done
this, we shall execute our own laws and shall not
probably ask another nation TO execute them for u.s.
When concede to other nations the right TO
punish our own citizens for violating our own laws,
II will be time enough for the British government to
claim the right OF investigating wrongs to flag
Then WHIT If British cruisers do find the ships of
other nations abusing our flag They have no right
of interference in the case. Sir Robert Peel will
say that having made treaties with Portugal and Bra
I'll for the suppression Of the slave trade the British
government has right to punish Portuguese and
Brszans who conduct such traffic under the Ameri-
can flag This does not follow, and therefore we
deny II. Under such treaties, the British may have
the right to punish Portuguese and Brazilans who con-
duct the slave trade under the British, or their re-
spective flags, the flags Of each other. But their
abuse Of the American flag is quite another point,
about which we have the sole right of inquiry.
Sir Robert Peel expresses his surprise at us for
denying this right to the British, when we exercise
II for the viDd,caon of our own laws Thus he saws
that we clam the right TO visit any vessel under
foreign flag, for the protection Of revenue, and
to seize II, II we find II to be American vessel
gagged in smuggling and assuming foreign flag for
concealment We have the right Of searching and
sezing foreign vessels engaged in the same Of
fence against our laws, under whatever flag
But this IS very different right from that claimed
by Sir Robert Here we ypdicate our own laws
against every body, subjects and foreigners, a right
incidental 10 nationality. Bot the British Govern
ment, IN coptendiDg for this claim Of visitation,
claims the right 10 vpdicae the laws OF other ma
tons 10 illustrate this let suppose that one OF
our cruisers finds an American vessel smuggling into
one OF the Bahamas under the American any other
flag Could the cruiser capture such vcsseli No.
IL Is violating British laws the punishment Of which
belongs exclusively TO British authorities. Yet ac-
cordIng to Sir Robert Peel, our cruiser would have
the right OF capture in such case because the vessel
was American, or abusing the American flag And
yeti we should assert any such right Of punishment
the British Government would Immediately remon.
sra'c saying that its laws were violated and il
was competent 10 protect them
Sir Robert Peel says that we have yielded this
very point, by convention made in 1894 by Mr..
n''''i oui MUNSTER 10 tnkf3Dd. But, as ne ADMITS,
this treaty was rejected by the Senate or rather that
portion providing for the right Of visitation upon our
own coast was expungcd, and TO this alteration the
British Government would not agree. And why
were the Senate thus csutousl Because hey did
mol choose TO grant TO the British Government the
right 10 punish our own citizens within our
ters, for violating our own laws. We have since
grown wiser, and refused to concedo this power in
any waters. And there let il rest Let n, do our ut
most 10 abolish the abominsble slave trade but let
n not concede 10 any nation the right OF enforcing
cur own laws. That Is our business.