Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1843-03-10
CONGRESS-.
Washington, Feb. 81, 1912.


the House, on the subject of the construc-
ton ofthat portion of the treaty Of Wash
ington which relates to The right Of cisita-
ti0n.
To Tie House Of Representatives.
In compliance with the resolution Of the
House of Representatives on the 22d inst,
requesting me to communicate to the House
whatever correspondence or communica-
ton may have been received from the Bril-
tish Government respecting the Presidents
construction of the late British Treaty con-
cluded at Washington, as 1t concerns an al
legged right to visit American vessels" |
herewith transmit a report made to me by
the Secretary Of State. have also thought
proper to communicate copies of Lord Abcr
deems letter of the 2Gth December, lS4l i,
to Mr. Everett Mr. Everett's letter Of the
Odd December in reply thereto; and extracts
from several letters from Mr. Everett to the
Secretary of State.
nj, capnot forego the expression Of my re-
greet at the apparent purport of part OF
Lord Aberdeen's despatch to Mr. Fox |
had cherished the hope that all possibility of
misunderstanding as to the true construction
of the eighth article Of the Treaty lately con-
cluded between Great Britain and the Uni
ted States, was precluded by the plain and
well weighed language in which it is express
ed. The desire of both Governments is to
put an end as speedily az possible to the
slave trade, and that desire, | need scarcely
add, is as strongly and as sincerely felt by
the United States as it can be by Great Brit
ain. Yet it must not be forgotten that the
trade, though now universally reprobated,
was, up to late period, prosecuted by all
who chose to engage in it and there were,
unfortunately, but very few christian powers
whose subjects were not permitted and even
encouraged, to share in the profits Of what
was regarded as a perfectly legitimate
commerce. 1t originated at a period long
before the United States had become indie
pendent, and was carried on within our bor-
ders, in opposition to the most earnest remon-
strances and expostulatons of some Of the
colonies in whiehit was most actively pros
ecuted.
Its character, thus fixed by common con-
sent and general practice, could only be
changed by the positive assent of each aud
every nation, expressed either in the form of
municipal law, or conventional arrangement
The United States led the way in efforts TO
suppress it. They claimed no right to dc
late to others, but they resolved, without
waiting for the cooperation of other powers,
to prohibit it to their own citizens, and to
visit its preparation by them with condign
punishment. ] may safely affirm that it new
er occurred TO this Government that any new
maritime night accrued to it from the posi-
tion it had thus assumed in regard to the
slave trade II, before our laws for its snp-
preston, the flag Of every nation might trav-
erse the ocean unquestioned by our cruisers,
this freedom was not, in our opinion, in the
least abridged by our municipal legislation.
Any other doctrine, it is plain, would subject
to an arbitrary and ever varying system OF
municipal police, adopted at viii by the great
naval power for the time being, the trade OF
the world in any places, or III any articles,
which such power might see fit to prohibit
TO its own subjects or citizens.
A principle of this kind could scarcely be
acknowledged, without subjecting commerce
to the risk of constant and harrassing vexa-
tons. The attempt to Justify such peten-
sion from the right to visit aud detain ships
upon reasonable suspicion of piracy, would
deservedly be exposed to universal condem-
vert an established rule of maritime law, in
corporated as a principle into the interna-
tional code by the consent of all nations, in
TO rule and principal adopted by a single
nation, and enforced only by lis assumed au-
thority. To seize aud detain ship, upon
suspicion Of piracy, with probable cause and
in good faith, affords no Just ground either
for complaint on the part Of the nation
whose flag she bears, or claim of indemnity
on the part OF the owner The universal
law sanctions, and the common good re-
qures, the existence Of such rule The
right, under such circumstances, not only
10 visit and detain, but to search a ship, is a
perfect right, and involves neither response
bilty nor indemnity. But with this single
exception. no nation has, in time of peace,
any authority to detain the ships of another
upon the high seas, on any preieXt whatever,
beyond the limits of the territorial jurisdic-
ton.
And such, am happy TO find, is substan-
italy the doctrine of Great Britain herself,
in her most recent official declarations, and
even in those now communicated to the
House. These declarations may well lead
us to doubt whether the apparent definition
between the two governments is not rather
one of difference than ofprincipe Not on
ly is the right Of search, properly so called,
disclaimed by Great Britain, but even that
Of mere visit and inquiry is asserted with
qualifications inconsistent with the idea of a
perfect right. In the despatch of Lord Alb
erdeen to Mr. Everett, ofthe Goth December,
lS4l as also that Just received by the British
Minister in this country, made to Mr. Fox,
his lordshp declares that if, in spite of all
the precauton which shall be used to pre-.