The daily Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1841-1845, 1843-04-04
RIGHT OF VISITATION, OR SEARCH
DEPARTMENT OF STATE,

washington, 2oth March, lS43
SIR Il transmit TO you with this despatch, mes
sage from the President of the United States TO Con-
gress, communicated on the 9th of February and
accompanied by report made from this Department
to the President, OF the substance Of a despatch
from Lord Aberdeen TO Mr.. Fox which was by him
read to me on the oath ultmo.
Lord Aberdeen's despatch, as you will perceive,
was occasoned by passage in the Presidents Mes
sage to Congress, at the opening Of its late session
The particular passage Is not stated by his Lordshp
but no mistake will be committed it IS presumed in
considering II TO be that which was quoted by Sir
Robert Peel, and other gentlemen in the debate in
the House of Commons on the answer TO the Queens
Speech on the Sd OF February.
The President regrets that II should have become
necessary to hold diplomatic correspondence upon
the subject Of a communication from the head of the
Executive Government TO the Legislature; drawing
after II, as in this case the further necessity of re-
ierrng to observations made by persons 10 high and
resp Dsbe stations, in the debates of public bodies
Such necessity, however, seems TO be unavoidably
incurred in consequence Of Lord Aberdeens dcs-
patch for although the Presidents recent message
may be regarded as clear exposition Of his opinions,
on the subJect yet just respect for Her Malestys
Government, and disposition to meet all questions
with promptness, as well with frankness and can
dor, require that formal answer should be made to
that despatch.
The words in the message at the opening of the
session which are complained Of 1t is supposed are
respondence with the American ENJOYS, at London
expressly disclaimed all right to detain American
ship on the bign seas, If found with cargo of
slaves on board, and restricted the British prcension
TO mere claim to visit and inquire yet IL could not
well be dscerned by the Executive of the United States
bow such visit and inquiry could be made without
detention on the voyage, and consequent interruption
to the trade. IL was regarded the right of search
presented only IN new form, and expressed in diff
lerent words; and therefore felt it TO be my duty
n ar1n In
gress, that no such concession could be made and
that the United States had both the will and the abi
ny to enforce their laws, and 10 protect their
lag from being used for purposes wholly forbidden
by those laws, and obnoxious TO the moral censure of
the world.n
This statement would tend as Lord Aberdeen
thinks, TO convey the supposition not only that the
question Of the right OF search had been dsavowed
by the British Plenipotentiary, at Washington. but
that Great Britain had made concessions on that
point
Lord Aberdeen is entirely correc, in saving that
the claim Of right Of search was not discussed du
ring the late negotiation, and that neither was any
concession required by this Government nor made
by that Of Her Britannia Usjosiy
The 9Th and 9th articles Of the Treaty Of Wash
ingtop, constitute mutual stipulation for concerted
efforts to abolish the African slave trade This sn
uation, II may be admitted, has no other effects on
the pretensions Of either party than this: Great Bri
cin had claimed as right, that which this Govern
ment could not admit as right and in the exercise
OF just and proper spirit OF amity, mode was re-
sorted to, which might render unnecessary both the
assertion and the denial of such claim
There probably are those who think that what
Lord Aberdeen calls right Of visit and which he
attempts TO distinguish from the right of search ought
to have been expressly acknowledged by the Gov
eminent of the United States; at the same time.
there are those on the other side who think that the
formal surrender Of such right Of visit should have
been demanded by the United States as a precedent
condition TO the negotiation for Treaty stipuaons on
the subject Of the African slave trade. But the |
Treaty neither asserts the claim in terms nor denie.
the claim In terms II neither formally insists upon
1t, nor formally renounces it, Still, the whole pro-
ceedng shows, that the object Of the stipulation was
to avoid such differences and disputes As had already
arisen, and the serious practical evils and ipconve