The daily Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1841-1845, 1843-04-04

menus. lAu btc0 suCH 10 cause mucH iffT
tation, and to threaten 10 disturb the amicabie sen
ments which prevailed between them. Both Gov
ernments were sincerely DESTROYS Of abolishing the
slave trade both Governments equally DESTROYS
OF avoiding occasion Of complaint BY their respective
citizens and subjects and both Governments regard
ed the 9Th and 9th articles as eiectuai for their
| ayo@ed purpose and likely, at the time, TO
preserve all friendly relations, and TO take away
causes OF future individual complaints, The Treaty
OF Washington was intended TO fulfil the obligations
entered into by the Treaty Of Client IL stands by
itself is clear and Ineligible II speaks its own Ian
guage, and maniests lis own purpose. II needs 10
Interpretation, and requires no comment As fact,
as AN important occurrence IN National intercourse,
II may have important bearings existing questions
respecting the public law and individuals, or per-
haps Governments, may not agree as 10 what these
bearings really are. Great Britain has discussions,
If not controversies, with other great European
States upon the subject Of visit search. These
States will naturally make their own commentary on
the Treaty Of Washington and draw their own m
ferences from the fact that such treaty has been en-
tered into. Its siipulatons, in the mean time, are
plain, explicit, satisfactory to both parties, and will
be fulfilled the part Of the United States aud II Is
not doubted the part Of Great Britain also, with
the utmost good faith
Holding this 10 be the true character Of the Treaty
might perhaps excuse myself from entering into the
consideration of the grounds of that claim Of right
to visit merchant ships for certain purposes in time
OF peace, which Lord Aberdeen asserts for the Brit
ish Government, and declares that ii never sur
render. But deem it right, nevertheless, and no
more than justly respectful towards the British Go
yernment, not to leave the point without remark
In his recent message to Congress the President,
ferring to the language of Lord Aberdeen, in his
note to Mr.. Everett Of the Goth of December, lS4l
and IN his late despatch TO Mr. Fox, says, these de-
clarations may well lead to doubt whether the APP
parent difference between the two Governments is
not rather one of definition than of principle
Lord Aberdeen, IN his note to you Of the Goth Of
December, says, :" the undersigned again renounces
as he has already done in the most explicit terms
any right on the part Of the British Government to
search American vessels in time of peace The
right of Search except when specially conceded by
treaty, is purely bellgerant right, and can have no
| existence on the high during peace The under
signed apprehends, however, that the right Of search
Is not confined to the verificaton nationality Of
the vessel but also extends to the object Of the voy
age and the nature Of the cargo The sole purpose
OF the British cruisers is to ascertain whether the
vessels they meet with really American not
The right asserted has in TRUTH no resemblance to
the right OF search, either in principle practice.
1t IS simply right to satisfy the party who has e-
gtimae interest in knowing the truth, that the
sci actually is what her colors announce This right
we concede as freely as we exercise The British
cruIsersiare not instructed to deain American
sells, under any circumstances whatever; the con-
trary they arc ordered to abstain from interference
with them, be they slavers otherwise. But where
reasonable suspicion exists that the American flag
has been abused for the purpose of covering the
sci oil another nation, it would appear scarcely cred
ble, had il not been made manifest by the repeated
protesations of their representative, that the Gov
eminent OF the United States, which has stigmatzed
and abolished the trale ITSELF should object to the
adoption OF such means indispensably neces-
sary !or ascertaniDg the TRUTH
And in his recent despatch to Mr.. Fox, his Lord
ship further says T" that the President might be
sured that Great Britain would always respect the
just claims of the United States that the British Go
yernment made no pretenson te interfere in any
ner whatever, either by detention visit, search,
with vessels of the United S atcs known or believed
to be such; but that IT still maintained, and would
exercise when necessary, its own right to ascertain
the genuineness of any flag which suspected vessel
might bear that IT, IN the exercise of this right either
from involuntary error, or in spite of every precau
ton, loss injury should be sustained prompt re-
paraiion would be afforded but that should enter
tan for single instant the notion of abandoning the
right itself, would be quite impossible"
This, theo, is the British claim, as asserted by Her
Majesty's Government.
In his remarks in the speech already referred TO, |
in the House of Commons, the first Minister of the
Crown said "There is nothing more distinct than
the right OF visit is from the right of search Search
is beligerent right and not to be exercised in time
OF peace except when it has been conceded by trea
y The right of search extends not only to the YES
sell but TO the cargo also. The right of visit is quite
distinct from this though the two often confound
ed. The right OF search, with respect 10 American
vessels, we entirely and utterly dscaim nay, more
II we knew that an American vessel were furnished
with all the materials requisite for the saye-rade
II we knew that the decks prepared to receive
hundreds OF human beings, within space in which
life IS almost impossible, still We should be bound TO
lot that American vessel pass on. But the right we
claim IS TO know whether a vessel pretending TO be
American, and hosting the American a <, be bona
Ede American
The Presidents message is regarded as holding
opinions IN opposition to these.
The British Government then supposes that the
right OF visit and the right Of search essentially
distinct in their nature, and that this difference is
well known and generally acknowledged that the
difference between them consists in their different
objects and purposes one, the visit, having for its
object nothing but TO ascertain the natl naity Of the
vessel the other, the search being an inqusition,
not only into the nationality of the vessel but the
nature and objects of her voyage, and the true
ershp of her cargo.
The Government Of the United States, on the
other hand, maintains that there is such well
known and acknowledged, nor indeed any broad
and genuine difference between what has been usual
ly called visit, and what has been usually called
search that the right of visit, to be ehectual must
come in the end TO include search and thus 10 ex-
ercise in peace authority which the law Of nations
only allows in time Of war.
II such weIknown distinction exists, where are
The proofs Of IL What writers of authority on the
public law what adjudications in courts of Admiral
ty, what public treaties recognize it, No such re-
cognluon has presented itself 10 the Government Of
the United States but on the contrary il under
stands That public writers, courts Of law and solemn
treaties have, for two centuries used the words vi
sip and =" search" in the sense. What Great
Britain and the United States mean by the Fright of
search IN ITS broadest sense called by Continental
writers and jurists by other name than the right
of visit VISIT therefore, il has been understood
implies not only right to inquire into the national
character, but to detsn the vessel, TO stop the pro.
gress OF the voyage, to examine papers, decide On
their regularity and authenticity, and 10 make nausi-
uon on board Tor enemys property and into the bu-
siness which the VESSELS engaged in In other words
II describes the entire right OF bclligerent visitation
and search Such right is justly disclaimed by the
British Government In time Of peace. They, never
lheless, insist on right which they denominate a
right of visit, aud by that word describe the claim