The daily Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1841-1845, 1843-03-02

.,cood place. from the matter IN controversy, ON
question - 10 conventional right Of search for the
purpose OF suppressing the slave trade
What then remained Any thing la the Pres
dsnt, Message Of the 5th December the Preside,
assumed one view Of the only question remaining and
Sir Robert Peel, in his speech, had taken adverse
view Of IL. What was that question
/ Sir Robert Peel conceded all that MIR. C.. had now
advanced but eontended that there exists night Of
visitation, which Great Britain never bad eoncc.cd
and which, when necessary IN her view, for The sup
ore sson vi the slave traffic, she should exercise
Now Mr.. G. asked, was there, IA fact, such a thing
as this right Of visitation, apart from the right of
search If looked at the books which treated on
the law Of nations, (and which were chiefly Of CONT
mental orzin) there would be found but one word
for lhe right Of search, viz. " droite de tisite.n
| Here MIR. McKEON interposed some remark not
heard by the reporter
| MIR. CUSHING said be was aware that that
phrase yoife de visite was, IN the exposilon Of The
right explained in a sense different from what Id,
mere terms might imply. AT the start, then, Of The
existing controversy, was question OF mere verbal
criticism but the question not about the
word Did the thing exist This thing Of 4
right Of visit separate and distinct from
right Of search Although the language Of Sir
Robert Peel, especially portion Of his speech
was somewhat obscure, it possible that he might
in speaking Of this right of visitation, have had ~ bis
mind such form of visit exercised On the
coast of the United States by American armed yes.
sells on those OF foreign nations sailing in waters,
but that was visitation under the sanction of the
laws of the United States-laws of a municipal cha
racer and enacted TO the collection OF the re-
venues OF this Government This a municipal
right not right existing under the law Of nation;
Such right did not exist, according 10 Sir William
Scott, ION the unappropriated parts OF the -
The right of visitation for which Sir Robert
Peel ment 10 contend, must, however, have been
something different from this. And what then,
was IT. Was II what he assumed II TO be viz a
visit for the purpose, solely Of verifying the flag
vessel at sea- TO ascertain whether the vessel had
right TO sail under III To test this MIR. G. would
put case. Suppose British cruiser met vessel
at sea with the American flag at her masthead, and
had reason to suspect that the vessel not In real
Ity an American the commander went on board and
challenged the fag-how was lis legitimacy TO be
rihed' The master of the vessel would exhibit his
register, a roll deguipage to show she was iruly
an American vessel But Mr.. c. would ask IL ves-
sci might for purposes OF fraud hoist false flag
might she not also exhibit false and simulated papers
aiso' Had this never been done? 1t not com
mon' In the late war the question in almost every
case where vessel had been brought in for adj JUDI
cation was the single question of the authenticity OF
her papers Ii must be utterly nugatory and vain TO
look behind the flag Of vessel if the visiter might
not look behind her papers also, to the persons on
board her and to the nationality of her crew. II
cruiser had right to go behind the flag, she must
have right to go behind the papers also. Now, he
would ask, what distinction could be shown between
the right Of examining behind both dag and papers
and the ''right Of searchin He could see none
could imagine none. Either this assumed right of
visitation nuliity, it the right Of search.
Well then, denying all essential distinction be-
tween right of visitation and right of search Mr. C.
denied the soundness of Sir Robert Peel's construc
ton Of the meaning of the treaty and realrmed that
insisted on by the President.
Again he asked, did any thing still remain 7 1t
was, in part, question OF verbal criticism and,
when sSe compared the three letters OF Lord Aber-
deem and tae three messages of the President what
did find Did Lord Abe, deem, in his letter of the
18th of October, in that Of the Goth December,
in the las, one affirm that Great Britain has the .ht
10 visit .7ptericdn ship No: and il remark
able fact In the supposed controversy the foreign
Secretary Of the,BritIsh Government, the only OH
cal and authorized agent to declare her viii ether
nations, explicitly disavowed all right TO stop, inter
rupt, touch an American vessel FOR any purpose
whatever What, then, IT that he did claim
very different thing Supposing British cruiser
should encounter on the ocean--upon the coast OF
Africa not merely but any where else for tie right
commended for was universal maritime right, and
was co-extensye with the ocean that covered the
globe and, If admitted, was a right ieniod more
weighty and important than the right of search
erng only all seas but all objects for which
American flag could possibly be unfuried-a ses,el
with The American fsg at her masthead. He had
reason 10 believe that she not an American
sell but British, Portuguese Spanish vessel either
of which, under reciprocal national conventions, he
had right to search. He thereupon came on board
OF her. But how As an American vesseli Not >:
all. That he expressly disayowed having any right
TO do. A an American, he pretended TO night 10
put his foo, upon her deck but British vessel
or an Austrian, Spanish, or Portuguese vessel
or pirate. But &C. after entering the vessel, be
should discover her TO be bona ds an American ship
then he would have committed an aggression upon
the United States Government and nation. lie en-
tered The vessel al has peril aud if be transgrrsseJ
he owed PREPARATION 10 the violated rights Of her ua
ton, and PREPARATION, If demanded, must be made ly
him or his Government
Now Mr.. c. would ask he would put il TO the
common sense OF all men-vas this a iigh a night
OF search righ Of visitation No; il was no rignt
at all instead of being right 1t vas a rsk-a res
ponsiblity-a hazardous adventure For let the pur-
pose Of her voyage be lawful not IL he had gone
where be had no right TO go, he was guilty of ma
uona aggression the floating territory OF the Uni.
ted States.
These were the views MIR c. entertained on the
subject Of dispute, and by which he was prepared to
live and TO de, in peace in war. lie would con-
oede 10 no Government under heaven, friend or foe
the right of visiting and searching the vessels Of the
United States. And he would here say, what he be-
ev,d, that II the admiralty Of Great Britain should
give orders TO her cruisers TO attempt tie exercise OF
such a right it would be an aggression upon the
American Government ard people and. further, II
what he should here say might be considered lay
ing any weight, and to be criticised either here
elsewhere, he desired that that should be the Cd
derstanding between the two Governments.