The daily Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1841-1845, 1843-03-01
uplNIoNs OF THE PRESS.


For one we are prepared 10 say u once, that this
British claim h one TO which we usver can submi
The President is right 10 regarding II as branch
oil The right Of search, presented only IN new iof
and expressed Ia different words" And SIR hooer'
Feel Is wrong Ia obecting to the Presidents anao-
gy, and IN attempting To draw the line between tie
right Si visitation and the right OF search, and in
Justiiying IFS odious character II u.s. Ia fact more
odious than the right OF search The latter is only
belliSerent right founded upon the claim 10 exam
Inc for eoniraboad and for blockade The former is
worse. II is claimed to 10 exercised in peace as
well as IN war II does NOT purport 10 rest upon the
ground OF examining the conraband character of the
cargo-but TO whether the vessel is really Amer
lean, and whether the flag which she displays belongs
70 our own vessels or As assumed by pirate slave
dealer, whether British, Portuguese or what not
The British Government ow claims 10 visit the
smP TO see If she be really an American or In dis
guiso-and the ground y, because she is suspected of
being siavetrader. But if she stop our vessels
wearing our flag, To whether she be slave. ira
der or not, she may stop them upon any other con-
ceHable grouDG-to see, for instance, ii she be p-
raie--or whether her Eapers in regular form or
what nols The language of Sir Robert Peel in his
speech of the 4th instant is ominous in its tone and
general IN its declarations. He says indeed In one
BREATH that the concession of the right of visitation
is ian agreement betwee party and party, entered
into from motives OF humanity, for the purpose Of
putting down the traffic in slaves" sc. But he saws
in another place. I" the question is one which consid-
erably Affects all commercial nations Ii is the only
security which can be adopted against fraud and
even on principle Of mercantile security it should be
consented by all maritime nations" Indeed and is
it possible that the world have gone on so long with
out any such security And that commerce has
hourished so much under the general liberty of the
seas-long before this new-fanged doctrine of 1910
ever crept into light, under the auspices of Lords
Palmerston and Aberdeenl But this general and al
most unqualified speech is more alarming than the
tone OF their diplomatic papers. In fact, where is
the stopping point, What does experience itself
demonstrate Give them the right to visit every ves-
sci which bears the American flag and they will
claim the right to search-to examine not only her
papers, but her officers and seamen to pry into her
cargo, to break bulk-and what abuses may she not
practice under this preteXti What excesses have
we not already witnessed on the coast of Africa p
Let Sir r. Peel, then, repeat as often and as loudly
he pcases, that Great Britain has not abandoned
her claim to the right of visitation" and that IN
accepting the arrangement with America she did not
I" abandon the right to the claim in dispute" We
likewise are prepared to re-echo the Presidents de-
claraon, that " no such concession could be made,
and that the United States have both the will and the
ability to enforce their own laws"
Let the British, then, renew their claim when they
may, and attempt again to carry it into practice !;
they will be met by all the energies of America and
we trust in glorious cooperation with our ancient
ally of France. Our rights are the same as hers
our interests are the same. The Libere de ner the
freedom Of the seas, is dear to her as il Is to u.s.
But as We read the speech Of Sir Robert Peel, we
do not understand it as threatening Immediately the
peace of our own country. He has not abandoned
the abstract claim, as is sufficiently clear But do
not understand him meaning practically to carry
it out at present. for he accept, our late arrange
ment with Great Britain substitute for it al
though we freely confess that Indignantly repe
every idea of substitute for that which We utterly
disclaim and that the language in which he express
himself is as little agreeable TO feelings it
worthy of the shrewd character of British states
man.