The Charlotte journal. [volume] (Charlotte, N.C.) 1835-1851, 1843-03-23

!
Representatives a few days before the sd.
Journment, 10 answer TO resolution of The
House, on The subject of the construction
OF that portion Of the treaty Of Washington
which reiaies to the right Of uisitdtion:
WASHINGTON, Feb. 81, l543.
10 the House Of Representatives.:
ln compliance with the Resolution OF the
House OF Representatives Of the 22d inst,
requesting me TO communicate TO the House
"whatever correspondence or communlca.
ton may have been received from the Bri.
tish Government respecting the Presidents
construction Of the late British treaty con
cludcd at Washington, as il concerns an
alleged right to visit American vessels"
herewith transmit report made 10 me by
the Secretary of State.
| have also thought proper to communi.
cate copies OF Lord Aberdeen's letter of20th
December, 1871, to Mr.. Everett, MIR. Eve
retI's letter Of the 23d December, in reply
thereto, aud extracts from several letters Of
MIR. Everett TO the Secretary of State.
| caouot forego the expression of my re.
greet at the apparent purport of part OF
Lord Aberdeen's despatch 10 Mr. Fox.
had cherished the hope that all possibility
OF misunderstanding as TO the true cons,ruc
ton of the Sth article of the treaty lately
concluded between Great Britain aud the
[. States, was precludcd by the PLAIN and
we!lweighed language in which it is ex
pressed. The desire of both Governments
is TO put an end as speedily as possible to
the slave trade, and that desire, need
scarcely add, is as strongly and as sincere.
ly felt by the u. States as il can be by
Great Britain. Yet il must not be forgot.
ten that the trade, though now universally
reproba;ed, was, up 10 a late period, prose.
cu,ed by all who chose TO engage in it, and
there were unfortunately bu. very few
Christian Powers whose subjects were not
permitted aud even encouraged to share in
the profits Of what wss regarded as per.
iect'y legitimate commerce. Ii originated
at period long before the L. States had
become independent, and was carried on
within our borders 10 opposition TO the mos,
earnest circumstances and exposlula;ion Of
some Of the colonies in which il was mos,
actively prosecuted. Those engaged in it
were as little liable TO inquiry or interruption
as any others. Its character thus fixed by
common consent and general practice, could
only be changed BY the positive assent oil
each and every nation, expressed either IN
The form OF municipal law or conventional ar.
rangemeni. The L. States led the way in
efforts TO suppress H. They claimed nc
right to dictate 10 others, bat they resolved
wlihou, waiting for the CO operation OF 9th
er Powers, to prohIbi. It to their own cili
zens, and 10 visit lis preparation by them
with condign punishment. may safely at
arm that II never occurred 10 this Govern.
ment tina! any new maritime right accrued
to it from the position It had thus assumed
ID regard to the slave trade. Ii, Before our
laws Tor lis suppression, the flag Of every
nation might traverse the ocean unques,ion
ed by our cruisers, this freedom aas not, IL
our opinion, in the leas. abridged BY our nu
uicipal legislation.
Any other doctrine, it is plain, would
subject 10 an arbitrary and ever varying
system of maritime police, adopted a, will
by the grea, naval Power for the time ba
ing, the trade Of The world in any places or
10 any articles which such Power might see
fit 10 prohibit 10 its own subjects or citizens.
A principal Of this kind could scarcely be &C.
knowIedged without, ubjectlns commerce TO
the risk Of constant and harrassIng vexalions.
The attempt 20 justify such profession
from the right to visit and delain ships upon
reasonable suspicion Of piracy, would de.
sefvedly be exposed 10 universal condemna.
lion, since il would be an attemp. to conver,
an established rule Of maritime law, incor
porated as principle into the international
code by the consent Of all nations, into q
rule and principle adopted by single "a.
ion aud enforced only by its assumed az.
ihorlty. To seize and detsu a ship upon
suspicion Of piracy, With probable cause and
IN good faith, affords no JUS, ground either
for complaint on the par, Of the nation whose
Gag she bears, or claim Of indemnity on the
part Of the owner. The universal law sane
tons, and the common good requires, the
existence Of such rule. The right, under
such circumstances, no. only to visit and
detan, bu, to search ship, is a perfect
right, and involves neither responsibility nor
indemnify. But, with this single excep.
ton, no nation has, IN time Of peace, any
authority TO detain he ships Of another upon
the high seas on any preiex, whatever be.
yond The limits Of lie territorial Jurisdiction.
And such, ! am happy to find, is substan.
tally the doctrine of Great Britain herself,
IN her most recen, Official declarations, and
even 10 those now communicated 10 tie
House. These declarations may well lead
Us to doub; whether the apparent difference
between the two Govern nents is moi rather
one of definition than of principle. Not
only IS the right Of search, properly so cal
led, disriaimed by Grea, Britain, but even
that Of mere visit aud inquiry is asserted
with qualifications nconsis,en. with the
idea Of perfect right.
In The despatch Of Lord Aberdeen 10 Mr..
Everett Of the Both OF December. 1911. az