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

And yet Lord Aberdeen says, "that II In the exer-
else Of ibis right either from Involuntary error, or
In spite Of every pfecstion oss OF injury should De
sustained, prompt repsrstion would DC Afforded
IL is not easy 10 perceive how these consequences
can be admitted justly to how nom the fair exercise
OF clear right. II injury be Produced by the exer-
else Of right, il would strange that il should
be repaired If II had been the effect OF wrongful
act The general rule Of law certainly Is, mat IN
the proper aud prudent exercise Of his own rights no
one IS answerable for Undersigned injuries IL may
be said that The right is qualified right that II Is
right TO do certain acts Of force at the risk Of turn
ing out TO be wrong doers and of being made answer
able for all damages But such an argument would
prove every trespass 10 be matter OF right, subject
only to just responsibility. IL force were al
lowed such reasoning in other eases, II would fol-
low that an individuals right in his own property
was hardly more than well founded claim for com
pensation, IL he should be deprived Of H. But com
pensaon is that which is rendered for injury, and is
not Communication or forced equivalent for aeknow.
lodged rights. II implies at least in its general In
terpre tation the commission OF some wrongful act
But without pressing further these inquiries into
the accuracy and propriety Of definitions, and the
uses of words, proceed TO draw your attention to
the thing itself and TO consider what these acts are
which the British Government insists It's cruisers
have right TO perform and TO what consequences
they naturally and necessarily lead. An eminent
member Of the House Of Commons thus states the
British claim, and his statement is acqnesced in and
adopted by the first Minister Of the Crown;
The claim of this country is for the right Of our
cruisers y ascertain whether merchant vessel is
justly entitled to the protection of the dag which she
may happen to have hosted-such vessel being in
circumstances which render her liable TO the susp-
cionrs that she was not entitled TO the protection
OF the flag and secondly, if not entitled to it, she
was either under the law Of nations the provisions
OF treaties, subject TO the supervision and control Of
CRUISERS
Now the question is by tehat means is this ascer-
talnment to be effected
As we understand the general and settled rules of
public law In respect to ships Of war sailing under
the authority OF their Government {" to arrest pirates
and other public offenders" there il reason why
they may not approach any vessels deserted at sea,
Tor the purpose Of ascertaining their real characters
Such right of approach indispensable for the
fair and discreet exercise OF their authority and the
use OF 1t cannot be justly deemed indicative of any
design to insult or nJure those they approach, or to
impede them in their lawful commerce. On the other
hand, 1t Is as clear that ship under such crcum-
stances, bound 10 lie by, or wait the approach of
any other ship She is at full liberty to pursue her
voyage IN her own way, and TO all necessary pre-
cautions to avoid any suspected sinister enterprise
hostile attack Her right to the free use of the
ocean, Is as perfect as that of any other An entire
equality is presumed to exist. She has right to
consult her own safety but, at the same time she
must take care not to violate the rights of others
She may use any precautions dictated by the pru-
dence or fears OF her officers, either delay or
the progress or course OF her voyage but she is
atberty to lictnjures upon otherinnocen parties,
simply because OF conjectural dangers.
But, II the vessel thus approached, attempts to
avoid the vessel approaching does not comply
with her comm ander's order to send him her papers
for his inspection, nor consent to be visited or de-
tanned, what Is next to be doneS Is force to be scdi
and if force be used may that force be lawfully re-
PEELED These questions lead at once to the elemen-
tai principle, the essence Of tie British claim Sup
pose the merchant vessel be, in truth an American
vessel, engaged IN lawful commerce, and that she
does not choose TO be detained. Suppose she ressts
the visit. What is the consequence In those cases
IN which the beliigerent right Of visit exists resis-
lance to the exercise Of that right regarded as lust
cause Of condemnation, both of vessel and cargo Is
that penalty, or what other penalty to be incurred
by resistance TO visit in time of peace Or suppose
that force be met by force, qua returned for gun,
AID the commander of the cruiser, or some of his
seamen, be killed, what description of offence will
have been committed Ii would be said in behalf
of the commander of the cruiser, that he mstook
the vessel for vessel of England Brazil or Por,u-
gal; but does this mistake of his take ava, from
the American vessel the right of sef-defencei The
writers oil authority declare il TO be principle Of
natural law, that The privilege Of self-deen ex-
sls against an assalant who mis- axes the object of
his attack for another whom he had right to assail
Lord Aberdeen cannot fail TO see, therefore what
serious consequences might ensue If il were TO be
admitted that this claim TO VISIT in time of peace
however limited or Defined should be permitted 10
exist as strict matter Of right; for if II exist as
right, II must be followed by corresponding duties
and obligations and the failure TO fulfil those ntie
would naturally draw penal consequences after il
Till ere long 1t would become, in truth little less or
little other, than the belligerent right of search
IL VISIT or visitation, be not accompanied by search
IL VIII be- 10 most cases, merely idle. sight of pa
pers may be demanded, and papers may be produced
but II Is known that slave traders carry false paper
and different sets Of papers A search for other ma
pers then NUT be made, where suspicion iustifes IL
or else the whole proceeding would be nugatory In
suspicious cases, the language and general appear
ance OF the crew are among the of ascertain
ing the national chaac Of the vessel The cargo
on board also, often indicates the country from
which she comes. Her log-book, showing the previ-
Gus course and events of her voyage her internal fit
ment, and equipment all evidences for her or
against her, on her allegation of character These
matters, 1t IS obvious, can only be asceriancd by ri
gorous search.
IL may be asked, if vessel may not be called on
to show her papers, why does she carry paper; No
doubt she may be called on TO show her papers but
the question is, where, when, and by whom Not ia
time of peace on the high seas where her rights are
equal 10 the rights Of any other vessel and where
none has right to modest her. The use of her pa.
pers IS, IN time Of war, TO prove her neutrality when
visited by belgerent cruisers and, in both peace
and war, TO show her national character and the Ia W.
iuness OF her voyage, in those ports Of other coun-
ues, 10 "hcn she may proceed Tor purposes OF trade
Uappears TO the Government of the United States
that the view Of this whole subject which is the most
naturally taken, is almost the most legal and most in
analogy with other cases British cruisers have n
right TO detain British merchantmen for certain pur
poses and they have right acquired by Treaty. to
detaIn merchant vessels of several other nations for
the same purposes But they have no right at ali 10
detain an American merchant vessel This, Lord
Aberdeen admits in the fullest manner ANY detep-
uon oil an American vessel by British cruiser Is |
therefore wrong-a trespass-although IL may be |
done under the belief that she was British vessel
or that she belonged to nation which had conceded
the right of such detention 10 the British cruisers
and The trespa,s therefore, an involuntary trospass
II ship OF war, IN thick weather or in the darkness
Of night Ere upon and sink neutral vessel, under |
The belief that she is cnemys vessel this Is tres
pass-a mere wrong-and cannot he said 10 he 90 /