The daily Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1841-1845, 1843-03-04
THE RIGHT OF VISITATION.


State paper could be more plain, explicit and
ineligible in It's language than the late message
of the President, relative TO the pretended right
OF visitation. Yet il seems that portion OF
II is thought susceptible Of a misconsuuction,
which would be The more strange and forced, as
1t is Inconsistent with the whole object and Tenor
of the message
The President says:
"To seize and detan ship, upon suspicion Of
piracy, ,ch probable and in good faith, affords no
just ground either for complaint on the part OF the
nation whose flag she bears, 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 circum-
stances, not only to visit and detan but TO search
ship IS perfect right, and involves neither response
bility nor indemnify"
MIR. Rives, in his remarks in the Senate on
Thursday, expressed fear that this language
might be construed into an admission that mere
suspicion of piracy would justify the detention
and search Of vessel on the high seas But
the President says expressly that the suspicion
must be "with probable cause and in good
iaith"-not mere preext or groundless suspi-
con. Certainly this is a most material qualif-
cation.
We cannot claim such immunity for our flag
as would make it cover for piracy; nor would
we interfere to project one Of our own vessels
engaged in piracy. A pirate is an oullaw-un-
der the protection Of no nation. 1t is no insult
or injury to us 10 arrest or seize vessel which
has fraudulently made use OF our flag.
But if vessel, righlfully bearing our flag, is
detained upon The high seas, in time of peace,
and no sufficient cause can be shown for the
detention, we may claim not only an apology
for the outrage done TO our flag, but indemnify
Tor any injury sustained by the owners of the
vessel And furlher-a vessel rightfully bear
ing or flag may, if she can, and chooses, re-
slst any attempt TO visit and detain her, in time
ofPeace without subjecting herself TO any penalty.
The mere fact OF her resistance could not be urged
against her as cause Of suspicion. Any iorci.
Bile visitation or detention Of our vessels in time
OF peace Is primd tdcie aggression, for which
ample cause must be shown, or atonement M he.
II Is precisely the same as if our territory were
invaded BY an armed force
II the claim now in dispute between the Two
Governments were nothing more than the right
OF nation 10 arrest vessel under any fac,
upon well founded suspicion of piracy, we should
merely have 10 wonder at the sudden zeal and
perlinacity with which the British Government
insists upon an universally admitted right
Who disputes The right OF any and every ma
lion 10 punish piracy? And how could piracy
be detected or punished, if pratica vessel
could shelter itself merely by hosting a parlicu-
lar fag7
But This is moi the claim which the British
Government seeks 10 establish nor would it
take so much pains TO prove a iruism. The
right which it claims is a right 10 ascertain
aud verify the nationality Of vessels and is
thus distinctly stated in the speech of Sir Ro-
bert Peel:
Search is belligerent right and not To re exer-
cised IN time OF peace except when il has been con-
ceded by treaty. The right Of search extends not
only to the vessel, but 10 the cargo also The right
OIL WISH quite distinct from tins, though the two
often coniounded The right of search with re-
spect 10 American vessels we entirely and utterly
disclaim; nay, more, if we knew that an American
vessel was furnished with all the materials requisite
for the slave trade If We knew that the decks were
prepared to receive hundreds Of human beings within
space IN which life is almost impossible still we
should be bound 10 let that American vessel pass on
But the right ne claim, Is 10 kno,r rhether ressel pre-
tending 10 be .4meriean, and hoising the .4eriean flag
be bona hde .4meriean (Hesr, hear.)
Now, ii is this pretended right TO ascertain
the nationality Of vessels on the high seas, in
time Of peace, which we declare TO be wholly
unfounded in reason or precedent, and which
our Government could no more admit, no mat
ter with what qualifications or restrictions, than
IT could recognize the right Of the British Gov
eminent, in Time Of peace, TO send a feet Of
ships 10 New York, and land a detachment of
troops, under the prete1t Of seeking for fugitive
criminals. 1t is the portentous strangeness and
audacity Of this claim, and the deliberate dis
tncness with which it is reiterated, which
constituted the whole importance Of Sir Robert
PEEPS speech, aud called forth the Presidents
message and certainly there is not a sentence
in the latter which can be understood by any
rstooal construction, TO give the slightest coun-
tenance 10 a pretensiou which 1t was the whole
object Of the message to protest against, and
which, if Insisted on, must necessarily involve
the two countries in war
We have said that this pretended right, as set
forth by Sir Robert Peel, is wholly unfounded
IN reason. 1t is true, that on The coast of Africa
and for present purposes, Great Britain might
derive some advantage from the exercise Of
such right. 1t would enable her more efIec-
tually to distinguish between The vessels Of ma
tons which bad conceded the right of search,
and the vessels Of other nations, which have re-
fused TO make any such conc, ssion.
But If it be right at all, 1t is general and
no, local right, and may be exercised as well
under the preience Of suppressDg piracy in ge-
neral in the Mediterranean or tie Gulf of Mex