The daily Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1841-1845, 1843-02-23
RIGHT OF VISITATION"

gence of an important and exciting character
Ii appears from Sir Robert Peeps speech, thai
the Brush do not construe the provision ol
the treaty of Washington relating to The ADJUST
rnent Of the question of the right OF 'is"a-
,ion.n (Which President Tyler, in his annual
message, very properly designates as only ano'
Their name for the right Of search, view Oh
the subject which will be sustained by The
nation, as il is understood and interpreted by
the whole American People. Indeed, Sir Ro-
her, more than inlimales that the President has
misrepresented the purpou OF that portion oil
the Treaty which provides for the suppression
Of the slave trade-and that the Secretary OF
State was satisfied of the justice Of The claim
set up by Great Britain to the "right OF vlsl-
tation," inasmuch as a despatch sent over by
the Earl Of Aberdeen in lSll. asserting that
right. had neither been answered nor its re-
cs;o, acknowledged
But the speech itself will better explain the
intentions Of the British Government:
rejoice that the honorable gentleman has given
me opportunity of making some observations on
the late message of the President Of the United
States. The sincere and earnest desire have al
ways entertained for the maintenance of a good
ueNtAnuinR OetWccn inlS country ana tHe united
States and the spirit in which have always spoken
Of America, makes it douby painful duty to me to
have 10 refer to that message, which am sorry TO
say does not give correct account Of the negota-
tons relative TO the right of visit Perhaps may
do right 10 confirm what the honorable gentleman
has said, that there is nothing distinct than the
right of visit is from the right of search.
Search is beIligerent right, and not to be
oised in time Of peace, except when it has been
ccdsd by treaty. The right of search extends not
IN he yesxpl hut In he rha r,,rht
Of visit Is quite distinct from this though the are
often COMPOUNDED. The right Of search, with re-
spect TO American vessels, we entirely and utterly
discsim nay, more, if We knew that an American
vessel was furnished with all the materials requi-
site for the slave trade, if knew that the decks
prepared 10 receive hundreds of human beings
within space in which life is almost impossible,
still should be bound to let that American vessel
pass But the right We claim, is to know whether
4 vessel pretending TO be American, and hosting the
American flag be bona fide American. (Hear hear)
We claim the right TO know whether grieyous
wrong has not been offered TO the American flag to
know, for instance, whether Portuguese or Brazil
schooner, sailing under the American flag be re-
ally what she seems TO be. In the admirable dc.
spatch Of my noble friend, dated the Goth December
l0%I, he wrote hus; "The undersigned appre ENDS
however, that the right Of search is not confined to
the ver.6caton OF the nationality Of the vessel but
also extends TO the object Of the voyage and the ma
turc Of the cargo. The sole purpose of the British
cruisers is to ascertain whether the vessels they meet
with are really American not The right asserted
has, in truth, resemblance 10 the right Of search
either in principle or in practice II is simply right
10 satisfy the Iarty who has legitimate interest in
knowing the TRUTH that the vessel actually is what
her coion announce" am surprised the United
States should contest this, considering the MANY
ANAL states by which they surrounded, and how
easily their might be Injured if il could once
be established principle that foreign vessel
might become exempt from visitation by hosting
any particular flag (Hear.) With such prin.
cipIe recognised, neither the revenue nor The
commerce OF the United States could be safe
for instant But | know that the United
States do literally this right in the seas ad
jacept u their coast know hat il a Mexican
vessel TO hoist the British flag under suspicious
circumstances, the United States would not hesitate
to exercise the right Of exposing the fraud and
knowing this am the more surprised the claim now
set up by the President Of the a. States Therefore
sir, il will be my duty, In the face of the public ex-
pressing deep regret that there should appear TO be
any difference Of opinion this topic explicitly TO de-
clare that we have not waived of the principles
commended for ty my noble friend (earl Of Aberdeen
in his despatch # December s4I; aad il is further
my duty 10 declare that that despatch has remained
[, the present hour unanswered by the Goyernme,t
Of the United States. know, think too well wha,
Is the ability and what the keenness of Secretar
of State in the United States, to believe that IL do
uincs so important those advanced in tho despatch
could be questioned II would have been permitted 10
remain fourteen months unanswered and upoclno,y
lodged, had It been thought wise to contest those
principles. Hear, hesr) And sir with re.nec, 40
this right of search, that no belligerent but
uona right which Is used by one power for The n,,s
poses OF humanity, 10 check the traffic in slaves
am bound TO say that, even on that point am s,,r
Prised at the determination with which the United
States refuse that mutual right Hear boarN
am now speaking Of that right Of search which bv
the treaties with the great powers of Eurone nv ,
~ with France and other States is mutu,lly cono.J
cd by parties desirous TO prevent eectslly The traffic
IN slaves gh' 10 search vess Is belonging 10 each
country which a party TO the treaty detected 10
the act OF carrying on this trade. For In The Voc,
1924 convention was signed 10 this country nv Mr.
Rush, the minister of the United States ,oo., ~
instigstiou Of America, which protested ,he
utmost desire 10 put an end to the slave trade
convention, l say, signed by Mr.
Rush, with Mr. Husksson which did ,n,,'
tually coDcede the right Of search that ia IN
say, which enabled vessels Of war. OF the Halted
States and Great Britain respectively, to exer-
else, under certain suPuIations that very right Of
search against which such camor is now raised 4, n
ncighboring country. Hear hear hearD Tba, ,re,,y
was re ceted by the Senate Of the United States not
OF the ground of an objection 10 the right of search
but because the right Of search extended 10 the coast
Of America, and the United States objected 20 the
right OF search being exercised in The immediate
ncighborhood OF the coast Of America alleging that
was not necessary for the suppression of The
trade. The Senate of the United States emitted a..
coast Of America, and MIR. Canning refused 10 ratf
the treaty IN consequence of that omission hut II
MIR. Canning had allowed the coast Of America a. no
omitted from the treaty, at this moment convention
authorizing the right OF search would have been in
force with respect 10 the United States Sir hone
that those who have contended with so much vohe-
mence IN The legislative Chamber of France AGAINST
the maintenance OF treaties framed In The nnro s;,
OF humanity AID who quote the example Of The Uni
ted States viii refer to that convention and see ,b,t
the United states themselves were among the frs, %
permit that conventional right OF search. Loud
cries Of "hear.D
There must be some great misunderst ,ndinv ,,non
the subject but considering the importance Of main
tanning tins right-a right not peculiar to England
considering that we are contending for right which
the only security against fraud against the gro.se.t
abuses oy parties interested in this niqutous traffic
considering thai We a nnu he r :.