The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1855-04-14


awe the bench, and dfuse their aromatic odors like
gales of Araby the bles and to convert the halls Of
Justice into scenes Of wrong riot and beasy indecency
They become, fact privileged order; and while the
man who has the misfortune to be born with white
skin is obliged unIess aboliionist disciple of the
higher aw to obey the constitution and laws of his
try the fortunate gentlemen of color, guided by The
North Star in their Heaven and lighted by the glorious
CLEANS of hope may outrage the laws with IMMUNITY and
rant and roar and stab and murder and defy the civil
power under the special protection of the great fnnda-
dogma of abolition Wed not wonder there are so
many of anagamation, seeing it may be the
means of least approxmatng their descendants to the
new privileged order of knights Hosptallrs'
NO DISTINCTION IN LAW BETWEEN VISIT" AND
"SEARCH."
Much the misjudgment that prevails upon this subject
1.-THE right the Feroana to dean the FL Dorado) arises
from confounding the right Of eisdon with the right Of
search The former consists in simply Identifying the ship
the latter searching the ship for contraband Of &c.
after she is identified The former Is allowable, because
otherwise is impossible determine whether the ship is
sailing false flag not the latter in time OF
allow able because after the nationality OF the ship is
once established by her authenticated ship papers, her nation
be considered her sponsor and guarantee
In. Y. Courier and Enquirer.
The Courier and Enquirer has stated with singular
curacy the doctrine insisted upon by the English govern
ent during the negotiation of the Ashburton treaty In
the remarks Of the First Minister OF the Crown in the Brit
sh House Of Commons in December ls4l it asserted
that there nothing distinct than the right of visit
is from the right of search Search bellgerent right
and not to be exercised in time peace except when has
been conceded by treaty The right Of visit is quite distinct
from this though the two often COMPOUNDED The right
utterly dsclam nay more-if we knew that an American
vessel were furnished with all the materials requisite
the slave trade we knew that the decks prepared
to receive hundreds of human beings within space in
which life almost impossible still should be bound TO
let that American vessel pass But the right we claim
is to know whether vessel pretending to be American
and hosting the American flag, be bona dac American"
But to this doctrine-which it viii be runs all
fours with that in the from the Courier
and Enqurerthe then Secretary Of State Of the United
States Hon. Daniel Webster dissents in tote various
occasions and particularly in despatch to the American
minister to England Hon. Edward Everett under date
Of March 49, ls43 We copy therefrom the following
fences written in reply to the very extract have given
above:
The Presidents message is regarded holding opinions
in opposition to these
visit and the right of search essentially distinct in their
nature and that this difference is well known and generally
acknowledged that the difference between them exists
their different objects and purposes the VISIT having
object nothing but TO ascertain the nationality of the
vessel the other the search by nquision not only into
the nationality the vessel but the and object Of her
voyage, and the true ownership of the cargo.
sThe government Of the United States, the other
hand maintains that there is such wellknown and
knowedged indeed broad and generic difference be-
haa haen VIII
usually called that the right of visit to be eectua
must end include search and thus to exercise
in peace authority which the law of nations only allows in
time Of war such we'll known distinction exists where
are the proofs What writer's of authority public
law what adudcaons in courts of admiralty, what public
treaties recognise it, No such recognition has presented
itself to the of the United States but the
contrary il that public writer's Of law
and treaties have for two centuries used the words
visit and search in the same scnse?
On the WHOLE the government Of the United States,
while it has conceded mutual right Of Wit search,
by the parties TO the Quntupe treaty Of De
cember ls4l does not admit that ~ me lac aud practice Of
toas there Is any thing right Of
by ,es kaorn rides dsfnions from the right Of seareh
In April, ls43 the treaty of Washington, the Ash
burton treaty was reviewed in northern periodical by
Jared Sparks, Of Harvard University In the of
some very able remarks upon various provisions Of the
treaty the following used by Mr. Sparks in connex-
ion with the point now under consideration;
1t may be rauted that going upon vessels deck and
reading her papers summonng the breaking open
the matches inspecting the cargo, not in them
,ves of precisely but if the object
ton and the in each case beg
know by what Of logic application of real
difference can be exist The visit intended for
something or nothing. II for nothing 1t ia obrusve and
useless foray Otherwise it cannot be of the
portance in principle effect whether the ver searches
the chip inspects the only examines the papers
IL il left entirely his Judgment after either Of these acts
To decide upon OF the vessel and
cur where the papers suspicious in the opinion Of the
ing officer inspection OF the vessel would prove that
ali was right ii the visit necessary at ALL search is
much more so sordng the Of proper Judgment
In every view Of the would TO he safe
course likely prevent mistakes and the
msche allow the officer the right OF search, than
to require him make up his mind upon the bare inspection
OF papers general Appearances II he Is be the
sole Judge in responsible and delicate affair
seizing and OBTAINING vessel sailing the broad
der the flag independent power IL Is certainly dcsrs
bic that every possible Of knowledge should be open
him"
We leave to the Courier and Enquirer the task Of
royerng the soundncs OF the views expressed by Web
ster and Sparks.
CoMxe HoxK--Hon. John A. Dix intends TO return y