New-York daily tribune., 1858-08-05


gans Of the Admins ration may assert that the
question Of the rgat Of visit is setted aud disposed
Of it plainly is no. 30 regarded in England, either
in Parliament or by the Ministers. On the 23d Of
| July, sn inquiry was made in the English House OF
| Commons whether the Government intended TO ad-
here TO or depart from the policy Of their prede-
cersoIs with respect to the visitation of ships sus
pected to be engaged in the slsyetrade. To this
| question Mr. Fitzgerald, who spoke for the Gov
eIDEent, did not make any distinct or categorical
| answer He stated that the Government as yet
had not had any occasion TO consider that question
because there was q proposition pending on the
subject of the suppression Of the slave-trade,
invited by tie Government Of the United States
and made by the British Government, and that from
the previous course Of tie negotiation there was
reason to believe that satisfactory result would
be reached. As This reply did not seem to Lord
Pslmerston sufficiently distinct, Mr.. Disraeli came
to the aid Of Mr. Fitzgerald with the statement
that at preseDt the claims both Of England AID the
United States were in absyance. The British Gov
eminent had been invited by that of the United
States TO propose scheme for the suppression of
the slave trade, which might remove the existing
difficulties between the two countries-a pretty
positive statement, we should ssy, that difficulties
do still exist. This invitation had been accepted
and plan had been proposed which he, Mr. Disrae,
trusted would answer the end in view and prove
satisfactory to both parties.
On the other hand, it is confidently asserted by
Washington letter-wIiters that this plan, whatever
it may be, proposed by the British Government
meets with no favor at Washington, aud that it is
the Presidents determination not to make any ar
rapgement of any sort, but to stand upon the mere
denial Of the right of visit. In this We trust, how
ever, these writers may be mistaken We should
rot be surprised if Gen. Cass took this opportunity
both to afford positive proof that in his opposition
to the right of search he has not been Influenced by
any latent disposition to favor the slayerade, aud
at The same time to obtain from Englsnd that
renuuciation in terms Of the right of visit
the absence of which frcm the Ashburton treaty led
to his return from France, and gave Occasion to
very sharp, not to say acrimonious correspondence
between hmself and Mr.. Webster. 1t would be
great diplomatic triumph for Gen. Cass to obtain
from the British Government that express renuncl'
alton Of visitation as tight upon which MIR. Web
ster, at the time of the AshburtOn negotiation had
not the nerve to insist while in receiving that re-
nunciston, all the grounds would be removed
which Gen. Cass urged in his pamphlet against the
Quintuple Treaty for declining to cooperate with
the British iu their efforts for the suppression of
tie slave-trade. 1t would be impossible for Gen.
Csss to close his diplomatic career in a more hon
orabe way than by yndicatng, in one and the same
treaty the liberty Of the seas of which he has ever
been so distinguished champion and the reputa.
ton Of the United States, somewhat damaged as it
has been by the use to which our flag and our na-
tionaity have been put by foreign slave-.ra1Dg ad
yentureIs.
There is sti sLother reason ftr such treaty in
the fact that if the after be left to stand on the
mere acceptance by the British Government Of Gen.
Cass's doctrine, laid down in his letter to Lord
Napier, con,tsnt questions will be likely to arise
as TO the point Of the Ieasonabeness Of suspicious
and whether or not the case is one for indemnity,
which ought, both for the interests of the claim
ants and the harmony of diplomatic intercourse,
rather to be referred to some tribunal than to be
bsndeid in diplomatic dispatches backward and
forward across the Atlantic.