The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1858-06-17

pain, must add, that if such visit should lead
to the proof Of the American origin of the yes
| sci, and that she was avowedly engaged in the
slave trade, exhibiting to view the manacles,
letters, and other usual instruments of torture,
/ or had even a number of these unfortunate
beings on board, no British officer could inter-
fere further. he might give Information to the
cruisers of the United States, but it could not
be in his own power to arrest impede the
prosecution of the voyage and the success of
| the undertaking.
1t is obvious, therefore, that the utmost eau
ton is necessary in the exercise of this right
claimed by Great Britain. While we have re-
course to the necessary, and, indeed, the only
means for detecting imposture, the practice will
be carefully guarded, and limited to cases of
strong suspicion"
This claim of Great Britain, as thus defined
and limited, has been uniformly resisted on the
part Of this Government as unfounded ia public
law, and an infraction of the freedom of the
Not so much, indeed because in given case the
exercise of such limited claim must necessarily
be- considered by ITSELF Objectionable offensive,
as for the reason that no such qualified right is
recognised by the law of nations, and is in its
nature utterly incapable of practical execution,
without leading to the gravest abuses, and peril
ing the peace OF nations and the freedom of COM
merce. The distinction sought to be drawn be-
tween the "right of search" and the Fright of
visit " is not admitted by the Government of the
United States. On the contrary, this Govern
ment has, upon all occasions, as is believed,
maintained and insisted that no such distinction
could be found in the writings of approved pub
licists or in the decisions of courts of admiralty
and could not be carried into practice without
necessarily drawing after it the right of search,
and. the right to use whatever force might be
necessary to render such search effectual
During the Administration of President Tyler,
Mr.. Webster, then Secretary of State of the Uni
ted States, speaking in behalf of the Government,
met this claim of Great Britain and the dis
tinction upon which it was sought to be support
ed, in the following language:
I" Blu: if the vessel thus approached attempts
to avoid the vessel approaching, or does not
| comply with her commanders order to send
him her papers for inspection, nor consent to be
visited or detained, what is next to be done
Is force to be used? And if force be used, may
| that force be lawfully repealed? These ques-
tons lead at once to the elementary principle
the essence of the British claim. Suppose the
merchant vessel be in truth an American YES
sci engaged in lawful commerce. and that she
does not choose to be detaned-suppose she
ressts the visit, what is the consequence? In
all cases in which the belligerent right of visit
exists resistance to the exercise of that right is
regarded as just 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 gun returned for gun, and the
commander of the cruiser, or some of his sea-
men, be killed, what description of offence will
have been committed" X
The Government of the United States, ON the
other hand, maintains that there is no such
well-known and acknowledged, nor, indeed,
any broad and generic difference between what
has been usually called visit and what has
been usually called search > that the right of
visit, to be efectual, must come, in the end, to
include search and thus 10 exercise in peace
an authority which the law of nations only
allows in times of war. If such well-known
distinction exists, where are the proofs of it?
What writers of authority on public law, what
adjudication in courts of admiralty, what pub
lie treaties, recognise it ? No such recognition
has presented itself to the Government of the
United States; but on the contrary, it under
stands that public writers, courts of law, and
solemn treaties, have for two centuries used
the words visit and search in the same
sense. What Great Britain and the United
States mean by the sright of search in its
broadcast sense, is called by continental writer's
and jurists by no other name than the right
of visit Visit, therefore, as it has been un-
derstood, implies not only right to inquire
into the national character, but to detain the
vessel, to stop the progress of the voyage, to
examine papers, to decide on their regularity
and authenticity, and to make inquisition on
board for enemies property, and into the bust
ness in which the vessel is engaged In other
words, it prescribes the entire right of bellig-
erent visitation and search"
On the whole, the Government of the United
States, while it has not conceded mutual right
of visit or search, as has been done by the par
ties to the quintuple treaty of December, l94l,
does not admit that, by the law and practice
OF nations, there is any such thing as a right
of visit, distinguished by well-known rules and
definitions from the right of search"
I Again: Mr.. Cass, in letter of recent date
addressed to Lord Napier who, in his note of
December last, had reaffirmed the pretended
" right of visitation" restates the American doc
trine in these words:
Your Lordship, while stating that it is the
habit of vessels upon the coast of Africa to
hoist the American flag as a protection against
British cruisers, remarks that this precaution
does not protect the SLAYER from visit, but ex-
onerates her from search The distinction
here taken between the right of visitation and
the right OF search, between an entry for the
9 purpose of examining into the national charac-
: ter OF vessel and an entry for the purpose of
examining into the objects of her voyage, can
not be justly maintained upon any recognised
principle OF the law of nations. To the former,
Lord Palnlerston, in his correspondence with
the American Minister at London, added that
the vessel must be navigated according to
law To permit foreign officer to board the
vessel of another Power, to assume command
in her, to call for and examine her papers, to
pass judgment upon her character, to decide
the broad inquiry whether she is navigated ac-
cording to law, and to send her in at pleasure
for trial, cannot be submitted to by any indie
pendent nation without injury and dishonor
The United States deny the right of the cruisers
OF any other Power whatever, for any purpose
whatever, to enter their vessels by force in time
of peace. No such right is recognised by the
law of nations"
II must be conceded, I think, that the position.
early taken upon this important question by this
Government and steadily maintained on all oc-
casions and by all parties down to the present
hour, Is lmpregnable, on the ground both of
authority and principle. The doctrine contended
for by Great Britain would be not only an inter-
polation of new principle into the maritime
code OF the world, but, as it seems to me, an in
fraction of sound policy, incompatible with the
interest of commerce. the freedom of the seas.
the independence of States, and the peace of the
world. However this may be, the judgment of
the United States will not be reversed. The
question, so far as we are concerned. must be
considered as closed. A doctrine so uniformly
and resolutely maintained for more than half a
century, and to which we are so fully committed.
cannot now be surrendered without national in.
consistency and dishonor. To incur these, the
United States cannot afford
But this very position, 80 liable to be attrib-
uted to indifference on the part of the United
States to the slave trade, especially at this un-
fortunate juncture of time when this infamous
traffic is assuming unusual magnitude and bold
ness lays us under stern aud peculiar obligations
to employ the whole energies of the Government
for the suppression of this unnatural crime. We
owe it to our own character and faith as ma
ton. We owe it to the other Christian Powers