The Washington union. [volume] (City of Washington [D.C.]) 1857-1859, 1858-05-26

R,;,s 9.sn sss NJ ipst rrtsd = detain Auican 49,
sells undsx my crcunDtanco whateser on tn conteny
thev are ordered to abstain from all Interference With
them, be they savers otherwise But where rcasona
BILE suspicion exists that the American flag has been
abused for the purpose covering the vessel OF another
nation 1t would appear scarcely credible had It not been
made manifest by the repeated protestaons OF their rep
resentatves that the government OF the United States
which has sHgmatsed and abolished the trade itssh
should object TO the adoption of such as are inds
pensably necessary for ascertaining the truth
Commenting upon this paragraph, the New York
Albion says; ~
"It is scarcely credible indeed but 1t is less true
and Whatever the excitement of the moment may bring
forth, postety will wonder that reasonable men could
persst in anything unreasonable. Had we room 10
carry this point of the subject any further might
chow how In many instances the thoughtful press
Of this country, while echong much nonsense about
Outrage attack, and insult hints more or less
in misgvings to the nfailiblity Of the American
claim At any rate wha the caaious Seochman rrps N
1912 evy Bron will take hs tet in 1858. 20 far me
psip al isss Is concerned though possible a s Cuban
xpsvsson may be abandoned rather than rssk Of o0isio"
should Be rsn"
The Albion charges Gen. Cass, in his treatment Of
the subject with confounding the right Of search,
abandoned by Lord Aberdeen, with the right of Wis
itation which was strongly and imperiousy main
tanned by that statesman. This, we apprehend is
the very point in issue between the two govern
ments In the United States we are wholly una
BILE to see the justice of the miserable distinction
referred to- and it is certain that in 1910 Lord
Palrnerston had not even thought Of the ingenious
project of substituting visitation for search. We
cannot see immunity for merchant ships 30 long
a. they are subject the surveillance and jurisdc
ton of British cruisers the high seas; and we
claim that it is simply absurd to maintain that an
American vessel brought to and boarded by Brit
sh officer under orders from his government Is not
for the moment under the jurisdiction by force Of
that officer. 1t is superior force, indeed that COM
pels our merchantmen to submit, and to surrender
for the time being, matter how short, or how civil
the words of the assailant to the hostile jurisdiction
of the invader. 1t is than idle to pretend that
the offensive and controlling act is not to be found
in the visitation itself; that of search after urs
dction has been acquired, being in point of fact of
trifing consequence. Visitation divests the officer
of ship Of his rghtful jurisdiction over the flag
and the papers of his government which constitute
his authority. Search may be an additional indig-
nifty and annoyance but the offence involved therein
amounts to nothing compared with the original act
of hostility by which the boarding officer gained ju-
risdiction of tho deck and put the captain in subec
ton to his orders.
The right of visitation, then, is bellgerent
right, and it is one which no nation which aspres
to be independent and which claims that the
ocean is the common highway of all the maritime
powers, can submit to without, in fact, complete
surrender of its claims to equality upon that high
way, and publishing the tame surrender of its rights
Of equality everywhere
We are equally surprised and COMPOUNDED at the
course recently pursued by British cruisers in the
West India waters, and even more astonshed at the
arrogant pretensions of the British press far it
has spoken upon the subject in reference to the peo
pie of this country, who not only repudate the whole
doctrine of maritime police involved in the bellige
rent claim of visitation, but who determined that
the honor and dignity of the nation shall not be tar
nished by submission to any such practical tres
pass upon their rights a nation
If circumstances demanded that we should yield
to the exercise of this belligerent right upon our
merchant ships, sailing under the authority of the
federal Union we have no hesitation in saying that
our people would much prefer submission on the
original claim of search, involving bold assault
upon our independence and tame surrender of our
equality upon the seas, to acceptance of the
wretched bubble of Lord Aberdeen, which we may
Justly denounce as device to enable us to surren-
der the supremacy of the ocean to the exclusive
police of British armed ships.
We value the flag, and the jurisdiction of the Uni
ted States which it betokens, as much more sacred
and invioable than the cargo which baasts the
ship. When we surrender the former to the ar
rogant claims of the vesselsof-war of another
nation, we shall not sickle about the lat
ter Attaining jurisdiction of our ships and
deposiug the officers of the command conferred upon
them by the laws Of the Union shall not rest our
claims of redress nor regard the offence as height
ened by an examination of the cargo. The landing
of hostile force upon the territory of the United
States would be offence against the integrity of
the government and this offence would assume no
different character though it might be aggrava-
ted, by acts Of open hostility against our people
Great Britain either has has not the right to di-
vest the commanders of our merchant vessels of ex-
elusive jurisdiction over their ships and cargoes,
while sailing upon the high seas They enjoy inn
munity and hold relations alone with their governs
ment or they subject to the laws and jurisdiction
of England. 1t is idle to contend for the right of
visitation and exclusive jurisdiction at the same time
The exercise of the two rights is wholly incompati-
BILE If immunity is conceded visitation is impossi-