The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1858-08-27

most "nSvhihns ana pta6tlc OF aid pr0tox0 tor
the sssA' pption Of maritime dominion. What
vas there which, In the language of medeen
British diplomacy, had not been tortured iato
some species Of pirstical offenoes Whak a
endless variety Of circumstances might be
turred into indications OF piraticaI character
10 minds predispoAed TO ind causes for sus.
picion and the vexAtiaus exercise of poweri
Slave trading, especially, had been declared
piracy by the concurrent legislation both Of tho
United States and of England; and the Presi-
dent himself, in recent message to Congress.
(of the 9th January. 1s43,) in answer to reso-
luton of the Senate, expressly affirmed theirs
was no difference practically between piracy
by statute and piracy by the common Law a
nations, SO far as the immanites due to tho
American flag were concerned.
On the I'd day Of March, lS43, the bill for
carrying the treaty of Washington into effect
being before the Senate, Me-. Rives, Of Virginia,
who was Chairman of the Committee of Foreign
Relations in that body when tho treaty wAs
negotiated, and as suoh had taken an active
part In the discussions upon it, rose aad pro-
teeted against the doctrines OF maritime lay sst
forth in the Presidents message 70 the House Of
Representatives. three days before. He con-
sidered those doctrines Is the surrender Of
great principle which had been hitherto invs-
riably maintained by the government Of the
United States; and unwilling that they should go
forth with the presumed concurrence of the other
branches of the government, which might be
inferred If no dissent were expressed in either
house of the national Legislature, he proceeded
to state, and enforce by reason and authority,
those maxims of public Law upon which Ame-
RIGA had hitherto stood before the world as the
incorporating champion Of the freedom Of
| the seas. He said:
any principle Of the maritime code had bsea Ii-
umphaStly vndoased upheld by iaoors Of Aas-
risan satesmen WAS tns rnG time q peaos, hero
NO right, in any Gaze. on the part OF orsga Cruiser
high seas that ths veSssi Of nation The high Seas
time of peace, pGtakes Of the invoA5ty a asr terri
tory and that any entry board OF eroh without
Consent IT, in the eye Of the law Lespass vessel
undGr the ccsustances supposed IN the message, BE-
STOP u:
d her peril II toe suspected vessel be in rsa ity .
pIAe harm viii have been done; butt tns o,ssr
nand STE proves 10 be bona fde vessel Of the nsssa
whose dag she bears, strespsss will have besu osa
pttsd. involving both responsibility ana indsnaiiy e.
1 ooxdng 10 the circumstances Of the case,
In support of this exposition Of the principles
| of public law for which the United States had
| 80 long and inHexibly commended, he cited the
| Instructions given on the 18th of April, 1918,
! by Mr.. Monroe, under the administration of
Mr.. Madison, to our Plenipotentiaries for treat
| ing Of peace with Great Britain, where the fol
lowing comprehensive and we'll considered
statement Of the American doctrine is laid
down -
a territory, with tho cxcepou Of the bengersss rgtt
only, principle too vol established TO be brought into
discussion Each State has exclusive Jurisdiction
own vessels Its laws govern in them; And onocoss
asainu tnose laws arc punishable by IN tribunals osly
the Dag Of nation protects everything sailing uador
In time OF peace, and In time OF Ike wise with ths
exception Of The bellserept rights growing Of the var.
An entry board tue vessel Of Power By The orui
other authority over them, violation Of right ana n
oct Of hostility.
Mr.. Rives proceeded to show that the right Of
visit now asserted by Great Britain was, In
effect, to extend to the whole ocean the Obso-
lete claim OF sovereignty and dominion which
abe once arrogated to herself within the mar
row seas surrounding her own island; that If
the right existed, there was corresponding
obligation on the part of the vessels Of all other
Powers to yield TO 1t, and any attempt to resist
or evade 1t would be logically followed by the
penalties Of capture and contiscaton; that the
promise OF reparation, in case Of mistake aud
injury, should never reconcile government
strong in the conviction of its rights 10 the
surrender Of great principle; that similar
promise was once held out to induce the gov
eminent of the United States to acquiesce In
the odious claim Of impressment, but ii was in.
stantly and unhesitatingly rejected. He finally
declared the people Of America could never he
brought, either by article or force, to submit
to the right now claimed by the British govern
ment, and he called upon the administration 10
return manly and unequivocal negative TO the
claim az again put forward BY Lord Aberdeen
In bis despatch to Mr.. Fox, and to re-af6rm, In
all its integrity and truth, the ancient American
doctrine of the absolute immunity Of the ma
tIonal flag in time OF peace.
With this protest from the Senate chamber
against the British claim as set forth by Lord
Aberdeen, and against the illadvised conces-
sions of the Presidents message, the session OF
Congress terminated the following day-the ID
of March, 1s43. On the 18th Of that month
the letter of Mr.. Webster to Mr.. Everett WINS
written, which was the first official manifesto
ton from the State Department Of any dissent
from the principles and claims asserted In Lord
Abcrdeen's letter Of the 10th December, 1871, to
Mr.. Everett, and alphabetically repeated in the
despatch TO Mr.. Fox Of the 18th January, 1s4s-
This tardy letter of Mr.. Webster contained,
at last, denial Of the Britieh claim, In an srgu-
ment distinguished by his usual ability, recur-
ring to the simple and manly principle of the
entire immunity Of the national flag in time Of
peace, on which only the denial could be firmly
and consistently supported, and virtually re-
tracing the heresies OF the Executive message
of the 9th February, 1919
Mr.. Webster had not only permitted. as Lord