New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1858-06-04

To co1teud-which seems to be the fayorite doc
tire Just now in the Senate of tie Utited St,tes, as
vel. as in the columns of The n. Y. Herald aud
other newspspers-that there is no difference
and can be ne distinction between the right
of search ard the right Of Welt, seems to
eyirce great deficiency in powers of dis.
crimil sticD. To our ordinary, common-sense view
of the two things there seem to be oil the differ
ence il tine wold between them, both as to end aud
As TO means The right Of search has nothing to DO
with hscertainDg the nationality Of the vessel
searched. TIE right Of vi.t is limited to that end
alone Search is resorted to in time of war for the
purpose Of asceItaining if the vessel searched has
goodsoL board cOntsaband off, or goods theprop-
eity Ct an enemy. Another form given to il by the
British, ard that which rendered it particularly OBJ
noxious to us, was the mastering of the crew to as
certain if there were British subjects on board liable
to DO impressed into the British naval service.
Search, as employed against vessels suspected to be
eIgsged in the yesrade, consisted in lifting the
matches to zee if they had slave deck or materials
for masking ore, water casks, boilers, provisions,
ard ether requisites for taking on board slave car
90. Search in all these instance has in view not
the nationality of the vessel but the character
Of the cargo, the composition of the crew and the
Objects Ct the voyage. In denying the right Of IA
tOna vessels to institute in time of peace IS against
merchant vessels Of any other nation any inquiries
Of this sort, it BY no means follows that tdey are
10 be- excluded from the right in suspicious cases
Ct brr girg merchant vessels to, and requiring them
70 sbo pa,aro au;1anra Of their authorIty
to sail under TIE lsg which they hoist In Dir.
WebsteI's letter of March, 1S43, which is quoted
as sustaining the doctrine that there is no difference
betw cen search end visit, he expressly declares
THAT the Government Of the United States fully
"adMits that its flag can give no immunity to pl-
"iaies, nor to any other than to regularly decu-
"mented American vessels If such is the rule,
il inc stably follows that in in which there
are GROUNDS for suspicion that tho American flag
has been hoisted without authority, and for the
very purpose Of avoiding a search and seizure to
which the vessel hoistirg it is lawfully subject
there must be right on the part of the cruiser
liable to be thus imposed upon to demand
sight Ct tie vessels papers as evidence that
she Is really American. Such we understand
TO be the rsh. of yisit-the right in fact Of de-
msndpg evidence in doubtful Gaze, 10 which a
cruiser has an interest to know the truth as to the
IeticIal character Of vessel before it. Upon
this subject the mere hosting flag conveys no
evidence at all. ANY flag may be hoisted BY vessel
Of ally nationality. The only real evidence of the
nationality Of vessel is the register and other
documents with which che is furnished; and to
deny the tight Of cruiser to see these documents
in doubtful case. is to deny the right to be in
formed at all of the nationality Of the vessel H.
iced tie advocates of this independence Of tie
seas, TO be consistent, ought to go little further
yet, ard deny the right Of cruisers to require mer.
chant vessels to hoist their flags. This hosting the
Dag can only be required On the ground that ships
of war have right to know the nationality of mer
cbantmen. If they have that right, then they must
have the right not merely TO require the hosting Of
flsg but the exhibition slso, of the ships papers
Here seems TO us to be right of visit distinguish
able in the most marked degree from the right Of
search. 1t liz very true that registers and other
papers may be forged, and that the possession Of
apparently regular pspers does not afford conclu-
siye proof that the vessel is 10 fact what she pur
much stronger piece Of evidence than the mere
hosting fag which any ship master may buy,
whereas the forging of papers or even obtaining
surrepti.ious possession of them is a matter of
much greater difficulty.
Unless this right of visit can be maintainsd, the
employment of ships Of war in times of peace
would seem to be reduced within very narrow lin
lie. 1t mag indeed be said that each nation viii
It'll retain the right Of inspection and oversight By
means OF lie navy, Of It's own merchant vessels.
But how is this hight Of inspection and oversight to
be exercised Az American vessel, for instance,
conscious Of being engaged in an unaw full business
Of being destitute of regular papers, or 10 the hands
of pei sons whO have no zig TO her, will take very
good care how she shows an American flag;
and unless she shows al American flag, she
Will not, according to this new maritime law, be
subject TO visitation by an American naval officer.
II Will be impossible for US to exercise, By means
of the ravy, any effectual supervision over our
mercantile marine, unless in doubtful cases,
and where there is reason to believe that
vessel is attempting 10 conceal It's American
character, the naval officer has right to Wait the
dubious yeisel, ard demand the exhibition of her
pspsu Once establish this doctrine that ships of
war have 10 right in any case to know the national
character Of the merchant vessels into whose com.
psny they fa-atd such is tie length to which tais
denial CT the right of visit really goes--and there is
an erd Of oil police Of tie oceao, to be exercised
By any body. since there wonld be 10 lawful or
peaceful esls by which tie nshoI atty Of any yes