Lynchburg daily Virginian. [volume] (Lynchburg [Va.]) 1852-1861, 1858-08-14
4ailp Jirsiaian.
From the London Times, July 81.
The Right of Search Abandoned - Dallas's
Statements in Parliament

Statements in Parliament
The other day wo found ourselves roughly han
led by highly vituperative contemporaries n IN
,sming our rcaders--as we had done in the Mt
mst Simplicity-,hat England had given up the
'uproscd right Of visiting and senrching any
sells suspected of being savers. To illustrate tho
small value of our statemenls IL was obser, od that
we had announced the repudiation Of this claim,
and, Us it turned out the claim had not been re-
pudiatod We do not make point Of always re-
affirming what anybody may please to deny, 9th
erwise we might have To state tho same truth
hundred times, II was however, happily dcno
for us in tho Lords on Monday night when Lord
l.yndhurst with his accustomed clearness and
force, asked the meaning Of the American Minis
tcr's announcement that tho right Of search and
visit Ind been given up. Tho objection he took
to tho phrase was, TINT there WAS nothing really
TO give up; that the right had no existence; that
il had no foundation in law. and had been express
ly renounccd by tho most distinguished nuthori-
ties on international law In England and tho Uni
ted States. Tho sea, he said, is common to nll
natons; on it all nations arc equal; any ship on
the opon scn is M saered rs tho territory of tho
ton il belongs to; compulsory vist Ia tanthnount
to violent landing or invasion and m no nation
can be preuliced by tho crime Of another nation
tho assumption Of tho Amoricnn Ing by foreign-
crs does not Justify ns in any outrage on that flag
borno by vessel with right To il. Nothing
could be onyincingor more satisfactory thnn
Lord lyndhurst's doctrine on the subject. tho on
| ly wonder being that at this time of day thc doc.
trnr should have to be stated at nll and that it
should bo necessary tn roior to such old and es-
| tnblished authorities. 1t was. however. placed
beyond further contradiction that. ns Mr. Dallas
had stated the right of search or of ysit-far thcy
| are really the same thing-is no longer claimed,
and, 80 far MS governments concerned thorc is
| no longer any difference between England and
the United States. SO much for the discovery Just
made elsewhere that the right was still insisted
on and that we had fallen into a ridiculous blum
der IN surprising it ut IN end Tho answer to
Lord Lyndhursts : question wus what might bo cx-
rccted. Lord Mnmcsbury had only to say TINT
the law officers hnd givcn opinions completely in
! accordance with those quoted by Lord lyndhurst,
| that the present state Of tho cnsc IN under
standing that each nation to conano ts visits
10 vessels bearing its own flag. and tho American
| Government was to take proper measures to vim
| diente it's flag from fraudulent adoption by stran-
| gers.
| ! The question and the answer, with tho
| nouncclnents made, the document stated, md the
authorities quoted, sufficiently bore us out in our
announcement, taken az II was from tho mouth of
tho American Minister. Some mystery, however
| there was aud some mystery always will cling to
tho staecrait in its simplest operation. It was
| evident TIM, something Ind been given up. since
| no right existed, and though Lord Ma!mcsbury
dcned that the British government had ever
maintained that which now declared il could
not maintain. lind tho conversation stopped there
| tho public would have beon slightly mystifed but
would probably have thought it bcst no, to raise
the veil of oficnl decenoy from the follics Of the
pnst Lord Aberdeen, however would not con-
sent to this. The mystery lay in the past, md it
was the pust which he represented; 30 he rose to
,indicatc his government, and all the govern
ment. for tho lust twenty years, from the folly of
claiming to Wit and search vessels carrying the
American flag. Lord Aberdeen Ind himself writ
ten mapy dispatches on the sul,jcc--many more.
he hoped than it would ever fall to the lot of Lord
Malmeshury to wre-nll to the very purpose Of
the late announcement that the right of visit and
search had been given up In fact, Lord Aber-
! deem had given IT up many years ago, and left
nothing for anybody clsc to give up. So tho error
of the announcement made was, that it supposed
something to given up which had no existence,
having been given up long ago. But--and here
| sthe mysterious something which 10 doubt has
now been given up, and which has hal substan-
tial existence up to this very year ar--Lord Aber-
| doen had stood ont for just NJ much questioning.
stopping. and examining, equivalent to the actual
stoppage aud molestation of suspected ship us
| would help us TO discover whether the ship was
American or not. This. his Lordship maintained
We had n right to do, and this he hnd stood out
for. This he was still prepared to demand and
| the demand, his Lordship urges, is not ut all in
compatible with the total surrender Of the right Of
visit and search.
! AS Lord Aberdeen appears to maintain that no
alteration has been made, that nothing has been
gwen up, and the pacific understanding is only
| what he obtained for us in his own administration
and that what he stood out for is still Just OBJ
| jeei Of demand, still point Of honor, justice and
| right, it may be well to stop the opening thus
| made for future pretensions. The smallest eX-
llibition Of force to foreign ship the open
/ falls under the rule laid down by the distinguish
! ell lawyers quoted in this debate. A civil ques-
| tion of course, is not exhibition Of force. If
one vessel halls another, and asks the time, the
| longitude, any other question, leaving it entire
~ to the discretion OF the stranger to reply ornot
as he peases, that is matter Of courtesy to which
| no exception can be taken and which cannot be
brought before courts or legislatures. That is not
the sort Of inquiry supposed in this discussion
1t il only which the CATION is carried further
| and actually enforced by arms or by terror; when
tho strange vessel has been put to actual incon-
,enience detained annoyed. and insulted that it
becomes matter for state interference. II Lord
Aberdeen meant much this, or if he meant
anything more than such a question as tho weak
est ship afoat might put to the strongest, then we
are persuaded his Lordship was mistaken in sup
posing that he had settled this business long ago.
What other states demand, and what we have con-
cedel. recently as it appears to us. md rs Lord
Aberdeen himself seems to imply, is that the
smallest act of force or exhibition of superior
| strength, to the annoyance or interruption ola
foreign ship on the open sea- is at our own risk.
We must do it on the speculation that if we turn
out wrong in our suspicion we must make proper
apologies and reparation to the suspected vessel.
We have no right to fall back upon. It is, as the
American lawyers soy, a parallel case to the
rest Of \ supposed criminal. If he turns out an
innocent man, we are liable to an action for as
! sault, or false Imprisonment, and we must pur-
chase peace as well as We can. We may, indeed,
have plenty of reason to suspect the vessel, and