Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1858-06-20
ITBEADNa MATTER o. EVERY PAGE.
me Rigntof visit ana The Hight Of Scar,

slightest color Of legal authority. Our merchant
men have been arrested on the high seas while
peacefully pursuing the path Of legitimate com
merce, boarded by insolent officers Of the British
Navy, required to exhibit their free papers as If
they we're runaway slaves, searched, ike suspected
thieves and subjected to al the ndignities Of con-
rieted felons The high Constable Of the ocean is
apprshensivs that some other nation besides Eng
land viii enjoy the benefits and profits Of the slave
trade in which she has engaged under the name Of
the Coolie traffic and consequently seizes every
una7med ship that passes BY and eomPels her to
give an account Of herself Thi7 is done Of course
in the name Of philanthropy and With the avOWed
purpose Of suppressng an inhuman and illegal
traHe The ertful diplomatists Of Westminster Han
have always plausible excuses for the outragss and
enormities which they commit. They have pO-
Iished and courteous phrases too, with which to
paIliate their acts Of barbarity towards other ma
lions and when the indignation Of our government
is awatened by their insults and aggressiOns-When
we call on them to explain why they have Interrupted
eur commerce. fred upon our vessels and violated the
rights Of our citizens, when show disposition to
resent the injuries they have inflicted and de-
mand reparation-they tell US in mild aud oourtly
terms that they are only exercising the 'gb Of Uisii
Now this phrase has a kind and neighborly sound;
it strs friendly emotions and aFouses pleasant asso
Citations in the mind; but when We come to apply it
to the acts which It is intended 10 excuse We find
that this same right of visit covers all that series Of
Injuries, humiatons, and wrongs which British
insolenoe heaped upon in former years. Let US
not be deceived by empty name, but bOldlyresist
the injustice which we have suffered under what
ever title it may be perpetrated The right Of visit
is only the right Of search in disguise and is nva
rably accompanied by insults and indgnities which
proud people cannot brook, and to which brave
people viii never submit. Once admit that Eng
land has right to visit our vessels for the purpose
Of ascertaining their character and trade, and the
right Of search viii follow as a natural and neees-
sary consequence. The argument used in favor of
the right Of visit is that it is necessary in order to
detect pirates or slayers which may sail under our
flag. Well, grant the right of visit, and the object
is still not accomplished for the pirate carries false
papers as wen as a false flag, and the SLAYER con
oeals its cargo. If the argument establishes the
right Of visit it establishes the right Of search also
FOX nothing can be aseertained by boarding vessel
without examination and search. Now England
does not even claim the right Of searching cur vessels
in time Of peace, and yet the reasoning by which
she sustaas the right Of visit if validin either
must lead inevitably to an acknowledgement Of the
former right On this question LORD PALMERsToE,
in 1910 stated the English doctrine to be, follows
That in time of peace no ships belonging to one
State have a right to search and detan ships sailing
under the Gag and belonging to another State,
without the permission of such State, which per
mission is generally signihed by treaty; and II
Haytien cruisers were to stop, search and detain
merchant vessels sailing under the flag Of and be-
longing to another country, even though such yes
sells we're engaged liz the slave trade, the State to
which such vessels belonged would have jus; grounds
for demanding satisfaction and reparation from
Hayti, unless such State had previously given TO
Hayti by treaty the right Of search and detention.
Inasmuoh, then, as Great Britain repudiatss and
denies the right Of search, when exercised by for
eign nations on her vessels, she cannot and does
not maintain the right over our vessels. But the
right Of search being abandoned the right of visit
which is maintained by the same argument, must
be abandoned also. Mr.. Webster, in his letter
written to the American Minister at London, in
I848, says:
s.If visit or visitation be not accompanied by
search il will be- in most cases, nearly idle. A
sight Of papers may be demanded, and papers may
be produced But it is known that slsve-traders
carry false papers and different sets Of papers. A
search for other papers, then, must be made when
suspicion iusd6es it, or else the whole proceeding
would be nUgatory. In suspicious cases, the Ian
guage and general appearance Of the crew are
among the means Of asceraiAing the national char
acer Of the vessel The cargo on board, also often
indicates the country from which she comes. Her
log book showing the previous course and events
Of her voyage her internal fitness and equipment
are all evidences for her, against her, on her al
legation Of character These matters, ltls obvious,
can only be ascertained by rigorous search"
Mr. Webster states the American doctrine on this
subject IN the following language:
at appears TO the Government Of the United
States that the view Of this whole subject which is
the lst naturally taken is, also the most legal and
most in analogy with other cases. British cruisers
have right to deiain British merchantmen for GER
tain purposes; and they have right, acquired by
treaty to detain merchant vessels Of several other
nations for the same purposes. But they have no
right all TO detain American merchant vessel
This Lord Aberdeen admits In the fullest manner.
Any detention Of an American vessel by British
cruiser is therefore wrong, trespass although 1t
may be done under the belief that she British
vessel that she belonged to a nation which con-
ceded the right Of such detention TO the British
cruisers and The Iespass therefore an Involuntary
tresspass. If ship Of war, in thick weather in
thedarkUess Of the night, fire upon and sink
trail vessel under the belief that she is ny's
vessel this is a trespass--a mere wrOng-and can
not be said 10 be act done under any right, ac-
compauied by responsibility for damages. So If /
civil ChCer on land have process against one lndVl-
dual and through mistake arrest another this arrest
is Whasly t0rtuous. No one would think Of saying /
that il was done under any lawful exercise Of au-
thority subject only to responsibility, or that it
was anything but a mele tTespass, though an unin-
territorial trespass. The municipal law does not /
undertake to lay down beforehand any rule for the /
government Of such cases. and as little, in the opin-
ion Of the Government OF the United States, does /
the public law of the world lay down beforehand /
any rule for the government Of cases Of involuntary
and injuries at ses, except that in both
classes Of cases law and reason make distinction
between injuries committed through mistake and
injuries committed by design; the former being
entitled to fair and Just o0mpensatiOn-the latter
demanding exemplary damages and sometimes per-
sonal punishment
TheGovernment ofthe United States has frequently
made known lis opinion, which 1t now repeats that
the practice Of OBTAINING American vessels, though
subject inst compensation, If such detention after
ward turn out 70 have been without good cause how
eyerrnarded bv instructions, or however cautiously
exercised necessarily leads to serious Inconvenience
and injury The amount of loss cannot be always
well asCertained. Compensation, If il be adequate
in the amount may still necessarily be long delayed
and the tendency Of such claims always proves
troublesome 10 the Governments Of both countries.
These definitions too frequently rritate individuals,
cause warm blood and produce nothing but III effects
on the amica5e relations existing between the
countries. We visa, therefore, to put an end to
tbem and to avoid all occasions for their recurrence
On the whole, the government of the United States,
,-l5io hoe mt oonrpdad a rnuIuql right Of