The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1858-07-08

laid down by Lord Aberdeen. England claim
ed not the right of search, but the right of wis.,
it. "The right Of Uisa Das a totally different
thing from the right Of search"
Lord Malmesbury followed, and in direct
reply to this remark, stated that the American
Government had always refused to admit that
distinction, and that the English Government
had at last admitted the principle of interna-
tionsl law, as laid down by the American Min
lister of Foreign Affaire, although not until his
statement of it had been approved and forti-
fled by the laao officers of the Groom" ,.sq
My noble and learned friend said that there
was difference between the right of search
and the right to visit; that, although we have
no right to search, we have right to visit, in
order to carry out the police cf the ocean.
The United StaieI have constantly and cate
goricslly refused to admit that distinction.
They say, that on no account, for no purpose,
and upon no suspicion, shall a ship carrying
the American flag be boarded, except by an
American ship, unless at the risk of the officer
boarding or OBTAINING her. 1t is not long ago
that we tried to obtain from all civilized nations
an agreement by which our officers might
know how far they should go in cases of strong
quences of any mistake on their part of board
ing vessel of another country not liable to
seizure. l tried to ascertain what license other
nations would give in this respect but was
anticipated by the French Government who
laid it down that no French ship should be de-
tanned, stopped, or boarded, but that certain
forms should be gone through without detain.
ing her, which, to a certain but very small ex-
tent, might ascertain her right to carry the
flag which flies at her mast. / need hardly
tell the House that have not admitted the in
ternatonal law as laid down by the American
Minister for Foreign Affairs, until that state
ment had been approved and fortified by the
law officers of the Crown. But, having admit
ted that, have put it as stror ely as possible
tothe American Government, that, if it is known
that the American flag covers every iniquity,
every pirate and SLAYER on earth will carry it,
and no other that this must bring disgrace on
that honored banner; and that, instead of win.
dicating the honor of the country by an obs,.
nate adherence to their present declaration, the
contrary results will follow-that the American
dag will be prostituted TO the worst of purposes.
Hear. l shall continue to urge that it is ne
cessary In these civilized times, with countless
vessels navigating the ocean, that there should
be police on the ocean; that there should be,
if not right by international law, an agree
ment amongst nations how far they would go
to verify the nationality of vessels and ascertain
their right to bear particular hAg."
As the official documents have not vet been
published, we are compelled to rely upon such
statements, from responsible sources, as show
clearly what has been settled by the two Gov.
ernments. We have been at the more pains
in this matter, because the remarks of a Dor.
ton of the American Press are calculated, un.
Intentionally, We presume, to mislead the Pub.
lie.
1t is certain that we had controversy with
Great Britain it is certain that controversy
has been settled, to the entire satisfaction of
the American Government What it was, we
all understand, or ought TO understand. Lord
Aberdeen, in his correspondence with Mr.. Web.
ster, in 1912, undertook to draw distinction
between the right of search and the right of
visit. The right of visit was thus defined by
distinguished member of the House of Com
mons, the definition being adopted by the first
Minister of the Crown:
The claim of this country is for the right
of our cruisers to ascertain whether q merchant
vessel is justly entitled to the protection of the
dag which she may happen TO have hoisted,
such vessel being in circumstances which rem
dered her liable to the suspicion, first, that she
was not entitled TO the protection of the flag
and, secondly, If not enUiJied it she was,
either under the law of nations or the PRO
visions OF treaties, subject to the supervision
and control of our cruisers
This claim was distinctly asserted by Great
Britain then, and has always been maintained
until this time. This claim was denied and re-,
jected by the American Government then, and
has always been denied ard rejected, while
every attempt to enforce it has been met by
prompt and stern protest, and an undisguised
purpose ofresistance. This was the controversy.
The Senate of the United States, by its recent
unquali6edly and unanimously Gus,
tanned the American position. The New York
EUening Post and the New York Tribune did |
not sustain it. They adopted and endorsed the
distinction taken by Lord Aberdeen, and sus.
tanned the claim made by him and by the Brit. |
sh Government in regard to the right of vista. |
lion. Believing it to be true, they had perfect
right to advocate it, and evinced true courage |
N uttering boldly their honest convictions, |
however repugnant to popular feeling.
But, nothing is more certain than that the |
British Government has at Last abandoned the |
distinction of Lord Aberdeen, sur.
rendered the claim of right to visit, as hitherto
and assented explicitly to the op-
posite doctrine, laid down by Mr.. Webster, held |
uniformly, since his celebrated Letter, by every
American Administration, insisted upon in late |
dispatches by General Cass, affirmed by the |
Senate of the United States at its late session.
and steadily controverted by the Tribune and
The Post. 1t is useless to attempt to perplex |
ourselves, or Others with doubts on this point. |
The Post may argue that the British Government |
has surrendered Alright iple-but we submit |
that, in view of all the facts stated it cannot |
with any show of reason, deny that the surren. |
der has been made. Lord Malmesbury certain
ly understands the the English language, and |
has as clear a conception of what he has done |
and intended to do, as the Post can have and |
be says: I need hardly tell the House that
Race not admitted the International Laa0 as laid
dopn by the american Minister of Foreign Af |
fairs, until that statement had been approved |
and fortified 6y the taU officers Of the Groom"
According to his own statement, he has sd
mitted the American doctrine that is conclu-
sive. We cannot concede that the Ecening Post
understands better wha. Lord Malmesbury has
done, than he does himself.
We congratulate the country and the friends
of Peace all over the world, on the settlement
Of this protracted and dangerous controversy.
That offensive claim Of a right to visit our YES
'els 70 determine their nationality, has done