The Washington union. [volume] (City of Washington [D.C.]) 1857-1859, 1858-08-13
THE RIGHT OF SEARCH IN THE HOUSE or
NOTES.-THE CONCIITSIoN


As matter of current history, rather than with any
view OF introducing new facts, we transorbe TO our
columns to-day the discussion in the House of Lords
on the 10th ultimo on the right of search. 1t viii
be seen that the Earl of Aberdeen takes execution
TO the general terms employed 10 express the action
OF the British government that they had gven up
the pretenson OF visit and Search alleging that the
question was completely disposed of sixteen years
ago by himself and Mr.. Webster. He evidently re.
fers to the period when the FIVE principal powers
of Europe We're negotiating treaty Tor the express
purpose ofexercising special police over the high
seas at which time he entered into an elaborate
argument to prove that visitation might be lawfully
exercised for the purpose Of testing the nationality
of merchant ships. The Earl of Aberdeen is now
greatly surprised that since the Quintupe treaty failed
OF ratification, the question should be again revived
and especially that should be alleged that the British
had "given up any of its claims touching the mat
ter, We have seen nothing in modern times so per-
picking as the remarks of the Earl of Aberdeen The
government of England, by the decision of their own
authorities never had any right to visit the vessels
of other nations hence, technically speaking, they
could not have 'gven up" such right They have
utterly disavowed the prctension which the Earl OF
Aberdeen asserted and maintained in 1912. During
the present year, under instructions ..om tho Ad-
miralty, they had repeatedly visited American yes
sells, exercising force for that purpose. In view of
these facts, tho Earl of Aberdeen not only expresses
surprise that the question should have again arisen,
but declares emphatcaly that the whole matter was
concluded by him sixteen years ago. The expana-
ton of this seeming paradox is to be found in the
fact that the Earl of Aberdeen and The present gov
eminent maintain opinions upon the subject in di-
rect opposition to each other. The former still
maintains the absurd position that visit is lawful,
even to the extent of exercising force to effect it
and the latter that visit is unlawful and that the ex
ercse of force is tortious and at the option of the
offended party, to be considered an act of war
We trust now, since this whole matter has been
discussed in Parliament and concluded by explicit
diplomatic notes between the British government
and the government of the United States that we
have at length got to the end of tho controversy
The ridiculous position Of the Earl of Aberdeen is Of
trfing consequence. His manner of settling great
question by disavowing right under one name and
exercising it under another, would not be very ac-
ceptable in this country. II makes little difference
to us what pretexts alleged in justification of an in
vasion OF our territories; we must regard the act
itself as the measure of tho offence We claim i'm
m'ty for our vessels upon the high seas, just what
we concede to others, and what the Earl of Aber-
deem admits to be The general maritime law govern
ing the case but he in afterwards with an ex
cepton which not only overturns the principle ITSELF
but renders its exercise in the last degree offensive
to other nations. If the right of visit was part of
the maritime CODE we would submit to it with all
Earl of Aberdeen and his ancient associates claim il
upon grounds of convenience to the naval police of
England, is both absurd and presumptuous.