Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1858-06-26

Mexico BY British war steamers il vioIasto
N OF the law Of nations.
J. The correctness - his assertion I shan no
= proceea te establish. As early a. the publ
eetion OF the Coasolato del Mare, the right {
= visitation and search was reeoepiRsd al hn
> igerent right. Ths Marine Ordinance I
Louis the Fourteenth, prblshed IN 1851. copie
50 mech OF the CensOiato Gel Mare as recoe
!, niEed the right OF search as befligerent rigti
and thus gave the sanction of France TO III
7 doctrine. England recOgni zsd the right an
piaeneeo IT. Very many Of the noriher
: skates OF Europe then cOnirovertedi it, and con
, tended that it was no: natural right hsiousin
20 natlonss and refuse 10 give II theif sanctio
, oo~n 70 this day Il viii thus be seen that /
> never has been the law OF nations, never bav
{ ing rereleed the sanction Of all or even a ma
Jority OF nations. l could show that II is no
, a nAt5ral right OF nations, If ny time woui,
admit; but / must content myself with thl
. simple statement that It is aggressive, and
therefore, conflicts directly with the natura
right OF seif-defense, and the unmolested en-
Joynent OF pfoperty and locomotion.
/ desire now to state that visitation an,
search is technical expression, and botl
words are used to express the one act-the scl
OF searching. And desire that members apol
this hoor viii mark the distinction, because
snail have occasion, in the subsequent part OF
my remarks, to refer again to this position.
have said that even the nations which re.
eogniEe the right Of visitation and search De.
care It to be bellgerent right, only to be used
IA time Of war, ana then only for the purpose
OF determining the proprietary interest In the
vessel and cargo. If the vsbsel and cargo were
found to be the Property Of neutrals, they were
Universally dismissed if the property Of the
enemy, they were confscsted I. nav not Be
amiss to examine why the right Of search was
only to be exercised in time Of war, and not in
time OF peace. The properly of the bsllger-
ent has always been regarded as the legitimate
subject OF seiture and conhseation, wherever
found, and therefore became the object of
search. 10 times Of peace, when coDfscation
could not be made, there was no object against
which 1t could Be directed, and therefore it be-
came source Of annoyance, and not admissi-
bic in time Of peace.
Now, have said it was strictly belligerent
right, il right at ell, and is so deemed by the
nations who exercise t. The Consolato del
Mare 30 asserts il the Marine OrdinaHee of
Ltiuis the Fourteenth 30 sfhrms; the armed
neutrality organized by Catharine, Empress of
Russia, so regarded it Lord Csstlureagh, in
leIe IN psper which he laid before a con-
Vention. composed Of the principal N m,ritins
powers OF Europe, assembled in London. de-
clared 1t to be power emily to be exercised in
time OF war. Lord stoeell, 10 the case of the
Losis, said the right OF visitation and search
vas exclusively belligerent right. Chief Jus
tee Marshall, in The case of the United States
OF America egainst some Spanish and Portu-
guese vessels, said the same thing. IN an of
etal correspondence bet seen Sir Stanford Can
ming and John Q1iney Adams. ~ 1888, it is
again assertedI In a word, The entire CORES
Pondenee eetWsnh this country and Great Bri-
tain has thus treated it. This definition has
the sanction Of ages, and stands now sustained
oy a series OF adjudiestions, diplomatic sdmis-
sions, and legislative recognitions, which leaves
II no longer an open question.
But, sir, do not admit its existence as
belligerent right. because, as have said. II ia
aggressive, and therefore has not The merits of
being natural in the early period of the ais
tory OF hesicas, when a few maritime States
nad TIE power to coerce obedience and sur
mission to it, the Law was established; but even
IN those times It Tee more a mHnicipal than a
national right, and has been at every period OF
the world contested and denied. In i7sO. the
Empress Catharine, Of Russia, put forth the
declaration that ''neRtrsl vessels nav navigate
from port to port, and on TIE csasis OF nations
al war, and that goods belonging to the powers
at war ehouid be free in neutral ships - and in
support OF this position organized what is
known In history as the armed neutrality Of
hat day, and which received the sanction of
Russia, Norway, Sweden, Spain, Austria.
Prussia Portugal, the Netherlands, the King Of
the Two Sieilies, and The United States. This
organization was made against the doctrine of
search as a belligerent right natural to ma
tons, AID denied utterly its existence az such,
and has steadily been persisted In ever since.
only as it has been BY treaty Stipulation mntf-
ally surrendered Interference 20 specific objects
Ibis country weht into war with Grea. Bri
lain in 1872 in resistaBes Of the right of search
10 times vf var OF peace. But, sir, this reso-
lation directs itself simply against the right of
visitation in times Of peace. must be allowed
to say that Il newer was attempted TO be sepa-
rated from the word search until 1918, and not
single writer on the Law of nztioRs can be
produced by the enemies Of this resolution who
has ever asserted il as right separate from
search. 1t is a part Of the definition Of searcb,
and until within the last forty years no one ha 8
attempted 10 separate them. Lord ABERDEEN,
in bis letter CT the 18Th Of O-tObSr, Is4I, to
our Minister az toe Court Of st James Mr.
Stevenson, for the first time fesblg ATTEMPTED a
distinction, to which MIR. Stevenson replied in
the following language:
" We confess ourselves unable to collect from
It the real nature OF the distinction ALLEGED to
Exist between the right claimed BY the British
Government and tue ordinary right of vista
tion and search. II his lordship has failed in
expressing, with sufficient clesrness and pre-
cision, the conceptions Of bis own mind, il is
certainly not for the want Of the requisite tai
ents as writer, since bis letter is written with
the greatest terseness and elegance: bst oaghf
ratheHto be attributed to tue smbarrst sm sIt
oecssioned by intrinsic ficulties of 4 bad
cause left bin as 10 Official legacy by bis pre-
decessor, and which The joint ability of both
might well prove insufficient to maintain. Be
that as It may, Lord Aberdeen expressly as
serts that be reDounces all pretensions on the
part of Great Britain to visit and search Amer
lean vessels in time of peace; nor is it as
American that such vessels are ever visited.n
But In the face of this solemn renGneiation,
say, 81 as American" such vessels are now
being visited. ri ". ~. fa
1t was 10 1918 that this right Of visitation Of
vessels at sea was first nooted, and then not
asserted as a right belonging TO nations, as a
national law, or as Of a general scope but
was asked BY Lord Castlereagh TO he es.ab-
Iished by negotiation and treaty in reference to
one subject only-the African slave-trade. He
bad assembled the ministers Of the principal
maritime powers OF Europe, in London, in the
month Of February, 1918, and in written CON-
muniestion be says:
- That as early as July, 1915, cs-culsr inti-
nation bad bean given TO all British cruisers
that the right OF search, being a belligerent
right, bad ceased with the war that it was
proven beyond the possibility of doubt. that un
less the right to visit vessels engaged IN the
siave-trade should be established by mutual
louCcootonr S4t Nlr pdIL tQe maritime Nf1tee.
the Illicit trafie must not only continue to ex-
ist. but must increzse.o
Tue British Government, by her Minister,
did not then claim visitation as a right belong
ing to her BY virtue Of any natural rights. bv
prescriptions, By exercise or otherwise: did not
claim il as even q seiligerent right. He. in
the Immediately preceding paragraph, said the
right Of search bad ended with the war and
then be proceeds to ask that the right to visit
I = 81 % e. -
be established by mutual concessions on the
rart OF martins States. The very words " es-
tsblish BY mutual concessions" " is eonelusiFs
that the British Government knew well that nc
sueh separate right az vista ton then existed
and in the request will be seen the suggestion
to create new element in international law
Every one at all familiar with British AFRO.
gsnce must acknowledge that u she bad nas
the slightest foundation, instead OF consulting
with the maritime nations Of the world In rela'
tion to its establishment, sbe would at obe'
have proceeded to exercise IL, as she is nov
doing, under no other preteDcr OF night, only
that she bad been in negotiation with this eour
try and other maritime States, until, IN her In
science, che is claiming It BY usage.
Let me examine rapidly the history Of ths
diplomatic correspondence between this coun'
try and Great Britain, in reference to this sub
Ject, for the purpose Of ascertaining Tow fsl
she has reasons at this time for supposing tint
country will aquiesce in it. In the latter par
Of the year 1918, OF tie spring Of 1919, Mr.
Rush, our Minister Resident at the Court oi
s. James, was addressed upon this subject by
Lord CsstlefeSgh, which was reserved BY hin
for reference to this Government. Mr. Adsul
was then Secretary OF Stste, and in his replj
/ to the communicaticn Of Lord Casilsreagh, b
used the following clear, emphatic language
g The admission Of right IN ofhcess OF for
eign ships Of war 70 enter and search the ves