The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1859-05-21


in certain cases.
Though neither of these issues involved our
maritime rights, Mr. Webster avaled himself of the
opportunity of Lord Ashburtons presence on
special mission to bring the question Of the right of
search and the impressment Of seamen out Of
American merchant vessels to final settlement
From the period of the French Revolution to the
breaking out of the war in 1872, repeated remon-
strances had been made by the American govern.
ment against the practice of British cruisers board
ing and searching merchant ships for the purpose
of impressing into the British service seamen whom
il was claimed were subjects of the crown. Eng.
land claimed the right of visiting our merchant
ships and deciding by the judgment Of her naval
officers who were British subjects, and carrying
them off from under the jurisdiction Of the Ame-
rican flag, on the principle maintained both then
and now by England" once subject always
subjectn--a most absurd and despotc dogma.
Mr.. Webster took issue upon this question, and
in his final communication to Lord Ashburton de-
clared as the utimatum that the American govern
ment is prepared to say that the practice Of i'm
pressing seamen from American vessels cannot
hereafter be allowed to take place. "That prac-
tce,' said Mr.. Webster, sis founded on principles
which it does not recognise, and is invariably at
tended by consequences so UNJUST so injurious, and
Of such formidable magnitude, as cannot be sub.
mitted to. In the early disputes between the two
governments on this so long contested topic, the
distinguished person to whose hands were first en-
the simplest rule will be that the vessel being Anne
rican shall be evidence that the seamen on board
are such. That rule announces, he continues,
what will hereafter be the principle maintained by
this government. In every regularly documented
American merchant vessel the crew who navigate
it will find their protection in the flag which is
over Them
Lord Ashburton, in reply, stated that the settle
ment OF this question was no part OF his mission;
but he promised to forward Mr.. Websters cor
respondence to his government, assuring him at
the same time that the practice ofimpressment had
been abolished in England, and. could not, under
present circumstances, be renewed. This declara-
ton, however, was no abandonment of England's
claim to the right of search and the privilege to
violate neutral flag or the ships of non-bellige
rent Power Yet when that right was disputed by
our government in 1857 and SO, and was the subject
of long diplomatic correspondence between Gen.
Cass and Lord Mamesbury, Lord Aberdeen took
occasion to state in Parliament that he had vir-
tually relinquished the claim in his correspondence
with Mr.. Webster. Moreover, it happens that at
the very time in which, according to Lord Aber-
deem, England had relinquished the right-namely
lS42-that nobeman, in conjunction with Lord
Palmerston, was making the Quintuple Treaty.
which asserted the right, as we have shown above
The fact is, that the subject of the right Of search
was not, strictly speaking, discussed by Mr.. Web
ster and Lord AshburtOn, nor did the treaty
directly affect it.
1t was first presented automatically in lS4l, in
correspondence between our Minister, Mr.. Steven
son, and the British government. In January, lS43
however, despatch from Lord Aberdeen was COM
municated by Mr.. Fox the British Minister to this
country, to the Department OF State. That des-
patch was founded upon an Interpretation which
had been placed upon brief paragraph in the last
preceding annual message OF the President to the
two houses of Congress. While commenting upon
the construction which this paragraph had received
in England, his lordshp takes occasion distinctly to
avow that his government claimed the right to visit
mercho0 ships for certain purposes, In time OF
peace and that this right it can never surrender.
PROPOSITION OF THE PARIS CONFERENCE.-THE. MAR
CYs REPLY.
The plenipotentiaries who assembled in Paris on
the 3Oth of March, 1885, at the close of the Russian
war; representing England France, Russia, Austria,
Prussia Sardinia and Turkey made a declaration
regulating maritime law in time of war. Through M
Walewsh and the Count de Sartiges, proposal
was made to our government to join in the decla-
ration, which was as follows:-
l. Privateering is, and remains abolished.
2. The neutral flag covers enemys goods, with
the exception of contraband of war.
8. Neutral goods, with the exception of contra
band of war, not liable to capture under enemy
flag.
/. Blockades, in order to be binding, must be eff.
fective that is to say, maintained by force sui-
Gent really to prevent access to the coast OF the
enemy
When Count Sartiges presented this declaration to
Mr. Marcy, the latter promptly declined to accede
it, unless it was agreed that if privateering was
abolished the private property of the citizens of
all the contracting parties should be respected in
time of war by the naval forces of each. Mr.. Mar
cy took occasion to review the maritime rights of
neutrals, and to remind the French Minister that
two years previously the President had submitted
to all the maritime nations declaration which
contained propositions similar to the second and
third of the Paris declaration; that four great
Powers had acceded to the Presidents plan, and
that the proposition now made would necessarily
defeat the pending negotiations with the United
States.
Mr.. Marcy furnished copies of his correspondence
to the Ministers from Russia, Austria Prussia and
Sardinia. Baron, Stoeckl, the Russian Envoy, re-
Piled by stating that the Gar entirely agreed with
the views of the American government, and de-
clined to sign the declaration. Mr.. Marcy also adj
dressed circular to the American Ministers at Ma
drid, Brussels, Naples, Copenhagen, Stockholm,
Janero, Buenos Ayres, Santiago de Chile, Lima,
Quito, La Paz and Hawaii, directing them to induce
the respective governments to which they were ac
credited to hesitate before acceding to so injur
GUS proposition. Many of the small interior
States Of Europe, who have no navy nor marine in
any shape, joined in the declaration, which was de-
signed, by abolishing privateeing, to leave this
country, and all Others with q small navy, at the
mercy OF England and France The scheme, how
ever, did not succeed, in consequence of the United
States and Russia refusing to participate in it.
THE BRITISH ouTRAass IN THE GULF IN 1s58--sET
ELEMENT OF THE DIFFICULTY, BUT THE RIGHT OF
SEARCH NOT ABANDONED BY ENGLAND.
Just one year ago, in May, 1858, the American
public was somewhat startled and excited by the
intelligence that several of our merchant vessels
had been fired into, boarded and searched by Br-
fish cruisers in the Gulf and among the West India
islands: an assertion Of the right of visitation and
search on the part of England so gross and fla.
grant that it created the utmost Indignation
amongst our people. No less than fortyfour Anne
rican vessels were fred into, boarded and searched
by British ships-of-war and gunboats, so near our
own coasts as almost to be in American
waters. The British ship-ofwar Styx boarded
and searched the American bark w. H. Chandler, of
Providence, R. l., and ten other American merchant
vessels in the harbor of Sagua la Grande. The briggs
Wingold S. Thurston, Robert Wing, John Taylor,
Geo. Stockham G. F. O'Brien, Martha Gilchrist,
Eliza Merrithrew, A. A. Chapman, Brownsville.
New Era, Samuel Churchman: the shins Claren