The Evansville daily journal. [volume] (Evansville, Ia. [i.e. Ind.]) 1848-1862, 1861-12-03
CoTrespoTsdestce.1
Arrest or Mason and sIideII.

[CorrespoEdencs.1
Arrest or Mason and sIideII.
had supposed the discussion of this
subject was at an end SO far as we were
concerned, but as you devote column and
half IN Mondays issue to the discussion
of the same points before discussed by you,
desire briefly to notice one or two points
in your argument.
In the first place you misstate the point
| in controversy between US. You say the
| question is "has the Government of the
Unitsd States denied the right Of 6slhgerent
pOr0ers to Visit and search its Uessels on the
high seas ?" and you proceed to argue this
question. But, as the question under dis
cussion is not accurately stated, it must of
necessity follow that the argument is err
roneous.
My position, asserted in my first COM
manication and re-asserted in the second,
is this: The United States Government
has never denied the right of the armed
vessels of beliigerents in time of war to
| search the merchant vessels of neutrals for
persons or properly eontraband Of aoar
Upon this proposition you take the affirm
alive, and it devolVes upon you 10 show
some denial of the doctrine or some act
inconsistent with it. Have yon given one
| word in support of your position Let US
see. You say the controversy first arose
when England and France were both bel
| ligerents and we were neutral, but you fail
to show any instance where we denied the
| right of search for " articles conhaband of
| sear."
But you say Congress passed an act on
| the 25th Of June, 1898, on the subject, of
which you give us the title, and say this
act, "savors somewhat of denying the right
/ of belligerent power to visit and search
our vessels in time of war" We answer,
| the title of the act looks a little that way,
| but, upon examining the whole act, | find
there is not word nor syllable in It incon-
sistent with my position.
The act was retaliatory, and its enforce
ment was limited till such time as the
| French Government should disavow the
LSwless dePredatiOBs and outrages hitherto
encouraged and authorized by that Govern
ment, and should cause the lars Of nations
| to be observed, after which the President of
the United States was authorized to instruct
| commanders and crews of merchant vessels
of the United States to submit to any regu-
Tar search by the commanders of French
vessels. So that while the act authorizes
| retaliation upon 'tLGi0less depredatoRs and
outrages" 30 far from it's disproving my posi-
ton, 1t amounts to a recognition of it by
the Congress of the United States, because
the act in terms enjoins submission to aay
regular search.
| But what does your allusiOn to our con-
| troVersy with England on the subject proven
does it prove that we denied the right of
search for persons and property "contra-
band Of sOGT 2" By no means your evil
| dence proves that England claimed the
general maritime right to search our mer-
| chant vessel ~ all times for British seamen
| and subj .!enied the right, and this is
| entirely caiIs SttnI with my position.
But the controversy is not with me; it is
| with Chancellor Kent. Hs says this right
of search for persons, property and dsspatch-
| es eORtrGbGaad Of aOGr is strictly a war of
| right. but as such is uncomfortable, and |
think ] may rest upon his authority, until
you show that somebody authorized to
speak, for the Government has denied the
position.
One word in conclusion in reference
to signatures. presume the public are
about Rs much interested in knowing my
name as they are in knowing the name of
the author of the editorials upon this sub
ject, and no more, and whenever be gives
! the public has christian and surname, / am
ready to do the same, if it is desired.