The New York herald., 1873-11-24
REVERDY JGHNSON'S VIEW OF
THE CASE.
High Ha anded Outrage by the Span
iards-Law and Justice Demand
Friendly Settlement.

Friendly Settlement.
BALTIMORE, Nov %, 1873.
In o letter addressed to the Baltimore american,
after stating reasons for his silence hitherto,
Reverdy Johnson gives the following opinion on
the Virglnius case:-
In common with civilized men everywhere, 1
thought aud still think, that the execution OF those
who were captured on board the Vrginius was
barbarous in the extreme and a gross outrage on
the sacred laws OF humanity. But the capture OF
the vessel and the subsequent conduct OF the cap
tors involve questions which l think by no means
suited to the discussion OF town meetings. but which
should be lett to the deliberation OF the Presi
dent and Cabinet at the council board, where just
conclusion is most likely to be reached as to what
the rights and the honor OF the nation dempnd.
Certainly no one can reasonably doubt that the
President will do all that he consttutionally can
do to secure the one ana to vndicate the other.
Such meetings, therefore, as have been and
as proposed to be held to
to be unjust TO him, because, though not
so intended, they imply an apprehension that he
will not be equal to the emergency unless urged by
the voice OF the people. For this l declined
being present at the late meeting at the Maryland
Institute, and would also decline participate in
any other meeting,
PRESENT OPINION.
With permission, however, VIII as briefly as
can give my opinion upon the question which
properly grew out of the capture OF the virglnius
and what followed it.
First-Was the capture legal one? From the
beginning Of our government we have insisted
that American vessel, regularly documented
and carrying our nag, cannot in time OF peace be
visited or searched on the high seas. 1t was
mainly for violation OF this doctrine that the war
of 1912 with England was declared, ana although
a
claim OF England was not formally
renounced it was practically abandoned
and has never since been acted upon. The i'm
munity OF vessel carrying the necessary documen-
tary papers and flag rests upon the theory that
the ocean IS open TO all alike, and that vessel OF
any ma ion, while in that element, is, in con-
temptation OF law, part OF its national territory
and as exempt from invasion the soil itself.
The treaty OF Washington OF the 9th of Au-
gust, 1S42 negotiated between Mr. Webster and
Lord Ashburton, contained an article which the
British government supposed our government re-
garded as denunciation Of the right OF visitation
and search. There was passage in The annual Mes
sage of President Tyler to Congress next succeed
ing the date OF that treaty that created this I'M
preston, and under 1t Lord Aberdeen, then
British Secretary OF State for Foreign Affairs, sent
despatch to Mr.. Fox, the Minister at Washington
to correct the supposed error according to the view
entertained upon the point by Her Majesty's govern
ment, and requested HIM to read it to Mr.. Web
ster, Secretary OF State.
To this communication Mr.. Webster. on the 2sth
OF March, 1s43, replied In letter to Mr. Everett,
our Minister at London. His Lordshp the Eng
lish Secretary in the despatch referred to had en-
deavored to draw distinction between the right
OF visitation and the right OF search, and stated
that the latter right was q pelligerent one and
could never be exercised in time OF peace. /
quote his language
The undersigned again renounces, as he has al
ready done in most explicit terms any right on
the part Of the British government to search
American vessels in time OF peace
The right OF search, except when spe-
cially conceded by treaty, is purely bel
ligerent right and can have no exist
ence on the high seas during peace And, even
in advocating asserted rights OF visitation, His
Lordship said that the sole purpose OF the claim
was to ascertain whether vessels visited
were 'what their coors announced" and were
really American not, and that in case OF loss or
injury sustained by any vessel visited and ascer-
tanned to be American his government would
afford prompt reparation.
Mr.. Webster, In his letter, after clearly refuting
the imaginary distinction between visitation and
search and denying either right, stated that the
government OF the United States fully admits that
Its nag can give no immunity to pirates nor
to any other than TO regularly documented
vessels. The American principle, then as
here announced, is that vessel hav-
ing legally our nag and documents s
absolutely protected against either visitation or
search, no matter what may be her cargo or object
OF her enterprise. This correspondence seems to
have extingushed the English claim OF visitation.
Certainly 1t has never since been asserted or cxer-
cised whilst the right OF search has been In terms
surrendered.
II may therefore be said that II
THE vIRGINIus
had our nag and was regularly documented as an
American vessel and was on the high seas when
captured, her capture was illegal and contrary