Wilmington daily gazette., 1873-11-25
REVERnY JoHMSoM's VIEW or
~ WE OA0E.
HfeH 1IAEpED OuTRAGE BY TIE SPAxnRDs--
Law AND JUSTICE DEMAND FRIENDLY SGT.
ELEMENT


HIeH lIAEpED ouTnAGE BT TIE sPAxnRDs-
LAW AND JUSTICE DEMAND A FRIENDLY SAT-
TLEMENT.
BALTIMORE, Nov. %, 1873.
In letter addressed TO the Baltimore American,
after stating reasons for his silence hitherto REV
eTedy johnson gives the following opinion on The
FIRsT-Was the capture legal ones Fronli
the beginning Of our government We have asiusis.
cd that an American vessel regularly document
ed and carrying our flag, cannot in time of peace |
be visited or searched on the high seas. II was
mainly for violation ofths doctrine that the war
of 1872 with England was declared, and although
| at the termination of that war the claim of Eng
land was not formally renouned, itwasl Practically |
abandoned and has never slnce been acted upon |
The humanity of vessel carrying the necessary |
| documentary papers an0fag rests upon the the |
Ory that the ocean is open to all alike, aud that
vessel OF any nation, while in that element is,
| in contemplation of law, part of lis national
territory and as exempt from invasion the soil
itself The treaty OF Washington of the 9th of
August, 1912, negotiated between Mr. Webster
and Lord Ashburton, contained an article which
the British government supposed our govern
ment regarded dsnunciatiOn of the right of
visitation and search. There was passage IN the
10 the annual Message of President Tyler to Con
gress next succeeding the date OF that treaty that
created this impression, and under 1t Lord Aber-
deen then British Secretary OF State for Foreign
Affairs, sent despatch to Mr Fox, the Minister
at Washington, 10 correct the supposed error ac-
cording to the view entertained upon the point
by Her M4jesty's government, and requested
him TO read 1t to Mr.. Webster, Secretary Of
State.
To this communication Nj Webster, on the 2Sth
of March, 1913, replied in letter to Mr.. Everett,
our Minister at London His Iordship the Eng
lish Secretary in the despatch referred to had eu
: deavored to draw distinction between the right
OF visitation aud the right of search, ana stated
y that the latter right belgerent one and
could never be exercised in time OF peace. quote
his language -
l. "The undersigned again TenOunccs, ,as he has al
J. ready done in most explicit terms any right on
e the part OF the British government to sear, /
r. American Yesse's in time OF peace"
The right of search, except when specially con
ceded by treaty, is purely belligerent right anC
4 can have no existence on the high during
s. peace And, even in advocating asserted rights o
l. visitation. Ills Lordship SAID that the sole pur
pose Of the claim was to ascertain whether vessel
is visited were "what their colOr5 announced" an
EN- were really American not, and that in case Q
g loss or injury sustained by any vessel 50 yslte
70 and ascertaIned to be American his goyenmeu
lit would afford Il prompt repamton.
ne DISREGARD OF THE AUTHORITY OF THE UNl
~ ~ TED STATES
M. as it would have been if the Tornado ha
sci seized her in the harb0r of New York, an
III she was as much uader the protection Of OF
ro- government in one case as another.
his CARRYING THE SHIP TO A SPANISH PORT
Inc II | am correct in the above view the mex
en- en- point is, Had Spain right to carry the vess
u into q Spanish port? Clearly she had none
oe Her doing 80 was but continuation of Il
original wrong, and was an equally palpab
and indefensible outrage upon our sOvereig
A. lty. But, eOBceedlng that at the time OF ca
y sn9 ne tnre the vessel was not upon Cuban water
nss I within distance Os one league from the shOT
NY and had, consequently, subjected herself
ns nk the Jurisdiction. When captured the only {
I5 usn Tense she had committed was one against d
';l1 lSe United States. SHpposng that she intend
NY Wy to land men and arms in Cuba, in aid of t
~ insurgents, 1t was but an unexeouted purpOS
N'' as wholly so as when she left New York
,an. This purpose she might have abandoned a
var il she had, no wrong whatever, would ha
resS been done to Spain. She too, was liable
lads capture by an American man-of-war, and
an be brought into the United States for judl
ira nient, for violation of our neutrality law
"a to and then, also, no offence would have be
hev committed against Spain or wrong done h
,lsy Can 1t be doubted that the steamer before
zone capture, or even afterwards, while being c
hem ried to Cuba, could have claimed protect
the of any United States mAn-of-War, or tina
enter would have the duty of the latter, il prese
has to have prevented her capture, or to have
the captured her, and by force, if necessary
our That this would have been done by any of
by naval Officers. may, think, be cOnside
that certain.
Juoa WHAT WOULD HAVE ENsUED.