The undersigned agrees with Mr. Stevenson in the importance of arriving at a clear understanding of the matter really in dispute. This ought to be the first object in the differences of states, as well as of individuals; and, happily, it is often the first step to the reconciliation of the parties. In the present case this understanding is doubly essential, because a continuance of mistake and error may be productive of the most serious consequences. Mr. Stevenson persists in contending that the British government assert a right which is equivalent to the claim of searching American vessels in time of peace. In proof of this, Mr. Stevenson refers to a passage in a former note of Viscount Palmerston, addressed to himself, against which he strongly protests, and the doctrine contained in which he says that the undersigned is understood to affirm. Now, it is not the intention of the undersigned to inquire into the precise import and force of the expressions of Viscount Palmerston. These might have been easily explained to Mr. Stevenson by their author at the time they were written; but the undersigned must request that his doctrines upon this subject, and those of the government of which he is the organ, may be judged of exclusively from his own declarations. The undersigned again renounces, as he has already done in the 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 specially conceded by treaty, is a purely belligerent right, and can have no existence on the high seas during peace. The undersigned apprehends, however, that the right of search is not confined to the verification of the nationality of the vessel, but also extends to the object of the voyage and the nature of the cargo. The sole purpose of the British cruisers is, to ascertain whether the vessels they meet with are really American or not. The right asserted has, in truth, no resemblance to the right of search, either in principle or in practice. It is simply a right to satisfy the party, who has a legitimate interest in knowing the truth, that the vessel actually is what her colors announce. This right we concede as freely as we exercise. The British, cruisers are not instructed to detain American vessels, under any circumstances whatever; on the contrary, they are ordered to abstain from all interference with them, be they slavers or otherwise. But where reasonable suspicion exists that the American flag has been abused for the purpose of covering the vessel of another nation, it would appear scarcely credible, had it not been made manifest by the repeated protestations of their representative, that the government of the United States, which has stigmatized and abolished the trade itself, should object to the adoption of such means as are indispensably necessary for ascertaining the truth. The undersigned had contended in his former note that the legitimate inference from the arguments of Mr. Stevenson would practically extend even to the sanction of piracy, when the persons engaged in it should think fit to shelter themselves under the flag of the United States. Mr. Stevenson observes, that this is a misapprehension on the part of the undersigned; and he declares that, in denying the right of interfering with vessels under the American flag, he intended to limit his objection to vessels bona fide American, and not to those belonging to nations who might fraudulently have assumed the flag of the United States. But it appears to the undersigned that his former statement is by no means satisfactorily controverted by the declaration of Mr. Stevenson. How is this bona fide to be proved? Must not Mr. Stevenson either be prepared to maintain that the flag alone is sufficient evidence of the nationality of the vessel (which, in the face of his own repeated admissions, he can not do), or must he 'not confess that the application of his arguments would really afford protection to every lawless and piratical enterprise? The undersigned had also expressed his belief that the practice was general of ascertaining, by visit, the real character of any vessel on the high seas against which there should exist reasonable ground of suspicion. Mr. Stevenson denies this; and he asks, what other nation than Great Britain had ever asserted, or attempted to exercise, such a right? In answer to this question, the undersigned can at once refer to the avowed and constant practice of the United States, whose cruisers, especially in the Gulf of Mexico, by the admission of their public journals, are notoriously in the habit of examining all suspicious vessels, whether sailing under the English flag or any other. In whose eyes are these vessels suspicious? Doubtless, in those of the commanders of the American cruisers. But, in truth, this right is quite as important to the United States as to Great Britain; nor is it easy to conceive how the maritime intercourse of mankind could safely be carried on without such a check. It can scarcely be necessary to remind Mr. Everett that the right thus claimed by Great Britain is not exercised for any selfish purpose. It is asserted in the interest of humanity, and in mitigation of the sufferings of our fellow-men. The object has met with the concurrence of the whole civilized world, including the United States of America; and it ought to receive universal assistance and support. The undersigned can not abstain here from referring to the conduct of an honorable and zealous officer commanding the naval force of the United States on the coast of Africa, who, relying on the sincere desire of his government for the sup pression of the slave trade, and sensible of the abuse of the American flag, entered into an engagement on the 11th of March, 1840, with the officer in command of her majesty's cruisers on the same station, by which they mutually requested each other, and agreed, to detain all vessels under American colors employed in the traffic. If found to be. American property, such vessels were to be delivered over to the commander of any American cruiser on the station; or, if belonging to other nations, they were to be dealt with according to the treaties contracted by her majesty with the respective states. The undersigned believes-and, indeed, after the statement of Mr. Stevenson, he regrets to be unable to doubt—that the conduct of this gallant officer, however natural and laudable in its object, has been disavowed by his government. It is not the intention of the undersigned at present to advo cate the justice and propriety of the mutual right of search, as conceded and regulated by treaty, or to weigh the reasons on account of which this proposal has been rejected by the government of the United States. He took occasion, in a former note, to observe, that concessions sanctioned by Great Britain and France were not likely to be incompatible with the dignity and independence of any other state which should be disposed to follow their example. But the undersigned begs now to inform Mr. Everett that he has this day concluded a joint treaty with France, Austria, Russia, and, Prussia, by which the mu tual right of search, within certain latitudes, is fully and effectually established forever. This is, in truth, a holy alliance, in which the undersigned would have rejoiced to see the United States assume their proper place among the great powers of Christendom, foremost in power, wealth, and civilization, and connected together in the cause of mercy and justice. It is undoubtedly true that this right may be abused, like every other which is delegated to many and different hands. It is possible that it may be exercised wantonly and vexatiously; and should this be the case, it would not only call for remonstrance, but would justify resentment. This, however, is in the highest degree improbable; and if, in spite of the utmost caution, an error should be committed, and any American vessel should suffer loss and injury, it would be followed by prompt and ample reparation. The undersigned begs to repeat, that with American vessels, whatever be their destination, British cruisers have no pretension, in any manner, to interfere. Such vessels must be permitted, if engaged in it, to enjoy a monopoly of this unhallowed trade; but the British government will never endure that the fraudulent use of the American flag shall K extend the iniquity to other nations by whom it is abhorred, and who have entered into solemn treaties with this country for its entire suppression. In order to prove to Mr. Everett the anxiety of her majesty's government to prevent all reasonable grounds of complaint, the undersigned believes that he can not do better than to communicate to him the substance of those instructions under which the British cruisers act in relation to American vessels when employed on this service: If, from the intelligence which the officer commanding her majesty's cruiser may have received, or from the maneuvers of the vessel, or from other sufficient cause, he shall have reason to believe that, although bearing the American flag, the vessel does not belong to the United States, he is ordered, if the state of the wind and weather shall admit of it, to go ahead of the suspected vessel, after communicating his intention by hailing, and to drop a boat on board of her to ascertain her nationality, without detaining her if she shall prove to be really an American vessel. But should this mode of visiting the vessel be impracticable, he is to require her to be brought to for this purpose. The officer who boards the vessel is merely to satisfy himself of her nationality by her papers, or other proofs; and should she really be an American vessel, he will immediately quit her, offering, with the consent of her commander, to note on her papers the cause of suspecting her nationality, and the number of minutes she was detained (if detained at all) for the object in question. All the particulars are to be immediately entered on the log-book of the cruiser, and a full statement of them is to be sent, by the first opportunity, direct to England. These are the precautions taken by her majesty's government against the occurrence of abuse in the performance of this service; and they are ready to adopt any others which they may think more effectual for the purpose, and which shall at the same time be consistent with the attainment of the main object in view. Mr. Stevenson has said that he had no wish to exempt the fraudulent use of the American flag from detection; and this being the case, the undersigned is unwilling to believe that a government like that of the United States, professing the same object and animated by the same motives as Great Britain, should seriously oppose themselves to every possible mode by which their own desire could be really accomplished. The undersigned, &c. ABERDEEN. Mr. Webster to Mr. Everett.-[EXTRACTS.] DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, January 29, 1842. By the "Britannia," arrived at Boston, I have received your dispatch of the 28th of December (No. 4), and your dispatch of the 31st of the same month (No. 5), with a postscript of the 3d of January. The necessity of returning an early answer to these communications (as the "Britannia" is expected to leave Boston the 1st of February) obliges me to postpone a reply to those parts of them which are not of considerable and immediate importance. * * * The President has read Lord Aberdeen's note to you of the 20th of December, in reply to Mr. Stevenson's note to Lord Palmerston of the 21st of October, and thinks you were quite right in acknowledging the dispassionate tone of that paper. It is only by the exercise of calm reason that truth can be arrived at in questions of a complicated nature; and between states, each of which understands and respects the intelligence and the power of the 'other, there ought to be no unwillingness to follow its guidance. At the present day, no state is so high as that the principles of its intercourse with other nations are above question, or its conduct above scrutiny. On the contrary, the whole civilized world, now vastly better informed on such subjects than in former ages, and alive and sensible to the principles adopted and the purposes avowed by the leading states, necessarily constitutes a tribunal august in character and formidable in its decisions. And it is before this tribunal, and upon the rules of natural justice, moral propriety, the usages of modern times, and the prescriptions of public law, that governments which respect themselves and respect their neighbors must be prepared to discuss, with candor and with dignity, any topics which may have caused differences to spring up between them. Mr. Everett to Mr. Webster.-[EXTRACT.] * LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, London, March 1, 1842. I received by the Britannia your dispatch No. 8, with the accompanying documents, relative to the case of the "Creole." As my note to the British government on this subject must of necessity be somewhat long, I have thought it better to make the other matters referred to in your dispatch the subject of a separate communication to Lord Aberdeen. This communication I addressed to him on the 21st of February, and a copy of it is herewith inclosed. |