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 or 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 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."

Most of the observations already made upon the letter of Lord Aberdeen to Mr. Stevenson of the 13th October, 1841, will be found to apply equally to the above extracts. The distinction is still insisted on between the right of search, such as exists between belligerent nations in time of war, and the right of visitation, which the British government contends may be exercised in time of peace on the high seas by the public armed vessels of all nations, independent of special compact, for the purpose of detecting pirates and vessels concerned in the African slave trade. The right as above defined in respect to the slave trade is limited to such

an examination as may be necessary for the purpose of

ascertaining whether the suspected vessel belong to British subjects, or to the subjects of one of those powers which have stipulated with Great Britain the mutual exercise of the right of search, and is actually concerned in the slave trade. If the result of the examination shows that the vessel does not truly belong to one of the nations who are parties to that compact, then she is to be no further detained, even if it appears manifest that she is guilty of participating in the odious traffic. But we are not told what is to be done if the suspected vessel turns out, in the judgment of the boarding officer or his commander, to be a British ves

sel, or that of one of the nations who have become parties to the holy alliance against the slave trade, and at the same time to be actually engaged in the same. It is quite clear, however, that in the latter case the vessel must be sent in for trial before some judicial tribunal. The only question is, what tribunal? In the case of an ordinary belligerent capture in time of war, the law of nations has provided that the vessel seized shall be sent in for adjudication before the court of admiralty of the captor's country; subject, of course, to the responsibility of his government to that of the claimant in case of an unjust seizure or condemnation. In the case of a seizure in time of peace the law of nations is totally silent on the subject, because it does not recognize a right to seize the vessels of another nation on the high seas in time of peace. If therefore the vessel in question turns out to be American, the seizure becomes an unlawful trespass ab initio, and the government of the captor becomes responsible to the claimant's government for all the consequences. But this is exactly what happens in the case of a belligerent seizure in time of war, and therefore it is that we have contended that it was impossible to distinguish the right claimed by Great Britain from the ordinary belligerent right of visitation and search. In the one case, as to a vessel pretending to be neutral, and which turns out to be really so, the question is, was there such probable cause to suspect that she was an enemy's vessel, or laden with enemy's property, or contraband of war, as would justify the seizure? In the other, the question is. was there probable cause to suspect that the vessel belonged to one of the nations contracting parties to the treaties stipulating the mutual right of search, and that she was actually engaged in the slave trade?

The right asserted, then, comes to this, a right to seize and send in for adjudication, subject to the payment of costs and damages in case of a seizure without reasonable cause of suspicion.

We again repeat that it is impossible to show a single

passage of any institutional writer on public law, or the judgment of any court by which that law is administered, either in Europe or America, which will justify the exercise of such a right, on the high seas, in time of peace independent of special-compact. The right of seizure for a breach of the revenue laws, or laws of trade and navigation of a particular country, is quite different. The utmost length to which the exercise of this right on the high seas has ever been carried, in respect to the vessels of another nation, has been to justify seizing them within the territorial jurisdiction of the state against whose laws they offend, and pursuing them in case of flight beyond that limit, arresting them on the ocean, and bringing them in for adjudication before the tribunals of that state. "This, however," suggests the supreme court of the United States, in the case before quoted of the Marianna Flora, "has never been supposed to draw after it any right of visitation or search. The party, in such case, seizes at his peril. If he establishes the forfeiture, he is justified."

It is evident that no extension of this right by treaty between particular powers can affect other nations not parties

to such treaty.

Lord

States and

The negotiation which had been for some time carried § 34. Treaty of Washingon in London respecting this subject were subsequently ton between transferred to Washington, by the appointment of Lord the United Ashburton as a special minister on the part of the British Great Britain government, with authority to treat and definitively settle 1842. all matters in difference between the two countries. Ashburton's mission resulted in the conclusion of a treaty between the United States and Great Britain, signed by him and Mr. Webster, secretary of state, at Washington on the 9th of August, 1842, which after referring to the 10th article of the treaty of Ghent relating to the slave trade, declared, (art. 8,) that: "Whereas, notwithstanding the laws which have at various times been passed by the two governments, that criminal traffic is still prosecuted and carried on; and whereas the United States of America

and her majesty the Queen of the United Kingom of Great Britain and Ireland are determined, that, so far as it may be in their power, it shall be effectually abolished: the parties mutually stipulate that each shall prepare, equip, and maintain in service, on the coast of Africa, a sufficient and adequate squadron, or naval force of vessels, of suitable numbers and descriptions, to carry in all not less than eighty guns, to enforce separately and respectively, the laws, rights, and obligations of each of the two countries for the suppression of the slave trade; the said squadrons to be independent of each other, but the two governments stipulating, nevertheless, to give such orders to the officers commanding their respective forces, as shall enable them. most effectually to act in concert and coöperation, upon mutual consultation as exigencies may arise, for the attainment of the true object of this article; copies of all such orders to be communicated by each government respectively."

The 9th article of the treaty of Washington also provides that: "Whereas, notwithstanding all efforts which may be made on the coast of Africa for suppressing the slave trade, the facilities for carrying on that traffic and avoiding the vigilance of cruisers by the fraudulent use of flags and other means, are so great, and the temptations for pursuing it, while a market can be found for slaves, so strong, as that the desired result may be long delayed, unless all markets be shut against the purchase of African negroes, the parties to this treaty agree that they will unite in all becoming remonstrances with any, and all powers, within whose dominions such markets are allowed to exist; and that they will urge upon all such powers the propriety and duty of closing such markets forever."

The above stipulations were explained by the President of the United States, in his message communicating the treaty to the senate for its advice and consent to its ratification as follows:

"In my message at the commencement of the present

session of congress, I endeavoured to state the principles which this government supports respecting the right of search and the immunity of flags. Desirous of maintaining those principles fully, at the same time that existing obligations should be fulfilled, I have thought it most consistent with the dignity and honour of the country that it should execute its own laws and perform its own obligations by its own means and its own power. The examination or visitation of the merchant vessels cf one nation by the cruisers of another for any purposes except those known and acknowledged by the law of nations, under whatever restraints or regulations it may take place, may lead to dangerous results. It is far better by other means to supersede any supposed necessity, or any motive, for such examination or visit. Interference with a merchant vessel by an armed cruiser is always a delicate proceeding-apt to touch the point of national honour, as well as to affect the interests of individuals. It has been thought, therefore, expedient, not only in accordance with the stipulations of the treaty of Ghent, but at the same time as removing all pretext on the part of others for violating the immunities of the American flag upon the seas, as they exist and are defined by the law of nations, to enter into the articles now submitted to the senate.

"The treaty which I now submit to you proposes no alteration, mitigation, or modification of the rules of the law of nations. It provides simply that each of the two governments shall maintain on the coast of Africa a sufficient squadron to enforce, separately and respectively, the laws, rights, and obligations of the two countries for the suppression of the slave trade."

The motives which guided the policy of the American government on this occasion are also fully stated in a despatch from Mr. Webster to General Cass, minister of the United States in Paris, dated the 29th of August, 1842, of which the following is an extract:

"In communicating to you this treaty, I am directed by