inhumanity thrown out against the American government for their conduct with regard to the right of search. To charge that government with a secret desire of shielding the few miscreants still engaged in the odious traffic, at the expense of the honour, and possibly the peace of the whole nation, is in reality too monstrous to produce any other effect than that of irritation, where it is our obvious duty to remove prejudice by calm reasoning and conciliatory language.*

I. There are two branches of the question that must always be kept distinct from each other: one relates to the mutual right of search, as it exists between the European powers, and which can only exist by treaty; the other, which is too often confounded with it, is the right to ascertain, by visitation, the nationality of a suspected vessel. This is assumed by Great Britain as a natural right, independent of treaties, and vehemently denounced by the United States as an infraction of international law. The case is so forcibly and calmly stated by Lord Aberdeen, in what is confessedly one of the most able state papers on record, that I will here transcribe some parts which refer to the branch of the subject now under consideration.

* This gross injustice is thus indignantly disclaimed in a pamphlet ascribed to the late American Minister, at Paris, General Cass :

66 But any candid intelligent man will at once acknowledge that in a 66 scandalous traffic like this in human beings, condemned by the public opinion and by the laws of the United States, revolting to humanity, "afflicting to all Christians, and reprobated by the civilized world, the

pecuniary interests of a few degraded men who covertly pursue it. by 66 associating their capital with the regular slave-dealers of other nations, "would not weigh as the small dust of the balance with the American "government in any consideration connected with this matter. This "miserable motive has been hinted at, rather than distinctly charged, "by some of the English journals. We shall not descend to refute it. "No administration in the United States, giving the least just ground for “such an imputation, could resist the public indignation.”—Examination of the Question &c. by an American, published at Paris, Jan. 1842.

The Earl of Aberdeen to Mr. Everett, 20 Dec. 1841. "The undersigned agrees with Mr. Stevenson* in the im"portance 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 pro"ductive of the most serious consequences. Mr. Stevenson "persists in contending that the British Government asserts a right which is equivalent to the claim of searching Ame"rican vessels in time of peace...

"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 con"ceded by treaty, is a purely belligerent right, and can have "no existence on the high seas during peace.

"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 colours announce.

"This right we concede as freely as we exercise. The "British cruisers are not instructed to detain American ves"sels 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

* Although addressed to Mr. Everett, it is in answer to a communication of Mr. Stevenson's, dated the 21st of October, and received by Lord Aberdeen after the departure of that gentleman from London.

"the purpose of covering the vessel of another nation, it "would appear scarcely credible, had it not been made mani"fest by the repeated protestations of their representative, "that the government of the United States, which has stig"matised 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 mis"apprehension 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 objections to “vessels bonâ 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 contro. "verted by the declaration of Mr. Stevenson.

"How is this bona fides 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 admissions, he cannot "do, or must he not confess that the application of his argu"ments 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 every 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 ad"mission 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 huma

66

nity, 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 begs to repeat that with American vessels, "whatever be their destination, British cruisers can have no "pretension in any manner to interfere. Such vessels must be "permitted, if engaged in it, to enjoy a monopoly of this un"hallowed 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."*

It is unnecessary to dwell upon the abuse of the American flag here referred to. No one, even in America, seems to dispute it. It would be perhaps sufficient to give an admission of the fact from a communication of Mr. Stevenson's to Lord Palmerston, dated the 14th of August 1840.

Mr. Stevenson to Viscount Palmerston.

"The President has been advised that on frequent "occasions the flag of the United States has been fraudulently

*Correspondence, Class D., 1841, p. 280.

B

"used to elude the pursuit of British and other cruisers employed in the suppression of the slave trade, and that a pretext has thereby been afforded for boarding, visiting and "interrupting vessels bearing the American flag."*

The testimony of the British commander-in-chief may be added to this.

Rear-Admiral Sir E. D. King to Mr. More O'Ferrall, 3 April 1841 (Simon's Bay).

"From what I have seen and heard since I assumed this "command, I feel quite convinced that unless a very different

course indeed be adopted by the American government from "that at present pursued, there can be no reasonable hope of effectually and permanently checking the slave trade. For "whilst that government denies to British cruisers the right of "searching vessels under its flag, it applies no adequate "means of its own, either to detect and punish American citizens engaged in the traffic, or to prevent Portuguese, Bra"zilians and other foreigners from carrying it on under the apparent protection of the national colours.

65

"The consequence is, that American slave vessels, or vessels trading in slaves under that flag, swarm the coasts of Africa "and Brazil to an extent far beyond general belief, and are daily increasing in numbers."+

66

Any one who will refer to the case of the "Catherine," decided in the district court, United States, August 1840, will learn with how little ingenuity the humane object of the American law may be defeated, and with what facile impunity the American flag may be sullied for the purposes of this bloodstained traffic.

For additional instances of the slave trade having been carried on under the dishonest assumption of the American flag, see the cases of the "Sarah Anne," of the " Perry Spencer," of the schooner "Euphrates," the "Ontario," the "Con