ORAL ARGUMENT OF SIR CHARLES RUSSELL, Q. C. M. P. 325 



Kow Lord Aberdeen, who was then Prime Minister, writes to Mr. 

 Everett, who was at that time Secretary of State of tlie United States, 

 on the 20th December, 1841; and I will ask you, Mr. President, when I 

 read this, to see, — while it is as streuuons a demand on the part of the 

 Foreign ]\Iinister for consent on the part of the United States to a course 

 that the Minister of Great Britain is urging as eminently reasonable 

 from his point of view, — whether it amounts to an assertion of it as a 

 right at all, or whether it is not rather a demand for the reasonable 

 assent on the part of the United States to what is suggested. 



Now this is the language of Lord Aberdeen's letter: 



The Uudersisincd, etc., lias tho lionor of addressing- to Mr. Everett, etc., tlie obser- 

 A'iitions which he feels called upou to make, in answer to the note of Mr. Stevenson, 

 dated on the 21st of October. 



As that communication only reached the hands of the Undersigned on the day 

 after the de])artnre of Mr. Stevejison from London, on his return to America, and as 

 there has since been no Minister or Charge d'Affairesfrom the United States resident 

 in this country, the Undersigned has looked with some anxiety for the arrival of Mr. 

 Everett, in order that he might be enabled to renew his diplomatic intercourse with 

 an accredited Representative of the Republic. Had the Undersigned entertained no 

 other purpose than to controvert the arguments of Mr. Stevenson, or to fortify his 

 own, in treating of the matter which has formed the subject of their correspondence, 

 he would heave experienced little impatience; but as it is his desire to clear nj) all 

 doubt, and to remove misapprehension, he feels that he cannot too early avail him- 

 self of the presence of Mr. Everett at his post, to bring to his knowledge the true 

 state of the question at issue. 



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 indi- 

 viduals ; and, happilj", it is often the first step to the reconciliation of the par- 

 1109 ties. In the present case, this understanding is doubly essential, because a 

 continuance of mistake and error may be productive of the most serious 

 consequences. 



Would you, Mr. President, kindly allow my friend Sir Eichard 

 Webster, to read this next passage for me. 

 Sir Richard Webster. — He "goes on: 



The Undersigned again renounces, as he has already doue, in the most explicit 

 terms, any right on the part of the British Governmeut to search American vessels 

 in time of peace. The right of search, excejjt when specially conceded by Treaty, is 

 a purely belligerent right, and can have no existence on the high seas during peace. 

 The Undersigned aijprehends, however, that the right of search is not confined to 

 the verification of the uationality of the vessel, but also extends to the object of the 

 voyage, and the nature of the cargo. The sole purpose of the British cruizers 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 cruizers 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 cred- 

 ible, had it not been made manifest by the repeated protestations of their Represent- 

 ative that the Government of the United States, which have stigmatized and 

 abolished the trade itself, should object to the adoption of such means as are 

 indisijensably necessary for ascertaining the truth. 



Then lower down on the same page he says : 



The Undersigned has also expressed his belief that the practice was general, of 

 ascertaining by visit, the real character of every vessel on the high sejis, 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 tc 

 exercise, such a right? In answer to this questiou, the Undersigned can at once 

 refer to the avowed and constant practice of the United States, whose cruizers, 

 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. 



