The second is a rejoinder to an article of Mr. Perkins
, of Salem
, who, in a communication to the same newspaper, had reviewed Sumner
's first article.1
, in his subsequent correspondence as Secretary of State
, contended strongly against the asserted right of visit and inquiry, whether as a right of search or as a more limited right of inquiry for verifying nationality;2
and publicists generally are in accord with him.3
The Treaty of Washington
, which he negotiated, provided, however, for naval co-operation in the suppression of the slave-trade.
The right of visit and inquiry claimed by Great Britain
was afterwards practically waived.
When, however, there came an earnest purpose on the part of our Government to suppress the slave-trade, the right to search and seize vessels suspected of being engaged in the traffic was mutually accorded by the treaty between Great Britain
and the United States
, April 2, 1862, negotiated by Lord Lyons and Mr. Seward
wrote, Jan. 7, 1842:—
I thank you for the Boston paper containing your view of the question of the “Right of search on the coast of Africa.”
I have no hesitation in subscribing to it as entirely sound, logical, and conclusive.
There is no doubt of it; and the neatness and elegance with which it is written are delightful.
wrote, Feb. 6:—
I am glad to know that Mr. Prescott and Chancellor Kent approve of your article on the “Right of search.”
It confirms my previous opinion of its intrinsic soundness.
I do not exactly know whether Mr. Webster and Mr. Legare concur in its doctrines, but I shall be surprised if they do not.
He wrote as to the second article, Feb. 20—
I go along with you throughout.
This last article is written with a close logic and lawyer-like precision; or rather, I should say, with the comprehensive grasp of a publicist dealing with the general law of nations, and not with the municipal doctrines of a particular country.
Letters approving his view came also from Rufus Choate
and Theodore Sedgwick