Newspaper Page Text
IMPRESSMENTS
UNLAWFUL AND IN AD'f ISbJItLE.
COMMUNICATION.
On the subject of ‘he Imfirriemrnt of Amrriean
and foreign Seamen, and o hey fu r.,ous.
It hits become manifest to eve ry attentive
observer, that the early and continued aggics
aions of Great-Britain on oui pe.xou our pro
petty, and our rights, imperiously demand a
Jinn stun I— in effectual, though calm systetnof
measures ol urrestation. Tor this purpose, it
is our duly to make ourselves completely mus
teisoftlie great truths uid arguments by which
our have been elucidated, supported and
Hi mi it.lined.
On the 17th of January, 1800. the President
of the United States communicated to congress
an extract from a dispatch of James Madison,
esq. our secretary of state, to James vjonroe,
; q. our minister in London, which contains
many facts highly important, and observations
and arguments perfectly satisfactory and con
clusive against “ iin/ircsHintit'.s of seamen and
passengers, whether foreign or American, on
board of our vessels.” The republication ol
that document at this crisis will at once dis
play some of the reasons on which the govern
ment has probably declined to sanction ihc re
cent draught of a treaty with Great-Britain, and
will elucidate the ground on which the question
of the im/tressmenC of /tern'ns, both native and
aiien, has been rested by our administration.
Extract fa letter from the Secretary of Sta e
to James Monroe, ray. da cd b.'h of January
1804.
We consider a neutral flag, on the high seas,
as a safeguard to those sailing under it. Great-
Britain on the. contrary ussertsa light to search
lor, and and seize her own subjects ; and under
that cover, as cannot but happen, arc often seiz
ed and taken o(T, citizens of the United States,
a id citizens or subjects of other neutral coun
tries, navigating the high seas, under tnc pro
tection of the American flag.
Were the rigli of Great-Britain in this case,
not denied, the abuses flowing font it would
justify the United States in clui niug and ex
pecting a discontinuance of its exetcise.—l Jut
t.ic right is do lied, and on the best grounds.
Although Great-Britain lias not yet adopted,
in the sanie. latitude with most other nations,
the ini : mmii ios of a neutral flag, she will no
deny the general freedom of the high seas, and
of neutral vessels navigating them, with such
exceptions only as arc annexed to it by the law
ol nations. She must produce then such an
exception in the law of nations, in favor ot the
right she contends for. But in what written
and received authnri'v will she find i ? In what
u-,ige except her own, will it he found? She
will find in noth, that a neutral Vessel does not
f —‘“ ■• *> > is rt,-nominated contraband
of var. including enemies serving in the war,
nor nr ides going into a blockade port, nor as
sac has maintained, and as we hav e not con
tested, enemies property of any kind. But no
where will site find an exception to this free
d irn of the seas, and of neutral flags, which
justifies the taking away of any person, not an
enemy in millitary service, found on board a neu
tral vessel.
If treaties, B itixh as well as others- arc to
be consulted on this Subject, it will equally ap
pear, that no countenance to the practice can
be found in tlieuv Whilst they admit a con
traband of war. by enumerating its articles,
and the effect of a real blockade by defining it,
tn no ins.aice do they affirm o 1 ’ i nply a rit'll! in
any sox’ refit to enforce his claims to th atlrgi
a ice of h’s subj cts, on b ar'd neutral v‘ssels on
the high seas —;>n the contrary, whenever a
belligerent claim against persons on board a
neutral vessel, is referred to in treaties, en -
mies in military service alone are excepted
from the general immunity of persons in that
situation ; and this exception confirms the im
munity of those who are not included in tt.
li is not then from the law or the usage of
rations, nor from the tenor of the treaties, that
a iy sanction cm be derived for the practice in
question. And surqlv it will not be pretended
that tile sovereignty of unv nation extends in
anv case wnataver, beyond its own dominions
and its own tnv"/.i on he high seas. Such a
and •et -iue will give just alarm to all nations, and
more th in any thing would countenance the
imputation of aspiring to an universal empire
ol these as. It would !>c less admissible too,
as't would be ipplicable to ti ties of as
well ad to limes oTWar, and to property as well
as to persons. If the law of allegiance, which
is a ntunirijt.d law. be in force at all on the high
seas, on board foreign vessels, it must be so at
nil times there, as it is wtthm its acknowledged
*q> here. If the reason alletlged for it be good
in time of war, namely, that the sovereign has
then a right to the service of all his subjects,
it must be good at all ti ncs, because at all
times be has the same right to their service.
War is not the only occasion for which he may
sv mt their services, no • is external danger the
o tly danger against which’ their services may
be required. Again, if the authority of a mu
rudfkn law can ooerate on persons in foreign
vessels on the high seas*, because within the
dominion of their sovereign they would he sub
ject to that law, and are violating that law by
being in that situation, how reject - the inference
that the authority of a tn mirihal law may equal
ly he enfo-ced, on'board foreign vessels, on the
high seas, against articles of liraherty exported
in violation of such a law. or belonging to the
country from which it was exported ? and thus
every com uercid regulation, in time of peace
too as well as of war. would he made obligato
ry on foiciguets and their vessels, not only
whilst within the dominion of the sovereign J
making the regulation, but in every sea, and at
every distance where an armed vessel might
meet with them. Another inference deserves ;
attention. If the subjects of one sovereign
n , ybe taken by force trom the vessels of an
other, on the high seas, the right of taking
them when found, implies the right of search
ing for them, u vexation of commerce, especi
ally in time of peace, which has not jet been
attempted, and which for that as well as other
reasons, may be regarded us contradicting the
principle, from which it would flow.
Taking reason and justice forthe tests of this
practice, it is peculiarly indefensible ; because
it deprives the dearest rights of a regular trial,
to which the most inconsiderable article of pro
perty captured on the high seas.is entitled; and
leaves their destiny to the will ot an officer,
sometimes cruel, often ignorant, and generally
interested by his want of mariners, i; his own
decisions. Whenever property found in a neu
tral vessel, is supposed to he liable, on any
giounds, to cap'ure and condemnation, the rule
in all cases is. that the question shall not be
decided by the captor, but he carried before a
legal tribunal, where a regular trial may be
hud, and v. here the cap'.or lumsell is liable to
damages, for an abuse ot his power. Tan it be
reasonable than or just, that a belligerent com
mander, .vhc is thus restricted and thus res
ponsible in a case of mere property of trivial
amount should be permitted, without recuring
to any tribunal whatever, to examine the crew
of a neiur.il vessel, to decide the importunt
question of their respective allegiances, and
to carry that decision into instant execution,
y forcing every individual he may chuse, into
a service abhorrent to his feelings, cutting him
oil'from his most tender connections, exposing
his mind and his person to the most humiliat
ing discipline, and his life itself to the greatest
dangers? Reason, justice and humantv unite
in protesting agains’ so extravagant a proceed
ing. And what is the pretext for it ? it is that
the similarity of language and features ie tween
American citizens and British subje ts, arc
Mich as aic not easily to be distinguished; ami
that without tins arbitrary and sumnnry au
thority to make the div.inciion, British .subjects
would escape, under the name of urcrican
citizens, from the duty which Lhev owe lt> tiie'r
sovereign. Is then the difficulty of Jis'in
g lLhing a mariner of one country froti the
mariner of the other, and the itnportaneeof hi.,
services, a good plea for reicring the question
whether he belongs to the one or the other, to
an arbitrary decision on the spot, by an ,nter
ested and unresponsible officer? In all other
case,, the difficulty and the importance of
questions are considered as reasons for requit
ing greater cu e and formality in investigating
them, and greater security for a light decision
on them. To say, that precautions ot this sort
arc incompatible vvieh the subject, is to admit
the object is unjustifiable; since theomy means
by which it can be pursued are such as cannot be
jus.hied.
The evil takes a deeper die, when viewed in
its practice as well as mus principles. Were
it allow ible, that liriusli subjects should be tak
en out of A.uei icun vessels on the high seas,
it might at least be requited, that the proof of
their allegiance should tie on the British sine
I’his on, ions andjust rule is however, reversed;
and every seaman on board, though going from
an American port, and sailing under me Ame
rican flag, and sometimes even speaking a ii
idiom, proving him not be a British suojCcl, ts
presumed to be such, unless snevvn to be an
American citizen, it may safely be affirmed,
that this is an outrage and an indignity which
nus no prece lent, and which Great-Britain
would be among tne last nations in the world
to sutler it offered to her own subjects, and her
own flag. Nor is it always against the right
presumption alone, vvnicli is in favor ol me
ci.izensiiipyjCorrespondi ig with the flag, that
the violence*!* committed. Not untVcquenuy
it takes place in defiance of the most positive
proof, certified in due form by an American offi
cer. Let ii not be said, that in granting to .v
----meric.iu seamen tin, protection for their rights
as suon tne point is yielded diat the proof lies
on the American side, and tout the .vatu ol it
in die prescribed form justifies the inference
that tne seamen is not of American allegiance.
It is distinctly to be understood, ttiat tile certifi
, cate ui.all, called a protection to American
seamen, is not meant to protect them under
. !h ir own, or even any other neutral /logon the
hgh seas. The document is given to prove
their real character, in situ itions to which nei
ther the law of nations, nor live law of their
own country, are applicable ; in other words,
to protect them within the ju isdiction of the
British laws, and to secure to them, within eve
ry other jurisdiction, the rights and immuni
ties due to them. If, in the course of their
navigation, even on the high seas, the document
.should have the. effect of repelling wrongs of
any sort, it is an incidental advantage only, of
wliich they avail themselves, and isbv no means
to be misconslructed into a right to exact such a
proof, or to make any disa lvantagous inference
from the want of it.
Were it even admitted, that certificates for
protection might be justly required in time of
war. from American seamen they could only
be required in cases where the lapse of time
from its conmiencemcnt, had given an oppor
tunity for the American seamen to provide
themselves with such a document. Yet it is
certain, that in a variety of instances seamen
have been impressed from American vessels,
on a plea that they had no* this proof of citizen
ship, when the dates and places of the impress
ments demonstrated the impossibility of their
knowing in time to provide the proof, that a
state of War had rendered it necessary.
Whether, therefore, we consult the law of
rations, the tenor of tieaties, or the dictates of
reason and justice, no warrant, no pretext can
be found tor the British practice of making
impressments from American vessels on the
high seas.
Great-Britain has the less to say in excuse
for this practice, as it is in direct contradic
tion to the principles on which she proceeds in
other cases. V hilst she claims and seizes on
the high seas, her own subjects, voluntarily
serving in American vessels, she has constant
ly given, when she would give, as reason for
not discharging from her service American
citizens, that they had voluntarily engaged in
it. Nay, more, whilst she impresses her own
subjects from the American service, although
they may have been settled and married and
even naturalized in the United States, she con
stantly refuses to release from hers, Ameri
can citizens impressed into it, whenever she
can give for reason, that they were either set
tled or married within her dominions. Thus,
when the voluntary consent of the individual
favors her pretensions she pleads the validity
of that consent. When the voluntary consent
of the individual stands in the way of her p e
tensions, it goes for nothing ! W hen marriage
or residence can be pleaded in her favor, she
avails herself of the plea. When marriage
and residence, and even naturalization, are
against her, no respect whatever is paid to ei
ther ! She takes, by force, her own subjects
voluntarily serving in our vessels. She keeps
by force American citizens involuntarily serv
ing in hers. More flagrant inconsistencies can
not be imagined.
Notwithstanding the powerful motives, which
outfit to be felt by the British government to
relinquish a practice vvhi, h exposes it to so
many reproaches, i; is foreseen, that objec
tions of different sorts wii! be pressed on you.
You will be told first, of the great number of
British seamen in the American trade, and of
the necessity for their services in time of war
and danger. Secondly, of the right and pre
judice of the British nation with respect to
what arc called the British or narrow seas,
where its domain would he abandoned bv the J
general stipulation required. Thirdly, of the
use which would be made of such a sanctity as I
that of American vessels for desertions, and
traitorous communications to her enemies,
especially across the channel to Frat ce.
hi. With respect to the British seamen
serving in our trade, it may be remarked, first,
that the number, though considerable, is pro
bably less than may be supposed. Second y,
thatwh.it is wrong in itself cannot be ma le
tight by considerations of expediency or advan
tage. Th.rdlv, that it is proved by the fact
chat the number of real British subjects gained
by the practice in question, is of considerable
importance even in the scale of advantage
The annexed report to Congress on the sub
ject of impressments, with the addition of such
cases as may be in the hands of Mr. Irving,
then our Consul in London, will verify the re
mark in its application to the present war.—
The statement made by his predecessor dur
ing the last war, and wnick is also annexed, is
in the same view still more conclusive. The
statement comprehends not only the applica
tions tn de by him in the first instance for the
liberation of impressed seamen, between the
months of June, 1797, and Sept. 1801, but
also, those which had been made previ
ous to this agency, by Mr. Finckey and .vlr.
King, and which it was necessary for him to
renew. These applications therefore may
fairly be considered as embracing the greater
part of tne period of the war—and as applica
tions are known to be pretty indiscriminately
made, t.,ey may further be considered as em
bracing. if not the whole, the far greater part
of Hie impressments, those of B.i ish subjects
as well as otiters. Yet the result exhibits
2039 cases only, and of this number 102 sea
men only, detained as being British subjects,
which is loss than two-moths of the number
impressed, and ‘.,142 discharged or ordered to
be so, as not being'British subjects, which is
more than half of the whole number, Faring
eight hundred and live for further proof, with
the strongest presumption, that the greater
part, if not the whole, were Americans or
other aliens, whose proof of citizenship had
been lost or destroyed, or whose situation
would account for the difficulties and de ivs in
producing it. So that it is certain, that for all
the British seamen gained by this violent pro
ceeding, more than an equal number, who
were not so, were the victi ns ; it is highly pro
bable, that for every British seamen so gained,
a number of Olivers, not less than It) for 1, must
have been the victims ; and it is even possible,
tint this number may have exceeded u.c pro
portion of 20 to 1.
It cannot therefore be doubted, that the ac
quisition of British seamen, by these impress
ments, whatever may be its advantage, is lost
in the wrong done to Americans, ignorantly or
willfully mistaken for British subjects, in the
jealousy and ill-will excited among all mari
time nations, by an abhorrence to such a prac
tice, and in the particular provocation to mea
sures of redress on the part of the U. States,
not less disagreeable to them, than embarrass
ing to Great-Britain, and which may threaten
the good understanding which ought to be faith
fully cultivated bv Ixith. The ropy of a bill
brought into congress under the influence of
violations committed on our (lag, gives form to
this latter consideration. Whether it will pass
into a law, and at the present session, is more
than can yet lie said. As there is every reason
to believe that it has been proposed with reluc
tance, it will probably not be pursued into ef
fect, if any hope can he supported of a remedy,
by an amteabie arrangement between the two
nations.
There is further consideration which ought
to haw weight in this question. Although the*
British seamen en ploved in carrying on Ame
rican commerce, may be in son e respects lost
to their own radons, yet such is the intimate 5;
extensive connection of this commerce, direct
and circuitous, with the commerce, the manu
factures, the revenue and the general resources
of the British nation, that in other respects its
manners, onfcdard American vessels, may truly
be said to be rendering it the most valuable xti
viccs. It would not be extravagant to make it
a question, whether Gteat-Bntain would not
suffer more by withdrawing bet seamen from
the merchant vessels of the United States, than
her enemies would suffer ftpm the aduition of
them to the crews of her ships oi war and
cruisers.
Should any difficulty be'tarted concerning
seamen born within the British dominions, and
naturalized by the United States since (be trea
ty of 1783. veu may remove it by observing:—
First, that very few, if any, such naturalizations
can take place, the law here requiting a picpz
ratory residence of five years, with notice of ihe
intention to becom e a citizen, entered on record
two years before the last necessary formality,
besides a regular proof of good and moral char
acter. conditions little likely lobe complied with
by ordinary seafaring persons. Secondly, that
a discontinuance of impressments on the high
seas vv ill preclude an actu.,l collision between the
in erfering claims. Within the jurisdiction of
each nation, and in their respective vessels on
the high seas, each will enforce the allegiance
which it claims. In other situations the indi
viduals doubly claimed, will be within a juris
diction independent, of both nations.
Secondly. The Bri.ish pretentions to domain
over the narrow seas, are so absolete, and so
indefensible, that they never would have oc
curred as a probable objection in this case,
if they had not actually frustrated an arrange
ment settled by Mr. King with the British
ministry on the subject of impressments
from American vessels on the high seas.—-
Ai the moment when the articles were ex
pected to be signed, an expectation of the
“ narrow seas” was urged and insited on by
Lord St. Vincent ; and being utterly inad
missible on our part, the negotiation was aban
doned.
The objection in itself has certainly not the
slighest foundation. The time has been indeed
when England not only claimed, but exercised
pretensions scarely inferior to full sovereignty
over the seas surrounding the British isles,
and even as for as Cape Finistere to the south,
and Van Staten, Norway, to the north. It wis
a time, however, when reason had little share
in determining the law, and the intercourse of
nations, when pow er alone decided questions
of right, and when the ignorance and want of
concert among other maritime countries faci
litated such an usurpation. The progress of
civilization and information has produced a
change in all those respects, and no principle
in the code of public law, is at present better
established, than the common freedom of the
seas beyond a very limited distance from ter
ritories washed by them. This distance is not
indeed fixed with absolute precision. It is va
ried in a small degree by written authorities,
aid perhaps it may be reasonably varied in
some degree by local peculiarities. But the
greatest distance which would now be listened
to unv where, would make a small proportion
of the narrowest part of the narrowest seas in
question.
What arc, in fact, the prerogatives claimed
and exercised l}v Great-Brit tin over these seas J
it they were really part of her domain, foreign
vessels would be subject to all the laws and re
gulations tranicd for them, as much as if they
were within the harbors or livers of the coun
try. Nothing of this sort is pretended. No
thing oI this sort wi 1 lie tolerated. The only
instances in which these seas aie distinguished
from other seas, or in which Great-Britain en
joys within them, any distinction over otnei n i
uons, are first, Uie compliment paid by other
flags to hers. Secondly, the extension of her
territorial jurisdiction in certain cases to the
distance ot four leagues from the coast. The
first is a relic of ancient usurpation, which has
thus long escaped the correction which modern
and more enlightened times have applied to
other usurpations. The prerogative has been
•often contested, however, even at the expense
oi bloody wars, and is still borne with ill will
and impudence by her neighbors. At the last
treaty of peace at Amiens, the abolition of it
was repeatedly pressed by France ?
and it is not improbable, that at no remote day
it will follow the fate of the title of “ Kinp'of
France,” so long worn by the Bi Irish monarchs,
and at length so properly sacrificed to the les
sons of a magnanimous wisdom. As far*as
this homage to the British flag has any founda
tion at present, it rests merely on long u,age
and long acquiescence, which are construed, as
in a few other cases of maritime claims, into
the effect of a general though tacit convention.
The second instance is the extension of the
territorial jurisdiction to four leagues from the
shore. This too, as far as the distance mxy
exceed that which is generallv allowed, rests
on a like foundation, strengthened, perhaps, by
the local facility of smuggling, and the pecu
liar interest which Great-Britain has in pre
venting a practice affecting 1 so deeply hervvhoie
| system of revenue, commerce and manufoc-
I tures : whilst the limitation itself to fohr
leagues, necessarily implies that beyond that
distance no territorial jurisdict’on is assumed.
But whatever may be the origin or value of
these prerogatives over foreign flags in one
case, snd within ‘united portions of these se*as
in another, it is obvious that neither of them
will be violated by the exemption of American
vessels from impressments, which are no wise
connected with either ; having never bye