Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

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