 |
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|||
|
||||
|
||||
|
Federal Gazette & Baltimore Daily Advertiser 1807/07-1807/12 msa_sc3722_2_6_2-0043 Enlarge and print image (5M) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
||||
|
||||
|
Federal Gazette & Baltimore Daily Advertiser 1807/07-1807/12 msa_sc3722_2_6_2-0043 Enlarge and print image (5M) |
|
P DOCUMENT ON IMPRESSMENT.
Extract or' a Loiter from the Secretary of
te«tO James .Monroe, esq. Mi»iijt.e&at
1,01 I 8th January iF0i.
.."Y,",- consider a neutral (lag, on the
Rig?! seas, as ^ '¦ iiattfto those sailing uh-
:dfi" it. Great-Britain on the contrary, as-
seffe a I e-et •;<> search' for, arid seize her
own. subjects ; and under that cover, as can-
not bill'Happen, are often seized and taken
offV'Ci'ligeiH of the tinned'States, and citi-
zens or subjects of other neutral countries,
J?a^igatiag the ht^li seas, under the protec-
tion, of the American flag.
"' Were the right of Great-Britain, in this
« ;<' not denied, the abuse? Bowing-froni it
would jnstiiy the.United States in claiming
a'Tid cxivi-cuna; a discontinuance of its exer-
cise. Bftt the right is .denied, and on the
hest grounds*
Although Great-Britain has not yet a-
dojrted in the same latitude with most other
Million:', the immunities of a neutral flag,
she will not deny the general froedom of
¦the high seas, and of neutral vessels navi-
gating them, with such exceptions only as
.are annexed to it by the law of nations. She
inust produce then Snch an exception in the
Ww cf'nation's, in favor of the right she
contends for.
But in what written and received authori-
ty \yjil she find it? in what ..usage except
her own will it be found ? Site will find in
Loth, that a neutrrl vessel does not protect
certain objects denominated contraband of
war, including enemies serving in the war,
ror articles going into a blockaded port, nor
as she has maintained, and as we have not
contested, enemies' propert3' of any kind.
But ho where will she find an exception to
This freedom of the seas, and of neutral
which justifies the taking away of
'any person, not an enemy in military ser-
vice, found onboard a neutral vessel.
If treaties, British as well as others, are
to be consulted on this subject, it will equal-
ly appear that no countenance to the prac-
tice can be found in, them. Whilst they
Btfmit a contraband of war, by enumerating
its articles, and the effect of a real block-
;:;U- by ci-.fining it. in no instance do they
affirm ov imply S right in any sovereign to
enforce his cjajms to the allegiance of his
subjects, on beard neutral vessels on the
seas. On the contrary, whenever a
belligerent claim against persons on board a
neutral vessel, is referred to in treaties, ene-
mies in military service alone are excepted
iron; ihe general immunity of persons in
that situation '; and this exception confirms,
the immunity of those who are not included
in it.
It is not, then from the law or the usage
of nations, nor from the tenor of the treaties,
that any sanction can be derived for the
pra< tir.e in question, A>;d surely it will not
lie' pretended that the sovereignty of any
nation extends in any case whatever beyond
its own dominions, and its own vessels on
the high seas. Such a doctrine would give
just alarm to all nations, and more than any
tiling would.countenance the imputation of
aspiring- to an universal empire of the seas.
It would be less admissible too, as it would
iicable to times of peace as well as to
persons* If the law of allegiance, which is
.icipal law, be in force at all on tlie
high seas, on board foreign vessels, it must
be.-so at all times there, as it is within its
acknowh (l^i'il sphere. If the reason alledg-
t d-for it be good in time of war, namely, that the
sovereign lias then a right to the service of
all his subjects, it must be good at all times,
because at all times he has the same right to
their service. War is not the only occasion
for which he may want their services, nor is
external danger the only danger against
which their services may be required for his
security. Again : if tlie authoiityof a mu-
jlicip.al law can operate on p-rsons in foreign
veSSels on the high seas, because within the
dominion of their sovereignty they would
be subject to that law, and are violating that
Jaw by being in that situation, how reject the
inference that the authority of a municipal
law may equally be enforced on board foreign
vessels on the high seas, against articles of
pnTperty exported in violation of such a law,
or belonging to the country front which it
was exported ? and thus every commercial
regulation, in time of peace too, as well as
of war, would be made obligatory on fo-
reigners and their vessels, not only whilst
within the dominion of the sovereign mak-
ing 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
may be, taken by force from the vessels of
another on the high, seas, the right of taking
ehem when found, implies the right of search-
ing for them, a vexation of commerce, espe-
cially in the time of peace, which has not
yet been attempted,' and which for that as
veil as other reasons, may be regarded as
contradicting the principle from which it
¦would flow.
Taking reason and justice for the tests of
% practice, it is, peculiarly iAdensible ;
n. ..aise it deprives tlie dearest rights of a
regular trial, to which the most irftonsider-
able article of properl}' captured on the high
seas, is entitled; and leaves their destiny to
the will of an officer, sometimes cruel, often
ignorant, and generally interested by his
•wont of mariners, in his own decisions.—-
Whenever property found in a neutral ves-
sel'is supposed to be'liablc on any grounds
to capture and condemnation, the rule in all
i as/is is that the question shall not k* decid-
ed by the captor, but be carried before a legal
tribunal, where a.regular trial may be bad,
;md where the captor himsi If is liable to da
mages, for an abuse of his power. Can it be
reasonable then, or just, that a belligerent
commander, who is thus restricted and thus
jrespbnSible in a case of mere property of
trivial amount, should be permited without
recurring to any tribunal whatever, to exa-
snine the crew of a neutral vessel, to decide
the important question of their respective al- |
legiances, and to cany that decision into
instant execution, by lorcing every indivi-
he may chuse, into a service abhorent
to his feelings, cutting him off from his
snost fender connections, exposing his mind
sind his person ..to the most humiliating dis-
cipline, fend biskfe to the greatest dangers ?
Jleason, justice and humanity unite in pro-
testing aga:.':;1'. so extravagant a p-.occedirrg.
.And what is the pretext ibi it ? It is that
the similarity of i.a:r gunge and of features be-
iween American citizens and British sub-
jects, are such as not easily to be riistin-
jgu'shed ; and that without this aibitrary
the name of American crt'zer.r;; fiarr the flu-
ty which the}- owe to their sovereign. Is
then the difficulty of distinguishing a mari-
ner of one coulitry from the mariner ofthe
other, and the importance of his sfi
a good plea for referring the question wire
ther he belongs to the one or to the other,
to an arbitrary decision oil the spirt, by an
interested and unresponsible oHicer ? In
all other- cases, the difficulty and the impor-
tance of questions are considered as reasons
for requiring greater care and frrmrdity in
investigating them, and greater security for
a right decision on them. To say that pre
cautions of this sort are incompatible with
the object is to admit the; object is unjustifi-
able ; since the only means by which it can
be pursued are such as cannot he.justiHed.
The evii takes a deeper die, when viewed
ih its practice as well as its principles.
Were it allowable that British subjects
should be taken out of American vessels on
the high seas, it might at least be required
that the proof of their allegiance should lie
on the British side. This obvious and just
rule is, however, reversed ; and every sea-
man on board, though going from an Ame-
rican port, and sailing under the American
(lag, and sometimes even speaking an idom
proving him not to be a British subject,
is persutned to be such unless shown to
be an American citizen. It may safely be
affirmed that this is an outrage and an indig-
nity which has no precedent, and which
Great-Britain would be among the last na-
tions in the world to suffer, jf offered to her
own subjects, and her own Hag. Nor is it
always against the right presumption alone
which is in favor of the citizenship corres-
ponding with the flag, that the violence is
commited. Not unfreque.'itly it takes place
in defiance of the most positive proof, cer-
tified in due from by an Ameaicm officer.
Let it not be said, that in granting to Ame-
rican seamen this protection for their rights
as such, the point is yielded, that the proof
lies on the Americanside, and that the want of
it in the prescribed form justices the infer,
ence that the seaman is not of American
allegiance. It is distinctly to he under-
stood, that a certificate usually called a pro-
tection to American seaman, is not meant
to protect them under their own, or even a-
ny other neutral flag on the high seas. We
can never admit, that in such a situation,
any other protection is required for them,
than the neutral flag itself on the high seas.
The document is given to prove their real
character, in situations to which neither
the law of nations, nor the law of their own
country, are applicable ; in other words, to
protect them within the jurisdiction of the
British laws, and to secure to them within
every other jurisdiction, the rights and im-
munities due to them. If, in the course of
their navigation even on the high seas, the
document should have the effect of repell-
ing wrongs of any sort, it is an incidental
advantage only, of which they avail them-
selves, and is by no means to be misconstru-
ed into a right to exact such a proof, or to
make any disadvantageous 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 "nly be required in cases where the
lapse of time from its commencement, had
given an opportunity for the American sea-
men to provide themselves with such a do-
cument. Yet it is certain, that in a varie-
ty of instances, seamen have been impress-
ed from American vessels, on the plea that
they had not this proof of citizenship, when
the dates and places of (be impressments
demonstrated the impossibility of theirknow-
ing in time to provide the proof, that a state
of war had rendered it necessary.
Whether, therefore, we consult the law
of nations, the tenor of treaties or the dic-
tates of reason and justice, no warrant, no
pretext can be found for the British practice
of making impressments from American ves-
sels on the hirh 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 pro-
ceeds in other cases. Whilst she claims
and seizes on the high seas her own subjects
voluntarily serving in American vessels, she
has constantly given, when she could give,
as reason for not discharging from her »er-
vice American citizens, that they had volun-
tarily engaged in it. Nay, more, whilst
she impresses her own subjects from the A-
merfcan service,.alt hough they may have been
setiled and married- and even naturalized in
the United States she constantly refuses to
release from hers, Americans impressed into
it, whenever she can give for a reason that
they were either settled or married within
her dominions. Thus, when the voluntary
consent of the individual favors her preten-
sions, she pleads Ihe validity of that consent:
When the voluntary consent of the indivi-
dual stands in the way of her pretensions, it
goes for nothing ! When marriage or resi-
dence can be plead in her favor, she avails
herself of the plea : When marriage and re-
sidence and even naturalization are against
her, no respect whatever is paid to either!
She takes by force her own subjects volun-
tarily serving in our vessels. She keeps by
force America?! citizens involuntarily serving
in hers. More flagrant inconsistencies can-
not be imagined.
Notwithstanding the powerful inotives
which ought to be felt by the British go-
vernment to relinquish a practice which ex-
poses it to so many reproaches, it is fore-
seen, that objections of different sorts will
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 the prejudice of
the British nation with respect to what are
called the British or narrow seas, where its
domain would be abandoned by the general
stipulation required. Thirdly, of the use
which would be made of such a sanctuary
and summary authority to make the distinc , as that of American vessels for desertions
Jtion'. Btitlsji jubjects would escape, under I and traitorous communication Jo-her ene-
mies,- especially across . the- -channel to
Ilrauce. .
1st. With respec!-to the British seamen
serving in our trade, -it may be rera
first, that the number, though considerable,
is probably less than may be supposed ; se-
condly,that what is wrong in -itt,£.lf cannot
be made right by considerations of expedi-
ency or advantages thirdly, th,at it is prov-
ed by the fact that the number of real British
subjects gained-.by the practice in question,
is of inconsiderable importance even in the
scale of advantage. The annexed report
la congress on the subject of impressments,
with the addition of such cases as maybe
in the hands of Mr. Erving, then our con-
sul in London, will verify the remark in its
application to the present war. The state-
ment made by his predecessor during the
last war, and which is also annexed, is in
the/ same view still more conclusive. 'The
statement comprehends not only all the
applications made by him in the first in-
stance, for the liberation of impressed sea-
men, between the months of June, 1797,
and September, 1S01, but many also which
had been made previous to his agency, by
Mr. Pinckney and Mr. Kiiig, and which it
was necessary for him to rene-A-. These ap-
plications, therefore, may fairly be consider-
ed as embracing the greater part of the peri-
od of the war ; and as applications are
known to be pretty' indiscriminately made,
they may be considered as embracing if not
the whole, ths far greater part of the im-
pressments, those of British subjects, as well
as others. Yet the result exhibits 2059
cases only, and of this number 102 seamen
only detained as being British subjects,
which is less than y-g of the number im-
pressed, and 1142 discharged or ordered to
be so, as not being British subjects, which
is more than half the whole number, leav-
ing 805 for further proof, with the strong-
est 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 delays in producing
it. So that it is cartain, that for all the
British seamen gained by this violent pro-
ceeding, more than an equal number, who
were not so, were the victims : it is highly
probable that for e*ery British seaman so
gained, a number of others, not less than
10 tor 1, must have been the victims ; and
it is even possible that this number may
have exceeded the proportion of 20 to 1.
It cannot therefore be doubted- that the
acquisition of British seamen by these im-
pressments, whatever may be its advantage,
is lost in the wrong d ne to Americans, Ig-
norantly or wilfully mistaken for British
subjects, in tlie jealousy and ill-will excited
among all maritime nations by an adherence
to such a practice, and in the particular
provocation to measures of redrsss on the
part of the United States, not less disagree-
able to t lie in than embarrassing to Great-
Britain, and which may threaten the good
understanding which ought to be faithfully
cultivated by both. The copy of a bill
brought into congress under the influence
of violations committed on 'our flag, gives
force to this latter Consideration. Whe-
ther it «ill pass into a law", .arid at tlie pre-'
sent session, is more'than can yet be said.
As there is every reas-in to believe that it
has been proposed with reluctance, it will
probably not be pursued into effect, if any
hope can be supported of a remedy, by an
amicable arrangement between the two na-
tions-
There is a further consideration which
ought to have weight in this question. Al-
though the British seamen employed in car
rying on American -commeice, be ill some
respects lost to their own nation, yet such
is the intimate and extensive connection of
tins commerce, direct aim circuitous, with
the commerce the manufacture's, the reve-
nue and the general resources, ofthe British
nation, that in other respects its mariners,
on board American vessels, may truly be
said to be rendering it the most valuable ser-
vices. It would not be extravagant to make
it a question, whether Great Britain would
not suffer more by withdrawing her seamen
from the merchant vessels of the United
States, than her enemies would suffer from
the addition of them to the crews of her
ships of war and cruisers.
Should any difficulty be started concern-
ing seamen born within the British domi
nions, and uatur.lized by the United
States, since the treaty of 1783, you may
remove it by observing ; Fir^t, that -very
few, if any, such naturalizations can take
place, the law here requiring a preparatory
residence of five years, with notice of the
intention to become a citizen entered on re-
cord two years before the last necessary for-
mality, besides a regular proof of good and
moral character, conditions little likely to
be complied with by ordinary seafaring
persons. Secondly, that a discontinuance
of impressments on the high seas will pre-
clude an actual collision between the inter-
fering claims. Within the jurisdiction of
each nation, and in their respective vessels
on the high seas, each will enforce the alle-
giance which it claims, fn other situations
the individuals doubly claimed, will be with-
in a jurisdiction independent of both na-
tions.
Secondly. The British pretensions to
domain over the narrow seas are so obso-
lete, and indefensible, that they never would
have occurred as a probable objection in this
case, if they had not actually frustrated an
arrangement settled by Mr. King with the
British ministry on the subject of impress-
ments from American vessels on the high
seas. At the moment when the articles
were expected to be signed, an exception of
the " narrow seas" was urged and insisted
on by lord St. Vincent ; and being utterly
inadmissible on our part, the negociatjou
was abandoned.
The objection in itself has certainly not
the slightest foundation. The time has been
indeed when England not only claimed,
but exercised pretensions scarcely inferior to.
fulj sovereignty oyer;tiic seas smroanding
tr |