The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1806-02-15

iounu, tmPieS inc rfgnt oflcarching TOR them
a vexation of commerce, Especially in time of
peaceS which has not yet been attempted, and
which FOR tn 1t as well as other reafons, may be
regarded as contradieting the principle from
WHICH It would Cow.
Taking reafon and juRice for the tets of this
practice, it is peculiarly indefen6ble; becaufe
it deprives the dearef rights of perfons of re-
gn'ar trial, to which the mott uncomfortable ar
t'cle OF property captured on the high feas, is
entitled; and leaves their deitiny to the will of
an officer, fometimes cruel, often ignorant, and
generally intereited by his want of mariners, in
his own deciiions. Whenever property found
in neutral vefiel, is fuppoled to be liable on
any grounds to capture aud condemnation, the
sne in all cafes is that the queGion isll not be
decided by the captor, but be carried before
legal tribunal, where a regular trial may he had,
and where the captor himfelf is Liable to damag-
rs. for, an abufe OF his power. Can it be reafon-
able then, or juit, that belligerent commander
who IS thus retricted, and thus refponiibie in
cafe OF mere property of trivial amount fliould
DE permitted, without recurring to any tribunal
whatever, to examine the crew of neutral vec
Eel, to decide the important queition of their
respective alegiances, and to carry that deciii-
on INTO infant execution. by forcing every in
dividual he may chufe, into fervice abhorrent
to his feelings, cutting him off from his molt
tender connections, expofing his mind and his
perion to the mott humiliatng diicpline, and
his life itfelf to the greateft dangers. Reafon.
luftlce and humanity, unite in protecting aeainft
10 extravagant proceeding. Aud what is the
preteXt for it! II is that the fimiiarity of Ian
guage and of features between American cit;-
zcns and Britilh fubje6ts, are fuch as not eaiily
to be diftinguiflied; and that without this ar.
bitrary and iummary authority to make the diff
,inetion, Britifh fubjects would efcape, under
the name or American citizens, from the duty
which they owe to their foyereign. Is then the
difficulty of dfingniihing a mariner of one
country nom the mariner of the other, and the
importance OF his feivces, a good plea for re-
| terring the queition whether he belongs to the
one or to the other, to an arbitrary dsciiion on
the fPot, by an intereftcd and Hnrelpouiible Of
hoer! In all other cafes, the difficulty and the
Importance of queftions are coniidered as rea-
ions for requiring greater care and formality in
| inveitigatlng them, and greater fecurity for
right deciiion on them. To fay that precsuti-
! ons OF this fort are incompatible with the OBJ
Jset' is TO admit that the object is unjufifable !;
| iince the only means by which it can be purfu-
ed are iuch as cannot be fulfilled.
The evil takes deeper die, when viewed in
its practice as well as its principles. Were it
allowable that Bri'iff fuhjeets fhould be taken
out OF American veiieis on the high feas, it
might at leat be required that the proof of their
aiieslance mould lie on the Brtilh lide. This
obvious and jut rule is, however, reverted {;
and every feamen on board, though going from
an American port, and failing under the Ame-
rican nag, and fometimes even fpeak;ng an id-
ON proving him not to be Britifh fnbieet, is
preiumed to be fuch, unlefs fhewn TO be an A
merlcan citizen. 1t may lately be affirmed that
TINS is an outrage and an indignity which has
no precedent, and which Great Britain would
be among the laft nations in the world to fufTer,
II ofered to her own fubje6ts, and her own
nag. Nor iSit alwaye againft the right preiump-
ton alone, which is in favor of the citizenihip
corresponding with the flag, that the violence /.
committed. Not unfreiucntly it takes place
IN defiance OF the mott pofitive proof, certified
IN Que FORM by an American officer. Let it not
De lad, that IN granting to American feanen
this protection for their rights as iuch, the point
Is yielded, that the proof lies on the American
lide' and that the want OF it in the prcfcribed
/ FORM outlines the inference that the feamen is
not OF American allegiance. 1t ia difincf!y to
os UNDERWOOD, that the certificate ufualIy cal
lea protection TO American feamen, is not
meant TO Preteet them under their own, or even
any other neutral flag on the high feas. We can
never admit, that in fnch fituation, any other
profrct required for them, than the neu-
! tFal nag tieIf on the high Gas. The document
10 gwen TO prove their real character, in fitua
lions TO which neither the law of nations, nor
the law OF !helr own country, are applicable (;
IN other words, to protect them within the iu-
riidictlon OF the Britilh laws, and to fecure TO
them, within every other jurfdietion, the rights
ana 'inmunlties due to them. If in the courle
of their navigation even on the high feas. the
document fhoud have the effect of repelin q
wrongs ofany fort. it is an incidental adyan.
tage only, of which they avail themfe!yes, and
is by no means to be mifconftrued into a right
to exact iuch proof, or TO make any difadvan-
tagsons interference from the want of it.
Were 1t even admitted that certificates for
protection might be juRly required in time of
war, from American feamen, they could onlv
be required in cafes where the iapfe of time
from commencement, had given an oppor.
tunity for the American feamen to provide
| lhenie!ves with fiict document. Yet it is
certain that in variety of inftances, Teamen
have been imPrefled from American vefTels, on
the plea that they had net this proof of citizen.
| IMP, when the dates aud placesof the impreG.
ments demonstrated the impofIibiIty of thei,
| knowing, in time to provide the proof, that a
ttate OF war had rendered it necenary.
Whether, therefore, we confuIt the law Of
nations, the tenor of treaties, or the dictates
of reafon and jufice, no warrant, 70 nrctert
can be found for the Britif, practice of making
imPrefiments from American vef1els on the