Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1806-02-25

rity VIII she ind Il +! In what usage eX
cept her own, will il be found (? She viii
lind in both, that a neutral vessel doe:
not protect certain Objects denominatet
contraband Of war, including enemies
serving IN the war, nor articles going into
! blockaded port, nor, as she has main
tanned, and as we have not contested, enc
my's property of any kind. But no
where will she find an exception to this
freedom OF the seas, and of neutral flags,
which justties the taking away of any
person, not an enemy, in military service,
found on board neutral vessel.
1T treaties, British as we'll as others, are
to be consulted on this subject, it will
equally appear, that no counienance TO
The practice can be found i'm them. Whilst
they admit coutraband of war, by emu.
merating its articles, and the effect Of a
real blockade by defining it, in no instance
do they affirm or imply right in any so,
vereign to enforce his claims To the ale
glance of his subjects, on board neutral
vessels on the high seas. On the contra
ry whenever beIiigerent claim against
parsons on board neutral vessel, is refer.
req 10 IN treaties, enemies in military ser.
vice alone are excepted from the general
immunity Of persons in that situation
and this exception confirms the immuni-
" OF those who are nat included in it.
1t IS not then from the law or the usage
OF nations, nor from the tenor of treaties,
that any sanction can be derived for the
practice IN question. And surely it viii
not be pretended that the sovereignty of
any nation extends, in any case Whatever
beyond KS own domnions, and its own
vessels on the high seas. Such doctrine
would give US claim 10 al! nations, and
more than any thing would coumtenanee
the impu,a,on of aspiring TO a universal
empire oil the seas. Ii would be The less
admissible too, as it would be applicable
to times OF peace, as well as To times of
var, and to property as well as to persons.
III The law OF allegiance, which is mum.
cipai law, be in force at all on the high
seas, on board foreign vessels, it must be
SO at all times there, as il is within its ac.
SuowiedSed sphere. 1.-THE reason alIedr.
ed toTit he good in time of war, nam ely,
that the sovereign has then a right to the
sercice ofall his subjects, it must be good
at ali times, because at all times he has
the same right 10 their service. Warts
not The only occasion for which he may
want their services, nor IS external dam
ger the only danger against which their
services may be required, for his securi. !
ty. Again, ifthe authority of munici- |
Pal law Can operate on persons in foreign
vessels on the high seas, because within |
the dominion ofthcir sovereignthey would |
be subject 10 that law, and ate violating
the law 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 property exported in
violation Of such a law, or belonging to
the country from which it was exported 4
And thus every commercial regulation,
IN time oil peace too, as we'll as of war,
would be made obligatory on foreigners
and their vessels, not only whist within
The dorninions Of the sovereign making the
regulation, but IN every sea, and at every
distance where an armed vessel might
meet with them. Another inference de.
serves attention. 1.-THE subjects of one
sovereign may be taken by force from The
vessels OF another, on The high seas, the
right OF taking them when found, implies
the right OF searching for them: vexs-
ton OF commerce, especially in time of
peace, which has not yet been attempted,
and which for that as well as other rea
sons, may be regarded as contrsdleling
the principle from which il would flow.
Taking reason and justice for the tests
OF this practice, it is peculiarly iut@Gsn. |
sibIe; because il deprives the dearest
rights Of persons Of regular trial, to |
which the most inconsiderable article of
property captured on the high seas, is en- /,
titled and leaves their destiny to the
viii OF an officer, sometimes cruel, often
ignorant, and genrally Interested by his
want of mariners, in his own decisions.
Whenever property found in neutral
vessel, is supposed TO be liable on any
grounds to capture and condemnation,
he rule in all cases is that the question
hall not be decided by the capiot, but be
carried before legal tribunal, where
ocular trial may be had, and where the
.aptor himself is liable TO damages, for
IN abuse oGhis power. Can it be reason-
'bls then, or just, that belligerent com.
nander who is thus restricted, and thus
espYnsible in a cause Of mere property
If trivial amount should be permitted,