Alexandria daily advertiser. [volume] (Alexandria [Va.]) 1803-1808, 1807-07-17

\ forcing their way and which, II destroyed,
leaves themsin Certain danger Of being ship
wrecked on the coast. 37 5
Charleston Tines.
DOCUMENT ON IMPRESSMENT.
Extract 81 a letter from The Secretary ct
State to James 1Munroe, esq Minister at
London dated IN January 1904.
= We consider q neutral flag on the high
seas, as : safeguard to those sailing nnder
il. Great Britain on the contrary. asserts
"a right to search for and seize her own
subjects; and under that cover. as cannot
but happen. are often seizrd and taken of,
citizeps Of the United States, and citizens
or subjects Of other neutral countries. ma.
viga,ing the high seas, underline protection
Of the American flag.
Were the right OF Great Britain, 10 this
case no, denied. the abuses flowing from II
gould justly the United States in claim.
ing and expecting adiscoatiuuance Of its
exercise. But the right j. denied, and on
the best grounds. q
Although Great Britain has not vet a.
d0Pted IN the same Latitude with mos other
nations, the immunities of a neutral flag,
she wall aor deny the general freedom of
the high seas, and ofshe neutral vessels IA.
vigssiog them. with such exceptions only
a. are annexed TO i, by .he.law of nations.
She mus:spyeduce then such an exception
10 the law Of nations, ia favor of the right
she contends fer.
But In what written and received autho.
ri.y W ii she find it? ia what usage except
her own Will, b. found : She will fad in
both. ,ba;a neutral vessc: does not protect
CERTAIN obj-ets deGomina.ed contrsband OF
wal, Including enemies serving in the war
nor articles going toto blockaded port,
nor az she has maintained, aud as We have
not contested, enemies property of any
kind. Bul no where will she End an ex
.ception 10 this freedom Of the seas, and of
neutral Aags, which juslihes the taking a.
way ct shy person, not aa enemy 10 mill
tary service, io1ad ca board nsu.ralses
sci.
& IT treaties. British as we'll as others, are
to be. Consulted on this suhiec,, i, will e
qua.ly appear that no coun:enauce TO the
practice can Be feund 10 then. Whilst
thsy admit a eonsrabaud OF war, BY enums-
rating It's articles, and The efzcs u real
blockade by de6piog j. in no instance do
they affirm or imply rghtin any soye.
rciga TO en'ofce his claims TO the allegiance
of his subjects, 90 board neural vessels
on the high seas. On the contrary, when
ever a beiiigsreot CLAIM against peTsone Oh
board neutral vessel. is referred 10 IN
treaties, enemies in military service alone
are excepted from the general immunity
ofpersons in thai situation and IN this
exception confirms the immunity OF
those who are DOT included in It.
ii is not then from the law or,he usage
OF nations. nor from the tenor OF the
treaties, that any sanction can be derived
for the practice 10 question. And surely
twill not be pretended that the sovereign.
~ Of any NATION extends in any case what
ever beyond its own doniuicns, and lis
own vessels on the high seas. Such 2
doctrine would give JUST alarm 70 all ma.
tons, and more than any thing would
codntenance the impu,a,ion Of aspiring TO-
an universal empire Of the seas. Itwou!d
be less admissible too, as il would be, ap..
p!icable to times Of peace az well as TO
persons. If the law OF allegiance, which
is "a municiplc law, be IN force at all 90 the
high seas, on board forciga vessels, II
must be sota. all times there, as it is With.
10 its wledged sphere. lftke reason
alledged for ], be good 10 time Of war,
namely, ,ha; the sovereigo has then Alright
to ,he service of ali his subjects, ], naus,be
good a, all times, because at all times ne
has ihes same right,o their service. War
IS nos the only occasion for which he may.