Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1807-07-15

- -
M INPoRTANT AND LUMINOUS COM
MUNtCAPTON ON THE SUBJECT or THE
IMPRESSMENT or A1ERIcAN AND Fo-
REIGN SEdMSN And OTHER PERSONS.
II has become manifest to every atten-
tive observer, that the early and continued
aggressions Of Gre;u-Britain on our per-
sons, our property, and our rights, imperi-
ousiy demand firm stand-an effectual.
though calm system of measures of arres-
tation. For this purpose, il is our duty TO
md5Se ourselves completely masters of the
great truths and arguments by which our
rights have been eluCldated, supported s.
maintained.
On the 18th of January, 1896, the Pres-
dent of the United States communicated to
Congress an extract from a dispatch of
James Madison, Esq. our secretary of state,
TO James Monroe, Esq. our minister i'm
london, which contains many facts highly
Important, and observations and arguments
perfectly satisfactory and conclusive a.
gainst sim hreSSme,itS OF seamen and pas
sengers, whether Foreign or American, on
board Of our vessels" The Republication
OF thi,t document at this crisis will at once
display some of the reasons ON which the
government has probably declined to sane.
zion the recent draught of treaty with
Great Britain, and will elucidate the
ground on which the question of the i'm
presidents IF fierSons, both native and a.
lien, has been rested by our administration.
Erfrdct ofa ierfer Jror, the Secretary of
STATE 20 James Monroe, Esq. dared 5fh
January, 1904.
. WE consider neutral Gag, on the high
G IL. a.. -
It. Great-Britain on the Contrary, asserts
a right to search for and seize her own sub
yects; and under that cover, as cannot hut
happen, are often seized and taken off, CT
,tIzens OF the United States, and citizens or
SUBJECTS OF other neutral countries, navga-
ting the high seas, under the protection of
the American flag
Were the right of Great-Britain, in this
case, not denied, the abuses flowing from it,
would Justify the United States in claiming
and eXpectinga disContiuance of its exer.
cise. But the right is denied, and on the
best grounds
Although Great Britain has not vet a.
uopted, in the same latitude with most o.
ther nat .ons, the immunites of a neutral
nag, she will not deny the general freedom
% the hlgh seas, and of neutral vessels ma
VlSatng them, with such exceptions only
-.
shemust pro uce hen each an exception in
the law of nations IN favor of the right
she contends for But in what written
and received author ~ will she find il I!
In what usage except her own, will il be
found /! She W II find in both, that neu-
trail vessel does not protect certain OH
eCtS denOmInIted Cuntraband of w n, III
cluding enemies serving in the war, nor
articles going into a biockaded port, nor as
she has maintained, and as we have not
Contested, enemies property of any KIND.
Bu' no where will She find an exception to
this freedom of the seas, and of neutral
Hays WING Justites the taking away of anu
person, not an enemy IN military SERVICE,
found on board neutral vessel.
If treaues, BRUSH as well as others, are
to be con;u ted on this subject, il will. e.
qualy appear, that no countenance to the
practice can be found in them. Whilst
they admit contraOand of war, by emu
meraUnS IT'S articles, and the effect of a
real blockade by defining it, in no instance
co they affirm or imply a right IN ann So
UerefSn to H/0rce ms claims TO me dLepf-
ance OF MS subjects, on b5ardneutrai Ues-
sells on the hgh seas. On the contrary.
whenever Ueliigerent claim against per-
sons on board a neutr ii vesse, is referred
TO III treaties, enemies in military service
ofoHe are excepted from the general i'm
munity of persons in that situation; and
this exception confirms the immunity Of
those who are not 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 Will
not be pretended that the sovereignty of
any nation, extends in any case whatever,
6eyoHa its ozUH dominiouS, and lis ozvn Ues-
selS on tie high seas. Such a doctrine
would give just alarm to all nations, and
more than any thing would countenance the
imputation OF aspiring to an universal en-
pre- of the seas. It would be the less adj
mssible TOO, as 1t would be applicable to
times OF peace, as well as to times of war,
and to property as well as to persons. If
the law of allegiance, which is a munich
nal law, be in force at all on the high seas,
on board foreign vessels, it must be so at
all times there, as tits within its acknow-
lodged sphere. If the reason aRedg d for
ii DC good in time of war, namely, that the
sovereign has then right to the service of
all his subjects, it must be good at ali
times, because at ali times he has the same
right to their service. War is not the only
occasion for which he may want their SER
vices, nor is external dangerthe only dam
ser againt which their services may he re-
quired, for his security. Again If the
authority Of mnnicifai law can operate