Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1808-04-15

Ab'ul;, VI knS dulHOIilS ct q UlUHtCipat Jaw
can operate on persons in foreign vessel
on the high seas, because within tlie dc.
minIon OF their sovereign they would b.
subjsc TO that law, aud are viola;iog that;
Jaw by being in that situation; how re jeci
he Inference that the authority OF MUM
cipal law may eqnal!y be enforced on board
foreign vessels on the high seas, agains'
articles OF property exported in violation
OF such a law, or belonging 10 The country
from which 1t was exported And thus T..
very commercial regulation, in time of
peace too, as well as of war, would be made
| obligatory on Foreigners and their vessels,
not only whilst within the dominion Of The
| sovereign making The regulation, but in
every sea, and al every distance where an
| armed vessel ght meet with them. A.
| mother inference deserves attention. IL
| the subjects of one sovereign may be ia
ken by force from the vessels of another,
| on the high seas. The right of taking hem,
when found, implies the right of sea- ching,
! for them, vexatiop Of commerce, espe-
| c,ally in time of peace, which has not We,
been attempted, and which, for that as well
as other reasons, may be regarded as con-
| ,radic,ing the principle from HIGH it would
| Bow
| Taking reason and justice for the tests Of
this practice, it is peculiarly indefensible !;
because 1t deprives the dearest rights of
| persons, of a regular trial, to which the
| most inconsiderable article of property cap
tured on the high seas, is entitled and leaves
| Their destiny to the will of an officer, some-
times cruel, often ignorant, and generally
Interested by his want of mariners, in his
own decision. Whenever property fuund
in neutral vessel is supposed to be liable
on any grounds to capture and condemna-
ton, the rule in all cases is, that the ques-
ton shall not be decided by the captor, but be
carried before a legal tribunal, where re-
| gular may be had, and where the cap
tor himself is liable todamages for an abuse
| OF his power. Can it be reasonable then or
lust, that beligerent commander who is
thus restricted and thus responsible in a
| case of more property of trivial amount,
should be permitted, without recurring TO a.
ny II ibunal whatever, TO examine the crew
of a neutral vessel to decide the important
question of their respective allegiances, and
to carry that decision into instant execu-
ton by forcing every individual he may
choose, into 4 service abhorrept to his feel
lings cutting him off from his most tender
connections, exposing his mind and his per-
( oOI W biiO lhOol QtSClDllne, and
his life itself to the greatest dangers Rea-
son, justice and humanity unite in protest.
ing against so extravagant a proceeding.
And what is the pretext for it 1t is that
the similarity OF language and of features,
between American citizens and British sub.
lJects, are such as not easily to be distin-
lguished and that without this arbitrary
and summary authority to make tie distinc-
ton, British subjects would escape under
the name of American citizens, from the
duty which they owe to their sovereign.
Is then the difficulty of dis ingaishing a
mariner of one country from the mariner
of the other and the Importance of his SER
! vices, good plea for referring the question
whether he belongs to one or:to The olher,to
an arbitrary decision on the spot by an
interested and irresponsible officer? In
all other cases, he difficulty and the i'm
portance ofquestions are consider red as rea-
sons for requiring greater care and formal.
lty In invest eating them, and grea er secu-
rity tor a ri. sht decision on them. To saw
that precau ions of this sort are ncompati-
bic with the object, is to sdmit that the OBJ
Ject IS unjust bile, since the only means
| by which II can be pursued are such as can
not be justified
| The evil takes deeper die when viewed
| IN its practice as well as its principles.
Were 1t allowable that British subj cts
sculd be taken out of American vessels
on the high seas, it might at least be re.
CURED that the proof of their allegiance
should lie on the British SIDE. This obvi-
Gus and just rule is however reversed, and
every seaman on board, though going
from an American port and sailing under
the American flag, aud some times even
speaking an idiom proving him not to be a
British subject, is presumed to be such, un-
less shewu to be an American citizen. 1t
may safely be affirmed that this is an out
rage and an indignity which has no prece-
dent, and which Great Britain would be a.
Inong the last nations in the world to suf-
fer If offered to her own subjects, and her
own flag. Nor is it always against the
| right presumption alone, which is in favor
OF the citznsh p corresponding with the flag,
that the violence is committed, Not un-
frequently it takes place in defence Of the
most positive proof, certified in due form
| by an Americas officer. Let il not be said
that in granting to American seamen this
protection for their rights as such, the point
| is yielded that the proof lies on the Ame-
rican side, and thai the want of it in the
prescribed form Jastiies the inference that
The seamen is not of American allegiance
is to bedistnctly understood, thai the GER
thcate usually called a protec ion TO Ameri-
/ can seamen, is not meant to protect them