The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1808-04-15
No. 1O7.

Crihceu to the lessons OF i magnaniinous wis
dom. AS tar as this homage TO the British
nag has any foundation at present, it rests
merely on long usage and long acquiescence.
which are construed, as in few other cases
OF maritime claims, into the effect of a gem
erai though tacit convention. The second in
stance is the extension of the territorial ju-
ilsdictIon to four leagues from the Shore
| This too, as far as the distance NAV exceed
that which is generally allowed, rests on a
Ike foundation, strengthened perhaps by the
local facility OF smuggling, and the peculiar
interest which Great Britain has in prevent
ing practice affecting SO deeply her whole
system of revenue, commerce and manuf,c-
lures, whist the limitation itself to four
leagues necessarily implies that, beyond that
distance no territorial jurisdiction is ASSUME
| ed
But whatever may be the origin or the va
iue CT these prerogatiVes over foreign flags in
one case, and within a limited portion of
these seas in anCiher, it is obvious that nei-
thcr of them viii be violated ty the excmp-
ton OF American vcssels from imprsssnents
which arc no wise connected with either.
having neverbeen m de on the pretcxt either
OF withholding the wolted homage to the
British flag, or OF smuggling in defiance of
British laws.
This extension Of tie british law to four
leagues from the shore IS inferred from an
act OF parliament passed in the year 1856.
g q. 9 c. $50 the terms Of which co,nnre.
| bend all vessels, foreign as well as British.
1t is possible, however, that the former are
lconstructively excepted. Should your en-
quiiies ascertain this to be the case YOU will
| ind yourself on better ground than the con-
cession here made
With respect to tie compliment raid to
the British flag, it is also possible that more
is here conceded than you may find to be ne
ccssary. After the peace of 1888, this com
| pliment was pereInptorily withheld by France
! IN spite 81 the remonstrances of Great Ri
tain; and it remains for your iaquiry. wbe-
Their 1t did not continue to be efdsed, not
withstanding the failure at Amiens to obtain
! from Great Britain formal remuneration NJ
| the claim.
From every view Of the subject it is reason
able to expect, that the exception of the mar
row seas, from the stipulation against i'm
!pressments, will not be inflexibly maintained
Should 1t be SO, your negotiation will be at
an end. he truth is, that so great a pro
portion of our trade direct and circuito,,s
passes through those channels, and such is
It's peculiar exposure III them 20 the WRONG
practlsed, that with such an exception. any
remedy would be very partial. And we can
never consent to Purchase partial remedy
| by confirming general evil, and by subiec-
ing ourselves to our own reproaches, as well
Us 10 lLlOSS OF Otner nations.
| Sd. 1t appears as well by q letter from Mr..
ihornton, IN answer to one from me- of both
which copies are inclosed, as from conveI.-
Isations with Mr.. Merry, that the facility
whch would be given, particularly in ths
brltlsh channel, by the Immunity claimed
ltor American vessels, TO the escape of trait
lors, and the desertion of others whose ser-
wees IN time ofwar may be particularly inn
Portant to an enemy, forms one of the pleas
for the British practice of examining Ame-
rican crews, and VIII be one of the objections
to formal REIMBURSEMENT of it.
This plea, like all others, admits = solid 3,
satisfactory reply. In the first place, if it
could prevail at all against the neutral claim
1T would authorize the seizure of the persons
described only, and in vessels bound to a
hostile country only, whereas the practice of
lmpreSsing is applied to persons, few if apy
OF whom are alledged to be ofeither descrip-
do1, ana TO vessels withersoever bound, even
to Great Britain herself. In the next place.
II Is not only preference OF a smaller OBJ
lJect on the one sideto greater object ON the
other; but sacrifice of right on one side
to expectancy on the other side.
| Considering, nevertheless the possible a :
nerence OF the British government to this Ia or
Objection, aud tie extreme Importance to
our sea-faring citizens and commerce. of a,
stipulation suppressing prac ce flagrant
III ltS nature, and still more so in the abuses
Inseparabie from it, you are let at liberty
10 concur, II necessary, in the modification
as 1t stands In the second column. You will
observe that this guards, in all cases. the.
crews OF cur vessels from being meddled
with and in referring for an exception to
he Immunity on board our vessels tn the.
law OF nations. Yields 10 principle maintain
ed by the y. States inasmuch as the refer-
ence will be satisfied by the acknowledge 4
exception Of enemies in military service
Should persons therefore, other tllan such. be
taken under pretext of the law Of nations.
the u. States will be free to Contest the nro.
ceedng, and there is the less difficulty in lea D..
wing the stipn alton on this footing, as the
case may never happen, and will be pretty
sure to happen but rarely You will observe
also, that in the passage from one port To- A.
mother OF the respective countries the YES
sells of the neutral parties are to protect all
persons without exception. independently
Of the general principle asserted by the u.
States, this respect is due to the peculiar
character Of the coasting trade, and the nj =
ter improbability that it viii at any time he
a vehicle to persons Of any obnoxious des-
lcription.
On Article IT, The reasonablcness ~ n .
article is manifest. Citizens or subject. g
one country residing in another, though 80, u,
by their temporary allegiance to ma',, c,,-1
mon duties, can never be rislitfru, Gu !,
N...A-