The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1808-04-15

.oiih, JustinSS tue inference, tnat the seaman
is not of American allegiance. 1t is distinct
~ to be understood, that the certificate usu-
ally called a protection to American seamen,
is not meant to protect them under their own
or even any other neutral flag on the high
seas We can never admit, that in such a
situation, any other protection is required
Tor them than the neutral flag ITSELF on the
high seas. The document is given to prove
their real character, in situations to which
neither the law of nations nor the laws of
their own country are applicable, in other
words, to protect them within the iurisdicti-
on of the British laws, and to secure to them,
within every other jurisdiction the rights &
immunities due to them. If in the course of
their navigation even on the high seas, the
document should have the effect of repelling
wrongs of any sort, it is an incidental advan-
tage only, OF which they avail themselves,
and is by no means to be misconstrued into
right to exact such s,Proof, or to make :
ny disadvantageous inference from the want
of it.
Were it even admitted that certificates
for protection might be justly required in
time of war, from American searnen, they
could only be required in cases, where the
lapse of time from its commencement had
given an opportunity for the American sea-
men to provide themselves with such docu-
ment. Yet it is certain, that in variety of
intances, seamen have been impressed from
American vessels, on the plea, that they had
not this proof of citizenship, when the dates
and places of the impressment, demonstra-
ted the impossibility of their knowing, in
time to provide the proof, that state of war
had rendered it necessary.
Whether, therefore, we consult the law of
nations, the tenor of treaties or the dictates
OF reason and justice, no warrant, no pretext
he. = e. 1t. L.
king impressment from American vessels on
the high seas.
Great-Britain has the less to say in excuse
tor this practice, as it is in direct contradic-
ton to the principles on which she proceeds
in'other cases. Whilst she claims and sci
yes on the high seas, her own subjects voiun-
tarily serving IN American vessels, she has
constantly given, when she could give as a
reason for not discharging from her service,
American citizens, that they had voluntari-
| ly engaged in it. Nay, more, whilst she i'm
presses her own subjects from the American
service, although they may have been set
tied and married, and even naturalized in the
U. States, she constantly refuses to release
from hers, American citizens impressed in
to it, whenever she can give for reason,
| that they were either settled or married
within her dominions. Thus, when the vo-
luntary consent of the individual favors her
lpretensions, she pleads the validity of that
lconsent.-When the voluntary consent of
| the individual stands in the way of her pre-
tencious, it goes for nothing When marri-
age or residence can be pleaded in her ia
vor, she avails herself of the plea. When
marriage and residence and even naturali-
cation are against her, no respect whatever
is paid to either She takes by force her
own subjects voluntarily serving in our YES
lcaI. Cl,a l. y s.,
involuntarily serving in hers. More fragrant
Inconsistencies cannot be imagined
Notwithstanding the powerful motives
which ought to be felt by the British govern
ment to relinquish practice which exposes
objections OF different sorts will be pressed
on you. You will be told, first, of the great
number OF British seamen in the American
trade, and of the necessity for their services
in time of war and danger. Secondly, of the
right and the prejudice of the British natl
on with respect to what are called the Bri-
tish or narrow seas, where its domains would
be abandoned by the general stipulation re-
Iquired.. Thirdly, of the use which would be
made OF such sanctuary as that of Ame-
rlcan vessels for assertions and traitorous
recommendations to her enemies, especially
across the channel to France.
1st. With respect to the British seamen
serving in our trade, it may be remarked
first, that the number, though considerable
is probably less than may be supposed. Sc
condly, that what is wrong in itself, canno,
be made right by considerations of expedien-
cy or advantage. Thirdly, that it is proved
by the fact, that the number of real British
subjects gained by the practice in question
is OF inconsiderable Importance, even in the
scale of advantage. The annexed report tc
Congress on the subject of impressments
with the addition of such cases as NAV be il
the hands of Mr.. Erving, will verify the re.
mark in its application to the present war
The statement made by his predecessor du
ring the last war, and which is also annexed
is in the same view still more conclusive
The statement comprehends not only all tho
: applications made by him in the first i'm.
stance, for the liberation of impressed sea.
men, between the month of June, 1877. anC
: September 1901, but many also, which hac
been made previous to this agency by Mr.
Pinkney and Mr. King, and which it was ne
cessary for him to renew. These Applicant.
ons, therefore, may fairly be considered a.
embracing the greater part Of the period
OF the war; and as applications are known
! to be pretty indiscriminately made, they
! may further be considered as embracing. i
; not the whole, the far greater part of the i'm.
! pressments, those of British subjects as well
as others. Yet the result exhibits 2 .O5e case,
only, and of THIS number, 102 seamen only
, detained IS being British subjects, which i,
less than l-2Otb cf fbe number ;r,s,r,eeoJ