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

L
litary service alone are excepted from the
general immunity of persons in that sit
| uationi and this exception confirms the
immunity OF tlose 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, be-
yond its own dominions, and its own YES
sells on the high seas. Such doctrine would
give just alarm to all nations, and more
than any thing would countenance the inn
putation of aspiring to an uni tersal empire Of
the seas. 1t would be the less admissible too,
as it 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 allegi
ancs, which is . municipal law, be in force
at all on the high seas, on board foreign YES
sells, it must be SO at all times there, as it is
within Its acknowledged sphere. 1.-THE rea-
son alleged for it be good in time of war,
namely, that the sovereign has then a right
to the service OF oil his subjects, it must be
good at al times, because at all times he
has the same right to their service. War
is not the only occasion for which he may
want their services; nor is external danger
the only danger aga inst which their services
H.,
the authority OF municipal law can ope-
rate on persons in foreign vessels on the high
seas, because within the dominion of their
sovereign they would be subject to that law,
and are violating that law by being in that
situation how reject the inference that the
authority of a municipal law may equally be
enforced on board foreign vessels on the high
seas, against articles OF property exported
in violation of such a law, or belonging to
. ha .,l
And thus every 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 at every distance where an
| armed vessel might meet with them. Ano-
Lther inference deserves attention. If the
| subjects of one sovereign may be taken by
force from the vessels of another, on the
high seas, the right of taking them, when
found, implies the right of searching for
them; yexation of commerce, especially in
time of peace, which has not yet been at
tempted, and which, for that as well as O.
Their reasons, may be regarded as contra
dieting the principle from which it would
flow.
Taking reason and justice for the tests Of
this practice, it is peculiarly indefensible
| because it depriNes the dearest rights of
persons, of a regular trial TO which the most
| inconsiderable article of property captured
on the high seas, is entitled and leaves
their destiny to the will of an officer, some
times cruel, often ignorant, and generally in
terested by his want of mariners, in his own
decision: Whenever property found in a
neutral vessel is supposed to be liable on any
grounds to capture and condemnation, the
rule in all cases is, that the question shall
not be decided by the captor, but be carri-
La Ior~
trial may be had, and where the captor
himself is liable to damages for an abuse Of
his power. Can it be reasonable then OF Just
that a belligerent commander who is thu.
restricted and thus responsible in case o.
mere property of trivial amount, should be
permitted, without recurring to any tribunal
whatever, to examine the crew of neutral
vessel, to decide the important question o.
their respective alleSiances, and to carry
that decision into instant execution by fore.
ing every individual lie may choose, into 4
service abhorrent to his feelings; cutting
him off from his most tender connections
leXposing his mind and his person to the
most humiliating discipline, and his life it
self TO the greatest dangers Reason, jus
tice and humanity unite in protesting agains
so eXtravagant proceeding. And what i
the preteXt for it 1t is that the similarit,
Of language and of features, between Anne
trlcan citizens and British subjects, are suci
as not easily to be distinguished and tina
without this arbitrary and summary autho
, rity TO make the distinction, British subjects
would escape under the name Of American
!, citizens, from the duty which they owe t.
their sovereign. Is then the difficulty O
, Distinguishing a mariner Of one country from
the mariner of the other and the importaric
of his services, good plea for referring thu
Question whether he belongs to one or to thu
other, to an arbitrary decision on the spot
by an interested and irresponsible officer >
In all other cases, the difficulty and the i'm
: portance of questions are considered as rea
SONS for requiring greater care and formal
ty in Investigating them, and greater secu
= rity for a right decision on them. To sa
: that precautions of this sort are incompati
bic with the object, is to admit that the Of,
e jectis unjustifiable, since the only means b
3 which it can be pursued are such as cannc
= be justified.
The evil takes a deeper die when We've
e in its practice as well as it's principle.
r Were it allowable that British subjects shoul
: be taken out of American vessels on tn
;, high seas, it might at least be required tina
j the proof of their allegiance should lie O
; the British side. This obvious and lust rul
q is however reversed, and every seaman o.
e board. though going from an American por
d and sailing under the American flag, an,
s sometimes even speaking an idsm provin
n him not to be a British subject, is presumed