Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1808-04-22
FRIDA 4, april go. 1908.

them 1t then proposes to postpone she ar
ticle relative TO impressment on account of
the difficulties which were experienced in
arranging any article on that subject, and
to proceed to conclude treaty on the other
points that were embraced by the negoci-
ation. AS motive to such postpoRement,
ana tue condition of it, it assures us that
Tue British commissioners were instructed
sun TO entertain the discussion of any plan
l"h'Ih could be devised to secure the inter-
ests or both states without injury to the
rights of either.
| BY this paper it is evident that the rights
| OF the U. s. were expressly to be reserved,
and not abandoned, as has been most err
roneousiy supposed; that the negotiation
on the subject of irnpressment was to be
postponed for q limited time, and for a spe-
lead object only, and to be revived as soon
as that object was accomplished; and, in
the interim, that the practice of impress.
ment was 20 correspond essentially with the
views and interests Of the u. S. II is, in
deed, evident, from correct view of the
contents of that paper, that CT. Britain re-
fused to diScLoim or derogote only from
| what she called her right, rs it also is, that
as her refusal was made applicable to a
crisis OF extraordinary peril, il authorised
the reasonable expectation, if not the Just
Iclalm, tina even in that the accommodation
desired would be hereafter yielded.
In our letter 10 you Of Nov. IL. which
accompanied the paper under considerati-
on, and IN that of January 8, which was
forwarded with the treaty, these sentiments
were fully confirmed. In that of Nov. II.
I've communicated one important fact
(which left no doubt of the sense in which il
was intended by the British commissioners.
that that paper should be construed by us
In calling your attention to the passage
which treats CT iTpressment, in reference
! to the practice which should be observed
| IN future, we remarked that the terms
high SEAS" were not mentioned init, & nd.
ded rhae we knew that the omission bad beer
Intentional. Il was impossible that those
terms could have been omitted intentional
'y Tcit6 our kn9zrledgc, for any purpose O.
ther than 70 admit construction that il
Twas intended that impressmen.s should be
confined 20 the land. i do not moan TO inn
lply that Il was understood between tn,
British commissioners and Us, hat CT Byi
tain should abandon the practice of impress.
ment on the high seas altogether / mean.
however, distinctly to state that it was un
leerstood that the practice heretofore pur
lsueu ny hsr should be abandoned, AID that
no irnprssslncut should be made o.; the MIR
seas under the obligation of that paDer. ex
lcept IN cases of AN extraordinary nature
20 which no general prohibition agains, j.
could be construed fairly to extend. The
cases to which | aludc were described n
our letter of Nov. II. They suppose. a
British ship of war and a me- i,ant vessei
LOT the -. lying in the Tagus or some o.
ther port, the desertjon ofsome Of the sailors
from the ship of war 10 the merchant YES
sci. and the sailing of the latter with such
deserters on board, they being British sub
iIects. 1t was admitted that no qe eraI
prohibition against impressment could he
construed TO sanction such cases ofiDiust :e
and fraud and to such cases it was under.
STOOD that the practice should in future be
confined
! 1t is just claim on our part, that the e,,.
plantations winch were given of that paper
by the British commissioners WIG, thev
presented it to US, and afterwards viii tbe
negotiation was depending, which we com
munica'ed you in due order of time. s,,ouJd
be taken into view, in a far estimate of on,
Conduct in that transaction. As the ar
Z ranSement which they proposed, was of an
informal nature resting on an understand
ihE between tie parties in certain decree
confidential, II could not otherwise than han
pen that such explanations would be give,
I us in the course of the business, Of the
views o. their government in regard to H.
AND 1t an arrangement by informal under.
standing is admissible in any case betwce,,
nations, twas our duty to receive those e<.
plantations, to give them the weight 20 which
they w"re justly entitled, and to conmuni.
cate them to you, with our impression of The
extent OF The obligation, which they imDo-
sea' It is IN that mode only tlat what is
called an informal understanding between
nations can be entered into. 1t presumes q
want OF precision in the written documents
connected ~ith it, which is supplied by ma
tual explanations and confidence. P,dnce
the transaction 10 form and it becomes n
treaty. That an informal UNDERSTANDING
was an admissible mode of arranginf- ,his
interest with Great Britain is made s1ffci-
entity evident by your letter of Febrsary
81, 1907, in reply to ours Of Nov. IL, Of The
preceding year Wv
WHhou relying, however, on the oxpIa-
nations that were given by the British Com.
missioners Of the import Of that uo,,er or
OF me course which their government in
tehdco 70 pursue under il, it is fair TO re.
marx on the paper itself, tfat as lIv II rho
rights OF the parties were reserved aud tbs
negotiation might be continued ON mis- mar
ucuiar topic after a treaty sbould h., for
mcd on ihe others. Great Britain was Lo,,nd
noc 70 'respass on those rights while that
n,egociation was depending and in case She
uiu lrespass on .hcm, in any the eIisL,-
est degree, the y. s. would b.. jmst.fc9 =,