The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1809-11-17

| they to abandon it ina commercial treaty
with G.. Britain. tia one of the rights of
our commerce-one of the privileges attach
ed to the freedom of the seas.--but it NAV
he our interest tn go, as far as the last ADM
nis.ration went. to modify this abstract right,
in order to appease the commercial scruples
of Britain. a reservation of the whole right
laCcruing to us, NAV be made i'll the same ar
tice of the treaty.
| 2. ImhreSSment Of Sedmen The great
point which has been uniformly insisted on
by the u. States, is, that on the high seas
no seaman whatsoever should be taken from
| an American vessei-in other words, that
on the hign seas, no vessel OF the United
| States should be searched for seamen, nor a
/ ny seaman impressed from on board. -This
rule. however, has been pressed by our go
vernment in one or two difFeren. forms.
In the letter from the Secretary OF State,
OF January S, 1904, two schemes are laid
down for the guidance of our minister, one of
them called theifirst proposal, the other the
I'd and uitimatum. The LIST was, that no
person whatsoever shall. upon the high seas
| and without the jurisdiction of either party,
| be demanded or taken out OF any vessel be
longing To either party, by the public or
private armed ships of either. uniess such
person be at the time III the military servic.'
OF an enemy of such other Darty--The
2d was made with an eve To an objection
| which had been started by the British govern
ment; that is 1.-the facility which would be
given, particularly in the British channel,
by the immunity claimed for American YES.
sells, to the escoi1e Of traitors and the deSer-
hon OF others, whose services in time of zvQr
may hep:rticularly important to an enemy"
o obviate this objection, it was laid down
in the ultimatum, that, in addition to the
immunity specified in the 1st Proposal, it
was 10 be understood, this article was not
to exempt any person ''on board the ships of
either of the parties, from being taken
the re from by the other party, in cases
where thsy may be liable to be so taken ac-
cording TO the lawsof nations, which liabi-
lily, however, shall not be construed to ex-
tend In any case TO seamen or sea. faring per
sons, being actually fart The crezv of the
vessel IN which they may be, nor TO persons
OF any description passing from, one fort to
another hort Of either Of the harties"
In the JOINT letter of May II. 1906, ad-
dressed to Messrs. Monroe and Pinkney,
the Secretary OF State authorises them, in
| case the preceding uItlmatum should not be
Pleasing to the British government, to substi
tute one of this import: That no seqmu,s or
sea }arinS person (thus doing away the gene
raHty OF the terms of the LIST proposaD sssl1all
upon the high seas &c" thus proceeding
in the words of that proposal down to the
words land private armed ships of ethel, -
and concluding with these words and stric,
| orders shall be given for the due observance
| OF this engagement" " An article in these
terms, says Mr. Madison, was with the acoui-
escence of lord Hawkesbury x Mr.Addington,
concerted between Mr.. King & Lord St. Vim
cent, on the approaching renewal of the late
war. 1t was frustrated by an exception of the
marrow seas, inserted by Lord ST Vincent,
an exception so evidently inadmissibIe both
IN principle and i'll practice, that it must
have been intended as pretex. for evadine
I the stipulation at that time
| The correspondence of our ministers ex
hibts all their difficulties and their measures
ON this important question. Objections were
urged by the British Commissioners as to
the efficiency of tie local authorities of the
y. >. IN experimenting and restoring deser-
tiers frem their vessels. These might
| Immediately go 10 sea, beyond the reach of
the local aulhorities-and besides, according
to the English law, the term " deserters'' was
cohfned 10 such only, as should leave their
| ships of 7car. 10 remove these tcvo obie,c-
tons, our ministers Submitted hrojet. in
the 1st place, making it hcnal for the com
manders Of each others vessels to take de-
serters from the vessels of the other, under
such circumstances, and also making IL the
duty OF each government to restore them up
! VII N'-Sti e'ii'ai III thSiI respective ports. on
suitable application and proof and I'd ::
extending the meaning of (" deserters" to
such AS should leave the merchant vessels.
At first this hrCjet seemed to go down with
| the British Commissioners-they expressly
agreed TO propose an article 10 tie Cabinet,
| ~ that eGect--but AT the very next inter
view, all their scruples and difficulties re-
cnrred--they had been consulting the Board
OF Admiralty and the Grown Officers in
Doctors Commons-aud they asserted it to
be the prerogative o. the King g to require
the services ct all his ea-faring subjects a.
! gainst his enemy, and to seize them bv force
Wherever found, not being within the terri
torial limits of another power" All that
they did, towards furtherance of any adj
! Justment, was to make the tender of a cou1
Ter Hr?1ef, which EXPLICITLY reserved the
right OF search and enforcement. on the
high seas, of such as were not the subjects of
the other--but STIMULATING for the enactment
OF laws of both sides, inhcting heavy pen
| aities OH the Commanders of the beIljTerent
ships, who shall impress the nntfye sitbjecto
OF the neutral, or Others not being the sub
Jects OF the belligerent, from on board the
neutral vessel, on any pretence whatever
and on the other hand, making it highly
| penal III the subjects OF the neutral to grant
any certificates OF the birth and country of
sea farir% persons, without due proof of the
same. This proposition however is nuratorv
and icuious-thc Gomineering spirit of the
! British Comnarders--their ingenious and
arrogant use OF every avenue which is left
open Tor abuse--the temptation laid open