The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1812-06-19

stated the circumstances of the case to this
government, am in hopes there will be no
difficulty in obtaining his releases
Of the papers enclosed, those marked No.
consist OF a copy of a letter from Admi-
aal Sir Roger Curtis, commander in chief
at Portsmouth, to Mr.. Croker, the secreta-
ry to the Admiralty. enclosing copy of the
deposition upon oath of Charles Davis, an
lrishInan by birth. who was lately serving
On board the u. States frigate Constitution
under the name Of Thomas Hollands and
Of a letter from Captain Hall. of his Majes-
Roger Curtis, giving an account of the Same
Charles Davis, and of his escape from the
Constitution frigate-
No. 2. contains the copy of letter from
Captain Hall to Sir Roger Curtis, transmit
ting statement of the names and descrip-
tions of % British seamen on board the
Constitution and Wasp, III,
No. 3. contains copy Of letter from Sir
Roger Curtis to Mr.. Croker, stating the real
name and birth place of William Smith,
who ran away from the United States fri
gate Constitution, and who proves to be
native of England and whose name is John
TAYLOR ,.
No. s, contains the copy of another letter
from Sir Roger Curtis to Mr.. Croker, trans
hitting the affidavits of George Warren &
Daniel Murphy, British seamen who ran "a
way from the Constitution and Hornet and
OF the wife of William Bowman, who is. al
Iuded to above. -
And No. S. contains the disposition upon
oath of John Taylor, mentioned in No 5.
The correspondence between the Earl of
liverpool and Mr.. Russell on the subject of
Bowman, do not enclose, conc luding that
Mr.. Russell will have already transmitted
copies of it to his government. You will
however, And in No. the statement of the
circumstances attending Bowman's forcibis
detention.
have the honor to be, &c. &c. &c.
(Signed) AUG. J. FOSTER
MR.. MoNRoE;To MIR. FosrER.
DEPARTMENT Of State, Juxe 1882.
SIR have had the honor to receive
Jour letter of June 1st, with the papers en-
closed, relating to several British seamen
who are stated to have entered into the ma
val service ofthc United States.
Without repeating what / had the honor
20 state to you in a personal interview res
pecting the deserter from the Cleaner, and
the conduct of the armed party from that
vessel who pursued him some distance into
the country /; shall confine my remarks to
your complaint of the detention of British
.eamen III American vessels, twenty Eight
OF whom are said to be on board the Con-
stitution. Although Nne fact cannot have
been admitted on the Evidence produced, be-
cause 1t is contrary to the laws of the Uni
ted States, yet it will be enquired into 1t
is also possible that the scarnen so detained.
admitting the fact of their detention, may
have become legally American citizens, in
which case they must be protected as such.
The government of the y. States can make
no distinction between native & naturalized
citizens, IS has been already remarked to
you. repeat also, that your government
cannot object to this rule, becausea British
statute naturafzes, itso facfo, all alien sea-
mo xuh CHI kos, ksa l.
British ship of war, and considers them,
equally with natives, within the allegiance,
and entitled to the protection of Great Bril-
tain.
The principal object of your letter seems
to be, to find some analogy between the A
nerlcan practice with respect to seamen, &
the British practice, and to deduce from the
former. justification of the latter. Permit
me to note the difference, or rather the con-
trast between them.
The regulations of the United States pro-
hibit the enlistment of aliens into their YES
sels OF war. No such regulations exist on
the side of C. Britain.
Enlistments, by force OF impressment, are
contrary to the laws of the United States
This mode, OF procuring crews for public
ships is not only practised by c. Britain
within her legal jurisdiction. but is extend
ed to foreign vessels on the high seas, with
Abuses which aggravate the outrage to the
nations to whom the vessels belong.
Most Of the states composing our Union
have enacted laws providing forthe restora-
ton OF seamen abandoning the service
o. merchant vessels, to which they were
bound by voluntary engagement. If no pro-
vision has been made for the surrender of
deserters from public ships, il is because
such deserters, although in many instances
forced into the service, would be deemed
malefactors and punishable as such !; and it
rs not the practice of any country, particu-
larly OF q. Britain, 20 surrender malefac-
fors without stipulation, which is always
reciprocal. In c.. B., we know from expert
ence, that noprovision exists for restoring A
meriCap seamen to our merchant vessels, e.
ven to the fulhlment of their voluntary en-
gagcments; e if dcserters' from American
ships Of war are ever restored, it is by the
courtesy, not the legal duty, or perhaps au-
thority, ofBritish naval commanders, & from
thepolicy Of recommendinga practice, which.
If mutual, must be evidently in favor of the
British service, the desertion from it being
SO common, in comparison with that from
the service Of the u. S. ~.
You observe that your government has
charged you TO state, that it will Continue
20 give the most positive orders against the
detention OF American citizens on board Bri-
fish ships of war. Iethose orders were to pro-
hibit the impressment of seamen from Amer
lean vessels at sea, the great source of the
evil, they would have been welcome proof
OF its disposition to do Justice and promote