The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1813-01-19

ther neutral countries, navigating the hi.Sh
seas, under the protection OF the American
! Nag.
Were the ,ighs of Great Britain in this
case not denied, the abuses flowing from il
wouid Justify the United States in claiming
and expecting a discoH,inuance of is e2er-
else. But the right is denied and on the
! best grounds.
! Although Great Britain has not vet a.
dopted. in the sane latitude with most o.
ther nations, the iinmunities of a neutra,
nag, she will not deny the general freedom
al the nigh seas, and or neutral vessels ma
vigatnS them, Soith such executions o,kv.
as are annereS 10 ii, by The la.v oCuations.
ohe mus. produce then such an exception
IN the law OF nations. in favor of the right
she contends for. But in what written and
received authority will she find il, In
what usage, except her own, will Il be
found She will find in both. thai neutral
VeSsei does not protect certain objects de-
nominated contro6a.,d of war, Including en-
emies serving in the war, nor articles going
into 6(ockaded port nor, a she has main
tanned, and as we have not contested. enc
| my's property of any Kind. But no where
VIII she ind an exception to this freedom of
the seas. and OF neutral flags, which iusti-
hes the taking away of any person, not an
enemy IN military service, found or board
| a neutral vessel.
! " treaties, British as well as others. are
! tobe consulted Oh this subject, it will eoual
| ~ appear, that no Countenance to the prac-
tice can be found in them. Whilst they adj
! INIT contraband OF war, by enumcratinp
| its articles, and the effect of real bloc kade
by defining it, in no instance do thev affirm
or Imply right in any sovereign. to enforce
| his Claims to the allegiance of his snbiects
on board neutral vessels on the high seas.
YIN the contrary, whenever a beiieperent
Claim against persons on board a neutral
vessel is referred to in treaties, enemies in
military service alone are excepted from
the general immunity of persons in that 81
| tu"Uon and this exception confirms the
immunity OF those who are not included in
| it.
1t is not then from the Iazy, or the usage
| Of AafionS, nor from the tenor oftreakfes,
tDat any sanction can be derived fer the
practice IN question. And surely it will not
DC pretended that the sovereignty Of any ma
tion extends, in any case whatever beyond
ts own dominions, and its own vessels on
me nIgh seas. Such doctrine would rive
jHsr alarm to all nations and more than
| aFy -hing would Countenance the imDutati-
on OF aspiring to an universal empire of the
seas. 1t would be the less admissible too.
| as 1t would be applicable to times of
peace us well as TO times of war, and tc
property as well as 20 persons. If the lay
~ oHeS1ancc, qyhick is a nlurieihal lay. be
IN torce at ALTON the high seas, on board for
6'sn vessels, At must be so at all times there,
as it's within its acknowledged sphere IF
tne reason alledged for it be good in time
OF war, namely, that the SOVEREIGN has then
right TO the service of all his subjects. it
must be good at all times, because at ali
lii"eS ne mas the same right 10 their SER
vice. war is not the only occasion for
"hich ne may want their services; nor is
external danger the only danger against
winch her services may be required for his
security. AGAIN, II the authority of mu-
! hicipal law can operate on persons in for-
eign vessels ON tho high seas, because with
III inc dominion OF their sovereign they would
! De SUBJECT to that law and are violating that
law ny oelng IN that situation how reject
The inference that the authority of a NUM-
PAL law may equally be enforced on board
foreign vessels on the high seas, against ar
ticies OF property exported in violation of
| such a aw, or belonging TO the Country from
winch 1t was exported ..,.-s. ....'..
And thus every commercial reeuiatior.
III tune OF peace too, as well as of war.
would De made obligatory OH foreigners and
tneir vessels, not only whilst within the
dominion OF the sovereign making the re-
guiation, but in every sea, and at every
Instance where an armed vessel might meet
with them' Another inference deserves
N,'i''' ~ the SUBJECTS or one SOVEREIGN
may be taken by force from the vessels of
another, on the high seas. the right of Ia
King them when found. implies the right of
searching for them, a vexation of commence
especially in time of peace, which has
not 'yet been attempted, and which for that
as well as other reasons, may be regarded
as contradlctlng the principle, from which
| il would flow. cd.
laking reason and justice for the tests Of
TINS practice,it is peculiarly indefensil,le be-
cause it deprives The dearest rights of persops
OF regular trial to which the most inconsi-
derable article of property captured on the
high seas, is entitled; and leaves their dos
tiny to the will OF an officer, sometimes
cruel often ignorant. and generally inter
ested by his want of mariners, in his own
decisions. 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 thas the question
! snail not be decided by the captor, but he
/ carried before legal tribunal, where n re-
| guar trial may be had, and where the can
| Tor himself is / able to damages, for an a.
base OF power. Can it be reasonable then.
or J"st,, that belligerent commander. who
IS thuS restricted, and thus responsible in 4
| case OF mere property Of trivial amount.
! should he permitted. without Recurring "a
| any tribunal whatever, to eXamine the crew
OF neutral vessel, To decide the IMPORTANT
question OF their respective alIce;ances. and
| n hot y -