The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1814-10-22


make regulations operating in her own ports,
with view TO the same effect. Totcrminate
however, this controversy iii manner salts
factory t. both parties, the President is will
linY, should other checks be suggested as
likely TO be more effcctual, consistent with the
spirit OF our constitution, thar You should "a
do rihem. The strong feature ofthe first
alternative which authorizes The naturalization
on sea" CT requires their continued residence
in the L States for wears, rs Indispensable
to the attainment If that right. IN case this
informative he adopted, the President is will
ing, tor example, to secure compliance
with That Condition, to mike t the duty Of
each alien, who nav be destroys TO become
citizen, t. appear incourt every year, for the
term Of years, till his right shall be compile
ted. This example is given, not as "a limita-
ton, but as AN illustration Of your power; Tor
To the exclusion OF British scamen from, our
service, no repugnancc IS felt. To such cx
c!usion the amicablc adjustment of this con
troveTsY with G. Britain affords strong mo-
tive, but not the only one. Vt is a growing sen
timcnt in the =. States, that they onght to
depend on their own population, for the sup
ply OF their ships of war & merchant service
experience hes shewn that Il is an abundant
resource In expressing this sentiment. YOU
will do 1t in manner to inSpire more fully
confidence, that the arrangement which YOU
effect. without derogating however, from the
conciliatory spirit OF the accommodation.
a strong Sesre has heretofore been express
sed by the British government tn obtain OF the
y. States az arrangement 60 prevent the de
sertion of British seamcn, when in our ports,
and 1t cannot be dou6ted, that stipulation to
that effect would be highly satisfactory, as
well rs useful to Great Britain. 1t is fairly to
be presumed that it. alone, would afford to
y, irI,,
20 enter into satisfactory arrangement OF
the difference relating to imprcssment. The
Calm IS not inadmiSsihie, especially as the u.
States have a reciprocal interest in the r"~f0-
ration Of deScrers from American vess ,rgtu
British ports. You may therefore ACRE, %
an article, such rs hath been heretofore au-
thorized by the u. States, which shall make
1t the duty of each party n deliver them up.
OF the right OF the II. States he exempt
ed from the derradng practice Of impress
ment, so much has been already said, and
with such ability, that it would he useless, cs-
pcc'aiiv 10 you who are otherwise so vel aC-
Gu9inted with II, 20 dilate on Its merits. !
must observe, however, that the practice is
utterly repucNant e. the law OF nations; that
~ IS supported Nv ma treaty with AN. nation;
rhat It was never acquiesced IN bv any and
,haC n srl7ruissic0 70 II ~ the u 5. would be
the abandonment. W fivor Of G. Britain, OF
rights on the ocran.
This practice is not founded or any bcIli~-r-
ent right. The greatest eXten; e. which thc
hellige"ert claim haSheen carried, over The
vessels of neutral nations. is, 10 board, and
take from them, persons in the land and sea
service OF ~ enemy, Contraband OF war, Ar
eneuy's properly. All nations agree respect
ing the two FIRST articles, but there has been
and still exists diversity Of opinion as to the
e.
able importance, disputes have arisen which
are vet unsettled. The Empress Catharine
OF Russia, distinguished advocate OF lust
principles, placed herselfin 1880 st the head
ofncutral nations, in favor of q liberal CON
stiuction of their rights, and her successors
have generally followed her example. IN all
the discussion on these topics, VIC find no.
thing If the british claim 20 impre ssment no
acknowledgements of il IN any treaty, or proof
of submission to II Nv any power If inStan-
ces have occurred III which British cruiZers
have taken British seamen from the vessels
OF other nations. they We're, asst is presumed, ~
cases either not aoquiesced in, or Of an eNtraoI-
'lnary nature only GifordinE no conference to
their prartice anil .pretension in relation TO
the United States. Cases of this kind, if
such there he. afford no proof Of systematic
claim IN the British government to Impress
ment or of submission to it by other powers.
ii' ''t'a'iil lsstS 1ttil SCI ttD against CC NI-
ted States only, who have in Consequence
thereof been compelled to discuss its merits
This claita is in fact traced to another
source. the allegiance due by British subjects
! to their 6ovcreign, and bis ,ight by virtue
| thereof, 70 their service. 1hishas been dis
| tnctlv stated in late declaration by the T.,
| Regent. Knowing the nature Of the claim,
| We kncW also the extent III fine right and
! obligations incident to it. AleCiance is po-
| local relation between a sovereign and his
| people It S the obligation which buds the
/ latter in return, for the projection which they
! receive These reciprocal duties have the
! same limit. They are confined to the do
| mlnlons ct the sovereign, beyond Which he
snO rights, can afford no protection, < Can OF
course claim no allegiance a citizen or SUD
| Jet of one power, entering the donnous oil
| another, owes allegiance to the latter, in
! return far the protection he receives. Vine
thor a 'yereign has right to claim the ser.
vices of such Of his subjects as have left hi,
own doWinions is a question, respecting which
also a difference OF opinion may exist. II il
certain that no sovereign has a right to pur-
sue his subjects into the territories of another
be the motive for it what IL Igay. such ~
entry, without the consent OF the other power
would be a Violation Of its territory, and m
act # hostility. Offenders, even conspirators
cannot be pursued by one power into the ter
rttOrV Of another nor arc thcy delivered ui) h-