Слике страница
PDF
ePub

Relations with Great Britain.

consuls or commercial agents of Great Britain may object to any seamen, and attend the investigation. The commander of a public ship receiving a person not duly qualified, shall forfeit a thousand dollars, and the commander or owner of a private ship, knowing thereof, five hundred dollars, to be recovered in any action of debt, onehalf to the informer, and one-half to the United States. It is also made penal, punishable as a felony by imprisonment and labor from three to five years, or by fine from five hundred to one thousand dollars, for any person to forge or counterfeit, or to pass or use any forged or counterfeited certificate of citizenship, or to sell or dispose of one.

It may fairly be presumed, that, if this law should be carried into effect, it would exclude all British seamen from our service.

By requiring five years continued residence in the United States, as the condition of citizenship, few if any British seamen would ever take ad vantage of it. Such as had left Great Britain, and had resided five years in this country, would be likely to abandon the sea forever. And by making it the duty of the commanders of our public, and of the collectors in the case of private ships, to require an authenticated copy from the clerk of the court, before which a British subject, who offered his service, had been naturalized, as indispensable to his admission, and highly penal in either to take a person not duly qualified, and by allowing also British agents to object to any one offering his service, and to prosecute by suit the commander or collector, as the case might be, for receiving an improper person, it seems to be impossible that such should be received.

If the second alternative is adopted, that is, if all native British subjects are to be hereafter excluded from our service, it is important that the stipulation providing for it should operate so as not to affect those who have been already naturalized. By our law, all the rights of natives are given to naturalized citizens. It is contended by some that these complete rights do not extend beyond the limits of the United States; that, in naturalizing a foreigner, no State can absolve him from the obligation which he owes to his former Government, and that he becomes a citizen in a qualified sense only. This doctrine, if true in any case, is less applicable to the United States than to any other Power. Expatriation seems to be a natural right, and, by the original character of our institutions, founded by compact on principle, and particularly by the unqualified investment of the adopted citizen with the full rights of the native, all that the United States could do, to place him on the same footing, has been done. In point of interest, the object is of little importance to either party. The number to be affected by the stipulation is inconsiderable; nor can that be a cause of surprise, when the character of that class of men is considered. It rarely happens that a seaman, who settles on a farm, or engages in a trade, and pursues it for any length of time, returns to sea. His youthful days are exhausted in his first occupation. He

leaves it with regret, and adopts another, either in consequence of marriage, of disease, or as an asylum for old age.

To a stipulation which shall operate prospectively only, the same objection does not apply. In naturalizing foreigners, the United States may prescribe the limit to which their privileges shall extend. If it is made a condition that no native British subject, who may hereafter become a citizen, shall be employed in our public or private ships, their exclusion will violate no right. Those who might become citizens afterwards would acquire the right, subject to that condition, and would be bound by it. To such a stipulation, the Presi dent is willing to assent, although he would much prefer the alternative of restraints on naturalization; and, to prevent frauds, and to carry the same fully into effect, you are authorized to apply all the restraints and checks, with the necessary modifications, to suit the cases that are provided in the act above recited, relative to seamen, for the purposes of that act.

In requiring that the stipulation to exclude British seamen from our service, with the regulations for carrying it into effect, be made reciprocal, the President desires that you make a provision, authorizing the United States, if they should be so disposed, to dispense with the obligations imposed by it on American citizens. The liberal spirit of our Government and laws is unfriendly to restraints on our citizens, such at least, as are imposed on British subjects, from becoming members of other societies. This has been shown in the law of the last session, relative to seamen, to which your particular attention has been already drawn. This provision may likewise be reciprocated if desired.

The President is not particularly solicitous that either of these alternatives (making the proposed reservation in case the latter be) should be preferred. To secure the United States against impressment he is willing to adopt either. He expects in return, that a clear and distinct provision shall be made against the practice. The precise form in which it may be done is not insisted on, provided the import is explicit. All that is required is, that, in consideration of the act to be performed on the part of the United States, the British Government shall stipulate in some adequate manner, to terminate or forbear the practice of impressment from American vessels.

It has been suggested, as an expedient made for the adjustment of this controversy, that British cruisers should have a right to search our vessels for British seamen, but that the commanders thereof should be subjected to penalties in case they made mistakes, and took from them American citizens. By this the British Government would acquire the right of search for seamen, with that of impressing from our vessels the subjects of all other Powers. It will not escape your attention that, by admitting the right, in any case, we give up the principle, and leave the door open to every kind of abuse. The same objection is applicable to any and every other

Relations with Great Britain.

arrangement which withholds the respect due to our flag, by not allowing it to protect the crew sailing under it.

If the first alternative should be adopted, it will follow that none of the British seamen who may be in the United States at the time the treaty takes effect, and who shall not have become citizens, will be admitted into our service until they acquire that right.

If the second is adopted, the number of native British seamen, who have been naturalized, and will be admissible into our service, will not, it is believed, exceed a few hundred; all others who may be in the United States at the time the treaty takes effect, or who may arrive afterwards, will be excluded.

As a necessary incident to an adjustment on the principle of either alternative, it is expected that all American seamen, who have been impressed, will be discharged, and that those who have been naturalized, under the British laws, by compulsive service, will be permitted to withdraw.

faithfully into effect, without derogating, however, from the conciliatory spirit of the accommodation.

A strong desire has heretofore been expressed by the British Government to obtain of the United States an arrangement to prevent the desertion of British seamen when in our ports, and it cannot be doubted that a stipulation to that effect would be highly satisfactory as well as useful to Great Britain. It is fairly to be presumed that it, alone, would afford to the British Government a strong inducement to enter into a satisfactory arrangement of the difference relating to impressment. The claim is not inadmissible, especially as the United States have a reciprocal interest in the restoration of deserters from American vessels in British ports; you may, therefore, agree to an article, such as has been heretofore authorized by the United States, which shall make it the duty of each party to deliver them up.

and that a submission to it by the United States would be the abandonment, in favor of Great Britain, of all claim to neutral rights, and of all other rights on the ocean.

Of the right of the United States to be exempted from the degrading practice of impressment, so much has been already said, and with such ability, I have to repeat that the great object which that it would be useless, especially to you, who you have to secure, in regard to impressment, is, are otherwise so well acquainted with it, to dilate that our flag shall protect the crew, and, providing on its merits. I must observe, however, that the for this in a satisfactory manner, that you are practice is utterly repugnant to the law of naauthorized to secure Great Britain effectually tions; that it is supported by no treaty with any against the employment of her seamen in the ser-nation; that it was never acquiesced in by any; vice of the United States. This, it is believed, would be done by the adoption of either the above alternatives, and the application to that which may be adopted, of the checks contained in the law of the last session, relative to seamen; in aid This practice is not founded on any belligerent of which it will always be in the power of Great right. The greatest extent to which the belliBritain to make regulations operating in her own gerent claim has been carried, over the vessels of ports with a view to the same effect. To termi- neutral nations, is, to board and take from them nate, however, this controversy, in a manner persons in the land and sea service of an enemy, satisfactory to both parties, the President is will contraband of war, and enemy's property. All ing, should other checks be suggested as likely nations agree respecting the two first articles, but to be more effectual, consistent with the spirit of there has been and still exists a diversity of opinour Constitution, that you should adopt them.ion as to the last. On that and other questions The strong feature of the first alternative, which authorizes the naturalization of seamen, requires their continued residence in the United States for five years, as indispensable to the attainment of that right. In case this alternative be adopted, the President is willing, for example, to secure a compliance with that condition, to make it the duty of each alien, who may be desirous to become a citizen, to appear in court every year, for the term of five years, until his right shall be completed. This example is given, not as a limitation, but as an illustration of your power; for to the exclusion of British seamen from our service no repugnance is felt. To such exclusion the amicable adjustment of this controversy with Great Britain affords a strong motive, but not the only one. It is a growing sentiment in the United States that they ought to depend on their own population for the supply of their ships of war and merchant service. Experience has shown that it is an abundant resource. In expressing this sentiment you will do it in a manner to inspire more fully a confidence that the arrangement which you may enter into will be carried

of considerable importance, disputes have arisen which are yet unsettled. The Empress Catherine, of Russia, a distinguished advocate of just principles, placed herself, in 1780, at the head of neutral nations, in favor of a liberal construction of their rights, and her successors have generally followed her example. In all the discussions on these topics, we find nothing of the British claim to impressment; no acknowledgment of it in any treaty, or proof of submission to it by any Power. If instances have occurred in which British cruisers have taken British seamen from the vessels of other nations, they were, as it is presumed, in cases either not acquiesced in, or of an extraordinary nature only, affording no countenance to their practice and pretension in relation to the United States. Cases of this kind, if such there be, afford no proof of a systematic claim in the British Government to impressment, or of submission to it by other Powers. This claim has been set up against the United States only, who have, in consequence thereof, been compelled to discuss its merits.

The claim is, in fact, traced to another source,

[ocr errors]

Relations with Great Britain.

the allegiance due by British subjects to their pose for which the entry was made? There is a Sovereign, and his right, by virtue thereof, to levity in this argument which neither suits the their service. This has been distinctly stated in parties nor the subject. The British Governa late declaration by the Prince Regent. Know- ment founds its right of impressment from our ing the nature of the claim, we know also the ships on that of allegiance, which is a permanent extent of the right and obligations incident to it. right, equally applicable to peace and war. The Allegiance is a political relation between a sov-right of impressment, therefore, from the vessels ereign and his people. It is the obligation which binds the latter in return for the protection which they receive. These reciprocal duties have the same limit. They are confined to the dominions of the sovereign, beyond which he has no rights, can afford no protection, and of course can claim no allegiance. A citizen or subject of one Power, entering the dominions of another, owes allegiance to the latter in return for the protection he receives. Whether a sovereign has a right to claim the service of such of his subjects as have left his own dominions, is a question respecting which also a difference of opinion may exist. It is certain that no sovereign has a right to pursue his subjects into the territories of another, be the motive for it what it may. Such an entry, without the consent of the other Power, would be a violation of its territory, and an act of hostility. Offenders, even conspirators, cannot be pursued by one Power into the territory of another, nor are they delivered up by the latter, except in compliance with treaties, or by favor. That the vessels of a nation are considered a part of its territory, with the exception of the belligerent right only, is a principle too well established to be brought into discussion. Each State has exclusive jurisdiction over its own vessels. Its laws govern in them, and offences against those laws are punishable by its tribunals only. The flag of a nation protects everything sailing under it in time of peace, and in time of war likewise, with the exception of the belligerent rights growing out of the war. An entry on board the vessels of one Power by the cruisers of another, in any other case, and the exercise of any other authority over them, is a violation of right, and an act of hos-ercised no right which she was not willing to tility.

of other Powers must likewise be permanent, and equally applicable to peace and war. It would not, however, take this broad ground, lest the injustice and extravagance of the pretension might excite the astonishment and indignation of other Powers, to whom it would be equally applicable. To claim it as a belligerent right would have been equally unjust and absurd, as no trace of it could be found in the belligerent code. The British Government was therefore reduced to a very embarrassing dilemma. To acknowledge that it could not support the claim on either principle would be to relinquish it, and yet it could rely on neither. It endeavored to draw some aid from both. A state of war exists which brings the parties together, Great Britain as a belligerent, and the United States as a neutral Power. British officers have now a right to board and search American vessels, but for what? Persons in the service of an enemy, contraband of war, or enemy's property? This would not accomplish the end. It is, however, the utmost limit of the belligerent right. Allegiance, which is an attribute of sovereignty, comes to her aid and communicates all the necessary power. The national character of the neutral vessel ceases. The complete right of sovereignty and jurisdiction over it is transferred to Great Britain. It is on this foundation that the British Government has raised this monstrous superstructure. It is with this kind of argument that it attempts to justify its practice of impressment from our vessels.

The remark contained in the declaration of the Prince Regent, that, in impressing British seamen from American vessels, Great Britain ex

acknowledge as appertaining equally to the GovThe British Government, aware of the truth ernment of the United States, with respect to of this doctrine, has endeavored to avoid its con- American seamen in British merchant ships, sequences in the late declaration of the Prince proves only that the British Government is conRegent. It has not contended that British cruis-scious of the justice of the claim, and desirous of ers have a right to pursue and search our vessels for British seamen. It asserts only that they have a right to search them for other objects, and being on board for a lawful cause, and finding British seamen there, that they have a right to impress and bring them away, under the claim of allegiance. When we see a systematic pursuit of our vessels by British cruisers, and the impressment of seamen from them, not at a port of the enemy, where a regular blockade has been instituted, and by the blockading squadron, but in every part of the ocean, on our coast, and even in our harbors, it is difficult to believe that impressment is not the real motive, and the other the pretext for it. But, to place this argument of the British Government on the strongest ground, let it be admitted that the entry was lawful, is it so to commit an act not warranted by the pur

giving to it such aid as may be derived from a plausible argument. The semblance of equality, however, in this proposition, which strikes at first view, disappears on a fair examination. It is unfair, first, because it is impossible for the United States to take advantage of it. Impressment is not an American practice, but utterly repugnant to our Constitution and laws. In offering to reciprocate it nothing was offered, as the British Government well knew. It is unfair, secondly, because if impressment was allowable, a reciprocation of the practice would be no equivalent to the United States. The exercise of a right in common, at sea, by two nations, each over the vessels of the other, the one powerful and the other comparatively weak, would be to put the latter completely at the mercy of the former. Great Britain, with her vast navy, would soon

Relations with Great Britain.

be the only party which made impressment. policy. The practice and the claim began toThe United States would be compelled to abstain gether, soon after the close of our Revolutionary from it, and either to submit to the British rule, war, and were applicable to deserters only. They with all the abuses incident to power, or to resist extended next to all British seamen; then to all it. But should the United States be permitted British subjects, including, as in the case of to make impressment from British vessels, the emigrants from Ireland, persons who would not effect would be unequal. Great Britain has, per- have been subject to impressment in British haps, thirty ships of war at sea to one of the Uni-ports, not being seafaring men; and, finally, to ted States, and would profit of the arrangement Swedes, Danes, and others, known to be not Britin that proportion. Besides, impressment is a ish subjects, and by their protections appearing practice incident to war-in which view, like- to be naturalized citizens of the United States. wise, the inequality is not less glaring, she being Other views may be taken of the subject, to at least thirty years at war to one of the United show the unlawfulness and absurdity of the BritStates. Other considerations prove that the British claim. If British cruisers have a right to ish Government made this acknowledgment mere- take British seamen from our vessels, without rely as a pretext to justify its practice of impress-garding the abuses inseparable from the practice, ment, without intending that the right or prac- they may take from them, on the same principle, tice should ever be reciprocated. What would and with much greater reason, every species of be the effect of its adoption by American ships property to which the British Government has of war with British merchant vessels? An Ameri- any kind of claim. Allegiance cannot give to a can officer boards a British merchant vessel, and sovereign a better right to take his subjects than claims, as American citizens, whom he pleases. ownership to take his property. There would be How many British seamen would disclaim a title no limit to this pretension or its consequences. which would take them to the United States, All property forfeited by exportation, contrary to and secure them there all the advantages of citi-the laws of Great Britain, every article to which zenship? The rule of evidence, as the ground of impressment in every instance, must likewise be reciprocated between the two Governments. The acknowledgment of the men would surely be a better proof of their national character than the decision of a British officer who boarded an American vessel, however impartial he might be, and strong his power of discrimination, when opposed by the voluntary and solemn declaration of the party. In this way we might draw from the British service the greater part, if not all their seamen. I might further ask, why was this acknowledgment made at this late period, for the first time only, after the declaration of war, and when, on that account, it could produce no effect? In the various discussions of this subject, in many of which it has been demanded whether the British Government would tolerate such a practice from American ships of war, no such intimation was ever given.

her sovereignty, jurisdiction, or ownership would extend, in British vessels, would be liable to seizure in those of the United States. The laws of England would be executory in them. Instead of being a part of the American, they would become a part of the British territory.

It might naturally be expected that Great Britain would have given, by her conduct, some support to her pretensions; that, if she had not disclaimed altogether the principle of naturalization, she would at least have excluded from her service foreign seamen. Her conduct, however, has been altogether at variance with her precepts. She has given great facility to naturalization, in all instances where it could advance her interest, and peculiar encouragement to that of foreign seamen. She naturalizes by special act of Parliament; she naturalizes all persons who reside a certain term of years in British colonies, all those who are born of British subjects in foreign If Great Britain had found the employment of dominions, and all seamen who have served a her seamen in our service injurious to her, and certain short term in the British service, and been disposed to respect our rights, the regular would doubtless protect all such as British subcourse of proceeding would have been for her jects, if required by them so to do. Her GovGovernment to have complained to the Govern-ernors of neighboring provinces are, at this time, ment of the United States of the injury, and to have proposed a remedy. Had this been done, and no reasonable remedy been adopted, sound The mediation offered by Russia presents to in principle and reciprocal in its operation, the Great Britain, as well as to the United States, a British Government might have had some cause fair opportunity of accommodating this controversy of complaint, and some plea for taking the rem- with honor. The interposition of so distinguished edy into its own hands. Such a procedure would, a Power, friendly to both parties, could not be at least, have given to its claim of impressment declined by either, on just ground, especially by the greatest plausibility. We know that such Great Britain, between whom and Russia there complaint was never made, except in defence of exists at this time a very interesting relation. the practice of impressment, and that, in the When the British Ministers are made acquainted meantime, the practice has gone on, and grown at St. Petersburg, with the conditions on which into a usage, which, with all its abuses, had re- you are authorized to adjust this difference, it sistance been longer delayed, might have become seems as if it would be impossible for Great Brita law. The origin and progress of this usurpa- ain to decline them. Should she do it, still adtion afford strong illustrations of the British | hering to her former pretensions, her motive could

compelling emigrants thither from the United States to bear arms against the United States.

Relations with Great Britain.

-not be misunderstood. The cause of the United States would thenceforward become the common cause of nations. A concession by them would operate to the disadvantage of every other Power. They would all find, in the conduct of Great Britain, an unequivocal determination to destroy the rights of other flags, and to usurp the absolute dominion of the ocean. It is to be presumed that the British Government will find it neither for the honor nor interest of Great Britain to push things to that extremity, but will have accepted this mediation, and have sent a Minister or isters to St. Petersburg with full powers to adjust the controversy on fair and just conditions. The British Government has recently, in two Should improper impressions have been taken formal acts, given definitions of blockade, either of the probable consequences of the war, you of which would be satisfactory. The first is to be will have ample means to remove them. It is seen in the communication from Mr. Merry to certain, that from its prosecution Great Britain this Department, bearing date on the 12th of April, can promise to herself no advantage, while she 1804. The following are the circumstances atexposes herself to great expenses and to the dan- tending it. Commodore Hood, the commander ger of still greater losses. The people of the of a British squadron in the West Indies, in 1803, United States, accustomed to the indulgence of a having declared the islands of Martinique and long peace, roused by the causes and the progress Guadaloupe in a state of blockade, without apof the war, are rapidly acquiring military habits plying an adequate force to maintain it, the Secand becoming a military people. Our knowledge retary of State remonstrated against the illegality in naval tactics has increased, as has our maritime of the measure, which remonstrance was laid strength. The gallantry and success of our little before the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty, Navy have formed an epoch in naval history. in England, who replied that they had sent The laurels which these brave men have gained, "orders not to consider any blockade of those not for themselves, but for their country, from an islands as existing unless in respect of particular enemy pre-eminent in naval exploits, for ages ports, which might be actually invested, and then past, are among the proudest boasts of their grate- not to capture vessels, bound to such ports, unless ful and affectionate fellow-citizens. Our manu- they shall previously have been warned not to factures have taken an astounding growth. In enter them." The second definition is to be found short, in every circumstance, in which the war in a convention between Great Britain and Rusis felt, its pressure tends evidently to unite our sia, in June, 1801, fourth section, third article, people, to draw out our resources, to invigorate which declares, "that, in order to determine what our means, and to make us more truly an inde-characterizes a blockaded port, that denomination pendent nation, and, as far as may be necessary, is given only to a port where there is, by the disa great maritime Power. position of the Power which attacks it, with ships stationary or sufficiently near, an evident danger in entering." The President is willing for you to adopt either of these definitions; but prefers the first, as much more precise and determinate; and when it is considered that it was made the criterion by so formal an act, between the two Governments, it cannot be presumed that the British Government will object to the renewal of it. Nothing is more natural, after the differences which have taken place between the two countries, on this and other subjects, and the departure from this criterion by Great Britain, for reasons which are admitted by her no longer to exist, than that they should, on the restoration of a good understanding, recur to it again. Such a recurrence would be the more satisfactory to the President, as it would afford a proof of a disposition in the British Government, not simply to compromise a difference, but to re-establish sincere friendship between the two nations.

orders, however, and with them the blockade of May, 1806, and, as is understood, all other illegal blockades, have been repealed, so that that cause of war has been removed. All that is now expected is, that the British Government will unite in a more precise definition of blockade, and in this no difficulty is anticipated, for having declared that no blockade would be legal, which was not supported by an adequate force, and that the blockades which it might institute should be supported by an adequate force, there appears to be, Min-according to the just interpretation of these terms, no difference of opinion on the subject

If the British Government accepts the mediation of Russia, with a sincere desire to restore a good intelligence between the two countries, it may be presumed that a fair opportunity will be afforded for the arrangement of many other important interests, with advantage to both parties. The adjustment of the controversy relating to impressment only, though very important, would leave much unfinished. Almost every neutral right has been violated; and its violation persisted in to the moment that war was declared. The President sincerely desires, and it is doubtless for the interest of Great Britain, to prevent the like in future. The interposition of the Emperor of Russia to promote an accommodation of these differences is deemed particularly auspicious.

[Confidential paragraph No. 1, omitted.] A strong hope is, therefore, entertained that full powers will be given to the British Commissioners to arrange all these grounds of controversy in a satisfactory manner. In entering on this interesting part of your duty, the first object which will claim your attention is that of blockade. The violation of our neutral right by illegal blockades, carried to an enormous extent, by Orders in Council, was a principal cause of the war. These

An interference with our commerce between enemy colonies and their parent country, was among the first violations of our neutral rights, committed by Great Britain in her present war with France. It took place in 1805, did extensive injury and produced universal excitement. Ia

« ПретходнаНастави »