Protection to American Seamen. changes, or alterations, or additions, than in only amending, modifying, or perfecting, an existing provision. And your committee will here intimate that, in the latter case, amendments may very properly be proposed by Congress, two thirds of both Houses concurring, subject to ratification by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States; but that, in the former case, it might be a wiser and safer precaution for Congress, on the application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, to call a convention, as provided in the constitution, and amendments proposed in such convention should be submitted for ratification to conventions in the States, the concurrence of three fourths of which would be necessary. The suggestion of these precautions proceeds from the well-settled conviction that we ought not to change, alter, or abolish, any of the principles upon which the confederacy was originally based, for light and insufficient causes, or without due and solemn deliberation. Prudence dictates that we ought not to enter hastily upon new and untried experiments; that we ought not, by the introduction of novelties, to deprive ourselves of the advantage, not inconsiderable to any Government, of that veneration which antiquity throws around all institutions. Frequent changes will impair our belief in the wisdom of our ancestors, and our admiration of the patriotisin and skill with which they formed the American confederacy. If there be not cogent reasons, based upon the detection of defects by experience, the noble edifice erected by our revolutionary fathers ought not to be rashly pulled down. Our glorious federal constitution will soon have existed half a century, and will soon begin to be encircled with ancient renown; it should, therefore, be defended with persevering and resolute valor. It is a noble contrivance, which binds in happy union so many sovereign republics. It is a precious inheritance, which deserves our warmest thankfulness and our most vigilant preservation. Let it be destroyed-posterity will then have imitated the spendthrift, who, by acts of imprudence and folly, dissipates both his patrimony and his gratitude. The following resolution is therefore respectfully submitted by the committee to the House: Resolved, That it is inexpedient to propose any of the aforesaid amendments to the Legislatures, or to conventions of the several States. A proposition to modify a system which has for years been incorporated with our commercial arrangements, and intimately united with the most important relations of this country, ought to excite more than ordinary attention. Deeply impressed with the momentous character of the inquiry submitted to them, the committee have endeavored to present an ample statement of the question. The practice of issuing protections has been sanctioned under a law of Congress passed on the 18th day of March, 1796, entitled "An act for the relief and protection of American seamen." The following abstract presents a view of its most important provisions: the 1st, 2d, and 3d sections relate to the appointment of agents in foreign countries, to take care of the rights of seamen who might be impressed. These sec [24th CoNG. 2d SESS. tions were enacted for a limited period, and are now inoperative. By the fourth section, it is provided that the collector of every district shall keep a book or books, in which, at the request of any seaman, being a citizen of the United States of America, and producing proof of his citizenship, authenticated in the manner hereinafter directed, he shall enter the name of such seaman, and shall deliver to him a certificate in the following form, that is to say: "I, A B, collector of the district of D, do hereby certify that EF, an American seaman, aged years, or thereabouts, of the height of feet inches, [describing the said seaman as particularly as may be,] has this day produced to me proof, in the manner directed in the act entitled 'An act for the relief and protection of American seamen ;' and, pursuant to the said act, I do hereby certify that the said E F is a citizen of the United States of America. In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and seal of office, this - day of And it shall be the duty of the collector aforesaid to file and preserve the proof of citizenship produced as aforesaid; and for each certificate, delivered as aforesaid, the said collector shall be entitled to receive from the seaman applying for the same the sum of twenty-five cents. As a proposition has been offered to inquire into the expediency of repealing this statute, the inquiry should be made into the origin of the law; for what purpose it was enacted; and whether a state of circumstances exists which requires a continuance of its provisions. The simple examination of the law shows that it was passed in consequence of the impressment of our seamen. The history of the period at which it passed, and particularly the journal of the House; can be adduced to show that the system of protections arose out of this outrage. From the journal of the House it appears that, on the 20th May, 1794, a resolution was adopted appointing a committee to regulate the mode in which American seamen might be furnished with evidence of citizenship, for the purpose of protecting them against impressment in foreign service.-House Journal, vol. 2, p. 170. Mr. Murray, from that committee, reported a bill, and, on the 6th June, a debate took place on it, in a Committee of the Whole House. The committee rose, and, on the question of granting leave to sit again, it was decided in the negative. On the 9th June Congress adjourned, no further action having taken place on it. The debates of that day, as they appear on the public journals, show why Mr. Murary introduced the resolution. He referred, in his remarks in the introduction of the measure, to the fact, that when Great Britain armed against Spain, in the affair of Nootka Sound, our seamen had been impressed. He was of opinion that, if certificates were issued, no nation would atThe discussion on the bill was tempt to molest them. very animated. The measure was objected to, amongst other reasons, on the ground of its being an admission on our part that such seamen as might be without protections would be liable to impressment. The objections to the bill prevailed, and it was defeated. The subject was not permitted to sleep; the country became aroused by the enormities committed on our mariners by foreign Powers, and demanded some action. Mr. Livingston, on the 18th February, 1796, introduced a resolution to check the evil. In introducing the resolution, Mr. Livingston said: "He would call the attention of the House to the situation of a very important and meritorious class of men, whose value seemed to be overlooked, and whose dearest rights were either shamefully neglected, or ignominiously surrendered. He adverted to the seamen of the United States. This valuable class of men would fall under one of these descriptions: "1. Native American citizens. 2. Such as were citizens at the time of the declaration of independence, and at the period of the peace with Great Britain. "3. Foreigners naturalized since the declaration of independence. "It would be no difficult matter to prove that all the individuals of either of those descriptions were equally entitled to the protection of the Government, to the same or greater exertions in their favor, than were made for those citizens whose situations rendered it easier to apply for relief. Yet this meritorious body of our constituents, he said, thus entitled to our protection and favor, sailing under the sanction of our national flag, had been illegally seized, violently forced into a service they abhorred, cruelly torn from their relations, their families, and their country, and ignominiously scourged, for asserting the privileges of their citizenship. The country, to whom they looked for protection and relief, had regarded their sufferings with apathy and indifference. Three years we had beheld their miseries, and heard their cries for relief; yet for three years we had been silent spectators of this disgraceful scene. "He concluded with moving the following resolution : "Resolved, That a committee be appointed to inquire and report whether any, and what, legislative provision is necessary for the relief of such American seamen as may have been impressed into the service of any foreign Power; and, also, to report a mode of furnishing American seamen with such evidence of their citizenship as may protect them from foreign impressment in future. "Ordered to lie on the table." On the succeeding day the resolution was adopted without "opposition, and a committee appointed in obedience to it, consisting of Mr. Livingston, Mr. Bourne, Mr. Swanwick, Mr. Samuel Smith, and Mr. William Smith. On the 21st of February, Mr. Livingston made a report, which was debated in a Committee of the Whole, and the following resolutions agreed to: "Resolved, That provision ought to be made for the support of two or more agents, to be appointed by the President of the United States, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, the one of which agents shall reside in the Kingdom of Great Britain, and the others at such places as the President may direct, whose duty it shall be to inquire into the situation of such American citizens as shall have been, or may hereafter be, impressed or detained on board any foreign vessel, to endeavor by all legal means to obtain their release, and to render an account of all foreign impressments of American citizens to the Government of the United States. "Resolved, That proper offices ought to be provided, where every seaman, being a citizen of the United States, on producing evidence, duly authenticated, of his birth, naturalization, or residence within the United States, and under their protection, on the third day of September, 1783, may have such evidence registered, and may receive a certificate of his citizenship. "Resolved, That a bill or bills be brought in, in pursuance of the said resolutions, and Mr. Livingston, Mr. Bourne, Mr. Swanwick, Mr. Samuel Smith, and Mr. William Smith, do prepare and bring in the same.' Mr. Livingston, from the committee, reported a bill, which, after a violent debate, was passed. An ineffectual effort was made to recommit it. The bill passed by a vote of 77 in the affirmative, and 13 in the negative. In the Senate the bill met also with opposition-amendments were made; the House agreed to some, and rejected others; a committee of conference was appointed, and, after consultation, the Senate receded from the amendments objected to by the House. The bill finally passed, and was approved by the President on the 28th day of May, 1796. From the debate which took place, it is evident that the law was produced by the violations which were daily committted on the rights of our seamen. The opposition to the law was chiefly founded on the want of sufficient proof that our citizens had been seized. To this it was answer ed, that the seizures were so notorions that the committee to which the subject was referred had not deemed it necessary to enumerate the cases. Every paper was filled with accounts of the capture of our seamen. The British Government, while insisting on the right of taking natives of Great Britain, wherever found, not only seized their own citizens, but also Americans. That, in consequence of the similarity of language and appearance, they might mistake our citizens for citizens of Great Britain; and, to provide our seamen with evidence of their citizenship, the law was proposed to be passed. This sketch of the history of the law is given to show from what causes sprang this species of legislation. The period at which it originated was peculiar. While the European Powers were engaged in a tremendous struggle, the influences of which were felt in every quarter of the world, the United States was pursuing a policy secured to them by the law of nations, and one which displayed their anxiety to preserve a strict neutrality. One of the belligerant Powers, anxious to obtain all the means within her reach to prosecute a maritime war with success, insisted on the right to board neutral vessels, and take from them such seamen as might have been born within the dominions of the King of Great Britain. In vain were our remonstrances made against this practice. At the period to which we allude, our country had but just emerged from the troubles of our revolutionary contest. She was feeble, and without a naval force. She was willing to remove from foreign Powers any pretext for seizing our citizens on the ground of similarity of language and appearance with those of Great Britain, and for this purpose provided the system of protections. Notwithstanding this movement, the prac tice was not abandoned, nor was the protection system respected in any manner by Great Britain. This was evident, not only from the declarations but the acts of that nation. The British minister to the United States, Mr. Liston, in the year 1800, in writing to the Secretary of State, remarks: "I cannot omit this opportunity of recalling to your remembrance what I have frequently stated in conversation, that while the papers called protections are granted with fraudulent intention, or without a proper examination of facts, by inferior magistrates, or notaries public, in the United States, and while they can easily be procured by such natural-born subjects of his Majesty as choose to abandon his service in the hour of danger, it is not expected that any regard will be paid to them by his commanders of British ships of war.' Not only in the communications with this Government, but in the proclamations issued by the British Government to the commanders of vessels, objection was made to the protections. had elapsed after the passage of our law; full notice had been given to Great Britain of its existence; and yet, in one of the proclamations, issue is directly joined with that system. Notice was therein given that those who had those certificates should not be exempt from impressment. All natural-born subjects of the King could not divest themselves of their allegiance, and were informed "that no such letters or certificates do or can, in any manner, divest our (the King's) natural-born subjects of the allegiance, or in any degree alter the duty, which they owe to us, their lawful sovereign." (Proclamation, Oct. 16, 1807.) Not only are we in possession of the declarations of that Government, in opposition to the value of those documents, but we have also the fact that, after the passage of the law, thousands of seamen, armed with the protections, were seized on board of American vessels. The ground assumed by those who impressed them was, that the papers were forgeries; that the King had a right to the services of his natural-born subjects, and that it was difficult to distinguish Americans from natural-born Englishmen. But not only were English and Americans impressed, but Swedes, Danes, and natives of other countries, who could not be mistaken Years Protection to American Seamen. for natives of Great Britain. Every officer boarding one of our vessels was made the judge of the genuineness of the protection, and of the fact of citizenship. The prisons of Great Britain can prove that our seamen were confined, even when they held the protections. Amongst the causes which produced the war between this country and England, the impressment of our seamen bore a conspicuous place. It was well known that thousands had been seized while sailing under our flag, and with the protections in their possession. [24th CoNG. 2d Sess. The opinions validity with the individual certificates." here advanced contain the true principles on which we should act. The sentiments of the statesman to whom reference is made reflect the opinions of the present day. On reference to the commercial systems of the various maritime Powers, no provision similar to our system of protections can be discovered. In Spain, every individual who desires to become a sailor is enrolled in the district to which he belongs, and a certificate given him. He is liable to be called into the public service for a number of At the conclusion of the contest, which brought so great years, and at the expiration of the service to enjoy certain glory to the American arms on land, and evinced the pow- privileges. It has been supposed that the certificate was er of the United States to claim equality on the ocean, the for the same purpose with our protection. It is evident question of impressment was proposed to be made the sub- that it was never intended for the same object. Our docuject of the treaty of Ghent. It was not acted upon; but, ment was intended to be produced on the high seas. The as yet, remains undetermined between us and Great Brit- Spanish certificate was adopted for the purpose of being efain, the only Government which insists upon this right of fective within the Spanish territories. Other nations have impressment. It is evident that the protection system also certificates, intended to operate only within their renever answered the purpose for which it was intended by spective territories. It is believed that no nation can be its authors. It was not respected by the Government of found which has been willing to follow the system introGreat Britain; it was not respected by any of its agents; duced by the United States. It may be argued that in still our seamen, as a general rule, were compelled to sub- consequence of the resemblance in manners, appearance, mit to the expense of the documents, and then to find the and language, we are the only people exposed to the rule paper utterly impotent. The system was strenuously ob- of the British Government-that rule of insisting on imjected to by many of our leading statesmen. Mr. Jeffer- pressment. The fact of our issuing protections to avoid son was the first to raise his voice against the proposition. such a difficulty is making a concession which no soverBefore the passage of the law, his opinion was recorded in eign Power ought to make to another. But it is well known opposition to the measure, That distinguished statesmen, that naturalized citizens of the United States, who had in June, 1792, was Secretary of State, and, in writing to been born in Sweden, and other parts of the continent, Mr. Pinckney, minister plenipotentiary of the United and who could not have been mistaken for natives of Great States at London, remarked, "that the peculiar custom of Britain, were seized by her officers. Instead of legislating England, in impressing seamen on every appearance of in the manner we have legislated, ought we not to stand war, will occasionally expose our seamen to peculiar op-upon the broad ground of the law of nations? Ought we pressions and vexations. It will be expedient that you not, in fact, appear in our intercourse with the world one take proper opportunities in the mean time of conferring "of the equal and independent nations of the earth?" Can with the minister on this subject, in order to form some we present that character so long as we have remaining on arrangement for the protection of our seamen on these oc- our laws a provision which shows that we have been wilcasions. We entirely regret the mode which was the sub-ling to do more than is required by the laws of nations, ject of conversation between Mr. Morris and him; which and that we are still willing to allow that anomalous prowas, that our seamen should always carry about them cer- vision to remain in full operation? Is it not due to the tificates of citizenship. This is a condition never yet character of the country that we should now, when we submitted to by any nation; one with which seamen would we have arrived at strength and are possessed of resources never have occasion to comply; the casualties of their call- of vast extent, stand erect, untrammelled with legislation ing would expose them to the constant destruction or loss which was yielded in the days of our infancy and weakof this paper evidence, and thus the British Government ness, and when from our situation we were compelled to would be armed with legal authority to impress the whole of make concessions to those Powers that had no right, but our seamen. The simplest rule will be, that the vessel being had the means, of enforcing their demands upon us? The American, shall be evidence that the seamen on board are flag of the country has fought its way to the respect of the such." This letter of Mr. Jefferson was long before the world, and ought now to cover those who sail under it. passage of the law now proposed to be repealed. After its The United States ought not to acquiesce in any rule which passage, Mr. Pinckney, then Secretary of State, wrote, in even throws a suspicion upon their full equality on the June, 1796, to Mr. King, referring to the instructions ocean. The brilliant naval victories of the late war are given to Mr. Pinckney in June, 1792. He says: "You evidence of the capacity of our seamen to maintain their will see, referring to Mr. Jefferson's letter to Mr. Pinck-rights, and it does not become this Government to reney, that the mode prescribed in the late act of Congress, of certificating our seamen, was pointedly reprobated. The simplest rule, as remarked to Mr. Pinckney, would be, that the vessel being American should be evidence that the seamen on board her are such. But it will be an important point gained, if on the high seas our flag can protect those, of whatever nation, who shall sail under it. And for this, humanity, as well as interest, powerfully plead. Merchant vessels carry no more hands than their safety renders necessary; to withdraw any of them on the ocean is to expose both lives and property to certain destruction." Speaking of the protections under the act of 1796, he says, "that sailors will often lose their certificates, and provision should be made for other proof of their citizenship, such as their own oaths, with those of master's mates, or other creditable witnesses. The rolls of the crew, or shipping papers, may also be authenticated by the collectors of the customs, and then they ought to be admitted as of equal VOL, XIII,-Hh quire of them to be provided upon the ocean with any other documents than seamen of other countries. Is it not degrading to our citizens that they are bound to have a document which is unusual, unsanctioned by the law of nations, and reminds them at the same time that it grew out of the fact of our country not being able to maintain her flag? Is it creditable to us as a nation, that upon the high seas, where the vessels of all nations meet as equals, that our sailors have been requested by our Government, since 1796, to provide themselves with paper evidence of their American character? Every other nation deems the flag of the country sufficient protection, but we insist upon a proof, which we submit to exhibit to any foreign Power whose officer may board our vessels. Many object to the repeal of the act, on the ground that it assimilates to a passport, which is granted to every citizen when he leaves this country; that it operates in the same manner; that it is serviceable to the sailor in his inter course with our foreign consuls. It must be evident that the system of protections was not introduced for the purpose of being operative within the territories of a foreign Power, where passports are useful, but only on the high seas. They who object ought to consider that no maritime Power gives its citizens evidences to show on the high seas the fact of their allegiance. None of the numerous crews of foreign vessels which enter our ports, or the ports of Great Britain or France, except American seamen, have any evidences of this nature. If, however, it be deemed advisable to grant our seamen evidences of any kind, let them be taken out in the same manner with other citizens, and let them not be compelled to take their evidence under a law which was intended to operate only on the high seas. Under our laws, the protection is, even to our consuls, not the sole evidence of the fact of citizenship. If an American sailor is without a protection, it is not evidence sufficient to justify the consul to refuse giving him aid. If, by any reasonable mode, he can discover the fact of his being an American seaman, he is bound, even if unprovided with a protection, to afford the seaman relief, if he be in dis tress. From the abuses which grow out of these papers, many complaints have been made by our consuls. If our foreign agents are bound to obey these documents, without question, it is evident that gross frauds may be committed upon them. From experience, it has been settled that our consuls have advised the repeal of the protection law. Mr. Stewart, who was in the consulate in London in 1815 and 1916, gave his opinion in favor of the repeal of the protection system. He stated the facility with which they were procured tended in a great measure to render it useless. "It would, in my opinion," he writes, in 1817, to Mr. Forsyth, then at the head of the Committee on Foreign Relations, "be much better to repeal the law on that subject, in preference to its remaining on the present footing." He was satisfied of the frauds that were practised, and of the inutility of the document. As the law now stands, if a sailor should find it necessary to have a certificate of citizenship, he can always apply to our consuls when iu a foreign port. They are fully authorized to grant them, and are liable to a fine if they knowingly grant them to any but citizens. Mr. Dodge, our consul at Bremen, in a letter full of information on this and other subjects, addressed to one of the Committee on Commerce, gives the following opinion on this point: "The system of custom-house protections to our scamen has never, in my humble opinion, answered the purpose for which they were granted: said protections were for the protection of American seamen from impressment by the British. It must be well known to many of our mercantile community, conversant with the events preceding our last war with that country, that in thousands of cases where a British officer boarded one of our merchant vessels, that if the man-of-war wanted hands, and the officer found such on board the American vessel as, by their seamanlike appearance, would answer his purpose, he was sure to take them, whether they had protections or not." Mr. Dodge then states the facilities with which frauds are committed, and the inducements which are held out under the system. At the same time he suggests the propriety of giving to seamen a document, in the nature of a passport, to be useful to him in a foreign country. In Mr. Dodge's opinion, the role d'equipage ought to be sufficient protection on the high seas. Mr. Dana, in 1813, reported to the Senate a system of navigation for the United States. It arose out of the suggestion in the President's message, to confine the American navigation to American seamen. The report states that the bill submitted by the committee proposed to allow the priv. ileges of an American character to none but vessels navigated by American mariners. The law may require means to provide for ascertaining who shall be regarded as mariners, and to make it requisite for vessels of the United States to have documents on board as evidence of being so navigated. That At the conclusion of the report, it is stated that the documents for vessels sailing on foreign voyages may suspend the use of any other certificate of citizenship for persons employed in navigating them; and it is proposed to repeal the section of the act of May, 1796, which has authorized collectors to deliver certificates to individual mariners. Abuses which are known to have prevailed in relation to such certificates may be avoided by requiring proper documents to accompany the vessels. The law of 1796, as at present understood and administered, it is well known, gives great room to frauds and exactions. The protections are considered absolutely necessary by our seamen. class of our citizens supposes that the law compels them to take out the document. Notwithstanding the law makes it a voluntary act to take a protection, yet, as the practice has become general amongst our vessels of insisting on it, our seamen submit to the trouble and expense. The form of expression in the law makes it optional with the seaman. The collector is bound to deliver protections to only those who desire it. The words of the law are, "at the request of any seaman, being a citizen of the United States." The intention of the law was to give the sailor, if he thought it of any service, evidence of his citizenship. A general impression exists, among our maritime people, that a legal necessity exists on the part of the seaman to be provided with the protection. The sole purpose of the paper was to give to a foreign Power, insisting on the right of impressment, evidence that the bearer of the document was an American citizen, and, by the law of nations, exempt from impressment. In a state of peace, it is more manifest that it cannot be of any advantage; yet the result of the impression alluded to is, that every sailor provides himself with the document. It is easily lost, and the probability is, that it is frequently renewed at an expense to the seaman. The fee exacted by the law is twenty-five cents at the custom-house, but, with the charge of notary, it is understood to be a charge to the applicant of about one dollar and twenty-five cents. One of the officers of the revenue says that "by repealing the fees for protections you would reduce the expense of the seamen to one fifth or one ninth of what they are now at to procure these protections. The persons from whom, in some of our ports, they obtain protections, make money out of them. They frequently collect the protections of the seamen, and hand them over to the captains, as some kind of lien that the seamen will go with them, and not leave them in a foreign port; and whenever they quit the employ, their protections are generally left, and new ones are to be obtained when they go to sea again." From the returns which have been made annually to the Department of State, under the law of 1796, which requires a return of the number of seamen registered as protected, it appears that large numbers are registered, at an expense of many thousands of dollars. It is manifest that the withdrawal of that amount was wholly unnecessary, and peculiarly oppressive, on the part of the Government, upon a class of our citizens whose labors are of a character exposing them to toils and dangers of no ordinary nature, and should shield them from such severe exactions of the Government under which they live. Whether it shall be deemed proper to repeal the whole of the provisions relating to this subject, there cannot be a doubt as to the propriety of destroying that part of the law which imposes fees on the issuing of the certificates. Already the seamen are burdened sufficiently with taxation, and have strong claims on the Government for a release from the oppression. The passports which are issued from the State Department to persons about to travel in foreign countries are delivered gratuitously Protection to American Seamen. to applicants; and there cannot be any reason why our seamen should be compelled to pay for their certificates of citizenship, more than any other class of our citizens. [24th CoNG. 2d SESS He says in such situations, any other protection is required for them Great Britain, in 1803, by her ministers, yielded in full this great point. Lord Hawkesbury, the Secretary of State, in fact, admitted the rights of our flag, by assenting to Mr. King's proposition forbidding impressment on the high seas. Lord St. Vincent, First Lord of the Admiralty, also assented, but afterwards, on consultation with Sir William Scott, an exception in favor of the narrow seas was inserted. This exception was wholly untenable. The exclusive jurisdiction of Great Britain did not extend to those seas. It is a well-settled principle of international law, and maintained by all our statesmen, that "over the individuals and property within the limits of a sovereign State, the laws of that State have control and owe protection." The vessels of every nation are part of its property; she regulates them while within her ports, and all acts committed, and contracts entered into, while on the high scas, are referred to the tribunals of the courts of that nation whose flag the vessel may bear. In the language of Kluber, a merchant vessel ought to be considered as a floating colony of her State. The flag of the nation protects all who are beneath it. There is no doubt of the impropriety of grant ing certificates to our own inhabitants, while within our own territories, and yet we preserve a law which makes provision for a document as unnecessary, under the law of nations, as any document of the same kind would be to any of our inhabitants within his own home. Not more sacred should be the home of the landsman than the vessel of the mariner in that respect. Both are equally entitled to the protection of the Government, and one ought not to be burdened with the evidence of his citizenship more than the other; more especially as the protection is the evidence of our weakness in the earlier age of the nation. The practice of impressment was adopted by Great Britain when she was engaged in the naval gigantic wars which have ever disturbed the peace of the world. She insisted that, under an imprescriptible custom, the King had a right to the services of all his subjects, and that any nation which employed them exposed their vessels to the search of the British vessels of war. In no treaty, or in any work upon the law of nations, can any authority be found for such a practice. Lord Castlereagh put it on the commonlaw right of the King to command the services of his subjects, and that the allegiance which was due from a native citizen never could be shaken off. The consequence of this position, as asserted by our statesmen, must be that every municipal law, every regulation which might operate with-ment against any stipulation on the part of the Government in the territories of a nation, must be binding upon all other nations at sea. The inevitable result might be, that, if a nation thought proper to make regulations with regard to certain articles, (not even contraband of war,) and make them liable to seizure on board of a vessel bearing a neutral flag, that those neutral vessels must submit not only to search, but to seizure and to confiscation on the high scas. A retrospect of the course pursued by this country will show with what zeal the statesmen who have been engaged in carrying on the foreign negotiations of this country have sustained the cause of the freedom of the seas, of the rights of neutrals, of the want of authority to sustain the practice of impressment, and, above all, the ability with which they have insisted on the power of the flag to be the ægis of protection of American seamen, and American property, on the high seas. Mr. Madison in 1806, in writing to Mr. Monroe, then in London, examined the whole question of impressment. He insisted that a neutral flag, on the high seas, should be a safeguard to those sailing it. He assumes the position that, under the law of nations, the right of searching for, and seizing on, subjects of foreign countries, except those in the military service of a country, does not exist. That justice and virtue forbid the exercise of a right which gives to an officer of a vessel the power of determining on the rights of a citizen, without even the forms of a trial, which is secured under the code of civilized nations to the enrolled amount of property. Speaking of the protection, he says: "That the certificate called a protection to American seamen is not meant to protect them under their own, or even any other neutral flag, on the high seas." He can never admit that, Her claim was of no higher value than that of any other nation. Her only pretext was the common-law claim of the sovereign to the services of his subjects, at all times and places. Mr. Monroe, Secretary of State, writing to our plenipotentiaries for treating of peace, (April 15, 1813,) stated that our Government had passed a law on the subject of seamen. By that law, no British subject could be engaged as a seaman on board of our vessels, private or public, without producing to the collector, or commander of the vessel, a certified copy of the act by which he was naturalized. Five years' continued residence was required as a condition precedent to citizenship. After naturalization, he remarked that the native and adopted citizen stood on the same footing by our laws. Of the right to be exempt from impressment, he insisted that the practice was utterly repugnant to the law of nations, as unsupported by any treaty with any nation, never was acquiesced in by any, and that a submission to it seemed to be sacrificing the natural rights of the United States. Mr. Adams, in 1816, had an interview with Lord Castlereagh on the subject of the impressment of our seamen. Adams, anxious to obtain some settlement of the question on honorable terms, pointed out to Lord Castlereagh the measure of Congress restricting our vessels to citizens of the United States. It was evident, from the remarks of Castlereagh, that from the passage of that law he adduced an argu Mr. of Great Britain. He remarked, that if our law was carried out, there would be no seamen on board of American vessels to take, and the practice of taking them would cease of course. Mr. Adams, in his communication to the Secretary of State, properly observes that the practice will not be tolerated by a nation of the strength and resources to which the United States are rising. It cannot be too forcibly urged upon their conviction, that the only means of protecting their seafaring men will consist in the energy with which their rights shall be asserted." Mr. Adams, in 1818, in writing to Messrs. Gallatin and Rush, then in London, on the subject of a proposition which had been made to enter into some arrangement as to impressments, remarked: "The second proposal (that British officers entering our vessels, for purposes warranted by the laws of nations, should be authorized to call for the list of the crew; and if they should find, or suspect, an Englishman to be on board, to make a record of the fact, for the purpose of remonstrance to the Government of the United States) is, in the view of the President, still more objectionable. In the first place, the distrust that it implies that the law for excluding British seamen will, though stipulated, not be faithfully executed, is not warranted by any experience, nor can this Government give countenance to it by assenting to any stipulation which could be considered as resulting from it. He then states: "It was not expressly asked by Lord Castlereagh in his proposal, as reported by Mr. Rush, that the officer, in calling for the shipping papers, should also have the power of mustering the crew, to examine them, by comparison, with the list; but, as the mere view of the list would be useless, unless coupled with that power, we consider it as having been intended to have been in |