dl 
 
 cose 
 
ALL 
 
 
 IMPRESSMENTS 
 
 UNLAWFUL 
 
 AND 
 
 INADMISSIBLE. 
 
 PHILADELPHIA, 
 
 PRINTED BT . GRAV.ES^ NO. 40, NORfff FOURfH SfREMf. 
 
>,. 
 
 
 357 
 
 ,s. 
 
 Q 
 
 
 r\ 
 
AN 
 IMPORTANT 
 
 AND 
 
 LUMINOUS COMMUNICATION 
 
 ON THE 
 
 SUBJECT OF THE 
 IMPRESSMENT OF AMERICAN AND FOREIGN 
 
 SEAMEN 
 AND OTHER PERSONS. 
 
 IT has become manifest to every attentive observer, that 
 the early and continued aggressions of Great Britain on our per- 
 sons, our property, and our rights, imperiously demand a firm 
 stand an effectual, though calm system of measures of ar- 
 restation. For this purpose, it is our duty to make ourselres 
 completely masters of the great truths and arguments by which 
 our rights have been elucidated, supported and maintained. 
 
 On the 17th of January, 1806, the President of the United 
 States communicated to Congress an extract from a dispatch of 
 James Madison, Esq. our secretary of state, to James Monroe 
 Esq. our minister in London, which contains many facts highly- 
 important, and observations and arguments perfectly satisfactory 
 and conclusive against " impressments of seamen and passengers, 
 whether Foreign or American, on board of our vessels." The 
 re- publication of that document at this crisis will at once display 
 some of the reasons on which the government has probably de- 
 clined to sanction the recent draught of a treaty with Great Bri- 
 tain, and will elucidate the ground on which the question of the 
 impressment of persons, both native and alien, has been rested by 
 our administration. 
 
 Extract of a letter from the Secretary of State to James Monroe^ 
 Esq. dated 5th January, 1804. 
 
 We consider a neutral flag, on the high seas, as a safeguard 
 ;o those sailing under it. Great Britain, on the contrary, as- 
 serts a right to search for, and seize her own subjects j and un- 
 
 - 
 
der that cover, as cannot but happen, are often seized and taken 
 off, citizens of the United States, and citizens or subjects of 
 other neutral countries, navigating the high seas, under the pro- 
 tection of the American flag. 
 
 Were the right of Great Britain, in this case, not denied, the 
 abuses flowing from it, would justify the United States in claim- 
 ing and expecting a discontinuance of its exercise. But the 
 right is denied, and on the best grounds. 
 
 Although Great Britain has not yet adopted, in the same lati- 
 tude with most other nations, the immunities of a neutral flag, 
 she will not deny the general freedom of the high seas, and of 
 neutral vessels na\igating them, with such exceptions only as 
 are annexed to it by the law of nations. She must 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 it . ? in what usage except her own, will it be found ? She 
 will find in both, that a neutral vessel does not protect certain 
 objects denominated contraband of war, including enemies serv- 
 ing in the war, nor articles going into a blockaded port, nor as 
 she has maintained, and as we have not contested, enemies pro- 
 perty of any kind. But no where will she find an exception to 
 this freedom of the seas, and of neutral flags, which justifies 
 the taking away of any person, not an tnemy in military service, 
 found on board a neutral vessel. 
 
 If treaties, British as well as others, are to be consulted oft 
 this subject, it will equally appear, that no countenance to the 
 practice can be found in them. Whilst they admit a contraband 
 of war, by enumerating its articles, and the effect of a real 
 blockade by defining it, 'in no instance do they affirm or imply a 
 right in any sovcrtign to inforce his claims to the allegiance of his 
 subjrctsi on board neutral vessels on the high seas. On the con- 
 trary, whenever a belligerent claim against persons on board a 
 neutral vessel, is refered to in treaties, enemies in military ser- 
 vice alone are excepted from the general immunity of persons in 
 that situation; and this exception confirms the immunity of 
 those who are not included in it. 
 
 It is. not then from the law or the usage of nations, nor from 
 the tenor of the treaties, that any sanction can be derived for 
 the practice in question. And surely it will not be pretenfled 
 that the sovereignty of any nation, extends in any case whatever, 
 beyond its own dominions , and its own -vessels on the high seas. 
 Such a doctrine would give just alarm to all nations, and more 
 than any thing would countenance the imputation of aspiring to 
 an universal empire of the seas. It would be the less admissible 
 too, as it would be applicable to times of peace, as well as to 
 times of war, and to property as well as to persons.. If the la> 
 
( 
 
 of allegiance, which is a municipal law, be in force at all on the 
 high seas, on board foreign vessels, it must be so at all times 
 there, as it is within its acknowledged sphere. If the reason alleged 
 for it be good injtime of war, namely, that the sovereign has then a 
 right to the service of all his subjects, it must bo good at all times, 
 because at all times he has the same right to their service. War 
 is not the only occasion for which he may want their services, nor 
 is external danger the only danger against which their services 
 Hjay be required, for his security. Again ; if the authority of a 
 mumcifial law can operate on persons in foreign vessels on the 
 high seas, because within the dominion of their sovereign they 
 would be subject to that law, and are violating that law by being 
 in that situation, how reject the inference that the authority of a 
 Uiunicifiall&vf may equally be enforced, on board foreign vessels, 
 on the high seam against articles of firofierty exported in viola- 
 tion of such a laift or belonging to the count; y from which it was 
 exported ? and thus every commercial regulation, in time of 
 peace too, as well as of war, would be made obligatory on foreign- 
 ers and their vessels, not only whilst within the dominion of the 
 sovereign making the regulation, but in every sea, and at every 
 distance where an armed vessel might meet with them. Ano- 
 ther inference deserves attention. If the subjects of one sove- 
 reign may be taken by force from the vessels of another, on the 
 high seas, the right of taking them when found, implies the 
 right of searching for them, a vexation of commerce, especially 
 in the time of peace, which has not yet been attempted, and 
 which for that as well as other reasons, may be regarded as con- 
 tradicting the principle, from which it would flow. 
 
 Taking reason and justice for the tests of this practice, it is 
 peculiarly indefensible ; because it deprives thr dearest rights of 
 a regular trial^ to which the most inconsiderable article of pro- 
 perty captured on the high seas, is entitled ; and leaves their 
 destiny to the will of an officer, sometimes cruel, often ignorant, 
 and generally interested by his want of mariners, in his own de- 
 cisions. Whenever property found in a neutral vessel, is sup- 
 posed to be liable, on any grounds to capture and condemnation, 
 the rule in all cases is that the question shall not be decided by 
 the captor, but be carried before a legal tribunal, where a regu- 
 lar trial may be had, and where the captor himself is liable to 
 damages, for an abuse of his power. Can it be reasonable then, 
 or just, that a belligerent commander, who is thus restricted, 
 and thus responsible in a case of mere property of trivial amount, 
 shold be permitted, without recurring to any tribunal whatever, 
 to examine the crew of a neutral vessel, to decide the important 
 question of their respective allegiances, and to carry that deci- 
 sio'rt into instant execution, by forcing every individual he may 
 chuse, into a service abhorent to his feelings, cutting him off 
 from his most tender connections, exposing his mind and his 
 
person to the most humiliating discipline, and his life itself to the 
 greatest dangers ? Reason, justice and humanity unite in pro- 
 testing against so extravagant a proceeding. And what is the 
 pretext fork? It is that the similarity of language and of fea- 
 tures between American citizens and British subjects, are such 
 as not easily to be distinguished ; and that without this arbitrary 
 and summary authority to make the distinction, British subjects 
 would escape, under the name of American citizens- from the 
 duty which they owe to their sovereign. Is then the difficulty of 
 distinguishing a mariner of one country from the mariner of the. 
 other, and the importance of his services, a good plea for refer- 
 ing the question whether he belongs to the one or to the other, 
 to an arbiir iry decision on the spot, by an interested and unrespon- 
 sible officer ? In all other cases, the difficulty and the importance 
 of questions are considered as reasons for requiring greater care 
 and formality in investigating them, and grea^yrsecurity for a 1 
 right decision on them. To say that precautions of this sort are 1 
 incompatible with the object is to admit the objectis unjustifiable ; / 
 since the only means by which it can be pursued are such as can;/ 
 not be justified. 
 
 The evil takes a deeper die, when viewed in its practice as 
 well as its* principles. Were it allowable that British subjects 
 should be taken out of American vessels on the high seas, it 
 might at least be required that the proof of their allegiance 
 should lie on the British side. This obvious and just rule is, 
 however, reversed ; and every seaman on board, though going 
 from an American port, and sailing under the American flag, 
 and sometimes even speaking an idiom proving him not to be a 
 British subjec', is presumed to be such, unless shewn to be an 
 American citizen. It may safely be affirmed that this is an 
 outrage and an indignity which has no precedent, and which 
 Great Britain would be among the last nations in the world to 
 suffer, if offered to her own subjects, and her own flag. Nor 
 is it ^always against the right presumption alone, which is in 
 favor of the citizenship corresponding with the flag, that the 
 violence is committed. Not un frequently it takes place in 
 defiance of the most positive proof, certified in due form by 
 an American officer. Let it not be said, that in granting to 
 American seamen this protec ion for their rights as such, the 
 point is yielded, that the pro'of lies on the American side, and 
 that the want of it in the prescribed form justifies the inference 
 that the seamen is not of American allegiance. It is distinctly 
 to be understood, that the certificate usually called a protection 
 to American seamen, is not meant to protect them under their 
 'own, or even a~iy oth<r neutral flag on the high seas. We can 
 never admit, that in such a situation, any other protection is 
 
required for them, than the neutral flag itself on the high seas. 
 The document is given to prove their real character, in situations 
 to which neither the law of nations, nor the law of their own 
 country, are applicable ; in other words, to protect them within 
 the jurisdiction of the British laws, and to secure to them, within 
 every other jurisdiction, the rights and immunities due to them. 
 If, in the course of their navigation even on the high seas, the 
 document should have the effect of repelling wrongs of any 
 sort, it is an incidental advantage only, of which they avail 
 themselves, and is by no means to be misconstrued into a right 
 to exact such a proof, or to make any disadvantageous inference 
 from the want of it. 
 
 Were it even admitted, that certificates for protection might 
 be justly required in time of war, from American seamen, they 
 could only be required in cases where the lapse of time 
 from its commencement, had given an opportunity for the 
 American seamen to provide themselves with such a document. 
 Yet it is certain, that in a variety of instances, seamen have been 
 impressed from American vessels, on the plea that they had not 
 this proof of citizenship, when the dates and places of the 
 impressments demonstrated the impossibility of their knowing 
 in time to provide the proof, that a state of war had rendered, 
 it necessary. 
 
 Whether, therefore, we consult the law of nations, the tenor 
 of treat es, or the dictates of reason and justice, no warrant, 
 no pretext can be found fjr the British ftractice of making 
 impressments from American -vessels on the high seas. 
 
 Great Britain has the less to say in excuse for this practice, 
 as it is in direct contradiction to the principles, on which she 
 proceeds in other cases Whilst she claims and seizes on the 
 high seas, her own subjects, voluntarily serving in American 
 vessels, she has constantly given, when she could give, as reason 
 for not discharging from her service American citizens, that 
 they had voluntarily engaged in it. Nay, mere, whilst she 
 impresses her wn subjects from the American service, although 
 they may have been settled and married, and even naturalized 
 in the United States, she constantly refuses to release from 
 hers, American citizens impressed into it, whenever she can 
 give for a reason, that they were either settled or married with in 
 her dominions. Thus, when the voluntary consent of the 
 individual favors her pretensions, she pleads the validity of that 
 consent. When the voluntary consent of the individuals stands 
 in the way of her pretensions, it goes for nothing' I When mar- 
 riage or residence can be pleaded in her favor, she avails herself 
 of the plea. When marriage and residence and even naturali- 
 zation are against her, no respect whatever is paid to either ! 
 
She takes, by force, her own subjects voluntarily serving in our 
 vessels. She keeps by force American citizens involuntarily 
 serving in hers. More flagrant inconsistencies cannot be 
 imagined. 
 
 Notwithstanding the powerful motives, which ought to be felt 
 by the British government to relinquish a practice which exposes 
 it to so many reproaches, it is foreseen, that objections of differ- 
 ent sorts will be pressed on you. You will be told first, of the 
 great number of British seamen in the American trade, and of 
 the necessity for their services in time of war aqd danger. Se- 
 condly, of the right and the- prejudice of the British nation with 
 respect to what are called the British or narrow seas, where 
 its domain would be abandoned by the general stipulation requi- 
 red.- Thirdly, of the use which would be made of such a sanctu- 
 ary as that of American vessels, for desertions, and traitorous 
 communications to her enemies, especially across the channel 
 to France. 
 
 1st. With respect to the British seamen serving in our trade, 
 it may be remarked, first, that the number, though considerable, 
 is probably less than may be supposed, Secondly, that what is 
 wrong in itself cannot be made right by considerations of expe- 
 diency or advantage. Thirdly, that it is proved by the fact that 
 the number of real British subjects gained by the practice in 
 question, is of considerable importance even in the scale of advan- 
 tage. The annexed report to congress on the subject of im- 
 pressments, with the addition of such cases as may be in the 
 hands of Mr. Erving, then our consul in London, will verify the 
 remark in its application to the present, war. The statement 
 made by his predecessor during the last war, and which is also 
 annexed, is in the same view still more conclusive. The state- 
 ment comprehends not only all the applications made by him in 
 the first instance, for the liberation of impressed seamen, between 
 the month of June, 1797, and Sept. 1801, but many also which 
 had been made previous to this agency, by Mr. Pinckney and 
 Mr. King, and which it was necessary for him to renew. These 
 appl'cations therefore may fairly be considered as embracing the 
 greater part of the period of the war ; and as applications are 
 known to be pretty indiscriminately made, they may further be 
 considered as embracing if not the whole, the far greater part of 
 the impressments, those of British subjects as well as others. 
 Yet the result exhibits 2,059 cases only, and of this number 102 
 seamen only, detained as being British subjects, which is less 
 than 2 1 of the number impressed, and 1,142 discharged or or- 
 dered to be so, as not being British subjects, which is more than 
 half of the whole number, leaving 805 for further proof, with the 
 strongest presumption, that the greater part, if not the V 
 
were Americans or other aliens, whose proof of citizenship had 
 been lost or destroyed, or whose situation would account for the 
 difficulties and delays in producing it. So that it is certain, that 
 for all the British seamen gained by this violent proceeding, 
 more than an equal number, who were not so, were the victims ; 
 it is highly probable that for every British seamen so gained, a 
 number of others, less than 10 for one, must have been the vic- 
 tims, and it is even possible that this number may have exceeded 
 the proportion of twenty to one. 
 
 -* It cannot therefore be doubted, that the acquisition of British 
 seamen, by these impressments, whatever may be its advantage, 
 is lost in the wrong done to Americans ignorantly or willfully- 
 mistaken for British subjects, in the jealousy and ill-will excited 
 among all maritime nations by an adherence to such a practice, 
 and in the particular provocation to measures of redress on the 
 part of the United States, not less disagreeable to them, than 
 .embarrassing to Great Britain, and which may threaten the good 
 understanding which ought to be faithfully cultivated by both. 
 The copy of a bill brought into congress under the influence of 
 violations committed on our flag, gives force to this latter consi- 
 deration. Whether it will pass into a law, and at the present ses- 
 sion, is more than can yet be said. As there is every reason to 
 believe that it has been proposed with reluctance, it will proba- 
 bly not be pursued into effect, if any hope can be supported of a 
 remedy, by an amicable arrangement between the two nations. 
 There is a further consideration which ought to have weight 
 in this question. Although the British seamen employed in 
 carrying on American commerce, be in some respects lost to 
 their own nation, yet such is the intimate and extensive con- 
 nection of this commerce, direct and circuitous, with the com- 
 merce, the manufactures, the revenue and the general resources 
 of the British nation, that in other respects its mariners, on 
 board American vessels, may truly be said to be rendering it the 
 most valuable services. It would not be extravagant to make it a 
 question, whether Great Britain would not suffer more by with- 
 drawing her seamen from the merchant vessels of the United 
 States, than her enemies would suffer from the addition of them 
 to the crews of her ships of war and cruisers. 
 
 Should any difficulty be started concerning seamen born within 
 
 the British dominions, and naturalized by the United States 
 
 . since the treaty of 1785, you may remove it by observing ; First, 
 
 that very few, if any, such naturalizations can take place, the law 
 
 here requiring a preparatory residence of live years, with notice 
 
 of the intention to become a citizen entered of record two years 
 
 before the last necessary formality, besides a regular proof of 
 
 I and moral character, conditions little likely to be complied 
 
with by ordinary seafaring persons. Secondly, tnat a discontinu- 
 ance of impressments on the high seas will preclude an actual 
 collission between the interfering claims. W ithin the jurisdic- 
 tion of each nation, and in their respective vessels on the high 
 seas, each will enforce the allegiance which it claims. In other 
 situations the individuals doubly claimed, will be within a juris- 
 diction independent of both nations. 
 
 Secondly. The British pretensions to domain over the narrow 
 seas are so obsolete, and so indefensible, that they never would 
 have occured as a probable objection in this case, if they had not 
 actually frustrated an arrangement settled by Mr. King with the 
 British ministry on the subject of impressments from American 
 vessels on the high seas. At the moment when the articles were 
 expected to be signed, an .exception of the S narrow seas" was 
 urged and insisted on by lord St. Vincent ; and being utterly in- 
 admissible on our part, the negociation was nbandoned, 
 
 Theobjection in itself has certainly not the slightest foundation. 
 The time has been indeed when England not only claimed, but 
 exercised pretensions scarcely inferior to full sovereignty over the 
 seas surrounding the British i->les, and even as far as cape Hnis- 
 tere to the south, and Van Staten-, in Norway, to the north. It 
 was a time, however, when reason had little share in determining 
 the law, and the intercourse of nations, when power alone decided 
 questions of right, and when the ignorance and want of concert 
 among other maritime countries facilitated such an usurpation. 
 The progress of civilization and information has produced 
 a change in all those respects, and no principle in the code of 
 public law, is at present better established, than the common 
 freedom of the seas beyond a very limited distance from territo- 
 ries washed by them. This distance is not indeed fixed with 
 absolute precision. It is varied in a small degree by written au- 
 thorities, and perhaps it may be reasonably varied in some degree 
 by local peculiarities. But the greatest distance which would now 
 be listened to any where, would make a small proportion of the 
 narrowest part of the narrowest seas in question. 
 
 What are, in fact, the prerogatives claimed and exercised by 
 Great Britain over these seas ? If they were really a part of her 
 domain, her authority would be the same there as within her other 
 domain. Foreign vessels would be subject to all the laws and 
 regulations framed for them, as much as if they were within the 
 harbours or rivers of the country. Nothing of this sort is pre- 
 tended. Nothing of this sort will be tolerated. The only in- 
 stances in which these seas are distinguished from other seas, 01 
 in which Great Britain enjoys within them, any distinction ovei 
 other nations, are first, thd compliment paid by other flags to 
 hers. Secondly, the extension of her territorial jurisdiction in 
 
certain cases to the distance of four leagues from the coast. The 
 first is a relic of ancient usurpation, which has thus long escaped 
 the correction, which modern and more enlightened times have 
 applied to other usurpations. The preogative has been often 
 contested, however, even at the expense of bloody wars, and is 
 still borne with ill will and impatience by her neighbors. At the 
 last treaty of peace at Amiens, the abolition of it was repeatedly 
 and strongly pressed by I ranee ; and it is not improbable, that at 
 no remote day it will follow the fate of the title of " King of 
 France," so long worn by the British moparchs, and at length 
 so properly sacrificec^to*'he lessons of a magnanimous wisdom. 
 As ar as this homage to the British flag has any foundation at 
 present, it rests merely on long usage and long acquiessence, 
 which are construed, as in a few other cases of maritime claims, 
 into the effect of ISgeneral though tadt convention. The second 
 instance is the extension of the territorial jurisdiction to four 
 leagues from the shore. This too, as far as the distance may 
 exceed that which is generally allowed, rests on a like founda- 
 tion, strengthened, perhaps, by the local facility of smuggling, 
 and the jjfcculiar interest which Great Britain has in preventing 
 a prac;ice affecting so deeply her whole system of revenue, conv 
 jmerce, and manufactures : whilst the limitation itself to four 
 leagues necessarily implies that beyond that distance no territo- 
 rial jurisdiction is assumed. 
 
 But whatever may be the origin or value of these prerogatives 
 over foreign flags in one case, and within a limited portion of 
 these seas in another, it is obvious that neither of them will be 
 violated by the exemption of American vessels from impress- 
 *nents, which are no wise connected with either ; having never 
 been made on the pretext either of withholding the wonted ho- 
 mage to the British flag, or of smuggling in defiance of British 
 laws. 
 
 This ex tension of the British law to four leagues from the 
 shore is inf erred from an act of parliament passed in the year 
 1736, (9 G. 2. C. 35) the terms of which comprehended all ves- 
 sels, foreign as well as British. It is possible however, that 
 the former are constructively excepted. Should your inquiries 
 ascertain this to be the case, you will find yourself on better 
 ground, that the concession here made. 
 
 With respect to the compliment paid to the British flag, it is 
 also possible that more is here conceded than you may find to be 
 necessary After the peace of 1783, this compliment was pe- 
 remptorily withheld by iYance, in spite of the remonstrances of 
 Great Britain ; and it remains for your inquiry, whether it did 
 not continue to be refused, notwithstanding the failure at Ami- 
 ens to obtain from Great Britain a formal renunciation of the 
 claim. 
 
10 
 
 From every view of the subject, it is reasonable to expect that- 
 the exception of the narrow seas, from the stipulation against 
 impressments, will not be inflexibly maintained. Should it be so, 
 your neg,<- nation, will be at an end. The truth is, that so great a 
 proportion of our trade direct and circuitous, passes through those 
 channels, and such is its peculiar exposure in them to the wrong 
 practised, that with such an exception, any remedy would be very 
 partial. And we can never consent to purchase a, partial remedy, 
 by confirming a general evil, and by subjecting ourselves to our 
 own reproaches, as well as to those of other nations. 
 
 Third, It appears, as well by a Ietter4om Mr. Thornton, in 
 answer to one from me, of both which Copies are inclosed, as 
 fr^m conversations with Mr. Merry, that the facility which would 
 be given, particularly in the British channel, by the immunity 
 claimed for American vessels, to the escape of traitors, and the 
 desertation of others whose services in time It-war may be par- 
 ticularly important to an enemy, forms one of the pleas for the 
 British practice of examining American crews, and will be one 
 of the objections to a formal relinquishment of it. 
 
 This plea, like all the others, admits a solid and satisfactory 
 reply. In the first place, if it could prevail at all against the neu- 
 tral claim, it would authorize the seizure of the persons described 
 only, and in vessels bound to a hostile country only ; whereas 
 the practice of impressing is applied to persons few if any of 
 whom are alleged to be of either description, and to vessels 
 whithersoever bound, even' to Great Britain herself. In the next 
 place, it is not only a preference of a smaller object on one side 
 to a greater object on the other ; but a sacrifice of right on one 
 side, to expediency on the other side. 
 
Gaylamount 
 Pamphlet 
 Binder 
 
 Giylord Bros.. Inc. 
 
 Stockton, Calif. 
 T.M.Reg. U.S. Pat. Off.