JANUARY, 1806. Protection of American Seamen. any private debt due from any citizen of the United States to any subject of that Government, by whose subjects he had been impressed; and that any sums of money so attached out of the hands of any debtor, shall be a payment of so much of said debt, and may be pleaded in payment or discount to the amount of the said sum so attached, and all the costs of said attachment, which shall be allowed as a payment of that amount in any suit for said debt. And that so much of the Treaty of London, of the nineteenth of November, one thousand seven hundred and ninety-four, as secures the inviolability of such debts, as will be infringed by the attachments or recoveries hereby authorized, shall not (so far as is necessary in the execution of this act only) be regarded as legally obligatory on the Government or citizens of the United States. On introducing this bill Mr. WRIGHT spoke as follows: Mr. President-As introductory to the consideration of the merits of this bill, I feel it my duty to call the attention of the Senate to the present degraded state of impressed American seamen, thousands of whom have been pressed on board the British ships of war, and compelled, by whips and scourges, to work like galley slaves; whither they have been forced, by the hand of violence, from on board our own ships, sailing on the high seas, under the flag of the United States, carrying the spare productions of the toil of the American planter and merchant, to a foreign market, or returning with their proceeds. SENATE. also, on his arrival in America, to the Secretary of State. And that every captain on his arrival at any port of the United States, before he shall 'be admitted to any entry of his vessel, shall be required by the collector to declare on oath, whether any of the crew have been impressed, which he shall take under the penalty of one return a list of all impressments, so communi'hundred dollars, and the collector is bound to 'cated to him, to the Secretary of State." In 1799, the Secretary of State is directed by law, (4 vol. 503,) "To lay before Congress annually, a statement of all impressments reported to him, that they might be officially and precisely informed of the state of our impressed seamen." Under these legislative provisions, and the interhundreds of our seamen no doubt have been vention of our agents appointed for that purpose, discharged by the Board of Admiralty, while at the same time, and under the same authority, the impressments kept pace with the discharges, so that instead of redressing the wrong, it sult to injury. This all-important subject, from was only inflicted in routine, thereby adding inattended to by the Executive of the United States. its commencement, has also been particularly Our Ministers at London, during three successive administrations, have been specially charged with In doing this, I wish not to enlist your sympa- tions to bring this lawless and cruel practice to an it, and we have witnessed their diplomatic exerthies, but only to present to you a correct state of end, but all to no effect. And now we are informed the facts on which this bill is predicated; facts that stand recorded in the official reports of the by the President of the United States, in his MesSecretary of State, the black catalogue of image of the 17th January last, that " pressments. 6 on the im pressment of our seamen, our remonstrances 'have never been intermitted; a hope existed at one moment, of an arrangment that might have I will next present to your view the measures adopted by the Legislative and Executive Depart-been submitted to, but it soon passed away, and ments of the Government of the United States for their redress. In the year 1796, Congress, by law, (3 vol. 322,) directed Agents to be appointed, to reside in Great Britain, and in such foreign ports as the President might direct, whose duty it should be, to inquire into the situation of such American citizens, or others, sailing conformably to the law of nations, under the protection of the American flag, who had been, or should be impressed, by any foreign Power, and to endeavor by all legal means to obtain their release; and to render an account of all impressments and detentions, to the Executive of the United States. They also directed the collectors of the several ports, on proof being made of the citizenship of any seaman, to give him a certificate thereof, under a hope that it would have been respected in foreign ports, and have protected him from impressment. This certificate acquired the name of a protection. They also directed, "That every captain of a ' vessel, in case of any of the crew being impressed. shall enter his protest at the first port he shall arrive at, with the name and residence of the person, and transmit immediately by post a duplicate of such protest, to the nearest Agent, Min'ister, or Consul, resident in such country, and 'the practice, though relaxed at times in the distant seas, has been constantly pursued in those in our neighborhood." This, Mr. President, is the prospect presented to our view, whereby thousands of our unfortuuate seamen, that hardy and invaluable class of citizens, are consigned to the most intolerable bondage, by the imperious mandate of a British naval officer, whose word is the supreme law from which there is no appeal; and which gloomy prospect we are now informed, by the highest authority, there is not a spark of hope left to enlighten. Sir, I have invited you to investigate this subject with the eye of temper, but at the same time, I trust, that the nation's justice will not be compromitted, by exceeding the bounds of moderation, for it has its limits; and we are informed by the laws of nations, (Vat. 433, sec. 352,) "that the true and just welfare of the nation is the grand rule. Moderation is always laudable in itself, but the conductors of nations ought to make use of it, only so far as it is consistent with 'the happiness and safety of their people." Under this view of the subject, can we submit to this state of things? That is the question. I have presumed not; and under that presumption, I have brought the subject before this Senate in the shape 6 SENATE. Protection of American Seamen. JANUARY, 1806. it is presented in this bill. Sir, I wish it to be Mr. President, I have thought it neither unpro recollected that the infant state of our navy sup-fitable or irrelevant to the present subject, to ex presses every hope of redress on the element of our wrongs, and that this is a measure of necessity, not of choice. Wherefore, I trust it will not be thought too nervous, when it is considered that we have just cause of war. I will therefore now, sir, proceed to the consideration of the merits of this bill. amine the right of impressing British subjects. British jurists have more than questioned this right, and the British Parliament have, I presume, decided the question. Sir Edward Coke (2 Inst. 47) says: “The King cannot send any subject against his will out of 'the realm, not even into Ireland, for then, under pretence of service, he might send him into ban P. C., it is declared repugnant to the liberty of 'an Englishman, and irreconcilable to the estab lished rules of law, that a man, without any offence by him committed, or any law to author ize it, should be hurried away, like a criminal, from his friends and family, and carried by force into a dangerous service." The first clause states that, in violation of the Treaty of Amity, Commerce and Navigation.ishment." (H. H. P. C. Notes, 679.) In Hales H. made at London on the 19th of November, 1794, His Britannic Majesty had caused the impressment of our seamen, sailing under the flag of the United States. The treaty (2d vol. L. Ü. S., p. 464) secures the inviolability of the citizens and subjects of the respective Powers; and we are informed by the law of nations, (Vat. 655, sec. 39,) "that a nation acts against the nature and essence of every treaty of peace, nay, against peace itself, by deliberately and wantonly offending him with whom peace has been made, and treating ' him or his subjects incompatible with peace, and 'which he cannot suffer, without being wanting 'to himself." But it may be said that this has not been authorized by the British Government. Let us examine that fact. It is declared by the law of nations, (Vat. 252, sect's 73, 74, 76,) that, however, as it is impossible for the best regulated 'State, or for the most vigilant and absolute Sovereign, to model, at his pleasure, all the actions of his subjects, and to confine them, on every oc'casion, to the most exact obedience, it would be ' unjust to impute to the nation or to the Sover'eign all the faults of the citizens; we ought not, then, to say, in general, that we have received an injury from a nation, because we have re'ceived it from one of its members." "But if a nation, or its leader, approves and ' ratifies the fact committed by a citizen, it makes the act its own; the offence ought, then, to be 'attributed to the nation as the author of the true 'injury, of which the citizen is perhaps only the instrument." That the common law did not admit of such a practice, must have been the opinion of the British Parliament, who, in the time of Charles I., passed a statute (16 C. 1, c. 5) " to authorize the impressment of soldiers and seamen for sea-service beyond sea," which soon after expired, being of short duration. They might also have been of the same opinion in the time of (2 and 3 Ann c. 19; 3 and 4 Ann, c. 11; 4 Ann, c. 10; 5 Ann, c. 15; 6 Ann, c. 10) Queen Ann, when a number of statutes, of a very short duration, passed in Parliament, in the same terms as the statute of Charles above stated. I presume they would never have passed laws to have authorized a proceeding that was justifiable by the common law. Judge Foster, who is quoted by Britons as an authority on this point, shall be examined. (Fos. C. L. 157.) He states, in the case of Broadfoot, who was indicted for the murder of Calahan, by pressing mariners on one hand, a very useful body of men seem to be put under hardships inconsistent with the temper and genius of a free Government; on the other, the necessity of the case seemeth to entitle the public to the service of this body of men, whenever the safety of 'the whole calleth for it. I think the Crown has a right to command the service of these people that, "If the Sovereign disavows the act, he ought to inflict on the offender exemplary punish-whenever the public safety calleth for it; the 'ment." ( 'same right that it hath to require the personSo far I have called in aid the law of nations: al service of every man able to bear arms in I will now refer to the form of the authority in case of sudden invasion or formidable insurrecthe case of impressment, which is in these words: tion. The right in both cases is founded on one (Fost. C. L. 156.) "In pursuance of His Majes- and the same principle, the necessity of the case, ty's Order in Council, dated the 19th day of Jan-in order to the preservation of the whole." But, uary, 1742; we do hereby empower you to im- he adds: (Fost. C. L., 154,) "If it be asked, where press, or cause to be impressed, so many sea- are the adjudged cases, on which he groundeth men,' ," &c. And I will refer you to the facts in his opinion? he freely confesseth that he hath your own possession, that His Britannic Majesty not met with one on which the legality of pressapproves the act, both by continuing the impress-ing for the sea-service hath directly come in quesments, and by his lately promoting the Captain oftion. He states that, according to his best apprethe Cambrian frigate, (whom he recalled to ap-hension, (having thought much upon the subpease our complaints on that head,) to the com-ject.) the right of impressing mariners for the mand of a ship-of-the-line; so that in form, in public service is a prerogative, inherent in the law, and in fact, His Britannic Majesty has caused the impressment of our seamen, or he must have punished. and not promoted so notorious an offender. On this point I presume, then, there can be no doubt. Crown, grounded upon the common law, and recognised by many acts of Parliament." With great deference to his honor, I would ask, if anything can be evidence of the common law, but judicial decisions on the point, which he admits 61 JANUARY, 1806. HISTORY OF CONGRESS. Protection of American Seamen. SENATE. and M., c. 15) "That no person shall be enlisted are not to be found? I will also examine the statutes on which he relies as recognising this right. I would here observe that he holds the soldier and seamen alike bound by the same law, Can we, then, submit the exercise of this royal and it would (Fost. C. L., 166) seem, by Admiral Seymour's commission, that his power extended prerogative right to be enforced on those sailing to impress ships, captains, masters, pilots, and sea- under the flag of the United States, without the men, as well as all other persons fit for the pur-limits of the British Empire ?—a practice, Judge pose. This was for the sea and foreign service, Blackstone informs us, Britons have submitted to and did not extend to land soldiers, as, until the with great reluctance-and, will it not be said, 24th year of Charles II., all the lands were held that we are wanting to ourselves, if we should not by military tenures, whereby the tenants were guard our seamen against this outrage by all the means in our power? But it may be said, the obliged to furnish soldiers and everything necessary for them in war; but by (24 C. II., c. 12) British Government has a right to the service of these tenures were abolished; and I question much her own subjects. I have shown, not by impresswhether the statute of Charles I. extended to the ment; and I will now show that they have the feudal tenants, who were bound to serve only in right of becoming American citizens, and being England. By statute of Henry VII., (7 H. 7, c. 1) protected in that right. (Tuck. Black. 1 vol. p. it is enacted that, if any soldier, being no captain 145.) "By the law of nature, man is subject to 'no restraints, and may pass into any region." By the law of nations, immediately retained with the King, which shall be in wages, and retained, or take any prest to (Vat. 172, sec. 225.) serve the King upon the sea, or upon the land beyond sea, depart out of the King's service without license from the captain, it shall be adjudged felony. C then every subject has a right to expatriate himself, and seek his fortune where he can best promote 'his interest." (1 Black. Com. 265, F. N. B. 85.) And by the common law, every Englishman may The statute of Henry VI. (18 H. 6, c. 19) against go out of the realm without the King's leave for desertion, was construed to extend to soldiers bound any cause he pleaseth; and so far has Britain reby tenure, or covenant, to serve on land; and a cognised this right in others, by Parliament, that, question was made, whether soldiers who had by the navigation act, one-fourth of every ship's taken prest to serve against the rebels in Ireland, crew may be foreigners. (6 Ann, c. 37.) By the were liable to the penalties of that law? which was statute of Ann, three-fourths may be foreigners, cleared up in Parliament in these words: "That and by the statute of George II., (13 Geo. 2, c. 3,) 'the said statute of Henry VI., in all pains, for- it is provided, "That any foreigner serving on feitures, and penalties, did, doth, and hereafter board of any merchant ship, or ship of war, for two years, in time of war, shall, ipse facto, be'shall, extend as well to every mariner and gunner having taken, or who hereafter shall take,come a British subject, entitled to all the priviprest, or wages, to serve the Queen's Majesty, leges of a native-born subject." Thus, we see, as it did, or doth, to soldiers; any opinion to the Britain invites foreigners into her service, and These are the stat- secures them in all the privileges of her native contrary notwithstanding." utes from whence the right is pretended to be in-subjects, among which, protection is the most imferred-which, I presume, go to show that the portant. Can it be, then, that Britain will exernot, mariner and soldier must be enlisted before they cise a right that is not legitimate, or claim for are liable to the penalties of desertion, and, that it herself what she denies to others? If is by contract, and not by force, the soldier be- she admits the right of expatriation, which is comes bound to serve, and that the right is found- established by the law of nature, of nations, and ed in the prostitution of the sound of the word the common law, and tested by the authority of (Boy. D. Cow. Inst. J. L. D.) prest for the sense, the British Parliament. Can we, then, feel ourwhich word means money paid to a soldier or selves at a loss for authority to protect those who sailor to enlist." Nor is it at all to be wondered sail under the flag of the United States, when we at, that a right founded in necessity-the tyrant's see Britain not only inviting foreigners into her plea-should rest on a pretext so flimsy, or that service, but securing them protection by the solemthe barriers of etymology should not be able to nity of a statute? Can we then, I say, want auwithstand-as necessity has no law-the physical thority or zeal to protect our citizens in their rights, force of a press-gang. And although this right secured to them by the solemnity of a Constituof the seaman to be exempt from service but on tion, under the solemnity of an oath? their enlistment, has been, under the claim of prerogative, substantially violated, yet the form of the commission to impress retains the evidence of this violation. It is in these words: (Fost. C. L. 15 c.) "We do hereby empower and direct you to impress, or cause to be impressed, so many seamen, &c., giving unto each man one shilling for press money," &c. Thus I have shown that British subjects are not legally bound, unless they receive prest, or bounty, to enlist; and, to avoid imposition, it is provided by statute, (5 and 6. W. 66 Mr. President, permit me here to observe, that all legitimate government is derived from the people, and is founded in compact only, and intended for the good of the whole; that protection and allegiance are reciprocal obligations, each so important, that in all Governments, in all ages, they have been secured by the solemnity of an oath. I ask, then, is not the conduct of Britain a violation of the rights of our seamen? Are they not secured in these rights by the Constitution? and SENATE. Protection of American Seamen. JANUARY, 180 gives a premium for destroying the pirate, when are we not bound by the most solemn obligation to protect them to the utmost of our power? (Vat. 251, sec. 1.) "Whosoever uses a citizen ill, indirectly offends the State-which ought to protect 'their citizens-and his Sovereign should avenge 'the injuries, punish the aggressor, and, if possi-lawed felon is said to have caput lupinum, tar 6 6 ' he might be knocked on the head like a wolft 6 ble, oblige him to make entire satisfaction; since otherwise, the citizen would not obtain the great ' end of the civil association, which is safety." I cannot then permit myself for a moment to suppose that a right so important, secured by ties so solemn, and so palpably violated, will not be protected to the utmost of the power of the Congress of the United States by all the legislative means they possess, consistent with the sound principles of legislation and good government. By the Constitution, Congress are to define andment upon him which every individual wou. punish piracy. In defining piracy, I wish them not to exercise a wild, but legal discretion, which is itself defined, to "discern by law what is just." I will therefore call their attention to the subject, as it has been considered by the law of nations, the common and statute law of Great Britain. By the law of nations, (Mol. D. J. M. 57,) "the attacking a ship at sea and taking away some of 'the men to make them slaves, is piracy." in a state of nature have been otherwise entitle. to do, for any invasion of his person or property." By the law of nations (Vat. 137, sec. 169) “T:: right of punishing, which in a state of natur belonged to each individual, is founded in the right of safety. Every man has therefore a righ to preserve himself from injury, and by force t provide for his own security, against those wh unjustly attack him." Nor are we left to th elementary writers alone to support this doctrin The very point has been judicially determine in the (Fost. C. L. 154) case of Alexander Broadfoot, who was indicted for the murder of Corne lius Calahan, and acquitted by Judge Foster's direction to the jury. The case was this: "Cap tain Hanway had a press warrant, with this d C By the common law, (4 Blac. Com. 72, 3 Inst. 109,) piracy consists in "committing those acts of robbery and depredation upon the high seas 'which if committed upon land would be felony." "Every community have a right (4 Bl. C., c. 71) to inflict that punishment upon a pirate by the rule of self-defence, which an individual 'would in a state of nature have been otherwiserection inserted in the body of it: You are not 6 6 to entrust any person with the execution of this 'warrant but a commissioned officer, and to inser his name and office in the deputation on the other side hereof.' He endorsed: 'I do hereby depute A. B. a Lieutenant of the mortar sloc to impress, &c.' On 25th April, 1742, Captai Hanway being at anchor, in Kingroad, at Bris tol, ordered the ship's boat down the channel, to press as they should see an opportunity; the Lieutenant staid on board with the Captain. I the evening the boat came up with the Breme Factor, in that part of the channel in the coun 6 6 ' entitled to, for any invasion of his person or pro'perty." By the statute of Elizabeth. (43. Eliz.,) it is enacted that "whoever shall hereafter, with out lawful authority, take any of Her Majesty's subjects against their will and detain them with force, or to make a prey or spoil of his person or goods, upon deadly feud, or otherwise, should be adjudged and taken to be a felon, and should suf'fer the pains of death without benefit of clergy." This statute was predicated upon a state of things in that country, not more intolerable than the present state of American seamen; nor can it be considered as an incorrect exercise of the discre-ty of the city of Bristol; some of the crew wen! tion of Congress in defining piracy, to declare the on board in order to press men, who being in impressment of our seamen, and consigning them formed that one or two of the Bremen's mer to so abject a slavery as they are subject to on were concealed in the hold, Calahan with three board British ships of war, piracy-when, by the 'others went thither in search of them, where law of nations, by the common law, and by the upon Broadfoot, one of the Bremen's men (who statute of Elizabeth, we discover ourselves per- had provided a blunderbuss for defence against fectly justified in so doing; and I trust we can 'the press gang) called out, and asked them wha never find ourselves less disposed to protect our they came for; he was answered by some of the citizens than Britain has been to protect her sub-press gang: We come for you and your comjects; nor of declaring that act piracy committed 'rades.' Whereupon he cried out, 'Keep back, I on the high sea, that Britain considers a felony of have a blunderbuss loaded with swan shot. death committed on land. Nor can we feel anyUpon this the other stopped, but did not retire. difficulty in imposing the pains of death on the He then cried out, Where is your Lieutenant offender, for a piracy on personal liberty, when and being answered, 'He is not far off,' immewe impose it in all cases of piracy on property,diately fired among them. By this shot Calahan and when we consider that it is the punishment imposed by all nations in every case of piracy. This brings me to the second section of the bill, which justifies the repelling force by force, and JANUARY, 1806. Protection of American Seamen. SENATE. in the attempt to impress him, because the author-entitled to the same measure of justice as Engity was incorrectly executed, can we feel a doubt that an American may kill an Englishman, when by no possibility there can be any color of authority; and that too without the jurisdiction and limits of the British empire, when sailing under the protection of the American flag? I can feel no doubt. lishmen. By the law of nations (Vat. 434, § 354) these measures are milder than war, which involves the innocent with the guilty. "The Prince, therefore, who attempts this method, instead of coming to an open rupture, is doubtless worthy of peace, on account of his moderation and prudence; but they who run to arms with 6 barbarians, enemies to society, and rebels to the ' law of nations, or, rather, to the common Father ' of mankind." And as to giving a bounty for killing this hos-out necessity, are scourges to the human race, tis humani generis, wearing the caput lupinum, I trust there can be no objection, when we consider the practice of other States and nations, particularly Britain herself, who, by the statute of This brings me to the last section of the bill, George II., (8 Geo. 2, c. 24,) gives a bounty to en-which secures the impressed seaman compensacourage the destruction of pirates. The statute tion for his false imprisonment not far beyond the is in these words: "That, to encourage the de- wages in the merchant service, and authorizes 'fence against pirates, the commanders or sea- the attachment of so much of the debts to Britmen wounded, and the widows of such seamen ish subjects as may be necessary for that purpose, as are slain in any piratical engagement, shall there being no other means of redress. All man'be entitled to a bounty, to be divided among kind will declare it just, and Britain herself has them, not exceeding the value of one-fiftieth judicially established the principle in the case depart of the cargo on board." Can we then, with cided by C. J. Pratt, afterwards Lord Camden, the example of Britain before our eyes, giving (Say. Dam. 219.) The case was in an action for bounty for the protection of property, feel any re- false imprisonment. The Earl of Halifax, one of luctance in giving a bounty for the protection of His Majesty's principal Secretaries of State, liberty? Can it be possible that Britain shall granted a warrant, without previous information, protect the property of her subjects with more against a journeyman printer of North Britain, vigilance and circumspection than America will who was kept six hours and treated civilly; 300 protect the liberty and lives of her citizens? I pounds damages were given. On a motion for a will not for a moment permit the hateful idea to new trial, because of excessive damages, Pratt, torment me. It cannot be so. As these provis- Chief Justice, declared that, as it was a general ions are mere declarations of the law, that our warrant and an attack upon public liberty and seamen may know their rights, and resist the un- against Magna Charta, and as they attempted to lawful force with safety; and as the exercise of justify its legality, there ought to be exemplary this repulsive force may induce severities and damages; and in all cases wherever an injury is death itself, it becomes necessary to secure the done under the color of authority, as where an exercise of it by the provisions of this act. There- officer under an authority to impress exceeds that fore the next clause is introduced, authorizing the authority. Motion overruled. President to retaliate in case of any cruelties exercised on our seamen. This is dictated by the soundest policy, legitimated by the law of nations, and recognised by our own laws. By the law of nations, (Vat. 426. § 341,) "when a sov'ereign is not satisfied with the manner in which 'his subjects are treated by the law and custom of another nation, he is at liberty to declare he will treat the subjects of that nation in the same manner his subjects are treated; this is called the Law of Retortion. There is nothing in this 'but what is conformable to sound politics." (Vat. 432, § 351.) At Athens, the law permitted the relations of him who had been assassinated to seize three of the natives of that country, and de- never be said that, after ten years spent in fruittain them till the murderer was punished or de- less negotiation, and after we have been informed livered up, and our own law recognises this prin- by the President "that every spark of hope is ciple. By the act of 3d March, 1799, it is provided, extinguished," and the cup of humiliation drainthat if any seaman, who shall have been impres-ed to its dregs, that the delay is not unreasonable sed on board any vessel of the Powers at war with France, who shall be taken by France, and hath suffered death, or any corporal punishment by the authority of France or any officer under their authority, the President shall cause the most rigorous retaliation to be executed on any citizen of the French Republic that may be taken under the laws of the United States. But perhaps it may be insisted these were Frenchmen, and not 9th CoN.-3 6 It will not, then, be said by an American Congress, that, for the false imprisonment of an American seaman sixty dollars per month can be too high, for his bondage on board a British ship of war, exposed to every hardship, when a British subject. for six hours confinement, with civil treatment, had eight hundred dollars damages by a British jury; nor can the method of recovering the same be opposed upon sound principles. (Vat. 431, sec. 350.) By the law of nations, "justice is said to be denied, when the subject is not permitted to establish his right in the ordinary tribunals of justice, or when great and unreasonable delay is effected, equivalent to a refusal." And it can and equivalent to a refusal. And we are authorized by the law of nations (Vat. 151, sec. 1) to retaliate, to enforce, if possible, the making the citizen entire satisfaction. It may be objected, however, that this remedy is in violation of the Treaty of London of 19th November, 1794, which secures the inviolability of British debts; but it will be recollected that this violation on our part is induced by the violation of the same treaty by |