the report of the Committee of Ways and Means, it appears that the sum of twenty-five millions will be necessary to be raised in this way; and the blank is proposed to be filled with that sum. The question which naturally presents itself, is, whether it is expedient thus to fill the blank and report the bill? This question would, at the first view, seem to limit the discussion to a narrow compass; but it has been decided, and seems to be understood, that it is in order on this bill, to take a full view of our political transactions and condition in all their various relations. I do not propose to enter into so wide a range of discussion as some others who have preceded me; but I have thought it might not be amiss to indulge in some remarks on the question whether we had just cause of war against Great Britain. Sir, it appears to me that this nation has just cause of war, upon two grounds: 1st. For reparation for her captures and condemnations under her Orders in Council. 2dly. For the impressment of seamen on board our merchant vessels. Perhaps it would be more correct to say, two distinct causes of war. H. or R. tend, that it is the duty or right of this nation to With respect to the first, I will say but little. them and made the success of a voyage, ship, It does seem to me quite clear, that if her Orders cargo, and profit, dependent upon their services, in Council were not authorized by those princi- it does appear to me to be most flagrantly oppresples of reason and justice which civilized nations sive and unjust, on the part of the British Execprofess to be governed by, under the name of na-utive, to interpose and forcibly wrest, from on board our vessels thus circumstanced, even British sailors. I know it may be said, that the practice of impressment is part of the law of England, and long usage on the part of the Executive branch of the Government, and some adjudged cases may be adduced, to give some countenance to the doctrine; but I rest upon the great charter, and I apprehend no Englishman would feel willing to admit that its provisions could be changed by the King or the courts of justice. The practice of impressment, then, I conclude is not warranted by the law of England; it is a trespass and false impressment in relation to the English sailor, and when committed on board an American ship, a most wanton outrage, involving consequences which it behooves this nation to guard against. tional law, that she is bound to compensate our citizens for all losses sustained under the operation of those orders. I do not hesitate to say, sir, that those orders cannot be justified by any principle of national law; and her rescinding of them amounts to something like an acknowledgment to that effect. I will not now dwell on this point. I will now proceed to consider the question of the right of the British to impress her seamen on board our merchantmen, with a view to show that she possesses no such right, and that the practice affords to this nation just cause of war. The fact of impressment is admitted on all it is admitted that many, very many, of our own native born and naturalized sailors, have been impressed under color of impressing British sailors; the injury to our merchants is evident, and in many instances, great. The fact and the injury being clear, it seems un-law. Let us see whether any authority can be hands; and, indeed, it is a questionably to devolve upon those who justify Great Britain, to show upon what principle of national law she is justified. Those who oppose her pretensions, might well rest upon the fact and the injury. But I will not stop here; I will endeavor to show that the practice is wholly illegal, as well in relation to the law of England as the law of nations. Permit me, sir, to test this practice by national found for it, in any of those treatises which are generally among the civilized nations of Europe referred to as containing the recognised principles of international law. If Great Britain possesses this right of impressing her sailors, it would seem to me that it must be in virtue of some inherent principle of right, applicable to all times and under all circumstances, and which must have developed itself long before this. and have received the approbation of the most polished nations., What is the law of nations in peace? I statesir, that it is, that all nations have a right to navigate and fish on the high seas without molestation. This is an everlasting principle of Nature's law; it rests upon a basis that cannot be shaken. The stores of the high seas are not to be exhaust By the great charter of English liberty, it is provided, that no freeman shall be imprisoned, but by the judgment of his peers, or the law of the land. This may be considered as a fundamental principle of the Government, and not to be altered but by the Parliament. A plain legal deduction from this principle is, that so long as it remains in force, every impressment, by mere Executive authority, is a trespass and false im-ed; no nation can appropriate it, or any part of prisonment. I would not be understood to con- it, permanently; it may be useful to all, therefore it is free to all in time of peace, without any kind of molestation whatever; any forcible interruption or delay is a violation of the right. The practice of impressment would be a most palpable wrong; and indeed the bare stopping a vessel by force would be a violation of this great principle of the freedom of the seas. I refer to Vattel, pages 187 and 188, in support of this doctrine, and I believe every other author is in accordance. Those which I have read are. Is the practice of impressing, a belligerent right, upon the principles of international law? I answer that it is not. According to Vattel, the right of seizing for carrying goods contraband of war; the right of seizing for being about to enter a port actually blockaded by a competent force; and the right of searching for and seizing enemies' goods, constitute the sum total of belligerent rights, in opposition to the freedom of the high seas to neutrals. These are so many exceptions to the great principle of the freedom of navigating the high seas, and all that have been acknowledged by the nations of Europe. But, sir, it is not only contended here that the British Government have a right to impress sailors who have made temporary engagements with our merchants; but that they have even a right to impress those who have been naturalized according to our Constitution and laws upon the subject of naturalization. This position is founded upon the British common law doctrine of perpetual allegiance, and the vague plea of its being necessary on the part of Britain to preserve her national existence. I will here take the liberty of answering those arguments. In the first place, the doctrine of perpetual allegiance is a mere municipal law, not binding on the Government of any other country; and I believe I cannot be corrected, when I say it is not the law of any nation except Great Britain and France; and still less am I in fear of being corrected, when I say it is not a principle of national law. The contrary is laid down in Vattel, in Puffendorf, and in Burlamaqui, and various other writers on the subject of international law. This doctrine of perpetual allegiance is moreover not warranted by reason or propriety. It is said to attach at the time of birth, and to depend upon it. What is there in the birth of man which can bind him by the tie of perpetual allegiance to the Government of the place where he is born? To my mind, it appears to be a mere accidental circumstance, in which the will of the individual is not concerned, and which of itself can be the basis of no obligation. Feeding, clothing, &c., certainly forms a strong basis for parental gratitude, and lays the child under obligation to make a suitable return to the parent in the same way, if necessary; but this seems to me to be an affair between the parent and child. What is done by the Government for the individual in his childhood, to lay him under such a perpetual obligation? I can conceive of no act. It is true, the Government abstains from taking his life when the physical power of so doing was in it; but I cannot conceive that this can be any ra FEBRUARY, 1814. tional foundation for the obligation of allegiance; as well might I tell you, sir, that you were under a perpetual obligation of gratitude to me, because, having the power of assassinating you, I had failed to do it. It does not appear to me, that the obligation rests upon a different basis; it seems to me that protection on the part of the Government must be the foundation of the obligation of allegiance on the part of the individual. It appears to me that it must be a matter of contract, either express or implied; express, where the oath of allegiance is actually taken; implied, where no oath or positive stipulation is entered into. The purport of this contract is, that the individual binds himself to the society or Government, that he will, in return for protection, be obedient to the laws; they are reciprocal and dependent on each other; when the one ceases the other ceases. An individual just arrived at the period of discretion is presumed to enter into this contract with the society and Government where he was born. It has been said, sir, that this doctrine of perpetual allegiance is necessary to preserve national existence; that it is the great principle of selfpreservation. This I deny; but I will not deny but that every society or Government ought to possess the power of prohibiting its citizens from removing; and I will admit that there may be occasions when such power would be rightly executed; the contrary of this would be to suppose, that the citizens to any extent of numbers, might remove to avoid the perils and burdens of war, and thereby endanger the existence of the national Government. This power I take to be the true principle of preserving national existence. But, sir, this prohibition may be omitted, and indeed ought not to be exercised but upon urgent occasions; and where there is no legal prohibition there is permission. When the laws of the country where a man is born, permit him to go abroad to make a permanent residence; or, which is the same thing, when they do not prohibit; there is a tacit or implied contract for dissolving the contract of protection and allegiance; it must be presumed to be known to the Government, that the man upon settling permanently under another Government, must lay himself under obligations entirely incompatible with his first allegiance; he loses the protection of his first Government; he becomes bound in allegiance to his adopted Government; and in return is entitled to protection. It will not put the imagination on the rack, to suppose a case where the population of a country would press hard on the means of subsistence. In such a case, it would be the duty of its Government to permit a portion of its inhabitants to remove, in order to preserve their lives, the lives of others, and render the condition of the balance more comfortable; they are thrown off upon the principle of self-preservation; they address themselves to the humanity of some neighboring country; they are permitted to become citizens upon the condition of placing themselves under the bond of allegiance to their newly adopted country; in the course of a few revolving years, the INDEX TO THE PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE FIRST AND SECOND bill from the House of Representa- (See Goods, &c., captured.) 60 Daggett presented the petition of, pray- 61 Bayard, James A., the nomination of, as one of 13 78 Bayly, Mountjoy, Doorkeeper and Sergeant-at- Berlin and Milan Decrees, Mr. Goldsborough Bibb, George M., of Kentucky, appeared, and 46 90 13 91 92 35 65 80 81 61 Bledsoe, Jesse, appointed a Senator by the Legis- 9 Bounty, a bill from the House of Representatives 74 27 read a second time 80 read twice, and referred 13th CON. 1st & 2d SESS.-A 18 13 Connecticut, a letter from the Governor of, en- 24 Capitol, Campbell, Mr., two resolutions referring certain a bill to that effect read, &c. ordered to a third reading read a third time, and passed Carriages for conveyance of persons, a bill from reported without amendment read a third time, and passed Chaplains, Mr. Anderson submitted a resolution agreed to concurred in by House of Representatives - Chesapeake apeake and Delaware Canal, Mr. Horsey, report postponed to next session of Congress Collectors of Customs, a report from the Secre- Commissioners of the Revenue, a bill from the reported with amendment read a third time, and passed as amended his seat Congress, a resolution from the House of Rep- Crane, Captain Ichabod B., and Captain Roger 67 read, and postponed to next session 73 83 on motion of Mr. Dana, the Secretary of the 83 Gaillard, John, of South Carolina, was qualified, the nomination of, as Envoy, &c., referred said committee reported two resolutions- the first resolution agreed to the Senate resolved that they do not advise 82 10 84 85 85 86 86 88 20 referred to a select committee 23 a bill to that effect reported and read - 26 29 Fire Insurance Company of Alexandria, Mr. a bill to incorporate the, reported and read read a second time, and recommitted reported with amendments ordered to a third reading as amended read a third time, and passed 39 another from the same, in relation to claims 20 |