Page images
PDF
EPUB

this was a course requiring much consideration, and very different views were taken of it. Some contended, on the ground that pirates are the enemies of the human race, that we have by the law of nations the same rights against them as against nations at war with us, whose broken forces we are authorized by the existing public law to pursue, in the heat of contest, beyond the limits of neutral territory; and that consequently they might be pursued into the main land, and even into the villages, and be taken without any regard to the existing municipal authorities. On the other hand it was said, that these measures would be likely to be followed by resistance and violence on the part of the inhabitants, which must either terminate in the forcible occupation of the country or the expulsion of the invaders; a state of things deplorable in itself and leading to deplorable consequences, besides being beyond the prescriptions and guidance of the letter, and probably the spirit of the Law of nations. Among other things it was seriously and ably argued, and was proposed as a measure to be carried into effect, that piracies, which could be traced in their origin to particular countries and cities, constituted sufficient grounds for the blockade of such countries and cities; a proposition, which was met on the part of its opposers, by abundant scepticism both as to its legality and expediency.

All we have to add is, that this subject is worthy the notice of writers on the public code. In itself and in its connections, it is deserving of their anxious inquiries; particularly as it relates, not merely to the violations and loss of property, but to an immense loss of life, accompanied with circumstances of extreme and horrible cruelty. The pirate makes no distinction of age or sex. It was made to appear before a Committee of the American Congress, that out of twelve vessels, cap

tured within a short period of each other, not one person was suffered to survive.

I,—But here is a great practical difficulty. In what way can the Law of nations, in consistency with peace principles, reach this great evil? We answer in the FIRST place, by the recognition of principles, which naturally tend to the abolition of the slave trade. And among other things, by the adoption of doctrines, which tend to the abolition of slavery itself; by delineating its true character, and by proscribing the existence of slavery under all circumstances. For when slavery dies, the slave trade dies with it. And the slave trade always has been, and always will be the nurse of pirates.

II,-In the SECOND place, the Law of nations, if it would abolish piracy, must take the step of abolishing war on private property on the ocean. The effects of this practice are exceedingly pernicious in their bearing on the private interests and happiness of those, whose property is thus taken; but it is not often thought, how pernicious they are to those, who are the agents in it; in hardening the heart to sentiments of humanity, in unsettling the moral principles, and in preparing the way, by a secret but sure process, for a subsequent course of cruelty and crime.

III,-Again, if the Law of nations would abolish piracy, it must abolish privateering. We are inclined to the opinion, that the parentage of piracy is to be sought in privateering more than any where else. If war on private property on the ocean has a pernicious moral effect, even when carried on by public ships of war, the evil is increased ten-fold, when it is carried on by privateers. The man, who finds himself authorized by the public law of his country, to attack and destroy unoffending merchantmen, will easily be led to believe, that there is no distinct and permanent foundation of justice, and that

superiority of force constitutes right; and especially so, as many persons, employed on board of privateers, are young, have had but small opportunities of inquiry and reflection, and their moral principles are not fully established. It is undoubtedly true, that many young men, of whom favorable expectations were entertained, and who in their better days would have shuddered at the idea of piracy, have been introduced to that dreadful practice through the corrupting channel of authorized letters of marque and reprisal. They reason falsely but not unnaturally, that if superiority of national power constitutes public right, (and they do not well understand in what other way it can be constituted in the matter of privateering,) private power may constitute private right, and that it is accordingly lawful for themselves to pursue, and attack, and possess, whatever and wherever they can. -Says Dr. Franklin in a letter to David Hartley, "I do not wish to see a new Barbary rising in America, and our long extended coast occupied by piratical States. I fear lest our privateering success in the two last wars should already have given our people too strong a relish for that most mischievous kind of gaming, mixed with blood; and if a stop is not now put to the practice, mankind may hereafter be more plagued with American corsairs, than they have been and are with the Turkish."

IV,-Nor is this all. Measures of a pacific nature may be taken, tending to prevent the introduction and sale of goods taken by pirates. There are but comparatively few piracies, when there is no market for the sale of piratical goods. And whether there is, or is not such a market, will depend chiefly upon internal and municipal regulations, and upon the state of society.—Such measures as these strike at the root of the evil. of war may terminate piracy for a time; but the aboli

Ships

tion of slavery, the slave trade, war on merchant ships, and privateering, together with the diffusion of equal rights, justice, education, and benevolence, which are measures wholly consistent with the purest principles of peace, will terminate it forever.

CHAPTER NINTH.

RIGHT OF SEARCH AND IMPRESSMENT.

THE right of confiscating contraband goods is generally understood to involve and imply the right of search. Not only contraband goods, but enemy's property of all kinds, and also their subjects, may, by the prevalent law and practice of nations, be taken from neutrals; and the right of search is regarded as necessarily incidental to this. This is the general view of the subject; but like the others, which have been referred to, it is perplexed with difficulties, whether we consider it as an original question to be determined by the principles of natural justice, or refer to the practice of nations. We do not feel at liberty to enter into this discussion, considered as an original and unsettled one, for the obvious reason, that, if the question were fully investigated, the discussion would occupy the whole length, allotted to these inquiries. It is not so much our object to settle questions, if that in the existing state of things were possible, as to show that there are questions to be settled, and to make such suggestions as the interests of peace seem to re

quire. Is the right of search, then, with its incidental consequences, clearly a settled principle of the law of nations? If this be the case, how has it happened, that the exercise of the right has been attended with such irritating effects, with so much injustice and suffering, and such often repeated remonstrance and even resistance on the part of neutrals? Vattel states, that "some powerful nations, have at different times, refused to submit to this search." Grotius informs us, that, in the time of Elizabeth, the king of France would not permit French ships to be searched, prosecuting a neutral voyage, because it would be an injury to trade, and furnish a favorable occasion for pillage.

More recently this subject has been the cause of much misunderstanding between the United States and England; the right, in its fullest extent, being insisted on by the one power, and opposed by the other. During the recent long and bloody wars between France and England, the latter power, which had placed her chief dependence on her naval efforts, undoubtedly had need of all her seamen. Acting on the supposition, that British seamen had frequently deserted and had found employment on board American merchantmen, English ships of war endeavored to reclaim them, by the exercise of the right of search. Accordingly American merchantmen were subject to the exceeding vexation and loss of being visited in this way by English vessels; and while some English deserters were probably taken and carried back, a far greater number of Americans were separated from the crews, with which they had shipped, were torn from their native country, and compelled for years to serve on board British ships of war. This state of things naturally produced unspeakable irritation on the part of the Americans, and was one of the prominent causes of the late war between the two nations.

« PreviousContinue »