163 
Foreign Commerce . 
riuced under so many difficulties and and dangers. Most assuredly 
such a trade was not worth protecting at the ex pence of a war. 
Meantime, our merchants encouraged without scruple the em- 
ployment of British seamen on board their ships, and carried on 
their commerce to a very great extent by means of British subjects. 
Tne trade of false protections, and the disgraceful practices ac- 
companying it, was undisguised and notorious, in our seaports ; 
and formed a worthy counterpart to the forgeries of American do- 
cuments openly sold at London. Great Britain, under pretence 
of searching for her own subjects, impressed American seamen 
also, whenever it suited the interest or inclination of the naval com- 
manders. Thus it was: Iliacos intro*, mures , fieccatur et extra. 
This is manifestly a mercantile war in all hands. Every cause 
and reason assigned, every paper and manifesto published, is of 
a commercial complexion ; and all the difficulties that at this mo- 
ment stand in the way of settling it, arise as much from the conduct 
of our merchants at home, as of the British abroad. It Is the mew 
cantiie interest and the commercial system, in both countries, that 
have tempted and driven their respective governments into this 
war. 
The British in, my opinion, had a right to prohibit the non- 
accustomed trade : they had a right to complain that our mer- 
chants navigated with their seamen, whom they wanted for nation- 
al defence. W e also have great right to complain, that the Bri- 
tish commanders impressed our seamen as well as their own ; 
adding to a careless, disregard of justice, the irritating insolence 
of office. But it is an obvious reply on their side, that to the un- 
avoidable difficulty of distineuishinV between the two nations, our 
own conduct has superadded new ones, that might and ought to 
have been avoided. Before we claimed justice we should have 
clone it ; and prohibited our merchants from the employment of 
British seamen, ’ere- we went to war in claim of our own. I see 
many obstacles to the adjustment of this unpleasant system in the 
first instance, and still more as to its permanence. 
I say nothing of the right of expatriation. I hope the question 
will not be burthened with this discussion. Certainly it is not the 
law in any country of Europe that I know of. In this country, the 
question came under review in Talbot v. Jansen , Murray v. the 
Charming Betsy, and M'llvaine v. Cox; but it has received no- 
decision except that of Chief Justice Elsworth, in the case of Capt. 
Isaac Williams, which completely negatives the right. I think 
this light may be well defended on general principles ; nor need 
I 
