squadron had chiefly been directed; but the way the object was
carried out was scarcely less an infraction of those national laws
which we were professedly enforcing. The practice of taking English
(and American) seamen out of American ships without regard to the
safety of navigating them when thus deprived of their hands has
been already mentioned. To this may be added the detention of
vessels against which nothing contrary to international neutrality
could be established, whereby their cargoes became damaged; the
compelling them, on suspicion only, to proceed to ports other than
those to which they were destined; and generally treating them as
though they were engaged in contraband trade. * * * American ships
were not permitted to quit English ports without giving security
for the discharge of their cargoes in some other British or neutral
port." On the same subject James [Footnote: _L. c._, iv, 325.]
writes: "When, by the maritime supremacy of England, France could
no longer trade for herself, America proffered her services, as a
neutral, to trade for her; and American merchants and their agents,
in the gains that flowed in, soon found a compensation for all the
perjury and fraud necessary to cheat the former out of her
belligerent rights. The high commercial importance of the United
States thus obtained, coupled with a similarity of language and,
to a superficial observer, a resemblance in person between the
natives of America and Great Britain, has caused the former to be
the chief, if not the only sufferers by the exercise of the right
of search. Chiefly indebted for their growth and prosperity to
emigration from Europe, the United States hold out every allurement
to foreigners, particularly to British seamen, whom, by a process
peculiarly their own, they can naturalize as quickly as a dollar
can exchange masters and a blank form, ready signed and sworn to,
can be filled up. [Footnote: This is an exaggeration.] It is the