Mr. W. SMITH said, he had waived a consideration of the third and fourth
resolutions, in order to pass to the fifth, because he thought it was
probable the committee would have determined upon arming our merchant
vessels; and if so, it might have influenced the votes of members on
those; but, as the committee had just decided against arming merchant
vessels, he should propose another resolution to the committee. It was
well known that the three frigates which had been agreed to be manned,
would not be ready for sea for several months; in the mean time there
might be occasion for some armed vessels; he should, therefore, submit
to them the following resolution:
"_Resolved_, That it is the opinion of this committee, that
the _President of the United States_ ought to be authorized
by law to provide a further naval force, whenever, in his
opinion, the circumstances of the country shall require the
same; and that ---- dollars be appropriated for that
purpose."
The CHAIRMAN said the resolutions of the gentleman from North Carolina
were first in order.
Mr. W. SMITH said he had no objection to the proposition of the
gentleman from North Carolina, as a part of a plan of defence, but he
thought it also necessary to attend to the protection of our commerce.
Mr. BLOUNT said, it was perfectly indifferent to him whether the
gentleman from South Carolina considered his plan as a part or the whole
of a system. That gentleman had accused those who voted against his
proposition, with being unwilling to place the country in a posture of
defence. Now, he had voted against, and should continue to vote against,
his proposition--but he was willing, notwithstanding (as he believed all
those who voted with him were) to put the country in a state of defence.
It was his opinion that internal defence only was necessary. He thought
the system which he had proposed would be sufficient. When they had
adopted this resolution, it might be considered whether any thing more
was necessary. He had no idea of creating a naval force for defence; on
the contrary, he believed it would be the means of plunging us into
fresh difficulties. For this reason, if the resolution he had proposed
were passed into a law, he should go home satisfied, with a belief that
he had done all that was necessary. And he was convinced that his
constituents would believe that he never wanted a disposition to defend
his country when in danger.
Mr. W. SMITH did not think these propositions could be of any use at
present; they would be very proper in case an invasion was apprehended.
He thought the principal object, at this time, was to defend our
commerce, and thereby secure the revenue arising from it, either by an
effectual naval armament, or by an embargo; and he thought he was
correct in saying, in reference to this defence, that the gentleman
opposed every thing, and proposed nothing. Gentlemen, he said, were very
ready to propose things which would cost the public nothing: the militia
measure proposed would cost no more than the passing of the law; but, if
ever any expense was to be incurred, then all was opposition.
The commerce of the country could not be defended, without calling upon
the people for revenue; and he thought those gentlemen who stepped
forward to advocate such measures as involved expense, and which were
consequently in some degree unpopular, deserved the gratitude of their
constituents. He had never hesitated to do this, when he thought it
necessary. He should not, however, object to the passing of this
proposition; he only rose to say, he did not think it immediately
necessary.
Mr. W. SMITH called for the reading of a similar resolution passed in
1794; which being read, and a wish expressed that the present might be
made conformable to it, Mr. BLOUNT gave his consent; and, after a few
observations from Mr. WILLIAMS in favor of the resolution, though he
denied that it could be carried into effect without expense, the
resolution was agreed to.
SATURDAY, June 17.
A bill was reported forbidding citizens of the United States from
entering into the service of any foreign Prince or State in a state of
war, which was read twice and committed to a Committee of the Whole on
Monday.
_Stamp Duties._
Mr. W. SMITH, from the Committee of Ways and Means, reported a bill for
laying a stamp duty on vellum, parchment, and paper, viz:
For a license to practice as a counsellor, attorney, &c.,
five dollars.
For every grant, or letters patent, four dollars.
For every exemplification or certified copy of
letters-patent, two dollars.
For every receipt or discharge for any legacy of fifty
dollars and not more than one hundred dollars, twenty-five
cents; above one hundred and not more than five hundred
dollars, fifty cents; and for every additional five hundred
dollars, one dollar; but not to extend to legacies left to
a wife, children, or grand-children.
For every policy of insurance of vessels or goods from one
district of the United States to another, twenty-five
cents.
For every such policy of insurance to a foreign port, for a
sum not exceeding five hundred dollars, twenty-five cents;
if it exceeds five hundred dollars, one dollar.
For every exemplification, of what nature soever, fifty
cents.
For every bond, bill, or note, (except the note of the
chartered banks which may be now or hereafter in
existence,) not exceeding one hundred dollars, ten cents;
above one hundred dollars, and not exceeding five hundred
dollars, twenty-five cents; above five hundred dollars, and
not exceeding one thousand dollars, fifty-cents; above one
thousand dollars, seventy-five cents. (If payable within
sixty days, they will be chargeable with only two-fifths of
these duties.)
For every protest of a note, twenty-five cents.
For every letter of attorney, twenty-five cents.
For every certificate or debenture, for drawing back any
duty on the re-shipping of goods, one dollar.
For every note or bill of lading, for goods from one
district to another, within the United States, (not in the
same State,) ten cents.
For ditto to a foreign port, twenty-five cents.
For every inventory or catalogue of furniture, goods, or
effects, in any case required by law, (except in the case
of distraining for rent, or an execution,) fifty cents.
For every certificate of a share or shares in the Bank of
the United States, or other bank, ten cents.
The bill was twice read, and ordered to be committed to a Committee of
the Whole on Monday.
WEDNESDAY, June 21.
_Expatriation._
The SPEAKER having informed the House that the unfinished business of
yesterday, viz: the bill prohibiting citizens of the United States from
entering into the military or naval service of any foreign Prince or
State, had the priority.
Mr. GALLATIN moved to have it postponed, in order to take up the bill
respecting an additional naval armament. This motion was supported by
Mr. GILES, and opposed by Mr. W. SMITH, and negatived, 35 to 34.
The bill respecting foreign service was then taken up, and, on motion of
Mr. HAVENS, it was agreed to leave the time for its taking place a
blank.
Mr. COIT moved to strike out the sixth section.
[It defined the mode in which a citizen of the United
States might dissolve the ties of citizenship, and become
an alien.]
Mr. SEWALL hoped it would be struck out. In every country in the world
where civil society was established, the citizens of that society owed a
certain duty to their Government, which they could not readily get rid
of; but they were about to establish a principle to put it in the power
of the citizens of the United States, at their will, and without any
pretence, to say they would be no longer subject to the Government; and
this is at a moment of danger, when citizens of other countries might
be called home from this country. He thought this would be extremely
wrong; it would be giving an opportunity for insult to our courts and
country, and he was sure no nation would show us so much complaisance in
return.
Mr. CLAIBORNE thought it no more binding for citizens born in the United
States to continue citizens of the United States, than it was for a
Roman Catholic or Protestant to continue of that opinion, when he
arrived at the years of maturity and could judge for himself. He
insisted upon it, men had a natural right to choose under what
government they would live; and they had no reason to fear our citizens
leaving us whilst our Government was well executed. He did not wish
citizens of the United States to be in the situation of subjects of
Great Britain, who, though they had left the country forty years ago,
were liable to be considered as subjects of that Government. He trusted
the rights of man would not be thus infringed, but that they should
allow the right of expatriation unclogged.
Mr. SEWALL said, there was a great difference between the two cases
which the gentleman had stated. A man born and educated in a country
certainly owed it obligations, which were not to be shaken off the
moment he chose to do so. The different societies of the world, he said,
were like so many families independent of each other; and what family,
he asked, would suffer any of its members to leave it and go into
another when they pleased? He thought it unreasonable that it should be
so.
Mr. W. SMITH said, that the doctrine of perpetual allegiance was derived
from Great Britain, and, though it might be good in theory, was not so
in practice. They had departed from many doctrines derived from that
country, and the time was come, he believed, for departing from this.
The idea of a man being compelled to live in this country, contrary to
his will, seemed to be repugnant to our ideas of liberty. He thought
when a man was so disgusted with a country as to resolve to leave it,
for the purpose of becoming a citizen of another country, he should be
at liberty to do so on his complying with certain formalities, and
should never again be re-admitted. It was upon this principle that this
section is founded, and he thought it valuable.
Mr. S. thought this section essential, as it would be a means of
preventing quarrels with foreign countries. For instance, if a citizen
of this country took command of a French ship of war, and were to commit
hostilities on the property of citizens of the United States, if he were
taken he might allege that he was a citizen of the French Republic, and
that Government might claim him as such; but if this bill passed, no man
could cover himself under this pretence who had not complied with the
requisitions in this act. He mentioned the case of Mr. Talbot.
Mr. S. said they held out inducements for persons to come to this
country. We did not allow they owed allegiance to any other country
after they had become citizens of this. To grant this would be a fatal
doctrine to this country. It would be to declare that, in case we were
at war with another country, that country might recall persons from
this, who formerly came from thence. Many persons of that description
were amongst us. At present they enjoy all the benefit of our laws and
vote at our elections; and yet, if this doctrine were admitted, these
persons might be recalled as aliens; and if they were not recalled, they
would be considered as qualified aliens, and not as real citizens.
This law, Mr. S. said, was necessary, as at present there was not
sufficient energy in the Government to punish persons serving on board
foreign ships of war. This bill would cure the evil, and give an
opportunity for turbulent, discontented characters to leave the country
for ever. He believed it was the general opinion of the citizens of this
country that they had the right to expatriate themselves, and he thought
it was now a proper time to pass some regulations on this subject.
Mr. SITGREAVES thought this one of the most delicate and important
subjects that ever came before Congress. He saw a number of
difficulties, but he thought they were not of a nature to discourage
them from considering the bill. He trusted they should meet them with
firmness.
The evil, he said, which gave rise to this bill was a great and growing
one. In the first war which had taken place in Europe since our
independence, they found this doctrine of expatriation, as claimed by
our citizens, endangering our peace with a foreign nation, and if this
principle were admitted he feared we should always be liable to similar
embarrassments.
Mr. S. took notice of the different objections made to this section. He
observed there seemed to be much doubt on the subject, which he thought
ought to be removed by passing a law of this sort. He wished he could
agree in the opinion that no citizen had a right to expatriate himself
from this country. He thought it a doctrine essential to the peace of
society. He wished it was generally recognized; but he believed the
major opinion in this country was different; and, though not directly,
it had in a great degree been recognized by the Executive and Judiciary
in the cases of Hinfield and Talbot. He feared, therefore, it was too
late for them to say the right did not exist. It was time, however, for
Congress to declare an opinion on the subject. If the proposition in the
bill was not a proper one, it should be made so.
In the State of Virginia this doctrine was legalized, and in the
constitution of Pennsylvania it was strongly indicated, as it said
"emigration should not be prohibited." It was a favorite idea of a
republican Government not to forbid it. He did not agree with the
principles of the clause in all its parts. He thought citizens ought not
to be allowed to expatriate in time of war, as their assistance would
be wanted at home. It was his intention to have moved an amendment
allowing expatriation only in the time of peace, and an express
provision against it in time of war. He thought the doctrine of the
gentleman from Maryland, viz: that our citizens ought to go into other
countries to learn the art of war, was chimerical. When they had
obtained rank and wealth in a foreign country, it would be in vain to
call them back; they would not return. He hoped, therefore, the section
would not be struck out, but that they should proceed to amend it.
Mr. N. SMITH was sorry that the committee who reported this bill had
thought it necessary to report the sixth and seventh sections. The
doctrine of expatriation on one hand, and perpetual allegiance on the
other, were subjects they had all heard much about; but expatriation,
under limitation and restraint, was a new business. From its novelty it
became doubtful. This being the case, he wished the subject had been
deferred to an ordinary session; particularly as it appeared to be no
more connected with other parts of the bill than with many other laws
now extant. If we were to have a law on this subject, he should wish to
have it in a separate bill. For his part, he could not see how the
committee could suppose it to be a part of their duty to report these
sections. If he had thought it had, he should not have voted for
appointing a committee on the occasion.
Gentlemen advocating these clauses, say they would not allow of
expatriation in time of war. He would go further and say he would not
allow of it when there was a prospect of war, for it is idle to prohibit
it in one case and not in the other. He then asked if this was not the
very state in which we now were? If it were, why pass such a bill at
this time, when it could not go into operation? He thought this a good
reason for rejecting these clauses.
There was a mutual obligation, Mr. S. said, between a Government and all
its citizens. The Government owed protection to its citizens, and
citizens owed obedience to their Government. These duties were mutual
and co-extensive; and they might as well say that Government could
abandon its citizens when it pleased as that citizens could desert their
Government when they pleased. Yet he would allow that Government might,
on certain occasions, legalize expatriation, but not on the ground of a
citizen's having a right to expatriate when he pleased. He should have
no objection to take up the subject at a time when they could do justice
to it, but he thought the present was not that time.
The question for striking out the 6th section was put and carried, 45 to
41.
The committee accordingly rose, and the House took up the amendments.
Having come to that part for striking out the 6th and 7th sections,
Mr. DENT called for the yeas and nays, which were agreed to be taken.
Mr. VENABLE said, it seemed to be admitted that a right of expatriation
existed in our citizens; and if so, he thought there should be some mode
of exercising that right. He had no particular objection to the mode
marked out in these clauses. It had been said this was not the proper
time; but he thought it was, since it was in some degree connected with
the present bill. The gentleman from Connecticut had stated allegiance
and protection to be mutual. He did not think they were so, to the
extent which he stated. This Government was not bound to protect
citizens who went into foreign service, as in doing so they chose the
protection of another Government.
Mr. HARPER asked for an instance in which the Executive and Judiciary
had countenanced the doctrine of expatriation.
Mr. W. SMITH, in answer to his colleague, produced the case of Talbot,
and the opinion given by the Secretary of State and the Judiciary Court,
on that occasion, in favor of the right of expatriation.
Mr. GILES thought there could not be a doubt in the minds of Americans
on the subject of expatriation. Indeed, he said, this was the foundation
of our Revolution; for they were not now to be told they owed allegiance
to a foreign country. It had not only been the ground of the Revolution,
but all their acts had been predicated upon this principle. He referred
to the act respecting the rights of naturalization, which makes every
new citizen swear to support the Constitution of the United States, and
to renounce all other allegiance.
Mr. GALLATIN was opposed to these sections. With respect to
expatriation, having himself exercised the right, he could not be
supposed to be opposed to that right. Perpetual allegiance was too
absurd a doctrine to find many advocates in this country. The question
was not whether citizens had a right to expatriate, but whether they
should in this law prescribe a mode of doing it. The right seemed to
have been recognized by the Executive and Judiciary. He was against
going into this business, because he thought it unnecessary. He believed
the determination of who were citizens, and who were not, might be
safely left with the Judiciary. He had also his doubts whether the
United States had a right to regulate this matter, or whether it should
not be left to the States, as the constitution spoke of the citizens of
the States. It was a doubtful matter, and ought to undergo a full
discussion. The emigrants from this country to foreign countries were
trifling; but from ten to twelve thousand of our citizens had gone to
Canada, and upwards of five thousand beyond the Mississippi, four
thousand of whom would be got back by the running of the lines. A number
of these men hold lands in the United States; some have sold their lands
and become citizens under another Government. This subject would,
therefore, require considerable deliberation at a future day. He wished
the amendment of the Committee of the Whole to be adopted.
Mr. SITGREAVES confirmed his former statement, with respect to the
question of the right of expatriation having been settled by the
Judiciary. In order to do this, he read a note from one of the counsel
in the cases of Henfield and Talbot, giving an account of the opinions
of the court on the occasion.
Mr. SEWALL insisted upon the policy of preventing the renunciation of
allegiance, without control. The Treaty of Peace with Great Britain, he
said, had dissolved our allegiance to that country, and acknowledged our
independence.
Mr. GILES believed the evil apprehended from individuals having the
right to expatriate themselves when they pleased, was more imaginary
than real. Only two citizens had taken advantage of that right in the
State of Virginia, where it was allowed in all its extent, in twelve
years. But if there were any citizens so detached from the Government as
to wish to leave the country, he should wish them gone. To suppose this,
would be to suppose a real division between the people and Government,
which he did not believe had existence. It was said Great Britain did
not allow the doctrine of expatriation; but, he said, she had not any
naturalization law. He was in favor of excluding citizens who once
expatriated themselves from ever returning to this country.
Mr. OTIS said, that when this bill was first reported, these clauses
struck him unfavorably; but a little reflection had convinced him of the
propriety of retaining them. The passing of this provision, he said,
would not affect the constitutional right with respect to expatriation,
whatever it might be. This bill did not relate to persons emigrating
into the Spanish or English territories, but to persons expatriating
themselves, and engaging in the service of foreign countries.
The question on agreeing to the reports of the Committee of the Whole to
reject the sixth and seventh sections of the bill was taken, and
stood--yeas 34, nays 57.
All the amendments having been gone through, Mr. S. SMITH moved to
postpone the further consideration of the bill till the first Monday in
November.
This motion was supported by Messrs. VARNUM, N. SMITH, BALDWIN,
GOODRICH, and COIT, as involving a question of too delicate and
important a nature to be passed over in this hasty manner, and because
there was no pressing necessity to go into the measure at present.
It was opposed by Messrs. OTIS, WILLIAMS, W. SMITH, and CRAIK, on the
ground of the provision of the bill being necessary, and that to
postpone the business, after so ample a discussion, would be undoing
what they had been doing for two or three days.
The question for postponement was taken, and decided in the
affirmative--yeas 52, nays 44.
The bill being thus lost, Mr. W. SMITH proposed a resolution to the
House for appointing a committee to report a new bill without the two
last clauses, which, it was evident, had been the cause of the negative
given to the bill. As he supposed no opposition would be made to the
bill so reported, it might be got through without loss of time.
After some conversation on a point of order, whether or not this
resolution could be admitted, the SPEAKER declared it in order, but Mr.
COIT wishing it to lie on the table till to-morrow, it lay accordingly.
THURSDAY, June 22.
_Expatriation._
Mr. W. SMITH called up the resolution which he yesterday laid upon the
table, for appointing a committee to bring in a bill for prohibiting
citizens of the United States entering on board foreign ships of war,
without the expatriating clauses.
This resolution was opposed by Messrs. BALDWIN, GILES, and VENABLE, and
supported by the mover and Mr. HARPER. It was negatived--49 to 46.
_Depredations on Commerce._
A message was received from the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, of which
the following is a copy, with the titles of the documents accompanying
it:
_Gentlemen of the House of Representatives_:
Immediately after I had received your resolution of the
10th of June, requesting a report respecting the
depredations committed on the commerce of the United
States, since the first of October, 1796, specifying the
names of the vessels taken, where bound to or from, species
of lading, the value, when it can be ascertained, of the
vessel and cargo taken, and by what power captured,
particularizing those which have been actually condemned,
together with the proper documents to ascertain the same, I
directed a collection to be made of all such information as
should be found in the possession of the Government. In
consequence of which, the Secretary of State has made the
report and the collection of documents, which accompany
this Message, and are now laid before the House of
Representatives, in compliance with their desire.