Mr. SEWALL had some doubts as to the propriety of the determination of
the general question, as he believed, by that determination, the House
had parted with an advantage placed in them by the constitution. He
thought the best way of settling this business would be to reconsider
that question. He knew one gentleman who had voted upon it through
mistake, and there might be several others in the same situation.
The question on agreeing to the resolution was put and carried
unanimously.
_Naturalization Law._
On motion of Mr. SEWALL, the House went into a Committee of the Whole
on the bill supplementary to, and to amend the act to establish an
uniform rule of naturalization, and to repeal the act heretofore passed
on that subject.
Mr. SEWALL moved to fill the blank specifying the length of time
necessary for an alien to give notice of his intention to become a
citizen, before he can be admitted, with "five years." Carried.
The blank declaring the length of time necessary for an alien to reside
here before he can be admitted a citizen, Mr. S. moved to fill with
"fourteen years."
Mr. MCDOWELL hoped this blank would not be filled with so long a time.
The residence now required from foreigners before they can become
citizens is five years. He would not object to an increase of the length
of this term to seven years; or, if the committee thought nine better,
he would not object to it. He did not wish to discourage an emigration
to this country of respectable foreigners, by barring them from the
rights of citizenship. The policy of this country had always been
different, and he did not wish entirely to change it. When persons come
here from foreign countries, it was our interest to attach them to us,
and not always to look upon them as aliens and strangers.
The question for filling the blank with "fourteen," was put and
carried--41 to 40.
Mr. SEWALL moved a clause providing that no alien who comes from a
country at war with us, shall be admitted to citizenship while such war
continues. Agreed to.
Mr. GALLATIN wished to know whether the provisions of this act are
intended to extend to persons who were in this country previous to the
passing of the law of January, 1795, which requires a residence of five
years before an alien can become a citizen, but who have neglected to
become citizens, as well as to all those aliens who have come to the
country since January, 1795; although they may have made the declaration
by that law required three years before they can become so, of their
intention of becoming citizens of the United States. The law of January,
1795, had made an exception in favor of all aliens then in the country.
As the bill stands at present, Mr. G. said, it would have a
retrospective effect on three descriptions of persons, viz: all those
aliens who were in this country prior to the adoption of the present
Constitution of the United States, and who were not naturalized under
the State laws before the act of 1790; in the next place, it affects all
those who, under the law of 1790, might have been naturalized, and all
those who, under the law of 1795, might hereafter be naturalized,
provided they have made the necessary declaration of their intention of
becoming citizens. From the year 1795, many persons, with a view of
making themselves citizens of this country as soon as the law would
allow them, have renounced their allegiance to the countries from
whence they came, and if this bill passes in its present form, they will
for ten or twelve years to come be without citizenship in any country.
He hoped, therefore, some exception would be made in favor of the
descriptions of persons which he had named.
One reason which led him to mention this circumstance was, that there
are a great number of persons in the State of Pennsylvania, and many in
the district from whence he came, who, though they are not citizens of
the United States, really believe they are. This mistake has arisen from
(an error common to most of the districts of the United States) a belief
that an alien's being naturalized by the laws of a State Government,
since the act of 1790, made him a citizen of the United States. The
Mayor of Philadelphia, till the year 1795, admitted citizens under the
State law, who afterwards considered themselves as citizens of the
United States. He always thought that construction to be wrong--Congress
having the power to pass, and having passed an uniform naturalization
law, which, in his opinion, excluded the idea of admission to
citizenship on different terms by the individual States. But he knew the
contrary opinion till lately generally prevailed. Indeed, he knew that
at the late election in this city, the votes of respectable merchants,
who had obtained American registers for their vessels, on a presumption
of their being citizens, were refused on this ground. The same mistake
had extended to other parts of the Union. It may be said that, since the
year 1795, these persons might have gone to any of the courts and have
become citizens. In this city, and in others, he supposed persons had
generally done so; but where people are two or three hundred miles
distant from the District Court of the United States, they had not
always an opportunity of doing it, especially on account of a
construction of the act of 1795, which had prevailed in some counties of
Pennsylvania, and which made it doubtful whether any court in the State
out of the city, could administer the oath of citizenship. Mr. G.
supposed that since the year 1790, from ten to fifteen thousand
emigrants had come into the State of Pennsylvania, two-thirds of whom
believed, till lately, that they were citizens of the United States,
from their having been naturalized by the laws of that State. It has now
been discovered that they are not citizens; but since that discovery was
made, they have not had an opportunity of being admitted according to
the law of the United States. If some limited period was given to these
persons to come forward to be naturalized, and they did not become
citizens in that time, he should be willing to exclude them. He thought,
indeed, provision should be made for all these persons, but he would not
move any amendment until he had heard the opinion of the committee on
the subject. The amendment just adopted, for excluding their enemies
from citizenship, would do away any objection which could be urged
against a provision of this kind. Indeed, the persons he alluded to
generally came from the territories of the King of Great Britain, and
three-fourths of them from Ireland.
Mr. SEWALL said, this subject was before the select committee, and it
was the opinion of a majority of that committee that no exception ought
to be made, but that the bill should pass in its present form. His own
sentiments were decidedly against any alteration. As to the Irishmen
whom the gentleman from Pennsylvania has mentioned, as they have
neglected to avail themselves of the privilege of becoming citizens, he
supposed they did not place any high value upon it. They are now
permitted to hold lands; and from the present distracted state of the
country from whence they have emigrated, he did not think it would be
prudent to make them eligible to hold seats in the Government after a
residence of five years. He believed the liberty which the United States
have given in this respect heretofore has been unexampled, and it was
high time the evils which had arisen from this imprudent liberality
should be remedied. The present distracted state of the world, and the
attempts made to disturb other governments, showed the necessity of the
proposed regulations.
Mr. S. did not consider the persons who had been mentioned as laboring
under any disadvantages. Considering what they have left, and what they
receive here, their situation is vastly improved by the change which
they have made, without giving them any chance of becoming members of
our government, for they would have had little chance of becoming
members of the government which they have left. He did not suppose they
came here with a view of getting into the government, but to acquire
property, and to enjoy peace and happiness, and this they might do
independent of citizenship. As he saw no good, therefore, to be derived
to the country from admitting these persons to citizenship, but much
danger, he hoped the bill would be agreed to as reported.
Mr. GALLATIN said, if the bill was proceeded with, he would prepare an
amendment in favor of those classes of persons he had mentioned.
The bill was accordingly proceeded with; and coming to the fifth
section, where it is provided, that if an alien shall continue to reside
here, and shall refuse or neglect to make a report of his residence, and
receive a certificate thereof, he shall forfeit two dollars, _and shall
be liable to be arrested as a suspected person_--
Mr. GALLATIN moved to strike out the words printed in italic. It was
sufficient, he said, that such a person should pay a fine. It was a new
thing to punish a man by imprisonment, not for delinquency, but because
he was suspected. A conduct of this kind had been highly condemned in
another country, and he hoped it would not be adopted here.
Mr. SEWALL said, it was the intention of the committee to show the
nature of the offence of omitting to make the proper report; to show
that such omission would lay the citizens under the suspicion of not
acting openly and candidly.
Mr. SITGREAVES remarked, that if his colleague's objection only went to
the words "suspected person," his motion went too far.
The question was put and negatived--37 to 36.
Mr. GALLATIN then proposed an amendment to the following effect:
"Provided that any alien who was resident within the
limits, and under the jurisdiction of the United States,
before the 29th of January, 1795, and any alien who shall
have made a declaration of his intention of becoming a
citizen of the United States, in conformity to the
provisions of an act establishing a uniform rule of
naturalization, passed on that day, may be admitted to
become citizens of the United States, according to the
provisions of that act."
Mr. CRAIK was disposed to go much further than is proposed in this bill
in restricting aliens from becoming citizens of this country. He should
have no objection to say, that no foreigner coming into this country
after this time, shall ever become a citizen; but he believed if this
law was to have a retrospective operation on all those foreigners now
residing within the United States, who have neglected to become
citizens, it would be very unjust. There was a large class of persons,
he said, in the country from which he came, who are not naturalized
under any law, and many others who had been naturalized under the State
law; about the legality of which, as had been stated, there is much
doubt, though in Maryland and Virginia foreigners are still naturalized
by the States, notwithstanding the law of the United States.
In deciding upon this question, Mr. C. said, it would not be proper to
take into consideration emigrants from any particular country. Many of
the persons he alluded to, are Germans, and well entitled to every
privilege that can be given them, and whose neglect to become citizens
was probably owing to their ignorance of our language and laws. He
should, therefore, be in favor of this amendment, especially as far as
it respects those aliens who were in this country before the year 1795.
Mr. BAYARD said, though foreigners were prevented from becoming citizens
of the United States until they have resided fourteen years in the
country, in many of the States, they are entitled not only to vote for
filling the offices of the State Governments, but also for filling those
of the United States. Therefore, the only privilege which they are
denied, is the capacity of becoming members of the Federal Government;
which was a denial, he thought, recommended by sound policy. And he did
not see why the restriction should not extend to the aliens now within
the United States, as to those who shall hereafter come here. If aliens
residing here had any right to expect an exception, it must be on the
ground of compact. He did not, however, consider naturalization laws in
that light. Aliens cannot be considered as members of the society of
the United States; our laws are passed on the ground of our own policy,
and whatever is granted to aliens is a mere matter of favor; and, if it
is taken away, they have no right to complain. Every principle of
policy, in his opinion, required this regulation to be made general; for
he believed there were as many Jacobins and vagabonds come into the
United States during the last two years, as may come for ten years
hence; so that these very persons against whom this law was intended to
operate, will become citizens, and may be chosen into the government. He
hoped, therefore, the amendment would not be adopted.
With respect to those persons who have given notice of their intention
of renouncing their allegiance to the foreign country from whence they
came (for they do not actually renounce it until they become citizens)
it can make no difference to them, especially those referred to by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania, because it is a principle of the British
law, that British subjects have not a right to alienate themselves; they
cannot renounce their allegiance to the British King. No objection,
therefore, could be had against the measures being general on that
ground.
Mr. MACON was apprehensive that gentlemen in their zeal to get at
particular persons, will go too far in this business. He agreed with
them, that, for three or four years past, people of all sorts of
politics had come to this country, from the highest aristocrat to the
greatest Jacobin; and he doubted not that persons who were very desirous
of becoming citizens, or who had any particular end to answer by it, had
availed themselves of the law. But there are persons in distant parts of
the Continent, who have never yet become citizens, perhaps from their
not being in the way of going through the ceremony, and because they had
no apprehension of the privilege being taken from them. Many had also
omitted to do it from an ignorance of our language. He hoped, therefore,
this amendment would be agreed to. If persons have given notice of their
intention to become citizens, they have complied in part with the laws;
and he did not think it would be right to put it out of their power to
comply with the other part.
Mr. SEWALL said, this amendment would comprehend those aliens who have
come here since the year 1795, though they may have made no declaration
of their intention to become citizens, as they may make the declaration
before the law passes. As to the other description of persons, he had
not the same objection to them. He agreed with the gentleman from
Delaware, that our regulations in this respect are made for our own
convenience and safety, and that no alien has a right to complain, if
these regulations should disappoint his expectations.
Mr. SITGREAVES said, this was either a question of right or expediency.
He presumed no gentleman was prepared to say any alien had acquired an
absolute and positive right in this country to citizenship at any
particular time. If not, it was a mere matter of expediency; and, when
it is considered in this light, there can be little difficulty in seeing
the danger and disadvantages which would arise from allowing foreigners
to become citizens, as heretofore, or as proposed by the present
amendment. They are too evident to be enumerated.
But it was supposed that there were a large number of individuals in
this country entitled to citizenship by the law of 1790, but who have,
nevertheless, neglected to become citizens. It was a little
extraordinary, he said, if this were so; that persons should for so long
a time have neglected to embrace a right which, it is now represented,
it would be doing them great injury to deprive them of. As to those
persons who came into the country since the law of 1795, he saw no good
reason for making an exception in their favor. As policy, safety, and
security, dictated the measure, he hoped the bill would be passed as
reported.
Mr. W. CLAIBORNE said he could not reconcile it to his feelings to vote
for the bill without the amendment proposed by the gentleman from
Pennsylvania, because it would be doing a number of people whom he
represented the greatest injustice. Those people, be said, were
peculiarly situated. It was only at the last winter session that the
State of Tennessee was represented on this floor; and, at the time of
passing the naturalization law, the people of that country were not in a
situation to receive information of what was done in Congress. It need
not be a matter of surprise, therefore, if, in that frontier country,
there are many persons aliens who did not take advantage of the law of
1790. There are numbers of such who have given the strongest proofs of
attachment to the country; they have fought and bled in the service of
the United States, and are as much wedded to the Government of the
United States as any man born on American soil. If this amendment does
not prevail, it will affect many valuable citizens of the State of
Tennessee who were citizens in the year 1795, and ten years before that
time. These persons would be deprived of rights, because they were
living in a country in which there was no post road, and where, of
course, they had no newspapers to give them information of what was
going on at the seat of Government. He hoped, therefore, it would not be
agreed to.
Mr. J. WILLIAMS hoped this provision would be agreed to. When an act is
passed, good reasons, he said, ought to be given before any change takes
place. Many persons had come into this country from an expectation of
being naturalized at the end of a certain period; but, if this provision
is not agreed to, the system will be entirely changed. He saw no
difficulty which could arise from agreeing to this provision, as persons
from countries at war with this country could not be made citizens at
all. He knew a number of persons who had not taken advantage of the
naturalization law, who perhaps are as good men as any in the United
States. It was true, he said, that by the laws of the several States
aliens are allowed to hold land; but when foreigners come here to
reside, and behave well, he did not see why they ought to be prevented
from becoming citizens. They contribute their share of the expense of
government, and it was an acknowledged principle that representation and
taxation ought to go together; which would not be the case if the bill
was passed without this amendment.
The question was put and carried, there being 52 votes for it.
The committee then rose, and the House proceeded to take up the
amendments.
The amendment of Mr. GALLATIN coming again under consideration,
Mr. COIT hoped that part of the clause would be disagreed to which
embraces persons who were in this country before the year 1795, but who
had never shown any disposition to become citizens. Those who came
since, and had given notice of their intention of becoming citizens,
stand on very different ground. He should have no objection to the
latter being accepted, in the way proposed, but not the former.
After a few observations on this amendment, it was negatived--49 to 32.
Mr. SITGREAVES proposed an amendment, limiting the time within which
aliens, included in Mr. GALLATIN'S proposition, should be permitted to
avail themselves of the exception in their favor, viz: those who were in
this country before the year 1795, within one year after the passing of
this act; and those who have come here since, and given notice of their
intention to become citizens, within four years from the time of such
notice having been given.
The question was first put on the former part of the amendment.
Mr. T. CLAIBORNE did not wish to punish men for not being born here, but
to punish both natives and foreigners when guilty. He hoped two years
would be allowed instead of one.
The question on two years was put and negatived--31 to 39. It was then
put on one, and carried--57 votes being for it.
The question on the second part of the amendment was then put.
Mr. VARNUM said, the impulse of the moment led members to believe that
these restrictions upon foreigners were necessary. He thought there was
no necessity for any measures being taken with respect to foreigners,
except such as belong to the nation with whom we expect to be at war;
yet, he had no particular objection to restrictions being made with
respect to such foreigners as shall hereafter come to this country; but,
having heretofore held out inducements to foreigners to come to this
country, and when they are come, with an expectation of becoming
entitled to the rights of citizens in a certain time, he would not
disappoint those expectations.
Mr. T. CLAIBORNE said, this was a very important bill, and he should
wish a little more time to consider on it; he therefore moved an
adjournment.
The motion was put and negatived, there being only 15 votes for it.
Mr. SITGREAVES said, the observation of the gentleman from Massachusetts
could only be applicable when the principle of the bill was under
consideration; whereas, the present proposition only went to limit the
period within which advantage should be taken of the indulgence proposed
to be allowed.
Mr. VARNUM moved a division of the amendment, and proposed to allow till
the 1st of September next for persons to make a declaration of their
intention to become citizens.
This motion was not seconded; and the question on the amendment was put
and carried--47 to 31.
The bill was then ordered to be read a third time to-morrow.
TUESDAY, May 22.
_Alien Enemies._
On motion of Mr. SEWALL, the House went into a Committee of the Whole on
the bill respecting alien enemies, Mr. DENT in the chair; when the bill
was read as follows:
SEC. 1. _Be it enacted, &c._, That whenever there shall be
a declared war between the United States and any foreign
nation or government, or any invasion, or predatory
incursion, shall be perpetrated, attempted, or threatened,
against the territory of the United States, by any foreign
nation or government, and the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES shall make public proclamation of the event, all
natives, denizens, citizens, or subjects of the hostile
nation or government, being males of the age of fourteen
years and upwards, who shall be within the United States,
and not actually naturalized, shall be liable to be
apprehended, restrained, secured, and removed, as alien
enemies; and shall be further subject, with their goods and
effects, to a just retaliation of any unusual severities,
restraints, and confiscations, which shall be suffered by
the citizens of the United States, resident within the
territory of the hostile nation or government, and
inflicted by their authority, previous to, or at the
commencement of, any war or rupture as aforesaid, under
color or pretence thereof. And the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES shall be, and he is hereby, authorized, in any event
as aforesaid, by his proclamation thereof, or other public
act, to direct the conduct to be observed, on the part of
the United States, towards the aliens who shall become
liable as aforesaid; the manner and degree of the restraint
to which they shall be subject, and in what cases and upon
what security their residence shall be permitted, and to
provide for the removal of those who, not being permitted
to reside within the United States, shall refuse or neglect
to depart therefrom, and to establish any other regulations
which shall be found necessary in the premises, and for the
public safety, subject, nevertheless, to the regulations
which the Congress of the United States shall thereafter
agree and establish.
[The second section allows to any alien enemy who shall
not be chargeable with actual hostility, all the time for
the disposal of his effects, and his removal from the
country, which any treaty with his nation may stipulate;
and the third commits the execution of the act in relation
to all persons comprehended in the PRESIDENT'S
Proclamation, and to all who shall harbor them, to all the
judicial and ministerial officers of the Federal and State
Governments.]
The two first sections having been read, without motion for amendment,
Mr. LYON moved to strike out the word "harbor," in the third section,
which was negatived.
Mr. MACON thought the third section gave the PRESIDENT a very
extraordinary power; it seemed that his proclamation, in all cases, was
to be considered as law. He wished the chairman of the committee, who
reported the bill, to give some information on the subject.
Mr. SEWALL said, the gentleman from North Carolina seemed to suppose
that this was a general power placed in the hands of the PRESIDENT,
whereas his power is confined by the first section of the bill. This
power, Mr. S. said, must be placed somewhere, and he believed it could
not be better placed than in the PRESIDENT.
Mr. LYON saw no ground for the first section of the bill, except it was
to restrain the property of aliens to make satisfaction for the injuries
done to our own citizens; nor should he be willing to give a power to
the PRESIDENT which might enable him to distress innocent persons. He
moved, therefore, to strike out the words "or threatened," in the first
section, as he considered these words too vague to authorize the
exercise of so great a power as was here given.
Mr. MACON seconded the motion.
The question was put and negatived, 44 to 39.
Mr. HARPER moved to strike out the words "predatory incursion," in the
first section. The power, he said, was a very extensive one, and he did
not think it ought to be given except in cases of serious attack; but,
after a few words in opposition to it by Mr. SEWALL, and in favor of it
by Mr. MCDOWELL, he withdrew his motion, alleging that he had not
rightly understood the section.
Mr. BAYARD said, the last section of this bill contained a principle
contrary to all our maxims of jurisprudence, viz: to provide punishment
for a crime by a law to be passed after the fact is committed. Whether
the crime to be punished is to amount to treason, misprision of treason,
or be only a misdemeanor, is left uncertain. It was his opinion that
laws could not be too definite; but it would be impossible in this case
for the person committed to know what crime he had committed, or to what
punishment he was liable. In order to get rid of this difficulty, he
moved to strike out all the words after the word "aforesaid," at the
conclusion of the last section, and to insert in lieu thereof the
following words, viz: "shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and subject to
a fine not exceeding ---- dollars, and be imprisoned not exceeding ----
months."
Mr. SEWALL acknowledged there was a good deal of uncertainty in that
part of the bill moved to be struck out; but the select committee did
not see any way of remedying the evil without making the law too mild in
its operation. In some cases, the offence would amount to high treason,
the punishment for which is death; in others, to misprision of treason,
the punishment for which is imprisonment not exceeding seven years, and
a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars. As the offence might,
therefore, sometimes amount to high treason, there would be an
impropriety in making it uniformly a misdemeanor.
If an alien should have resided here for a number of years, and he
should turn out to have been a spy, and a citizen of the United States
should have harbored and concealed the said alien, knowing him to have
been a spy, he would be chargeable with high treason for aiding and
abetting the enemies of the United States within its territory, or at
least a misprision of treason.
But the gentleman from Delaware was mistaken in his idea that it was
intended to try an offender by a law passed after the offence was
committed. By the expression, "as by law is or shall be declared," was
only meant such law as should be passed between the present time and the
time of committing any offence.
The question on this amendment was put and carried, 44 to 25.
On motion of Mr. BAYARD, the blank for containing the amount of the
penalty, in the amendment just carried, was filled with one thousand
dollars.
The committee rose, and reported the amendments; which having been
agreed to,
Mr. DENT moved to strike out the word "months," in Mr. BAYARD'S
amendment, in order to insert "seven years."
Mr. N. SMITH hoped this amendment would not be agreed to. He believed
the penalty might, in some cases, be too severe, and in others by far
too mild. He thought the bill stood well as it was. He did not think
there was any uncertainty in it but what arose from the different
species of offence which were comprised within this provision--for a
person under it might be guilty of the highest crime, or of no crime at
all, according to the circumstances of the case. This being the
condition of things, to make an uniform punishment for all cases,
whether highly criminal, or no crime at all, cannot be proper.
The bill as it stands, without the amendment, provides that offenders
shall be imprisoned and punished according to the law which is or shall
be made, (before the offence is committed,) and he thought this was the
proper footing, as the punishment would then be apportioned according
to the offence.
Mr. BAYARD hoped the amendment would be agreed to. He did not know that
a greater misfortune could happen to any man than to live in a country
where the laws are so indefinite that a person cannot ascertain when he
commits an offence, or what is the penalty of an offence when it is
committed. The gentlemen from Massachusetts and Connecticut tell the
House about the aggravation of the offence. What was the aggravation
they allude to they have not stated, and no gentleman could form an
opinion upon the subject. The fact was of a definite nature, and a
definite punishment ought to be made for it. What is the fact? It is the
harboring and concealing of an alien enemy after the proclamation of the
PRESIDENT. Gentlemen say this offence may amount to treason, misprision
of treason, or other offence. If the offence could amount to treason, he
owned he did not understand the bill, because the crime of treason is
defined by the constitution, and could not be varied by any law of
Congress. If, then, the fact amount to treason, it will not be included
in this law. If gentlemen wished to punish persons in exact conformity
to their degree of offence, they ought to prepare a scale of offence for
that purpose. If not, the amendment agreed to in Committee of the Whole,
ought, in his opinion, to be concurred in.
Mr. SEWALL said, this bill aimed at one thing, and the gentleman from
Delaware at another. The bill has in itself a definition of the offence.
It has declared certain circumstances which shall put a person in a
situation in which he shall answer for his conduct. It declares that a
person harboring an alien enemy shall be a suspected person; but the
crime and punishment must be ascertained by other laws; and by these
offenders are to be punished agreeably to their offences, whether they
be great or small.
Mr. GALLATIN said, if he understood the gentleman from Massachusetts, it
was not the object of this bill to define the nature of the offence of
which a person shall be guilty, or the punishment for it, for harboring
and concealing an alien enemy, but only that certain circumstances
should render a man a suspected person. This to him was altogether a new
legislation.
If he understood the bill as it stood rightly, a person may be
apprehended and imprisoned on account of his having harbored and
concealed alien enemies; yet the gentleman from Massachusetts says this
is in itself no crime; for, if it were a crime, it ought to be punished
in the way proposed by the gentleman from Delaware, but he states it to
be only a sufficient ground of suspicion. This Mr. G. said, was not only
contrary to every principle of justice and reason, but to the provisions
of the constitution. The constitution says, "that no person shall be
deprived of life, limb, or property, without due process of law." But
here certain persons may be deprived of their liberty without any
process of law, or being guilty of any crime. Yet the gentleman from
Massachusetts says, that this bill does not define a crime or award a
punishment. But, Mr. G. said, this assertion was not correct; for there
was a new crime instituted, which was that of being a suspected person,
and the overt act which is to be evidence of that crime, is the
harboring and concealing of an alien enemy, and the punishment is to be
apprehension and imprisonment until it shall be found what law the
prisoner has offended.
Mr. G. said he was ready to acknowledge that where a man commits an
offence, he ought to be punished; but he could not consent to punish any
man on suspicion merely. He therefore moved to recommit the bill. He did
this because he thought the whole of the bill vague in its nature. He
wished it to be more in detail, and that the offences to be punished
should be defined; for it was remarkable that every section of the bill
concluded with these singular words: "subject nevertheless to the
regulations which the Congress of the United States shall thereafter
agree and establish." So that instead of deciding what the law should
be, it gives the PRESIDENT the power of saying what it is; subject to
the after regulations of Congress. He wished now to make the law to
declare what the offence should be, and what the punishment, and not
leave it to the PRESIDENT to make what regulations he shall think
proper. If not, the whole of the bill might as well be in two or three
words, viz: "The PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES shall have the power to
remove, restrict, or confine alien enemies and citizens whom he may
consider as suspected persons." When Congress attempted to legislate,
they ought not to do it in this way. When the resolution was agreed to,
authorizing this bill to be reported, he expected the committee would
have defined the nature of offences and their punishments, and not
reported the bill in the vague way in which it is before the House,
especially as this appears not to be meant for a temporary, but a
permanent law.
If gentlemen examine the third section of the bill, it will be found
that all Judges, Justices, Marshals, Sheriffs, and other officers, and
all the good people of the United States, are bound to do, what? Not to
execute any law; but to carry into effect any proclamation, or other
public act of the PRESIDENT. So that instead of the Judicial, and any
other officers of the United States, and the people at large, being
obedient to the laws, they are to be obedient to the will of the
PRESIDENT.
The last clause of the bill, which does not relate to aliens, but to our
own citizens, is very objectionable. It is in the shape of a penal law,
and the crime it defines is the harboring and concealing of alien
enemies. Now it is said, that this crime may amount to high treason, by
its being construed that an offender has adhered to the enemies of the
United States, knowing them to be such, or it may be no offence at all.
But the provision is general; and a man guilty of no offence is liable
to be apprehended and imprisoned equally with the highest offender under
this law.
Upon the whole, it was evident, Mr. G. said, that this bill wants
detail, as what is left general and ambiguous, ought to be clearly
defined. He hoped, therefore, the bill would be recommitted.
Mr. SEWALL said, that the gentleman from Pennsylvania, in order to bring
forward this motion, has shut his eyes to the intention of the bill. He
says it is a bill for punishing crimes which are not defined. He never
knew that alien enemies were guilty of an offence merely as such. It is
a bill to provide for the public safety in certain cases. In the event
of a war with France, all her citizens here will become alien enemies,
but neither this bill, nor common sense, would consider them as
offenders. They may be offenders, but not because they are alien
enemies; nevertheless it is necessary to provide for the public safety,
and in all countries there is a power lodged somewhere for taking
measures of this kind. In this country, this power is not lodged wholly
in the Executive; it is in Congress. Perhaps, if war was declared, the
PRESIDENT might then, as Commander-in-chief, exercise a military power
over these people; but it would be best to settle these regulations by
civil process. They would be regulated by the treaties as well as by the
laws of nations. The intention of this bill is to give the PRESIDENT the
power of judging what is proper to be done, and to limit his authority
in the way proposed by this bill. In many cases, it would be unnecessary
to remove or restrict aliens of this description; and he believed it
would be impossible for Congress to describe the cases in which aliens
or citizens ought to be punished, or not; but the PRESIDENT would be
able to determine this matter by his proclamation. If, however,
gentlemen could point out any way in which the necessary regulations
could be detailed, he should have no particular objection to it, though
he thought the bill stood very well as it was.
Mr. OTIS.--In considering this subject, the only practicable modes, he
said, which present themselves, are three. To provide for the removing
or otherwise restricting all alien enemies without distinction, or to
specify some overt acts for committing of which they shall be liable to
be removed or restricted, or else to leave the power with the PRESIDENT
to take such steps respecting them as he shall think proper and
necessary for the public safety.
Mr. O. inquired if the House was ready to do the first? He thought not.
He had no doubt there might be French citizens resident here who were
entitled to protection, who meant to become good subjects, and who ought
not to be exposed to any inconvenience or penalty whatever. He believed
very few gentlemen are of opinion that it would be proper to treat all
alien enemies in the same way. The operation of such a measure would be
unjust. Will gentlemen think it right, then, to declare that alien
enemies shall only be removed, or otherwise restricted, on conviction of
some overt act to be specified in the act? They are at present liable,
with all other persons, to be punished for crimes; so that a regulation
with this view would be unnecessary. But there may be cases where the
conduct of such persons being extremely suspicious, they ought to be
taken into custody, though no positive crime could be proved. Suppose a
French army were to land in this country, some of these persons might
show a disposition, which would warrant their imprisonment; and yet he
did not know how such dispositions could be defined in this bill.
Mr. O. believed, therefore, that it would be best to vest a
discretionary power in the Executive to secure and take care that these
men should do no injury. And this could not be looked upon as a
dangerous or exorbitant power, since the PRESIDENT would have the power,
the moment war was declared, to apprehend the whole of these people as
enemies, and make them prisoners of war. And in case of a predatory
incursion, made on this country, there might be as much reason for
securing some of them as in case of actual war or invasion. So that this
bill ought rather to be considered as an amelioration or modification
of those powers which the PRESIDENT already possesses, as
Commander-in-chief, and which the martial law would prove more rigorous
than those proposed by this new regulation. Unless gentlemen were
disposed to interfere, to suffer those men to go at large, and to carry
on a correspondence with their countrymen and our enemy; unless they
will consent to suffer a band of spies to be spread through the country,
from one end of it to the other, who, in case of the introduction of an
enemy into our country, may join them in their attack upon us, and in
their plunder of our property, nothing short of the bill like the
present can be effectual.
He was willing to say, that in a time of tranquillity, he should not
desire to put a power like this into the hands of the Executive; but, in
a time of war, the citizens of France ought to be considered and treated
and watched in a very different manner from citizens of our own country.
As to the objection made by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, that the
bill provides a punishment for suspected persons, and that the word
suspected was indefinite, Mr. O. asked whether men are not usually
arrested on suspicion? When information is lodged against a man for
committing an offence, he is suspected of being guilty, and imprisoned
until he can be examined.
Mr. O. believed, that, to provide for this detention of the person, was
all Congress could now do. If the bill was recommitted, he did not think
any definite provision could be made. It was necessary the PRESIDENT
should have the power of judging in this case, and that punishment
ought not to depend upon the slow operations of a trial. Though
possessed of this power, the PRESIDENT would doubtless suffer all such
persons to remain in this country as demeaned themselves peaceably; but
when they discovered a contrary spirit, he would treat them accordingly.
Mr. GALLATIN withdrew his motion for committing the whole bill, and
moved to commit the third section of it. His arguments, he said, went
wholly against that; and gentlemen, in reply to him, had chosen to
direct their observations to other parts of the bill. As he did not wish
his object to be misunderstood, he would only move for a recommitment of
the third section of the bill, as his objections to the other parts of
it were immaterial when compared with this.
After a few words from Mr. OTIS, Mr. MACON renewed his motion for
recommitting the whole bill, which was negatived--37 to 36.
Mr. GALLATIN then renewed his motion for recommitting the third section,
which was negatived by the casting vote of the Speaker, there being
thirty-eight votes for it, and thirty-eight votes against it.
Mr. LYON renewed his motion to strike out the words "or threatened," in
the first section. He thought this too indefinite an expression upon
which to rest so important a power as was given to the PRESIDENT by this
bill. Where the liberty and happiness of thousands of people are
concerned, he wished they might depend upon something more certain.
Gentlemen who advocate this bill, he said, spoke as if all power was to
be placed in the PRESIDENT, and Congress were never to sit again. He
wished this expression to be stricken out, and if, when Congress met
again, they found the PRESIDENT had not power enough, they might give
him more. He called for the yeas and nays upon his motion.
The question for taking the yeas and nays was put, but less than
one-fifth of the members present rising in its favor, it was not
carried. The question was then put on the motion, and it was negatived
without a division.
Mr. GALLATIN supposed, if these regulations were established, it would
be proper that permits should be granted to such aliens as the PRESIDENT
should suffer to remain in the United States. He was not immediately
prepared to introduce a proper amendment for that purpose; but he would
move to add a few words in that part of the bill where it is proposed to
punish citizens for harboring aliens, to try the question. He did not
very well understand the phrase, "liable as an enemy," by which those
aliens were defined, and whom it would be criminal by this law to
harbor; but he would move to introduce the words, "who shall not have
obtained permission, under the authority of the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES to remain within the territory of the United States." He moved
this, in order that citizens might not be entrapped by this law, but
that they should know precisely to what description of aliens they
might give a night's lodging, without being liable to be arrested as
suspected persons.
Mr. BAYARD did not think this amendment necessary, as a citizen must
harbor and _conceal_ an alien to be guilty of any offence.
And the question was put and negatived--38 to 33.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading to-morrow.
WEDNESDAY, May 23.
_Alien Enemies._