Page images
PDF
EPUB
[blocks in formation]

cessary. And he was convinced that his constituents would believe that he never wanted a disposition to defend his country when in danger.

[H. OF R.

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.

the chartered banks which may be now or hereafter For every bond, bill, or note, (except the note of 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 dol

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 re-lars, fifty-cents; above one thousand dollars, seventyference to this defence, that the gentleman op- five cents. (If payable within sixty days, they posed every thing, and proposed nothing. Gen- will be chargeable with only two-fifths of these dutlemen, he said, were very ready to propose ties.) 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.

[blocks in formation]

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 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 dol-

lar.

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. Coir 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

H. OF R.]

Expatriation.

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.

To

[JUNE, 1797. persons to come to this country. We did not allow they owed allegiance to any other country after they had become citizens of this. 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 expaBri-triation, 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. W. SMITH said, that the doctrine of perpetual allegiance was derived from Great tain, and, though it might be good in theory, vas 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. 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 opin

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 pro-ion perty 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

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

[blocks in formation]

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.

[H. OF R.

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. N. SMITH was sorry that the committee who reported this bill had thought it necessary Mr. HARPER asked for an instance in which to report the sixth and seventh sections. The the Executive and Judiciary had countenanced doctrine of expatriation on one hand, and per- the doctrine of expatriation.

petual allegiance on the other, were subjects Mr. W. SMITH, in answer to his colleague, they had all heard much about; but expatria-produced the case of Talbot, and the opinion tion, under limitation and restraint, was a new given by the Secretary of State and the Judibusiness. From its novelty it became doubtful. ciary Court, on that occasion, in favor of the This being the case, he wished the subject had right of expatriation. 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.

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 There was a mutual obligation, Mr. S. said, mode of doing it. The right seemed to have between a Government and all its citizens. The been recognized by the Executive and Judiciary. Government owed protection to its citizens, and He was against going into this business, because citizens owed obedience to their Government. he thought it unnecessary. He believed the deThese duties were mutual and co-extensive; termination of who were citizens, and who and they might as well say that Government were not, might be safely left with the Judicould 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

ciary. 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.

H. OF R.]

Depredations on Commerce.

[JUNE, 1797.

Mr. SITGREAVES confirmed his former state- | two last clauses, which, it was evident, had ment, with respect to the question of the right been the cause of the negative given to the bill. of expatriation having been settled by the Ju- As he supposed no opposition would be made to diciary. In order to do this, he read a note the bill so reported, it might be got through from one of the counsel in the cases of Hen- without loss of time. field 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.

After some conversation on a point of order, whether or not this resolution could be admitted, the SPEAKER declared it in order, but Mr. Corr wishing it to lie on the table till to-morrow, it lay accordingly.

THURSDAY, June 22. Expatriation.

Mr. GILES believed the evil apprehended from individuals having the right to expatriate them-he yesterday laid upon the table, for appointing Mr. W. SMITH called up the resolution which selves 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 coun

try, 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. OriS, 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

a committee to bring in a bill for prohibiting citizens of the United States entering on board clauses. foreign ships of war, without the expatriating

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. made the report and the collection of documents, In consequence of which, the Secretary of State has which accompany this Message, and are now laid before the House of Representatives, in compliance with their desire.

UNITED STATES, June 22, 1797.

JOHN ADAMS.

Report of the Secretary of State to the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, respecting the depredations committed on the commerce of the United States:

1. Abstract of two cases of capture made by the British cruisers of vessels belonging to citizens of the United States since the first of October, 1796, and wherein documents have been received at the Department of State; also a copy of a memorandum filed by S. SMITH, Esq., relating to captures made by the British of vessels in the property of which he was concerned. No documents accompany the two cases of capture above mentioned, they having been sent to London, in order that compensation might be obtained for the damages suffered.

2. A correct copy of the decree of the Executive Directory of March 2, 1797.

3. Copies of documents remaining in the Depart

[blocks in formation]

ment of State, relative to American vessels captured or condemned by the French, since the first of October, 1796.

4. Extracts from communications from the Consuls of the United States, relative to depredations committed on the commerce of the United States by the

French.

[H. OF R.

ter ought not to pass over without inquiry, as
he did not like to be drawn from step to step to
do what, if the whole matter had been seen at
first, they might not have consented to. He
trusted this was not intentionally done, but he
owned it looked very suspicious.

Mr. PARKER believed the estimate of last ses

5. Schedule of the names of American vessels cap- sion was only to make the vessels ready to re-
tared by the French, and of the circumstances at-ceive the guns on board, and did not include
tending them, extracted from the Philadelphia Ga-
zette, and Gazette of the United States, and com-
mencing with July, 1796.

6. Extract of a letter from Rufus King, Esq., Minister, &c., enclosing the protest of William Martin, master of the Cincinnatus, of Baltimore, relative to the torture inflicted on the said Martin by a French cruiser.

Mr. GILES moved that the above papers should be referred to a select committee, to print such as would be useful to the House.

This question was negatived-50 to 46, and a motion carried for printing the whole.

Day of Adjournment.

Mr. GILES called up the motion which had some days ago been laid on the table respecting an adjournment.

Mr. GALLATIN wished to modify his motion, by making the proposed day of adjournment the 27th instead of the 24th instant.

Mr. SITGREAVES moved for the yeas and nays on the question.

Mr. MACON moved to make the day the 28th, which was consented to by the mover.

Mr. DENT proposed to make it the 30th. The question was taken on adjourning on the 30th, and negatived-there being only 28 votes in favor of it.

The question on the resolution for the 28th was carried-yeas 51, nays 47.

SATURDAY, June 24.
Protection of Trade.

NAVAL ARMAMENT.

The bill for providing for the protection of the commerce of the United States was read a third time, and the blank for filling up the number of men to be employed in the cutters, was filled up with thirty; on the question being about to be put on the passing of the bill,

Mr. NICHOLAS said some statements had been received from the War Department, and ordered to be printed. He had not seen a copy of them, but was informed there were yet wanting $197,000 to complete the frigates. He wished information on the subject.

Mr. PARKER read an extract from the account which had been printed.

Mr. NICHOLAS wished to know how it happened that in four months so great a mistake could have occurred as to the expense of finishing these vessels. When the last appropriation of $170,000 was made, they were told that sum would be sufficient to make them fit to receive the men on board, but now they were called upon for $197,000 more. He thought this mat

the guns.

Mr. GALLATIN said, as he meant to vote He knew only against the passage of the bill, he would briefly state his reasons for doing so. of two arguments in favor of the bill; the first, that it was necessary during a time of peace to lay the foundation of a navy; the other was, that, the frigates being built, it would be proper to man them. As to the propriety of having a navy, he lid not mean to go generally into the subject, but he would make a few observations as to our situation for engaging in an establishment of this kind. Suppose that navies were necessary in European nations, to increase their power or to protect their commerce, these considerations did not apply to our present circumstances. In order to prove this, it was only necessary to take a view of our revenue, and the expense of a fleet.

The amount of revenue from the 1st of April, 1796, to the 1st of April, 1797, received into the Treasury, was $7,400,000—a sum which by far exceeded that of any former year; and he did not think that the permanent revenue of the United States could be well extended beyond For instance, he did not think that that sum. nine millions could be raised from the people without oppression. Indeed, by the best calculations on the quantity of circulating medium in the country, it was not allowed to exceed eight millions: and he did not believe that any nation could raise a larger sum in taxes than was equal to the amount of their circulating specie.

[Here Mr. Gallatin produced a detailed statement to show the expense of building the three frigates, to wit: $1,014,450, and the sum of $350,000 for the yearly expense of keeping them in service, repairs inclusive.]

This statement showed, Mr. G. said, that these frigates had cost about £2,000 sterling a gun, though the common calculation in Great Britain was only half that sum. If, from building the frigates, they turned to the expense of manning them, the same conclusion would be drawn. They found that the pay of an ablebodied seaman in the British navy had lately been raised from 26s. 6d. to 30s. sterling a month, which was $6 661; but, by the present law, $15,000 a month were allowed for the pay of the petty officers, midshipmen, seamen, ordinary seamen, and marines, which averaged from 16 to 17 dollars a man.

When he heard gentlemen stating the advantages of the naval strength of Denmark and Sweden to those countries, he could not agree

« PreviousContinue »