H. OF R.]

Provisional Army.

skill could overcome; but this did not change the fact.

[MAY, 1798.

was made in the neighborhood of Winnesborough, while Lord Cornwallis laid in that town, upon the South Carolina militia, by a British regular force under Majors Wymes and McCarthy, supported by two troops of cavalry, the whole corps drawn together and formed for the

After the fall of Charleston in 1780, the first action, and that fought by the militia, without any aid from our regulars, was the action of Fishing Creek, where, without entering into a minute description of all the circumstances at-purpose; after various charges made by the intendant on such an occasion, it will be sufficient to say, that the gallant Captain Rooke, who commanded a squadron of Tarleton's legion, fell, and the whole force was beaten and dispersed.

fantry and cavalry, and after repeated repulses, the enemy was totally repelled, their commanding officer wounded and taken, together with a number of his corps, and the rest were dispersed.

A few days after-and here permit me, said On the return of Colonel Tarleton to WinnesMr. S., to remark, that if my colleague does not borough another effort was made, and from the remember, and our historians have neglected to number as well as the nature of the troops emrecord the achievements of the militia, yet just-ployed, it was certainly intended to be effectual ice is in some degree done them by a British in driving the South Carolina militia from that historian, who was an officer in the British ser- part of the country; for it was Tarleton's legion, vice in that part of our country, and at the McCarthy's corps, and that part of the 63d, very time I am speaking of, who corroborates under Major Money, which troops were led to my facts-a few days after an attack was made the attack of the militia on the 20th of Novemby the militia on Rocky Mount, and Colonel ber; the result of this action is known to those Turnbull, who commanded the enemy's force, who do not wish to detract from the merit of and who is now in New York, I have no doubt the militia. The enemy's detachment consisted has candor enough to acknowledge, that from | of 270 legionary horse, and upwards of 400 rethe contest he had with them, (although gular infantry, with two field-pieces; the milistrongly defended by well constructed works,) tia were between five and six hundred, without and which lasted ten hours, there is something due to their bravery and the effect of their

arms.

(as indeed they were through all the actions I have described) a single piece of artillery. In the number of militia are included some GeorEight days after the affair on Rocky Mount, gians, who not only acquired honor to themselves an attack was made on the British at their posts from their exertions on that day, but did honor of the Hanging Rock. The force on this occa- to their country. The fate of the British cavsion consisted of the same corps of South Caro-alry was then decided; they had been formerly lina militia who had enterprised on the other unconquerable, but after that day they were occasion; they were in number about 600; they never known to be brought to act with either had been joined by a few of the militia from energy or effect. North Carolina, and it is a pleasure to reflect on the cordiality and bravery displayed by them on this occasion.

The enemy's force at this post was 1,200 effectives; yet the result was, after an action which lasted through the greatest part of the day, that Major Bryan's corps was totally defeated, the Prince of Wales' regiment exterminated, even its name has never since been recorded. Other detachments from the 63d and 71st, under the command of Major Carden, were also cut up, driven from their encampment with the entire loss of baggage, &c.; and, in the course of this action, Captain Kinlaw, with a squadron of Tarleton's legion, arrived from Rocky Mount, made a desperate charge on the militia, was repulsed by them, and fled to Camden, without attempting to renew the combat. In this, as well as other actions, it ought to be remembered how many field officers, brave captains, and other officers, as well as valuable citizens, fell, or were wounded, while another nation had to regret in this action alone the loss of upwards of 800 men.

Passing by a number of important and considerable conflicts which took place between the British regulars and the Southern militia, still unsupported by regulars of our own army, said Mr. S., I come now to mention the attack which

Knowing the ardor and firmness of the Southern militia, and not doubting but the militia of the several States in the Union possess equal motives for their exertions, equal spirit and activity, I cannot, said Mr. S., but rely on them as the natural and main support of our national independence-a support fully effectual without a recurrence to a standing army. These few cases, and it is stopping very short indeed of what the merits of the Southern militia deserve, tend to show that the charges brought against the militia generally are as unfounded as they are cruel to their feelings; while, at the same time, they demonstrate, that if an invasion (which is a contingency by no means likely to happen) should actually take place, we may rely with confidence on the manly exertions of the militia to meet the attack, and to resist every effort, at least for such a period as until more effective aid shall be drawn down to their support, and more permanent measures adopted.

The question for striking out twenty thousand to insert five thousand, was put and negatived47 to 41.

The question now returned upon striking out twenty thousand to insert ten thousand.

Mr. N. SMITH hoped this amendment would not be agreed to. It was contemplated, when

H. OF R.]

Presents to Ministers.

[MAY, 1798.

the French Republic, they might not very soon | of that House could add to the high sense the be concluded. What appearance would it have people of the United States already entertained to the nations of Europe, if, after all the insults of the integrity and talents of that gentleman; and injuries we have received from the French and because it did not belong to the occasion for Republic, the moment Congress heard in an in- the House to express any opinion as to the condirect, uncertain way, that they had deigned to duct of the gentleman during the time he was receive our Ministers, they stopped their pro- employed abroad. That the design of the resoluceedings in all measures of defence. A more tion he had to submit, was simply to negative unfavorable appearance, in his opinion, could an implication which possibly might be made, not take place. It ought to be recollected that that, as the constitution certainly did contemthe army proposed to be raised was a provisional plate cases in which Ministers might be allowed army, and would not be raised, if the contin- to receive presents, the House were induced, gencies therein named, did not take place. by reasons connected with the conduct of this gentleman, to refuse the liberty to accept the presents; whereas he was perfectly satisfied, from the declarations of gentlemen who opposed the permission, who had all taken occasion to testify much esteem for the character and enYEAS.-John Allen, George Baer, jr., Bailey Bart- tire approbation of the conduct of Mr. Pinckney lett, James A. Bayard, David Brooks, Stephen Bullock, while in office, that their opposition arose from Christopher G. Champlin, John Chapman, Joshua principles of general policy, which led them to Coit, William Craik, Samuel W. Dana, John Dennis, think that, in no case should presents be allowGeorge Dent, William Edmond, Thomas Evans, Abiel ed to be received. Nay, they had said, that the Foster, Dwight Foster, Jonathan Freeman, Henry purity of this gentleman's character, and the imGlenn, Chauncey Goodrich, Roger Griswold, William portance of his services, furnished a happy opporBarry Grove, John A. Hanna, Robert Goodloe Har-tunity of establishing an invariable rule precludper, Thomas Hartley, William Hindman, Hezekiah L. Hosmer, James H. Imlay, John Wilkes Kittera, Samuel Lyman, James Machir, William Matthews, John Milledge, Daniel Morgan, Lewis R. Morris,

The question for a postponement was put and negatived; there being only 29 votes for it. The question on the passing of the bill was then taken, and stood-yeas 51, nays 40, as follows:

ing the acceptance of these presents, which no merit hereafter should induce the House to depart from. The subject, however, was of so delicate Harrison G. Otis, Josiah Parker, John Read, John and tender a nature, that he conceived it a piece Rutledge, jr., James Schureman, Samuel Sewall, of justice on the part of the House to state exWilliam Shepard, Thomas Sinnickson, Samuel Sit-plicitly the grounds upon which their decision greaves, Nathaniel Smith, George Thatcher, Mark Thomson, Thomas Tillinghast, John E. Van Allen, Peleg Wadsworth, and John Williams.

was made, in order to preclude the possibility of any mistake as to their motives. He should rely, therefore, with perfect confidence, that the following resolution would be unanimously adopted:

NAYS.-Abraham Baldwin, David Bard, Lemuel Benton, Thomas Blount, Richard Brent, Nathan Bryan, Dempsey Burges, Thomas Claiborne, William Resolved, That this House, in refusing to allow Charles Cole Claiborne, John Clopton, Thomas T. Thomas Pinckney, late Minister at the Court of LonDavis, John Dawson, Lucas Elmendorph, William don, and Envoy Extraordinary to the Court of MadFindlay, John Fowler, Albert Gallatin, James Gilles-rid, to receive the presents usually made by the said pie, Andrew Gregg, Carter B. Harrison, Jonathan N. Havens, Joseph Heister, David Holmes, Walter Jones, Matthew Locke, Matthew Lyon, Nathaniel Macon, Blair McClenachan, Joseph McDowell, Anthony New, Thompson J. Skinner, William Smith, Richard Sprigg, jr., Richard Stanford, Thomas Sumter, Abram Trigg, John Trigg, Philip Van Cortlandt, Joseph B. Varnum, Abraham Venable, and Robert Williams.

MONDAY, May 21.

Presents to Ministers.

Mr. BAYARD said, he had a resolution to offer to the House, which he trusted would meet with no opposition from any quarter. It was intended solely to explain the grounds upon which the House proceeded when they refused to consent that Mr. Pinckney should receive the presents usually made by foreign Courts to Ministers upon taking leave, and which had been offered to him by the Courts of London and Madrid. He had purposely avoided in the resolution any expression of approbation of the conduct of Mr. Pinckney during his missions, because he perfectly knew that no approbation

Courts to foreign Ministers on taking leave, were induced to such refusal solely by motives of general policy, and not by any view personal to the said Thomas Pinckney.

Mr. GRISWOLD moved the postponement of this resolution till to-morrow.

The question on postponement was put and negatived-41 to 34.

The question on agreeing to the resolution then recurred

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 wen

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 neces-provision should be made for all these persons, sary 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

H. OF R.]

Naturalization Law.

[MAY, 1798.

against a provision of this kind. Indeed, the | that such omission would lay the citizens under persons he alluded to generally came from the the suspicion of not acting openly and canterritories of the King of Great Britain, and didly. 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 disadvan- | tages. 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

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