The gentleman from New York had said he should agree to the proposition, because he thought the country in danger. Mr. D. thought the better way would be, if this were really the case, to fill our arsenals with arms, our magazines with ammunition, and our treasury with money. He agreed with the gentleman from Maryland, that we had artillery enough for eight, ten, or twelve thousand men. Artillery, he said, could not do the service of infantry; their discipline was very different; they do not work upon fortifications, but merely guard the guns, &c. He wished they had a view of the infantry also; if they had not been sufficient, he should not have objected to the increasing of them; but he could see no propriety in increasing the artillery. Mr. HARTLEY thought that the men to be raised might be made to serve as artillery or infantry, as they might be wanted. He believed half the number proposed would be sufficient. Mr. SHEPARD was in favor of the plan suggested by the gentleman from New Jersey. Mr. POTTER hoped the section would be struck out. If the proposed addition to our artillery was meant as a peace establishment, they were not wanted; and if they were to be raised with a view to war, they would be incompetent. He thought forty men might be spared from Philadelphia, and fifty from West Point, for Rhode Island, which at present was entirely without any. Mr. ELMENDORPH was in favor of striking out the section. He thought it was proper to inquire what was the natural defence of the country, and what were the measures proper to be taken for that purpose. He believed the object of the present bill had no relation to it. The best way would be to discharge our debt, in the next place to fortify, and provide sufficient arms and ammunition; the militia should also be well organized and disciplined; and they should attend to economy in the expenditure of public money. The question for striking out the section was put and carried, there being 56 votes in favor of it. The committee rose, and the House were about to take the question by yeas and nays, when Mr. GILLESPIE wished to say why he should vote in favor of destroying this bill; it was because he believed there were men enough if properly distributed; and because they had only been allowed six men at Wilmington, though they were entitled to forty. [June, 1797. ard, Theophilus Bradbury, David Brooks, Christopher NAYS-John Allen, George Baer, jr., James A. BayG. Champlin, James Cochran, William Craik, Samuel W. Dana, James Davenport, John Dennis, Thomas Evans, Abiel Foster, Dwight Foster, Henry Glen, Chauncey Goodrich, Roger Griswold, Robert Goodloe Harper, Thomas Hartley, William Hindman, Hezekiah L. Hosmer, James H. Imlay, James Machir, William Matthews, Harrison G. Otis, John Reed, John Rutledge, jr., James Schureman, Samuel Sewall, William Shepard, Thomas Sinnickson, Samuel Sitgreaves, Jeremiah Smith, Nathaniel Smith, William Smith, of Charleston, George Thatcher, Mark Thomson, John E. Van Alen, and Peleg Wadsworth. EXPATRIATION. The House went into Committee on the bill to prevent the citizens of of the United States from entering into the service of any foreign Prince or State. Mr. HAVENS thought time ought to be given for citizens in foreign countries to become acquainted with the act, before it took place. Mr. NICHOLAS hoped the committee would rise, and that they should get rid of the present business. There were some delicate propositions in the bill which would require much discussion. He was doubtful whether the principle of the bill was right; if it were, he saw no necessity for passing it at present, as he did not think it probable that this act could take place before an end was put to the European war. Messrs. RUTLEDGE, W. SMITH, DAYTON, BROOKS, Oris, and KITTERA, spoke in favor of going into this measure, in order to prevent our citizens from entering on board foreign ships of war, and by that means preserve a strict neutrality; that when persons desire to expatriate themselves, and become citizens of another country, a line should be marked out by which they may do so; and in order to prevent the bill already passed to prevent our citizens from entering on board privateers, from becoming a dead letter, which it was said it would do, if this bill were not passed. The question was then taken that the House do agree with the Committee of the Whole in their Mr. S. SMITH was opposed to the bill. He disagreement to the bill, and decided in the affirm-wished our youth to have full liberty to go on ative yeas 57, nays 39, as follows: board the ships of war of any foreign country, in YEAS-Abraham Baldwin, David Bard, Thomas order to gain experience in the art of war, that, if Blount, Richard Brent, Nathan Bryan, Demsey Bur-ever we should have occasion for them, they might ges, Samuel J. Cabell, John Chapman, Thomas Clai- be called home to defend their own country. He borne, Matthew Clay, John Clopton, Joshua Coit, said there were at this time on board the British Thomas T. Davis, John Dawson, George Dent, Lucas fleet, not less than one hundred of our youth, learning Elmendorph, William Findley, John Fowler, Nathan- the art of war, who, perhaps, might be wanted on iel Freeman, jr., Albert Gallatin, William B. Giles, some future day to fight the very nation under James Gillespie, Andrew Gregg, William B. Grove, whom they are training. John A. Hanna, Carter B. Harrison, Jonathan N. Havens, David Holmes, Walter Jones, John Wilkes Kitera, Matthew Locke, Samuel Lyman, Matthew Lyon, The committee rose without taking a question, and had leave to sit again. And the House adjourned. JUNE, 1797.] WEDNESDAY, June 21. EXPATRIATION. 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. Corr moved to strike out the sixth section, which was in the following words: "And whereas, for the due execution of this and other laws tending to the security of the public welfare, it is expedient to define and ascertain the mode in which a citizen may dissolve the ties of citizenship, and become an alien: "Be it further enacted, That the citizens of the United States, whether native or adopted, shall be deemed citizens thereof, until they relinquish that character in manner hereinafter provided, that is to say; whensoever any citizen of the United States shall, by deed in writing, under his hand and seal, executed in the presence of, and subscribed by two or more witnesses, and by at least two of the subscribing witnesses proved before the supreme, superior, district, or circuit court, of some one of the States, or of the Territories northwest of the river Ohio, or before a circuit or district court of the United States, within the jurisdiction of which court he shall then be resident, or by open verbal declaration, made and recorded in either of the courts aforesaid, declare that he absolutely and entirely re nounces all allegiance and fidelity to the United States, and to every of them, and shall forthwith depart out of the territorial limits thereof; every such person, from the time of his departure, if his renunciation, verbal or written as aforesaid, shall have been duly recorded before his departure, shall be considered expatriated, and forever thereafter be deemed an alien, in like manner and to all intents as if he had never been a citizen: Provided always, That he shall not enter into the military or naval service of a foreign nation, or become the owner or part owner of any foreign privateer or letter of marque, within one year of his departure from the said United States; and if any such person shall enter the military or naval service of a foreign nation, or become the owner or part owner of any privateer or letter of marque, within the space of one year from the time of his departure from the United States, he shall be liable to all the pains and penalties to which he would have been subject for the like conduct if he had contin ued a citizen.' 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 coun-I [H. OF R. tries 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. citizens born in the United States to continue citiMr. CLAIBORNE thought it no more binding for zens of the United States, than it was for a Roman when he arrived at years of maturity, and could Catholic or Protestant to continue of that opinion, 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 of Great Britain, who, though they had left the the United States to be in the situation of subjects 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. The between the two cases which the gentleman had Mr. SEWALL said, there was a great difference 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. 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. [JUNE, 1797. tries 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 This law, Mr. S. said, was necessary, as at pre- allegiance on the other, were subjects they had all sent there was not sufficient energy in the Gov-heard much about; but expatriation, under limiernment to punish persons serving on board for- tation and restraint, was a new business. From eign ships of war. This bill would cure the evil, its novelty it became doubtful. This being the and give an opportunity for turbulent, discontent-case, he wished the subject had been deferred to ed characters to leave the country forever. He an ordinary session; particularly as it appeared to believed it was the general opinion of the citizens be no more connected with other parts of the bill of this country that they had the right to expa- than with many other laws now extant. If we triate themselves, and he thought it was now a were to have a law on this subject, he should wish proper time to pass some regulations on this to have it in a separate bill. For his part, he subject. 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. Mr. SITGREAVES thought this one of the most delicate and important subjects that ever came before Congress. He saw a number of difficultiesbut 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. 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. In the first war 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 recognised; but he believed the major opinion in this country was different; and, though not directly, it had in a great degree been recognised 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. would not allow of expatriation in time of war. 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 7th section, which was as follows, fell, of course: "That all persons who shall exercise the right of expatriation, according to the laws of the United States, shall be and are hereby prohibited from becoming citizens of the United States forever thereafter." 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 Mr. HARPER proposed an amendment, which allowed to expatriate in time of war, as their as- was intended to introduce a new principle. As sistance would be wanted at home. It was his the bill now stood, no person could go into foreign intention to have moved an amendment allowing service without incurring the penalties therein proexpatriation only in time of peace, and an express vided; but he believed there might be cases where provision against it in time of war. He thought it would be for the benefit of this country to allow the doctrine of the gentleman from Maryland, persons to go into foreign service. He therefore viz: that our citizens ought to go into other coun-wished to strike out the words "the limits of the same," to introduce those of "without having first obtained leave from the President of the United States." Mr. CLAIBORNE thought the powers of the President large enough, and did not wish to increase them, nor to lay additional duty upon him. Mr. VENABLE did not think it necessary to entrust the President with such a power. He did not believe it was the practice of any country to grant a power of this kind, except in cases of officers, who, when they wished to go abroad, asked leave, because always liable to be called upon. Mr. DAYTON (the Speaker) moved to strike out the words moved to be stricken out by the gentleman from South Carolina, with the addition of the word "without." As the bill stood, he said, there was a provision against citizens who accepted and exercised a commission within or without the limits of the United States; but none against those who accepted it within, and exercised it without, the limits; or who accepted it without, and exercised it within, the limits. He was against lodging the power proposed in the President, for the reasons assigned by the gentleman from Virginia. Nor did he think it would be attended with advantage for our citizens to go abroad to learn what could not be learnt at home. He believed, in doing so, they would learn more vice than virtue, and bring home a greater portion of evil than good. Mr. SWANWICK was surprised that, after all that had been objected against our citizens entering into the service of foreign countries, gentlemen should bring forward a proposition to authorize the President to grant them leave to go into it when he shall think proper. This would be placing the President in a very delicate situation; because, if he allowed citizens to go to fight in one country, he must allow them to go into another, or there would be a breach of neutrality; and it would be an unpleasant thing to refuse applications of this kind. No advantage could be derived from this plan, equal to the disadvantages of thus placing the power. Indeed, he thought the proposition an argument against the bill itself. After a few observations from Mr. HARPER and Mr. SEWALL. the question on the amendment of Mr. DAYTON was negatived, 44 to 39. Mr. DAYTON hoped some remedy would be applied to the evil he had mentioned, and that they should not report so imperfect a bill. Mr. SEWALL Suggested a way in which it might be remedied in the House. 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. [H. of R. 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. NICHOLAS thought it would have been better to have avoided taking up this subject at present; but having taken it up, if the bill passed at all, he believed it had better pass with some such regulations as the present. As to the doctrine of perpetual allegiance, he did not think it could find many advocates in this country. It would, indeed, be dishonorable for us to hold out such a doctrine, after inviting people to come here in crowds from foreign countries. This doctrine, he said, would affect a third or fourth of the whole people of this country. He thought, therefore, the right of expatriation ought, at least, to be confined here, as an example to other countries. 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 recognised 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 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 ex-gone to Canada, and upwards of five thousand beercising 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 1st CoN-12 yond 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 sub 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. THATCHER did not think the principle was so important as it had been considered. The great emigrations which we every day saw in this country might quiet their apprehensions of many going from it. He did not think one man a year would take advantage of the expatriation clause for fifty years to come, which could be no great object, especially when it was considered that these would probably be the least valuable of our citizens. Mr. GORDON was in favor of the amendment of the Committee of the Whole, though he could not say he had wholly made up his mind on the subject. He thought these sections important, and perfectly distinct from the bill; he therefore wished the consideration of this matter to be postponed to a period when they should have more leisure for the discussion. Mr. Oris 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, as follows: YEAS-George Baer, Jr., David Bard, James A. Bayard, Theophilus Bradbury, Nathan Bryan, Samuel J. Cabell, James Cochran, Joshua Coit, William Craik, [JUNE, 1797. Thomas T. Davis, Dwight Foster, Jonathan Freeman, Albert Gallatin, Chauncey Goodrich, William Gordon, Andrew Gregg, Roger Griswold, John A. Hanna, Robert Goodloe Harper, Thomas Hartley, Matthew Locke, Matthew Lyon, Joseph McDowell, James Schureman, Samuel Sewall, Tompson J. Skinner, Nathaniel Smith, Richard Stanford, John Swanwick, Richard Thomas, Mark Thomson, Philip Van Cortlandt, Joseph B. Varnum, and Robert Williams. NAYS-Abraham Baldwin, Thomas Blount, Richard Brent, David Brooks, Demsey Burges, John Chapman, Christopher G. Champlin, Thomas Claiborne, Matthew Clay, John Clopton, Samuel W. Dana, John Dawson, John Dennis, George Dent, Lucas Elmendorph, Thomas Evans, William Findley, Abiel Foster, William B. Giles, James Gillespie, Henry Glen, Carter B. Harrison, Jonathan N. Havens, David Holmes, Hezekiah L. Hosmer, James H. Imlay, Walter Jones, Samuel Lyman, James Machir, Nathaniel Macon, William Matthews, Blair McClenachan, John Milledge, Daniel Morgan, Anthony New, John Nicholas, Harrison G. Otis, Josiah Parker, Elisha R. Potter, John Reed, John Rutledge, jr., William Shepard, Thomas Sinnickson, Samuel Sitgreaves, Jeremiah Smith, Samuel Smith, William Smith, of Charleston, William Smith, of Pinckney district, Richard Sprigg, jr., Thomas Sumter, George Alen, Abraham Venable, Peleg Wadsworth, and John Thatcher, Abram Trigg, John Trigg, John E. Van Williams. All the amendments having been gone through, Mr. S. SMITH moved to postpone the further consideration of the bill till the first Monday in No vember. 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, as follows: YEAS-George Baer, Jr., Abraham Baldwin, David Bard, Thomas Blount, Richard Brent, Demsey Burges, John Clopton, Joshua Coit, John Dawson, Lucas ElSamuel J. Cabell, Thomas Claiborne, Matthew Clay, mendorph, William Findley, Dwight Foster, John Fowler, Nathaniel Freeman, jr., Albert Gallatin, William B. Giles, James Gillespie, Chauncey Goodrich, William Gordon, Andrew Gregg, Roger Griswold, John A Hanna, Carter B. Harrison, Jonathan N. Havens, Walter Jones, Matthew Locke, Matthew Lyon, Nathaniel Macon, Blair McClenachan, Joseph McDowell, John Milledge, Anthony New, John Nicholas, Josiah Parker, Samuel Sewall, Tompson J. Skinner, Nathaniel Smith, Samuel Smith, William Smith, of Pinckney district, Richard Sprigg, jr., Richard Stanford, Thomas Sumter, John Swanwick, Abram Trigg, John Trigg, Philip Van Cortlandt, Joseph B. Varnum, Abraham Venable, and Robert Williams NAYS-James A. Bayard, Theophilus Bradbury, David Brooks, Nathan Bryan, John Chapman, Christopher |