The resolutions having been read from the chair,

Mr. W. Smith moved the first of them.

Mr. Giles wished the gentleman would reverse his propositions, and let the one for raising money come first. He did not know whether they were prepared to meet this expense. He did not mean to oppose the present motion; he supposed it would pass. But he thought they were about to be too precipitous in their measures. At a time when all Europe seemed to be tired of war, and about to make peace, we seemed to be disposed to rush into it. He did not believe that much good would be done by this system of fortification. He did not think the United States were more secure now, than before they had a single work of the kind. We have, said he, an extensive sea-coast, and it was not to be expected that an enemy would choose to come to precisely the place where a fortification stands. It was his opinion that the interests of the country would be served, by letting this matter lie over till next session.

Mr. Williams observed, that the sense of the committee should be first taken upon the propriety of going into the measure; if there was a majority in favor of it, (and he could not doubt it,) the matter would be referred to a select committee, who would make their report upon it.

Mr. S. Smith was in favor of going into this measure; for if the war continued in Europe, he thought it probable we might be drawn into it.

Mr. Swanwick should not be opposed to the present motion, because he agreed with the gentleman from Maryland, that whilst the war continued in Europe there was a probability of this country being drawn into the vortex. But he thought there was some weight, also, in the observation of the gentleman from Virginia, with respect to the ways and means; because, if, after they should agree to carry into effect certain measures, they should disagree about the means, their time would have been spent to no purpose.

The question was put and carried, there being 62 votes in favor of it.

Completing and Manning the Frigates.

Mr. Gallatin said, if the question was to determine the principle of manning the frigates, the resolution stood right as it was. But if it were not intended, by adopting this resolution, to commit any man, but only to say that they would take the business into consideration, and if found useful and necessary, and funds were attainable, they would carry it into effect, then the amendment of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Livingston) would be proper. As to the committee's rising, he could see no ground for it, as these propositions were not new—they had had them before them for three weeks in the Speech of the President. Of course, so far as related to the frigates, gentlemen must have formed an opinion; yet he agreed that it was desirable to see some documents on the subject, before a decided affirmative or negative was given. He was, therefore, in favor of the amendment for a committee to be appointed. He wished all those subjects which were of a doubtful nature to be then determined. On the other hand, those upon which members were ready to decide at once, either by an acceptance or rejection, might be voted upon in the form in which they were introduced.

Mr. Parker read the motion which was entered into last year, and thought it would be a good model for the present.

Mr. W. Smith was of a different opinion. He thought the committee should first decide the abstract principle. He thought it would be wrong to refer to a select committee a business in which every member was so intimately interested, and he doubted not gentlemen were ready to decide upon this abstract question. With regard to expense, he was of opinion that if the situation of the country required it, that should be no object. If gentlemen thought differently, they would of course negative the proposition. Any information on the subject could be got before the business was finished. He thought they should first say what were the necessary objects of expense, and then provide the money, which might be done by borrowing or by taxes. If there was a necessity for the expense, there was no doubt the money would be raised. If gentlemen were not prepared to discuss the subject, he had no objection to the committee's rising, and, in the House, the Secretary of War might be called upon for information.

Mr. Nicholas thought the question was not fairly presented. It was whether they should man the frigates. But when they were called upon to determine this, they should know when they would be ready to receive the men. The probability was that the frigates would not be ready to receive the men before the next session of Congress.

Mr. Dayton (the Speaker) was in favor of the original proposition. He wished to provide for manning all the frigates which could be got ready before the next session of Congress. He believed if they adopted this plan, unnecessary delay would be prevented.

Mr. Parker was ready to vote for the proposition of the gentleman from South Carolina. He believed the frigate in Philadelphia might be equipped, rigged, and manned, in three months. The only reason why he varied his motion was, that he might include the next proposition; but he believed it would be better for them to stand separate, as, before he voted for the additional vessels, he should wish to know how the means were to be got, and for what purpose they were to be used. The vessel at Boston, he said, would not be ready so soon, but it would be in readiness before the next meeting of Congress; that at Baltimore would be in readiness to receive her men in four months.

Mr. S. Smith said, the frigate building at Baltimore would be launched on the 4th of July, and the equipments were in greater forwardness than those for the frigate at Philadelphia.

Mr. Baldwin was against referring this proposition to a select committee. It would be desirable, indeed, to know what the cost of doing the business would be, but every one knew how little to be relied upon were estimates of this kind. He was ready to vote for manning the frigates; indeed there was no question upon which he was so ready to say aye, as upon this.

The question was about to be put on Mr. Livingston's motion, when

Mr. Varnum said he thought the wording of the resolution improper, as the word "completing" would clash with the act of last session.

The question was put and negatived, 50 to 34.

Mr. Macon wished the frigates to be completed, but not manned, he therefore moved to strike out the words "and manning."

The question was put and negatived; there being only twenty-four votes in favor of it.

Mr. Giles moved to strike out the word "completing;" but, after some conversation, the motion was withdrawn, and the original resolution was carried.

The third proposition next came under consideration.

Mr. Nicholas hoped the gentleman who introduced this motion, would tell them for what purpose these additional vessels were wanted. He supposed this resolution to be connected with the next, and if so, he thought they should be considered together. What, he asked, were to be the instructions given to the commanders of these vessels? He thought it a very embarrassing business, and one that would certainly lead to war; nay, indeed, the thing seemed to be a war operation in itself.

Mr. W. Smith wished the gentleman had made his inquiries before. They would have come more properly when the frigates were under consideration, as the same objection would be against both; and the next resolution had no more connection with this than with that already agreed to. The gentleman seemed to have let go the opportunity of calling upon him; as, however, he did not wish to evade his call, (though he was not willing to say he would himself vote for the measure,) he would say that it appeared to him, from the present state of the commerce of this country, to be necessary to provide convoys for our vessels. These vessels might not, indeed, be employed as a regular convoy, but partly confined to the coasts and harbors.

Mr. Nicholas expected the gentleman from South Carolina would have acknowledged that the two resolutions were connected. Indeed he must have intended those vessels to be employed in this way, or such a resolution would not have been introduced. With respect to Sweden's treaty for a reciprocal convoy, there was some ground for it, as there was a difference between the Northern Powers of Europe, as to the principle of free ships making free goods; but where there was no difference as to the principle, no such thing could take place.

Mr. Gallatin said the present resolution was certainly in some degree connected with the next. It was understood that the purchasing of frigates and sloops of war, was for the purpose of convoying our trade. Under the present circumstances of this country, he should be opposed to this proposition; not that he denied the right of neutral powers to afford convoys to their merchant vessels; but, because under present circumstances it was impolitic to adopt the measure, not only for the reasons urged by the gentleman from Virginia, but on account of our situation with respect to France at the present moment. By our treaty with France, enemy's property was to be respected on board of American vessels, and certain articles used in the building of ships were not considered as contraband; the President would, of course, be obliged to give orders to have our vessels protected in this situation, and who could not see that this would be the source of war; and if the convoy were not to be employed to enforce these two privileges, he did not see what use it could be of. He knew that depredations without number had been committed in the West Indies; but he was led to believe that this was done by pirates more than by any other vessels. But suppose it were practicable to distinguish between those vessels which were regularly, and those which were piratically taken; yet, he must confess he would not be for running the risk of a rupture, by sending out armed vessels to contest the point, especially when we have reason to believe that these attacks are unauthorized by the French Government.

Mr. G. thought it would only be necessary to extend our navy in case of war, and were this unhappily to be our situation, vessels might easily be purchased without delay; but whilst we were at peace, he did not think the advantages which could be derived from a convoy would be a sufficient inducement to go into the measure. Besides he was induced by another motive to give this proposition his negative. He knew the depredations upon our commerce had been great; but he did not look upon this loss as falling only upon merchants. There was not an individual who did not bear a part of it.[17] For instance, if a merchant paid ten or fifteen per cent. additional upon his cargo, he will put a proportionably high price upon his commodities, which must eventually be paid by the consumer. Therefore, so far as an argument might be drawn from this circumstance, it became a question of expediency, and he thought it would be granted, that the loss to individuals would be less in this way than if they had to support a navy to protect our trade.

Mr. W. Smith acknowledged that there was considerable weight in the arguments of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, though he did not find sufficient weight in them to change his opinion of the propriety of the measure. The gentleman from Virginia had endeavored to show that, as there was no difference of opinion as to principle between France and this country, the regulations entered into with Sweden did not apply; whilst the gentleman from Pennsylvania had produced arguments to show that we were in that situation. With respect to the treaty articles in dispute, it would be an easy matter for the President to give the commanders of our vessels proper instructions on that head. And would any gentleman say it was not right to defend our vessels against pirates? Would not the French say, if they were applied to for redress, "You knew these were pirates; why did you not defend yourselves against them?" The expense, which seems so much to alarm gentlemen, should be put out of the question. The only question, said he, is, if your property is unjustly attacked, will you defend it?

But it was said the loss did not fall upon the merchant, but upon the consumer. Mr. S. asserted it fell upon the country; and so far from the expense of the proposed armament being equal to the loss sustained by captures, it would not, in his opinion, be a tenth part of the amount, for whatever the plunderers got this country lost. Mr. S. said he had made a rough calculation of what would be the expense of three frigates, of 32 guns, and six sloops of war of 16 guns, and found it to be $926,000, including the equipment and manning for one year.

Mr. Giles said, the gentleman from South Carolina talked of defensive measures, but his plans were offensive. That gentleman had undertaken to doubt the right of France to declare her ports rebel ports. Was this defensive? Every nation had this right. It was not long since Great Britain exercised it against us. Yet, aided by a convoy, he wished to push our trade to these ports. This would not only be hazarding the peace of the country, but taking the direct road to war.

Besides, said Mr. G., could it be expected that six or ten frigates could convoy all our vessels? No; not a twentieth part of them. They could, therefore, be of little use, but might be the means of producing the greatest evil to the country.

Mr. Baldwin said, in all their determinations with respect to a naval force, however great the emergency, it has always been determined to build, rather than purchase vessels, and he saw no reason for departing from this mode in the present instance.

After some objections from Mr. W. Smith to the building plan, which he said would take three or four years to furnish the proposed vessels, whereas merchant vessels might be immediately purchased, which would answer the purpose of small frigates, the committee rose, reported the two resolutions, which the House took up and agreed to, and committees were appointed to report upon them by bills or otherwise.

Wednesday, June 7.

Defensive Measures.

ARMING MERCHANT VESSELS.

The 5th, which was in the following words, having been read,

Mr. Swanwick inquired, with what view these vessels were to be provided? Against whom they were to be employed? and in what cases they were to defend themselves? The information which he might receive on these inquiries, he said, would have considerable weight in influencing his vote.

Mr. Harper said the detail would be brought forward in the bill; the principle was now only to be determined. He had not thought of all the modifications which might be given to it, though he had thought of many; but it would be best discussed in its general form. The gentleman, if he thought proper, might introduce into the resolution any principle which he might wish to have inserted in it.

Mr. Williams said it was well known that a number of our merchantmen were arming in different ports of the Union, and it was, therefore, necessary to regulate this business, to prevent mischief being done. Gentlemen might differ in opinion with respect to the marine law or laws of nations on this subject; but all would wish, since vessels were arming, that they should be put under some restraint. When he voted for manning the frigates, he did it with a view to have them employed in the defence of our coasts, and not as a convoy. Our situation, he said, was truly critical, and he was undetermined how far it would be proper to arm the merchant vessels of the United States; but to prevent mischief, he wished the resolution might be agreed to, reserving to himself the right of voting ultimately for or against it. It might afterwards undergo such modifications as should be found necessary.

Mr. Livingston said the gentleman from Pennsylvania had very properly inquired what was the scope of the present resolution, and he expected some answer would have been given. The gentleman from South Carolina had said they must vote for the principle, and the detail would come of course. So that without knowing its object, whether it was defensive or offensive, they were called upon to agree to the principle. This deficiency had been supplied in some degree by the gentleman from New York. He says the merchants have undertaken to arm their vessels. He wished to know whence he derived his information? The only information before them was in the President's Speech, where he says he has forbidden such armament, except in the East India trade. He therefore supposed the fact not well founded. What, he asked, was intended to be done with these armed vessels? He said they must argue hypothetically. He supposed they were intended to protect our trade. He did not believe they were meant to operate offensively. But he would ask if this were the case, if it would not lead directly to war? since individuals would be left to determine the laws of nations, and of course the peace of the country would be placed at their disposal, and all precautions, on the part of Government, would be in vain, since individuals, who might have an opposite interest to that of the Government, might be continually committing acts of hostility.

Mr. S. Smith acknowledged that the present was a very delicate subject; but had not the President forbidden the arming of merchant vessels, he should have been of opinion that the merchant vessels of a neutral power had always a right to arm for their own defence. But he believed it was necessary that something should be done. Merchants would arm their vessels from the right given to them by the law of nations, and, if not restrained, might go on to do acts which could not be justified. Though he believed merchants possessed the right of arming their vessels, yet, rather than do any thing which would involve the country in war, he believed they would desist from the practice, and bear the losses which they might, for the want of arms, suffer. He moved to strike out the word "regulating," and to insert in the place of it "restricting in certain cases."

Mr. Gallatin said it seemed as if the motion of the gentleman from South Carolina was susceptible of any shape, since the amendment now incorporated into it seemed to have a different view from the original. At present he would state his objections to the principle of the resolution itself. The first inquiry was, whether the law of nations permitted the merchant vessels of neutral nations to arm? If they had not a right to permit it, whether they are not bound to prohibit it? He had examined the law of nations on this subject, and found no such authority, nor did the practice of modern times justify the practice. He took a view of the different stages of society, to show that whenever regular governments were established, the public defence was always placed in them, and it was their duty to protect individuals, since they did not give them leave to protect themselves.

Mr. G. said he knew of no exception but in case of letters of marque and reprisal, and he did not know a single instance within the last century where these had been granted, but war had been the consequence, so repugnant were they to the present state of society. It was true, nations might be in such a state as to find it necessary to grant such a power; as when a nation with which it has to do is unable to support the common relations of intercourse. Two instances of this kind presented themselves, viz: the East India trade and the Mediterranean trade. In carrying on our trade with the East Indies, our vessels were met by those of a number of uncivilized powers, upon whom no restraint could be had, so that no remedy was left to us, but immediate resistance. Nearly of the same nature was the situation of the Barbary Powers in the Mediterranean; and, although we enter into a treaty with them, we have not a perfect reliance upon their observing their engagements; our merchant vessels are therefore permitted to trade to those parts armed. He knew it might be said that, at present, the West Indies were in a similar situation. He believed, in some respects, they were; and this could be the only plea for adopting a measure like the present. If it were to be understood that there was to be an end of the negotiation with France, or that the privilege of arming would not be abandoned, it might be proper to authorize the arming of merchant vessels; but he believed, if it were considered that such a permission would be almost certain to involve us in war, it would appear to be much more wise to await the event of the negotiation with France; not that he was afraid of offending France by a measure of this kind, but he was afraid of involving our country in a war.

Mr. S. Smith conceived that Congress were called together to adopt such measures as were best calculated to preserve the peace of the country, by means of negotiation, and to fix upon such means of defence as would not be injurious to the country. It was his opinion that the President was not authorized by law to prevent the vessels of merchants being armed; but the merchants of the United States would readily submit to any loss rather than go to war. He knew that this was the opinion of the Philadelphia merchants: he had seen many of them. Nor had he met with one native American who wished to go into this arming plan; they believe it would infringe our neutrality, and throw us into a war. When he came here, his mind was scarcely made up on the subject. He did not like to give up his right to defend his property; but he had found this to be the general opinion, and therefore he brought forward the amendment, which had been well amended by the gentleman from Connecticut. The gentleman from South Carolina had since added West Indies, and this brought them to an issue; for it was war or no war.

If the latter amendment was agreed to, he should be for striking out the whole, leaving it general; because, with West Indies in it, it would be particularly pointed.

They had been told of the loss sustained by spoliations, and where it fell. He believed it fell upon the great body of the people of America, and that the fall in the price of produce had been occasioned principally by the British Admiral having forbidden the carrying our provisions to Hispaniola. The British fleet in the West Indies, he said, was supplied with provisions from Ireland, whilst the French depended upon this country for supplies; so that they were our best customers there.

Friday, June 9.

Stephen Bullock, from Massachusetts, appeared, produced his credentials, was qualified, and took his seat.

Defensive Measures.

NAVAL FORCE.

Mr. W. Smith said, he had waived a consideration of the third and fourth resolutions, in order to pass to the fifth, because he thought it was probable the committee would have determined upon arming our merchant vessels; and if so, it might have influenced the votes of members on those; but, as the committee had just decided against arming merchant vessels, he should propose another resolution to the committee. It was well known that the three frigates which had been agreed to be manned, would not be ready for sea for several months; in the mean time there might be occasion for some armed vessels; he should, therefore, submit to them the following resolution:

The Chairman said the resolutions of the gentleman from North Carolina were first in order.

Mr. W. Smith said he had no objection to the proposition of the gentleman from North Carolina, as a part of a plan of defence, but he thought it also necessary to attend to the protection of our commerce.

Mr. Blount said, it was perfectly indifferent to him whether the gentleman from South Carolina considered his plan as a part or the whole of a system. That gentleman had accused those who voted against his proposition, with being unwilling to place the country in a posture of defence. Now, he had voted against, and should continue to vote against, his proposition—but he was willing, notwithstanding (as he believed all those who voted with him were) to put the country in a state of defence. It was his opinion that internal defence only was necessary. He thought the system which he had proposed would be sufficient. When they had adopted this resolution, it might be considered whether any thing more was necessary. He had no idea of creating a naval force for defence; on the contrary, he believed it would be the means of plunging us into fresh difficulties. For this reason, if the resolution he had proposed were passed into a law, he should go home satisfied, with a belief that he had done all that was necessary. And he was convinced that his constituents would believe that he never wanted a disposition to defend his country when in danger.

Mr. W. Smith did not think these propositions could be of any use at present; they would be very proper in case an invasion was apprehended. He thought the principal object, at this time, was to defend our commerce, and thereby secure the revenue arising from it, either by an effectual naval armament, or by an embargo; and he thought he was correct in saying, in reference to this defence, that the gentleman opposed every thing, and proposed nothing. Gentlemen, he said, were very ready to propose things which would cost the public nothing: the militia measure proposed would cost no more than the passing of the law; but, if ever any expense was to be incurred, then all was opposition.

The commerce of the country could not be defended, without calling upon the people for revenue; and he thought those gentlemen who stepped forward to advocate such measures as involved expense, and which were consequently in some degree unpopular, deserved the gratitude of their constituents. He had never hesitated to do this, when he thought it necessary. He should not, however, object to the passing of this proposition; he only rose to say, he did not think it immediately necessary.

Mr. W. Smith called for the reading of a similar resolution passed in 1794; which being read, and a wish expressed that the present might be made conformable to it, Mr. Blount gave his consent; and, after a few observations from Mr. Williams in favor of the resolution, though he denied that it could be carried into effect without expense, the resolution was agreed to.

Saturday, June 17.

A bill was reported forbidding citizens of the United States from entering into the service of any foreign Prince or State in a state of war, which was read twice and committed to a Committee of the Whole on Monday.

Stamp Duties.

Mr. W. Smith, from the Committee of Ways and Means, reported a bill for laying a stamp duty on vellum, parchment, and paper, viz:

The bill was twice read, and ordered to be committed to a Committee of the Whole on Monday.

Wednesday, June 21.

Expatriation.

The Speaker having informed the House that the unfinished business of yesterday, viz: the bill prohibiting citizens of the United States from entering into the military or naval service of any foreign Prince or State, had the priority.

Mr. Gallatin moved to have it postponed, in order to take up the bill respecting an additional naval armament. This motion was supported by Mr. Giles, and opposed by Mr. W. Smith, and negatived, 35 to 34.

The bill respecting foreign service was then taken up, and, on motion of Mr. Havens, it was agreed to leave the time for its taking place a blank.

Mr. Coit moved to strike out the sixth section.

Mr. Sewall hoped it would be struck out. In every country in the world where civil society was established, the citizens of that society owed a certain duty to their Government, which they could not readily get rid of; but they were about to establish a principle to put it in the power of the citizens of the United States, at their will, and without any pretence, to say they would be no longer subject to the Government; and this is at a moment of danger, when citizens of other countries might be called home from this country. He thought this would be extremely wrong; it would be giving an opportunity for insult to our courts and country, and he was sure no nation would show us so much complaisance in return.

Mr. Claiborne thought it no more binding for citizens born in the United States to continue citizens of the United States, than it was for a Roman Catholic or Protestant to continue of that opinion, when he arrived at the years of maturity and could judge for himself. He insisted upon it, men had a natural right to choose under what government they would live; and they had no reason to fear our citizens leaving us whilst our Government was well executed. He did not wish citizens of the United States to be in the situation of subjects of Great Britain, who, though they had left the country forty years ago, were liable to be considered as subjects of that Government. He trusted the rights of man would not be thus infringed, but that they should allow the right of expatriation unclogged.

Mr. Sewall said, there was a great difference between the two cases which the gentleman had stated. A man born and educated in a country certainly owed it obligations, which were not to be shaken off the moment he chose to do so. The different societies of the world, he said, were like so many families independent of each other; and what family, he asked, would suffer any of its members to leave it and go into another when they pleased? He thought it unreasonable that it should be so.

Mr. W. Smith said, that the doctrine of perpetual allegiance was derived from Great Britain, and, though it might be good in theory, was not so in practice. They had departed from many doctrines derived from that country, and the time was come, he believed, for departing from this. The idea of a man being compelled to live in this country, contrary to his will, seemed to be repugnant to our ideas of liberty. He thought when a man was so disgusted with a country as to resolve to leave it, for the purpose of becoming a citizen of another country, he should be at liberty to do so on his complying with certain formalities, and should never again be re-admitted. It was upon this principle that this section is founded, and he thought it valuable.

Mr. S. thought this section essential, as it would be a means of preventing quarrels with foreign countries. For instance, if a citizen of this country took command of a French ship of war, and were to commit hostilities on the property of citizens of the United States, if he were taken he might allege that he was a citizen of the French Republic, and that Government might claim him as such; but if this bill passed, no man could cover himself under this pretence who had not complied with the requisitions in this act. He mentioned the case of Mr. Talbot.

Mr. S. said they held out inducements for persons to come to this country. We did not allow they owed allegiance to any other country after they had become citizens of this. To grant this would be a fatal doctrine to this country. It would be to declare that, in case we were at war with another country, that country might recall persons from this, who formerly came from thence. Many persons of that description were amongst us. At present they enjoy all the benefit of our laws and vote at our elections; and yet, if this doctrine were admitted, these persons might be recalled as aliens; and if they were not recalled, they would be considered as qualified aliens, and not as real citizens.

This law, Mr. S. said, was necessary, as at present there was not sufficient energy in the Government to punish persons serving on board foreign ships of war. This bill would cure the evil, and give an opportunity for turbulent, discontented characters to leave the country for ever. He believed it was the general opinion of the citizens of this country that they had the right to expatriate themselves, and he thought it was now a proper time to pass some regulations on this subject.

Mr. Sitgreaves thought this one of the most delicate and important subjects that ever came before Congress. He saw a number of difficulties, but he thought they were not of a nature to discourage them from considering the bill. He trusted they should meet them with firmness.

The evil, he said, which gave rise to this bill was a great and growing one. In the first war which had taken place in Europe since our independence, they found this doctrine of expatriation, as claimed by our citizens, endangering our peace with a foreign nation, and if this principle were admitted he feared we should always be liable to similar embarrassments.

Mr. S. took notice of the different objections made to this section. He observed there seemed to be much doubt on the subject, which he thought ought to be removed by passing a law of this sort. He wished he could agree in the opinion that no citizen had a right to expatriate himself from this country. He thought it a doctrine essential to the peace of society. He wished it was generally recognized; but he believed the major opinion in this country was different; and, though not directly, it had in a great degree been recognized by the Executive and Judiciary in the cases of Hinfield and Talbot. He feared, therefore, it was too late for them to say the right did not exist. It was time, however, for Congress to declare an opinion on the subject. If the proposition in the bill was not a proper one, it should be made so.

In the State of Virginia this doctrine was legalized, and in the constitution of Pennsylvania it was strongly indicated, as it said "emigration should not be prohibited." It was a favorite idea of a republican Government not to forbid it. He did not agree with the principles of the clause in all its parts. He thought citizens ought not to be allowed to expatriate in time of war, as their assistance would be wanted at home. It was his intention to have moved an amendment allowing expatriation only in the time of peace, and an express provision against it in time of war. He thought the doctrine of the gentleman from Maryland, viz: that our citizens ought to go into other countries to learn the art of war, was chimerical. When they had obtained rank and wealth in a foreign country, it would be in vain to call them back; they would not return. He hoped, therefore, the section would not be struck out, but that they should proceed to amend it.

Mr. N. Smith was sorry that the committee who reported this bill had thought it necessary to report the sixth and seventh sections. The doctrine of expatriation on one hand, and perpetual allegiance on the other, were subjects they had all heard much about; but expatriation, under limitation and restraint, was a new business. From its novelty it became doubtful. This being the case, he wished the subject had been deferred to an ordinary session; particularly as it appeared to be no more connected with other parts of the bill than with many other laws now extant. If we were to have a law on this subject, he should wish to have it in a separate bill. For his part, he could not see how the committee could suppose it to be a part of their duty to report these sections. If he had thought it had, he should not have voted for appointing a committee on the occasion.

Gentlemen advocating these clauses, say they would not allow of expatriation in time of war. He would go further and say he would not allow of it when there was a prospect of war, for it is idle to prohibit it in one case and not in the other. He then asked if this was not the very state in which we now were? If it were, why pass such a bill at this time, when it could not go into operation? He thought this a good reason for rejecting these clauses.

There was a mutual obligation, Mr. S. said, between a Government and all its citizens. The Government owed protection to its citizens, and citizens owed obedience to their Government. These duties were mutual and co-extensive; and they might as well say that Government could abandon its citizens when it pleased as that citizens could desert their Government when they pleased. Yet he would allow that Government might, on certain occasions, legalize expatriation, but not on the ground of a citizen's having a right to expatriate when he pleased. He should have no objection to take up the subject at a time when they could do justice to it, but he thought the present was not that time.

The question for striking out the 6th section was put and carried, 45 to 41.

The committee accordingly rose, and the House took up the amendments. Having come to that part for striking out the 6th and 7th sections,

Mr. Dent called for the yeas and nays, which were agreed to be taken.

Mr. Venable said, it seemed to be admitted that a right of expatriation existed in our citizens; and if so, he thought there should be some mode of exercising that right. He had no particular objection to the mode marked out in these clauses. It had been said this was not the proper time; but he thought it was, since it was in some degree connected with the present bill. The gentleman from Connecticut had stated allegiance and protection to be mutual. He did not think they were so, to the extent which he stated. This Government was not bound to protect citizens who went into foreign service, as in doing so they chose the protection of another Government.

Mr. Harper asked for an instance in which the Executive and Judiciary had countenanced the doctrine of expatriation.

Mr. W. Smith, in answer to his colleague, produced the case of Talbot, and the opinion given by the Secretary of State and the Judiciary Court, on that occasion, in favor of the right of expatriation.

Mr. Giles thought there could not be a doubt in the minds of Americans on the subject of expatriation. Indeed, he said, this was the foundation of our Revolution; for they were not now to be told they owed allegiance to a foreign country. It had not only been the ground of the Revolution, but all their acts had been predicated upon this principle. He referred to the act respecting the rights of naturalization, which makes every new citizen swear to support the Constitution of the United States, and to renounce all other allegiance.

Mr. Gallatin was opposed to these sections. With respect to expatriation, having himself exercised the right, he could not be supposed to be opposed to that right. Perpetual allegiance was too absurd a doctrine to find many advocates in this country. The question was not whether citizens had a right to expatriate, but whether they should in this law prescribe a mode of doing it. The right seemed to have been recognized by the Executive and Judiciary. He was against going into this business, because he thought it unnecessary. He believed the determination of who were citizens, and who were not, might be safely left with the Judiciary. He had also his doubts whether the United States had a right to regulate this matter, or whether it should not be left to the States, as the constitution spoke of the citizens of the States. It was a doubtful matter, and ought to undergo a full discussion. The emigrants from this country to foreign countries were trifling; but from ten to twelve thousand of our citizens had gone to Canada, and upwards of five thousand beyond the Mississippi, four thousand of whom would be got back by the running of the lines. A number of these men hold lands in the United States; some have sold their lands and become citizens under another Government. This subject would, therefore, require considerable deliberation at a future day. He wished the amendment of the Committee of the Whole to be adopted.

Mr. Sitgreaves confirmed his former statement, with respect to the question of the right of expatriation having been settled by the Judiciary. In order to do this, he read a note from one of the counsel in the cases of Henfield and Talbot, giving an account of the opinions of the court on the occasion.

Mr. Sewall insisted upon the policy of preventing the renunciation of allegiance, without control. The Treaty of Peace with Great Britain, he said, had dissolved our allegiance to that country, and acknowledged our independence.

Mr. Giles believed the evil apprehended from individuals having the right to expatriate themselves when they pleased, was more imaginary than real. Only two citizens had taken advantage of that right in the State of Virginia, where it was allowed in all its extent, in twelve years. But if there were any citizens so detached from the Government as to wish to leave the country, he should wish them gone. To suppose this, would be to suppose a real division between the people and Government, which he did not believe had existence. It was said Great Britain did not allow the doctrine of expatriation; but, he said, she had not any naturalization law. He was in favor of excluding citizens who once expatriated themselves from ever returning to this country.

Mr. Otis said, that when this bill was first reported, these clauses struck him unfavorably; but a little reflection had convinced him of the propriety of retaining them. The passing of this provision, he said, would not affect the constitutional right with respect to expatriation, whatever it might be. This bill did not relate to persons emigrating into the Spanish or English territories, but to persons expatriating themselves, and engaging in the service of foreign countries.

The question on agreeing to the reports of the Committee of the Whole to reject the sixth and seventh sections of the bill was taken, and stood—yeas 34, nays 57.

All the amendments having been gone through, Mr. S. Smith moved to postpone the further consideration of the bill till the first Monday in November.

This motion was supported by Messrs. Varnum, N. Smith, Baldwin, Goodrich, and Coit, as involving a question of too delicate and important a nature to be passed over in this hasty manner, and because there was no pressing necessity to go into the measure at present.

It was opposed by Messrs. Otis, Williams, W. Smith, and Craik, on the ground of the provision of the bill being necessary, and that to postpone the business, after so ample a discussion, would be undoing what they had been doing for two or three days.

The question for postponement was taken, and decided in the affirmative—yeas 52, nays 44.

The bill being thus lost, Mr. W. Smith proposed a resolution to the House for appointing a committee to report a new bill without the two last clauses, which, it was evident, had been the cause of the negative given to the bill. As he supposed no opposition would be made to the bill so reported, it might be got through without loss of time.

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

Thursday, June 22.

Expatriation.

Mr. W. Smith called up the resolution which he yesterday laid upon the table, for appointing a committee to bring in a bill for prohibiting citizens of the United States entering on board foreign ships of war, without the expatriating clauses.

This resolution was opposed by Messrs. Baldwin, Giles, and Venable, and supported by the mover and Mr. Harper. It was negatived—49 to 46.

Depredations on Commerce.

A message was received from the President of the United States, of which the following is a copy, with the titles of the documents accompanying it: