Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB
[blocks in formation]

ought to be gradually admitted to the rights of citizens; and that a residence for a certain time should entitle them to hold property; but that the higher privileges of citizens, such as electing, or being elected into office, should require a longer term; permitting these rights to be assumed, and exercised at a shorter period, would not operate as any inducement to persons to emigrate; as the great object of emigration is generally with the view of procuring a more comfortable subsistence, or to better the circumstances of the individuals; the exercise of particular privileges was but a secondary consideration. He then observed, that it might be good policy to admit foreigners to purchase and hold lands in fee simple, without ever coming to America; it would, perhaps, facilitate the borrowing of money of Europeans, if they could take mortgages, and be secure. One State (Pennsylvania) had granted this liberty to aliens, and they have experienced no inconvenience therefrom; he wished Congress to pass a similar law, and was convinced it would not be dishonorable.

[FEBRUARY, 1790.

proper, before an alien should be eligible to an office under the General Government, they might; but after they have admitted a foreigner to citizenship, he did not believe they were authorized to except him, for two years more, from being capable of election, or appointment to any office, Legislative, Executive, or Judicial, under the State Governments, provided the State laws or constitutions admit him at a shorter period. Nor did he believe Congress could admit foreigners to such privilege so early as two years in States requiring a longer term of probation. He had. however, no objection to foreigners being admitted to hold property, without any previous residence ; but he did not like the idea of admitting them to a participation in the Government, without a residence sufficiently long to enable them to understand their duty. As the bill was not satisfactory to his mind, in its present form, he would vote for a recommitment.

Mr. JACKSON had an objection to any persons holding land in the United States without residence, and an intention of becoming a citizen; Mr. STONE gave it as his opinion, that a person, under such a regulation the whole Western Terwho meant to qualify himself for becoming a citi-ritory might be purchased up by the inhabitants zen of the United States, ought to take the oath of residence and allegiance within six months, and be thereupon entitled to hold property; but that he should not be capable of holding an office, or electing others into one, for seven years.

Mr. BURKE.-Unless some residence is required, it may be attended with confusion. In large cities, like Boston, New York, or Philadelphia, an election may be carried by the votes of the body of sailors who happened to be in port. If the French fleet was here at such a time, and a spirit of party strongly excited, perhaps one of the candidates might get the crews of every ship in the fleet, and after qualifying them, by taking an oath of no definite meaning, carry them up to the hustings, and place himself or his friend on this floor, contrary to the voice of nine-tenths of the city. Even a residence of one year is too short, it ought to be two, three, or four; but seven is too long. Indeed, the whole of this bill seems somehow objectionable; there are some cases also omitted, which may show the necessity of recommitting it.

The case of the children of American parents born abroad ought to be provided for, as was done in the case of English parents, in the 12th year of William III. There are several other cases that ought to be likewise attended to.

Mr. PAGE had given his sentiments yesterday, and was clearly against throwing any obstacles in the way of good men desirous of becoming citizens.

Mr. LEE did not approve of the motion; but was in favor of as short a term as would be consistent, because he apprehended it would tend considerably to encourage emigration.

Mr. SENEY thought Congress had no right to intermeddle with the regulations of the several States, while prescribing a rule of naturalization. If they were disposed to say that two, three, or four years' residence in the United States was

of England, France, or other foreign nations; the landholders might combine, and send out a large tenantry, and have thereby such an interference in the Government as to overset the principles upon which it is established. It will be totally subversive of the old established doctrine, that allegiance and land go together; a person owing no allegiance to a Sovereign, ought not to hold lands under its protection, because he cannot be called upon and obliged to give that support which invasion or insurrection may render necessary. But, with respect to residence and probation, before an alien is entitled to the privilege of voting at elections, I am very clear it is necessary; unless gentlemen mean to render the rank of an American citizen the maygame of the world. Shall stories be told of our citizenship. such as I have read in the Pennsylvania Magazine of the citizenship there? If my memory serves me right, the story runs, that at a contested election in Philadelphia, when parties ran very high, and no stone was left unturned, on either side, to carry the election, most of the ships in the harbor were cleared of their crews, who, ranged under the masters and owners, came before a Magistrate, took the oath of allegiance, and paid half a crown tax to the collector, as the Constitution required, then went and voted, and decided the contest of the day. On the return of one of the vessels, whose crew had been employed in the affair of the election, they fell in with a shoal of porpoises off Cape Henlopen. "Ha!" said one of them, "what merry company have we got here! I wonder where they are going so cheerfully ?" "Going," replied one of his comrades, "why, going to Philadelphia, to be sure, to pay taxes, and vote for Assemblymen!" I hope, Mr. Chairman, we have more respect for our situations, as citizens. than to expose ourselves to the taunts and jeers of a deriding world, by making that situation too cheap.

[blocks in formation]

Mr. SMITH, of South Carolina, admitted the propriety of recommitting the bill; but he wished some principles to be first established for the direction of the committee; for, at present, he was at a loss to conceive what was the prevailing opinion. Many gentlemen had suggested new ideas, which occasioned new difficulties; he hoped they would settle and remove some of them before they rose. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. SENEY) has observed, that we have no right to declare upon what terms an alien shall be admitted to the offices of the State Governments; the same argument extends also to the voters. This opinion opens a new field of argument, and entirely changes the system; it ought, therefore, to be decided. For his part, he was of opinion, that an uniform rule of naturalization would extend to make a uniform rule of citizenship pervade the whole Continent, and decide the right of a foreigner to be admitted to elect, or be elected, in any of the States.

He would suggest another idea for consideration. What is to become of those inchoate rights of citizenship, which are not yet completed? Can the Government, by an ex post facto law, deprive an alien of the advantage of such an inchoate right? Mr. SENEY.-The gentleman last up has different ideas of the jurisdiction of the United States from me. He believes we have not only the power of prescribing the qualifications of our own officers, but the officers of every State in the Union; but I conceive, with respect to the latter, we have nothing to do. We can go no further than to prescribe the rule by which it can be determined who are, and who are not citizens; but we cannot say they shall be entitled to privileges in the different States which native citizens are not entitled to, until they have performed the conditions annexed thereto.

Mr. BURKE said, no person ought to be permitted to inherit by descent, in America, unless the same privilege was reciprocated by other nations; perhaps this point would be properly settled by treaty, and it would be well to introduce a provisionary clause to this effect. He was also in favor of admitting foreigners to hold lands on easy terms, if they would come to reside among us; and here he would take an opportunity of doing justice to some of them, as it might be supposed, from what had fallen from various parts of the House, that foreigners, educated under a Monarchy, were inimical to the pure principles of Republicanism. He was convinced that this doc. trine was untrue, because he had often remarked that foreigners made as good citizens of Republics as the natives themselves. Frenchmen, brought up under an absolute Monarchy, evinced their love of liberty in the late arduous struggle; many of them are now worthy citizens, who esteem and venerate the principles of our Revolution. Emigrants from England, Ireland, and Scotland, have not been behind any in the love of this country; so there is but little occasion for the jealousy which appears to be entertained for the preservation of the Government.

Mr. CLYMER observed, that though Congress

[H. OF R.

have authority to make a uniform rule of naturalization throughout the States, yet it was not true that it would apply with equal advantage to them all; that it might be proper every where, indeed, that aliens should be admitted, early, to the inferior rights of citizens, but that it would be unsuitable they should be admitted to the higher privileges at the same period, in all the States, however differently circumstanced. In States newly formed, it might be useful to fix a short period; but in the old States, fully peopled, he did not think the longest which had been mentioned too great; for this reason he thought the power of naturalizing should be referred to the States, to make such provision as they pleased, and therefore approved the recommitment; but not till the House had passed on to a following clause, which respects the objects of the bill. When that came under consideration, he thought it might be both a generous and wise policy to make an easy way to the return of those, with exception to one character only, who had been once citizens of the United States, and who would, many of them, gladly again become so; he meant the refugees, who were adding to the wealth and strength of a Power no ways friendly to us, and are actually injuring some of the States by the rivalship they create in the fisheries.

Mr. TUCKER thought the bill must be recommitted; but he did not wish it done till the sense of the House was known on some of the various points that had presented themselves during the debate. With respect to the latter part of the first clause, he agreed with the gentleman from Maryland, (Mr. SENEY,) that we ought to provide a rule of naturalization, without attempting to define the particular privileges acquired thereby under the State Governments. By the Constitution of the United States, the electors of the House of Representatives are to have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State Legislatures. He presumed it was to be left to the discretion of the State constitutions, who were to be the electors of the State Legislatures, and therefore the General Government had no right to interfere therein. The motion he had made for striking out the words, "and shall have resided within the United States for one whole year," not coming up to, or sufficiently explaining his wishes, he would withdraw, and propose to new model the clause, so as to allow aliens to be admitted to so much of the rights of citizenship as to be able to hold lands, upon taking the necessary oaths; but not to elect, or be elected, to any office under the General Government, until they had resided three years within the United States; with a proviso, that the titles to real estates should not be valid, unless they continued to reside for the term of three years in America.

Mr. HARTLEY observed, that the subject was entirely new, and that the committee had no positive mode to enable them to decide; the practice of England, and the regulations of the several States, threw some light on the subject, but not sufficient to enable them to discover what plan of

[blocks in formation]

naturalization would be acceptable under a Government like this. Some gentlemen had objected to the bill, without attending to all its parts, for a remedy was therein provided for some of the inconveniences that had been suggested. It was said, the bill ought to extend to the exclusion of those who had trespassed against the laws of foreign nations, or been convicted of a capital offence in any foreign kingdom; the last clause contains a proviso to that effect, and he had another clause ready to present, providing for the children of American citizens born out of the United States.

Mr. LIVERMORE thought the bill very imperfect, and that the committee ought to rise, and recommend it to be referred to a select committee; observing, that it was extremely difficult for fifty or sixty persons to arrange and make a system of a variety of motions and observations that had been brought forward.

[FEBRUARY, 1790.

He observed, that an enumeration, such as would be competent to equalize the representation, ought to be made previous to the next election. This, he said, the people expected, on the title of right and justice; and the Constitution had provided for it ; nor will the people, who think themselves not fully represented, be content without enjoying that weight and influence in the Legislature to which they conceive they are entitled. He then read the proposition, which he intended to offer as a clause to be incorporated in the bill, when it shall be committed to a Committee of the Whole.

Mr. JACKSON said there would not be sufficient time allowed to complete the enumeration; and objected to it, particularly as it proposed the President of the United States shall determine the census of the inhabitants, from the returns he may receive from the Marshals and the ratio of representation on those returns.

Mr. SEDGWICK was in favor of the committee Mr. SMITH, of South Carolina, said that he obrising. He did not recollect an instance wherein jected to the proposition, as he thought it did not gentlemen's ideas had been so various as on this allow a sufficient time for the returns to be made. occasion; motions and observations were piled on He then mentioned the several periods that must the back of each other, and the committee, from probably elapse, before the business of enumerathe want of understanding the subject, had in- tion could be completed. From which it appearvolved themselves in a wilderness of matter, outed, that the object of the motion cannot be effectof which he saw no way to extricate themselves but by the rising of the committee.

Mr. SMITH, of South Carolina, as a member of the Committee of the Whole, wished to take his share of the blame for not understanding the subject; but he thought, nevertheless, that some of the points suggested had been so fully discussed, as to enable them to decide, particularly with respect to residence.

Mr. PAGE did not approve of the rising of the committee, until they had expressed their sense on the point they had had so long under consideration.

Mr. SYLVESTER thought it neither for the honor nor interest of the United States to admit aliens to the rights of citizenship indiscriminately; he was clearly in favor of a term of probation, and that their good behaviour should be vouched for. He suggested the idea of lodging the power of admitting foreigners to be naturalized in the District Judges.

Mr. SEDGWICK meant to blame no gentleman, and hoped no gentleman understood him to intend such a thing. He conceived himself as much in fault as any member, because he had not yet turned his attention so seriously to the subject as he ought.

On the question being put, the committee rose and reported, and the bill was recommitted to a committee of ten.

CENSUS BILL.

The House resumed the consideration of the bill for the actual enumeration of the inhabitants of the United States, when a motion was made to recommit this bill.

ed in such a manner as to make any alteration in the next election proper.

Mr. WHITE pointed out the difficulties that would result from such a measure, as some of the States had passed laws to regulate the time of elections; and, he presumed, that the Legislature never would delegate to any man, or men, the power of determining the ratio of repre

sentation.

Mr. LAWRENCE said he had no objection to recommit the bill. It appeared to him that the rule of representation ought to be determined, previous to ascertaining the number of inhabitants, as, in all probability, that rule would be adopted with less prejudice and partiality, while the contingencies that may affect it are not known.

Mr. JACKSON said he thought this suggestion was an artifice, covered, however, with too thin a veil not to be seen through, it was too unsubstantial to support itself; that point has been already settled by the Constitution. He recited the clause that particularly pointed out the number of Representatives each State is entitled to elect, previous to any actual enumeration; the Constitution, therefore, plainly directs an enumeration before the ratio of a future representation

shall be settled.

Mr. SMITH, of South Carolina, said that the ratio of representation was already proposed by Congress, in the amendments sent out to the Legislatures. He, therefore, hoped that nothing would be done to impede the progress and ratification of those amendments.

Mr. SEDGWICK said that when he introduced the proposition, he supposed it was founded upon such fair and equal principles that he did not anMr. SEDGWICK adverted to the present rate of ticipate the smallest objection would have been representation of the several States in Congress, made by any gentleman whatever. The propoin which the most palpable inequality reigned. | sition was simply this, that justice should be done;

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

Remission of Fines.

that a more equal representation should be attempted and effected. If inequalities do exist, and it is very evident they do, can any gentleman object to a remedy?

The motion for recommitting the bill to a Committee of the Whole was put, and carried in the affirmative.

FRIDAY, February 5.

REMISSION OF FINES.

The House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the bill to provide for the remission or mitigation of fines, forfeitures, and penalties, in certain cases, Mr. BALDWIN in the Chair.

The clause provides:

"That whenever any person liable to fine or penalty, or subject to forfeiture, shall petition before judgment is rendered, and offer to confess judgment for the same, the judge, with the district attorney, or marshal, may inquire, in a summary manner, into the truth of the allegations in the petition, and if it appears to them that the fine, &c., was incurred inadvertently, or by casualty, and without fraud, or intent to evade the law, the same may be admitted; saving to the informer, or person seizing the propriety, the right they have acquired."

Mr. GOODHUE said, this law would put the man in a worse situation than if left to his chance upon the action; for if he confessed judgment, he must lose half his property. It was common, he believed, to extend mercy after conviction.

Mr. LIVERMORE moved to strike out the words, "offering to confess judgment for the same."

[H. of R.

himself upon the mercy of the court, and afterwards hung him.

Mr. WADSWORTH stated a case to show that this law would render the situation of persons designed to be relieved by it much worse than it now is; and would eventually tend to injure the coasting trade.

Mr. LAWRENCE observed, that persons absolutely violating the laws, whether intentionally or through ignorance, would, by process of law, as it now stands, be precluded from all relief. He insisted, therefore, that it was necessary this confession of judgment should accompany the application for relief, in cases designed to be provided for by the bill; without this confession the application would appear to be absurd. He was, therefore, opposed to the motion for striking out the words.

Mr. SMITH thought that the person would be better off to take his chance at law, as was observed by the gentleman from Massachusetts; for, in that case, he would have an opportunity of throwing the burden of the proof on his adversary; he would have the benefit of counsel, and a trial by jury, besides the interlocutory trials arising from a misnomer, &c. He therefore conceived this part of the bill not consonant with the title, for his idea of giving relief was, that the person's case should be better and not worse.

stated by the gentleman from South Carolina, (Mr. BURKE,) he thought, was very pertinent.

Mr. STURGIS said, he did not conceive the relief proposed to be administered ought to be considered in the light of mercy, but justice. The mode of relief pointed out in the bill, however the circumstances may appear, leaves the Mr. AMES said, he was indifferent whether the sufferer in a situation that no person ought to be words in the clause were retained or struck out. liable to who is not guilty of a violation of the He wished, however, that the principles of the laws intentionally or wilfully, for he is, at any bill might be well understood. That a strict ad-rate, to lose one-half of his property. The case herence to rule, even if it should sometimes be attended with rigor, he conceived to be a less evil than a lax mode of executing the laws; that it may be considered as a great grievance to have frequent recourse to qualified interpretations of the laws. With respect to the revenue, it must strike every person, that a certain rule ought to be maintained in all possible cases; nevertheless, fines, penalties, and forfeitures, may be incurred in such a manner as may entitle to relief. The object of the bill, he said, was to grant such relief, with the least risk of injuring the revenue, and in such a mode, as that the person offending may receive it as soon as possible.

Mr. SEDGWICK was in favor of the motion, and endeavored to demonstrate the injustice of requiring a confession previous to granting relief, as it would violate the feelings of a person conscious of his innocence, besides subjecting him, inevitably, to the forfeiture of one-half of his property.

Mr. BURKE was for striking out the whole clause; because it held up a temptation for a man to accuse himself, which was contrary to every principle of law. It put him in mind of a story of the notorious Judge Jeffries, who advised a man to confess himself guilty, and to throw

Mr. FITZSIMONS said, he hoped, if those words were struck out, that the whole clause would be erased, and that a more equitable mode would be pointed out. He adverted to the practice in England, where, after a trial, application for relief is made to the commissioners.

Mr. WADSWORTH said, it seemed to be supposed that the revenue laws were sufficiently plain to be understood; but he conceived this was not the case, because the collectors at the several ports had put different constructions upon them.

Mr. AMES observed, that he had no doubt that when the committee possessed themselves with a more competent knowledge of the operation and tendency of the bill, it would meet with approbation. With respect to the offender losing the half of his property on confession, he observed, that this inconveniency might be prevented by the person filing his petition previous to information being laid by the person seizing the property. And that, he said, he would always have it in his power to do.

Mr. STONE said, there were two considerations with respect to this measure; the first was, whether such a discretionary power ought to be

[blocks in formation]

trusted any
where or not; because it might do a
greater injury to the revenue than benefit to the
individual; and, second, whether, if such a trust
was necessary, it had not better be made a judi-
cial right than leave it to an arbitrary determina-
tion, independent of the principles of law? He
hoped these two points would be considered
before the bill was decided upon.

Mr. SCOTT objected to the bill, upon the grounds already mentioned by other gentlemen; but he had one further reason for disliking it: it was this that after a man had been convicted by the verdict of a jury, of a breach of the law, he might avail himself of this act, because it admitted the petition to be presented at any time before judgment is rendered; so the offender might have his petition ready in his pocket, to present to the bench immediately after he had heard the decision of the jury.

The motion for striking out the words being put, was carried in the affirmative, and the committee rose, and reported the bill as amended; whereupon it was ordered to be re-committed to a Select Committee.

MONDAY, February 8.

The memorial of Robert Morris, desiring an investigation into his conduct as Superintendent of Finance, was presented and referred, with a request that it might be entered at length on the Journal. A copy of this memorial appears in the Appendix to this volume.

Mr. GOODHUE presented a petition from sundry inhabitants of Salem, stating, that through a very particular construction of a section in the coasting law, vessels owned by the citizens of the United States, and, as they thought, properly qualified as such, had been obliged to pay the alien duty in some of the Southern States, and praying a relief or a refund of the duty so paid. Laid on the table.

CENSUS BILL.

On motion of Mr. SEDGWICK, the Committee of the Whole House was discharged from any further discussion of the bill providing for the actual enumeration of the inhabitants of the United States.

It was then voted that the blanks in the bill should be filled up.

The first blank respected the time to be allowed for completing the enumeration; six, four, and three months were proposed.

Mr. SEDGWICK said, that as so long a time is to elapse before the assistants are to enter upon the business, the work of preparation would be completed in such a manner that he conceived three, two, or even one month would be sufficient.

[FEBRUARY, 1790.

turned, it cannot be supposed that those States who have not completed theirs should acquiesce in any regulations and establishments founded on so imperfect a statement.

Mr. BURKE was in favor of allowing the longest period, on account of the great variety of obstacles and impediments in the way of completing the

enumeration within so short a time, even as six months; and the census, when returned in so incomplete a state, could not be supposed satisfactory; it would create uneasiness, and might terminate in absolute injustice.

Mr. JACKSON adverted to the peculiar circumstances of the Southern States, particularly Geor gia, and the recent accession of the State of North Carolina to the Union, the extensiveness of the territory of those States, and the dispersed situation of their inhabitants, and contended that six months would be but a short time in which to complete the business.

Mr. MADISON observed, that the situation of the several States was so various, that the difficulty of adopting a plan for effecting the business, upon terms that would give general satisfaction, could only be obviated by allowing sufficient time. Some of the States have been accustomed to take the enumeration of their citizens, others have never done it at all. To the former, the business will be easy, and may be completed within the shortest period; in the others, it will be attended with unforeseen difficulties. In addition to these, there is

another consideration to be taken into view.

There must be a greater number of assistants employed in the Southern States; there are many contingencies that cannot be provided against; the assistants may die and leave the business unfinished; it may be necessary to appoint others, The returns from so many persons, from such extensive districts, will require such a length of time as leaves no probability that it can be completed in a shorter period than three months.

Mr. SEDGWICK said, he did not wish to precipi tate the business. The equalising the representation ought to be a matter of serious concern to every gentleman; it was peculiarly so to the delegation from those States who are so unequally represented; he wished for a full and competent enumeration, and was for allowing full time to complete it in. But there did not appear to him any force in the objection raised from the contingency of the death of the assistants; the longer the period was, there certainly was the greater probability of such events. And he was clearly of opinion, that extending the period would not conduce to obtaining, finally, so accurate an enumeration.

The question being taken on "six months,” it was carried in the affirmative.

The other blanks in the bill were filled it passed the House.

up,

and

Mr. WHITE said, that he was certain, that in many of the States, two, three, or four months would be found short enough to complete the enumeration in those States. In the Eastern States the business might be finished in a much shorter period; but when the time shall be elapsed that is allowed by law, and the enumeration is completed tee of the Whole on the state of the Union. The The House then resolved itself into a Commitin some of the States, and the numbers fully re-report of the Secretary of the Treasury relative

PUBLIC CREDIT.

« ZurückWeiter »