The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1807-01-22

rccogniance tor any offence IN one or more
furetiss he may commit. IF afterwards he
goes into foreign country, and there Airs up
an infurreetion, aud on that ground his bond is
forfeited--hs bondfmen, without expecting it,
will become amenable for his conduct in this
foreign country. This, he thought. ought Hot
to be. He believed every valuable purpo!e
OF the bill would be anfwered without this pro-
whom.
Mr.. DANA faid this new feetion propofcd
giving contribution 20 the keeping of .he
peace, and to make it mean fomething, which
il never meant before, and that in all cafes
whatever It fhould have the broad meaning pro-
poied to be given it-that rccognifance for
keeping the peace of the y. S. ihallbe forfeited
for acts that neither break the peace of the u.
S. or violate any law of the land. The offence
therein ftated could rot be punfhed under any
exiting ltatutc OF the u. S. inaimuch as it
would not be committed within the jurifdietion
of the u. S. or againlt any law OF the U. S.
According to it-any man who fhal go into
foreign iervice or accept commiffion from
foreign power will violate his recognifance. 1t
went therefore to create new offence. Mr.. d.
faid he was not willing to fport in this way with
principles hitherto deemed facrcd. If thefe
acts arc wrong, pats Ratute for their puniih-
mcnt.
MIR. BIDWELL faid gentlemen objected to
this provilion, becaufe the act, by which the
recognifance will be forfeited, was not in the
contemplation Of furetes when they entered
into bond. He underfood that recognifance
for keeping the peace was in it's nature general,
and that any breach Of the peace operated as
forfeiture. The commiifion of any crime a.
gant the u. 5. within the u. S. would work
forfeiture, the doing of either of the acts emu
merated in this bill would be violation of the
recognifance. The recognifance is general, to
do nothing to violate the peace of the u. S.
Mr.. B. faid he would admit if theie acts were
done out Of the limits OF the u. S. they could
not at prsient be conGdered in legal efimation
az againf the peace of the u. S. If this were
the cafe, there would be no necefYity for the
propelled provifion. The object of the amend
ment was to extend to this clafs of acts, com.
mitted without the U. S. provifions calculated
to refrain their commffion, and fimiar to thoie
now applicable to like offences committed
within the U. S. As to the difficulty figgefted
OF taking cogDifance of offences not commit
ted within the u. S. there could not he aporc-
hended, be any fold objection. Was not piracy
pnniihable under the laws of the u. S. and
yet it was not committed within the jurifdc-
ton of the u. Sit was committed on the
high feas. So with regard to the clafs OF often
Geo which it was the object of this fiction to
guard againft, 10 far as they went to violate the
peace ofthe VI
Mr.. SLOAN was of opinion that the bill
would be incomplete without fuch proyiion
as that which was offered II had been remark
ed that it interfered with the right of expatria-
tion--No one was more averie TO infringing
this right than he was. But nc did not view It
in this light. He could not con.idcr perfon
bound over to his good behavior in the light
of freeman a. liberty to do what he pieaied
with himfelf. Without giving fecurity he
would be nee e6arily committed to prifon and
De coniequently deprived OF his liberty and
while under recosnifaHce, although he gave
tecurity, he was Till to DC confidered in the
light OF cuiprit, amenable to law, and not pof-
tefied ofthe right to expatriate himfelf
MR. DWIGHT faid the remarks of the een-
tleman from Ncw-Ycrk + Mr.. Williams did
net apply to the point under confederation.
Would rcco:nifance entered into in Connec-
ticut be forfeited by any acts committed in
New-York, in cafe the perfon recognized in the
former fate fhould remove to the latter So.
in the cafe of perfon bound not to commit
acts within the U. S. acts committed by hin,
afterwards againit foreign government could
not be punifhed in the US. IF gentlemen viit,
to make offences againR foreign nations punifl.a.
bic, LEI them make ftatute to that effea, and
declare that our citizens fhall keep the peace,
not only in the u. S. but alto with regard to
.SiS'Su Outt udO DcSU aiic0gSQ
that the offence, to be provided againh, was
moral offence. Were they therefore to puniii,
1T! As yet the moral law was not enacted un-
der the contribution.
Mr.. N. WILLIAMS faid he agreed with the
honorable gentleman from Connecticut (Mr.
Dwight that according to exiting laws in the
tate which he in part repreiented, citizen can
be bound to his good behaviour or to keep the
peace, in the fate only. And he acknowledge
ed, that although b. the laws of the u. S.
there is 40 power at preient veited in the courts
or magistrates, TO regulate in the manner pro-
profed, the conduit of its citizeno out of it's
iurifdcfion yet no one would deny that laws
might be enaded to refrain them by proper
obligations, from attempting injuries to foreign
nations, as well as from violations OF the in
ternal peace OF this country. And If he un-
derGood right the propofed amendment, it's
ohjeet is TO prevent our citizens from commit
ting hoRile a6s againit countries with which
we are at peace. But gentlemen fay, fuch of
fences are not puniihabie by our laws. Sup
pofe il is 70. And isit not better, if pofbIe,
TO refrain offences, than to punini them, after
the evils arifing from them are already expert
enced? MIR. w. thought it was. IL there was
no law to punilh, let there be one to prevent
thefe offences.
MR. DANA fid the right of the govern
ment to prevent any thing they could not pun
in was not admitted, nor was it admiffble,
as the one right was founded on the other.
The objection to this fe6tion was this--that it