The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1814-01-29
CONGRESS.
EXPATRIATION.
HOUSE OF sENTArIvEs,


Mr.. Eppes of Virginia, presented the pc
tition of Tarlton Wo EDISON which was re
terred to the committee on Revolutionary
claims.
DEBATES ON REPATRIATION!
Mr.. Robertson rose to. ,ffer resolution
to the House. He SAID it had always struck
him as singular that there was nothing in
the constitution or the law which points out
the manner in which. one of the most i'm
portant rights belonging to man in his social
character, is to be exercised--he meant the
right OF repatriation Some provision on
this subject had become important from cir
eumst ances which have lately occurred, *
tue more so because of the doctrines affect.
ing IT which have recently been preached in
the nation, and which but few years ago
would have b. en- secuted by all parties. Whe-
ther the ri,ht was denied or admitted, il
was important that the question was settled.
As far as the subject has been before, the
People IF the United States the opinions
have been various and contradictory as
tar as it has been bef1ye the courts, they
have decided that The right Of expatriation
does not exis,--and decision more contra
ry to the spirit OF the constitution never
was given in any court or The Unite d States.
lie alluded to the familiar case of Isaac
Williams, decided before Judge Ellsworth
of Connecticut. The disposition of the Le-
10
was favorable to the right of repatriation.
1t was time that some definite decision
should take place in relation to it. la draft
ing the resolution, he had gene upon the
ground that the right of repatriation was
clear, natural and unalienabe. and requir--
ed no legal provision to fortify It otherwise
than by prescribing the manner in which it
shall be exercised. He admitted that the
constitution of the United States did not di
tu fcrl,s
thousand other rights which we exercise in
society. 1t did not in terms give the right
20 move beyond the horizon which bounds
our view: but no man doubts the right.
The constitution, however, does ilnpliedly
give the right of e1patrati, n. 1t gives a
right to the citizens of other countries to
come into the United States and be natu
ralized--a righ5 which cannot be given or
admitted by any community that denies the
= ht Of expatriation. Mr.. Il. said he Gid
not wish this inportant question 10 rest
merely on inference. he WISHED that every
citizen Rght have II in his power TO turn to
the stltute books of the country and shew
explicitly, when lie thinks proper 20 expa-
triate, THAI he has awaited himself uf the
RICH, in the manner prescribed by law. It
iced no, excite any alarm, that our citizens
VIII too freely avail them elves of the pri
vilege. The bes5 way OF keeping our c;ti
happy. Odinus must be the government or
Laws whica make man wiling to leave his
Caanlry. But 1Wnen, if ever, his country
de rlves hun of lis rights, of every thing
desirable To man, let US not make that coun
try ms prison, but give him the power of ie-
gaiiy removing himself from beneath its
control. With these observations Mr.. r..
submitted the following resolution
ResotUed, That a committee be appoint
;NfO he ~
ding by law foe the exercise OF the right of
expatriatisn. and that they have leave to
report by bill or otherwise.
MIR Oakley of n Y. made some remarks
which we're not very distinctly heard. He
said, however, that the resolution embraced
. question at any time Interesting, and par
ticularly so at this time. How far the right
Of repatriation ought TO be extended was a
question of great Importance. When 1t was
considered also that negotiation was pend
ing with foreign power, in which this princi-
pie was involved & when it was considered
that the government might find it necessary
to make concessions on this point, and to re-
strict naturalization, it became important to
approach the question with much circum-
spection. 1t was a well known fact, not
cnly from the decision whichlt the gentleman
had quoted, but from her circumstances of
publ notoriety, that there was d difference
OF opinion NhCibSI Vic iibill VI laLiOb
does exist. Not only ia a general point of
view, but from the particular circumstance
in which the Uated States are placed, thig
question was very important. The adoption
OF resolution of this kind, to appoint q
committee Of enquiry into the expediency
OF providing by law the mode Of expNtria-
ton, might perhaps be considered as estab
fishing the principle e the right--which
ought not thus hastily to be settled. lie
moved that the resolution lie on the table.
MIR. Grundy of Tenn said he had endea-
vored to get the floor to make a similar mo-
ton to that made BY The gentleman from n.
York. However clear tie right, however
willing he might be to 20 with the mover
he SAID the time appeared to him not to be
well selected for agi'ating this subj ct. 1t
involved questions of e eat dclicscy as to
foreign nations--H miShtit not be fores,all-
ing in part the very arrangements which may
be made by treaty On this subject Mr. &.
wished this resolution to lie on the table &
unless his mind should change, Re SHOULD
not vote to take it up sga'n during the ses-
sion Whether or not IT should DC adopted
was certainly a matter requiring mceh eau
tion aud deli6eration.
Mr.. Robertson said the adoption Of the
resolution by no means compromised the
House to any principle v hateyer. The gen.
tlemen who had spoken appeared 70 him to
have misunderstood the effect Of the re ou-
ton, when they appeared ODE alarmed lest
the passage ct he resolution should have
some bearing on e.. Britain or other foreign