The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1814-01-29


this law and the measure he alluded o sbut
the doubt was sufficient to induce hesitate
on. Believing as he did, that this PROPOSE.
| non had an important and critical bearing.
l5oih as regards the rights of the citizen and
as respects pending neg cations. he hoped
! It would be laid on the table. to afford time
| for reflection.
Mr.. Robertson again spoke in support az
his motion, which he denied could have any
effect, ether TO screen traitors or affect or
impede negotiations, or TO come in collision
with the provisions OF the seamen's bill
He urged its adoption as putting to rest
! question now in suspense, whose very irn-
portant and doubtful nature (Which had
been urged as reasons for delay) were Co
gent reasons why it should be decided, with
| out unnecessary proerastinatiun. Any rea
} sonahie delay for consideration, he should
not oppose, because il was not necessary the
question should be decided tn day or to.
morrow, this week or next week but he
feared, il he were to consent TO postpone
ment, he should not get the consent Of gen
tienen to take it up again a, this sessirn.
| Mr. Hhea OF Ten. observed that an that
he'd been said of this motion affecting neeo-
citation, &c: ought to have no effect. To re
| fuse the passage of this resolution on the
! grounds on which it had been opposed, was
to Contest that principle of the constitution
| by which Congress are authorixed,to make
| laws relative to naturalization; for il was a
! known truth that naturalization and expa
triat'on belonged to the same subjsct--be
cause there can be no naturalizati N with
out previous repatriation. The arguments
against this motion apply as strongly co the
constitutional provision on this head, which
was just as likely as this motion to impede
negotiation Mr.. X. said he had known no.
thing OF the design TO bring forward this mo-
ton but, having been brought before the
ftouss, he considered it his duty, under the
solemn obligations of the constitution, to vote
! against.aD evasion of it, as was proposed.
Mr.. Fsrrow Of S. G. said laying the mo
tiou on the table would not affect future
decision on it. The subject never having
| before occurred to his mind, were he now To
give vote On it, it must be at hsolrd. AS
1t was advisable to commune further toge-
ther before they decided Oil it, he was there
fore in favor ct laying Il on the table.
Mr. Ward OF Mass. said he was as ready
as any gentleman in the House to investi
gate his subject, and, if the right exists, to
! MAKE the necessary regulations but. if vot
Ing 10 lay the resolution on the table implied
AN Acknowledgements of the principle there
IN assumed, he SHOULD not vote for it.-The
gentleman had laid down the right of expa
! 'rIalIcn as inalienabie, and had at the same
HlhC informed the house that a person nam
/ ed Isaac Williams, Notwithstanding he had
taken the oalh of allegiance 10 another p w.
or and received the character of a foreign
citizen, had been punished as a citizen OF
the United States with fine and imprison
mept. 1t such had bsen the administration
OF justice by high tribunal, it was strong
| evidence To him that the law was against
the position the gentleman had assumed .
because the proper guide on points of law,
where there was no ieac sc,ihta. was the de-
ciSioH of Judicial tribunals. The gentleman
FROM Virginia had instanced The law of that
SKATE giving tsis right II there was a law
giving this right there, it was strong evid,
| deEce that there was no such right before
the law passed; and certainly, ii the right
| was inherent, as commended, no law of Con
gress was necessary 10 give it. Mr.. w. said
ne should have no objection to vote for a re-
solution which should briag the whole ques.
ton before the House but he could not
vote tor resolution which assumed the
xlstence OF the right of xpatriaton.
he question On laying ne resolution o.,
! me table. was then taken, and decided in
the affirmative.