Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1814-01-29
CONGRESS.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
FRIDAY, Ian. q.

Mr.. Eppes of Va. presented the petition X
II larlton Woodscn, which was referred to
The committee on Revolutionary Claims. 4
ExPATRIAr1ON.
Mr.. Robertson roseto offer 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 enc Of the most impot mt |
rights belonging To man in his social charac, |
ter is to be exercised-he meant the right |
OF expasriation. Some provision on this subs |
Ject had become importaat from circum-
stances which have lately occurred, ard
the more SO because of the doctrines affecting
1t which have recently been preached in the
naslon. and which but few years ago would
have been secuted by all parties. Whether
the right was denied or admitted, il w as i'm
portant that the question should be settled.
AS far as the subject has been before the pep
pie OF the United States. the opinions have
been various and contradictory; as far as it
has been before the courts, they have deci-5
DEC that the right of expatriation does not
exist--aDd a decision more contrary to
the spirit Of the constitution never was given
In any court of the United States. He aiiu
ded to the familiar case of Isaac Williams,
decided before Judge Ellsworth of Cont.
The disposition of tine Legislature, as tar as
manifested by its acts, was favorable to the
right OF expatriation. 1t was time that some
definite decision should take place in relation
toit. lnrdrafting the resolution, he had gone
upon the ground that the right ofexpatriation
was Clear. natural 6<unalienable, & required
no legal provision to fortify it otherwise than
by prescribing the manner in which it shall.
be exercised. He admitted that the con-
stitution Ct the United States did not direct-
70 DIV n hict ht u -
sand other rights which we exercise in soci-
ETY.. 1t did not in terms give the right to
move beyond the horizon which bounds our
view; but no man doubts the right. The
constitution, however, does implicitly give
the right of expatriation. 1t gives right
to the citizens of other countries to come liz
to the United States and be naturalized--a
right which cannot be given or admitted by
any community that denies the right of expa,
triatioD. Mr.. r. said he did not wish this
Important question to rest merely on infer>
ence. He wished that every Cit zen might
have 1t in his power to turn to the statute
books OF the country and shew explicitly,
when he thinks proper to cxpatriate, that he
has ayailed himself of the right in the man.
ner prescrib; BY law. 1t need not excite
airy alarm, that our citizens will too freely
ayail themselves of the privilege The best
way OF keeping our citizens at horne, is to
make them free and happy. Odious mus: /,
D. the government or laws which make
man willing to leave his country. But
when, ii ever, his country doprives him of
H. rights. of every thing desirable 10 man,
let us not make that country his prison. bat
give him the power OFFICIALLY removing him
self from beneath its control. With these
o5ssrvaiions MIR. II submitted the following !,
Resolution:
hat . -, L.,
to inquire into the expediency of providing
BY law for the exercise OF the right Of expa-
triation, and that they have leave to report
by bill CT Otherwise.
Mr.. Oakley Of n. Y. made some remarks
w;'icn were not very distinctly heard. He
said. howey er, that the resolution embraced
question at any time interesting, and par
ticularly so at this time. How far the right
of expatriation ought to be extended, was
question of great importance. When it
was considered also that negotiation was
pending with foreign power, in which this
principle was involved; and when it wa,
considered that the government might find
1t necessary to make concessions on this
point, and to restrict naturalization, it be
came important to approach the question
with much circumspection. 1t was well
knows fact, not only from the decision which
circumstances of public notoriety, that there
was difference of opinion whether the right
OF repatriation docs exist Not only in
general point of view, bur from the partic,
ular Gil cumstances in which the u. States
are placed. this question was very important.
The adoption q. a resolution Of this kind, to
appoint committee OF enquiry into the ex-
pedieDcy OF providing by law the mode of
repatriation, might perhaps be considered
as establishing the principle Of the right
which ought not thus hastily to be settled
lie moved that the resolution lie on The
table.
Mr.. Grundy of Tenn. said he had en-
deavored to get the floor to make similar
motion 20 that made by The gentleman from
New York. However clear the right. how>
ever willing he mightbe to go with the mo-
yer. he said the time appeared 70 him not
to be we'll selected for agtating this subject
II involved Questions OF great delicacy as to
Foreign natioas-ahd might it not be fore-
staiiing III partthe very arrangements which
may be made by treaty on this subject
Mr.. u. wished this resolution to lie on the
table and, unless his mind should change.
he shonld not vote to take it up again du.
ring 'he session. Whether or not it should
be adopted, was certainly matter requiring
much Caution aud deliberaton.
Mr. Robertson said the adoption of the
RESOLUTION by no means compromised the |
Hou e 10 any principle whatever. The gen
tlemen who bad spoken appeared to him
to have misunderstood the effect OF the re,
solution, when they appeared to be alarms |
ed lest the passage of the resolution should |
have some bearing on G Britain or other TO. |
reign nation. MIR X. said he could not con. |
ce~e, how our connections with foreiea ma
tons interfercd with our municipal regula. |
tionsf How could cur decision in rei.,i,o