Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1835-02-19
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,, FEB. Il

The Navy Bill being under consideration,
Mr. Loyal, of Virginia, offered an amendment,
that no officer or other person employed IN
the Navy, should take his wife, or any other fe-
male member of his family to sea, on board OF
public ship. In support ofthe improperly OF so
doing, he instanced the case OF the "Enterprlze,
commanded by Captain Trip, and bound to
New Orleans, which was fired into by Span
ish or British cruzer; in which case the only
reason given why the fire was not returned,
was, that they had females on board. They
were the wives of members Of Congress- return
ing home. This case was enough, OF itself, TO
show the improperly of permitting females on
board our public ships.
MIR. Steele of Md. said he concurred as to the
general rule; but he felt himself constrained TO
say few words, in consequence fthe remarks,
which had been made by the gentleman from
Virginia, (Mr. Loyal as to the affair OF the
Enterprise, which was fired into by the Mosee.
Captain Trip was an old, valued friend, al
though much older than himself. He was GER
tain that Captain Trip would not have been
deferred from doing his duty--even if he had
had his whole family on board. AS far as he
knew, there had been no court ofinquiry on this
subject That officer would never, he was GER
tain have shrunk from his duty. He was never
married, and the females on board were not Of
his own family.
Mr. J. @. Adams hoped the motion would not
prevail. twas not only derogatory to the cha
acter of those who had command Of our vessels;
but to the whole sex. Ii would be disgrace,
should it prevail, to the sex itself. Females were
not at this time, admitted on board a vessel
without the permission Of the Department. The
regulations of the Navy prevented this. He
thought there were situations in which the pre-
sence of females on board public ship, was
dangerous; but, he would ask, what danger was
there in time of peace?
In time Of war, the officers would not think OF
taking their female relatives. But, suppose the
health Of wife, or a sister, called for a voyage
across the Atlantic, who would deny an officer
the privilege oftaking that wife or that daugh-
ter in his own ship? AS to the accident mention
ed by the gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. 10y
all, from the account just given by the gentle
man from Maryland, (Mr. Steele,) it seemed
exceedingly apocryphal. No man could, I'M
der the present regulations take q female to
sea without the consent OF the department
Mr.. Wise said he wished his colleague to with
draw his amendment, but at the same time, he
must say there was nothing so cumbersome on
board vessel as ladies. He had the authority
of an experienced Captain of the Navy for say
ing this: Ladies required much room-they re-
quired live stock.-and owing to this, they made
ship unhealthy. They were also the occasion
were, on their account, reported as able bodied
seamen. They might in some cases, be eunuchs,
for what he knew. He wished such abuses to be
prevented.
Mr. Loyal said, he did not intend to cast any
imputation on the gallant officers of our navy.
He should be the last to displace Captain Trip,
from the high place in which his memory was
held. He believed, whilst he lived, there was
not more gallant officer in our navy He had
merely made his previous statementto snow the
danger Of having females on board, and with
view to put a stop to the practice Of taking the
females of the families of officers to sea.