The Washington union. [volume] (City of Washington [D.C.]) 1857-1859, 1858-01-19
THE NEUTRALITY Laws.

/ THE NEUTRALITY LAWS.
SPEECH OF HON. A H STEPHENS, OF GEORGIA.
Desraei "a as House Of Representatives., J1Sqry "a 1885,
The House being in Committee of the Whole and hav-
ing under consideration the reference Of the President
message to the standing committees, Mr. STErISs, o
Georgia, said
cannot in the little time which have reply 70 all
that been sad in this debate which docs not
approval and which think founded in shall,
however in the remarks which make, confne myself 10
a few principles which govern the whole question
The proposition before the committee Is to refer certain
matters to the Committee the judiciary with instuc
tons to report upon the expedency OF repeal modf
cation Of the existing laws upon the subject OF the neu-
traty Of the United States stated TO the committee
when the subject first mentioned, reasons why
thought there ought to be modification Of parts
the act of 1878 The views then presented by and
by Others who spoke on my side of the question have
been commented on at large by gentlemen on both sides
| of the House. ~ r.t-
! Now, sir, wish to state in the outset that / do
not intend that gentlemen the other side of the
question shall occupy ground in this discussion.
They shall not stand before the country the avo
Gates of law and order TO the exclusion of myself and
those who agree with in the views which present
They shall not stand before the country the exclusive
defenders and friends of the faith of treaties and the du
ties growing out of international law. That sir, is the
ground stand upon. 1t is the ground assumed when
addressed the committee before am here to-day
the advocate of law and ORDER of constitutional and In
tcrnational law i not in favor Of individuals
tions breaking faith here to defend the constitu
ton and laws understand them and the
of the good faith of this nation is they who advocate
and defend breach of the law under the pretext of
forcing law.
Gentlemen have argued this question if they sup
posed that against the maintenance of the neutral
relations of this government if in favor either
of nations OF individuals violating the public faith dis
claim it, for the national faith and, far the
laws of the United States declare mbody set forth
the law of nations, would not word modify
trlity laws, far they express the laws of nations
But it be that part of the act of 1918 goes further
than the law of nations myself in favor of a modi-
cation of that that extent And if there be any
part of the law of 1878 which admits of doubt am in
removing that doubt Section eight of the act of
1918 does admit of doubtful construction Different ad-
mnistratons of this government have put different
strucons upon that section of the act of 1875 say
that it should be made clear and distinct beyond doubt
As said the first day now, that is the part of legis
lators, and that is what want to have done
Now sir wish to call the attention of this committee
to the eighth section of the act Of lSs and wish the
reporters to publish that section In full that those who
may read hereafter understand well those who
hear me, with the law before them, what is the law
upon this subject:
shall be fitted and armed attempted be nied
he augmented which any
military expedition enterprise shah be begun or set on foot con
the capture vessel within The Jurisdiction protection
issuing out Of any court Of The United states shah bo dsobey
ed resisted BY person persos having the custody
vccowar cruiser other armed vessel Of foreign
state colony district people OF subjects c
pe in every such case i @ lawful for ha The Uni
ted states such other be shall have empowered for @
States, purpose taking possession
Of and any such np q % Hssss m s m Or
and 70 the restoring prizes the cases which
carrying expedition enterprise
the United States against the territories
colony, district
people With United al peace
In the first place affirm challenge contradiction
defy any rise upon this floor and say that under
this act it stands the President the army
navy at all either inside outside of the marine league
1t is only by construction II is only by interpo
latng words for the language Of the law is that
he shall such part of the land and naval force.
Wha part Does it such he may deem necessary!
1t does not say Does it mean such may be in q
certain place What does it mean Where is the
correative of suc2 As the section stands it is meaning
less words omitted Read it for yourselves There
was clearly omission in copying. But what mean
is that this section needs revision and amendment As
it stands the President cannot but by implication,
but by construction, but by supplying words not
pressed any part of the military force anywhere
Now, sir opposed to the President using such
portion of the naval and land force of the country may
be necessary to enforce the laws do not want amy gen
tlcman to understand maintaining any such doc
trine. think the President should be clothed and
ply clothed with powers to enforce your laws But the
law, as it stands is meaningless and senseless
There is Mr.. Chairman, another matter of doubtful
construction in this act besides that that is whether
under this eighth secton the President can the land
and naval force outside of the marine league with
the omitted words supplied whether the law intended
that he should l stated when up before, and re-
peat now that do not believe that it was the in
tenion of the to confer upon the President any
power outside of the marine league stated to the com
mitee then that did not give the opinion without
Election. Ii subject TO me !; and ] now
maintain all j then said.
premise by stating this proposition that all laws In
the legislation of this any other country to be inter
preted and understood n territorial and to apply
within the jurisdiction of the law-making power unless
not extend to provinces colonies without being
pressed affirm that, indisputable proposition,
this act upon its face is na territorial Whenever you
give power your navy upon the high seas express
territorial Legislative authority il is stated in the
law and expressly Now If we this law by that
rule of construction, bound TO suppose that the
Legislature did not intend anything but ntra-territoa
law From the beginning to the end everything about
it shows that that was the intention.
Mr.. GROESBECK II the gentleman will allow me-
will call his attention to section third, which makes
it penal for person citizen outside of the Jurisdiction
Of the United States fit out vessel to cruise against
the citizens vessels of the United States and fur
ter provides that that be done outside of the United
States the person who does it shall be tried in the
of the district where he is first brought That is
the language.
MIR. STEPHENS of Georgia. Certainly.
Mr. GR0ESBECK And furthermore the sth section
gives the authority to the President to employ the naval
force TO prevent the commission of this crime outside of
the United States
Mr.. STEPHENS of Georgia That is your inference.
That the construction the gentleman put upon It.
Now, sir the section to which the gentleman aludes