The Washington union. [volume] (City of Washington [D.C.]) 1857-1859, 1858-01-15

part of the law of 1918 which admitted of doubt he
was for removing that doubt Section sth of that law
did admit doubtful construction. Different admins
tIaons OF the government had put diiierent oonstruc-
tons upon it, and it should be made clear and distinct
and beyond doubt He challenged contradiction that
der that US stands the President could the army
or navy at all 1t was only by construction by intepo-
latng word for the language Of the law that he
could give il that meaning As the section stood II was
meaningless, and he maintained that needed revision
Mr. declared that he not opposed to the Presi-
dent using such portions Of the naval and land forces
might he necessary enforce the law In his opinion
the President should be clothed with such powers but
there was another doubt and that whether not
the President under that section could the land and
naval forces outside the marine league He repeated
he said before that he did not believe that was the in
tention of the act to confer that power The laws or
legislation OF this any other country were to be inter
peted and understood to apply to the jurisdiction OF the
law making power unless the contrary expressed
They bound to suppose that the Legislators did not
intend anything but AN International law.
Mr. GROESBECK of Ohio called the attention OF Mr.,
STEPHENS to section third which he contened provided
that where person citizen outside OF the jurisdiction
of the United States fitted out vessel against the citi
or vessels Of the United States he should be tried in
in the district where he should ft Ike brought
He contended furthermore that the eighth section
authority to the President to employ the naval force to
prevent the commission OF those crimes outside OF the
United States .tl
Mr.. STEPHENS replied that that the gentemans
construction and inference The person committing the
offence to be TAKEN but he to be taken inside OF
den of the United States could not the military force
the militia, army navy, except by provision
of law and here at the beginning he differed radically
with almost every gentleman who had spoken upon the
opposite side Of the question. The gentleman from Ohio
himself had asked where the limitation under the
eighth section What constitutional feature of the law
violated Where the restriction upon the Pres
ident the naval officer There the difference be-
tween them and he asserted that the President could
the army the navy, militia but In the
forcemcnt Of the judicial proceedings under inter ter
rtoral law He maintained that the President could not
any force of the United States but in obedience to
process. This power given 70 him in 1895, and in
1908 these powers delegated to him in cases of in
surrection. Now, where the limitation The gem
tleman had only cited the latter part OF the Sth section
which reads or the purpose OF preventing the carrying
on What did prevent mean The gentleman
gued that ii meant to break up He said did not mean
that Prevent to prevent, stand in front, las
of the marine league stay back stand before prevent
going being carried on the territorial ju
risdction Of the United States In 1894 Congress passed
act to prohibit the carrying OF the slave trade
the United States any foreign State country He
read from that act to show that vessels engaged in this
trade liable to be seized and condemned in any of
the criminal courts for the district not where vessel
may be found on the high seas, but where it may be
seized-withn the marine league and contended that
this parallel with the other. In his Judgment,
if the eighth section gave the President the right send
the navy outside the marine league gave him also the
power to send It into the interior Of country. n
This case, and they should establish princi
pies as they progressed Liberty constitutional ber-
and the rights of the people depended upon their be-
ing settled rightly. The gentleman from Pennsylvania
Mr. MoNaToNERY said that under national law it the
duty of the government to restrain its citizens If he
ferred to the comfy between neghborng nations he
agreed with every word but he did agree that it gave
the government the right to 60 into nation and
rest offenders. There power In the United States
did the law of nations require them, to prevent
American citizens, either by two hundred,
from quitting this country and going to another and there
joining enemy. He then read the opinion of Daniel
Webster expressed in the Ashbuon treaty to sustain
this position.
Mr.. MONTGOMERY Of Pennsylvania, remarked that
Walker had made upon the sovereign Of Nicaragua
Mr. STEPHENS replied That he did not set up the
eregnty of Nagua but said that they had the right to
go there. Nicaragua had no sovereignty. The only
elected President by popular vote was William Walker
the only legitimate sovereign of that country Will
liam Walker and he would have been there to-day
in his place in the affections of the people
Chief Magistrate, if Commander Davis had not illegally
MIR. MONTGOMERY, Of Ponnsylvana. Perhaps the
gentleman will have objection to joint resolution to
send him back 70 tho affections Of the people.
Mr., STEPHENS replied that he wanted him sent back,
and had said in the beginning, but 1t was what he
afraid the government would not do An outrage had
been committed upon him. and he would repeat that the
conduct Of Commodore Paulding robbery and kid
mapping Restitution should be made Send him back just
where you found him, with all his men, arms and pro-
visions. 1t all he asked, and all that William
Walker asked the country to do, and he would show
whether not he had the affections of the people, His
wiped out by restitution ft4g + t,tkl,s +
Mr.. s. also read from the correspondence of Daniel
Webster Texas, to show that there authority
to prevent, OF attempt 70 prevent American citizens
from leaving their country and going to another Waddy
Thompson had used similar language. There was no
law to prohibit American citizens from leaving their
country with Ia their handa Military expeditions
prevented but he oontened that Walker was not
of that character He epudated the charge that Walker
had sailed in fraud of our laws. Armed expeditions
should be put down He not opposed to the neutral
ity laws but for having them clearly and distinctly
expressed. Armed expeditions he against but when
American citizens wished to change their allegiance
they had the right to do It, And they had the cons
tutonal right to bear in this country they could
carry them with them wherever they sought to CO.
He stood by the Executive in vindicating the laws
Of the eountry, and If Walker had committed
wrong, let him be tried for it, In his opinion
he had violated no law. When he was President
OF Nicaragua this government had recognised him and
had recognised other government than his until after
he had sailed on his last expedition. Let 20 say
that he in favor OF violating national of expe
dtons not sailing pasle, the national flag He should
be ready to hail with delight the stars and stripes when
they waved over gallant navy, and when the gal
liant officers Of navy did their duty one would
applaud than he but this interference in Central
America doing British work. aud that he could not
applaud He was for maintaining the constitutional
rights Of American citizens and according to that
stitution, man. either citizen foreigner could be
deprived OF his life, liberty, property, and by these
principles would he stand OF fs.a.ii
Mr.. BLAIR cs missouri delivered lengthy speech in
opposition to the extension Of slavery He copthded
4 hat MS 4 Autv A~et