Chapter XVII: Front Matter (17)

For every receipt or discharge for any legacy of fifty
dollars and not more than one hundred dollars, twenty-five
cents; above one hundred and not more than five hundred
dollars, fifty cents; and for every additional five hundred
dollars, one dollar; but not to extend to legacies left to
a wife, children, or grand-children.

For every policy of insurance of vessels or goods from one
district of the United States to another, twenty-five
cents.

For every such policy of insurance to a foreign port, for a
sum not exceeding five hundred dollars, twenty-five cents;
if it exceeds five hundred dollars, one dollar.

For every exemplification, of what nature soever, fifty
cents.

For every bond, bill, or note, (except the note of the
chartered banks which may be now or hereafter in
existence,) not exceeding one hundred dollars, ten cents;
above one hundred dollars, and not exceeding five hundred
dollars, twenty-five cents; above five hundred dollars, and
not exceeding one thousand dollars, fifty-cents; above one
thousand dollars, seventy-five cents. (If payable within
sixty days, they will be chargeable with only two-fifths of
these duties.)

For every protest of a note, twenty-five cents.

For every letter of attorney, twenty-five cents.

For every certificate or debenture, for drawing back any
duty on the re-shipping of goods, one dollar.

For every note or bill of lading, for goods from one
district to another, within the United States, (not in the
same State,) ten cents.

For ditto to a foreign port, twenty-five cents.

For every inventory or catalogue of furniture, goods, or
effects, in any case required by law, (except in the case
of distraining for rent, or an execution,) fifty cents.

For every certificate of a share or shares in the Bank of
the United States, or other bank, ten cents.

The bill was twice read, and ordered to be committed to a Committee of the Whole on Monday.

WEDNESDAY, June 21.

_Expatriation._

The SPEAKER having informed the House that the unfinished business of yesterday, viz: the bill prohibiting citizens of the United States from entering into the military or naval service of any foreign Prince or State, had the priority.

Mr. GALLATIN moved to have it postponed, in order to take up the bill respecting an additional naval armament. This motion was supported by Mr. GILES, and opposed by Mr. W. SMITH, and negatived, 35 to 34.

The bill respecting foreign service was then taken up, and, on motion of Mr. HAVENS, it was agreed to leave the time for its taking place a blank.

Mr. COIT moved to strike out the sixth section.

[It defined the mode in which a citizen of the United
States might dissolve the ties of citizenship, and become
an alien.]

Mr. SEWALL hoped it would be struck out. In every country in the world where civil society was established, the citizens of that society owed a certain duty to their Government, which they could not readily get rid of; but they were about to establish a principle to put it in the power of the citizens of the United States, at their will, and without any pretence, to say they would be no longer subject to the Government; and this is at a moment of danger, when citizens of other countries might be called home from this country. He thought this would be extremely wrong; it would be giving an opportunity for insult to our courts and country, and he was sure no nation would show us so much complaisance in return.

Mr. CLAIBORNE thought it no more binding for citizens born in the United States to continue citizens of the United States, than it was for a Roman Catholic or Protestant to continue of that opinion, when he arrived at the years of maturity and could judge for himself. He insisted upon it, men had a natural right to choose under what government they would live; and they had no reason to fear our citizens leaving us whilst our Government was well executed. He did not wish citizens of the United States to be in the situation of subjects of Great Britain, who, though they had left the country forty years ago, were liable to be considered as subjects of that Government. He trusted the rights of man would not be thus infringed, but that they should allow the right of expatriation unclogged.

Mr. SEWALL said, there was a great difference between the two cases which the gentleman had stated. A man born and educated in a country certainly owed it obligations, which were not to be shaken off the moment he chose to do so. The different societies of the world, he said, were like so many families independent of each other; and what family, he asked, would suffer any of its members to leave it and go into another when they pleased? He thought it unreasonable that it should be so.

Mr. W. SMITH said, that the doctrine of perpetual allegiance was derived from Great Britain, and, though it might be good in theory, was not so in practice. They had departed from many doctrines derived from that country, and the time was come, he believed, for departing from this. The idea of a man being compelled to live in this country, contrary to his will, seemed to be repugnant to our ideas of liberty. He thought when a man was so disgusted with a country as to resolve to leave it, for the purpose of becoming a citizen of another country, he should be at liberty to do so on his complying with certain formalities, and should never again be re-admitted. It was upon this principle that this section is founded, and he thought it valuable.

Mr. S. thought this section essential, as it would be a means of preventing quarrels with foreign countries. For instance, if a citizen of this country took command of a French ship of war, and were to commit hostilities on the property of citizens of the United States, if he were taken he might allege that he was a citizen of the French Republic, and that Government might claim him as such; but if this bill passed, no man could cover himself under this pretence who had not complied with the requisitions in this act. He mentioned the case of Mr. Talbot.

Mr. S. said they held out inducements for persons to come to this country. We did not allow they owed allegiance to any other country after they had become citizens of this. To grant this would be a fatal doctrine to this country. It would be to declare that, in case we were at war with another country, that country might recall persons from this, who formerly came from thence. Many persons of that description were amongst us. At present they enjoy all the benefit of our laws and vote at our elections; and yet, if this doctrine were admitted, these persons might be recalled as aliens; and if they were not recalled, they would be considered as qualified aliens, and not as real citizens.

This law, Mr. S. said, was necessary, as at present there was not sufficient energy in the Government to punish persons serving on board foreign ships of war. This bill would cure the evil, and give an opportunity for turbulent, discontented characters to leave the country for ever. He believed it was the general opinion of the citizens of this country that they had the right to expatriate themselves, and he thought it was now a proper time to pass some regulations on this subject.

Mr. SITGREAVES thought this one of the most delicate and important subjects that ever came before Congress. He saw a number of difficulties, but he thought they were not of a nature to discourage them from considering the bill. He trusted they should meet them with firmness.

The evil, he said, which gave rise to this bill was a great and growing one. In the first war which had taken place in Europe since our independence, they found this doctrine of expatriation, as claimed by our citizens, endangering our peace with a foreign nation, and if this principle were admitted he feared we should always be liable to similar embarrassments.

Mr. S. took notice of the different objections made to this section. He observed there seemed to be much doubt on the subject, which he thought ought to be removed by passing a law of this sort. He wished he could agree in the opinion that no citizen had a right to expatriate himself from this country. He thought it a doctrine essential to the peace of society. He wished it was generally recognized; but he believed the major opinion in this country was different; and, though not directly, it had in a great degree been recognized by the Executive and Judiciary in the cases of Hinfield and Talbot. He feared, therefore, it was too late for them to say the right did not exist. It was time, however, for Congress to declare an opinion on the subject. If the proposition in the bill was not a proper one, it should be made so.

In the State of Virginia this doctrine was legalized, and in the constitution of Pennsylvania it was strongly indicated, as it said "emigration should not be prohibited." It was a favorite idea of a republican Government not to forbid it. He did not agree with the principles of the clause in all its parts. He thought citizens ought not to be allowed to expatriate in time of war, as their assistance would be wanted at home. It was his intention to have moved an amendment allowing expatriation only in the time of peace, and an express provision against it in time of war. He thought the doctrine of the gentleman from Maryland, viz: that our citizens ought to go into other countries to learn the art of war, was chimerical. When they had obtained rank and wealth in a foreign country, it would be in vain to call them back; they would not return. He hoped, therefore, the section would not be struck out, but that they should proceed to amend it.

Mr. N. SMITH was sorry that the committee who reported this bill had thought it necessary to report the sixth and seventh sections. The doctrine of expatriation on one hand, and perpetual allegiance on the other, were subjects they had all heard much about; but expatriation, under limitation and restraint, was a new business. From its novelty it became doubtful. This being the case, he wished the subject had been deferred to an ordinary session; particularly as it appeared to be no more connected with other parts of the bill than with many other laws now extant. If we were to have a law on this subject, he should wish to have it in a separate bill. For his part, he could not see how the committee could suppose it to be a part of their duty to report these sections. If he had thought it had, he should not have voted for appointing a committee on the occasion.

Gentlemen advocating these clauses, say they would not allow of expatriation in time of war. He would go further and say he would not allow of it when there was a prospect of war, for it is idle to prohibit it in one case and not in the other. He then asked if this was not the very state in which we now were? If it were, why pass such a bill at this time, when it could not go into operation? He thought this a good reason for rejecting these clauses.

There was a mutual obligation, Mr. S. said, between a Government and all its citizens. The Government owed protection to its citizens, and citizens owed obedience to their Government. These duties were mutual and co-extensive; and they might as well say that Government could abandon its citizens when it pleased as that citizens could desert their Government when they pleased. Yet he would allow that Government might, on certain occasions, legalize expatriation, but not on the ground of a citizen's having a right to expatriate when he pleased. He should have no objection to take up the subject at a time when they could do justice to it, but he thought the present was not that time.

The question for striking out the 6th section was put and carried, 45 to 41.

The committee accordingly rose, and the House took up the amendments. Having come to that part for striking out the 6th and 7th sections,

Mr. DENT called for the yeas and nays, which were agreed to be taken.

Mr. VENABLE said, it seemed to be admitted that a right of expatriation existed in our citizens; and if so, he thought there should be some mode of exercising that right. He had no particular objection to the mode marked out in these clauses. It had been said this was not the proper time; but he thought it was, since it was in some degree connected with the present bill. The gentleman from Connecticut had stated allegiance and protection to be mutual. He did not think they were so, to the extent which he stated. This Government was not bound to protect citizens who went into foreign service, as in doing so they chose the protection of another Government.

Mr. HARPER asked for an instance in which the Executive and Judiciary had countenanced the doctrine of expatriation.

Mr. W. SMITH, in answer to his colleague, produced the case of Talbot, and the opinion given by the Secretary of State and the Judiciary Court, on that occasion, in favor of the right of expatriation.

Mr. GILES thought there could not be a doubt in the minds of Americans on the subject of expatriation. Indeed, he said, this was the foundation of our Revolution; for they were not now to be told they owed allegiance to a foreign country. It had not only been the ground of the Revolution, but all their acts had been predicated upon this principle. He referred to the act respecting the rights of naturalization, which makes every new citizen swear to support the Constitution of the United States, and to renounce all other allegiance.

Mr. GALLATIN was opposed to these sections. With respect to expatriation, having himself exercised the right, he could not be supposed to be opposed to that right. Perpetual allegiance was too absurd a doctrine to find many advocates in this country. The question was not whether citizens had a right to expatriate, but whether they should in this law prescribe a mode of doing it. The right seemed to have been recognized by the Executive and Judiciary. He was against going into this business, because he thought it unnecessary. He believed the determination of who were citizens, and who were not, might be safely left with the Judiciary. He had also his doubts whether the United States had a right to regulate this matter, or whether it should not be left to the States, as the constitution spoke of the citizens of the States. It was a doubtful matter, and ought to undergo a full discussion. The emigrants from this country to foreign countries were trifling; but from ten to twelve thousand of our citizens had gone to Canada, and upwards of five thousand beyond the Mississippi, four thousand of whom would be got back by the running of the lines. A number of these men hold lands in the United States; some have sold their lands and become citizens under another Government. This subject would, therefore, require considerable deliberation at a future day. He wished the amendment of the Committee of the Whole to be adopted.

Mr. SITGREAVES confirmed his former statement, with respect to the question of the right of expatriation having been settled by the Judiciary. In order to do this, he read a note from one of the counsel in the cases of Henfield and Talbot, giving an account of the opinions of the court on the occasion.

Mr. SEWALL insisted upon the policy of preventing the renunciation of allegiance, without control. The Treaty of Peace with Great Britain, he said, had dissolved our allegiance to that country, and acknowledged our independence.

Mr. GILES believed the evil apprehended from individuals having the right to expatriate themselves when they pleased, was more imaginary than real. Only two citizens had taken advantage of that right in the State of Virginia, where it was allowed in all its extent, in twelve years. But if there were any citizens so detached from the Government as to wish to leave the country, he should wish them gone. To suppose this, would be to suppose a real division between the people and Government, which he did not believe had existence. It was said Great Britain did not allow the doctrine of expatriation; but, he said, she had not any naturalization law. He was in favor of excluding citizens who once expatriated themselves from ever returning to this country.

Mr. OTIS said, that when this bill was first reported, these clauses struck him unfavorably; but a little reflection had convinced him of the propriety of retaining them. The passing of this provision, he said, would not affect the constitutional right with respect to expatriation, whatever it might be. This bill did not relate to persons emigrating into the Spanish or English territories, but to persons expatriating themselves, and engaging in the service of foreign countries.

The question on agreeing to the reports of the Committee of the Whole to reject the sixth and seventh sections of the bill was taken, and stood--yeas 34, nays 57.

All the amendments having been gone through, Mr. S. SMITH moved to postpone the further consideration of the bill till the first Monday in November.

This motion was supported by Messrs. VARNUM, N. SMITH, BALDWIN, GOODRICH, and COIT, as involving a question of too delicate and important a nature to be passed over in this hasty manner, and because there was no pressing necessity to go into the measure at present.

It was opposed by Messrs. OTIS, WILLIAMS, W. SMITH, and CRAIK, on the ground of the provision of the bill being necessary, and that to postpone the business, after so ample a discussion, would be undoing what they had been doing for two or three days.

The question for postponement was taken, and decided in the affirmative--yeas 52, nays 44.

The bill being thus lost, Mr. W. SMITH proposed a resolution to the House for appointing a committee to report a new bill without the two last clauses, which, it was evident, had been the cause of the negative given to the bill. As he supposed no opposition would be made to the bill so reported, it might be got through without loss of time.

After some conversation on a point of order, whether or not this resolution could be admitted, the SPEAKER declared it in order, but Mr. COIT wishing it to lie on the table till to-morrow, it lay accordingly.

THURSDAY, June 22.

_Expatriation._

Mr. W. SMITH called up the resolution which he yesterday laid upon the table, for appointing a committee to bring in a bill for prohibiting citizens of the United States entering on board foreign ships of war, without the expatriating clauses.

This resolution was opposed by Messrs. BALDWIN, GILES, and VENABLE, and supported by the mover and Mr. HARPER. It was negatived--49 to 46.

_Depredations on Commerce._

A message was received from the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, of which the following is a copy, with the titles of the documents accompanying it:

_Gentlemen of the House of Representatives_:

Immediately after I had received your resolution of the
10th of June, requesting a report respecting the
depredations committed on the commerce of the United
States, since the first of October, 1796, specifying the
names of the vessels taken, where bound to or from, species
of lading, the value, when it can be ascertained, of the
vessel and cargo taken, and by what power captured,
particularizing those which have been actually condemned,
together with the proper documents to ascertain the same, I
directed a collection to be made of all such information as
should be found in the possession of the Government. In
consequence of which, the Secretary of State has made the
report and the collection of documents, which accompany
this Message, and are now laid before the House of
Representatives, in compliance with their desire.

JOHN ADAMS.

UNITED STATES, _June_ 22, 1797.

Report of the Secretary of State to the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, respecting the depredations committed on the commerce of the United States:

1. Abstract of two cases of capture made by the British
cruisers of vessels belonging to citizens of the United
States since the first of October, 1796, and wherein
documents have been received at the Department of State;
also a copy of a memorandum filed by S. SMITH, Esq.,
relating to captures made by the British of vessels in the
property of which he was concerned. No documents accompany
the two cases of capture above mentioned, they having been
sent to London, in order that compensation might be
obtained for the damages suffered.

2. A correct copy of the decree of the Executive Directory
of March 2, 1797.

3. Copies of documents remaining in the Department of
State, relative to American vessels captured or condemned
by the French, since the first of October, 1796.

4. Extracts from communications from the Consuls of the
United States, relative to depredations committed on the
commerce of the United States by the French.

5. Schedule of the names of American vessels captured by
the French, and of the circumstances attending them,
extracted from the Philadelphia Gazette, and Gazette of the
United States, and commencing with July, 1796.

6. Extract of a letter from Rufus King, Esq., Minister,
&c., enclosing the protest of William Martin, master of the
Cincinnatus, of Baltimore, relative to the torture
inflicted on the said Martin by a French cruiser.

Mr. GILES moved that the above papers should be referred to a select committee, to print such as would be useful to the House.

This question was negatived--50 to 46, and a motion carried for printing the whole.

_Day of Adjournment._

Mr. GILES called up the motion which had some days ago been laid on the table respecting an adjournment.

Mr. GALLATIN wished to modify his motion, by making the proposed day of adjournment the 27th instead of the 24th instant.

Mr. SITGREAVES moved for the yeas and nays on the question.

Mr. MACON moved to make the day the 28th, which was consented to by the mover.

Mr. DENT proposed to make it the 30th.

The question was taken on adjourning on the 30th, and negatived--there being only 28 votes in favor of it.

The question on the resolution for the 28th was carried--yeas 51, nays 47.

SATURDAY, June 24.

_Protection of Trade._

NAVAL ARMAMENT.

The bill for providing for the protection of the commerce of the United States was read a third time, and the blank for filling up the number of men to be employed in the cutters, was filled up with thirty; on the question being about to be put on the passing of the bill,

Mr. NICHOLAS said some statements had been received from the War Department, and ordered to be printed. He had not seen a copy of them, but was informed there were yet wanting $197,000 to complete the frigates. He wished information on the subject.

Mr. PARKER read an extract from the account which had been printed.

Mr. NICHOLAS wished to know how it happened that in four months so great a mistake could have occurred as to the expense of finishing these vessels. When the last appropriation of $170,000 was made, they were told that sum would be sufficient to make them fit to receive the men on board, but now they were called upon for $197,000 more. He thought this matter ought not to pass over without inquiry, as he did not like to be drawn from step to step to do what, if the whole matter had been seen at first, they might not have consented to. He trusted this was not intentionally done, but he owned it looked very suspicious.

Mr. PARKER believed the estimate of last session was only to make the vessels ready to receive the guns on board, and did not include the guns.

Mr. GALLATIN said, as he meant to vote against the passage of the bill, he would briefly state his reasons for doing so. He knew only of two arguments in favor of the bill; the first, that it was necessary during a time of peace to lay the foundation of a navy; the other was, that, the frigates being built, it would be proper to man them. As to the propriety of having a navy, he did not mean to go generally into the subject, but he would make a few observations as to our situation for engaging in an establishment of this kind. Suppose that navies were necessary in European nations, to increase their power or to protect their commerce, these considerations did not apply to our present circumstances. In order to prove this, it was only necessary to take a view of our revenue, and the expense of a fleet.

The amount of revenue from the 1st of April, 1796, to the 1st of April, 1797, received into the Treasury, was $7,400,000--a sum which by far exceeded that of any former year; and he did not think that the permanent revenue of the United States could be well extended beyond that sum. For instance, he did not think that nine millions could be raised from the people without oppression. Indeed, by the best calculations on the quantity of circulating medium in the country, it was not allowed to exceed eight millions: and he did not believe that any nation could raise a larger sum in taxes than was equal to the amount of their circulating specie.

[Here Mr. Gallatin produced a detailed statement to show
the expense of building the three frigates, to wit:
$1,014,450, and the sum of $350,000 for the yearly expense
of keeping them in service, repairs inclusive.]

This statement showed, Mr. G. said, that these frigates had cost about £2,000 sterling a gun, though the common calculation in Great Britain was only half that sum. If, from building the frigates, they turned to the expense of manning them, the same conclusion would be drawn. They found that the pay of an able-bodied seaman in the British navy had lately been raised from 26s. 6d. to 30s. sterling a month, which was $6 66-2/3; but, by the present law, $15,000 a month were allowed for the pay of the petty officers, midshipmen, seamen, ordinary seamen, and marines, which averaged from 16 to 17 dollars a man.

When he heard gentlemen stating the advantages of the naval strength of Denmark and Sweden to those countries, he could not agree with them altogether, though he agreed they had some weight; but it was well known that the Grand Navy of Portugal had no weight whatever in the scale of the large navies of Europe; it did not even enable her to protect her trade: for, if either France or Great Britain had the superiority in the Mediterranean, she was under their control. He believed Denmark and Sweden had thirty sail of the line each, and he wished gentlemen to calculate how much it would cost us to have such a navy. A fleet of a few vessels would not then be able to afford protection to our trade; and it was wholly out of our power to have a fleet equal to that of Denmark or Sweden.

Mr. SWANWICK believed the expense of these frigates had been much greater than any future ones would be. When they were told they had cost £2,000 sterling a gun, it was evident there must have been great extravagance in the expense, as merchant vessels might be built as cheaply in this country as in any other. He supposed the extra expense had been owing to the want of some regular establishment to overlook the business, and because it had been undertaken at a time when other nations were at war, and of course when materials were very high. Sixteen thousand dollars worth of hemp had indeed been burnt by accident at Boston. As to the terms of seamen, though they might at first be high, when the service was known he doubted not they would fall.

Mr. J. WILLIAMS said, he had always opposed the establishment of a navy, and was the question now whether or not we should commence a navy he should certainly be against it; but, as the frigates were so far advanced, he thought they ought to finish them, especially when they considered the present critical situation of our affairs; for, if a general peace did not take place in Europe, the war would probably become a maritime war, and we might be involved in it. But he was still of opinion that if we must go into an expensive naval establishment for the protection of our commerce, we had better have none. But, say gentlemen, where will you find revenue? He believed, though we had no armed force, a considerable commerce would still be carried on,[18] and those who declined it would turn their attention to agriculture and manufactures, from which any deficiency of revenue would readily be supplied.

It was true, as had been stated, that they had been called upon from time to time for additional sums to complete these frigates, and he knew not when these calls would end.

Mr. GILES was obliged to the gentleman last up for his speech against the present bill, though he meant to vote for it; he would rather, however, that he had _spoken_ in favor, and _voted_ against the bill. Mr. G. said he should vote against the passing of the bill, and for the reasons assigned by that gentleman. He thought a navy would be a great evil for this country. Our great interests lay in the soil; and if ever the vitals of the country were to be drawn together for the purpose of protecting our commerce on the sea, he should greatly lament it. He believed the despotism of nations kept pace with the ratio of expense of their Governments. He was sorry to say that he was more and more convinced that it was the constant aim of some gentlemen in that House to increase the expenses of our Government. The propriety of establishing a navy had scarcely ever been seriously considered; it was first begun under an alarm, and it had been continually carried on by the same means.

Mr. HARPER said gentlemen seem to abandon their objections to this bill by admitting that there was no probability it would not pass. But why? Because a majority of the House either think the measure is proper in itself, or from the particular circumstances of this country. It was surely a singular instance of modesty in gentlemen, after this concession, to argue against the passing of the bill.

Mr. H. did not admit that these frigates were commenced from an idea of laying the foundation of a large Navy Establishment, but from particular circumstances; and, said he, shall we, at a time when we are threatened with danger, abandon them? He trusted not; such conduct would be absurd in the extreme, and imply a character of imbecility which he hoped their councils would never deserve.

Mr. ALLEN said, he had some objection to the passing of the bill, but his objections were to the amendments which had been introduced into it, yet he did not know but he should vote for it. He thought there was a provision in the bill which went to prostrate this Government. He alluded to that part of it which directed the manner in which this force should be used. He considered this as a violation of the constitution, besides carrying upon the face of it an idea that one of the branches of this Government could not be trusted with the exercise of its power. Was it possible, he asked, for a Government to exist, when this confidence was refused to one of its branches? What were the people of the United States, and abroad, to think of this? Would not the people of this country think it their duty to destroy a power which could not be trusted; and would not foreigners despise it? It seemed as if this were the intention of gentlemen.

Mr. A. also objected to the clause limiting the duration of this bill; since this went to say that they not only distrusted the other branches of the Government, but themselves. A thing which must in its nature be perpetual, was there limited. He deprecated the idea of expense being an objection to this measure. Our emancipation from the chains of Great Britain, he said, was attended with a great expense; but was it not believed that the liberty and independence of this country were of superior value to money? He trusted they were. He could only suppose, therefore, that men who objected against the expense, must themselves be sordid and avaricious. If these frigates had been provided four years ago, he believed all our present difficulties would have been prevented, and a sum vastly less than that of which we had been robbed would have done the business. Mr. A. denied that ships of war could now be built in England for £1,000 a gun; that was formerly the price, but they now cost £1,500 per gun.

Mr. NICHOLAS had always been of opinion, that the expense of these frigates was a useless expense; he did not believe a case could happen, except within our own jurisdiction, where these vessels could be of advantage to us; but notwithstanding this was his opinion, he should vote for the passing of this bill, because he saw the sentiments of that House and the public were strongly in its favor, from a persuasion that the measure was necessary, and that the thing would be a continual topic of dispute until it was carried into effect.

He was willing, therefore, to let the vessels go to sea, believing that nothing short of actual experience would convince the supporters of this measure that it was useless, expensive, and injurious; and hoping that by one year's experience of the plaything, finding that money was of greater value than the frigates, all parties would concur in relinquishing it.

The question was then taken on the passing of the bill, and decided in the affirmative--yeas 78, nays 25, as follows:

YEAS--John Allen, George Baer, jr., Theophilus Bradbury,
David Brooks, Nathan Bryan, Dempsey Burges, Christopher G.
Champlin, James Cochran, William Craik, Samuel W. Dana,
James Davenport, Thomas T. Davis, John Dennis, George Dent,
George Ege, Lucas Elmendorph, Thomas Evans, Abiel Foster,
Dwight Foster, John Fowler, Jonathan Freeman, Nathaniel
Freeman, jr., James Gillespie, Henry Glenn, Chauncey
Goodrich, William Gordon, Roger Griswold, William B. Grove,
John A. Hanna, Robert Goodloe Harper, Carter B. Harrison,
Thomas Hartley, William Hindman, David Holmes, Hezekiah L.
Hosmer, James H. Imlay, John Wilkes Kittera, Edward
Livingston, Samuel Lyman, Matthew Lyon, James Machir,
William Matthews, John Milledge, Daniel Morgan, John
Nicholas, Harrison G. Otis, Josiah Parker, Elisha R.
Potter, John Read, John Rutledge, jr., James Schureman,
Samuel Sewall, William Shepard, Thomas Sinnickson, Samuel
Sitgreaves, Jeremiah Smith, Nathaniel Smith, William Smith,
of Charleston, Richard Sprigg, jr., John Swanwick, George
Thatcher, Richard Thomas, Mark Thomson, Abram Trigg, John
Trigg, John E. Van Allen, Philip Van Cortlandt, Peleg
Wadsworth, John Williams, and Robert Williams.

NAYS--Abraham Baldwin, David Bard, Thomas Blount, Richard
Brent, Thomas Claiborne, Matthew Clay, John Clopton, Joshua
Coit, John Dawson, Albert Gallatin, William B. Giles,
Andrew Gregg, Jonathan N. Havens, Walter Jones, Matthew
Locke, Nathaniel Macon, Blair McClenachan, Joseph McDowell,
Anthony New, Tompson J. Skinner, William Smith, (of
Pinckney District,) Richard Stanford, Thomas Sumter, Joseph
B. Varnum, and Abraham Venable.

The title was altered from "An act for the protection of the trade of the United States," to "An act providing a Naval Armament."

MONDAY, June 26.

LEWIS R. MORRIS, from Vermont, and LEMUEL BENTON, from South Carolina, appeared, produced their credentials, were qualified, and took their seats.

_Stamp duties_: _Naturalization certificates_: _Lawyer's licenses_: _Conveyances_.

The House went into a Committee of the Whole on the bill for laying duties on stamped vellum, parchment, and paper; when, the first section being under consideration,

Mr. KITTERA moved to add, "any certificates of naturalization ---- dollars," as he thought foreigners, who were admitted to all the rights of citizens under this Government, could not be against paying a small tax on their admission to this right.

Mr. MACON thought this tax would fall very heavy upon persons who came into this country to live by their labor--many of whom were not able to pay their passage, but were indented by those who brought them for a number of years; and who, if this tax were paid, would have so much longer to serve.

Mr. BROOKS did not see this objection, as such persons might labor all their lives without becoming naturalized.

Mr. GORDON said, that by the naturalization act, no foreigner could be admitted to the rights of a citizen until he had been five years in the country, and therefore the objections of the gentleman from North Carolina could not have any weight.

The amendment was carried.

Mr. SWANWICK moved to strike out five dollars, and insert ten, for licenses to practise as a counsellor, attorney, &c. He thought, if these gentlemen were taxed at all, ten dollars would be as low a sum as they could well fix upon for the purpose.

Mr. VARNUM thought the tax should be much higher, if imposed at all. He spoke of the high tax laid upon the professors of the law in Massachusetts.

The amendment was carried, there being 53 in favor of it.

Mr. COCHRAN wished the tax to extend to lawyers who practised in the State Courts, as well as to those who practised in the Courts of the United States.

Mr. NICHOLAS objected to this proposition. The lawyers, in some of the States, were already very highly taxed; besides, he doubted the right of the United States to tax the lawyers of the State Courts, as they were necessary in the State Governments.

Mr. SWANWICK did not expect any objection could have been made to a tax so reasonable, especially when the bill proposed to tax merchants so heavily; they would not be able to turn themselves without a stamp, and surely the lucrative profession of the law could not think much of paying this low tax. It was said, indeed, that the merchant did not ultimately pay the duty, but the consumer; and he doubted not the lawyers would not fail to find out a way of making their clients pay the duty.

Mr. DENNIS objected to this tax on the same ground with the gentleman from Virginia. If a tax of this kind, he said, were laid upon the lawyers of the State Courts, it might be extended to any other officer of the Government, and thereby annihilate the State Governments.

Mr. LIVINGSTON was in favor of the amendment, because he thought the State lawyers a fair object of taxation. He denied that it would be unconstitutional, or that it would operate hardly upon a particular class of men. It was not laid upon any particular class; but upon an instrument which, indeed, to exercise their professions, lawyers would be obliged to have; but it might as well be said that the tax upon rum and sugar would fall heavily upon the sellers of those articles, and that therefore no rum or sugar would be sold. The one tax fell upon the consumer, and the other upon the client. In the State of New York, Mr. L. said, the lawyers were not taxed at all.

Mr. MCDOWELL said, when he seconded the motion for striking out "five" for the purpose of inserting "ten" he did not intend the tax to be extended to the practisers in State Courts; nor did he think the constitution would warrant such an extension of it.

Mr. SITGREAVES was in favor of the amendment; he wished to fix the principle. He thought that the State lawyers were a fair object of taxation, and that the profits of their business would very well bear it. But there was reason for making a distinction between the two cases. He thought there would be a hardship in extending the tax to practisers in county courts, as that would cause it to fall in some places very heavily. For instance, in Pennsylvania, there must be a separate admission into every court of every county; so that one man would probably have to pay to the amount of from two to three hundred dollars on account of this tax. He hoped the motion would be postponed for the present, and modified. He would do it himself, if time were given.

The motion was withdrawn.

Mr. SITGREAVES said, he understood that deeds for the conveyance of lands would have been amongst the articles taxed. He thought such a tax would be an eligible one, and in order to learn what were the objections to it, he proposed to add to the bill, "any deed for the conveyance of real estate ---- dollars."

Mr. R. WILLIAMS said, this proposition had been rejected in the Committee of Ways and Means, on the ground that such a tax would clash with the jurisdiction of the States. He had the same objection to this that he should have to laying a tax upon the State lawyers. To say a deed, which was legal by the laws of a State, could not be received in evidence, except it was stamped, would be tantamount to the repealing of a State law.

Mr. W. SMITH said, this subject had been frequently under discussion, both in the Committee of Ways and Means, and in that House. On this occasion, the majority of the Committee of Ways and Means was against laying a tax on deeds. He was in the minority. There was a provision, Mr. S. said, which declared that no paper upon which a duty was imposed by this act should be admitted in evidence; but there was afterwards a clause which allowed them to be admitted, on payment of ten dollars over and above the duty thereupon payable. He thought the tax would be a very good and a very profitable one.

Mr. COIT thought this was a tax which should be gone into with great caution, since, if it were carried, it might be the means of losing the whole bill. He thought the bill would be better passed without this provision; and if it were found expedient, it might be added hereafter.

Mr. GILES was opposed to this amendment, as interfering with the governments of the several States. All lands (except such as had been sold by the United States) were held from the States; and if this tax were to be agreed to, he believed the State courts would not refuse to admit a deed in evidence which was not stamped. Nothing would give so much alarm to the States as a subject of this sort.

Mr. SEWALL did not understand the distinction made between titles to land and titles to money. He thought the objection made to a tax on a deed, might be made with equal propriety to a tax on a bond or note. If they had a right to say these should not be received in evidence in a State court, unless they were stamped, they had a right to say the same with respect to a deed. Except it could be shown that the farmer was less able to pay than the merchant, he thought no other objection had any weight.

Mr. R. WILLIAMS thought there was a great difference between a note of hand and a deed. The State had nothing to do with the former, but much with the latter; since every State held grants of its lands, and a man must show his title from the original grant, before his title could be said to be a good one. He did not doubt the people being able to pay the tax; it was the principle which he contended against, which, if carried into effect, would cause a clashing of the authorities of the two Governments. If the United States could lay a tax of this sort, they might lay a tax upon every commission issued by a State.

Mr. NICHOLAS did not see the smallest difference between the two cases which had been stated. And when they came to the 13th section, he should endeavor to prove that to say a piece of paper should not be received in evidence in a court, which was lawful to be received by the laws of the State, would be a violation of State sovereignty. He was not of opinion, with the gentleman from Connecticut, that they should take up the subject partially, rather than not pass the bill. He thought it best to consider a tax upon its broadest basis. It was not fair to exclude any thing which stood upon the same ground. He wished the principle to be thus fairly tested. He should, therefore, vote for the tax on deeds.

Mr. LYON hoped, that if this tax was agreed to, purchases of a small amount would be excluded.

Mr. SWANWICK said there would doubtless be a difference made in the duty between large and small purchases. He also disagreed with the gentleman from Connecticut. The principle, he said, was either right or not; if it were right, it should be made general: if not, it ought not to be adopted.

The question was put, and negatived--47 to 32.

On motion, the committee rose, and had leave to sit again.

TUESDAY, June 27.

_Stamp duties._

BANK NOTES.

The House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the bill laying duties on stamped vellum, parchment, and paper, when

Mr. NICHOLAS moved to strike out the clause exempting bank notes from duty, as he could see no reason why notes upon which a profit was made, should be exempted from duty more than others. He trusted all notes would be placed on the same footing.

Mr. W. SMITH hoped gentlemen did not mean, by moving to strike out this exemption, to destroy the bill. He thought the observation of the gentleman from Connecticut yesterday, against embarrassing the bill by doubtful objects, had weight. On this ground, though he was before of opinion deeds ought to have been inserted, he did not vote for inserting them. He trusted the gentleman had not fully considered the subject, and that when he did so, he would not persist in his motion.

Mr. NICHOLAS believed if the favorite object of every gentleman were to be exempted, there would be nothing left upon which to lay a tax. If to oppose this, were to defeat the bill, he meant to defeat it; as he wished the tax to go to all objects of the same kind. He had no idea of favoring one interest at the expense of another; he hoped, therefore, his amendment would be agreed to.

Mr. LYON expected the gentleman from South Carolina was about to have given some reasons why bank notes ought not to be taxed as well as others; but he was disappointed. He believed those who issued these notes got a good profit from them, and that it was, therefore, reasonable they should pay their proportion towards the support of Government.

Mr. W. SMITH thought the tax an improper one. Banks were taxed in another part of the bill, on the transfer of their shares. A tax on bank notes, he said, would introduce a vast deal of confusion throughout the country. As for himself he did not care any thing about it; but he believed, if it were agreed to, it would produce so many objections against the bill as to prevent its passing.

Mr. BROOKS was against stamping bank notes, as they were not stamped in any country whatever.[19] Indeed they were different from other notes, as they were the representatives of specie; they might, therefore, as well stamp dollars or guineas. In short, the subject was too important and intricate to be gone into at this late period of the session.

Mr. VENABLE said, in proportion as the tax was general, it would be just. What was the object of the bill? It was to tax that right which an individual possesses in society, of transferring his property, and the evidences of it; it was also to tax him for the right he had of using his credit. Though the argument of the gentleman last up might appear specious, that a bank note was the representative of specie, it was not very solid; it was the representative of the credit of the bank, and circulated for its interest. An individual, if he had sufficient credit, might issue notes as well as a corporation; and, in that case, his notes would be charged with the duty, whilst those of a corporation would not. From whence, said Mr. V., is this reasoning drawn? It was drawn from the doctrine of favoritism--it was meant to favor the moneyed interest, which was already sufficiently encouraged by their incorporation. There seemed to be no objection to the principle; but merely to the convenience of the thing. If it could be shown that the tax would materially operate upon the circulation of bank notes, so as to injure the operation of money transactions, it might have some weight with him; but it was none, to say this bill must pass, and therefore let us avoid any thing in which there may be any difficulty. Such assertions went only to this, where you can tax the property of an individual, do it; but do not meddle with corporations, as this would be attended with some difficulty. He wished, if the bill passed, that it should operate equally.

Mr. COIT wished the gentleman from Virginia would withdraw his motion, until he took the sense of the committee upon one which he proposed to make, and which was calculated, if agreed to, to supersede the one he had made. He would state what it was. It was his opinion that small notes should be exempted from duty. He should propose, therefore, that there should be charged on all notes exceeding fifty dollars and not exceeding one hundred dollars, ten cents, and that all of less value should go free.

After a few remarks upon this motion, in which it was observed that it would defeat the bill entirely, as it would only be to make so many more notes at fifty dollars, if the sum were larger, Mr. Coit consented that the fifty should be struck out and left blank; when the question was taken and negatived, there being only twenty-five votes for it.

Mr. NICHOLAS renewed his motion.

Mr. SITGREAVES hoped it would not prevail. It had been admitted that if it could be proved that the stamping of bank notes would embarrass their circulation, it would be a good objection to the tax. He believed he could easily show that it would not only impede their circulation, but depreciate their value. The tax would not certainly be made to operate upon notes already issued, but upon those issued after the act took place; so that it would be necessary that every citizen throughout the United States should be acquainted with the date of their law, which would do away all confidence in bank paper. The result of this uncertainty would be that the banks would have to call in all their outstanding notes, which would cause an immediate depreciation of their value. He trusted, therefore, that so objectionable a measure would not be entered upon.

Mr. GALLATIN said, he had had his doubts with respect to the propriety of stamping bank notes; he was not sure whether it might not have a dangerous effect on their circulation. On a further consideration of the subject, however, all his doubts had vanished. He now thought this amendment essential, just, and right. Indeed, when they proposed to lay a stamp duty upon all bills and notes, there appeared to be no good reason why the notes of any incorporation whatever should be excepted. He had heard only one objection; which was, that these notes differed essentially from others, because they were the real representatives of specie kept in the bank from whence they were issued. He could not see the distinction endeavored to be drawn. Private notes were always given for some consideration, whether for cash or other property, was of no consequence to them. Indeed, if they turned their attention to the nature of bank notes, they would be found to be a very fair object of taxation.

Where an individual gave his note, it was not likely that he would derive any profit from it; many of such notes were what was called "accommodation notes;" all were acknowledgments of debt, and therefore no proofs of wealth; but bank notes were never issued except to produce a profit to the bank; therefore, to exempt them from duty, would be to exempt those which were best entitled to pay.