Mr. RAYMOI My main purpose in rising, Mr. Speaker, is to move the substitution of a resolution reported by the minority of the ComForAffrs for the bill now before the House. I do not propose to enter upon any discussion either of the bill or of the very important principles which it embodies. I think that even the cursory statement just made by the chairman of the Committee on Fereign Affairs will show the House that the change proposed in the neutrality laws of this country is one of a very sweeping character and one which ought not to be made without more careful deliberation than it is now in our power at Ipresent to give it. I think the position which the U.S. has always held on the subject of the duties and obligations of neutrality has been such as to command in a very high and marked degree the respect of all other nations as well as the countinence and aproval of our own people. Vbile our Government has always given the largest scope to the claims of neutral Powers it has also assumed in the fullest and most complete manner all the obligations and duties of neutrality. It has provided, I think, more fully than any other nation for the preservation of the rights and obligations of nne trality toward all other Powers. While it claims to the fullest extent that neutral nations shall enjoy the rights to which the are entitled as against belligerents, it has also old that war was exclusively the concern of the Government, and that individual citizensin any nation should never be allowed either to make war or to commit acts calculated to lead the nation into war withoutthe fullest sanction of the Government, with whom alone that right and that power exist. And while it has always had upon its statute books stringent laws of neutralit conformable in all respects to the rights 0 neu trality, it has also endeavored sometimes I admit with indifferent success to enforce these laws with rigid and exact justice, and to prevent citizens of the country from making war with any Power to which the Government itself had not previously made itself a part. It seems to me well for us to consider whether we can afford, in point of character I do not speak of what we can afford’to do in point of interest to depart from the great principles which were laid down and embodied in the action of our Government under the adminis tration of Washington, and which has continued to sway its counsels without interruption from that day to this. But, as I said, I do not wish to enterat this late day upon any discussion of the general principles which this subject involves. I rose rather to say that it seems to me, as it seemed to my colleague on the committee, [Mr. Par riznsox, ] who joined me in the minority report, that this subject merits much more full and careful consideration than we are now able to give it. But a few months will ela so before we shall a in reassemble in the e cember session. "he resolution reported by the minority proposes that a JtCommee to consist of 3 members of the Senate an 6 members of the House, shall take into consideration during the recess the subject of revising our neutral laws, and that they shall report at the next session such changes as they think it wise and expedient to make in order to conform these laws to the changed condition of international affairs and the regressive spirit of the age. I submit to the house that in that way we shall stand a much better chance of attaining results which will be satisfactory to us as well as to the people of the whole country than by acting in this necessarily hasty and imerfect manner upon the bill now brought be ore the House. I know no exigency in our public affairs which requires us to enter upon an immediate change in our neutrality laws. On the contrary, circumstances exist which incline me to believe that caution is more than ever requisite in making such a change. I can very readily see how the enactment of such a law as this, in haste necessarily, might encour age individual enterprises and expeditions at war with the spirit of our laws and with the real interests and honor of the nation. It is proposed in this bill, moreover, as the chairman of the committee has stated, to base our laws of neutralit, not upon the principles which we ourselves have always held on this subject, but upon the laws and practices of a foreign Power. Now, sir, [submit that that is not a wise basis for our action. I concur fully in the sentiment that members cherish here concerning the action of certain foreign Powers on the subject of neutrality during our recent civilWar. But do we not owe it. to our own dinnity and honor to continue to do here atter what we have always done hitherto base public laws of this kind upon the public principles which have come to be known as the American principles on the subject of international law? I shall with rent reluctance consent to a departure from fiiat which is our traditional policy, and which I believe to be the policy most consistent with the dominion and greatness of our nation. Especially should I be unwillin to make these serious changes in so hasty an imperfect a manner as these must be made if they are made now in the way propose. Ip. move to amend this bill by substituting the resolution reported by the minority of the comForAffrs; and I ask the Clerk to read the resolution.