Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1801-02-10


ioitens ;he penalties IL cafes of libels, which f,
are very harih according to the common law. |
The gentleman from Virginia has rightly |
appreciated ny 'notivso in willing 10 renew
tins law, when different standardization is
to axe charge of the public welfare.
Mr.. CalIa;in faid it had been his insenti
on nol to rife again on this rahj:et, but as
the gentleman from Delaware had laid that
II 5his law iano, continued in force the com.
m0u law will he toe law OF the land, he would
make few o5is,vations. As TO the conit-
tu'ionali,y OF the law; 1t is alledged TO be
neceiiarY tor carrying into operation certain
defined powers OF the contribution. Su.eiy
this law cannot be ncrc!lary 10 carry into
eiiect thele dsioed powers il the commoa
law viii remain in exiaeuce accoSding 70 ,ne
gentiemsn's opinioa He relts Eucl, upon
the necelii,y OF il TO protect the government
from i!ander. Mr., G, fuppoie1 the evils
airing from this fc1rce were rot 70 much 10
DE dreaded IS thoie which would refllt from
The at.eUP. . puailh Gaadcr. He wifbed
to know what FaiGe, icau6aious, and mali
cious libel &c. If Punilhmcc, could be con
tined to tho'e only who pu5liihed as faas
what wac unlnpported by truth, he would
not thiak The law improper. II could not,
however, be denied, tha recourfe mua BE-
had merely 10 the opioicrs Of n Judges
! relpseting thinga Of yery difficuI, defniiion.
The gentleman from Delaware had enter
ed largely mo he dilculIion OF what had
ueser been denied that the conu,oa law ia
/ IN Tome u,caiure the law Of the laud. But
after he had paid every encornip.n 10 the
common law ne allowed il 10 be har.h in ref
pea 20 iibela.
Tie fedi,ion at fsys truth .hall be given
IN eyidence the gen,!.man fuppofea, that
without thar Provilion the Judges would be
bound to decide by the comn,oa law. He
thinks too, that i has gone farther by allow.
,rG the jury 10 detcrmi the law aud the
fa&t as in other cafes. This fuppofes they
Gad rot This right before, Then as TO libeis
the common Law Is contradictory to ito uGual
allowance.
In csufc OF THE Kind 10 ENGLAND JUDGE
gave il ia charge to the jury Ina: tbey were
ouly 70 enqnirs whether a certain paper was
printed and Publiihed by the occGled- as
we'll might he in cafe OF MURDER tell them
tlzl they were only to enquire whether the
aeculed had killad the man wi;hou, any at
tsatioa to The criniinality OF his iu:entiou.
! Mr.. C. did not think the courss Of the
/. States would at cnoc aiGume jur!fiiaion
over Iibe!s according to the common law in
cafe this act was not revived.
The gentleman from Delaware had men
tened zoe safe of a member Of this houfe
VINO had been punifaed under the Sedt;on
| Law, and conGirred tb> vote given for his
cxpulhon az fanaion Of the deciGon of the
lodge and Jury. IN fucb ineances the C
Ritutiou declared that two-thir5s were nc
ceaary fos dsciiion--This was provided On
the p.inciple that fuch might he the preva-
ience of party fpirii, thsJ a majority would
! agree 20 expei wishoni ;Hc.l.Groundcd rea-
ioaa. The vote was, therefore, a guilty, as
two thirds did not ag5cs 20 il, MrG, con
| iideTed laws ct this kind :. the 8.sans OF in-
troduciug party visys iGso courts Of juice
and that IL was only in tuch cslee THAI any
danger OF partially was to BE apprshended
fiera II 10 70 BE aPpreheudsd, urleis you
can inpPoi= judges become different men
merely 6y being placed on the 5eRch. Il
ia alio certain that the Jury mutt be connpof.
ed Of one or he other party, and "a there.
fore Incompetent 10 decide upon opinions.
Eie did not fuPPofe them Intentionally doing
wrong. He allied if any gentleman in the
Hau;s would be willing 10 be tried for IL
bel by a jury chofen from the members Of
It who are Of different polilica, opinions.
he cosfeilsd he would not.
They gentleman from ) Carolina had faid,
ihar IN certain tvial the Judge bad permit.
ted hook or newipaper to be read, ai,ho'
il wac not legal evidence. This ihews tina.
the accuGed was at the mercy of the Judge,
ince he could not claim it as right.
The fame gentleman had fpoken Of the
improperly OF the pref dent being fummon-
ed az wi;ns(o. Suppole perfoa is accuied
Of having written and publiihed falrs aad
malicious libel, in which he Rateo that the
prsGdent haa exPrca.d certain opinions on
III. triai he faye, I will prove the truth of
my ahers;ons---H is it to Be done9 By
printed declarations? No, that is not legal
evidence, re cannot flmmor the pTefidsnt
1 Fhus though truth be on hi5 Gdr, he cannot
give it in evidence. This news how diff