The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1806-08-08
GDf Gnqutrfr.
RICHMOND, sri Aucys7.

'.>'e"s TOT puohsn'hg an 0nedged libel on the
character of Julius Demins. and was by the
court fentencrd 70 find a BOND of 500 dol
" lars. to KEEPTHE PEACE nndbe of GOOD
:" BBHHV7OUR /; to pay FINE of 100 doNs /:
:" Pay TIE ecF effrofenfioa, and Rand COM.
MlTTED until judgmeat zva5eonpEed zvitb. %
Admitting the aAedged libel to be tale and ma.
feieus, perhaps no legal OBJECTION could he RATED
to 10 much of this fentence, as fuhiet4s the de-
tendant TO the fine, to COTS of profecution, and
to commitment, until this part of the Judgment
was complied wifh.-Yet even on fbeE points.
II would remain to be proven, whether m the
quef on of this libel being Jalje and ysalieisu,,
me Judement of Connecticut court is to be
a'lumed as the tandard Of decifion: and
whether the long sraaiee of the connec.
ticus pret'es, as uniformly EMPLOYED nv both
parties, does not furnifh fome apoIopifine
precedent for this partial error of Mr.. or
born. II is an indifputabe f,et that Sc The
MONITOR, federal paper, publifhed in tn.
fame town of Litch6rld, is continusly Ieycllinp
ITS .faJS and mott m1lieioa libels at the mon
vlrfuous characters of the country but the F.
ditor OF the Moaitor forfooth efcapes with
immunity.
But u Is not to tbif part of the fen.ence that
we driire to rafe any frunu Gus objections.
II IS io'e'y to that oart, which fentences SslIcck
Oiborn to find band of 500 Dollars to k,.e
f~Ste OcDQUgOHT.
this part, that the friend, of Ofborn heIitated
whether he fhoald yield obedience. And It i.
from this fpirit of contumacious refiftance 70
the edIcts of, Connecticut Judiciary, thar h,
WAS doomed to the walls ola prifon TO com
munion with ravthers and maniacs.
This celebrated qmefion, whether fecuri.
ty tor good behaviour could be required by
Juitice of the peace, from the editors of A ca
zette, is not altogether new even in the records
OF Virginia. Jurifprudeuce. The reader well
recolleefs that twas the precife qneffion, which
was debated IN the motion againft Calender in
the year 1902, before the maeitrates of Hen.
rico conntv- The inn.,.,,e y. ~, -
which combined to favour that motion. made
the advocates OF the prefs trenhle for it's IL
oerey. Norman was more perionalIy opnox Gus,
At that moment, than the wretched defendant.
Few men were 10 we'll calculated TO give due
weight TO the motion which he advocated as
the complainant himfelf, whofe legal acquire
mt nts were entitled to univerfsl relpeea; whole
celebrated letters of Hortenfius had already
ra'ied him above the fufpicion of entertaining
any hottie ientiments towards the liberty of the
preis. Among the mott fplendid talents of the
Richmond Bar were RATED on the fide Of the
Proiecutor. Bat the contribution of Virginia
aad the liberty ofthe prefs triumphed over all
thete confiderations. The magistrates deter
mined that no fecurity for good behaviour
ihoud be exaeted from the Editors of the Re
cordef.
In isite OF the notorious treachery of CilIen-
der, at that time beginning to burft forth upon
the pubic view, the republicans of Virginia
trinmphed in the deciiion. They regarded il
as tiacere tribute of refped paid to our Bill of
Rights, and to the liberty ofthe prefs. But the
repuoncans OF Conneeticut can boat of no fuch
projections. The freedom of the prefs is nei-
n helh in IND e..
nor ny the general feelings of the people and
as to their pretended contribution, it is compleat-
" hent upon the fubjett. 1t is no more, in
fact, than miferable charter of Charles g.,
winch contains no ftipulation in favour of the
'i'~''y ri Inc preis, becanfe at the moment
when IT was conferred, the hent fits of the
prets itfeif were fcarcely acknowledged.
The requiring of fecurity for good BEHAVIOUR,
from the Editor of Gazette, NAV pot. there
fore, be contrary to the contribution and th- laws
OF Connecticut becaufe that contribution does
not provide for the liberty of the prefs. The
petition is, however. equally indifputabIe. that
this pretended contribution deferves to he a.
meRded for not having made this proyifion:
ana that the practice of requiring fecurty from
the prefs, IS contrary TO its necenary freedom
Before the perfecuting ihquifition of Conneeli-
cut, It may he regarded as not Only contrary,
but as fatal TO its liberties. Let us take arapid
view ofits consequences
1t is prefumed that the fame procefs applies
TO printers as to any other perfons that are g not
of good fame" when fecurity for good be.
haviour" isrequred. But it is the privilege
OF a Jingle Judge or jgQiee in Virginia to be the
coniervator of peace, and to demand this fe-
curi'y. If the law Of Connecticut therefore
correspond with that of Virginia, and Il is pre-
Tuned they are both drawn from the fame foun-
tain, (the tatute of Edward the sd. in ls6o)
It ism the power of SINGLE federal magiC
trate In Connecticut, to exact this fecurity, or
to commit the eonfanaeioU editor to iail.
But the degree as we'll as the exiftence of the
tecurlty are within the breaf of the Iuftice
The ena6ing law of Virginia as well as the fla.
tute of Edward, both grant him the /" power
to demand Eu6feienf fccurity" A Connecticut
federal magarate therefore may determine
upon any fun or any fecurity, which it may
fuit his political difsrefion to demand. As TO
the Indulgence which may be expected from this
principle, the fate of poor Ofborn is a fuf-
ficient memento.
AgreeabIy to Selleck O{born's rentence there
fore, republican printer may be condemned-
but not BY the verdict of Jury, not by the fen
tence of court, but by h6sle magiarate--
condemned, not for any libel actually pubIih-
ed, but even upon pretended (Yibirion-.to give
not a /utfeirnf, but NOT exorbitant Tecurit .
for wbaf Connecticut Court may p!eafe to cali
I" coed bebuTuear."
But the Perfecution of the poor printer does
not terminate here. II is eafy to ,ccufe him of
Tome act, which may be reprefented as a forfeit