The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1807-01-13


Mr.. G. w. Campbell remarked that il this
refolution was referred to Committee of the
Whole, the only queftion that conld be prefent-
ID to them would be the expediency of refer
ring il to a felcet committee to make the pro-
poied enquiry. The noh regular and proper
eoutie was TO refer the refolution in the rit IN
hance to fele6 committe, and afterwards to
refer their report to Committee of the Whole.
Mr.. J. Clay fad that ihe objection made to
referring this reioiution 10 aCommttee of the
Whole was that it was beft to refer it in the
6r.t initaucc to ielect committee TO fettle the
principle. But this would be to invert the ufu-
al caurfe purified in the Houfc, which was srft
70 fettle principles in Committee of the
Whole. He had underftood that in the fecond
circuit Of the U. S. profecutions and inditt-
rrents had been made at common law. 10
times paR, which hc hoped would never re-
turn, a fedi,ion law had been paiIed. That
law gave every man acc Gfed the liberty of giving
the truth in evidence lie undcraood that,
under the ccnmoa law, after an indictment
was preisrredi the truth .was not permitted TO
De giStn III evdeace and that under this doc
yriue they would therefore be wohe off than
nader the ftdiIion law. He hoped tie refolution
would be referred to Committee of the Whole
20 make the ptopo.ed suquiry.
Mr.. Bidweli agreed that Committee of the
Whole was the proper place tol itttlng princi-
twer this purpofe, It ii,ould have his appreciate
on. Rut the only G:,eition, in its preient form,
was merely for the appointment OF felett
committee TO invetgste the iuhleGt, which in.
veitigation would be moft properly made Ia 4
COMMITTEE of the Whole.
MIR. Quncey faid that the objection of his
colleague feen,ed 10 be TO the word enquire.
Mr.. .. thought it was mon proper for the
Houfe in Committee of the Whole to deter
n,ine whether it would be expedent to appoint
afeleet committee to enquire. 1t fhould be
decided that no fi!ch enquiry is expedent, there
would be an end of the bufueis. II 4 contrary
deciion were made, then committee might be
appointed to make the enquiry. The gentle
man would not fay that the refoution did not
ceuta;n principle of VAT importance, we'll
worthy of inveaisstion. In his opinion it was
hrit firtt to fettle the principle in Committee of
the Whole, and then innruet ieect committee
on the nature of the enquiry, aud the degree
20 which it ihouid be made.
MIR. Eppcs faid he fflond vote FOR refer
euce of the reioiution to che committee of the
whole, although he believed il was not draught-
ed in fuch form as il thould be, to infure
ditcssien of the principles involved in it. IT he
under6ood It, it would reduce the Houfe to the
necefii,y of difculIiug the queNion, which had
ssen heretofore difcufIed, whether the paf1age
of law giving a man a right to give the truth
ia evidence, would abridge his rights. He
could have wiihed the gentleman from Con-
necticut to have Rated afpecifc propoition,
zach as that the common law OF England is not
par; of the lay of the U S. and that in all pro-
fecutious ii is the right of citizen to give the
truth in evidence.
Mr.. Eppes faid he wiil,sd the gentleman
would 60 father, and offer refolution to enc
quire irs> the official conduct Of any Judge who
lad dared 10 infitute iuch proiecut ions az had
been animated. He would have no objection
10 go fep further, to impeachiDg him and
voting for his removal.
Mr. Eppss faid that although he fi,orla vote
for the reference Of this reiolution, he could
GOT but remark that it was extraordinary for
the gentleman from CONNECTICUT TO make fuch
motion. Suppofe the gentleman were to of
fer a reio'ution for appointing committee to
enquire whether citizen of the u. S. had a
right to the privilege of the habeas corpus ad |
Would not fIch proportion be deemed mon
extraordinary But to fhow that he was not
afraid to meet the quenion, once already sgi- |
isted IN this country, ne was ready tn refer the
prefent reiontion, as well as TO enquire into |
the official conduct Of any judge who had prac-
riled the doctrines mentioned by the gentleman
from ConneGicGt.
Mr. Dana faid he would explain to the !
Honfe she reafons which had induced him 70 |
fabuit the refolution in its prefent form. In |
fhc observations he mad offered, he Rad avoid |
ed all aiufon TO the paa Gue.tion. which had
been seitatsd in this country. He did not win !
10 prrfent the proportional its ou,fet, in fich
form, as might give oiienceNo any part ofthe |
Houfe but in fnch form that the iioufe might, |
after deliberate inycftgation Of the fubjea, |
express their opinion upon il. He had fnp- |
pofed it would be clearly in order, in the COM
mittee Of the whole, TO move amendment, |
dcclara,ory Of principle, nitead ofrefcrring the |
enquiry to feiet committee, in cafe that mode |
fhould he deemed NOR eligible.
Mr.. O. w. Campbell did not win il to be |
underitood that he had any OBJECTION 10 the |
suction coming before the Houfe. On the con- |
trary, if doubts exifted of the right Of the CT |
tizcn in any aate, who was accufed, to give the |
truth On evidence, he hoped the qaeftion would
be fettied by the Houfe. He entertained diff |
ferent opinion On this iubject from that which
had been exprefIed. In number of the Rates,
the laws gave she individual the right of giving
the truth in evidence. He had always confider-
cd the tat lave on this fubjcct binding on the
federal courts. This queftion mad never infu-
eaced the proceedings of the courts with which
he was beit acquainted and II it had Affected
their proceedings in other tates, it was high
time to iettlv the guefjon. The remarks which
he had made did not appear TO be Huderfood
by the gentleman from Pennsylvania lie did
VT cOnhtisr the felett committee, to whom 1t |
,ts. proposed TO referthis refoIution, as intend
ed 10 decide the principle, out to determine
~ r -Isr-