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

ca win the niual mode OF proceeding IN the
Eouse; but if he unjeritood the otieS of the
motion made by the gentleman from Connec-
ticut, il was to give the committee appointed
fuch acommifiion as the Houfe, inftcad Of the
mover, might win. IF the Houfe coniiderrd
the motion as not exactly right, it would be in
their power to give fuch commiiiion as Mould
be mott confentaneous to their ideas. He
Thought this the moft correct courfe. a gen
tleman draws up a refolution, which, per-
haps, only in part fuggeGs the opinions of the
majority; the Houfe then lay it before com
mittee of the whole to modify it according to
their ideas. Mr.. Ely thought the whole fub-
jeet would be before comniittee OF ;hc waa-,
and that it would be in the power ofgentiemen
10 modify it as they pleafed.
MIR. Eppes faid if he undertood the oheGt
ct the refoutioa, it prefcnted two fnhjeets for
confederation the fri Of which was, whether
the common law of England was the law of
the land; and the fecond, whether in cafes of
profecuton, the accufed may give the truth
in evidence. He thought the gentleman from
Connecticut might get at his object better by
two tpecifc refolutions, than by the one he
had propofed; be had drawn fnch refoluti-
ons, and would read them by way Of argu-
ment
+ Mr.. Eppes here read the following refoluti-
ons:
l. kSioIS'eG, hat the common law OF Eng.
land is not part of the law Of u. S. except 10
far as it has been adopted by the laws of the
U. 5. or of the individual ftates--and that the
prosecution OF a perfon at common law for Ii
bel is violation of the freedom of the prefs,
and contrary to the contribution of the United
States.
2 RrJolved, That in all prosecutions whe-
ther criminal or otherwie. it is the natural right
ola citizen to give in evidence the truth.
Mr.. Dana faid that in preparing the reiolu-
tioa which re had Offered, he had endearored
to prefent il in the mott unexcep.onable form, !;
under the imprcf1ian that when the fubjet was
before committee of the whole, it might be
modified agreeably to the wiflIes of the naio-
rity aud where the refolutions offered by the
gentleman from Virginia might be moved as
an amendment to the refo'ution which he had
fHbmitted. Should he agree to fubhitute theit
reiolutions in lieu of his own, he might be
conhdered as agreeing with the gentleman in
every word they obtained; whereas it could
not be expected that he could be ready hafty
to pledge himfelf or any fpecfic refolr' ion un-
til he had maturely confidered il. The gen
tlenan from Virginia had doubtlefs fully conf
dered them, and was prepared to give his vote
Without however pronouncing on the principles
contained in them, he thought that at leaf
there was fome inaccuracy in the language.
Mr.. Eppes did not fuApofe that refolutions
haRily drawn pof1efed al! the profefional &C
curacy which might be given to them and
very poflihiy they did not poiIefs ali the preci-
iion which would have characterized them if
drawn by the pen of the gentleman from Con-
Deeticut. But the objection of the gentleman
otherwife was not well founded. IF the refo-
buttons he had fuggefted were to be fubmitted
INN dately 10 the decifion of the Houfe, there
might be fnme fold objection but when it
was known that the Object was to refer them
for dcufiion, they amounted TO no more than
an exprefiion of the fentirnents of the mover on
the iubjett. MIR. Eppes faid he regou1y be-
eved that the common law of England was
never part of the law of the land, and that
when man was profecuted, he had right TO
give the truth in evidence. IF the gentleman
pcriitedin refuing to modify his refolution, he
would move pohponement tor the purpofc Of
Introducing his own.
Mr.. Speaker faid motion to poftpone had
no preference over motion to commit
Mr.. Alexander faid that the refoluton under
confederation, if not the mott technically ac-
curate, appeared to lin, the mott proper for
the adoption of the houle. 1t contained two
proportions, hrR, whether it is expedcnt to
enquire, whether the protecting officers Of
the U. S. have right to inftitute projections
for defamatory language and fecondly, If 70,
given in evidence. 1t had been objected to,
becauie it tubnJitted il to the committee of the
whole to decide, whether it were expedient to
appoint feled committee TO enquire. The
gentleman from Tenneiiee was of opinion that
il would not be competent to committee of
the whole to difcufs the principles of the refo-
luton but that they would be excluiively con-
fined to confederation of the expediency of
appointing fe!e6t committee to make the en-
CURRY. Mr.. Alexander faid this was not his
opinion. Before the committee of the whole,
the whole fubjcd would prefent itfelf. He ad-
dcd that he would fubftitute phrAfcoloey that
would not contain the obnoxious term Je'eS
committee, to wit, to make the rsfolution yead---
whether it is not expedient tn enquire, &c.
emitting altogether the term felrct committee.
Would not this, however, be pretending the
luhject in the fame point of view And if the
committee of the whole decided that it was
proper to make the enquiry, the next ftep
would he to appoint felect committee.
Mr.. Alexander fad he thought the quefion
of high importance, and the courfe propofed
very proper. IT was beft to prefent the fubjett
under general view, and not in the fpccihc
form iuggefed by the gentleman from Virginia.
He hiould therefore vote for the reference
lie declared himfelf of opinion that the accuf-
ed had right to give the truth in evidence;
but faid he had not yet made up his mind, whe-
Their fuch protection could be carried on by
csicers OF the u. s.
The reference TO a committee of the whole
was then aglked to---Ayes 57---Noes 4I---and
the refolutlua made the order for Thurfdsy
next.