Alexandria daily advertiser. [volume] (Alexandria [Va.]) 1803-1808, 1807-01-07

+ 20 IeIcTTlEE tult Itsoiut'oh ~ cODmi,,
Of the whole was that il was bestto rrrs. s !.
/ In the first instance TO asslecs commi,,.
4 to settle the principle. Bur this would l..
I to invert the usual courae pursued BIZ ~
! house, which was first to settle princioI..
in committee of the whols- lie had ~
| ters,ood thar in the second Circuit Of -.
u. S prosecutions aud indictseals bal
been made at common law In,imes n,.,
which he hoped would never return, a !.
dition law had been passed. That law CAV.
every man accused the right of giving II.
truth 10 evidence. He understood H..
under the common law, after an indlc,'
ment was preferred, the truth was not Der.
| mitted TO be given in evidsnrc and TIA,
under this doctrine they would lheYefo,.
be worse Of than uader the sedi,ion law
lie hoped the resolution would be referred
to committee of the whole 70 max. a.
proposed enquiry.
Mr. Bidwell agreed thata committee If
the whole was The proper place tor as,slir,
principles. IF The resolution were O.
framed 90 TO answer ihis purpose, it sbonM
have his approbasioa. But the only oo,,
sion, in ;ts presens form. was merely 6,
the appointment Of select csnm;tIee. -
investigate The subjecs, whieh-pvesiipa,ior
would be mos, properly made 10 a COMM.
Tee Of the whole.
Mr.. Quincy said .ha, lhe objection of
his colleague seemed to b. TO tbs ward
enquire. Dir Q, ,hosght that i, was mo..
proper for ths house 10 committer Of i.
whole 10 dsiefmine whether j. would /.
sSpeaIent 10 appoip,a seiect commit, =
enqaifs. it itshsuId be decided thar 90
saeh enquiry is sxpediens. there wooiaE.
40 emu ct the business. IF contrary DE-.
eision we're caads. shen a coanis &C n;qb,
DC aPPointea to make ihs enqairy. Tie
gentleman you'd oct say thar the resc!u.
sits did not contain a principle Of .sas!im.
por'ancs. we'll worthy of Investigations
10 his opinion j, .gss tess first TO s..s. the
priuclpse 10 commistee OF the whole, and
thea lnc1 act select. committee on The p,
tors OF The esqairy, and the degree 10
which i, should be made.
Mr. Efpss sad he should vote for refer
ence CT the resoiatioz to the committee Of tie
whole, although he believed il was not draught.
cd In such form as 1t shoulG be, 20 insure
dlscussion OF the principles involved in ii. II |
! rs understood it, 1t would reduce tha houssa
the necessity of discussing tks quegtion-wsica
lad been discussed, whether the passage of
law glving man right to give the trath IN
evtderce, would abridSe his rights He could
have wished the gentleman FROM Connecticut
to have stated a specific proposition, such IS
that the cemmon law Of ENGLAND is not part
OF the law Of the United States, and that in all
prosecutions i Is Tia right OF ciizen togg.
the trath in evidence.
Mr.. Eppes said he wished tbs genheana
would go further, arid offer resolution to:
qulre into the official conduct Of any udy
who had dared to institute such prosecutions
as had been intirsated. He would haveno
objection Oh going a-step fuss..er, to impeach 1
ing him and voting for his removal.
Mr.. EpPes said that although he should /
vote Tor tie reference ofthis resolution, be (
could rot but remark that It was extraordna.
y TO- the gentleman FROM Connecticut {
make such motion Suppose the gentIenan
was to cHera resolution for appointing com
nlittee to enqdire whether citizen Of the u
states had right to the privilege Of the by +
beas corpus act Would Res such a propos
ton be deemed most extraordinary But .
shew that lie was Rot afraid TO meet the cues
ton, once already asitasad in this countrF@
was ready g refer the present resolution, a.
we'll as to enquire into the Official conduetd
any Judge VINO had practised the dostrlns' Il
mentioned by the gentleman from Connect @
cut.