The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1809-06-06

Mr.. Enthusiastically not. ,.-. .-,.--
Mr. Good made some observations upon the
duty Of an encouragement. He said that
this officer looked 10 the jury for facts; but
if law combined with fact, they were bound
to look to him for their guide. In offences
against the public peace. they wanted no
guide but their own eyes and ears; ndict-
ments for such offences flowed from the grand
jury alone, from their own conviction; but
when otherwise, that. officer was immediate
. ly referred to. Having had occasion to OBJ
serve something in relation TO the course
which had been pursued in cases of criminal
prosecutions, Mr.. e.. said he had thought
proper to state thus much. He noticed ano-
Their observation made by gentleman from
| Massachusetts (Mr. Bacon) i'll relation to
the prosecutions having been produced from
the peculiar soil of Connecticut. In repell-
| ing this remark, if indeed there were any
thing to lie repeiled in it, it was pcoper to
observe, that when a question of Justice,
especially Of that kind to be obtained by pro-
secution, twas brought i.efore the house.
thing could, be more unfortunate than for a
moment to connect itwith party. Justice,
Mr.. G.. said, had nobler view; it dched
such WEAPONS. He conceived the public JUS
tice of the country to have been wounded,
and that the wound was aggravated when it
was Carried on the narrowed theatre of poll
tics. He thought it peculiarly unfortunate,
not oKly as respected the reputation of the adj
! ninistration, but as respected the expcnce.
| that of si1; or eight prosecutions, the whole
should have fallen TO the ground, without one
OF them having been put to an issue. After
all, it the persons implicated were guilty, a
rod had been held over them, which had
never fallen; and if innocent, q great eX-
pence had been incurred, and it was right
at least, that they should have an opPortuni-
ty, before q jury of their country, to be com
lpensated. 1t seemed he said, that the per-
tod had hpnn rafa 81 heb had
no doubt well defended. He believed that
Justice demanded that their eXpences, in con-
iscquence of the prosecutions, should be re-
funded to them.
MIR, Trout said that he was so scnsbly a.
live to whatever might directly or indirectly
affect the reputation of the late President of
the u. States, that he could not forbear eX-
Ipressing hope that whatever might be done
directly OF indirectly affecting his charac-
Iter. might be so done that the truth and all
the truth IN relation to it might be in posses
sion OF the House. II he had understood the
gentleman from Connecticut correctly, he
had declared himself ignorant what was the
nature OF the prosecutions directed to be in
stituied. lie conceived the enquiry to be
important, not only as to what was the ma
ture OF. the prosecutions, but as to the fact,
whether the prosecutions were directed to be
instituted, and by whom they were SO direct
ed. Mr.. Dana observed, III explanation,
, that 1t was supposed in the state oil Connec-
r ticut, that the prosecutions were produced
by the influence of the administration of the
i. ". StatEs; HAT he hmtelf doubted the COR
lrectness of that opinion. The fact had been
known two sessions ago, for he then menti-
oned 1T to an officer OF the government who,
when it was mentioned, appeared at that
4 time to have been entirely ignorant Gift -
Mr.. Iroup said he was happy at the cxpla.
nation of the gentleman from Connecticut
u a = no ~ 30 ne. hD,,c. ,t,I III.
felt indebted to him for the Iiberality which
he had displayed. 1t was important to un-
derstand on what ground the prosecutions
had been commenced; if upon the common
law doctrine of libel, and the prosecutions
were criminal, the defendant was precluded
nom giving the truth in evidence but If
they were actions for libellous or sanderons
words, spoken, even BY the common law doc
trine OF England, the defendants were per-
mitted to give the truth of the words so soo-
ken, in evidence. 1t therefore resulted as
material to the enquiry to know not onlS
what was the nature of the prosecutions, but
by what authority they had been in stituted.
: On that account he movedto admend the mo-
: ton SO as to ehqnire not only by what author
ity the actions had been inst tutsd, but who
we're the institutors cfthese actions.
81 Mr. RandoLih said he had no objection to
!, the amendment. His object was to come ut
the truth, to do justice and TO secure the Ii
$ berry of the citizen; and If that was done
it was perfectly indifferent to him by whom
i 1t was done; or who had the credit of il,
{ whose reputation was furnished or whose
o Frightened by it. One thing he knew: that
he would never attack the reputation of any
man by any indirect mode; and he conceiv-
ed it would become the duty of the commit
= tee to stiff into the particulars. With res
' Ipect toactions for SANDER commenced in the
e federal courts of the u. S. in which the de-
fcudant was permitted toput in the dangerous
n plea of justification, he never heard Of any,
nor did he believe there was an instance in
S (which they had been instituted. He spoke
: In the resolution before the House of prosecu-
tions at common law for libel. On what spe-
1t ces of plea could the federal court get iuris-
: diction of case of that nature bctwe en- two
e parties! AS he understood the Constitution
n Mr.. X. said, the circuit court had no such
e Jurisdiction. They might as well stternpt to
o punish murder, because the man killed lived
J. in one state and the murderer in :, different
r state. Even the gentleman from Delaware
!, (Mr. Bayard) had never pushed his argu-
N ment to the length that federal courts had
r. cognizance OF murder or felony committed
It within the jurisdiction of the state courts
N He therefore had no kind of reference to ac-
Of tons of SANDER in the resolution * he assure
&C his friend from Georgia [Mr. TroUp] that he
Ie should feel pleasure, not much inferior 70
e his, at seeing the reputation Of the party in