The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1809-06-02

the description of the fourth. fifth and sixth
sections of the n-interconrsc act. From
the happy commencement of the settlement
of our differences with Great britain. he did
not believe it was the design Of any gentle
man, that the non intercourse should be en-
forced in this particular. He therefore of
fered resolution for suspending the act, as
lgiyen IN our last; which was referred to the
committee Of Commerce and Manufactures,
with leave to report by bill or otherwise.
Several other petitions were received and
referred to the committe of POST Offices and
Post Roads, and to the committee of Claims
DOCTRINE OF. LIBELS.
Mr.. Randolph said that among the vari-
Gus topics of difference between the two
great contendidg parties in the United States.
during the existence of the administration
OF Mr.. Adams, there had been none perhaps
OF greater magnitude in the public estima-
ton than a celebrated act commonly called
the scdition act; and there had been none
perhaps which had more tended to the down
tall and overthrow of the administration
under which it was enacted. The question
then made by the people of the United
otates was not whether that law contained
good law OF libel or not, but whether Con-
gress mad power to enact any law of libel or
not whether that clause of the constitution
contained in one of it's amendments. declar-
ing that Congress should make no law res
pectlng an establishment Of religion, OF. pro
hibiting the free exercise thereof, or abride-
ing the freedom of speech or Of the press,
did not completely foreclose Congress, and
preclude them from .legislating on the sub
jet atall. And [said he) by a very great
body OF the American people, as under
stand, verdict has been given that Congress
do not possess the right of passing any act
on TINS subject whatever; and / trust and
believe that there will never exist another
Congress which will have the temerity and
hardihood to NEEDLE with the rights of the
people and states on this point There are
some OF US. Sir, who were members of the
House OF Representatives at the time that
the law IN question expired. ! well recol-
iect. and probably you do also, Mr.. Speaker,
the very splendid and beautiful defamation
with which a member at that time from
South Carolina, lMr. Harper) exhortesl the
majority of this House to re-enact that law.
on the ground that it would be shield and
projection to them, as going out of power,
against their auversaries, into whose hands
power was about to be transferred, as the
sedition law would allow them to give the
truth in evidence, and the common law does
not. And he then foretoid, what confess
listened to with the most perfect incredulity,
that prosecutions for libel would be common
ced and carried on in the courts of the Uni
tea States at common law. Sir, | was
not only mcredulous ms self at that moment,
but had the uncnaritableness to think that
the gentleman himself did not believe in the
opinion which he advanced. | believed it
impossible sor an administration coming into
power on the terms which the last did
ever to sanction a prosecution at common law
tor libel where the truth could not be given
IN evidence. The doctrine commended for by
the federal party, and ably supported by a
member (Mr. Bayard) who is now translat-
ed TO the other House, that the common law
| OF England is the law of the United States,
was doctrine more abhorrent, if possible,
to the feelings of the republican party in the
United States; than the sedition law Itself
For II the sedition law was objection able
| because II established law of libel which
permitted the truth to be given in evidence,
Jorttou, the common law doctrine was
more SO, which not only established law of
libel the more hideous, because tile truth
was not permitted to be given in evidence,
but established the whole system of penal
laws II the British books which might be
found in relation to the subject. Accordingly,
the best pens and the ablest minds in the
parry to which you and had the honor to
belong, were employed in attempting to re-
tnte the hercsy and against the sedition law.
80 o''"-SSSSa'I 70 Gill 10 your rcCOlleCtlon
TIE writings OF Hortcnsius, the resolutions If
Cni. Jrha Taylor of Caroline, and the still
mere iilustrious report of the present chief
magistrate, goinsto explode the doctrine BY
irresistible arguments TO this succeeded a
tract by gentleman of no obscure fame, vino
has rendered himself somewhat conspicuous.
rs law Character, by his commentaries on
thi't great commentator Sir VIM. Blackstone
still gong to shew that the common law of
England was not the law of the United
States; that, although it has been adopted
ny the several states with various modifica-
tons, 1t is 10 further law than as they have
adopted It, and under the limitations made
to 1t by each state--but that as q law of the
United States in their federal capacity. il
has no validity. Since, if it had, of the diff
ferent common laws in the United States,
which should we adopt? Or should we take
the common law of England, of a monarchy.
rounded upon an hereditary nobility and
great hierarchy, nnsuited to the genius of n
republican government But, Sir. such
unliappIly IS the difference between men out
ct power, and men in power, that. if we are
TO believe the representations made at the
last session OF Congress. by member from
connecticut, (Mr. Dana) the correctness of
which L presume no man would have the
hard'hood to- doubt, prosecutions for libels at
c0mHi"n law have been entertained i'm the
courts OF the United States against citizens.
ana consequently have been carried on by
TIC attorneys for the districts wherein such
prosecutions commenced. Yes, Sir, such is
the difference between mon In no,rar ,,I