Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1809-06-06
Gungrc9S
HOUSE REPRESENTATIVES,.
Thursday, May IS.
DOCTRINE OF LIBELS.

Mr.. Randolph said that among the
various topics of difference between
the two great contending parties in
the Jnited States, duricg the exist.
encc of the administration Of Mr.. A.
dams, there had been none perhaps Of
greater magnitude in the public esti-
NATION than celebrated act common
ly called the sedition act; and there
had been none perhaps which had more
tended to the downfall and overthrow
of the administration under which it
was enacted. The question then made
by the people of the United States was
not whether that law cotained good
law of libel or not, but whether Con-
gress had power to- enact any law ofli-
bel or not; whether that clause of the
constitution contained in one of it's "a
mendments, declaring that Congress
should make TO law respecting an es-
Establishment of religion, or prohibiting
the free exercise thereof, or abridging
the freedom Of speech or of the press,
did not compietelv foreclose Congress,
and preclude them from legis!atiug on
the subject at all. And (said he by,
avery great body Of the American peo-
pie, as understand, averdict has been
given that Congress do not possess the
right of passing any act on this subject
whatever; and [ trust and believe that
there will never exist another Congress
which will have the temerity and har-
dihood 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 Representa-.
tiyes ut the time thar the law in ques-
ti6n expired. we'll recoliect, and pro !,
bah!y Won do also, Mr.. Speaker, the
very splendid aud beautiful tieclamatI-
on with which member at that time
from South Carolina, (Mr. Harper)
exti3rted the majority of this House
to re enact that law, on the ground
that it would be a shield and protecti-
on to them, as going out of power, a
gainst their adversaries, into whose
hands power was about to be transfer
red, as the sedition law would allow
them to give the truth in evidence, and
the common law does not. And he
then foretold, what 1 confess I listen
ed to with the most perfect incretluli-
", that prosecutions for libel would be
commenced and carried on in the
courts OF the United States at common
law. Sir, was not only incredulous
myself at that moment, but had the
Observation-Disclosures to think that the gen
tleman himself did not believe in the
opinion which he advanced. l belize
ved 1t impossible for an adninistrati-
on coming into power OH the terms on
which the last did, ever to sanction
prosecution at comaon law for libel
where the truth could not be given in
evidence. The doctrine commended
TOR by the federal party, & ABLY supper
tel by a member { Mr.. BaYard) who is
nov translated TO the other House,
that he common law Of England is the
law Of the u. States, WIS doctrine
more abhorrent, if possible, to the fee
lungs ct the republican party in the u.
States, than the scdition law itself. -
For It the sediiion law was objection
able because it established law of IL
bel which permitted the truth to be gi-
ven in evidence, 4 fortiori, the COM
mon law doctrine, was more so, which
not oaiy established a law Of libel the
more hideous, because the truth was
nor permitted to be given in evidence,
hpt established the whole system of
penal laws in the British books which
might be found in relation to this SUR
ject. Accordingly, the best pens and
the sbiest minds in the party to which
You and | had the honor to belong,
We're employed in attempting to refute