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

that lac Sser nad what he deemed credisaol
evidence ofthe fact, He had indeed seen in
dmations of the kind in the news papers
but OIL erquirins st they were true, he ha,
and accordingly he set them down as fedora
lies-hemeant ofthe editors of federal news
papers; Tor. indeed, it was known that ne W
papers were no. confined to the truth,, ant
that these people in the u. States who coult
afford TO take but one paper, or whose preju
dice Was so strong that they would read bu
ons side Ut the question, stood but little chance
Ut knowing the real state of affairs.
Mr.. X. stated the circumstances unde,
which he had moved an enquiry into the con-
duct OF Samuel Chase as being similar &c
those under which he moved the presen,
enquiry. When the fact had been stated
by the gentleman from Connecticut at the
last session, he said, he had been astonished
mat 1t had created SO little sensation i'm the
House or in the nation. If he, a representa-
1--WE OF the nation, who had an opportunity
or seeing various publications and having
access to various information which others
had not, was till then ignorant of the fact,
was &C not possible, nay more than probable
that the great mass OF the American people
were, at that moment he was speaking. in
perfect ignorance of the fact? IF we are to
preserve our republic pure, said Mr.. X. we
must often recur to fundamental principles.
LOOK frequently over our file of precedents,
ana eXpahse those which are not salitary
and those especially which we find to be ,,ii-
constitutional especially we should draw
the pen over all made in hard & unconstiruti.
onal times. With regard to one observation
made by the gentleman from Connecticut,
that he wishes his Constituents to have no
other, law OF libel or of Justice than that
which they lind under the sedition act, viz.
the priyiledge of giving the truth in evil.
dence, will remark, that however proper
this principle might be in a single integral
government. 1t varies when we apply it to
federal government exercising only certain
specihed powers. and having an aspect prin-.
cipally toforeign affairs. To what purpose
DIES the constitution declare that Congress
shall make no law abridging the freedom of
the press, II Congress can make laws such
as the sedition law. or if the courts can en-
Iertaln prosecutions at common law for libeis |!
That there should be power on this sub
Ject somewhere, is one thing but that the.
general government should possess that pow
err, which, however inherent in an integral
government, is denied to that government by
the constitution, is another thing. It was a
weapon welded with great force against us
at the time of the discussion on the sedision
law, that men who told setitious lies ought.
to be liable to punishment; and suppose,
slr, the difference was not perceived between
the men who wrote liGels being liable to pu-
nishnient, and their being subject To- punish
ment IN fhe ftderdt courts. The question
was net whether there should not be a pu-
hishment for iibels, but whether the govern
ment of the United States had or could have
agreeably to the constitution, any law OF Ii
bel. Mr. Randolph asked of the House, if
1T was row right to reform the abuses which
mad taken place. to set about the work. haI
attempt had been made in the other House,
and failed like an attempt, to promote eco
non and enforce accountability. You know
very well (said MIR. r that there were ma
ny OF us, and was one, who thought that at
the commencement Of Mr., Jefferson's admi |
histratioD, 1t would be proper for US topass a !
sort OF declaratory act ON the subject of the
sedition law, something analogous to MIR. |
tox's celebrated declaratory bill on the sub !
Iect OF libels, which did not so much enact a |
new law as declare that Lord Manshcld's !
law was not law-but on this subject, as well |
US on the reduction Of the army below its |
then standard, as on some others, I had the |
honor Tor dishonor as some might esteem it) |
tobe in the minority. had thought tina,
we ought to have returned the fines of all |
those who Suffered under the law; that we |
should have followed the example of that
precedent which rcsc.Gded al; the resolutions
IN relation to the MiddeseX election; that
we should have made whole, as far as in our
power, the persons who came under the lash
% That law. But you know that it was said
That we came in as reformers that we should
not DO too much that we should go on by
Iittle and little; that we should fire minute
guns, think was the expression, which pro- |
iuced no other effect that ever found than
the keeping zap spirit Of irritation Which
might have been and ought TO have been long
ago allayed. / would have acted in that case
as presume the master of family would
act II offended by his children; ] would first
have punished and then forgot-and il is in
his manner alone that a state or family can
BE kept in due subsection to the ,ather of that
state or family, without at the same time
having their confidence impaired. But it the
father WILING punish, but will continue to
RENE nhcr the fault, he alicnates the child.
II he viii continue TO twit him in the teetl,
with his wrong doings, he must count upon /
osIng his confidence, 1t is better To give
aim his due, and then fo:get that ne has Of
ended, and reinstate him in his affections.
arr sorry to have said so much, sir. ,,,t
owed 1T to myself Among the different
;harges which have been made against me.
me was that 1 had no projects, no hrojects |
hihk was the term. trust that before the.
session is ended, 7 shall satisfy the House that
am at least as full of projects as they could
rave wished me to be-
Mr.. Irouh said that the gentleman frotn
Virginia was wholly mistaken in his ideas.
or he (Mr. ~ was no less friendly to the
notlon than the gentleman FROM Virginia