Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1809-06-06

law. 1t is unnecessary to call to you
irscollection the writings of Hortensi
Us, the resolutions of Col. John Tay
Tor, of Caroline, and the still more ii
lustrious report Of the presentch;ef ma
strate, going to explode the doctrine
10y Irresistible arguments. To thi.
succeeded a tract By gentleman ofno
lobscure fame, who has rendered him,
self somewhat conspicuous as law
character, by his commentaries on tina,
great commentator, Sir WIN. Black.
stone, still go ng to shew ti1at the com.
mon law of England waa not the law
lot the United States that, although
1t has been adopted by the several
states with various notifications, it is
40 further law than as they have adop-
ted 1t, and under the limitations made
to 1t by each state-but that as law
OF the United States, in their federal
jcapacity, j, has no validity. Since. 1.
1T had, OF the different common laws i.
the United States, which should wea
IdoPt! Or shoui2 we take the common
law of England, of monarchy, f,an.
jded upon an hereditary nobility and a
Igreat hierarchy, ilnsuited to the gent
Jus of republican government -
But, Sir, such unhappiiy is the differ
lcnce between men out of power,
and men in power, that, If we are TO be-
llieve the representations made at the
last session of Congress, by member
from Connecticut (Mr. Dana) the cor
Irectness of which l presume no man
would have the hardihood to doubt,
prosecutions for libcls at common law
have been entertained in the courts oil
the United States against citizens, and
consequently have been carried on by
the attornies for the districts wherein
such prosecutions commenced. Yes,
Sir, such is the difference between men
IN power and men out Of power such
the difference between profession and
practice: and yes, TO my Infinite sur
tprise, this awful truth, this fact, which
iaever came TO my knowledge before.
Ispneared scarcely 60 excite sensation
either in this assembly or the public,
in the men who were mos cIamorods
against the sedition law. Yes, Strive
did cxecrate, and most Justly execrate.
the seditIon law. for one had as tho.
ROACH contempt for some Of those
who fell under its penalties, as the
Judge who inflicted them. The ques
ton was not whether James Thomp,
son Calender was not an Infamous Ii
heller, any more than the famous Mid
dlesex question was whether Johr
Wilkes was an infamous character
but it was question as To the depriva.
ton Of the b.rthrigh5 Of the citizen in
one case, and the subject in tbs othe,
aud the people wisely Disseminated
between the persons who were the sub.
iects Of prosecution and their own best
and dearest interests. We said tina;
Congress had no right TO pass any law
at all on the subject. Ii cannot be de-
MED, that if we are to have federal law
of libel, that which permits the truth
to be given in evidence is as good as
any. 1t was not TO the nature of the
law that we objected, bu. TO the having
a federal law of libel at all though in.
deed, Sir, the permission TO give the
Z truth in evidence is but an idle mock
Jerry when we consider that the officer,
whose duty it is to provide an imparti.
ial jury, is but the breath OF the nostrils
of the prosecutor. You ought to re :
collect that in all cases where the gov
eminent becomes party, whether pro
or con, you too often have an admins
tration of politics, instead ef an admi-
nis.ration law and justice. 1t is true
that the constitution does declare that
Congress shall make no law abridginp
the freedom of speech or Of the press
but it Congress-, or the courts below,
can at once saddle US with the com
mon law Of EngIsnd, there is no neces-
sity for prohibiting the Arrangement OF
the freedom Of speech, or OF the press.
Ne know what the common law o.
England is--an unlimited licence 70
print, and an almost equally unlimited
licence to punish. This restriction Of
the constitution therefore is wholly Nh
gatory, If the courts are permitted to
entertain prosecutions FOR libels. Sir.