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

kerry when W. 'Msider that the officer, whose
duty 1t is toprovide an impartial jury. is hut
the breath OF the nostrils of the prosecutor.
You ought to recollect that in all cases where
The government becomes Il party, whether
hro or con. you too often have anadministra-
ton OF politics, instead Of an administration of
law and Justice. 1t is true, that the consti-
tuition docs declare that congress shall make
no law abridging the freedom of speech OF Of
the press; but if Congress or tug courts be
low, can at once saddle us with the comn.on
law OF England, there is noneccssi,y fcrpro-
hibiting the Infringement the freedom of
speech, or of the, press. We know what the
common law Of England is--an unlimited Ii
cence to print, and. AN almost unlimited Ii
cence topunish, This restriction of the con-
stitution therefore is wholly nugatory, if the
courts are permitted to entertain prosecute.
ons for libels. SIR, tina. the present Chief
mas istrate of the United States should per :.
nit an attorney o. the u. States tc hold his
office one second after having commenced 81
prosecution IN court of common law for n
libel, is what will not bclieve--for he could
not do it without libelling, by that act of
mission, the fairest page of the history of his
sown life, to wit, his celebrated report made
ins!,e session of the Virginia assembly, which
commenced in December, 1899 But am
wiling toh have some better security than the
disposition of any executive, for what con-
ceive one OF the highest, proudest attributes
or American freemeH. / know it NAV be
saiu, as 1t once was, when the writ of babe
as corpus was set at defiance, that for as
much as the right is contained in the consti-
tuition and supported by it, all legislative pro-
vision on that subject would be mere work
ct supererogation-an yet, sir, who has
heard OF any recovery under the constitution
tor the violation of the best. dearest, most
invaluable right of citizen? In fact take a
way the writ of habeas corpus to morrow,
and / would not give a p,rch Of snuff for our
constitution for without it, every man NAV
be imprisoned at pleasure. Government
might possibly demand a forced loan, with
which 1t the citizen did not comply, he might
be carried to iail.-Thcre is no free govern
ment where this wonderful contrivance. this
best hope OF man, this sheet anchor of free
dom, the writ OF habeas corpus is not found
And yet we may be told that, as the free
dom of the speech and press is secured 5y
the consultation, all legislative provision on
the subject Is not merely sdperiiuity, but not
respectful to the constitution And so our
ciuzens are to SO on to be prosecuted at com.
mon law; and when they get no remedy.
| they are told their rights are guaranteed
oy the constitutiou-but receive no satisfac-
| ton. therefore think it would be a very
wise provision on our part, at this tire to
prevent recurrence of similar cases, guard
ing against the future by woeful experience
school IN which it said fool must learn.
although he will learn in no other-and. as
far as that epithet may he considered as an
plying to myself, do m2st candidiy confess
that have been compelled 20 learn from
THIS school-tor when the gentleman from 5.
carolina uttered that brilliant defamation in
order to induce this house to re-enact the Sc
dition law, and hang it over their heads as a
shield from prosecution. really thought it
mere speech for the people, for had no con.
ception that a court of the u. States would
ever entertain prosecution for libel at com
mon law. therefore submit to YOU the fol-
lowing resolution, promising, before I con-
Guide, that my object will be, finding the consti.
tuition inert on this subject, as it Only contain,
an acknowle dgement of the right, to admin
'ster wholesome fine and. imprisonment to
those who shall hereafter undertake to car.
ry on such prosecutions.
." ResotVea, That a committee be appoint
ed to enquire whether any and what prose
cutions have been entertained by the courts
OF the United States for lbels at common
law, and to report such provisions as in their
opinion may be necessary for securing the
freedom OF speech ard of the press.''
Mr.. Dana said perhaps that tile resolution
as now expressed, did not go to the whole
extent to which the gentleman Intended
That prosecutions had been instituted for
supposed SANDERS or for supposed seditous
words, was unquestionable. For two. three
or TOUR wears past, prosecutions of this cha
racter had been pending in the circuit court
OF the u. States in the district of Connecticut
nat some OF the prosecutions attempted to
establish the imputation of crime against in
dividuals, and in cases not comprehended
under the provisions of the statute so much
reprobated under the name of the sedition
act, was unquestionable. Prior to the
institution of these prosecutions. howe
yer, from an apprehension of what might be
done by men who had protested much zeal
tor liberty, but not in practice given strong
er instances Of regard for it than those who
protested less, in the state of Connecticut a
bill was introduced into the legislature for
securing the freedom of the press That bill
consisted OF one section, which was copied
from the reprobated sedition act-that very
section which provided that the truth should
be given in evidence; and it was called AN
act for securing the freedom of the press
And before any prosecutions were instituted,
when only district judge presided in the
court, that Judge declared that he should con
slder the act of the state of Connecticut rela.
tive to giving the truth in evidence. as binding
on the federal court in that state. This was
the opinion of one Judge; there was some
question how 1T would be ultimately decided
before full court.
ouch law formed a more abundant pre-