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

FROM rAi National INrELLIcENGEK.
HoUsA pF RFPREsEN7:d71yES.
THurspA1, May IS.
$ETCH OF DEBATE
LfBELS 1T CO AfMoW IAW.
(oNcLuDED)
Mr.. Bacon sd, he was, for one, by no
| means tispleasewith the introduction OF the
motion ofthe coleman from Virginia. He
took occasion to,'emark, that it was with
sonie pain that perceived any remaining
particles of thisolitical heresy in any part
of our country. He was happy, that there
were 60 few rrnants. He had known of
no instances, ebept those mentioned by the
gentleman f,pt Connecticut. He could not
account for 6eir appearance in that state
only; whether il WAS because this doctrine
of common law Jurisdiction. in the courts of
the United States! twas there planted in a
mere congenial soil he could not say. Ger
tam 1t was, that It lad not pervaded any o.
ther state in the Uion. have understood,
(said Mr.. Bacon,) hat it is not through the
peculiar iDstrumcntiity of the district attor-
ney, that these suit were commenced. As
understand 1t, thetlistriCt attorney has no
power to entertai suits; that he has no
power but to redrq tc form, indictments of
the grand jury. Ibis certaihly the case in
the state in which I am a representative,
and presume in Connecticut also. tits a
mere clerical ofnc, to reduce to form pre-
sentiments of the gtnd jury. With respect
to the courts, Iundistand, that the question
was FIRST brought bdore the district Judge of
Connecticut. WhsSoever was his opinion,
he said, he consideHd the law as settled by
his bettcrs, by thetjudges of the supreme
court, and he did MT consider it incumbent
on him TO reverse th3 opinion until it should
be done by court oiequal authority, leav-
ing the question, hwever, open to appeal
by the parties. IIll only observe, that
am very happy thismotion is brought for
ward, and hope, that as we succeeded ir
getting rid of the sedtion law, that we shall
get rid of all the poltical heresies of former
times, and shall suGeed in roofing out this
obnoxious weed from the territory of Con-
necticut.
Mr.. Randolph oberved, that he had un-
derstood, long so, hat prosecutions of this
sort had been entertained in the federal
courts, under the administration of Mr.. A
dams; and he had hen one of those who
had supposed, that len that administration
had been turned out If office, and new one
iiuuteCd, thcie "Oulll NC all Sltt, StUStdIlti
ally, of these prosecutions at common law,
as much as of the sedition law, although on
the vote whether the se>litior law should be
epgrossed for third reading on its proposed
re- enactment, there was only a majority Of
three or four in the negative. During the
prosecution of Mr.. Chase, before the Senate
(said Mr.. ~ had paper put into my
hands by men,,ser of that honorable House
stating that a judge of the supreme court Of
the United States, and one who believe j.
considered an ornament TO his profession, c.
ven with ali his political heresies thick upof
him, had entertained prosecution for a Ii
bel at common law in the district of Vermont
and stated, that such was the law as settled
by the. supreme court of the United States
could not tell fer what purpose this pape,
was put into my hands, unless under the idea
that it would induce me to bring forward
a motion for the impeachment of the gentle.
man in question. ltwas no business of mine
that this was done by one of the person.
sworn to judge the case of Impeachment, i
instituted-Every man is the keeper of hi.
own conscience. Neither was it my desire 4
divert the public mind from the steady view
of justice, in relation to the gentleman thcr
under prosecution, by bringing any other be
fore the House. Nor did Know, nor do
now know, that IT,. ohinion that the common
law is the law of the United States, is an un
Pardonable offence because you may have
heard gentlemen of the first legal eruditior
OH this floor support the doctrine--I alluds
particularly to a late member from the state
Of Delaware (Mr. Bayard.) But my objec
in making this motion was, 70 go back to the
institution ofthe government itself, and bring
into view every case in which prosecution.
at common law for libel had been entertained
by the courts of the United States, by way Of
shelving the necessity of providing some le-
gal provision on this subject. The gentle
man from Massachusetts, with his usual &C
curacy, has declared, that the district at
torney is but the instrument of the grand
jury. But, sir, the grand jury is selected b,
the marshal, and the marshal and the dis
trict attorney are approximations? Remov
able--how! i am perfectly convinced, sir
that in all cases OF libel, in all cases where
too often politics, and not law or justice pre-
side, 1t is idle to expect impartiality of trial
II the government or judge take part, for Of
against prosecution, it is perfectly idle t,
expect justice. Toguard against this evil,
hold, sir, in my hand, a resolution, which
if the House agree to that which is unde
consideration, | shall lay on the table:
"ResofUed, That provision ought ts bt
made by lawto secure the right to an impair
tial jury, in all cases, civil and criminal
maintained in the courts of the U. States
But before / sit down, will make one oh
Iseryation ON what has fallen from the gentle
man from Connecticut. He says, he feels n
disposition to censurc the district attorney
/ am happy to say, that know not the dis
trict attorney, his name or person. lam c
lqually ignorant of the name or person of tn
district judge; nor do know that am &C
lquainted with the circuit Judge. On thi