Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1818-01-10
.udria was read a third time. passed. and

Iiu. ~ the .HdlT, on liiS pif ~ i'iV>St'Ot
the effect OF certain records aud judicial
proceedings.
The question being on an amendment,
proposed BY Mr.. BGhi,e,a. To the bill, as a
substitute for the first section, which WAS
given at large in our paper OF Saturday
last
Mr.. Ross opposed both tire billand "a
mendment at some length on CONSTITUTE
onaI grounds, as well as on the ground of
expediency. If the principle OF the bill
was correct, he said, declaring as il did
that judgments rendered in one state
should be If equal effect in any other
state, the provisions of the bill ought to
have gone further, and declared every
act of the legislature OF any state Ia be of
equal force in ANY other state; for the two
declarations would have been in principle
the same. Tie constitution had given
10 Congress the power TO declare what
should make record authentic, but not
TO prescribe its effect III any other state
and any other construction than this, Mr..
Y. considered as ten,ilng To the establish
ment Ola consolidated government. In
regard 10 the expediency of the bill, MIR.
r. said, he viewed every attempt 10 change
the common law rs injurious; and he was
therefore opposed 10 this bill. Leave the
question To the decision ot common law,
and fewer evils would result from il, he
said, than from any legislative provision.
III the course of a speech of halt an hour,
Mr.. Il. enforced these general views by
variety OF illustrations and references TO
the practices prevailing in the different
states, &c. Nithrespeci to The argument
of lis extending commercial credit, on
which Mr.. Spencer the oihc, day justified
the bill, MIR Il. did not allow il The force
claimed l0rii for, lie said, IL would not
agree 10 pass tie bill to e,aule the New
York merchant, when his customer had
come there tfoiu Kentucky, 10 spring The
trap upoa snm, compel him To cnItcss
judgment, or so 10 prison for want of
bail, aud thai judgment 10 have The same
effect given 10 il III Kentucky, ;;s II would
have had IN New York &c.
Mr.. P0jsdertef' spoke to the amendment,
which he considered radically defective
III giving the same force 10 judgments in
other states as they would have had IN tie
state In which they were given. lie took
i legal view of the question, as connect
Ell with the practice i'll the courts Of the
several states, liIe variance of which, he
Showed, would make the provisions of
the amendment unequal III their opera
ilUH.
Mr.. .StreNg, in the course ofa few OBJ
sera'lars he made on the quesbou, SAID
he did not know whether any ncndment
10 the bill would makeit palaiable 10 liiu
but he certainly thought the amendment
much preferable 10 the bill, inasmuch as
the amendment gave 10 judgments III one
state conclusive effect in another. only
IN cases where II appeared on the record
there had been Il trial.
Mr.. Baidria spoke III Support of his a.
mendment; which, he said, went TO vary
l., III IL Ian L.,
showed III the course of his REMARKS. He
drew comparison between the bill and
his amendment, showing why he prefer
red the latter, &c.
Ms Spencer replied to those who had
supported The amendment, and vindicat-
I'd the original bill BY series OF argu-
ments drawn from the prevailing practice
AMI the principle Of law. He avoided re-
plying totle constitutional objection Mr.
Ross had advanced, as not beng on this
incidental question fairly before the
House. lie insisted, however, on the Ell
feet the bill would have i'll sustaining
commercial confidence, and IN strength
ening the ties which bind the states iogeih-
er by making Their cooperation more
harmonious. In conclusion, he submitted
to gentlemen (rcpcating Mr.. Wiliams's
remars) whether they would not give to
the records of the courts of Tie respective
states the same effect which was now al
lowed 70 the records ofany petty court i'll
the West Indies, &C.
The question was taken Oh Mr.. Bald
wins motion 10 amend the bill, and mega
tiVed.
Other amendments were proposed 10
the bill, some of which were agreed 10,
and others rejected in the proposition
and discussion 0fwhich hcssrS. Storrs,
Orr, Terry, Beecher, Ross, PindaIl,
Strong, Forsyth, Spencer and Liyerinorc,
bore part.
In the course Of tie debate,
Mr.. HoP&iasoa gave at large, bat with
precision, ms views OF the constitutional
objection suggested by Mr.. Ross. lie
was of opinion that Congress were entire
" at liberty toact on The subject, and that
it was expedicnt TO do SO, on. account OF
The variety of constructions now given 10
tie las on lie subject. lie saw 10 OBJ
lection TO the bill oH lie ground some had
taken, that il would pat the parties IN
worse situation ihan they were III before:
OH the contrary, lie bill would clear ZIP
much ambiguity, and so far rs II had ct
iecf, would be more favorable 10 the par
" sued than The present practice Mr.
II. made q pefspicu0us argument t. sns-
lam his legal yie~ OF The question, which
IT is not the Reporters Intention 80 at
iempt-not having room 10 report the de
bate al large.
When the committee rose fur Tic day,
a motion by MT. Forsyth was under con
sheraton TO strike ON tie second sec
ton ofthe bib
The committee obtained leave 70 ST
again ani
Hhe House adjourned