Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1818-01-06

from apPrchonded difficulty ia lac rcccv-
cry of his debts. Ii, how ever, Mr.. S.
| took occasion To say, the passage OF this
bill had no other effect, IL v ould have the
Important effect oiconipelling tie parties
going with records from one stale into a.
mother, 10 make them more formal, and
III some measure TO correct the loose
manner in which too generally the pro-
cecdmgs OF our courts are now conduct
ed.
Mr.. Cotb defended his amendment, and
replied generally 10 Mr.. Spencer. and
particularly, that the formaliiy OF pro-
ceedlnys, on which that gentleman had
prtdicated the hill, did not prevail 10 any
extent III the country, particularly IN the
southern and western states, and that
therefore the bill, as il now stands, might
occasionally have AN improper operation.
MIR. Williams, of Connections, opposed
the amendment moved by MIR. Cobb. 1t
was not only the dictate OF reason, but,
he argued, comfortable ia the spirit and
almost 10 the letter OF the Constitutions
that Judgments obtained i'm one State
should no, be mere pr!Dia facie evidence
IN another. ii MAS an extraordinary doc
lrine, he argued, that The decisions of The
courts of one state should have 40 more
effect IN another, and be no more recog-
nized, than the decisions of any petty To-
reign court constituted ave know no,
how, founded on the opinions of we know
not whom. The inienion of the Consii-
tuition was, she conieDded-and such was
the construction formally given 10 ii by
the Supreme Court-tiIat The de ision OF
a State Court should be conclusive be-
tween the parties as well IN one state as
In another.
Alter some other debate, the question
was tahen OH the amendment, and deeid-
ed III The negative.
Mr.. Baldrin, expressing himself of the
opinion that the same weight ought moi
to be given 10 every description of record.
the first section, and inserting in lien
thereof the following, in which he said
he had hastily embodied his ideas of
what the law ought 10 he.
That the record of any final judgment or
decree glVen or rendered after the personal
service OF process on the defendant or defend
ants, or his or their appearance in any suit of
any cOul: OF record or chancery of the United
States, or sfany state or territory, when authen-
tlcated in the nanner required by law, shall be
Primid tdcie evidence of all matters therein con-
tanned III every court Of the United States and
OF every other state and territory in any suit,
action or hill brought thereon. Aud If such
judgment decree shall be rendered after
trial b. jury OF hearing the merits of the
cause, then such record shall be conclusive evil
dence OF all the matters and things therein con-
tanned in the conrts OF the United States, or OF
amy state or territory in any suit, action or bill,
brought TO recover the sum awarded, or the
performance OF the act or thing adjudged,
awarded or decreed in the Judgment or decree
originally rendered"
Mr.. Spencer considered this amend
ment as so unessentally varying the bill,
that he would scarcely object, were il moi
the gentleman had acknowled il to
have been hastily penned, and, this bill,
he assured him, had been drafted with
care and attention. He hoped the gen
tIeman would be prevailed on 10 withdraw
Ills motion.
Al this Stage of the proceedings, on
motion Of Mr.. Desha, the committee rose,
reported progress, and obtained leave TO
sit again.
And the House adjourned.