Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1826-01-24

OlierI How was IL possible 10 nave ueSu 'S M
hsbtants OF this country fiom the colonial yoke OF
Great Britain or 10 have established tie free pin
cples OF our constitutions, if Tie libel ard sedion
laws OF the parent county had been held sacred.
if unresraned communication oil sentiment had
not taken place throughou, this Continent IN con-
versa,ion and the press? Never would the Repuc-
lie OF the United States have existed, bad Tie pfi-
cples of the setiion law prevailed. IL IL be good
that the people should be pyohibited from freely
canva ssing the character OF Governments and the
conduct OF Governors, then ought the American
people 10 have b"en thus prohibited; and " here they
did so, their publications seditious, their acts
were rebellious, and the Republics of America
were AID unjustifiable usurpaiions.
Moreover. the maxms above stated, are not
merely sanctioned by the practice ol your honora-
bic body, but they the very basis and corner
stone OF all American legislation. What legislator
OF om country would venture to defend any res
,rc,ions debate, temporarily conducted. lhe
law OF this house is, that every public question
shall DC subjected 10 all scrutiny necessary TO de
ve!ope its true characters and that none oil you are
answ cradle TO any other tribunal ihan your own |
body, for any freedom of discussion you may deem
proper 10 use. Why? Because ali restraint on
discussion is hiding place for delinquency ana
those only wisht Who need it,
The sedition law was passed on the i4th July,
l7SS, and was 10 continue IN iorce ti TIE 81 Oh
March 1901. During that period, two elections OF
the entire House OF Representatives, an election o.
part OF tie Senate and an election oil fresideht,
were to take place. II is manifest 'hrciore, iha'
during all these elections, the conduct oil public
officers and representatives, was secured from in
vesjigatioa: and the great remedy oil election, by
which errors OF our public servants are 10 DE recu-
| hcd, by removing them, II necessary, was taken
away; and delinquency set Tree from all puDiic res
possibility. To know whether we ought TO re-eec,
we ought have full access 10 all means OF inor-
lrr1af 10 Ia Of ttp q
ought to know what are his faults, and what are
his merits, a public man. IL this be denied 10
US, the elective franchise is exercised In the dark
1t is vain TO say, tina, the runishments OF tue
sea ton law confined to false, scanda!ous and
malicious writings for the facts to be Investigated
are, Tor the most part, as in yout petitioner sctse
open, notorious, undenied, and undoniabe: ne
tendency OF the actions, and the principles that
IN suggesting them the usual subjects o; anInad-
version; and though The terms false scandalous and
malicious, cannot be applied TO tue statement OF
facts, government lawyer may apply them with
out scrupie 10 the infcrences But 1t an eiecior be
prohibited from stating what may appear to him the
fair nlerences de,!ucihle from course OF political
conduct, what is left for him TO form n judgment
on, 10 the eligibility of the candidate whose con-
duct requires explanation l. it not dreadful, that
one eecior dare NOT discuss the merits OF candi-
date with another elecor, unless apart, in whispers,
and under the seal Of secresy, lest he should be con-
victed of utteiing something that may bring bad
man into contempt? l. it the duty of repulli-
can e!ec,or TO obey such law? are there not
duties paramount that coacealme:.t which would
ne treachery TO the public?
The sedi,ion law was, moreover unconstliution-
al, inasmuch ii is contained in tie ennuerat
ed powers distinctly comprised in the constitution.
On the contrary, the trainers OF that instrument,
desirous OF putting down forever, any such as
sumption of power on the par, OF Congress, de-
! riar,d that shall M law abriIp-
| ing the freedom OF speech of the press" Your
pc itioner presunes IL viii not be Denied that pre-
vious and preliminary restrictions and ohbi!ions,
such as those OF tie sedi,ion law, did, in fact,
abrdsc the liberty of the press. The institution
! OF new courts in which the supposed offender
should be compelled to appear, abrdsment
OF the press. Compelling offender 10 appear
and be tried before Judges who owe their situation
10 the psesldent-to be prosecuted by attorney
general appointed By the president before jury
summoned by marshal owing his Office TO the
president, and removable at will by the president,
are surely circumstances that multiply TIE chances
of conviction, and throw pi,ions on the impair
TALLY OF n trial so conducted Men who honestly
desire to lay information before the public, cannot
shut their eyes the hazards of conviction attend
ant on this law; and may reasonably lie deferred
from mourning such personal risk for the public
good. Even the acquittal of person accused UNI
der this law, would be attended with loss of time,
loss OF money, and loss of peace, so great as
mount TO punishment much to Ge dreaded. Your
petitioner with great Difference, submits, that il is
impossible to deny that the freedom of the press is
in fact, abridged by the institution of such tbu-
nal; and that court and jury constituted and
chosen, will, almost inevitably, feel bias against
writer OF whom president complains. Your
petitioner therefore, submits, tha, the question is
not whether 1t was right or proper or expedent,
that the liberty OF the press should be so abridged
| the trainers OF constitution had already set
tied that--but whether il was, in fact, so abridged
| by the prohibitions and provisions of the sedjon
! law. Ii so, the law was unconstitutional: con-
eress exceeded their delegated powers by enaciing
1t; and it was, therefore void. To swell the ma
tional treasury by fines cxacted under law fths
description, can hardly be justified. If this has
been done, as your petitioner apprehends, through
mistaken exercise OF undelegated power, the mis-
take should be rectied by oring the fine so OBJ
tanned; and that this ought to he done in your pc
titiioners case, he ventures to suggest with all
Difference and respect to your honorable body. IL
may be asked why your petitioner has not applied
for restitution before this late period? Many rea-
sons, coeent with your petitioner, have hitherto
prevented him, which lie would willingly state, if
necessary; but as lie apprehends that the time E.
| lspsed cannot take away his claim TO redress, i'll
hehave suffered wrong, he deems it unnec essary to
trouble your honorable body with these reasons No
act OF limitation has passed TO bar him, nor can
any injury ensue 10 the public from this delay, in
asmuch as the national treasury has been benefited
by The use o! the money, from the time it was paid
over 10 the marshal to the present time Nor can
any opportunity be 100 late to bring before your
honorable body discussion vitality important to
the liberties OF tie people; or 10 have the freedom
of the American press cleared Of the doub;s that
yet hang over it by the retention Of this fine; or
10 INK The right of poli ica discussion on the broad