The Arkansas banner., 1845-12-03

ones, grooming under foreign yoke?
 To these observations one fact will be ad- ded, which demonstrates that the common law cannot be admitted as the universal ex- positor of American terms, which may be the same with those contained in that law. The freedom of conscience, and of religion are found in the same instruments whish assert the freedom of the press. IL will dever be admitted that the meaning of the former, in the common law of England, is to limit their meaning in the United States.
 Whatever weight may be allowed 10 these considerations the Committee do not, how ever intend to rest the question on them.- They contend that the article of amendment instead ofsupposng in Congress power that might be exercised over the press, pro, yided its freedom was not abridged, was as positive denial to Congress, of any pow CT on the subject
 To demonstrate that this was the object of the article, il will be sufficient 10 recall the circumstances which led to 1t, and to refer to the explanation accompanying the article.
 When the constitution was under the dis cusson which preceded it's ratification, it is we'll known that great apprehensions were expressed by many, lest the omission of some positive exception from the powers de- legated, of certain rights, and of the freedom of the press particularly might expose them to danger of being drawn by construction within some of the powers vested in Con- gross more especially ofthe power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying their other powers into execution. In reply to this objection, it was invariably urged to be q fundamental and characteristic principle of the constitution, that all powers not given by 1t were reserved; that no powers were given beyond those enumerated in the con- stltution, and such as were fairly incident to them; that the power over the rights in Ques- ton, and particularly over the press, was neither among the enumerated powers, nor incident to any of them; and consequently that an exercise of any such power, would be manifest usurpation. IL is painful to re- mark how much the arguments now employ ed in behalf of the Sedtion act, are al vari- ance with the reasoning which then justified the constitution, and invited it's ratification. From this posture of the subject, resulted the interesting question in so many of the conventions, whether the doubts and dangers ascribed to the constitution, should be remov- ed by any amendments previous 10 the rati- fication, or be postponed, in confidence that as far as they might be proper-shey would be introduced in the form provided by the constitution. The latter course was adopted aud ill most of the States ratlica- tions were followed by the propositions and instructions for rendering the constitution more explicit, and more safe to the rights not meant to he delegated by it. Among those rights the freedom of the press, in most ins 'ances is particularly and emphaticaly mentioned. The firm and very pointed man. ner ill which it is asserted in the proceedings of the convention of the state will be here after seen.
 In pursuance of the wishes thus express ed, the first Congress assembled under the constitution, proposed certain amendments, which have since, by the necessary ratifca- tions been made part of it; among which amendments is the article containing, among other prohibitions on the Congress, an ex- press declaration that they should make no law abridging the freedom of the press.
 FIFTH RESOLUTION.
 Without tracing farther the evidence on this subject, il would be scarcely possible to doubt that no power whatever over the press was supposed to be delegated by the consti- tution as it originally stood, and that the amendment was intended as a positive and absolute reservation of it.
 But the evidence is still stronger The proposition of amendments7 made by Con- gross is introduced in the following terms
 s''The Conventions of number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the constitution, expressed desire, in order to prevent mlsCoustruetions or abuses of it's powers, that further declaratory and restric- , tive clauses should be added; and as extend- ing the ground of public confidence in the 1 Government, will best insure the benefceut , ends of its institutions"
 Here is the most satisfactory and aulhen- tic proof that the several amendments pro- posed were to be considered as either de- claratory or restrictive, and whether the one or the other, as corresponding with the de- desire expressed by number of the States and as extending the ground of public con- Gdence in the government.
 Underany other construction of the amend ment relating to the press, than that it de- clared the press to be wholly exempt from the power of Congress, the amendment could neither be said to correspond with the de- sire expressed by number of the States. nor be calculated to extend the ground ol public confidence in the government
 Nay more; the construction employed to justify the s.Sedtion Act,n would exhibit a phenomenon without parallel in the polit- ical world. It would exhibit a number ol } respectable States, as denying, first, that any power over the press was delegated by the [ constitutions; proposing, next that an amend } ment to it should explicitly declare that no , such power was delegated; and, finally, as } concurring in an amendment actually recog- nising or deIegating such power 5 Is, then, the Federal Government, 1t will
 be asked, destitute of every authority for re- x straining the licentiousness of tho press, and : for shielding itself against the libelous at : tacks which may be made on those who ad- 9 minister 1t?
 } The constitution alone can answer this 2 question. Ii no such power be expressly 7 delegated, and If t be not both necessary Q aud proper to carry into execution an ex- s press power; above all, if it be expressly ' forbidden, by declaratory amendment to - the Constitution, the answer mnst be- tha