the wilmington gazette published every tuesday by allmand hall at three dollars a year payable in advance r four dollarsif not paid within a year tnumber 525 wilmington n c tuisdat january 27 18o hih i*a r j publications or defamatory worjt touching perrons holtiui orsccs or jfl«cet •>» trult tiivter the u s and whether it would i>ot be proixsi if the fame be fuftained to al low the parties profecuteil the libeitjr of giving the truth in evidence and that the committee report by bill or otherwife mr dana moved to refer thit refac tion to • committee of the whole mr biilwel faid tli object ot ihe refo itnion appeared to ln merely the appoint ment of a committee to enquire if the mover would ft modify it as to obtain a difcullion of the principle involved in it he fhnuld h»ve no objcilion q ii it did not appear to him in older to refer a refo futibn for ihe appointment of a feleft-com mtuee to a committee of the uhole houfe mr dana infixed it the refolution was clearly in oider ; and that it wji un necelfary to give it the form of a fpeciftc propofition td infure to the lubjeft a full difcuflion in committee of the whole mr eppes raid that although he fhould rote for ihe reference of thit refo ution he could not but remark that it wai ex traordinary fur the gentleman from con neclicut lo mjke inch atn<xion suppofu the gentleman were to offer a refoiucipn tor appointing a comininc to enquire whe ther a citizen of the united slates had a right to the privilege of ihe habeas corpus ail would not fuch a propofiiion be deemtd mo;lextr»orlnary < but to fhow i hat he wa*.uot afraid to meet the quettion once already agitated in this country he was ready to refer ihe prcfent refnluti»n f as well as to enquire into the official con duit of any judge who had pradifed the doarines mentioned by the gentleman from conoedicut mr dana faid he would explain to the houfe the reafons which had induced him to fubmit the refolution in itt prefent form in the obfervations he had offered he had avoided all alluliunt to ihe pad queiiioni which had been agitated in this country he did not wifh loprefenl the proposition in ittoutfet in fuch a form a might give offeiice to any part ot the houfe but in fuch lortu that the houfe might after a deliberate invefti^ition of the fubject exprefs their opinion upon it i he had fup poled it would be clearly in or der in die committee of the wltole to uioveau amendment declaratory of prin ciple inflea of referini the enquirv io a felcft commiiiee fn cafe that rnu.e ihould be deemed ir.uft eligible mr g vv campbell did not wifh it to be undsrflood that he had any objection to the queltion coning before the houce > on the contrary if duubii exided of the right of the citizen in any ftaic who waa aecufrd to give the truth in evidence he hoped the quertion would be fettled by ihe . houf he entertained a hiffererrt opinion on tbia fubject from hat which had been eiprfffed in a number of the aatei ihe lawt gave the individual the right of giving the truth in evidence he had al waft confidered the flare uwe on thit fut j?6l binding on the federal courts this queftion had never influenveif the proceed ing of the court with which he wat bed acquainted ; and if it had alfe&cd their proceedings in other datei it wai high time tofettle the queltion the remark which he bad made dij not appear ro be utjderuood by the gecileman from penn fylvania he dij not confider the felecl cdmmittep to whom it wai propcled to refer this refoliuiou as intended to decide the principle but to determine whether it wat proper for the houfe to difcuft it he was clearly of opinion that tha refolu tion hodl i not he retcrrtd to a committee of the whole it wuuld not be there in orde r to fettle th principle but merely to ; determine whether it fhiuildbe referred to a idea commit tee what then would be the eft'ett of this courfc ? after the re port of thefclect committee the commit tee of ilie whole mutt then difcufs the prin ciple it wuuld therefore contrary to the ufual couil be twice difcuffed inftead ot once . ' - mr smilie wlfned the gentleman from connedlicut wtmld*prefcnt a fpeeiftc pro pofitiun on the fubjefij which would ena ble the houfe to decide on ihe principle and afterwards refer it to a fe'eft commit tee fhi wtt round about wavof do i ngbii fi n'effi the only objeil of the com , mittee of the whole would be to enquire ; whether it would be proper to appoint a . committee toenquire i whereat if a fpeci fie refolntion wa ufltred the principle irrfowed in il inight to decided io • cotn mlttce ot the whole he trultetl ijiere wai no differertce of opinion on the tub ic9 in the houft mr ely did not pretjtnd tobrweh ac quainted with the ufual mode of proceed ing in the houfe ; but if he iinderlkjou the objeft of the motion made by the jrenile rrtan from ccifineftlciir ir wai to give the committee atpolnicd fuch a commifron m the houfn in(»cad of the mover might wilh if the houtf confulercd the mo tion at not eiac^lf right it would btin their power to give fuch commiflion aa fboul b jnoft conlenlancout to their i dear he thought jits ihe mod correct i courfe a gentleman draws up a refoln i tion whkh perhapt only in part fug geftt the opinion of the majority ; the houie iherv lay it before a committee of the whole in modify it according to iheir idea mr ely thought the whole fub ject would be before a committee ot the whole and that it would be in the power of gentlemen tomodity it as they pleafed mr eppes said if he underttood the ob ject of tbe j-esolution it pre»ented two sub jects for coniideraiion j the firtt of which congress house of representatives f rjday january s mr elliot moved ihc following refu tation rt/tlvij that committee be appoin ted in tuqjire what ameikl-rneats vnl alte ration are iicceffary in lite feveral laws relative lo ihe orginizaiion powers and dutiea of the judicial crou/l of tua uni ted slates ; and that the faid curnmiiice rcpuct by bill or oiherwife air lllliot f*u thai he had th hot or fomc jay nice to prcbiil to the huulc vcct.iin rcfolulions ol ilis general alfeiiibly ot vermont concurring in an amendment 4>ropvfc>.t to ilie con(t'iu:ion ot the united states by the date oi kentucky tun emulating a material limitation ol the relent conltiiutional power ot the federal juiiciary thit amendment lus t>een adopted by everal hates but has al o been rcjeflej by fucli a number as com pletely to afceitam the fact that it cannot i prefent become a part of u.e conftitu librt'oi the united states great evils certainly cxill in conl'cqucucc ot ll'.e ex jercife ot the powecs now legally vetted in hs federal count and it becomes iinpor itni lo enquire w'icih.-.r thofc evils cannot fcs removed by ilie ordimry means of le gitla.ion esercifed wit ft fa fhe frlhetrb of he conltitution:il power of cnngiefs f torn i he attention which he had been • t'fetd pay to'ihc fut.ject mr e faid he was convinced thai un'ott of the grievance complained of mijjht in thit way be re drellc ! ; and it wan to bring thit important lubject before the lioufe that lie wa indu ced to make tlw frefent motion and to hope for its adoption the rcfoluiiou wat adopted without a tflvitioh antf referred to mcffri eihoi g w campbell munford smelt btoyle dwigrit m qiy broome and lloyd mr dawfjn trom tkc committee to wlkapi racomibhiwlibe «» pwomtwg tor the p>mi foment of certain crime a gainft the united statet reported the bill with an amendment , wr iking out the tbird fedion which wa inferred to a commit tee of the whole on monday mr dana obferved that profecutioni he undeiuood were depending in the count of the united states ««>« rifl"g u 1 " •• iry exilting llatute or treaty of the uniu4 js'dtes — but profecutiont fuftained at com mon jaw in four cafirs warranlt had been iffued at the order of the court he panic arreited and held to trial two of thefe profccutioai were againfl prin tcri for puulicationt hkh had appeared in their paper j two ujiainft clerical g ilencn tqr words lueied by thewi 1 he charges extended to various qirenionj ref peettng political conduct morality and religion liwaaa fubject of valt mpor tan^e whrther this exwnlive range hould be allowed to a puftlic accufer holding hit ilxce at the will at the executive ot tlje voited statct . , at ljminon law a libeller roav be tub icqed to fine and impjifonmeut accorcmg jo the difcretjon of the court to wtucli anight be added the mwilattouof the ear tiocofding to the doctrine of coke in the ar chamber security may allo be re iioired for guod behaviour for hit wttuit fife tt thtf amount •* fin there wm . lib hmi ras ion , thaw ••■ » lfo •" thefeprofecutiortiin toltfej an inteitfting oueftiort at to en wekcei malt the truib ot the charges once tftabihhed be confider a conciu twe^iww ho(w pure tha intentiont ot the acqttled may be proved to have been i , with tliis uueltion was connected mfewovluitof acelcbrjtcr declaratory flanitc carried through the bnnlli pallia meh*byv«irtw bed m »"» a*"»i tingthe point how tar ihi uatote airccm the coromod law in il unifci^t thw^watlikcwife another queftiot vn whether th perfon char 8 o with twin wterefrilanrferous wwdi nh ha tm»ky to prove the truth of what he uttered thit liberty w l«i'ed by ilw v'vw star chamber in engu»d such dad been ihe t in the cafe it zstiga lit america tmd in ■ cafe which had recently occured in one of ihefc hates i the fecond circuit ot the united slates on the trial of t-rof well ■' kir d concluded by obferting that he hatl fu?gefted thelo wea at an apolugy for aikin th*t the fubjefl might be examined i and then offered the following refolution : rej'.lvt.d that con»niitiet be appoin ted to erfoulra vthether profecutiont at eomnvm law lioiiid be futtaincd in the courts il the unitej atatet for libellous i wat whether the common uw of england wns the law of the unil ; and the second whe ther in ruse of prosecution the accused mar give the truth in evidence e thought the gentlcm»n from connecticut miftht rftatbit object belter br two specific iesr.!u:ijn thnti by the one he had proposed ; h had tirawti ucli reiolmior.f aod wju;j read them bf wuy of argument mr epi<c here read the following resolu tion : 1 restlvtd thm the common law or england is npt awsn of the luw of tlie uni ted stales except so far as it ia»becn adop ted b.v the laws of the united stuti or of the individual nates and that the brotww tion of a person at common latr for libel i u violation of the freedom ol the pre»v and contrary to the constitution of the uniud states 3 risohcd that in ii proneeihions wlie ther criminal or otherwise il i tho nttuval right of a citizen to give in evidence tue truth mr d»n m 1 that in prejiaiink ihr ie»o httion whlelj hr liml oftarcd he l>;"l endsa vnured to presant it in tlic tnij|hinejccption ble form under he iinprc«iion ttw wh.cn the subject wa before n cc;nitui l ee of the whale it niii'lt 1 . ue mndifird r,re«a!5ly lo the wishesol the niii','.niy , an 1 w!>ne ill reso lutions ti(t:r»<l '.>» ilc qt eman fi - otn virgi nia mi^hl bomnvod > s ■'< um.-nimo.it to the rrsotuiinn w!ik!i lie iiai iiibinitifil sfttful'l lie at'cee in sufimiit tli«st rc'-'ji 1 .!': ns in iteo r f hi own he n>i,cnt b conii w id n aw'i-ciirit with the pen i it i nan ir evcrv woro t'»-r r.i tuined : whereat t codld noi ba*,xpcrlt<t that he could he ready iiitil to iihijr himself on any specific resolution umil lis had ma turely consider i th g«'r«ueman f.om virginia had doubllett tally considered them and wm prepured p pive his ote wi'.'ioat however prnnouncin on tlis principles c.».i taincd in them he thought thnt at least there was some inaccuracy ia the lon^tiage mr e|t(k did not suppose i.tt r etoltitipn hmtily drawn uouessed all the profcssiunal accuracy which might be given tothem ; and very possibly they did not pottcss all the pre 1 eisipn which would bare characterised them if drawn by the pen of the gentleman k»m connecticut but the objection of the gen tleman otherwise was not well founded if the resolutions he had tiiggetted were to be submitted immediately to the ritcision of the house there might be some tolid objection ; but when it wi known that the object wa to refer them for discussion ther amounted to no more than an c pres«ion of the sentiments of the mover on i.xc mlysct mr epprs said that be religieiniy believed that the com mon law of england w ncter a par of ih law of the uiul and that when a man was promcutcd he hart a right to give the truth i in evidence if the gentleman persisted in refusing to modify his nesblutl(>n he rrnuld more a postponement for ihe piir^ose of in iroritieing hit own * mr speaker laid a mo-ion lopmtpone had no preference over & motion to com in it mr alcxandtr said thnt the rennlution un der consideration if not the mr»t technical ly accurate appeared to him the mntt pro per for the adoption of the house it con tained two propositions first whether it is etpedient to enquire whether the prosecut ing officers of the united states hare a right ' to institute prosecutions for defamatory isn gaage ; and aeeondly if so whether in such prosecution the truth can be given in evi dence it had been objected to eeau«e \\ tubmitted it to the committe of the whok to decide whether it were expedient to ap point a select committee to enquire the gentleman from tennessee was of opinion that it would not be competent to a commit tee of the whole to di»eum the principle of the resolution ,; bat that they would be ex clusively confined to a consideration of tl.a expediency of tppoining a select comntit tee tol make thej anqulry . mr alexander said thf wa wot hi opinion before the committee of the whole the wr.nl subject would present itself he added that he couw conceive of a phratfolopty that would not contain the obnoxious term teltet cemmittet to wit to make the resoliitinn read—whctbei it ii not expedient to enquire kc lie . ornit ling tltonethertlie term select committee v'm>ld liot thit however be preseniing the ' ftubject in the same point of view ? and if the committee of the whole decided that it i wa proper to make the emjuir the nrxl nep would be to appoint a select committee mr alexander aid he thought the quet tion of high itnportunce and the c ourvc pro pomd ry proper it was ben to pm«nt the subject under a genera view and not in the apecific form suggtsted by the rten'k man from virginia he should therefor vote for the reference he declared lilnw self of opinion that the accu.ed hud « viglit to give the truth in evidence i but said h had not yet made up hit mind whether suctt prosecutions eotild be carritd on by i ffirer of hie united state the reference to a comtaittee if the whole wm then agreed to~a.ve s7—noe 41--k the rewlutiqn wme the order for lue»day bcxtt mr g w campbell remarked that if this refolution was refered to a couimit te of the whole the only qucltinn that could tie pre fented to them would be the expediency of referring it to a f-'eft com mittee to make the propofed enquiry the moll regular and proper courfc was to refer the relolutioh in the ftrft inflance to a fe ci2 committee and afterward to re fer their report to a committee of the whole mr }. clay hid that the objection made to referring this refolution to a com mittee of the whole wai that it wat bed to refer ft in the firtk inftance to a felea committe to fettle the principle but thit would be to invert the ufual courfc purfu ed in the houfc which wat firft to fettle principlet in a committee of the whole he had underflood that in the fecor.d cir cuit of tike u s profecutiont and indidt ruentt had been made at common law in time pait which he hoped would never retum • feditioo law had beep pa ted » that law v wwywrwum tw»*tt berty of giving the truth in evidence he underrtootl that under the common law after an indictment was prefered the truth wat not peimitted to be given in evidence ; and that under this dottrine they would therefore be worfe off than under the e dirlott law he hoped the refolution would be refered to a committee of the whole to make the propofed enquiry mr bid well agreed that a committee of the whole wat the proper place for fet tling principles it the refolution were fo framed at to anfwer thit purpofe it would have hit approbation but the on ly queftion in its prelent form wat mere ly the appointment of • felod committee to intefligate the j'ubfodt which invefti gation would be mod properly tsade iu »' committee of the whole mr qiiincy faid that the objeflion of his colleague feemed to be the word en quire mr q thought it wat moil pro per for he houfe to committee of the whole to determine whether it would be expedient lo appoint a feleft committee lo enquire if it ftould be deciddd that no loch inquiry i expedient there would be an endol the bufineft if a contrary deci fi were made then a committee might be appointed t rrnl-.e the enquiry the genllemarv wriuli not fay thai the refolu tion did not contain a principle of vafl importance we.ii worthy of inveftigatlon in his opinoa it it was bed firft to fettle the principle in committeeof the whole and then udlrvjft a klefl commitfeeon ihc natiire.of the enquiry and the degree to which it fhotilil be made mr e'ppe faid he fhoiili vote for a re ference f the refolution to the committee of th4 whole tjlih'migh he believed it wat not drihjghied in f«ch»tonri at it ftiould be to ml'irc a dii'i-ullion of the principles involved in iu if he underftood it it would reduce the houfe to ibe.necefii-y ot dircuffing the queflion.t which had been heretofore difcuited whether the paifa«e of a law riving a man.a tight to gi ♦♦»• trvtth in*viileuce would br«djie hit rights he coiitj have^ifhej the gentleman from cohneflicut o havs dated a fpetificlt pro pofition fnch at that lite common law of england it iioi a part of the law of iho united siaes and that inall profecution it is the right of a citizen to give the truth in evidence mr etipet faid he wifhed the gentle man would go further and offer a rcfblu tion to enquire into the official conduil.of any judge who had dared tu jndituie fuch profecutions at had been intimated he would have no objection to going a flep further to impeaching him and voting for his rcmural