MONDAY, November 30.

ISHAM TALBOT, from the State of Kentucky, attended this day.

TUESDAY, December 1.

Mr. FORSYTH submitted the following motion for consideration:

Resolved, That the Committee on Finance be instructed to inquire into the expediency of prohibiting the exportation of the gold, silver, and copper coins of the United States.

WEDNESDAY, December 2.

[DECEMBER, 1818.

FRIDAY, December 4.

WILLIAM HUNTER, from the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, attended this day.

NINIAN EDWARDS and JESSE B. THOMAS, respectively appointed Senators by the Legislature of the State of Illinois, produced their credentials, were qualified, and took their seats in the Senate.

TUESDAY, December 8.

Memorial of Matthew Lyon.

The Senate resumed the consideration of the report of the Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the memorial of Matthew Lyon, of Eddyville, in the State of Kentucky, praying reimbursement of a certain fine, imposed in the year 1798, at the suit of the United States, together with the costs and other losses attending the same, to wit: "That the prayer of the petition ought not to be granted.” Whereupon,

Mr. CRITTENDEN submitted the following mo

MONTFORD STOKES, from the State of North tion as an amendment : Carolina, attended this day.

THURSDAY, December 3.

Deported Slaves.

Resolved, That all persons, who were prosecuted and fined under and by virtue of the second section of the act of Congress, commonly called the sedition law, approved the 14th day of July, 1798, and entitled "An act in addition to the act entitled 'An act

The following Message was received from the for the punishment of certain crimes against the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES:

To the Senate of the United States:

In compliance with the resolution of the Senate, of the 25th of last month, requesting to be furnished with such information as may be possessed by the Executive, touching the execution of so much of the first article of the late Treaty of Peace and Amity between His Britannic Majesty and the United States, as relates to the restitution of slaves, and which has not heretofore been communicated, I lay before the Senate a report made by the Secretary of State, on the 1st instant, in relation to that subject.

DECEMBER 2, 1818.

JAMES MONROE.

United States,'" ought to be reimbursed and indemnified out of the public Treasury, to the amount of the fines imposed upon, and paid by them, respectively.

Mr. CRITTENDEN said he considered the sedi

The

tion act as having been unconstitutional, not only from a defect of power in Congress to pass such a law, but because its passage was expressly forbidden by the constitution. sense of the nation had unquestionably pronounced it unconstitutional, and that opinion being generally entertained, it ought to be solemnly pronounced by the Legislature, that history and the records of the country may not hand it down to posterity as a precedent for acts of similar usurpation. If a revision of the re-proceedings in that case was important in a public point of view, it was certainly so as it related to the individuals who became the subjects of prosecution under that act. To each of them, and to every citizen of the United States, the Constitution of the United States had guaranteed certain rights, which had been violated by that law. This guarantee entitled them to indemnity in cases wherein those rights were violated; of this indemnity, the decision of courts ought not to deprive them. If they did, he said, there is no redeeming spirit in the constitution. Legal sanctions cannot vitiate constitutional provisions. The Judiciary is a valuable part of Government, and ought to be highly respected; but is not infallible. The constitution is our guide-our supreme law. Blind homage can never be rendered by freemen to any power. In all cases of alleged violations

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Dec. 1, 1818. The Secretary of State, to whom has been referred the resolution of the Senate, of the 13th ultimo, questing information not heretofore communicated, relating to restitution of slaves, conformably to the first article of the late Treaty of Peace between the United States and Great Britain, has the honor of reporting to the President of the United States, that the difference of construction given by the two Governments to that part of the first article of the Treaty, and the claim of the citizens of the United States to indemnity for slaves carried away contrary to its stipulations, form one of the subjects of negotiation now pending in England; which negotiation having commenced towards the close of the month of August, no report of its progress has yet been received at this Department, from the Plenipotentiaries, to whom, on the part of the United States, it has been committed.

JOHN QUINCY ADAMS. The Message and documents were read, and ordered to lie on the table.

DECEMBER, 1818.]

Memorial of Matthew Lyon.

[SENATE.

of the constitution, it was for Congress to make a just discrimination. In doubtful cases, he said, he would not interfere; but, when the constitution forbade a law, he would not hesitate to interpose for the relief of those who suffered by its inflictions. The case now before the Senate, he considered a fair case for the in-good Samaritan, the healing balm to every terposition of Congress. It had a peculiar character. The individual had a right to remuneration; this right ought not to be sacrificed to contingencies, or to speculative opinions. We may not do wrong that right may come of it. Justice to the individuals, to the constitution, to the country, all required this course. Let us add, said Mr. C., new defences and guards to the constitution in this assailable point. Let us secure it, as far as in our power, from future infraction on the ground of precedent.

| press individuals? If they did, ought not the new trustees to whom the people had confided their authority, to remedy the evil as far as in their power? The public sentiment, he said, called upon Congress to repair the wrongs which had been inflicted, and to administer, like the wound. This, he thought, was a propitious moment to retrace the former steps, in deference to the opinion of the people, and erect a barrier against the recurrence of similar aggressions of power on inherent and constitutional right. This, he said, was not the tribunal to take cognizance of judicial delinquency: that was the province of the other House. But it was quite within the power of this body, as one branch of the Legislature, to pronounce that those who gave the authority exercised by the judiciary Mr. BURRILL said he hoped the amendment had no right to do so, and that, therefore, the would not prevail. If it was negatived, the judiciary had proceeded unconstitutionally in gentleman would yet have it in his power to executing the law, the constitution being the try the general question by introducing a bill paramount law. He believed, he said, our embracing his proposition. But, Mr. B. said, courts were the purest in the world; but those not a fact alleged in the petition now before the who composed them were mere men, and some Senate was supported by any proof, though the of them, possibly, bad men. Was there any facts were extraordinary in their nature, and thing, he asked, in the ermine robe, which connot to be believed without proof. The peti-ferred on the wearer exemption from human tioner had asked relief from Congress, on the frailties? It was rather calculated to inflate the ground of not having had a fair trial. Ought vanity, and increase the confidence of the judge not this to be proved, instead of being merely in his own infallibility. He would not, he said, asserted? He had called Judge Patterson a act indelicately towards the judiciary, or any second Jeffries, himself an Algernon Sydney; member of it; but, in regard to the violation of but this was not a ground on which the Senate the constitution, in the passage and execution could found a legislative act. The question re- of the sedition law, a tribunal from which there garding the constitutionality of the act of Con- was no appeal, had decided on it. There was gress, which had been agitated, Mr. B. said he among the people, at this day, scarcely a diswould not argue; not that he had any doubts sentient voice on that subject. Would the deon the subject, but because it was unnecessary cision of four or five individuals counterbalance now to discuss it. The question really before this unanimous opinion? The sedition act, Mr. the Senate was one which could be discussed B. proceeded to say, was one of the most conwithout reference to the character of Judge spicuous among the acts of misrule, in consePatterson, and without reflecting on the admin- quence of which the party who then held the istration of justice in the courts of our country. reins of Government was precipitated from The facts alleged were not proved, and Mr. B. power. The law, he said, was unconstitutional, believed they were not susceptible of proof. and Congress ought to say so, and to repair the ravages made under color of its authority.

Mr. BARBOUR said he had not intended to speak on this question, unless impelled by an imperious sense of duty. He was happy, he said, that the question presented to the Senate, instead of being decided on the merit or demerit of an individual, was to be decided on the broad ground of principle. Was the course proposed in the amendment, he asked, an unusual course? Was it not a daily practice to include all who were in the same predicament in the same remedy? An individual, Mr. B. said, was responsible for any charges he made; and they are not to be received as facts until satisfactorily proved. Let not, therefore, the great constitutional question now presented rest on the merit of the claim of a single individual, or be encumbered by questions of fact peculiar to an isolated case. The true question now to be decided, was, did the Government, by the sedition act of 1798, from improper motives of party feelings, violate the constitution and op

Mr. OTIS said, this debate was wholly unexpected by him, until the gentleman from Kentucky gave him an intimation a day or two ago, that he intended to oppose the report of the committee. He did not then intend to interfere, as he believed the few observations he might make would be wholly unprofitable; and nothing but some allusions which had been made, would induce him to address the Senate. He was the only member of Congress, now in the Senate, who voted for the sedition law; and there were but four or five in the other House, who had aided in passing this law. It might be expected he would let the world see he was not ashamed of his old friends, nor of his old principles. He was not now an advocate for a sedition law. The public opinion, as clearly ascertained, forbade it. He respected this opinion as sincerely as those who much oftener referred to it. It was his inclination, as well

SENATE.]

Memorial of Matthew Lyon.

[DECEMBER, 1818.

as his duty, to conform to it. But, though he | founded or not-they existed. Nor need it be would not repeat the offence, he could not re- wondered at. We had since seen and heard it pent it. In supporting that law on its passage, asserted, that the finger of Great Britain was he acted from a sense of duty. Those who discovered in the proceedings of men, whose acted with him, were governed by motives principles, services, lives, families, and fortunes equally honorable. He admitted the law was were certain pledges of their fidelity to their inexpedient, but he thought gentlemen mistaken country. But, admitting that gentlemen are when they pronounced it unconstitutional. This correct, and that indelible stigma should be question had been ably discussed, as well by stamped on the law and its authors, can Conthose who were opposed to the law, as by those gress remedy the wrong done? We have no who advocated it; and he should not now enter constitutional power to declare any law uncondeeply into the subject. Every Government stitutional, in any other mode than by repealing had an inherent right to punish offences which it. If gentlemen thought we had, he would endangered its existence; and on this definition thank them to point out the clause. They could he relied for a justification of the law. If the not do it. We have no such power. The JuPresident and Congress were convinced there diciary could do justice in such cases, but the was a necessity* for such a law, they had a Legislature cannot. right to enact it. It was passed in a period of Mr. SMITH said, that, being of the committee great danger and alarm. It was true, it had who reported against the petition, and of opinion been said these were chimerical. He trusted that the prayer of it ought not to be granted, he this would not now be said. It was a period of deemed it a duty to offer his reasons for differwar, and of threatened invasion. Our ministers ing from the gentlemen from Kentucky and of peace had been spurned by the French Re- | Virginia. He was in favor of the report, and public, who had demanded more money. The against the amendment. His political principles nation was preparing to resist. At this mo- were and always had been republican or (as they ment the law was passed. It was a measure of had been formerly called, by way of reproach) defence a part of the general system. Of this democratic. His principles had never changed, system WASHINGTON approved, and accepted nor was it probable they ever would. He was the command of the army. Mr. O. did not wish sorry gentlemen had gone so deep into the questo excite unpleasant feelings, and would en- tion, as it might awaken feelings which had betdeavor to avoid it. There was one argument ter be permitted to slumber. When the sedimore he would urge. Had gentlemen lately tion law passed, public opinion revolted against read the law? If they had, they would remem- its principles and provisions, not because it was ber that its second section only punished the unconstitutional, but because of the temper publication of false, scandalous, and malicious manifested in enacting and executing it, which matter, and admitted the truth to be given in induced a belief that the object was to crush all the defence. He had always been surprised opposition to the party in power. That party that this section was found fault with, while were continually pouring in addresses upon the the first section, defining a conspiracy, and pre- President, applauding his measures, and describing its punishment, had been passed over nouncing those who differed from them in opinwithout animadversion. The law was doubt-ion. The very children presented their adulaless inexpedient, but it was not new in princi- tory offerings; and it was remarked by some ple. Similar provisions existed in several of one at the time, that the President had as many the States; and this act was deemed essential addresses in his bureau as James the First had. for the defence of the constitution and its au- The Democrats were denounced, and the Presthorities. It was not intended to affect the ident called on to remove them all from office; poor individuals who became its victims; but and on every removal of one of them, addresses it was thought that France, who was every-were sent to the President approbating his conwhere endeavoring to extend her influence by duct. This created the alarm. To this violence intrigue and corruption, would, by her agents, the sedition law owed the opposition it experibusy herself in our concerns, and that the pro-enced, and not to the belief that it was unconvisions of this act were necessary to defeat their efforts, and preserve the Government. No matter whether those apprehensions were un

stitutional. The times were not now what they were in 1798. The Government now admitted its opponents to a participation in its offices, and its friends did not clamor for their dismissal.

*This assumed source of power-necessity-constituted the main dividing line between the Federalists and RepubBut he would drop this subject, and return to licans in the beginning of the Government, and was the arthe question. The gentlemen from Massachugument on which their support or opposition to measures setts and Rhode Island justly opposed the asenlarging the powers of Congress so often turned-the Fed-sumption by Congress to decide on the constieral party for it, the Republicans against it. But at a later tutionality of a law. Our constitution had very period-the time of the establishment of the second National properly separated the powers of Government Bank, and the commencement of federal internal improve--the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial. They ment, the Republicans fell into the same doctrine-and with the same fate; experience showing that each did, under the plea of necessary, what was not so.

should be kept separate. The Judiciary was to construe laws. Congress could not reverse their decisions, nor repair their injuries. When they

DECEMBER, 1818.]

Memorial of Matthew Lyon.

[SENATE.

had passed a law, and the President signed it, tion. If the Senate was satisfied the law was they could not touch it, unless to repeal or unconstitutional, they ought to adopt the resoamend it. The opinions of legal men ought to lution; if they had doubts, they ought to rehave great weight. The Judiciary was com- ject it. Some facts were stated in the petition posed of such. They were selected for their not known to him; but he believed Matthew legal acquirements. They deliberated well be- Lyon had remunerated all the members who adfore they decided. They would not have stoop- vanced money to relieve him from his fine. Aced to party purposes, but they gave the law its cording to some gentleman we were to regard full operation. This could give Congress no the judiciary more than the law, and both more right to interfere. Are you to presume the than the constitution. It was a misfortune the judges were perjured and prostituted? We judges were not equal in infallibility to the God ought not to do so without proof; and we have who made them. The truth was, if the judge here only the suggestions and recollections of was a party man out of power, he would be a eighteen or twenty years ago. And he must party man in. The office would not change here say, the petitioner had here given evidence human nature. He had no doubt that the sedithat he can now write bitterly, if he did not tion law, and the proceedings under it, had more then. He appealed to gentlemen who had pro- effect in revolutionizing the Government than fessionally studied law, whether the sedition act all its other acts. He well remembered the was unconstitutional. He was not satisfied it language of the times-pay your taxes, but was so, but inclined to think otherwise. In this don't speak against Government. The gentlecase at least, the applicant ought not to be man from Massachusetts admits the inexpebelieved, as there was no evidence of the truth diency of the law, but not its unconstitutionof his allegations. In the infancy of our Gov-ality. vernment, the common law of England was adopted. This forbade the proof of any fact alleged, and was much more severe than the sedition law. Under the common law, instead of admitting the truth as a justification, "The greater the truth, the greater the libel." The jury could only decide on the fact of publication, and the court could fine and imprison at their discretion. There was no offence punishable by the sedition act but was indictable at common law, save perhaps in a single case; and while under the former the truth might be given in evidence, and the jury had cognizance both of law and fact, under the latter the truth but aggravated the offence, and the offender was at the mercy of the court. The sedition law was therefore an amelioration of the common law. But the great evil was in the spirit which prevailed in its enaction and administration.

Mr. MACON had hoped the resolution would be discussed on its merits, as it did not even mention Matthew Lyon's name. The true question was, will you review the proceedings under the sedition law, now, while party spirit is hushed, and all is calm? This calm he did not wish to disturb. But if you agree to the report, and reject the petition, how will you bring the question before you? He was told the precedent would be dangerous. He would meet this at once. If any party in power thought it their duty to follow it, let them do so. He did not admire precedent more than the gentleman from South Carolina, but, when wrong was done, it ought to be righted. The adoption of the constitution, and the state of things abroad and at home, which ensued, had excited heats in the country; and he supposed both parties were sometimes wrong. The country is now peaceful, and we can act free from prejudice or party. He should not attempt to discuss the constitutionality of the sedition law. He had often been heard on this subject, and he supposed every man had made up his mind on the ques

This was of itself a great concession. Would he, or the gentleman from South Carolina, put his finger on the clause of the constitution which authorized that law? He would not impute evil motives—he had nothing to do with them, but with acts. He would have preferred a silent vote; but, being referred to in the petition, he could not be silent. Money is paid back daily from the Treasury to individuals, without its being called revising the decision of the judges. He did not agree with the gentleman from Massachusetts about the powers of the Government. That gentleman thought it might do any act necessary to its preservation. He, Mr. M., believed it could not go beyond the constitution. We have in this country two governments. The constitution defines the powers of the General Government, and leaves the State governments untouched. He thought the position clear, that if there was no constitutional power to pass the law, the money was taken wrongfully, and ought to be restored. Mr. MACON was sorry the names of judges had been introduced. We ought to pass lightly over the ashes of the dead. Let them sleep quietly with their fathers-he would not disturb them. The Senate adjourned, without taking the question.

WEDNESDAY, December 9.
Memorial of Matthew Lyon.

The Senate resumed the consideration of the report of the Judiciary Committee unfavorable to the petition of Matthew Lyon; Mr. CRITTENDEN's motion to reverse the report, and to make general provision for the indemnification of all similar cases occurring under the sedition law, being yet under consideration:

Mr. MORRILL said, the discussion had taken a course which was unexpected; and he felt it a duty to make some remarks, and assign the reasons which would govern his vote. tion turned on the constitutionality of the sedi

The ques

SENATE.]

General John Stark.

[DECEMBER, 1818.

Mr. OTIS said he should not enter into the ar

He

tion law. He was opposed to the resolution, | tion. He judged the law by the constitution. because he believed the law constitutional. The He did not like the judiciary less than others, law only punished false, licentious, and mali- but he loved the constitution more. cious writings. The constitution did not mean to prohibit a law to punish these. It was in-gument of the question; but would merely sugtended to cherish virtue and morality, and to gest a fact which he had before omitted. preserve our rights and privileges; and which believed the people of the United States had of these did we esteem higher than reputation? never demonstrated their opinion that the sediThe constitution prohibited any law abridging tion law was unconstitutional. After the Virthe freedom of speech or of the press. Now, ginia Legislature had passed their resolutions, freedom and liberty are synonymous and con- denouncing this law, and circulars enclosing vertible terms. The law was not intended to their proceedings were sent to the Legislatures abridge the liberty of the press, but its licen- of the several States, those of New England unantiousness. The second section allowed the truth imously declined expressing their disapprobato be given in evidence. If the publication was tion of the law, and so far gave their sanction licentious, the charge could not be supported, | to it. Virginia again took up the subject, and and the offender would be punished. If it gave a comprehensive view of all the arguments contained facts, they could be inaintained, and against the law; and this was carried through an acquittal would take place. He was opposed the Legislature but by about two to one. He to the resolution on another ground-this was thought at least one-half of the people of the not the proper tribunal to decide the question United States might be considered as having of unconstitutionality. The judiciary was the expressed their opinion that the law was conproper tribunal. If Congress should indemnify stitutional; yet, he would not at this time so in one case, they might in others-and where far outrage public opinion as to vote for a rewould we stop? All would be confusion and un-newal of this law. He hoped it might be done certainty. without; but it might have to be recurred to in times of imminent public danger. A crisis might arrive, when it would not be safe to let the press denounce the President of the United States as a usurper and highwayman, and the Congress as swindlers, and participators in his plunder; and to declare that the people had no resource but in a convention of delegates.

Mr. CRITTENDEN felt himself bound to reply to some observations which had been made. The public voice had determined the unconstitutionality of the sedition law: it had removed one party from power, and elevated another. He had expected Congress would confirm the decision of the people. He should be sorry if he were disappointed; but it would be a great consolation that the opinion of the nation was with him. If the law was a violation of the national compact, which guaranteed to every individual freedom to speak and to publish what he chose, could we retain fines incurred under this law? In a moral point of view, the money ought to be refunded; and he knew not on what ground the claim could be resisted. For the judiciary he felt a proper respect; but he would not bow submissively to every thing the judiciary should say. As a man, and as a member of the Senate, he had a right to form opinions for himself. The constitution he regarded as the supreme law, and entitled to our first attention and respect. By this resolution we should cast no stigma on any judge or court: it was not revising any judicial decision; it was no indelicacy to the judiciary. The blame attached to Congress more than to the judiciary. We ourselves have done an injurious act; it is for us to repair the wrong. There was no more indelicacy in the present case, than there would be in moving the repeal of a law. He thought gentlemen quite too sensitive on this subject. He had no wish to cast a stigma on either the judigiary or Congress-no desire to impute impure motives to either; but purity of motive could not make the law constitutional. Victorious parties might pursue their adversaries too far, as well in the Senate as in the field; hence arose the act in question. The stability of the judiciary was not to be affected by this resolu

The question was taken on Mr. CRITTENDEN'S proposition, and decided in the negative-yeas 17, nays, 20, as follows:

YEAS.-Messrs. Barbour, Crittenden, Edwards, Eppes, Forsyth, Lacock, Macon, Morrow, Palmer, Roberts, Ruggles, Sanford, Stokes, Talbot, Thomas, Williams of Mississippi, and Wilson.

NAYS.-Messrs. Burrill, Daggett, Fromentin, Gaillard, Hanson, Hunter, Johnson, King, Leake, Mellen, Morrill, Noble, Otis, Smith, Storer, Taylor, Tichenor, Van Dyke, and Williams of Tennessee.

The report of the committee was then concurred in-ayes 20.

FRIDAY, December 11. CHARLES TAIT, from the State of Georgia, attended this day.

WEDNESDAY, December 16.

General John Stark.

The Senate proceeded again to the consideration of the bill for the relief of General Stark, an amendment having been heretofore agreed to, on motion of Mr, TICHENOR, to change the commencement of the pension from the 4th of July, 1817, to the 16th of August, (the anniversary of the battle of Bennington, in which General Stark so greatly signalized himself,) and the question was on ordering it to a third reading.

Mr. ROBERTS commenced a brief debate on