fated Missouri presented itself for admission, that a desire was expressed for procrastination and delay. He hoped the Senate would not agree to the motion, unless divested of the reason given by the mover in relation to the other House.

Mr. EATON replied that the argument objected to by the gentleman from South Carolina, had been merely thrown out by him from an impression that it was not proper for both Houses to be acting on the subject at one and the same moment. It was strange, however, he thought, that the gentleman should object to the motion solely because in his opinion one bad argument was offered in its favor. It was singular that a proposition admitted to have sufficient good reasons in its support, should be opposed by the gentleman merely because the arguments for it concluded with a bad one. He had stated that he entertained doubts on the question, and he only desired one or two days for reflection, and to make up an opinion. He concluded by varying his motion for postponement to Thursday next.

SENATE.

of courtesy towards the members from the new State, now kept waiting at the bar for admission, and towards the State itself, to decide the question without more delay. A contrary course, he urged, would be a departure from the proceeding in all pre-existing cases; and he could not believe that a mere technical exception could operate on the wisdom of the Senate, of which he entertained the most exalted opinion, to prevent it from eternally burying the brand of discord which had been lighted up at the last session. Mr. B. said, as there was no good reason for the postponement asked for, he must vote against it. He hoped the time would never come when the opinion of this body, solemnly expressed, would not have a great moral effect out of doors as well as in doors. This question was looked at by the nation with much anxiety and some degree of alarm, and he hoped the Senate would not keep the public mind in suspense, but decide it without delay.

Mr. EATON having again varied his motion to its original shape, for Wednesday

his opposition to the postponement, as he was always ready to accord to any gentleman reasonable time for preparation.

Mr. SMITH Concurred with Mr. JOHNSON in this sentiment, and, for the same reason, would not oppose the postponement to Wednesday.

Mr. JOHNSON, of Kentucky, felt no reluctance Mr. JOHNSON, of Kentucky, said, as the gentleto postpone the subject for the gentleman's accom- man had placed his motion on the ground of permodation, but he would not consent to the post-sonal indulgence, he would cheerfully withdraw ponement for the reason that the Senate ought to wait the decision of the other House, because the latter reason might operate to the postponement of the question here altogether, or at least for a considerable period beyond the time now proposed. His only motive for objecting to the motion was on account of the latter argument urged by the gentleman from Tennessee. If the gentleman wanted time merely to mature his opinion, let him move the postponement from day to day, until he had made up his mind on the question. Mr. J. said the question to be decided was one of great importance; it swallowed up, in fact, every other, and until it was settled, they could not well go on with the ordinary business of the session. He was unwilling, therefore, to postpone it on a motion accompanied by a reason that might call for still further delay. He was not willing to wait for the other House, as he deemed it right and proper for the Senate to decide the question as early as possible; sufficient delay had already taken place, and he hoped the gentleman would change his motion to a postponement until to-morrow only. If he should not then be prepared for the question, Mr. J. said he would agree to give him further time.

Mr. EATON added a few words explanatory of his reasons for asking a short delay. His health had not been good, and he had not possessed the opportunity of satisfying his mind on some points involved in the decision of the question. He thought opposition to such a motion was unusual, and that when any gentleman asked further time it was always granted, even when the question was one of inconsiderable importance; but, on a question of such acknowledged magnitude, it was still more extraordinary that the indulgence he asked should have been opposed. He wanted no time to prepare a great harangue, for he should probably pass over the question silently; but it was to see if a measure which he was called to vote on would violate the instrument which he had sworn to observe.

Mr. SMITH rose again, merely to correct the gentleman as to a fact. The gentleman had stated that time was never refused to a member when he asked for it; but Mr. S. recollected, on one occasion, he himself, late in the day, asked the Senate to postpone the question on the bank only to the next day, and was refused; and, so far from indulging him, they took the question over his head, while he was in the midst of a speech on the subject.

Mr. BARBOUR, of Virginia, was never opposed to allowing gentlemen time to make up their opinions on all matters of deliberation; but in this case he concurred with Messrs. SMITH and JOHNSON, in their opposition to the motion, for the reasons they had assigned. The argument used by Mr. EATON, that it was proper to wait the decision of the other House, amounted almost to an indefinite postponement of the subject here. He was averse to delay on that ground. The question, he thought, had been forever sealed at the last session; so fully was he persuaded of this, that he had supposed accursed would have been the hand that should again open this fountain of bitter waters. Mr. B. then proceeded into a brief argument to show that it The PRESIDENT communicated a report of the was right and proper, under every consideration | Secretary of the Treasury, prepared in obedience

16th CoN. 2d SESS.-2

The question was then taken on postponing the resolution to Wednesday, and was agreed to, nem. con.

TUESDAY, December 5.

Resolved, That the President of the United States be requested to cause the agent employed under the act entitled "An act authorizing the purchase of fire Mr. RUGGLES presented two memorials, signed engines and for building houses for the safe keep- by a number of individuals concerned directly or ing of the same," to inform the Senate if said act is indirectly, as purchasers of public lands, prior to carried into complete effect; if not, to what degree, the law "making further provision for the sale of and why not fully; and, also, if a warrant has been the public lands," stating that said law operates issued from the Treasury Department for the sum ap-injuriously on them, and praying that they may propriated, and if so, when issued.

The bill from the House of Representatives, entitled "An act to incorporate the Managers of the National Vaccine Institution in the District of Columbia," was read the second time, and referred to the Committee on the District of Co-rect decision involves general principles, so highly imlumbia.

They owe it to themselves and to the occasion to present succinctly to the Senate some of the promiThe resolution from the House of Representa-nent reasons which have produced this determination. tives authorizing the President of the United States to cause astronomical observations to be made to ascertain the longitude of the Capitol in the City of Washington, from some known meridian in

DECEMBER, 1820.

Case of Matthew Lyon.

SENATE.

degree, lessened by the reflection that the decision now to be pronounced, when the angry passions of party have subsided, will be dictated by an exclusive regard to the intrinsic merits of the question, and the interesting consideration it involves.

The committee are aware, that, in opposition to this view of the subject, the decision of some of the judges of the Supreme Court, sustaining the constitutionality of the law, has been frequently referred to, as sovereign and conclusive of the question.

The committee entertain a high respect for the purity and intelligence of the judiciary. But it is a rational respect, limited by a knowledge of the frailty of human nature, and the theory of the Constitution, which declares, not only that judges may err in opinion, but also may commit crimes, and hence has provided a tribunal for the trial of offenders.

this day to enter into an elaborate disquisition to sustain the correctness of this opinion. They will content themselves by referring to the history of the times in which the law originated, when both its constitutionality and expediency underwent the strictest scrutiny. The opponents of the law challenged its advocates to point out the clause of the Constitution which had armed the Government with so formidable a power as the control of, or interference with, the press. A Government, said they, of limited powers, and authorized to execute such only as are expressly given by the Constitution, or such as are properly incident to an express power, and necessary to its execution, has exercised an authority over a most important subject, which, so far from having been delegated, has been expressly withheld. That the patriots contemporary with the adoption of the Constitution, not content with the universally received opinion, that all power In times of violent party excitement, agitating a not granted had been withheld, to obviate all doubt whole nation, to expect that judges will be entirely exon a point of such moment, insisted that an amend-empt from its influence, argues a profound ignorance ment to that effect should be inserted in the Consti- of mankind. Although clothed with the ermine, they tution; and still jealous of that propensity, incident to are still men, and carry into the judgment seat the all Governments, no matter what may be the form of passions and motives common to their kind. Their deits organization, or by whom administered, to enlarge cisions, on party questions, reflect their individual the sphere of its authority, they, by express provis- opinions, which frequently betray them unconsciously ions, guarded from violation some of the cardinal into error. To balance the judgment of a whole peoprinciples of liberty; among these, as most important, ple, by that of two or three men, no matter what may they placed the liberty of conscience and of the press. be their official elevation, is to exalt the creature of the Profoundly versed in the history of human affairs, Constitution above its creator, and to assail the founwhose every page made known that all Governments dation of our political fabric, which is, that the decision had seized on the altar and the press, and prostituted of the people is infallible, from which there is no apthem into the most formidable engines against the peal, but to Heaven. liberty of mankind, they resolved, and most wisely so, as the sequel has evinced, to surround these great, natural, and inalienable rights by impassable barriers; and, to that end, have expressly declared, that Congress should have no power to legislate on them; and, notwithstanding these great obstacles, you have passed this act. The advocates of the law vainly endeavored to defend themselves by a technical discrimination between the liberty and licentiousness of the press. The American people, by overwhelming majorities, approaching, indeed, unanimity, denounced the law as a palpable and an alarming infraction of the Constitution; and, although no official record of that decision can be produced, it is as notorious as a change of their public servants, which took place at that time, and to which this obnoxious measure so essentially contributed.

The committee cannot withhold an expression of regret, that, upon the restoration of sound principles, the Congress of the times should have omitted to leave some memorial on their records, of their disapprobation of this unjustifiable assumption of power; and none would have been more satisfactory than an ample indemnity to those who had suffered by its operation. In the fluctuating conflicts between power and liberty, which exist everywhere, in a greater or lesser degree, where any portion of liberty is to be found, it is believed, by the committee, to be a most solemn duty imposed on the defenders of the latter, in every triumph it may acquire over the encroachments of the former, to make certain every doubtful point, to which resort had been had as a pretext for such encroachment; to repair every breach made in the Constitution; and, if practicable, to surround liberty with new ramparts. That having been omitted by our predecessors, in the instance of the sedition act, the task devolves on us. And although it has been long delayed, the regret arising therefrom is, in some

Taking it, therefore, as granted, that the law was unconstitutional, we are led to the next question, growing out of the inquiry, is the petitioner entitled to relief? This question, as a general one, is not susceptible of that precise answer, which might establish a uniform rule, applying equally to all times, and to all occasions. On the contrary, it must be decided by the peculiar circumstances of every case to which its application is attempted.

The committee, for instance, would themselves decide that relief was impracticable, where, from a long course of tyranny, attended with a rapacity far and wide, society had become so impoverished that the attempt to relieve might blight every prospect of future prosperity. Nor could they advocate relief, where the authority exercised admitted of a rational doubt as to its constitutionality, upon powers not expressly inhibited, nor in cases, perhaps, where the amount of the injuries complained of could not be ascertained with a reasonable precision. None of these difficulties, however, present themselves in this case. The law under which the petitioner suffered, as has been previously asserted, and attempted to be shown, was palpably unconstitutional, as being directly in opposition to an express clause of the Constitution. The amount of the injury sustained, in so far as relates to the fine paid by the petitioner, is fixed and certain, and the sum equal to a reimbursement is insignificant to the nation. In this case, therefore, the committee think the Goverument is under a moral obligation to indemnify the petitioner. An indemnity as consistent with policy as with justice, inculcating an instructive lesson to the oppressor and the oppressed. Successful usurpation yields, indeed, to but few checks; among the few is the justice to posterity, who take cognizance equally of the crimes of the usurper, and of the sufferings and the virtue of his victim-condemning the former, and administering relief to the latter. And what more

The Senate proceeded to consider, as in Committee of the Whole, the bill entitled "An act to provide for paying to the State of Illinois three Resolved, That so much of the act, entitled "An act per cent. of the net proceeds arising from the sale for the punishment of certain crimes against the Uni-of the public lands within the same;" and the ted States," approved the 14th of July, 1798, as pre- consideration thereof was postponed until to-mortends to prescribe and punish libels, is unconstitutional.

The other intervening subjects on the orders of ment, but hoped until to-morrow at least would be the day being, on motion of Mr. BARBOUR, post-permitted. He, too, expressed his regret that the poned for that purposequestion had been reopened, and added a few remarks on the propriety of giving some time to consider this amendment, which was certainly of an important character.