Mr. McD. was sorry that the gentleman from Connecticut should have thought it necessary to have taken up so much of the time of the House by reading paragraphs from newspapers, which every body had seen; but it might have been expected after the gentleman had taken so much pains to vilify and abuse the printer of one of the papers of this city, a citizen of respectable character and connections, that he should have taken at least some notice of another, called the British printer, who boasts of being a subject of King George, and who is generally supposed to be in the pay of the British Minister—whose paper contains more libels and lies than any other in the United States, and who, notwithstanding, is countenanced by characters whom he was sorry to see have any connection with such a man; whose constant daily business it is to abuse, and render ridiculous, every member of our Government who does not in every thing fall in with the British views.
As to what had been said with respect to the circular and other letters of members which have been published, he had seen some of them and heard of others. It was not any thing which the gentleman from South Carolina could say, which would prevent him from speaking and writing his sentiments freely. The gentleman from South Carolina said he had seen a letter in the papers the signature of which he knew. He should be glad to know where he saw the signature to know it? He had seen a letter in Fenno's paper, signed McDowell, followed by some violent strictures on the letter, and on the author. The letter he owned to be his, but the insinuations contained in the observations upon it were as false as they were malicious.
Mr. Harper said, he knew the gentleman wrote the letter in question; but he would assure him he did not see it under seal, nor did he break the seal, or write the strictures upon it.
Mr. Gallatin wished that the bill had been committed before any debate had taken place, as in its present stage, any observations on details susceptible of amendment would be out of order; and he must now confine himself to the general question "Does the situation of the country, at this time, require that any law of this kind should pass? Do there exist such new and alarming symptoms of sedition, as render it necessary to adopt, in addition to the existing laws, any extraordinary measure for the purpose of suppressing unlawful combinations, and of restricting the freedom of speech and of the press?" For such were the objects of the bill, whatever modifications it might hereafter receive.
The manner in which the principle of the bill had been supported, was perhaps more extraordinary still than the bill itself. The gentleman from Connecticut, (Mr. Allen,) in order to prove the existence of a combination against the constitution and government, he communicated to the House—what? a number of newspaper paragraphs; and even most of those were such as would not be punishable by the bill as it now stands. The object of that gentleman in wishing a bill of this nature to pass, extended far beyond the intention of the Senate who had sent down this bill; far beyond, he would venture to say, the idea of any other member upon this floor, besides himself. His idea was to punish men for stating facts which he happened to disbelieve, or for enacting and avowing opinions, not criminal, but perhaps erroneous. Thus one of the paragraphs most obnoxious to the gentleman from Connecticut, was that in which the writer expresses his belief that Mr. Gerry may yet make a treaty with the French Government, his powers being sufficient for that purpose. [Mr. Allen said, his charge was against persons making this assertion, when they knew it to be unfounded.] Mr. G. said, he did not understand the gentleman's explanation. He now says that the act he condemns is the assertion of a fact, which may be true, but which the writer himself disbelieves; and thus he wished to punish such men as, according to his caprice, he may suppose guilty of expressing opinions not consonant with their own sentiments. For by what rule of evidence could he discover and know what was really the writer's belief? But, to return, was there any thing criminal in that paragraph? It asserted that Mr. Gerry had powers sufficient to treat. The gentleman from Connecticut denies this to be true. Mr. G. would aver that it was an undeniable fact, as appears evidently from the documents now on the table. They showed that the powers given to the Envoys were joint and several. And, if Mr. Gerry had powers to treat, how could it be criminal to say that he might treat? Or supposing the writer of the paragraph to have said, that he believed Mr. Gerry would treat, could the opinion be charged with any thing but being erroneous? When a paragraph of this nature was held out as criminal, what writings, what opinions could escape the severity of the intended law, which did not coincide with the opinions, and which might counteract the secret views of a prevailing party?
The gentleman from Connecticut had also quoted an extract of a letter said to be written by a member of Congress from Virginia, and published in last Saturday's Aurora. The style and composition of that letter did the highest honor to its writer. It contained more information and more sense, and gave more proofs of a sound understanding and strong mind, than ever the gentleman from Connecticut had displayed, or could display on this floor. So far he would venture to say, although he had given but a cursory reading to the letter, and he was altogether at a loss to know what was criminal in it, though he might easily see why it was obnoxious. Was it erroneous or criminal to say that debts and taxes were the ruinous consequences of war? Or that some members in both Houses of Congress uniformly voted in favor of an extension of the powers of the Executive, and of every proposed expenditure of money? Was it not true? Gentlemen of that description avow that, in their opinion, the Executive is the weakest branch of government; and they act upon the ostensible principle that, on that account, its influence and powers must be increased. Look at the laws passed during this session. Look at the alien bill, at the provisional army bill, look at the prodigious influence acquired by so many new officers, and then deny that the powers of the Executive have not been greatly increased. As to the increased rate of expenditure, and the propensity of these gentlemen to vote money, they would not themselves deny it. Was it criminal to say that the Executive is supported by a party? when gentlemen declared that it must be supported by a party. When the doctrine had been avowed on this floor that men of a certain political opinion, alone ought to be appointed to offices; and when the Executive had now adopted and carried into practice that doctrine in its fullest extent?
Mr. Dana did not propose to enter into any controversy respecting the honor which some gentlemen seemed disposed to arrogate to themselves, on account of certain sentiments which they have avowed. If any members of that House were ambitious of being distinguished as heralds of calumny and apostles of insurrection, it might serve to show how incorrect were their ideas of what is truly honorable.
The bill has two objects in view—it proposed to punish conspiracies and calumnies against the Government. Against this bill, the freedom of speech and of the press has been insisted on; and the bill has been condemned as violating one of the articles adopted as amendments to the constitution. Why is the gentleman from Pennsylvania so very anxious on the subject? Or is it abridged by a law to restrain lying? Could the framers of the constitution intend to guarantee, as a sacred principle, the liberty of lying against the Government? What do gentlemen understand by "the freedom of speech and of the press?" Is it a license to injure others or the Government, by calumnies, with impunity?
Let it be remembered, that the uttering of malicious falsehoods, to the injury of the Government, is the offence which it is now intended to restrain; for, if what is uttered can be proved true, it will not, according to this bill, be punished as libellous. What, then, is the rational, the honest, the constitutional idea of freedom of language or of conduct? Can it be any thing more than the right of uttering and doing what is not injurious to others? This limitation of doing no injury to the rights of others, undoubtedly belongs to the true character of real liberty. Indeed, can it, in the nature of things, be one of the rights of freemen to do injury? Let gentlemen consult any writer of established reputation on this subject; let them examine the constitution of their own favorite "terrible" Republic! they will not find the ideas of liberty extended to that indefinite latitude which they advocate on this floor.
However, if there are gentlemen who seriously and conscientiously believe that it would be violating the constitution to restrain abuses of the press, by punishing the guilty; if there are gentlemen who believe that malicious calumnies against the Government ought to be uttered and published with impunity, such gentlemen ought certainly not to consent to act further upon this subject. Mr. D. was of a different opinion. He believed that the editor of a newspaper, like the writer of a public history, in the execution of his office, should dare to utter what is true, and dread to utter any thing that is false. Considering, therefore, that the liberty of lying, the privilege of vice, is what is truly intended to be corrected by this bill, how is it possible that gentlemen should appear so anxious to excite clamor against it? For himself, Mr. D. wanted not the liberty of calumny or of conspiracy, and was in favor of the principle of the bill.