ceived as a bar. So that this would be drawing the string infinitely tighter than it is now; while the amendment itself would cut loose altogether.

I think that the provision in the constitution of 1790, is a happy medium, and I hope that it will remain unaltered.

Mr. EARLE, then modified the amendment to the amendment so as to read as follows;

"When either the court or the jury shall think the matter published proper for public information."

Mr. EARLE said. I am opposed to the amendment of my colleague, from the county of Philadelphia, (Mr. Doran) if taken without the modification which I have proposed, because it must be evident that there are private, circumstances alleged against individuals which may be true, and yet which ought not to be published. As, for instance, in relatian to a circumstance occurring many years ago, in relation to an individual who since that time has sustained an irreproachable character-which might be published through malace or revenge, and which ought not to be permitted to be published. And my colleague entertains the same opinion, too; because, at the end of his amendment, he says "if it shall appear to the jury that the matter charged as libellous is true, and was published with good motives, and for justifiable ends, the party shall be acquitted, and the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the fact."

My colleague then admits my principle, and, admitting it, what is the remedy which he proposes? It is worse than the disease. He allows a man who has published an improper thing and goes before a court, to republish it, and to state all the facts again, to the disgrace and injury of the individual to whom he is hostile. I, for one, can not consent that this should be so; and I think my colleague, on a little further reflection, must see that my proposition is the only one which meets this object fully.

I do not concur in the remarks of the gentleman frow Luzerne, (Mr. Woodward.) He says, that their will be two issues created. Is this a new thing? Are there not cases of this sort occurring every day-cases in which two issues are to be tried by the same jury- -cases in which three, four, or five issues are to be tried by the same jury? But even if there were something in it of rather an uncommon character, what of that? Are there not new things in human government, as in every thing else? What are we here for? Why have the people of Pennsylvania called us together in convention? Is it not that we may provide new things, if those things are in themselves right and proper? Is it not probable that our bill of rights may not have attained to perfection? Is it not possible that we might yet improve on some of its provisions? Ought we not to make its provisions as unexceptionable as it may be in our power to make them?

In the present case, the jury and the court can consult at the same time and if then the jury shall think the matter published proper for public information, it can be given-or if the court think it proper for public information, it can also be given. The only question is, is this a question of law or of fact? If it be a question of fact, it is for the jury. If it is a question of law, it may be proper either for the jury or the court. If the jury are to judge whether the matter is proper for public information, it is just. as easy for them to fix it before the information is given.

The decisions as to whether the matter is proper or not for publication, have been arbitrary in different parts of the Union. They have been very inconsistent, and they always will be. They will depend very much on the feeling of the judge. Now, I would secure to the defendant a double claime; and a double apportunity by providing that when either the court or the jury shall think the matter published proper for public information, it should be given. This is in accordance with doctrine maintained by Mr. Jefferson, and is in consonance with the general principles of that political party to which the gentleman from Luzerne (Mr. Woodward) and myself alike belong.

And the question was then taken, and decided in the negative without a division.

So the amendment to the amendment was rejected.

Mr. DORAN said, it did not appear to him that the object of his amendment was properly understood. Looking to the phraseology of the amendment, continued Mr. D., it is not easy to perceive how any misunderstanding can have arisen in regard to its true intent and meaning.

Gentlemen have imagined that I wish to throw open the press as a vehicle for slander. I do not wish any thing of the kind; I am sure that nothing could be further from my intention. And, if gentlemen will examine my proposition, they will find that the very aim and object which it has in view is to prevent the licentiousness of the press.

What is the amendment? It is that in all prosecutions or indictments for libel, the truth may be given in evidence; that the jury shall determine the fact whether the publication has been made with good motives and for justifiable ends. This is the scope of this amendment. And what says the gentleman from the city of Philadelphia, (Mr. Chandler?) He says that by adopting this amendment, you allow every man's private reputation to be attacked from his earliest childhood, and that after he has been thus assailed, you will allow him no remedy by means of a criminal prosecution. Is this so? Take the case of a libel against the private character of a particular individual, for which a libel is commenced against the publisher. What must the publisher shew? In the first place, he must shew that the matter published is true; and, in the next place, that he published it with good motives and for justifiable ends. I say, he must prove to the satisfaction of twelve respectable and intelligent men, that he made the publicatiou from pure motives, and for justifiable ends. What objection can there be to this. I can see none; I can not see what possible injury can result from it. We do not, by the insertion of this new provision in the constitution, say that the public presses of he country shall be thrown open as a medium through which every man may attack another against whom he may have any lurking feeling of ill-will to gratify; but we say that where the public press has attacked the private character of individuals, it shall be in the power of the party accused, to give the truth in evidence to shew, if he can, that the matter was published from good motives; and to shew, if he can, that it was pub. lished for justifiable ends, and for the good of society at large.

I can easily imagine a case where a man's character has been made public, with a view to shew the public his malpractices and his impositions. Suppose, for instance, that a man should come into the city of Philadelphia, should represent himself to be in very forlorn and destitute circumstances-should say that he is an exile-that he comes from Poland, and should thus succeed in eliciting the sympathy and the benevolence of our citizens. And suppose it should be intimated to one of the public presses, that he is an impostor, should the press of our state be so manacled as to prevent the publication of the fact that he is an impostor? [ trust that there is not a gentleman in this convention who would say, that the public presses are not to be opened under such circumstances, and to be allowed to show that such a man is an impostor, and that he is not entitled to receive any encouragement or countenance.

Gentlemen speak of the evils resulting from such a provision. I recollect a case which occurred in one of our own courts, where the matter was true and was published for justifiable ends; but because the law prevented the truth from being given in evidence in prosecutions of that character, the defendant was convicted, and fined in a small amount which he could not pay. The result was that he went to the county prison, and remained there sixty days, until he was discharged under the insolvent law.

It is said also, that this provision, if introduced into the constitution, will operate injuriously on the community. How, or in what manner, I am not able to discover. How has it operated in the state of New York? There they have an amendment of this kind. Mine is copied from a similar provision in the bill of rights of that state? And let me ask, is the reputation of an individual more liable to be wantonly assailed and broken down there than here? Certainly not. Reputation may be vindicated there as surely and as signally as it may be vindicated here; and if this amendment is made a part of the constitution of Pennsylvania, there will still remain the same shield, the same security for reputation, and the same redress against those who may wickedly and wantonly. assail it, as exists at the present time.

There is, Mr. President, another object which I am desirous to accomplish in offering the amendment It is this; I wish to take away from the courts, the power to say whether the matter is libellous or not. I wish the jury to be the judges of the law as well as the fact; and I wish that where an individual is indicted for libel, it should not be in the power of the court to say, whether the matter published relates to him in his public capacity, or whether it is proper for publication, or not. But I wish the jury to do this; to say the matter is published from good motives, and for justifiable ends.

I, therefore, respectfully submit this amendment, and I invoke in its behalf, the aid of every true friend to the liberty of the press without its licentiousness.

And the question was then taken.

And on the question,

Will the convention agree to the amendment?

The yeas and nays were required by Mr. DORAN and Mr. KREBS, and are as follow, viz:

YBAS-Messrs. Banks, Bedford, Cummin, Doran, Foulkrod, Ingersoll, Keim, Magee, Mann, Martin, M'Cahen, Read, Ritter, Rogers, Sellers, Sterigere, Weaver-17. NAYS-Messrs. Agnew, Ayres, Baldwin, Barclay, Barndollar, Barnitz, Biddle, Bigelow, Bonham, Brown, of Lancaster, Brown, of Northampton, Chambers, Chandler, of Philadelphia, Clapp, Clarke, of Beaver, Clarke, of Dauphin Clarke, of Indiana, Cleavinger, Cline, Cochran, Cope, Cox, Craig, Crain, Crawford, Crum, Cunningham, Curll, Darrah Denny, Dickey, Dickerson, Dillinger, Donagan, Dunlop, Earle, Farrelly, Fleming, Fry, Fuller, Gamble, Gearhart, Gilmore, Grenell, Harris, Hastings, Hayhurst, Hays, Helffenstein, Henderson, of Allegheny, Henderson, of Dauphin, Hiester, High, Hopknson, Houpt, Hyde, Jenks, Kennedy, Kerr, Konigmacher, Krebs, Long, Lyons, Maclay, M'Sherry, Merrill, Merkel, Miller, Montgomery, Myers, Nevin, Overfield, Payne, Pennypacker, Porter, of Lancaster, Purviance, Russell, Saeger, Scheetz, Seltzer, Serrill, Shellito, Smith, of Columbia, Smyth, of Centre, Snively, Stickel, Sturdevant, Taggart, Thomas, Todd, White, Woodward, Young, Porter, of Northampton, President pro tempore.-94.

So the amendment was rejected.

And the report of the committee so far as relates to the seventh section, was agreed to.

The eighth section being under consideration,

A motion was made by Mr. Earle,

To postpone the further consideration of the said section for the purpose of inserting the following new section, viz :

"SECTION 8. That it shall be the duty of the legislature to provide adequate and exemplary penalties to be imposed upon all persons, who by mobs, violence and tumult or intimidation, shall interfere with the enjoyment of the right of freedom of speech, of the press, and of public discussion in relation to all questions of public or general interest. That it shall be the duty of the legislature to provide by law for the adequate compensation of all persons or their heirs, relatives or lawful representatives, who shall be injured in person or estate by any mob or riot unless such mob or riot shall have been directly and wilfully instigated, aided or encouraged by the person or persons so injured."

Mr. INGERSOLL asked for a division of the amendment, so as to end with the first clause.

Mr. EARLE said, that the amendment had been some time before the convention, for he had offered it at an early period of the session. He thought experience had fully proved it to be necessary. We had already adopted in our constitution, a guaranty in relation to freedom of speech and of the press. We had some guaranties against disturbing the peace of public bodies; but they could only be regarded as mere declarations of right, as they had not been accompanied by the proper legislation and enforcement of law to secure to citizens their rights. He asked if it had not been a matter of notoriety, for many years past, when the people have assembled for the purpose of discussing any subject which, perhaps, might be unpopular with those out of doors-that that they were distur bed by riotous and tumultuous assemblages? He had known that in various parts of this commonwealth as well as in New York and other portions of the Union, where meetings had been called, the objects of which had not met the approval of some, not included in the invitation, and they in consequence, had unwarrantably interfered with a view to

prevent others expressing their opinions and carrying out the objects for which they met.

This had been the case in reference to meetings besides those of a political character. It was also notorious that attempts had been made, by threats and violence, to destroy the liberty of the press. The legislature had provided no adequate remedy for the evil, that he knew of. If there was any law in regard to it, then it was a dead letter, for it was not enforced. He knew of no law under which an individual could be indicted for disturbing a meeting. He had never heard of an indictment of that character, although he had witnessed numbers of gross outrages that ought to be visited with punishment.

The second clause of his amendment proposed to indemnify those who shall be injured in their persons or estates by mobs. This, he regarded as a very proper and necesaary provision, and if adopted, would put an end to this kind of lawless violence. It would be found, generally, that mobs originate with, and are headed by, a few individuals-the greater part of the persons present being merely lookers on. Now, by obliging the community to make good all losses sustained, you enlist the feelings of every man of property at least to put down these lawless acts of violence. All that was required in order to suppress these disgraceful proceedings was, a proper interest felt on the part of the community. If any part of the community in any city or township, wish to deprive a citizen of his rights, or his property, because he does not happen to think as they do ; or, if they wish to take his life, because he tries to convince them that they are wrong in reference to some measure of public policy, then may it be said that they are fearful of the truth, and unlike Jefferson, who said that "error of opinion may be safely tolerated when truth is left free to combat it." They will not hearken to the light of reason, but they resort to violence and bloodshed! Such a manifestation of feeling as this is contrary to the principles of christianity, contrary to the principles of democracy, and contrary to the principles of liberty; and the individuals ought to be punished, and the injured parties compensated by the public. He believed this to be the law throughout England. It is also the law of several of our sister cities. And, in the city and county of Philadelphia, this law prevails to a certain extent, viz: to compensate a man for the injury he may have suffered in regard to property. But, in my opinion, the poor man, who is injured in person ought, also, to be compensated. The amendment I have offered will do equal justice.

Mr. E. asked for the yeas and nays on the motion to postpone, and then withdrew the call.

And, the question being taken on the postponement, it was decided in the negative.

Mr. EARLE then moved to amend the section, by adding to the end thereof the following, viz:

That it shall be the duty of the legislature to provide adequate and exemplary penalties to be imposed on all persons, who by mobs, violence and tumult or intimidation shall interfere with the enjoyment of the right of freedom of speech, of the press, and of public discussion in relation to all questions of public or general interest. That it shall be the duty of the