been given to their language. Our Supreme Court have limited the terms that are used in the Constitution. If that lan. guage receives its proper construction, I think both the majority and the minority of this House will be reconciled to what was found formerly in our Bill of Rights, and it is this: That where the matter published is proper for public information, the truth thereof may given in evidence. Now, as I understand the gentleman from Philadelphia, (Mr. Dallas,) that is all he asked or desired by his amendment, and as I understand the gentleman from Philadelphia who has now offered an amendment, (Mr. Newlin,) it is all that he asks and all that he desires. The misfortune is that the Supreme Court have limited the construction of these words. Undoub.edly, Mr. President, every member of the community is under an implied recognizance to be of good behavior. Every man who publishes an article in a paper which is false may be supposed to have done it maliciously; and there are some articles which if true are not necessary for public information. Therefore I think it is only necessary that we should put the language of our forefathers in its proper position that it may receive a proper construction in order to meet the wants of the day. The press do not ask for any other liberty than that they may be permitted to give the truth in evidence where the matter is proper for public information, and therefore I intend to offer as an amendment to the amendment a reversion of the very words that we find in our Constitution so that they shall fairly express the intention of those who framed that original provision in the Bill of Rights. You know, Mr. President-if you do not, I remember very well-that when I came to the bar I was taken by surprise when I learned that the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania had put a construction on the word in the statute in relation to marder, requiring that it should be done "deliberately," that the deliberation might be for a minute or for an hour or for a day. Our forefathers said that any murder that was committed deliberately by lying in wait or by poison should be murder in the first degree; but our Supreme Court has put a construction upon it that even if there was but deliberation for an hour, it was sufficient to convict the party of murder in the first degree. They have put a limited construction on this language as we find it in the Bill of Mr. ALRICKS. I propose to strike out and insert. The PRESIDENT pro tem. The Chair is of opinion that it is not in order as an amendment to the amendment. It will be a proper amendment to offer after the vote on the pending amendment. Mr. COCHRAN. I move to amend the amendment, by striking out the words in the beginning, "in all trials for libel, civil or criminal," and insert, “in all indictments for libel in such cases." I wish to state in a very few words what I mean by this amendment and my position on this subject. I desire to retain the spirit of the section as it is in the old Constitution, but I desire also to extend the privilege of the press to some extent. I do not want the privilege to be extended to the press of giving the truth in evidence or that they relied upon information in publishing an alleged libel against private individuals or in matters which are not proper for public information; but wherever public officers are involved or wherever the matter is proper for public information, then in a criminal prosecution that the truth shall be given in evidence and that they shall be allowed to show that they had received the information from reliable sources; that is, that they may be allowed to rebut the presumption of malice in these cases in that way. That is the object of my amendment, to amend this amendment by reducing it down to that rule and applying it not to civil cases, but to criminal prosecutions alone. The PRESIDENT pro tem. The question is on the amendment of the delegate from York (Mr. Cochran) to the amendment of the delegate from Philadelphia (Mr. Newlin.) The amendment to the amendment was rejected. The PRESIDENT pro tem. The question recurs on the amendment. Mr. NEWLIN. I ask that it be read. The CERLk. The amendment is to strike out, from the word "liberty," in the sixth line, down to and including the word "evidence," in the tenth line, and insert: "In all trials for libel, both civil and criminal, the truth, when published with good motives and for justifiable ends, shall be sufficient defense." The amendment was rejected. Mr. DALLAS. I desire now to offer an amendment, which is in substance the amendment that I previously offered and which I asked to modify, but out of order. I have now made the modification in such manner as to strike out the word "privileged," which is objected to. by several members, and to insert the words "or negligently," which were adopted when the amendment was before the House on another point. I ask that it be read as it now stands. The PRESIDENT pro tem. The amend ment will be read.. The CLERK read as follows: "As to papers relating to the conduct of officers or men in public capacity or to any other matter proper for public investigation or information, no recovery or conviction shall be had in any suit or prosecution, civil or criminal, for the publication thereof, where the fact that such publication was not maliciously or negli gently made, shall be established to the satisfaction of the jury." Mr. LITTLETON. I move to amend this amendment, by inserting the word "official," in the first line, before the word "conduct;" so that it shall read: "As to papers relating to the official conduct of officers or men in public capacity," &c. Mr. DALLAS. I hope that will not be agreed to. The PRESIDENT pro tem. The question is on the amendment to the amendment. The amendment to the amendment was rejected, the ayes being twentythree-less than a majority of a quorum. The PRESIDENT pro tem. The question is on the amendment. Mr. LANDIS. In regard to the amendment just submitted by the gentleman from Philadelphia, (Mr. Dallas,) I will say that the modification of it very nearly meets the objections which I made to it this morning, and it also meets I think the objections made by the gentleman from Columbia, (Mr. Buckalew,) and other members. I will, therefore, very cheerfully support it in this form. Mr. BROOMALL. I desire to offer an amendment to the amendment. The delegate from Philadelphia has stricken out one obnoxious expression by striking out the word "privileged." He has left in, however, another expression which I attempted to get out once before, but which I failed to get out because it required the remodelling of the provision. I now offer as an amendment to his amendment, the following, which I will read so that gentlemen will see that it leaves out both the provisions which were complained of in his amendment originally, and leaves the provision exactly as the gentleman from Columbia advocated when he had the floor: "No conviction shall be had in any prosecution for the publication of papers relating to the conduct of officers or men in public capacity, or to any other matter proper for public investigation or information, where the fact that such publication was not maliciously or negligently made shall be established to the satisfaction of the jury." Mr. DALLAS. I rise to a point of order. Is that an amendment to the amendment? The PRESIDENT pro tem. The Chair is not able to say that it is an amendment to the amendment. If the delegate will come forward and show where he desires to offer his amendment, the Chair will be able to decide. Mr. BROOMALL. It is suggested to me to offer it separately after the vote is had on the pending amendment. I therefore withdraw it for the present to renew it as soon as the other shall be voted on. Mr. DALLAS. I call for the yeas and nays on my amendment. Mr. MACVEAGH. I do not see that the change now made alters it substantially at all. It is the same question on which the yeas and nays were taken once before. The PRESIDENT pro tem. The yeas and nays are called for. Delegates seconding the call will rise. Messrs. Beebe, Biddle, Boyd, Brodhead, Bullitt, Greene, Guthrie, J. N. Purviance, Runk, Sharpe, Simpson and H. G. Smith rose to second the call. The PRESIDENT pro tem. The yeas and nays are ordered, and the Clerk will call the names of members. The question being taken by yeas and nays resulted, yeas thirty-nine, nays fifty-nine, as follows: YEAS. Messrs. Alricks, Baker, Beebe, Biddle, Bigler, Black, Charles A., Black, J. S., Boyd, Brodhead, Broomall, Bullitt, Campbell, Carter, Cochran, Curtin, Cuyler, Dallas, Dodd, Ewing, Green, Guthrie, Hay, Hemphill, Heverin, Horton, Landis, Lilly, M'Clean, Mott, Purviance, John N., Runk, Sharpe, Simpson, Smith, H. G., Smith, Wm. H., Stanton, Temple, Wherry and Woodward-39. NAYS. Messrs. Achenbach, Ainey, Andrews, Armstrong, Baily, (Perry,) Bailey, (Huntingdon,) Bannan, Bowman, Brown, Buckalew, Calvin, Carey, Clark, Collins, Corbett, Craig, Cronmiller, Curry, Darlington, De France, Dunning, Edwards, Elliott, Finney, Fulton, Funck, Gilpin, Hanna, Harvey, Howard, Knight, Lamberton, Littleton, MacConnell, MacVeagh, Mann, Mantor, Metzger, Minor, Niles, Palmer, G. W., Patterson, D. W., Pughe, Purviance, Samuel A., Reed, Andrew, Reynolds, Rooke, Ross, Russell, Smith, Henry W., Stewart, Struthers, Turrell, Van Reed, Walker, Wetherill, J. M., White, David N., Worrell and Wright -59. So the amendment was rejected. ABSENT.-Messrs. Addicks, Baer, Barclay, Bardsley, Bartholomew, Cassidy, Church, Corson, Davis, Ellis, Fell, Gibson, Hall, Hazzard, Hunsicker, Kaine, Lawrence, Lear, Long, M'Camant, M'Culloch, M'Murray, Mitchell, Newlin, Parsons, Patterson, T. H. B., Patton, Porter, Purman, Read, John R., Wetherill, John Price, White, Harry, White, J. W. F. and Meredith, President-35. Mr. BROOMALL. I now offer the amendment which I read a little while ago, and withdrew, to substitute for the words in the section: "No conviction shall be had in any prosecution for the publication of papers relating to the conduct of officers or men in public capacity or to any other matter proper for public information or investigation, where the fact that such publication was not maliciously or negligently made shall be established to the satisfaction of the jury." Now, Mr. President, I have only to say that that avoids all that was complained of in the amendment of the gentleman from Philadelphia and is precisely that amendinent transposed, so that striking out the obnoxious provision will make it sense and will make it read right. I trust the Convention will take action affirma tively on this amendment. Mr. MANN. I hope this amendment will be adopted. I have voted against all the amendments before for the reason that they attempted to make the press privileged to publish anything, and attempted to excuse them from liability for damages done in civil prosecutions. This amendment does relieve the proposition from both of those objections, and I hope, therefore, it will prevail. call for the yeas and nays. Mr. CORBETT. On this amendment I seconding the call for the yeas and nays The PRESIDENT pro tem. Gentlemen will rise. Messrs. Alricks, Bailey, (Huntingdon,) Baker, Beebe, Biddle, Bigler, Black, Charles A., Bowman, Boyd, Brodhead, Broomall, Buckalew, Bullitt, Campbell, Carey, Carter, Cochran, Curry, Curtin, Cuyler, Dallas, Dodd, Dunning, Edwards, Elliott, Ewing, Gilpin, Green, Guthrie, Hay, Hemphill, Heverin, Horton, Landis Lilly, Littleton, Mann, Mott, Niles, Palmer, G. W., Palmer, H. W., Pughe, Purviance, John N., Runk, Sharpe, Simpson, Smith, H. G., Smith, Wm. H., Stanton, Van Reed, Wherry, Woodward and Wright-53. NAYS. Messrs. Ainey, Andrews, Armstrong, Baily, (Perry,) Bannan, Bartholomew, Black, J. S., Brown, Calvin, Clark, Collins, Corbett, Craig, Cronmiller, Darlington, De France, Finney, Fulton, Funck, Gibson, Hanna, Harvey, Howard, Knight, Lamberton, Lear, MacConnell, MaoVeagh, M'Clean, Mantor, Metzger, Minor, Patterson, D. W., Purviance, Sam'l A., Reed, Andrew, Reynolds, Rooke, Ross, Russell, Smith, Henry W., Stewart, Struthers, Turrell, Walker, Wetherill, J. M., Wetherill, Jno. Price, White, David N. and Worrell-48. So the amendment was agreed to. ABSENT.-Messrs. Achenbach, Addicks, Baer, Barclay, Bardsley, Cassidy, Church, Corson, Davis, Ellis, Fell, Hall, Hazzard, Hunsicker, Kaine, Lawrence, Long, M'Camant, M'Culloch, M'Murray, Mitchell, Newlin, Parsons, Patterson, T. H. B., Patton, Porter, Purman, Read, John R., Temple, White, Harry, White, J. W. F. and Meredith, President-32. The PRESIDENT pro tem. The question recurs on the section as amended. Mr. ALRICKS. I now offer my amendment, which is to strike out from the word "liberty" down to and including the word "evidence," and insert as follows: "When the matter published is proper for public information, the truth thereof may be given in evidence, and also in prosecutions for the publication of papers investigating the official conduct of officers or men in public capacity." I desire to call attention to the fact that these are the very words of the Bill of Rights, but they have been transposed in order that they may receive the construction which I allege was intended to be given to them when the Bill of Rights was framed-that is, that in matters proper for public information the truth may be given in evidence. Many persons are sensitive of the criticism of the press, and I have great respect for the sentiment of these people. It is a sentiment to be admired. There are some persons who are so sensitive on this subject that they would rather undergo the old extinct punishment of the boot than to have their names published in the public press. I respect them in their sentiment, and we ought to protect them in it; but, at the same time, I believe that it was the intention of those who framed this Bill of Rights that in all matters published proper for public information the truth might be given in evidence, and I wish by this amendment simply to put the words in such form that they will receive that construction which I believe was intended originally to be placed upon the section. It will, if adopted, do no violence to the intention of those who framed the Bill of Rights; but if you put them in that way, the courts cannot fail to give this language its proper construction. The amendment was rejected. The PRESIDENT pro tem. The question is on the section as amended. Mr. CLARK. I have an inquiry to make of this body. We now, by the adoption of this amendment, have provided that in any prosecution for libel it shall be a sufficient defense that the publication was not made maliciously or negligently. I want to know what is to become of the civil remedy for libel-whether or not at the common law a defendant in a civil action for libel was permitted, as against a public officer, or a man actually in public capacity, to prove that what he alleged was true? It was so under the Constitution of 1790; it was so under the Constitution of 1838; but is it construed to have been so at the common law, because we have stricken out the seventh section, and unless that right is saved at the common law, it is lost on the striking out of this section, and I have some doubts in my mind about it. I believe, however, that in civil actions, for slander as well as libel, the defendant was permitted to prove the truth in justification. reflection, I believe this is so. Upon Mr. MACVEAGH. Let us have the section read as it now stands, and see how that is. The PRESIDENT pro tem. The only information that the Chair can give is to have the section as amended read. The Clerk will read the section as amended. The Clerk read as follows: SECTION 7. That the printing press shall be free to every person who undertakes to examine the proceedings of the Legislature or any branch of the Government; and no law shall ever be made to restrain the right thereof. The free communication of thoughts and opinions is one of the invaluable rights of man; and every citizen may freely speak, write and print on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty. No conviction shall be had on any prosecution for the publication of papers relating to the conduct of officers or men in public capacity, or to any other matter proper for public investigation or information, where the fact that such publication was not maliciously or negligently made shall be established to the satisfaction of the jury. And in all indictments for libels the jury shall have a right to determine the law and the facts, under the direction of the court, as in other cases. Mr. MA VEAGH. I submit that it is very important to have that matter clearly understood, whether or not this section, as now collated, will not be really worse than the section as it stands in the Bill of Rights. It seemed to me, when I heard it read, that it would be. Otherwise I, for one, would have been willing to accept it as a settlement of this controversy, because I do not see that it changes the present aspect of the criminal law one particle in practical effect. But it does seem to me to be a very serious question whether in view of this constitutional provision lasting so long, it would be permissable in Pennsylvania to plead the truth in answer to a printed libel. Whether that is a justification or not, under all circumstances, may, perhaps, be questioned. It has not been so, and certainly I should have been glad to see the section printed together, that we might have some opportunity for considering this clause in harmony with the other parts of it. But if gentlemen are satisfied to take it in this form, I certainly have no possible objection. Mr. SHARPE. Does not that part refer to criminal prosecutions alone, having no relation whatever to civil cases? was from Delaware, (Mr. Broomall,) and my amendment is certainly in order in this place. The other amendment, to which the amendment that I now renew originally offered, was voted down. The PRESIDENT pro tem. It was the same amendment substantially. Mr. LITTLETON. If that is an objection to the amendment to the amendment, it would apply with equal force to the amendment also. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The delegate from Philadelphia will state his amendment. Mr. LITTLETON. I move to amend by inserting the word "official" before the word "conduct." Mr. MACVEAGH. That word is in the old section. Mr. LITTLETON. I do not desire to say anything in support of my amendment, but upon it I call for the yeas and nays. The PRESIDENT pro tem. Is the call for the yeas and nays sustained? Messrs. Hanna, Heverin Horton, H. W. Smith, Carter Boyd, Minor, Collins, H. W. Palmer, MacVeagh, Green, Worrell, Mr. MACVEAGH. That is probably cor- Stanton, Lear, Corbett, Mantor, De France, Jno. M. Bailey, Hay, Darlington and Calvin rose. rect. Mr. BROOMALL. I have never heard it questioned that at common law, in a civil action, for either slander or libel, the truth might be given in evidence; and this provision does not change that. Mr. COCHRAN. It will be observed by those who read the section, as the gentleman from Franklin (Mr. Sharpe) said, but he was not heard, that this part of it is a part which relates to criminal prosecutions alone and does not have any relation to a civil action. Mr. LITTLETON. If it is in order, I desire to renew a motion that was made some time since. I think this ought to relate wholly to official conduct,and therefore I move to amend by inserting the word "official" before the word "conduct." The PRESIDENT pro tem. The call for the yeas and nays is sustained, and the Clerk will proceed with the call. The yeas and nays were taken and were as follow, viz: YEAS. Messrs. Achenbach, Ainey, Alricks, Andrews, Armstrong, Baily, (Perry,) Bailey, (Huntingdon,) Bannan, Bartholomew, Bowman, Brown, Calvin, Carter, Cochran, Collins, Corbett, Cronmiller, Curry, Curtin, Darlington, De France, Elliott, Funck, Gibson, Gilpin, Hanna, Harvey, Horton, Knight, Lamberton, Landis, Lear, Littleton, MacVeagh, M'Clean, Mantor, Metzger, Minor, Niles, Palmer, G. W., Palmer, H.W., Pat Mr. MACVEAGH. That amendment has terson, D. W., Pughe, Purviance, John N., been already voted down. The PRESIDENT pro tem. The Chair will state to the gentleman from Philadelphia that that amendment has already been acted upon. Mr. LITTLETON. Not in this place; not to this amendment. It was moved as an amendment to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Philadelphia, (Mr. Dallas,) which was defeated. The amendmont now under consideration is an amendment offered by the gentleman Purviance, Samuel A,, Reynolds, Rooke, Ross, Runk, Russell, Smith, Henry W., Struthers, Turrell, Van Reed, Walker, White, David N., Worrell and Wright 58. NAYS. Messrs. Baker, Beebe, Biddle, Bigler, Black, Chas, A., Black, J. S., Boyd, Brodhead, Broomall, Buckalew, Bullitt, Campbell, Carey, Clark, Craig, Dallas, Dodd, Dunning, Edwards, Ewing, Fulton, Green, Guthrie, Hay, Hazzard, |