Mr. DOOLITTLE. AsI understand the law Ofjuries, originallyjurors were summoned from the vicinage of the offense, because they knew all about it, and sometimes even upon their own knowledge would decide in the case. Decisions of the courts, however, changed that old rule, and carried it so far as to say that the jurors should be notonly entirely without interest, but without even the bias which an opinion would have upon the mind. But upon at point the courts in this country have widely did cred. In Massachusetts and in New 1 ork they went to the extreme point of sayin that the bias of an opinion; no matter from what sources of in. formation derived should be sutiicient to 0X clude; and as has been said. Chief Justice marshall, in the Burr trial, following u the old decisions of Massachusetts and Now ork, and relying upon them mainly for authorities, laid down very much the same doctrine. At the same time it is but just to say that. in the State of Virginia, in the State of Illinois, and in several of the other great States of the Union, the contrary doctrine as always been held, that an Opinion based upon rumors, public newspapers, general reports, the common history or noto riety of the time, was but a hypothetical opinion which would not exclude ajuror, provided the court should be satisfied, as this liill now provides the courts must be satisfied, that the juror would act impartially upon the case. Therehas been this conflict of opinion, and the committee have justly provided that this revision shall apply not only to treason cases but to all criminal cases murder, arson, piracy. and, Mr. President, from the very necessuty of modern times and its civilization and the publication of newspapers and telegraphic reports, it becomes properthat the law on the subject should be changed. Mr. President, there is another consideration in reference to the matter if this provision should apply to any trial for treason. It must be borne in mind that the constitution requires on a treason trial the testimony of twowitnesses to the same overt act to insure conviction, so that by no possibility in a treason case could this law in any way whatever prejudice the accused. The law does not require the same thing in a trial for murder, or arson, or perjury, but in treason it is required. I did not rise to o into an argument, but. simply, as m honorable friendfrom Massachusetts has spoken of the settled law of the country, to call the attention of the Senate to the fact that there is a great conflict of opinion between the authorities in the different States on this subject; and it is known that the courts of the U.S. where they sit in the trial of causes follow the law of the State in which they sit on the subject of evidence and proceedings in trials. I have no objection, certainly, to a lowing this question to go over until Thursday, and, if no other person makes the motion, I move that the bill e postponed until Thursday next.