State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1831-1836, 1836-02-29
WHOLE NO. 229.

law abridgng the freedom of the press, and
which left that important barrier against
power under the exclusive authority and
control of the States.
That it was the object of this provision
TO place the freedom of the press beyond
the possible interference of Congress, ia q
doctrine not now advanced for the first
time. 1t was the ground taken, and so ably
sustained by Mr. Madison, in his celebrated
report to the Virginia Legislature, in 1899,
against the alien and sedition law, and
which conclusively settled the principle
that Congress, has no right, in any form, or
! in any manner to interfere with the free
dom Of the press. The establishment of
! this principle not only overthrow the sedi-
ton act, but was the leading cause of the
great political revolution which, in 1901,
brought the republican party, with Mr..
Jefferson Mt its head, into power.
With these remarks, the committee will
turn to the sedtion act, in order to show
the identity, in principle, between it and the
act which the message recommends TO he
passed, as far as it relates to the freedom Of
the press. Among its other provisions, it
inflicted punishment on all persons who
should publish any false, scandalous or
malicious writing against the Government,
with intent TO defame the same or bring it
into contempt or disrepute. Assuming this
provision TO be unconstitutional, as abridg-
ing the freedom of the press, which no one
now doubts, it would not be difficult to
show that if, instead of nAicting punish
lnent for publishing, the act had inflicted
punishment for circulating through the
mail, for the same offence, it would have
been equally unconstitutional. The one
would have abridged the freedom of the
press as effectuaIly as the other. The object
of publishing is circulation; and to prohibit
circulation is, in effect, to prohibit publica-
ton. They both have common object
the communication of sentiments and opin-
ions to the public; and the prohibition of
one may rs effectually suppress such COM
munication as the prohibition of the other,
and, of course, would as effectuay inter-
fere with the freedom of the press, and be
equally unconstitutional.
But to understand more fully the extent
of the control which the right of prohibiting
circulation through the mail would give to
the Government owe: the press, it must te
borne in mind that the power of Congress
over the post Office and the mail is an ex-
!, elusive power. 1t must also be remem-
bered that Congress, in the exercise of this
power may declare any road or nayigable
water, TO he post road and that, by the
other vehicle, which regularly performs
trips on post road or on road parallel TO
it, shall carry letters The same provision
extends to packets, boats, or other vessels,
on navigable waters. Like provision may
be extended 10 newspapers and pamphlets
which, if it be admitted that Congress has
the right TO discriminate in reference to
their character, what papers shall or what
not be transmitted by the mail, would SUBJ
ject the freedom Of the press. on all SUBJ
liccts, political, moral and religious, COM
pletely 10 its will and pleasure. 1t would,
IN fact, in some respects, more effectually
control the freedom of the press than any
sedition law, however severe its penalties.
The mandate of the Government alone,
would be sufficient to close the door n
gainst circulation through the mail, and
thus at its sole will and pleasure, might
intercept all communication between the
press and the people; while it would re-
qulre the interventien of courts and Iuries
to enforce the provisions of q sedition law.
which experience has shown are not always
passive and willing instruments in the hands
of Government, where the freedom of the
press is concerned.
From these remarks, it must be apparent
that to prohibit publication on one side, and
circulation through the mail on the other,
of any paper on account ofits religious,
moral, or political character, rests on the
same principle, and that each is equally an
abridgment ofthc freedom of the press, and
a violation of the constitution. Ii would
indeed have been but poor triumph for
the cause of liberty in the great contest Of
> 1899, had the sedition law been put down
on principles which would have left Con-
gress free 10 suppress the circulation,
through the mail, of the very publications
which that odious act was intended TO pro-
hibit. The authors of that memorable
p achievement would have had but slender
claims on the gratitude of posterity, flhef
victory over the encroachment of power
had been left so imperfect.
1t will, after what has been said, require
, but few remarks 10 show that the same
principle which applied 10 the sedition law,
would apply equally to law Furnishing,
10y Congress, such inCendiary publications
as are referred TO in the message, and of
T course, 10 the passage of law prohibiting
their transmission through the mail The
? principle on which the sedition act was
condemned as unconstitutional was a gen.
, eral one, and not limited in its application,
10 that net. 1t wilhdraws from Congress
all right Of interference with the press, in
amy form or shape whatever; and the sedi-
ton law was put down as unconstitutional,
not because it prohibited publications
against the Government but because it in
tertered at all, with the press. The prohi-
hilton of any publication on the ground of
its being immoral, rreigious or intended 10
excite rebellion or instruction would have
been equally unconstitutional, and from
parity of reason, the suppression of their
circulation through the mail would he no
less 20,