State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1831-1836, 1836-08-16

son who deposited them originally to be
mailed and if the same shall not be with
drawn in one month thereafter, shall be
burnt, or otherwise destroyed"
The first section makes it 'unld,cfhl,' for
any deputy postmaster to deliver any paper
&c. touching The subject of slavery lex
ceedingly comprehensive phraseology) lift
shall infringe the laws of the State where
the Office of delivery is We believe that
TO DO statement which no one will object
to. The penalty is removal from office.
We believe this section to be clearly n
violation of the Constitution of the United
States, which says Congress shall pass no
law abridging the freedom of the press.
Docs this law abridge the freedom Of the
press The tories say it does not. They
will not deny that to punish the publishing
and circulating book or paper, is as much
abridging the freedom of the press as to
punish the printing of it. They must
mean therefore that declaring it unlaipfd
to do thing is not abridging the freedom
to do it,! Is not such reasoning mere
child's play? Is it not trifling with serious
subject?
But it is said there is no penalty. Look
at the second section. 1t there enacts that
they may be punished by the law of libel
Of the State where they live. Let it be OBJ
served that the Post Office has heretofore
been deemed merely an agent which any
man may use. Therefore peGtmastcrs We're
not responsible for what passed through
their hands. They must be such, or they
must be censors. There is no medium. In
their former character, they we're by the
laws of the United States protected from
ha ,,f Ina in,
Now will it be said that enacting a certain
act is unlawful, and, that doing that unlaw-
full act, they may be punished according to
the provisions of another law in being, by
fine, Imprisonment, and even DEATH, is not
dbridging the freedom of doing Il thing, be-
cause it enac,s no penalty 1t is perfectly
inlmateriaL whether the penalty is contained
in the act ITSELF or in another ta,o to which
express reference is made. Is it not SO ?
Will any one deny it?
Again, we say it does not differ in essen.
tal principles from the original, by confn-
ing its operation to the States where the
law of libel does not touch this subject
This is point which the administration
papers make much of. The Advocate
points TO induces, and prints in capitals
"Ocy-IT HAS NO MORE REFERENCE
TO POST MASTERS in THE FREE
STATES, THAN TO POSTMASTERS
IN GREAT BRITAIN.-cu" The Post
and Patriot copy and applaud. Indeed
| And what if that be admitted? We are
considering Mr. Van Buren's conduct, and
examining the principles which that con-
duct discovers. He is candidate for the
first office in the nation. We look to his
| fitness for that office, and Judge him by his
.r,la III ale
nocratic and republican,. How does he back
up his professions? This is the issue. If
the law had passed the true friends of lib
ery would have had different duty to do.
But we have now, thanks to the integrity
of the Senate, only to consider the conduct
ofthose who aOished tito be a lao.
In this light it is material to consider
whether principles change with Cline
Suppose we state it thus. The law is anti
republican THAT even the advocate admits)
and an Infringement of liberty ;but Mr. Van
Buren, is and ardent republican of most
consistent principles, for he only sanctions
oppression and Infringement of liberty at
the South! Beautiful consistency! His
principles on this subject must be steadIast,
for he has never been tempted to violate
them at the North, and therefore has never
done so. But having been so tempted in
regard to the South, he did yield to the
temptation. "Glory enough" to be sure
We have attempted to establish that the
amendment of Mr.. Grundy, though it
changed the provisions, did not alter the
principles of the bill. No one that we know
of has attempted to justify the original bill
North of Mason and Dixon's line. We
cannot resist the belief that the same pros
trated principle which ambition could sway
to vote for the amendment, would have us
readily gone, with the same temptation, fol
the original bill.
We shall now consider the principles and
operation of such law:
LIST. 1t is precedent of a most dangerous
latitude. 1t makes the United States OIL.
Ger, appointed by the President or his up
pointee, the executor of state LGiO.
This is consolidation with q vengeance
, Let those principles be carried out. Let u.
I suppose one state to make it penal to cir
: culate any thing touching the growth o
r cotton-let another, touching the evils o
the manufacturing SYSTEM another, touch
/, ing the truth Of christianlty another touch
3 ing the dangers of catholicism by ~
, easy graduation, touching the removal 9th,
! deposites, the corruption ofthe Post Office
or Land or Treasury departments of tn,
t government. Then let Congress empowe
I, the President to appon posmasters TO Ell
i force all these sanitary laws within Ih
: States where they exist. Would not thi
r abridge the freedom of the press? VIVA
paper could travel through the u. States
r What perversion of language, to call sucl
!, an institution n channel Of public intelli
r gence What bitter denunciations shoul,
y we not hear from venal press upon hos
: who should venture to call such system
of 'espionage,'-such a law gag law
e such bill, bill DETERMINATIONS y w