Columbus Democrat. [volume] (Columbus, Miss.) 18??-18??, 1839-12-14

. is precisely tHe construction WHICH prevailed during
doe d.scuS> PMS s1i affiliations Of tht constitution
&c m.y be Cllef, and cannot Ton often Be repeated
thai % IS construction absolutely necessary 60
maiaIiH ',.aIr consistency with ths peculiar ci8rae-
,gFg lie Government, ~ possessed Of particular
7ni definite rrNtr, u1y; rs, 81 The genera aut
igdgauic powers vested 8 ordinary governments
For. Do Cue power % sapprts iRsaT5-tj5as includes
power a. PUNISH a5ls az ID the power q TErEh
include, @ power 60 pr5reHt bl aH The mglus t.U
may iap, la3t feHatscy. such IS Tie relation aud u-
tiueuce amoh. tbs most remote subject, %! cgNl
ton, that q power Over very ltw ralU carry with
i,a power over aL Aa1 u must be wholly mas-
terra. whether unlimited plWtg rs he exercised under
The name OF unlimited powers, or 't exercised ua'
der the name Of unlimited means 81 carrying INTO
execution limited powers,
This branch Of lle subject xii be cl1seu VIII a
/ reflection which must have weight with a|t uut
more especially w5h those Who place peculiar fe.i-
aDce on the Tld Gal exposition OF the constitution,
as The bugsrk provided against undue extensions
4 Of the legislative power. Il il be understood that
The powers implied IN the specified powers have an
immediate and appropriate relation to them, as
/ means necessary and proper Tor carrying them INTO
execution qucsu rs on the cunStltuuoaaltty ui laws
passed FOR this purpose viii be Cd a nature sufficient
/ " precise and dcltmua,e for judicial cognzance
| and control IT, on the other hand. Congress are
Z
proprlltc relation &C lhcm To tie specified powers,
! bat may employ al such means they may deem fit
ted toprereu as wei. as TO punish crmts leetcd
/ To their aulhunly-Sueh as may have tendency oH-
y TO promote an Object Jr which they arc authaftz-
! ed 10 proyidC--cycy one must perceive that qugs-
InnS relating 10 means Of this sort must be questions
for mere policy and expectancy ON which lc1ts.a-
tive discretion alone can decide aud from which
the judicial lnterpostou and control are completely
excluded.
II. The next point which the resolution requires
to be proved s. that tie power over the press, eX-
erclsed by the SedIuun Act is positively forbidden
BY one Of the amendments to tie constitution.
The amendment stands IN these words, Con
rreSs shall make no law respecting an establishment
OF religion, OF prohibiting The free exercise thereof
or abrldgmg the treed0a Of speech, or a. the press;
or the night Of the people peaceaby TO assemble
and 10 petition the Government for a redress OF
grievances"
In tie attempts 10 yindcate The "Sedilion Act,"
ii has been contended, ]. That the freedom OF
the press is to be determined by the mcaHgg OF
these terms in the common aw :. That the artl-
Gle suppoScs the power over the press to be IN Com
grtsS, and prohibits them ony from a5rdsas tho |
llecdom allotted 10 Il by the common law
Although il will be shown, ou examining the Sc
cond OF these po>ljic1s that the auGpducnt is "a de-
NAL To Congress OF all power over the press, It may
not be useless to make the following observations |
on the first Of them.
II IS deemed to be ! sound opinion, lhat the Sc |
djtOn Act, IN its definition oi some Of the crimes |
created, is an abridgmanl OF the freedom Of publ
eaton recognised by principles oil the common law
in England.
The freedom Of the press, under tie common
aw IS, in the de.euces Of the Srdllon Act made to
consfl in an exemption from all prerious restraint
printed publications, by persons authorized TO in.
spect and prohibit Them. II appears to the com
nttee that thls dea Of the freedom Of the press can
never he admitted to be the American idea Of il,
since law iafcuDg penalties on printed pubioa-
tons would have a similar elect wiki law autbor
Rng previous restraint on them Il would seem
q mockery to say llal no law should be passed pre-
venting publications from being made, but that
laws might be passed or puuIehlng them IA case
they should be made
The essential difference between The British Co
ycrnment and the American Constitutions viii place !
this subject in the cearcstI light
In the British Government, the danger Of en-
croachments on The rights Of the people is under !
stood 10 be confined to he Executive Magistrate. |
The representatives. Of the people, 10 the lcglsa- /
ture, are not only exempt themselves from di,,rust I
but are considered a sufficient guardians OF DE |
rights Of their constituents against tic danger Of
tie Executive. Hence it IS a principle that the |
Parliament is unlimited in It's power; or, IA their
own language, is omnpolonl Hence, too, all Tie
rampafls for protecting the rights Of the people, |
such as their Magma Charta, their BIZ OF Rights, .
&c, are not reared against ihe Parliament, but
against the Royal prerugave. They arc merely
legislative precautions against Executive usurpa-
lions. Under such Government as dis an eH
empton Of The press rom previous restraint, By IL
censcrs appointed by the King, is all tie freedom
that can be secured to If.
L., ,l,o ta ,It, %
ent. The People, not the Government, possess the
absolute sovereignty. The legislature no less than
the Executive IS under limitations Of power. En-
croachmcnts are REGARDED as possible from the one
as well as from the other, Hence, in the United
States, tie great and essential rights Of the people
are secured against legislative as well as executive
ambition. They ware secured not by ihe laws para
mount TO prerogdlIve, but by Constitutions para
mount 10 laws This security Of the freedom Of
the press requires that II should be exempt mol only
from previous restraint by the Executive, as IN
Great Britain, bit llom legislative restraint also
aud this exemption, 70 be eitctual, must be an cx-
empon, not only from the previous Inspection Of
lie n>eS but from the Subsequent penalty OF laws.
HE State Of tie press, therefore, under tle com-
mon ew, cannot, IN this point Of view, be the stan
dard Of IT'S freedom 10 the United States
But there is another view under which it may bc
necessary to consider this subject. 1t may be al
legged that, aithaugh the security for the freedom o
tie press be different IN Great Britain and ii tins
country, being egal security in the former, and
constitutional security in the after and although
there may be fur her difference, IN an extension Of
the freedom Of the press, here beyond an exemption
from previous restraint TO an exemption from sub
sequenl penalties also ;syet that the actual legal
freedom Of the press, under the common law, must
determine the degree Of freedom which is meant
BY tie terms and which IS eonsiItuiionaly secured
against both previous and subsequent restraints.
The committee are not unaware OF The ilcuiy
Of all general questions which may turn On The
proper boundary between the liberty and liceutous
ness Of tie press. They viii cave il. therefore, for
consideration only, how far Tie difference between
The nature of the Brush Government aud the nature
OF ihe American Governments, and The practice TN