The Arkansas banner., 1845-12-03

piC id thS IS9ioIdtufCs aTe HoL only exempt from disrust but are considered as sufficient guardians of the rights of their constituents against the danger from the ex- ecutive Hence, it is principle, that the parliament Is unlimited in it's power; or, in their own language, is onnipotent. Hence. too, all the ramparts for protecting the rights of the people, such as their Magma Charta. their Bill of Rights, Sc. are not reared against the parliament, but against the royal preroqa tive. They are merely legislative precaution, against executive usurpation. Under such a government as this, an exemption of the press from previous restraint by lcensers ap pointed by the king, is all the freedom that can be secured to it.
 In the United States the case IS altogether different. The people, not inc government. posses the absolute sovereignty. The legis- latue, no less than the executive, is under limitations of power F4croachments are regarded as possible rom one, as from the other. Hence, in the United States, the great and essential rights of the people are secured against legislative, as well as execu- tive ambition. They are secured, not by laws paramount to prerogative, but by con stitnuons paramount to laws. This security ol the freedom oi the press requires, that il should be exempt, not onl y from previous re- sttalnt by the executive, as in Great Britain ; but from legislative reshant also; and this exemption. to be eifectual, must be an exemp- ton, not only from the previous inspection of licenses, but from tlie subsequent penalties of laws.
 The state of the press, therefore, under the common law, cannot in this point of view, be the standard of it's freedom in the U. States.
 But there is another view, under which it may be necessary to consider this subject Il may be alleged that, although the security torthe freedom of the press, be different in Great Britain and in this country; beng a le- gal security only ill the former, and a consil- ntlonal security in the latter; and although there may be further difference, in an ex- tension ot the freedom of the press here, be- yond an exemption from subsequent penal lies also, yet the actnal legal freedom of the press, under the common law, must deter mme the degree of freedom, which is meant by the terms, aud which is constiutionalIy secured against both previous and suse xneut restraints.
 Tine committee arc not unaware of the diff. iculty of all general questions, which may turn on the proper boundary between tho liberty and liceniiousness of the press They will leave il therefore for consideration only how far the difference between The nature ol the British Government, and the nature of the American Government, and the practice under the latter, may shew the degree of rig or i'll the former, to be iaapplicable to, and not obligatory in the latter.
 The nature of government elective, limited and responsible, in all their branches, may well be supposed 10 require greater freedom oi animadscrsion, .han might be tolerated by the genius of such government as that o Great Brlllan. In the laltc., it is a maxim that the king an hefsditary, not a responsibl, magistrate, can do no wrong; and that tn, legislature, which in two thirds ofits compo sitlon is also hereditary, not responsible, car do what Il pleasesr In the United States the executive magistrates are not held 10 b, inlallble, nor the legislatures to be onnipo tent; and both being elective, are both respon sibie. l. t not natural and nccessary, unde such different circumstances, that diileren degree of freedom, in the use of the press should be contemplated2
 Is not such an inference favored by wha is observable tn Great Britain itself? N ot withstanding the general doctrine of the com mon law, on the subject of the press, and th occasional punishment of those who use with q freedom, offensive to the governmer t4i, .t measures of tic Government, where the req sons operating here, become applicable there the freedom exercised by the press, and pro tecled by public opinion, far exceeds the linn its prescribed by lhe ordinary rules of law The ministry, who are responsible to i'm peachment, are at all times anmadverted OH by tie press, with peculiar freedom; and du ring the elections for heliouse of Commons the other responsible part of the Government the press is employed with as little reserve to wards the candidates.
 The practice in America must be entillet to much more respect In every State, pro ably, in the Union, the press has exerted freedom i'll canvassing the..merits and meas ufes of public men, of every description winch has not been confined to the strict Ii mls of the common law. On this footing the freesom of the press has stood, on thi foundation 1t yet stands. And it will not b breach, either of truth or candor, to sa that no persons or presses are in the habit ( more unrestrained an imadversions on tn proceedings and functionaries of the Stat Governments, than he persons and presse most jealous in vindicatug the act of Con gress for punishing similar animadversion on the Government of the United States. |, The last remark will not be understood. a claiming for the State Governments, an in munity greater than they have heretofore CT joyed Some degree of abuse is inseparabl from the proper use of every thing, and in n instance Is this more true, than in that of th press. I. has accordingly been decided b the practice of the States, that it is better
 leave few of it's noxious branches to i luxuriant growth, than by pruning them ava to injure the vigor of those yielding the pr, per fruits. And can the wisdom of this DO icy, be doubted by any one who reflect, th to the press alone, chequered as it is with ; buses, the woIld is indebted for all the tr umphs which have been gained by reaso and humanity, over error and oppression
 who reflect that the same benefclent source
 the United States owe much of the llghi
 which conducted them to the rank of ire
 .s ..l. .,..t~ l..,,n t,