Carroll free press. [volume] (Carrollton [Ohio]) 1834-1861, 1847-03-05
THE FREEDOM OF THE PRESS.


The expulsion of the editor Of "The Union"
from the Senate Chamber Of the United States
has caused loud, long, and piteous howl in the
kennel of Locofocoism. Father Richie gives
us column upon column, for the last two weeks,
on the freedom Of the press. Any person look
ing over the columns Of the Union, and seeing
issue after issue devoted nearly exclusively 10
vilifying the Senate, would naturally suppose its
freedom had been abridged Now, of what right
has Mr.. Richie been debarred;-in what manner
has the freedom of his press been nfringed!--
Why, excams some stickler for freedom, he has
been expelled from the Senate Chamber. Very
we'll; what right had he there, or, in what man.
ner did that act curta the freedom of the press!
Mr.. Richie had no right on the floor of the SEN
ate he was admitted there by an act o courtesy,
and when he proved himself unworthy of that
mark Of respect, it was Withdrawn. Thisis the
whole offence. For preserving its own dignity
the Senate is held up to the odum of the world.
During the last session of Congress cores
pondent Of the New York Tribune was expelled
from the House of Representatives for stating
that an honorable member of that body "munch-
cd sausages behind the Speakers chair, "a fact
that no one attempted to deny, and the expulsion
was upheld, in unmeasured terms, by the Loco
press, and none were louder in their appreciation
of the actthan the editor of the Union. Butnow
when that same editor accuses majority Of the
Senate with aiding the Notwithstanding a
Mexican victory,-being compatriots with Santa
Anna and Ampudia, and the Senate gives him his
"walkingpaporS," some other persons soxis gored
1t seems that accusing member of legsla
tlye assembly with "munching sausages" is an in
exeusabe offence, and that accusing the majority
of another legislative assembly with being trai
tors is no offence at all! or is it held that one ac
cusation was sianderous becauseit emanated from
the New York Tribune, while the other could no
be-because it emandted from the Union? lfth
is the ,dea-if this is the doctrine sought to b'
impressed upon our minds by the apologlsts o
"Father Rtchie," it is so palpably true that it II
folly to gainsay it.
But it is said that the freedom Of the press ha
been assailed-thata"h gh-handed" act of "usur
patton has been committed! Even our J"Uehn
friend of the "Picayune' takes up the strain, ant
Iisps the notes in a weak, feeble, and doubnn
manner. He cannot approve Of the conduct o
"Father Ritchie," much less that of the Senate
Now, we are too much of bachelor to be mucl
acquainted with family troubles, but it seems t
us, that person admitted into the bosom of
family,--upon whichhe had no claim, or at who's
hands he had no right to expectsuch courtesy
to be partieipator of its joys and troubles, an
who would spend his absent moments in vllllty
ing that family--in making false charges, lnsnu
atoms or innuendOes againstit, or any of its mem
bers, because they could not chime in with hi
peculiar views, ought not only to be indignant
eiected-to be spurned from its bosom, but that
mark. as indelible as that of Cain should be pl,
ced upon him,-that the slanderer might be re
cognised wherever seen.
We regard the case of the editor of the Unio
as similar to the one we have supposed, and Sc
no just reason why the same strict rule should nj
be extended 10 him. He has no right upon IN
floor Of the Senate, nor does sexPulslon 'hereirol