The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1847-02-23
Public Libel against the character OF the Senate
OF the United States.o

Ii is ridiculous to say that the Senate did not punish
nor attempt punish the editor of the Union. II is true
that they did fine his pocket, conne his person,
but they attempted to wound his feelings and njure his
reputation They attempted, as Mr. Soule contended to
stamp degradation and disgrace upon him. They attempt
ed more. The blow not confined to ourselves. 1t
aimed, at the same tme at the President of the Uni
ted States whose personal and political friend we are by
whose have honestly stood, and whose con-
idencc we freely share But the blow spreads farther
than ourselves him. 1t strikes down, if be
tolerated, one OF the fundamental principles OF free
nstutions--the liberty of the press itself.
But admit for the sake of the argument, that they in
iced no punishment, that they could degrade US but
the Boston Courier says that they only disgraced
themselves" Yet, whence did they obtain the power
even to attempt it, Does the constitution recognise any
such power in that bodyl Certainly not
In the first place, they condemned untried, uheard
either by on rselves, by counsel They assumed to
themselves also the offices of Judge, jury, Witness and
executoner
They declared us guilty of libel for publishing the
structures OF correspondent Now libel is a criminal
offence in the eye of the law Some of the best British
urss contend it is heinous offence By the prin-
cple therefore, they might equally try convict us, and
condemn for any other crime, felony, for robbery,
or for murder Who would not start at such assump-
ton of judicial powers
But there is another point involved in the case which
is stated with great force by distinguished legal
pondent in the following letter He contends that swim
dicator is "public bel' at all and therefore the
Senate are entirely at fault in their whole course Of pro-
ceedings
WASHINGTON 23l February, 1s47
DEAR Sin In the discussion in the Senate, it was
sumed that the communication signed 'Bndcaor' was a
libel and IN the articles your paper since, that posi-
ton has not been controverted. have examined that
in it. It's true il is not in the most courtly phrase and
how could expect the author of indicator could
courty phrases, when he was arragnlng those members
OF the Senate for advocating the cause OF Mexico against
their country-but, repeat that is not libel, and
| defy any lawyer who has any regard for his reputa
ton TO say that il is libel, and that action lndic
could be sustained predicated that publication
| aware that in England il might be "sedndaium
magnaDa "a libel OF the magnates of the land but
yer, will contend such is the law OF this couatry hope
am not treadng holy ground If had any doubts
before If the purity OF the Senate, and that every mem
Der of that august body voted in all with eye
single TO his countrys good and that none OF them had
any aspirations for Office either President or minister
to foreign court, such doubts would be now re-
moved BY their speeches and conduct on that OCCASION
they have worked for themselves niche in the tenn
pie OF fame, and long the liberty OF the press re-
garded the bulwark of our liberties some OF the men,
bers OF that body will be remembered.
Accept my thanks for the stand you have made for the
liberty OF the press, and believe me yours, respectfully