The daily national Whig. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1847-1849, 1849-01-25
DAILY NATIONAL WING.
WASHINGTON, ID. c.
THURSDAY MORNING, JANUARY IS, I8ls.
MIR. JUSTICE MCLEAN.

puuuNdu iNStlullullS III tuluE lltdl INV
Their, in the maintenance Of human liberty,
It Is their recognition of the freedom OF speech
TO its full extent under the laws. While
these laws justly hold the citizen in the eS-
ercise Of this liberty, responsible for its abuse,
there is no enactmentwhich shuts the mouths
or restraints the pens Of persons who are Oh
fcers Of the Government, because they hap
pen 10 be employed in the public service
The liberty Of speech is as much secured to
them as TO any other citizen, and they are
as much entitled to its lawful exercise as any
other individual The manner in which it
is exercised is, Of course, the proper sub
iect Of public opinion, and If it trenches up
on the rights Of others, or is injurious to the
neighbor, in violation Of the declared law, il
is matter for the disposition of the tribunals
Of justice.
Public opinion, in former times, was Ut
terly condemnatory Of the propriety of off,
GERS OF Government in places Of high trust,
turning aside to discuss openly the public
questions Of the day; but the advent to pow
er Of Gen. Jackson was the signal Of new
era in this respect Mr.. Madison and Mr.,
Jefferson, in the closing days of their life,
though private citizens, refused to take any
open part in the politics Of he country, and
gave for areason, that a contrary course, be-
cause Of the high positions they had formerly
held, would disturb their tranquility, embit-
ter their last moments, and be in violation
OF public propriety, But no such opinions
prevail now, or il they do, they are confined
TO very few public functionaries, or persons
who have exercised public functions. 1t Is
TO longer considered as improper for public
men, no matter what tn eli station may be,
il they see fit to do so, 10 write and speak
freely on all subjects Of public interest If
objections be offered, they invariably spring
from the party or parties opposed to the
speaker or writer in principle and practice
Now, we are Of those who do not think
that mans wisdom is not to be made known
on public questions, because he happens to
be in office Truth, as Mr.. Jefferson used
TO remark, never suffers from investigation,
and ii a favorite political error shall happen
TO be dispelled by the words Of Judge upon
the bench of the Supreme Court Of the Uni
ted States, we are much more ready to re-
turn him our thanks for his teaching, than to
rebuke him for interfering with the matter,
even though il may be beyond his province,
and though it may be an error to which we
had been addicted. We are for the largest
liberty of speech, provided its exercise does
not do injury to our neighbor. We would
hail with delight, if the press could avail it.
self Of the labors Of every one of the en-
iightenel justices on the Supreme Court
bench, and Of every other Judge in the land
Right and justice, we are sure, would be
promoted BY their mingling in the discussion
Of public topics, and error and crime would
more rapidly be corrected and cured
These reflections are prompted by the re-
cent attacks in the United States Senate up
on Mr.. Justice Mclean, because he saw
proper to write two or three letters, during
the last year, upon the public questions of
the day We think that Mr.. Foote has
done not only Judge Mclean but himself
great injustice in this onslaught upon the
liberty Of speech, for it is nothing less than
an argument against this high and constitu-
tonal privilege. Mr.. Foote is a member
Of the Democratic party, one of whose car
dinal doctrines is the largest liberty Of speech
His condemnation Of Judge Mclean for the
exercise of that privilege, is direct con-
demnation Of the privilege itself, for Judge
Mclean violated no law whatever in writing
the Objectionable letters Judge Mclean
either had right TO write them, or lie had
not II he had not, Mr. Foote'S argument
is conclusive. II he had tile right, Mr.
Foote has assaulted, not Judge Mclean,
but the liberty Of speech, in denying to him
the exercise of the right, because he hap
pened to be Judge. Mr. Foote admits
that neither the writing Of the letters nor
their contents is an impeachable offence,
and by this admission he unwttingly vindi-
Gates Judge Mclean for the manner in
which he exercised the right Of the liberty
OF speech, which Mr.. Foote nowhere at
tempts to show he does not possess.
Stripping Mr. Foote's speeches of their
oratoricsl expressions, his whole argument
dwindies down to the question Of the propr-
ETY. Of Judge McLean's writing those letters,
and the soundness Of the doctrines promul-
gated by them, In this view Of the case,
we do not consider that Mr.. Foote can JUS
tify himself, for rising in his place in the SEN
ate and indulging in such a strain against
member Of the Supreme Judiciary. The
Congress is one department Of the Govern
msnt, and the Supreme Judiciary is another,
each independent in its own sphere The
Senate, in its Legislative capacity, is CON
stituent part Of Congress, and j, does seem
to u: an untenable position, for member Of