The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1856-06-10

tons damages and other alternative left TO the In
ured party that Of acquiescng in the outrage his
native State his personal feelings and those Of ven
cradle relative nhietng personal ehassement the
cowardly delinquent who thus attempts TO himself
from all responsibility by pleading his scrupes Of con-
science II is than useless make laws against
what may be Justly called natural right nearly allied 10
that OF lfdeienee for their only effect will be 10 give
license all the malignant passions encourage their
by screening them from punishment and in effect
transferring the penalty to the injured parties.
There is no moral distinction between libel in DELHI
eratey speech and libel in writing for both
equally premeditated and it has been laid down by the
highest legal authorities that libel is not only offence
against the individual citizen, but the public because it
tends TO breach OF the peace by rousng those pas
sons which generally produce that result 1t seems to
follow, then, that belous words, well libels in
writing essentially breaches of the peace and that tho
real aggressor is not he who provoked to retaliation
but he by whom that retaliation originally wantonly
provoked The who gives another the lie splts in
his face calls him coward nficts any other gross
insult has right to complain if he is knocked down for
his palms. for he is himself the aggressor lie may be
non-combaant like the editor Of the Tribune the CLASH
cal from Massachusetts, but this does confer
him the privilege Of saying doing what he pleases II
he does choose to defend himself that is warrant
for giving offence. Freedom of the press and freedom of
speech in the discussion of public affairs recognised by
the universal sentiment of the people of the United States
indispensable to all free government and the conductors
of public journal should be among the last to assa this
great fundamental right which expressly asserted in the
constitution. At the time have hesitation in
ntanng that the right to enjoy good does not and
cannot justify its abuse No law and constitution
give any moral legal sanction to lying The Divine
command "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy
neighbour involves the obligation of speaking the truth
only witnesses in court Of justice but everywhere
aud at all times if speak at ALL 1t is against
# hood h,.,a
law can sanction its violation most especially when it
in the shape of false witness against our neghbor,
in which included every species Of SANDER When,
therefore, RIGHTEOUSNESS of the PEN the tongue reaches
to such pay regard to the TRUTH place
the feelings and character of private citizens and public
functionaries at the mercy of unprncped anonymous
scribblers who for the most part neither know
whether what they write il true false. When such
of things presents ITSELF the question will be forced
the people of the United States whether the blessings Of
freedom of speech and Of this press are not than
by the evils attending their abuse Even
Mr. Jefferson himself of the most Jealous advocates Of
the freedom speech and writing, and of the illus
rous Of its victims thus expresses himself In letter to
Judge Sullivan, dated May e. 1906. Speaking of the OPP
position he says:
sit seems to be fixed that fasehood and calumny are
be their ordinary engines Of oppositionengnes that will
be entirely without effect The circle Of characters
equal the first stations is not too large and will he les
sened by the voluntary Of Those whose sensbes
stronger thar their confidence in the justice of public
opinion. certainly have known characters eminently
qualified for the most exalted trusts who could not bear
against the brutal hackngs and hawngs of those heroes
Of bilngsgate may say from intimate knowledge, that
should have lost the services OF the greatest character
Of the country had he been assaed with the degree
abandoned Righteousness now pracsed The torture he
felt under rare and slight attacks proved that under
those Of which the federal bands have ownhemseves
capable he would have thrown up the helm ii burst of
Indignation There he doubt the country has
thus lost and will lose the services Of many of her
eminent citizens whose ambition for honorable distinction
in public life will be secualy repressed by the appre
henson Of having their characters DETAINED and their
sensitive feelings aceraed by the unncpled calumnies
and cen.ious rbadry of press restrained by law
Conscience regard to truth and Difference to public
decency.
Mr. Jefferson in the letter. proceeds TO say "The
patriot like the Christian must learn to bear ratings and
prosecutions part of his duty and in proportion the
trial is severe mness under becomes requisite
and praisewortby. It requires, indeed, se-command
but that will be fortified in proportion the calls for its
exercise repeated" All this may be truei but doubt
that any man ever become. insensibe to raufny and
abuse any more than the eel gets used TO SHINING.
With respect the freedom of speech in debate guar.
antied by the constitution TO members OF Congress II is
conveyed these brief words and for any speech debate
place" would respectfully suggest that this exemption
refers rather to legal than personal responsibility. 1t
seems 10 me simply that words spoken by
Der In debate though II uttered by private citizen they
might subject him to prosecution for libel incur
such penalty coming from him In discussions great
national questions. do not and cannot believe II was
intended confer members Of Congress unqualified
mitable privilege to deal with the character Of their
fellow citizen, they pleased without mourning any per-
sona responsibility The feelings and character Of pr
vate men arc sacred at least the rights Of their
rulers and what is called the public interest only the
aggregate of the happiness Of each individual citizen
which constitutes "the public welfare phrase
misunderstood and perverted than perhaps any other in
the great charter Of liberties We should be careful
how sacrifice the good Of all the parts but the
pretended good Of the whole which IL soecism not
frequently presented in our system Of legislation.
But be this 1t may cannot think but strike every
rejecting reader that this exemption from responsibility
for words uttered in debate reasonably be extended
TO all personal responsibility, so interpreted as to
ton every violation Of order and decorum In discussion II
was doubtless presumed by the trainers Of the constitution
that proper Of the dignity Of their position as well
MS Difference public opinion and 10 the feelings Of each
other would prove sufficient restraints to the indulgence
any irritating offensive personalities But the pubchas
lately seem with equal regret and notification that party
spirit degenern,ed into personal hostility between
bcrs productive OF which not only greatly detract
from that salu,ay respect which the people have hitherto
freely accorded their Representatives but gricvousy inn
paired that moral influence and authority Indispensable in
solely the Of the people