Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1857-09-24
LIBERTY OF THE PRESS.

LIBERTY OF THE PRESS.
This subject is eliciting discussion from the
papers of the State generally, but its special ref
erence is to the liberty privileges Of an editor.
From collision between the Mercury and an in
dignant correspondent the question sprung up:
has an editor right to refuse his columns to prl-
yate or political assailants? So far as the mere,
abstract rights concerned, we think his power In
this respect unlimited-as much so as the right OF
any other person to dispose Of or use his capltal
as he chooses But at the same time that his Press
is private property, and his legal right to use it as
he pleases, under the restrictions Of the Law in
d.putable, there is sense of equity to guide him
and q higher motive stimulating him than the
qualification of personal animosity. The ostensi-
BILE purpose for which he establishes his Press, ana
the ground upon which he solicits general pat
ronage, is the public veal. And when the public
has generously supported him, it is expected that
he will prove a guardian of morality and virtue,
a faithful conservator Of liberty and patron OF n
pure and elevated literature. 1t is only in this
manner that he can fulfill his pledge to the public
to promote its welfare. The public veal then be-
comes the true criterion of the Liberty of the
Press and the editor alone can judge of the re-
quirements of his position.
If in the advocacy Of measures, which he thinks
calculated to promote the political, social or reli-
gious interests of his country, an editor should
uniustly give offence to any individual, he should
certainly allow him the liberty Of explanation and
even of courteous retort. But here again the edi-
tor must Judge whether there has been just cause
of offence, and likewise, whether the point at is
sue is of sufficient importance to justify him IN
giving it publicity. If he opens his columns to
trivial dsputations, his readers will be at fault If
they are not soon edited as to the difference be-
tween tweedle-dee and tweedle-dum, for men are
generally more willing to dispute than to listen,
and ignorance has not more assiduous attendant
than combativeness. In addition to this there are
men of more suspicion than penetration, who are
ever ready to attribute motives to others which
could only have sprung into existence from the
corrupt soil of their own hearts, and this class OF
general fault-fnders, could they command the at
tention of the public, would never tire of trying
to prove every person but themselves Enave or
scoundrel. Of all such, an editor must dispose
summarily, if he pretends to have standard of
taste. and leave it 10 sheets without character and
without any nobler aim in view, to open their col
umns to noisy polemics and nugatory disputes
Editors aspiring to political leadership who are
openly partisan, cannot be expected to open their
columns to their bitter opponents for in times Of
excitement, their own Tresses, their labor and
capital, might be turned against them, virtually
nullifying the purposes for which they perhaps
were intended, and in effect, destroying their po-
tency as partisan sheets. Nor can paper, mis-.
cellaneous in its character, be expected to become
the organ of any political clique, to the neglect OF
nobler objects for which it was established. 1t
may be matter of regret, that in democratic re-
publics like ours party spirit prevails to such an
extent that newspapers are almost necessarily par
tisan. From this fact arises the super-abundance
of papers with which the land is deuged-many
of them feebly supported and consequently feebly
edited Were all the capital and intelligence diff
fused through half adozen papers, concentrated
in one, the readers even more than the proprie-
tors, would be benefited Then talent would be
paid for its highest efforts, and literary excellence
be increased in value in proportion to its present
depreciation. For in literature the quantity and
quality is in proportion to the price paid for it, and
the Muse of history, poetry or philosophy cannot
be expected to be free from venalty, in country
where patriotism, political honesty and public vir-
tue are so generally prostituted at the shrine of
Mammon.
But, however much We may regret that party
spirit has called into existence so many papers,
and, thereby, diminished the ability of the press
to attain nober ends than the advancement Of fac.
tions, it is the legitimate fruit of party anmosty,
which seems indissolubly connected with free gov
ernments. If an editor then is partisan he can
only be esteemed public servant so far as the
interest of his party is concerned, and those who
dissent from his views, can only ask as matter
Of courtesy-not of right-to be heard through
his columns. If their opinions are worthy Of at
tention and couched in respectful language-of
which the editor must judge-they will generally
be published from courtesy and criticised with
candor. If the superfciality of the ideas and the
negligence of the style are such that the reader
can neither be instructed or amused, an editor is
two indulgent to give it publicity, and is no longer
true to his profession as the conservator of good
taste and pure literature. But of all these things
the editor must be the sole judge since after all,
it will generally be found to be to his interest to
publish every article written in the proper spirit
and with the necessary care and when such is the
case nvividuals need not fear any infringement on
their private rights from the tyranny Of the Press.
THAT CAKE.
How delicious! We know not which to admire
most, the skill which devised or the kindness which