New Orleans daily crescent. [volume] ([New Orleans, La.]) 1851-1866, 1860-01-04


LIBERTY or SPEECH AND THE ABUSE
OF 1T.
One Of the llypocritical cants Of the Black Re
publican preachers and lecturers at the North Isl
that at the South men not allowed to exercise
q full "liberty of speech These agitators desire
to preach their abominable doctrines in our midst
and circulate their miscbevous pamphlets and
newspapers among our slaves; and because, for
sooth, we put rather sudden stop to such proceed
ings, they hold up their hands, roll up the whites
of their eyes, and cry, "wliat tyrannical interfer
ence with the freedom of the press, and the liberty
ofspeech.s Said Henry Ward Beecher, in a late
lecture at New York, while contrasting the degree
of liberty allowed in the two sections Of the Union,
the one with another !:
Let man go South and speak those truths
which brought the Mayfiower from England-those
truths that sustained the Pilgrim fathers IN all the
troubles of those early days--and how far South
would he 80 before he would be stopped He
might get as far as Phiadeiphia, but further than
that he could not 60. when eminent gentlemen,
skilled to the last degree in making the worst APP
pear the better cause, standing up In Boston or
New York, and ploughing the Bible from Genesis
to Revelations, RIP up the very foundation Of all
onr laws and institutions they preach those
doctrines which, il they had been believed in the
days Of the Purtans, there never would have been
a Puritan Yankee soii---he was proud Of the
community that would let a man say whath main
tained right, if they did not believe him.
But. said Mr.. B., with the characteristic expression
Of his eye, when we come az far South as Balti-s
more, Richmond and Charleston, ] shoud never
dare to speak at all until had sung the hymn,
"When can read my title clear
Now the fact may be, as stated by hfr. Beecher.
that certain range Of subjects can be handled
with more freedom at the North than at the South.
Perhaps for the peace and tranquility Of the
tsV In $batt mot pyia
SO great disparity in this respect between the two
sections But we ask, If the difference in the posi-
ton and circumstances OF the two extremes Of the
Union does not explain and justify the difference in
their policy in this matterg Liberty of speech like
every other species Of liberty, must be regulated
1 by circumstances. No man can enjoy an absolute
liberty of speech; but only 50 much will not IN
terfcre with the rights and happiness Of those who
are around him. A solitary man on the desert may
be allowed TO talk when he pleases. as loud as he
pleases, and long as he pleases. He can say
also just what lie pleases. But as soon as he has
single companion, his right Of utterance must
submit to such notifications as the existence and a
fair share Of comfort of that companion require.
For instance, he would have no moral right to sing
while that companion was taking his requisite
sleep; to say such things in the hearing of bis
| companion as he knew were shocking to his moral
| sense, or offensive to his feelings. In short, he
would be compelled to restrain himself in the exer-
| else Of his absolute right of speech.
In communities, the same principle operates, but
| of course is more extended in application. a mar
still preserves the right Of speech, but he must sc
modify the exercise of it not to injure his neigh
bors, or endanger the public peace and safety
Circumstances have to determine the proper limits
that should be set upon the exercise Of this right
and these circumstances differ in different local.
ties SO the just limitations Of the liberty of speecl
4 must also be different in distinct and widely-sepa
rated sections. What would be innocent if said ii
Boston, because injurious to nobody, might be ex
trenely pernicous if said in Charleston, where i
would cause painful anxiety, if not revolt ani
bloodshed Shall the exercise Of the right Of speecl
in Boston be urged then as precedent for its ex
ercise to the same degree in Charleston2 surel
not. The same elements do not exist in the tw
places, and therefore the same rules cannot be ap
piled strictly to each Of them
The influence Of circumstances in properly mod
flying the absolute exercise of natural rights is cor
stantly exemplified. Men have an undoubte
right, for instance, to discuss, publicly and pr
vately, religious questions. Bat when, few year
ago. fanatcal streetlecturer at the North b
HEFSsIeuI AUuse OI lADltluu 9luTtL. SutC6eue
in melting riots and disorderly conduct on the pa
of the rabble that eongregated to hear him, the az
thores felt justified in causing his arrest and loci
ing him up In Jail. Now, abstraotly, this man ha
as much right to preach as any other man. But
y, the state Of religions excitement then existir
ID there, the public safety demanded he should /
curtaled in the exercise of that right; and as Il
st public safety paramount he was forced to su
cumb. In cities, in times of riots, knots of peop
are sometimes forbidden to assemble on the stree
: This is an interference with the personal liberty
the citizen; but the public safety instifies it
rendering this interference necessary.
y, Then, il we look at the thing coolly and calml
and in its legal aspect merely, the Black Repub
cans have no cause Of complaint that they are n
allowed a hearing at the South. We cannot be Q
: pected to surrender safety and peace to enah
them to exercise an abstract right. Such nexerci
would be fragrant violation Of our rights, and 9
se, more important rights because they are such
BY are vital and praetieali and the man who wou
be guilty ofasking such sacrifice at our hands
either crazy himself, or in The belief that we a
:. idiots. 5zz55z