The daily exchange. [volume] (Baltimore, Md.) 1858-1861, 1861-09-09

What sort of a government is that which aims
to produce unity of opinion by suppressng with
the strong arm of power, all outward evidences
OF dissent? Take from the American people the
rights OF free speech and free press; hedge them
round with spies; dictate to them what articles
of apparel they shall wear; what personal orna-
ments are admissible, and what are tabooed. ar
rest them upon charges secretly made, and deny
them their legal and constitutional privilege to be
confronted with the accuser, and to be tried for
the alleged offence before a civil tribunal-do ALL
these things, and many more which find no war
rant in the statute law of the land, or under the
Federal compact, and in what respect are those
who are subjected TO such restraints and usurpa-
tons better off than the Venetians under the rule
OF the Austrian, or the Po!anders held in thrall
by the Muscovite? For a period of more than
eighty years. we Americans have been railing
at kIng-cratt, and have hurled vigorous denun-
Citations Mt despots; for we were Justly proud
of the freedom we enjoyed, and of the
many blessings that followed in its train. Here
at least, We said-and we took pleasure in bro
claiming the great facthe rulers are the elect Of
the people, are amenable to them for the wrong
that they may do, and are held in check by Ilni-
tations which they may not overstep. Little did
we dream, when we INDUCED in this selG-lauda-
ton, that the time wonld come when all the safe
guards TO our liberties would be deliberately bro
ken down, and when those journalists who deemed
1t TO be their bounden duy 10 protest against such
high-handed measures, and to warn their fellow
citizens of the consequences which would inevi-
tably result from them, would be denounced as
factious stigmatiZed az traitors, and commanded
to preserve respectful silence under penalty of
being vigorously dealt with OF what prac-
teal value is the guarantee of a Free Press
if it be forbidden to address itself to a free
people? How, indeed, can it be truly said
that the people themselves are free when the
Press is muzzed? To insolentIy demand that
all men shall sanction, either taclly or openly,
the measures of the Government, even though
they believe those measures to be fatal to their
freedom, is to assert the sovereignty OF the Gov
eminent and to deny the sovereignty of the peo-
pie which it is supposed TO represent, and whose
servant it processes to be. The rule of the ma
Jorlty was never intended to include the right to
stlfie the voice of the minority, or to suppress,
either directly or indirectly, those journals which
reflect, or are supposed to reflect, the sentiments
OF that minority. 1t may be set down here as an
axiom, the truth of which cannot fairly be dis
puted, that every journal, be its political tenets
what they may, derives mainly its support from
popular opinion. To obtain a circulation it must
have subscribers, and it is but fair to presume that
the greater number of them sustain it because
lis sentiments meet with their APPROVAL
Inc measure then of its circulation is
the measure of its popularity. If it has
little or no circulation, it is evident that it
does not express the popular thought Under
such circumstances, journal would speedily die
ofinantion. On the other hand, if its circulation
be large, there must be popular opinion to back
1t. TO place an interdict therefore, upon its cir
cuiaton, is not merely to violate that provision
OF the Constitution which tells US that ''Congress
'shall make no law abridging the freedom Of the
Press but Is also an attack upon the personal
right OF every citizen to read that paper whose
com ments upon the policy of the Government
most closely accord with his own views A Coy
eminent whose motives are pure and patriotic:
which respects the laws of the land and exercises
Its functions within the mees and bounds of the
Contituton has nothing to fear from hostile criti
cism 1t is only those rulers that are bent on ef-
iecting radical change in the nature of existing
institutions who dread public discussion, ard who
undertake, IN their own interests and for the
furtherance of their own schemes to crush ont all
who dare to call in question the legality of their
thelr acts, or the wisdom of their policy.