Weekly national intelligencer., 1863-02-26
LIMITATIONS OF FREE DISCUSSION.


publican politician in the city Of New York, has
recently addressed letter 10 Prof s. f. b. MORSE
defining what he considers the limits within which
loyal upholders of the Government may, in the
present crisis, express their opinions on men and
measures
Mr. MORSE, our readers are aware, is the Presi-
dent OF an association of eminent citizens of New
York who propose to themselves the task of dis
tributing political information on topics which
they deem appropriate to the present time. We
90 not know what rules the gentlemen composing
this association have prescribed to themselves as
ventures for their instruction the following admo-
milton
1t you are to write and publish dissertations upon con-
roosrted Hbe your Purpossto assaa public
or dudck preoGtenf opinions; and especially II
denounce the Of the Government seekng
barrass or defeat them you do good but will do
INFINITE HARM Temperate and enlightened criticism upon
Government is indeed justifabe and useful so long as
may serre to dire and strengthen the pOioer of The nation
but II it serves to divert the attention of the authorities
from the great purpose they have hand
fuse and mislead the people from their undivided support
1T becomes unpatriotc aud perncious.
1t may not always be easy to draw the exact line be-
tween just criticism and dangerous cav but the safety
OF the Republic the supreme object whatever tends to
that lawful, whatever endangers it is unlawful in the
eye OF reason and conscience whether the law of the land
has fureseen and provided against it not 10 demand
united counsels and vigorous action TO point out the
mistakes Of cabinets and commanders, TO insist upon the
dismissal Of incapable and aiess officers to suggest and
urge upon Congress and the President the employment of
all such means may best and hasten the attain
ment of the great end and at the time to guard
against the tendency to abuse the great powers which
brings into exercise all these within the province of
the citizen But he 10 bound to these his undOubed
rights in frtherance Of the main object to be
looked of suppressing the revolt and in such manner
that his purpose cannot be misunderstood"
We have been little puzzled to understand the
Areopagitica of Mr.. Field. 1t seems that the mem
berS Of the New York association for the diffusion
of what they deem useful political knowledge are not
to write publish dissertations upon controoert-
ed topics," but Gf Mr.. Field has correctly defined
their functions) to restrict their abors to the
sedulous inculcation of ideas which nobody con-
tests This may indeed be very harmless work,
but we could wish that Mr.. f. had more clearly
and forcibly demonstrated its utility and timeli-
ness.
We are curious, too to learn what Mr.. Field
means when, after forbidding " to assail public
men, he allows it to be " within the province of
the citizen" to "point out the mistakes of cabinets
and commanders" and " to insis. upon dte dismis-
sat Of incapable and faithless officers" Remem-
bering the useful maxim that er antecedentiJus ct
succedentJus fit constructio, we arrive at the USE
full conclusion that it is proper to "insst upon the
dismissal of an incapable or faitbless officer" pro-
vided he is not "public man" and provided fur.
Al L. L. n co,t
pable" without being "assailed," and provided
still further that he be so notoriousy faithless and
incapable as not to furnish controyerted topic"
This, too, is perhaps harmless exercise Of the
right of unlicensed printing" but we could wish
that Mr.. Field had more cogently demonstrated the
necessity or utility of insisting on the dismissal of
an officer whom every body agrees to be "faithless
and incapable" lie would, it seems to US, be
likely to drop out of Office without being as Wen
dell Phillips would say, "pushed from his STOOL"
Mr.. Field further forbids q to attack prepalent
opinions" We do not propose to deny the re-
spectability of prevalent opinions" We admit
that they should have their due weight. But how
does Mr.. Field expect to ascertain the preponder-
ant sense of the people if there is to be nothing
" written or published on controverted topics 2"
How can one opinion be said to "preva" over an
other where no antagonism of thought or speech is
permissible? Doubtless we are very obtuse, but
we cannot understand the harmonics on which Mr.
Field has constructed his ideal Republic, with its
"prevaent opinions" but without its " controvert-
ed topics"
We are equally at loss to comprehend how he
justifes himself in writing aud publishing this
letter to Mr. Morse in depreciation Of the labor pro-
posed to itself by this Association for the Dfu-
sion of Political knowledge" Is not the utility
Of this association controverted topicY 1t
certainly is so in the eyes of Mr.. Field, for he
closes his letter with the following solemn adjura-
ton,
You know my respect for you personally, But your
action public, and designed 10 have an effect upon
national peril when the Of eminent may have
disastrous effect upon the fortunes Of bs countrymen
As Of your countrymen protest against them Your
fame is part of inheritance; but your responsibility
IS equal to your place"
How can Mr. Field "protest" against the err
rors Of an eminent man" without raising "con-
troverted topic "a thing upon which he forbids
others to "write or publish dissertations I" And
when it is remembered that the gentlemen CON-
posing this association reflect the "prevalent
UzrN -u.4. a.