The Portland daily press., 1866-11-20
DAILY PRESS.
ND.
Tuesday Morning, November 20, 1856.
Freedom of the Press.
PORTLAND.

Freedom of the Press.
The Bangor Democrat is doing the commu-
nifty good service by its persistent discussion
of the principles involved lin the verdict by
whichthat paper was recently declared TO have
been in 1861 public nuisance, liable to sum-
mary abatement With its personal attacks
1,pop Judge Tapley, we have of course moth
ing to do. 1t was his province to declare the
law, as it stands. He did not make the law.
Ii it bears hardly upon the publishers Of the
Democrat the fault is not his If he erred in
his Interpretation of it, the error will be cor
rected by the full bench. The Democrat has
nothing TO gain by assault upon his character
For the present, the presumption is thai tlie
law was correctly laid down. 1t remains 10
be considered whether its provisions are just
and so far as the Democrat shows IL "li''hs
ness to argue that question, we repeat, IL Is
rendering the community genuine service
It ia NOT enough to feel, as most OF us do, that
the verdict was just. Ii is important to know
on what grounds its justice can be question
ed. II our FIRST impressions ale correct, we
can surely defend then; if they are wrong, the
sooner we are undeceived the better
We are willing to concede the honest intent
of the Democrat in 1861. Let the case be
made as strong as possible. Its publishers
have just proved their belief in the merits of
their cause, by mourning the trouble and ex-
pense OF an action at law for redress The
case is too important to be embarrassed by
any personal considerations. As we frankly
conCede their honesty of purpose in 1861, ac-
cepting their bitter hostility to the war as
manifestation of genuine sympathy for the
South and not cloak for paitizan schemes,
SO we must ask them to lay aside the mistaz-
en- notion about "the vindictiveness of por-
ton of the Republican press" After the lapse
of five years, this matter can surely be consid
cred calmly and carefully, as it deserves. So
considering it, we believe the verdict substan-
TALLY just. But we also believe, as we have
said before, that the law which leaves the re-
moval Of such nuisances to the arbitrary hand
OF military power, or to the irregular action
of an indignant public, is faulty. It would be
better if Congress or the State should provide
for their abatement by law, and the sooner
such provision is made now the better
TO this, the Democrat responds by quoting
the following extracts from the constitutions
of the United States, and of Maine:
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.
amendments. Art l.. Congress shall make
no law abridging the freedom OF speech, OF of
the press.
CONSTITUTION OF MAINE.
Art. 1. Sec. T. Every citizen may freely speak,
L
ject, being responsible for the use of this liberty;
no laws shall be passed regulating or restrain
ing the freedom of the press.
THE doctrine of the [ nited States" the
Democrat says, sis and ever has been, that
THE PRESS Is ABsoLUTELY FREE, nor has a
doubt ever been raised on that subject until it
was raised in the recent trial at Belfast" 1T
is amazing we are furthermore told, shat
the leading Republican paper OF Maine should
exhibit SO much ignorance of the constitu-
tional rights and privileges of the press
1t would be a dense ignorance indeed which
should be unacquainted with these noble de-
clarations of our State and national constitu-
-tions-lhe Democrat itself illustrates how
ever, the confusion of thought WHICH may ,,.s-
vail respecting principles SO elementary and
familiar as these. The freedom OF the press
does not absolve its conductors from RESPONSE
bility The liberty for which Milton and his
great ,compeers c0ntended, was ''the Liberty
OF UNLICENSED Printing sit is plain"
says Story, i'll his Commentaries on the Con-
stitution of the United States, 'that the Ian
saage Of this amendment imports no more
l,af III ,,ol+
speak, write and print his opinions upon any
subject whatever, without any PRIOR re-
straint, SO always that he does not injure any
other person in his rights, person, property or
reputation; AND so ALWAYS THAT HE DOES
NOT THEREBY DISTURB THE PUBLIC PEACE,
OR ATTEMPT 10 suBVERT THE GOVERN
AENT" In Short the freedom OF the press,
as it has always been understC cd by its ablest
advocates, means freedom from censorship,
but by no means freedom from responsibility
The wild notion that the press is sacred and
despotic, raised above all law, will not bear a
moments examination Indecent publica-
tons are suppressed by law Lbelous publ
cations are Punishable by law. III injury TO
an individual may be promptly punished, can
the Democrat tell us why injury which affects
a community must be endured? The Demo-
crat is greatly in error, ia surprising that this
question was raised for the first time Gin the
recent trial at Belfast" We had once, Tor
two or three years, a law of Congress for the
punishment Of seditious writing, and its con-
stitutlonality was tested and affirmed in the
courts The law was not wise one but it
was constitutional. The freedom of the
press is only worth preserving if the
press Is to be pure and honorable Its
purity and honor can only be secured BY hold
1t to faith iul account for its utterances. $50
true will it be found" as Blackstone says,
''that to censure the licentiolsness is 10 main
tain the liberty Of the press"