The Union and journal. [volume] (Biddeford, Me.) 1858-1882, 1866-11-23


nonsensioAl to be discussed II the editors and
publishers Of the Richmond papers have not
been guilty OF treason during tia last four
years, win some one be kind enough to tell Us
who has been guilty Of liz VIII any one pre-
tend that the publishers Of those papers. under
similar provision In the Virginia constitution
had q guaranteed right TO conduct theirp papers
IS they did, n newspapers In this State. 10
time Of war, have that right. the quicker IL |"
proclaimed by the Cour,. the quicker will the
constitution be amended. by every vote save
thoss or Ir~itors themselves. =
, We have ssrsfally examined The sharss Or
Judge TAplay spoa the ppsnf at NFreedom q
the Prsssy and va eanuoti psrceivs In whist
nay il cosaiots 9th the constitutional guar
.n,.e REFERRED to- That our readers may Judge
for themselves, w reprint 50 much Of 1t IS ap-
plies to the question; ~ y, 80
Your attention has been called 10 ths sonstitn.
tiousl guarantee offfeeabmof spescb and Of ths
and the Ss
eovernmeut have been stated IN Eloquent and
foreihle terms by ths ceusssi br tAs plstsafn.
trsedea,et houghL ffss,om OF spsseh,, and
pas Ssisso hast s ssS s' saa 'S Ssssssss
inxrudieats efthcn, but this ffesdom he's uevu
been IN ,unliirlted, -unrestricted right q speak,
.pfsSs saIsys no ssch privilege nov % 1t any
otbef Jpriett 10 the hisSery VI this county, ~
constitutional guarantee b not TO tfnmpls, upon
The ssSs ct the indyau., ns,hsT .Ss
eonfers upon u Its privileges, ,,h.1l
No such anopaltcs exit In our laws an, It's
cperst'cns must he In cbedence 10, and subject 10
- a. IL IA l. Al....rS n. |.
writes or publishes bis sentimeutS must be held
re-ponsihls fos the Ahass or this liberty. Tue
Tss. iss,r@.is use thai i: protected. and lis
absss that is not.
Treason against the United States consists In
levying var against them. or in Adhering 10 their
Treason against the Stat conusts In levyins
VAR A.oslnst L. sslherinx 10 lbs enemies, and xiv-
Ing them aid and comfort. .,,,.-'-,
pusishinx. as veil as spsshlag. II 10 the highest
offence knoun To any Law, In any country, anu
when committed by wri,inx and pIshli'e, m s1s
atty Of the law, by saying he amply wrote and
pahll:hed "his own sentiments" hisHeason. new
When JET rs,n Davis esllc4 the inhabitants OF
the reeellioas States 20 arms against The laws AUD
government Of the United States, and set up .
governprnt Independent NJ II. he spoke wrote and
published "Ais sssiisssst'." Nevertheless vss
There !. no freedom Of the pre.s guaranteed by
tho constitution Laws that win permit such ma
krant sets Of wroux IN the STATE or oovernment.
There 10 no loyal right In an individual, acting
through the press, to levy war sgaiost the govern
msnt, and adhere to Its enemies, stsinV them AID
and comfort That 10 not the freedom Of the press
conferred and protected by the Law OF the land,
but u Il the abuse OF its privileges for which II
must be held fespousible.. in MI. ~
- These principles and limitations We regard
as liberal IS the section in the constitution We
have quoted warrants. 49,.
.... e. - ..-. ..r'. pee.
The uelt point In the charge was one novel
to us until II Was set up in this case. and that
was. the paper was 50 conducted rs to become
public nuisance. Upon this point OF the de-
tense Judge rapley does not charge the jury
that the Bangor Dsaocrat va, or was not .
nuisance. lie tells them that,
The t.st Of the existence or nopexis.ence OF =
the jory, 81 he by them determined under the evi
drnce IN the case, and The Law applicable to u,
given them by the Court. ......
building "a described IN this case. WAS at the time
Il Was th'oun cut puhlic nuisance, 10 for you to
determIls under the rules have given you and
the evfd ,nce IN tho case.
The rules he gives them by which to deter
mine WAS the decision Of the full Court OF
Maine, Norcross vs. Thoms, just published in
the Slst volume Of Maine Reports. and the
rule Of law that .. '.g m, gu.
When In time Of setnal ,sdr the publisher 10
guilty OF treason by writing and publishing arti-
eles In q n ewspsper the newspaper and the press
and property used to print api d'sseminAtsit be-
comes q SabLe nsrsdaes. ..t IT..
From these rules and che evidence In the
case. the jury found that the Demoerat was .
nuisance. II will be perceived that this ind
ing must have been upon the law ss stated In
Norcross vs.. Thoms, or In the Law above stated
BY Judge Tapley. or possibly upon both. The
Law in Norcross VS.. Thoms having received the
sanction Of the full court Is to oe considered rs
Law now, and Il leaves the case open for dis
cussion only upon the single principle enun'
ciated by Judge Tapley. This proposition en-.
braces within u two important elements, one
Is the fact that treason Is committed by publ.
cation, and the other that II Was done in time
Of actual rdr.
II such = thing does happen, "the newspa-
rers aud press and property used to print and
nuisance" Whether or not the plaintiffs were
guilty OF this, was question for the jury and
not for the court. They could only 6ud the fact
upon the rules given them. Upon which rule
did they find il, Itupou the rule In Norcross
vs.. Thoms, Judge Tapley Is not At fault II up
on the other rule the jury must have found the
plaintiffs guilty OF treason.
Now considering the question IS an abstract
question Of Law with NO reference to any par
ticular case. how does this abstract proposition
OF Law strike the unprpfessiousl readsrr With
out referring to this case, and with no psrtic
ular case in view ninety nine men In every hun.
dred would say at onee-lt Is right" cit Is
GOOD common sense" " such thing ,rouid be
q nuisance ofthe worst kind" when II strikes
al the government II strikes ct Us all" They
would further AID. "why. the Law hangs .
man Who does Il, and 1t certainly would not al
low ths paper to be circulated which they
hang him Tor printing" These and similar re-
marks would come spontaneously from the PEG
pie Immediately upon the inquiry being put to
them. This, we admit. would not make Il q
nuisance, but Il Is very strong evidence Of the
etieet such publications have upon the public
mind. The unprofessionsl reader would not
hesitate to declare it the worst Of nuisanc,s.
II may not strike the professional reader
quite 50 readily In this direction. and therefore
We will examine the case quoted by the Judge.
We there 6nd nuisance defined to be "any.
,hi,v thar work 9Th hurt imam yenisn.a M A am