The Union and journal. [volume] (Biddeford, Me.) 1858-1882, 1866-11-02
THE BANGOR DEMOCRAT CASE.

THE BANGOR DEMOCRAT CASE.
In 1861, riot occurred in Bangor by
which reasonable publication called the
Bangor Democrat was suppressed and the
Office demolished. At the recent term Of
the s J. Court At Belfast, Tspley, J. pre-.
siding, action was brought to recover Sls,-
900 dsmagcs--three times the actual amount.
This was reduced, two names being strick-
en- from the writ, one for non service and
the other for death. A verdict OF acquital
was rendered for fourteen Of the defend.
ants. and damages assessed against Samuel
:. Mann and John Tabor in the sum Of
S9l6.66 or for so much Of the property dc.
s,roycd as was unnecessary for publishing
the paper. The jury, composed Of men
of both political parties, without instruc-
tons from the Court, found specially as
follows:
The Jury have taken into consideration
the question Of the Democrat OF 1861, and
find u ,ras nuisance and that q taas justi6-
abe 10 sugprS u, and we find the value Of
the property destroyed, over and above
What was necessary to its suppression, to be
S9lGGG
This important trial, the frs, Of its kind
in the United States, has thus ended in pro.
nouncing that there is such crime rs trca.
son, that newspaper writers have not the
license Of committing that crime, and that
publications 50 offending may be abated,
using no more force than Is necessary to
prevent is future appearance. Below we
give the second clause Of the able charge Of
Judge Tapley, relating to the special ground
Of defence. As q clear exposition Of the
law, and document unusually rational and
concise, this judicial paper Of Judge Tap-
ley places him in rank with our ablest and
safest jurists.
The second around Of defence assumed BY
defendants is, that they were justified In doing
what they did. They aver that the property
wolves in the first place, the legal question OF
what public nuisance Is Upon that point
can furnish yos no clearer statement Of the
las than Is found in the Gaze OF Norcross vs..
Thpms in the 5lst vol Of Maine Reports just
published. The opinion Is drawn by Judge
Dickerson. In that case Il Is said that Il Is not
practicable, &C., page 30t Co sos. The Judge
read at some length from this opinion.1
A newspaper establishment may be % con-
ductel IS to become public nuisance, either
IN the mode OF operation, or In the matter
IL sends of into the community. IL can claim
M higher exemption than any other mechan-
ical operation The righs Of the pres Is not
above the right OF the individual. The right
OF each Il determined BY the laws Of the land
and the right and duty VI each IL subject to
the right s"d duty Of the other. Your stten-
ton has been called to the constitutional guar
aniec Of freedom Of speech and of the press.
and the reasons which induced this guarantee,
and the necessities existing for u In . free gov
eminent have been stated In eloquent and for.
chile terms by the counsel for the plaintiffs.
Freedom Of thought, freeslom Of speech,
freedom Of press have long been considered
part ~ republican institutions and necessary
ingredients Of them.
But this freedom has never been m unlimit
ell, unrestricted right to speak, write and pub
lsh without accountability. The press enjoys
NJ such privilege now or at any other period
In the history Of the country.
Its constitutional guarantee Is not to tram
PIE upon the rights Of the individual neither
j. u To destroy the very government which up
such anomalies exist in our laws AL its OPP
sraiions must be In obedience to and subject To
the laws OF the land. II Is not above the Law
that protects II. and every person who speaks,
writes or publishes his sentiments must be held
responsible for the abuse of this liberty. The
constitution recognizes An abuse Of the privi-
lrge. Il Is its legitimate use that II Is protect
oil. AMI Its abuse that Is not.
Treason against the state consists In levying
war against 10, adhering ~ It's enemies, and
giving them all AMI comfort.
THIS offence may be committed by writing
sui publishing rs vel as by speaking. Its
thr highes, otfsncc known to any Law in any
country, aud when committed by writing and
Publishing. the offender cannot screen himself
ium the just penalty Of the Law BY saying he
.'mIiy wryte and Published "his orn ssnti-
meats" IL is treason nevertheless
Waen Jefferson Davis called the inhabitants
ui the rebellious States ~ arms against the
Laws 'nd government Of the uni'ei States, and
- up = government dependent of u. he spoke,
wrote AMI Published his +" ssatimsais." Nes.
crtheiess u Vas trvason!
+ ere is no freedom ~ the press guaranteed
T., the constitution, OF laws that will permit OF
sieh aigrant scts OF wrong To the State OF
government. There Is no legal right In an In
i;Siiusl acting through the press to levy var
AGAINST the government. and adhere to Its en-.
enics. giving them aid and comfort. That 10
nu, the freedom of the pres conferred and
protected by the Lac OF the land, but IL is the
abuse Of It's privileges Zoe which Il must be
held responsible.
When, in time Of actual war. the publisher
Of = newspaper Is guilty of treason by writing
ani publishing articles 10 . newspaper, the
nee spsper and the pres, and property usei TO
print and disseminate Il becomes public nui-
ssnce.
n il becomes public nuisance. Il becomes
liahle Ia abatement. II has no pre-emineot
r cht Of existence in that iorm over that of
Any other kind u property; but like all other
uui-ances u exists. not only without right but
AZ inst right, and may be absied by any inii-
viiusi suffering special damage therefrom; and
IN. Law is not so Inconsistent ~ To allow les
osners TO recover damages tor the abatement
az that which exists not only without its au-
thprity, but In defiance Of It's injunctious. The
fact Of the existence or non-e1isience OF . pub
II, nuisance ct given time 10 . question.fOr
the Jury, to be by them determined under the
evidence Of the CASE and the Law arplicable TO
|, given them by the court.
Whether or not the property thrown out OF
The building ~ described In this case, Vas ct
the time 10 WAS thrown out . public nuisance.
IL for you to determine under the rules have
given you and upon the evsdeoos Of the cas-.
In considering this question you will refer to
the tim, when this act was committed. and may
TAX. into consideration the civil and political
condition 10 the country.
At thi, tim. several Of the States had passed
secession ordinances.
They hsd raised armies to resist the laws Of
the United Ststes.
They hal seissi forts. arseusis. mints, Gus
tom house. and other public property.
They hsd fired upon Fort Sumter aud driven
out our troops.
The stars and stripes no longer noated In
many places where u hsd been plscei by the
authority Of the goveromeat. but Vas sup
planted by another which must ever be naught
but the syabol of trrason.
The principal armies OF the con,snding forces
had met battle at Bull Run, and our forces
were dispersed and compelled 10 retreat.
New calls for troops wers made, and the
very life and existence Of the gosernmsns
seemed trembling In the balance.
All saw that asriisd in sentiment and effort