Public ledger. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1865-1893, 1867-03-13
MUZZLING THE PRESS.
The Federal Officer and the Mo-
bile Editors.

We have before us the letter of the
Federal officer commanding the post oi
Mobile, addressed to Col. Forsyth of the
Advertiser, respecting structures which
had appeared in the Mobile papers upon
the conduct of the officer who interfered
with funeral procession, in honor of q
deceased Confederate last week. We
quote few paragraphs:
The Mobile AdUertiSer and Register
need not expect that tceremonials or man
ifestations of any sort, will be permitted
to incite disloyal sentiments nor actions
among the people, if possible to avoid it,
nor disorders and violations of discipline
on the part of soldiers of this command,
nor newspaper articles" creating undue
excitement, as in this instance.
In this connection ! have also to allude
to the Adrertiser'S persistent reitera-
tons, untruthfully, few days since, that
an army officer-the word Federal being
used-acted like poltroon, and that a
soldier knocked him down in the public
streets of the city, when the parties con-
cerned we're late Confederates
cuch publications tend to bring the
officers and soldiers of the army of the
United States into disrepute destructive
to discipline and good name.
Without desiring to belong to the
school of coercionsts, duty may per-
haps require ultimately an extension Of
the guards possibly at No. IL South
Royal street.
The following are the comments of the
Adterfiser unon the letter.
The communication of Colonel j. L..
Shepherd, commanding the Federal gar
rison at Mobile, appears evidently de-
signed for publication. Had there been
doubt Of it, and could we have es-
capped the apparent injustice of denying
him hearing in reply to what was said
of him in these columns, we should have
replied to his letter in writing, and
omitted to publish. On public grounds,
in the present exceptional condition of
the country, it had been better. On our
own account, we should have, perforce,
preferred that course. Col. Shepherds S
letter provokes controversy, and yet Col.
Shepherds threat of guard at No. IL
Royal street, precludes it on our part.
In fair field and on equal terms, we
should have been very happy to have
broken lance with him on the point
of political prudence and military pro-
priety involved Pen to pen and man
to man, the meeting had been posi-
BILE; but when there is a pen and q
man on one side, and on the other,
a pen, mar and a sword, the inequality
becomes too apparent for even Quixotic
prudence. To Richelieu was attributed
the bon mot that the "pen was mightier
than the sword" May be so, in his
feeble old hands at the time he uttered
it. But when bayonets arrive the pen
has to suceumb Not that the rightful
power of Col. Shepherd in the premises
is admitted, for since the peace procla-
nation of the President of the United
States, Of April, 1866, and before the new
law is put in force, and he gets
his ordera under it, we do Aot doubt that
he would exceed bis authority to put his
guards at No. II Royal street But this,
too, is a question that we are not permit
ted to dispute with man with sword.
By the way, we wish the Colonel just
would give US a carte blanche to take the
gloves of with him in this little matter
laying aside the of ,iGl wand, and linn
iting ali the responsibilities In the ease
to those which obtain between gentlemen.
Perhaps the Colonel willY
For these substantial reasons we give
Col. Shepherd'g letter, without taking is
sue upon its explanations or points Of
argument. Wecould hardly be expected
to agree, viewing the subject from stand
points so differently, aud it seems i'm
prudent to disagree too loudly. We.there-
fore drop the subject of the funeral pro-
oession, and freely give him the full ben
eft Of our columns to accomp ish what
ever purpose he may have in view from
bis Communication.