New-York tribune., 1868-04-15
FREEDOM OF SPEECH

Mr.. Curtis, in that part of his argument
which referred to the extraordinary speeches
of the President, said many things which
necessarily command the approval of every
lover of human liberty. The founders Of the
Government unquestionabIy intended to pro-
tect against official interference the freest
discussion of affairs, and more fully than any
other person is the Chief Magistrate of the
Republic entitled to that liberty. The weak
point of Mr.. Curtis's argument IL that which
claims for the President a good intention, or
at least tho absence of a bad one for the
defense here rests mainly upon Mr.. Johnsons
simple denial, which is worth no moro than
that of any other respondent at any other bar.
Did the President mean to assert that the Con-
gress to which he so often alluded was mot Con-
"gress within the meaning of The Constitu-
"tiOn p The learned advocate says that there
is "no proof to support the allegation" Now,
without pretending to discuss this point with
pettifogging dexterity, but regarding it gem
orally in its bearing upon the question Of Free
dom of Speech we may observe that 1t is a
matter of common fame that the President has
taken no pains at any time or in any place to
conceal his opinion. If he were upon the
stand, and upon his oath, and should be asked:
"Do you consider the present Congress to be
Congress within the meaning of the Constitu-
"tion ~ he would either be forced to answer
81 do not" or else, by responding 81 do" TO
contradict tho whole tenor Of more than a
dozen of his public and printed addresses.
He is man who is extremely tenac-
ous of the notions which he mistakes
for opinions, and except when put upon
a technical defense, under the guidance OF
sharp-witted attorneys, he. has uniformly as
serted that Congress is not Congress within
the meaning Of the Constitution, and he has
not had an auditor nor a reader who did not
so understand him. Even Mr. Curtis, who in
tends to be fair, and is certainly acute, is
forced by the circumstances of tho case to
plead double. He first denies that the Presi-
dent meant to impugn the authority Of Con-
gress, and then defends his right to do so
under a Constitution which establishes perfect
freedom of speech! If the President did not
mean what he is said to have meant, then
where was tho freedom of speech which is so
learnedy and so justly vindicated2 IL he said
nothing extraordinary, then why this pains
taking to prove his right to say itf
1t is hardly worth while at this late stage Of
the proceedings to argue that the President in
tended to bring Congress into public contempt;
but the doctrine Of the defense is little alarm
ing. 1t is, if we understand it, that although
o President may say things for which he might
be criminally indicted, it is impossible for him
to say anything for which he can be constitu-
tionally mpeached; and it is gravely amusing
to find Mr. Curtis, who has had the credit of
strictly conservative opinions, suddenly discov-
ering that there are absolutely no bounds to
this precious liberty. But he knows rs well as
we do that the right to speak implies the re-
sponsbiity of speaking with measured pro-
priety, and that, under certain cOntingen-
cies, words may be more mischievOus than
deeds. If Mr. Lincoln-we use the
illustration with reluctance--if that great and
good man, in the very tempest, torrent, and
whrlwind of the Rebellion had made public
address in which he had extenuated the wicked
ness OF Secession, not by indictable phrases,
but still in words sufficiently well understood
by those who rejoiced, and by those who grieved
to hear them, would Mr. Curtis have approved
and defended such expressions as simply an
exercise Of the right of untrammeled speechf
Nay, we venture upon another illustration.
Now that Mr.. Curtis is again an attorney, does
he expect, in dignifed tribunals to be per-
mitted to talk without any restraint whateverf
And did he personally aud privately approve