The sun., 1873-08-09
The World on the Law of Libel,

The world on the Law of Libel.
The WoHd says that THE Sun "evinces
Just information enough TO dodge difncul-
ties" We wish thar we could rcciprocate
the compliment. TIad the WOrid evinced
even this modicum Of information it
would have been more fortunate.
The WOrld contends that Congress has
no authority, under the Constitution, TO
enact n libel law for the District of Co.
lumbin.
The Word may be right on this point
but il has not yet, as il seems TO us, cstab-
nshed the oorrec ne OF its position,
either 10y sound arEum mt OF authority.
Congress Is authorized, ly the express
letter of the Constitution, TO exercise er-
Chtsire icljSlu ion. IN al cases tchdtsoerer,
over the District of Columbia.
Thi. is II grant n broad and comprehen-
sive terms, ana without reservation.
One would suppose that this must Ger
tainly be sufficient authority for Congress
10 provide, by statute for the punishment
of all offences within the District which
were crimes or misdemeanors nj common
law. This Is the plain, common sense view
Of the matter. Whoever maintains the
contrary doctrine ought t. be able to offer
very good reasons for tn, faith that is in
him.
Libel WAS an offence Mt common law We
can see no reason why Congress has not the
same autl ority TO pass Il law for the pun
ishment of libel in the District that il has
10 pass law for the punishm ont of muir
der III the same District. Bo are COM
mon law offences. Congress alone or
some body constituted by act OF Congress
POSSESSES the power TO punish libel in
the District. II Congress-which has the
right, by the express words of the Consti-
tuition, 10 exercise exclusive legislation,
does not possess the right, then no body
constituted by Congress can possess it.
What would be the consequence? There
could he no libel law In the District Of
Columbia Every State in the Union has
libel law, ut in the District of Columbia
no power on earth could possibly pass a
valid act to punish the most manifest libel.
Is it To be suppos that thu W Sc trainers
of the Constitution intended and planned
any such condition of things as this?
The answer of the lForld is that the Con-
stitution provides that Congress shall make
no law abridging the freedom Of the press.
We have shown that such a provision in
held perfectly consistent with "A law max
ing libel n crime.
The World contends that the provisions
In these two Constitutions are essentially
different. With want of propriety which
Is inconsistent with all rules of discussion
among gentlemen, ii pronounces our call
Ing them alike in essence "tdlSc." Now
let us see how the fact is Old JosHuA
GmpINGs, the Abolition mombot of Con-
gress from Ohio during the heat of the
Anti-SlaveTy debates used to say: Who
ever says that l lie, does not strengthen
his own cause, or injure me; he only
proves that he is himself "A liar Now we
are as far as can be from imputing any
thing of this kind to our esteemed con-
temporary, but we assure him that he is
"conspicuously inexact" in saying that
our statement is false"
The provisions Of the two Constitutions
-omitting only superiluou, words-are as
follows: Constitution o. me Iuited states:
"Cougrcss shall make no law abridging
the freedom of the press" Constitution
Of Ncw Iorh; NO law shall be passed
10 ahrugc the liberty of the press"
Now We have something of a fancy for
closclvmatched horses; and we should
like, just once, to see pair as near alike rs
these Two provisions Of the Constitutions
nf the United States and of the STATE of
New York respectively.
But argues the WOrld, JAMES MADISON
thought Congress had no authority under
the Constitution, TO enact libel law
Curiously enough, however, in the self
same article, after a glowing eulogy upon
the doctrine that the Supreme Court has
the right to declare acts Of Congress un-
constitutional, the WoIld brings out, con-
fpicuously, the fact that JAMES MADISON
was not believer in this grand doctrine!
As if, after quoting him, the World were
anxious to detract as much as possible from
the weight OF his name!
Thus II we were to accept MADISON as
authority il would stand in this way: Con-
Eress has no power TO pass a libel law but
there being no judicial authority to over
rule an net OF Congress, whatever il cnacts
whether constitutional or not, POSSESSES all
the force Of law. So MADISON answers
MADISON and disposes Of MADISON
Furthermore he Is opposed by these con-
sidcTUtions:
F'it: II Congress cannot pass libel
law Tor the Distri t Of Columbia, then so
l'r as ono OF the old comm n law offences
Is concerned the Capital of the Nation
must be and remain forever lawless
place.
Seco"d; Congress passed libel law for
the District US early rs 1901, which law re-
mains unrepealed to this day.
Thtrd Congress no longer ago than 1865
recognized this law by fresh enactment
f'at IN all criminal prosecutions for libel
~ the District Of Columbia the truth NAV
J. gyen in evidence.
Ihe World says that TIE SUN seems un-
aware that up to the time of the trial CT
'ALLENpER the competency of the
'oui's 10 declare law void for repugnance