Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1874-06-25
CARPENTERS GAG.hAw.
A Very Lame ana FlpOtent ExPInnR-
IiOn-Fhe Democratic Press
Ahmed AZ.

New YORK, June Ex-senator Car
pentsr published here this morning q let
Ter about what has been styled Carpen-
teT's gag-law, and says an accurate state
ment in regard to this matter will satisfy
every journalist who respects truth, and
will diminish the force of vituperation
uttered by those who do not. In course
Of the review Of the law and its several
sections, the senator, writes: "Why gen.
eral laws should notapply to the District
of Columbia as well as to Territories, is
not perceived; or why any capitalist CT
New York or Boston carrying on a busi-
ness by an agent in this district, should
have greater objection to coming here
for trial than going to Idaho or Wyom-
ing, is not very apparent; but the great
objection is that it applies to publishers
as well as to merchants, mechanics,
manufacturers and all other business
men. Now to this l reply that the bill
has no special reference to publishers; it
deals with all men alike, and those who
make this objection ought to show upon
what grounds publishers can claim ex-
empton from laws which bind every
body else. They seem to think that they
may be sued in Washington for libel.
Well, why should they Lot, il they COM
NIT that Injury by an agent in this
district? The law Of libel is no more
unfsvOrable to the press than the statute
against larceny is TO the people. One
perpleXes thieves and the other liars,
but neither is q terror to honest men,
and this bill is no more Injurious to pub
fishers than every law must be which
looks to the impartial administration of
justice. While the bill was under con-
slderatiOn In the senate, Democratic
senator moved to amend the eleventh
section 50 that it should not apply TO
any suit for libel or slander. The prop
ositiOn was directly presented to exempt
one class of citizens from the general
law and declare immunity in favor of
libel and slander, and every Democrat
who voted upon the proposition sus-
tained il. The reason for this is quite
obvious. The chief occupation of the
Democratic press to-day is to compose
and publish libels on the party in power.
Any encouragement given 10 libel and
SANDER would be thwarting the means
by which the Democratic party hopes to
overthrow the Republican party"
The proposition wss defeated by the
votes of thirty-three Republicans. A
motion to strike out the whole f the
eleventh section was also defeated by a
vote OF yeas sixteen 10 nays forty, and
on the passage Of the bill thirty-two
senators voted aye.
Senator Carpenter thinks that, under
the circumstances, he should not be sin
gied out for special criticism. Tho gem
eral operation of the law the 5, nator
illustrates "a follows: "Suppose a man.
ufacturer Of carriages IN the city OF New
York establishes a house in Chicago for
the sale OF such carriages, and his busi-
ness there is managed by an agent who
sells the carriages with false warranty.
Under the provisions of this section suit
might be brought in the Federal court
of the State and service be made upon
the agent there and upon the principal
in New York. Is there any justice in
this? Should the party who has been
defrauded be compelled 10 take his wit
nesses TO New York for trial? Is it
hardship to provide that such may be
maintsned where the transaction out of
which 1t arose was had? Is there any
injustice in providing that the agent
sent to Chicago tc transact the business
shall be considered also the agent in re-
gard to suits arising therefrOm? Under
this section tue process can only be
served upon the agent who was such in
respect to the very Transaction out of
which the suit arises. II New York
capitalist chooses to do business by an
agent in the western States, why should
he not submit to the jurisdiction of the
court where he has an agent to transact
the very business out Of which the suit
arises, as he would have to do if he car
ried on the same business there in per-
sOn?n