Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1881-04-02
THE CASE OF THE FREIBE1F. =


THE CASE OF THE "FREIHEIF."
The case of the Freiheit is very certain
to be cause celebre, for it is evident that
it involves a new departure in English
governmental policy. The explanation
given by the Home Secretary to the House
of Commons would be more satisfactory if
the utterances for which the Socialist jour.
nal has been suppressed were unprece-
denied No doubt it is very exasperating
to have foreign refugees set up presses in
London and thence preach the assassination
of foreign rulers, and no doubt the foreign
rulers who are thus threatened think the
English Government ought not to permit
such publications to be issued But the
freedom of the press in England has for
great many years been regarded as so
sacred as even to cover hcentiousness of
utterance, and it is a well-known fact that
there are several London newspapers,
printed expressly for the working classes,
and catering to seditious tendencies, which
have long been accustomed to publish as
wild and reckless articles as any Nihilist
sheet ever ventured upon. Such journals
as LioydS Weekly and Reynolds Weekly
have in fact addressed themselves to
this kind of literary work as a spe-
cialty, and they have not hest
tated to denounce and abuse and
threaten every member of the Govern
ment and the aristocracy, from the SOW
ereign downwards. The wise policy of
the Government has been TO ignore these
revolutionary papers, and though they
have had very large circulation, and though
their peppery and truculent style has evi-
IDENTIFY commended them to a considerable
class, there are no indications that any
real harm has been done by them. Again,
on former occasions of attempts on the
lives of continental rulers, even re-
spectacle English journals have more than
once used language which was calculated
to offend foreign Governn.ents. At the
time of the Orsini attempt this was so
marked that Louis Napoleon appealed to
Lord PalInerston for protection. He failed
to obtain any satisfaction. Palmerston re-
Piled as Lord Granville is said to have
done in the present case, that in England
it was not permitted to the Government to
interfere with the liberty of the press.
1t is therefore not altogether an uupre.
cedented offense which the FrejbeH has
committed. 1t is no doubt an abuse of the
large license awarded to the press, but we
doubt whether native journals have not
gone as far in times past. The Freibea is
a foreign journal, it is true, and it is
printed with view mainly to circulation
abroad. It has, it is averred, advocated
the assassination of various rulers, includ-
ing the President of the United States
The latter official, at least, is not likely to
demand vengeance, and, indeed, consider
ing the freedom with which such journals
as the Irish World, printed in New York,
have advocated the assassination of land
lords in Ireland. perhaps such requisi-
ton would not be in good taste on the part
of the United States. But if the English
Government is going into the business of
press censorship if it undertakes to de-
fend foreign governments against threats
or denunciations printed in London; if it
is to determine what shall and what shall
not be permissible in journalism then
most assuredly it is about to take step
backward, and one which must bring it
into endless difficulties.
The advocacy of assassination is abomi-
nable, but the English law provides ample
redress for all real journalistic ofenses.
and if this is one of them it must be punish
able through the established agencies.
The interference of the Government in
such case cannot but seem to warrant
the suspicion that this step has been in
duced by outside pressure, and that is
thought which has always been intolerable
to the English people They have ever
been much reader to engage in war, no
matter against WHIT odds, than to submit
to foreign dictation, and it must be ex-
tremely difficult to persuade them that
the suppression of the Frehea does
not indicate cowardly surrender of their
ancient privileges on the part Of the Gov
eminent. 1t is plain that the position of
the Ministers is very difficult on such
question. Abstractly speaking perhaps
every decent man ought to concur in the
suppression of an organ of assassination.
But this is not simple issue. 1t is
inextricably bound up with the questions
of the freedom of the press and of the right
of asylum. 1t is to be considered whether
the Government would have taken the
course it has if no pressure had been
brought to bear upon it from without. In
such case we may be almost certain that
it would have ignored the Freibet as it has
ignored other incendiary publications.
If it would have ignored the Freiheit
under other circumstances, however, it
follows that foreign pressure is after all re-
sponsible for its action, and this is likely
to be the view taken in England It may
be said that the previous cases cited, as
that of Mazzini, etc., are not analogous,
and in some respects this is true. But it
is clear that in these cases the Government
took every risk rather than violate the
national principle of asylum, and it is
equally plain that in the present instance
the Government has chosen to take no
risk. 1t is in effect liable to be construed