Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1886-07-08
A LIVING QUESTION.

The question What is freedom of
speech p Is becoming one of the most vital
of the day. With fine understanding
the people have with practical unanimity
declared that freedom Of utterance does not
mean freedom of conspiracy to overthrow
the Government That far we are all
agreed, but when it comes to censorship
of the rostrum and the press we approach
debatable ground. Here is a Chicago
contemporary saying:
The moment men can be carried away to
prison for what they think, a reign of terror is
preeipitated. in which only informers thrive
II Is a pity such questions should come here to
this free and blessed land But they have come
We must ditferentiate between oratory and con-
spiracy- A body of men who found it necessary
TO hold secret councils in America-of all lands
must have been criminals at least If il can
be proved, TO the satisfaction of the law, that
they did crime, their punishment should be
exemplary, That VIII preserve human liberty
But need conspiracy possess the element
Of secresy? The orator who breaches the
sanctity of conspiracy against the Govern
ment passes beyond the freedom accorded
to speech, since we cannot conceive of
constitutional guarantees to plot the over
throw Of the very instrument that secures
the so-called freedom. We have peaceful
methods of revolution, operating through
the baIlot-box. All that propose any diff
ferent medium for the attainment of an
end are from the beginning criminal. 1t
was attempted in the Constitution to
sharply draw the distinction between words
and acts, but it is perfectly clear that it
was not, and cannot he so successfully done
as to ft every case. The preaching of
treason is an act unquestionably. Now,
Indictment to forcible revolution by words
is an act TO do harm TO citizens, and there
fore punishable in the Courts. How
then do we limit the right Of genuine
free speech by prohibiting that, the
results of which become criminal
True, this presupposes the lodgment in
some intelligence Of power and right of
judgment as to what is likely to so result,
and herein lies the danger. But which is
the greater i'll, the risk assumed by pre-
vention or the evil certain to follow the
results? If. as we certainly may, prohibit
the assembling of men TO conspire against
the Government, do we rot thereby and at
once cut short the right of free speech
That all men should be free to say what
they please is the very rock of foundation
OF our form Of Government. The question
now is, Can any limitation to this liberty.
be safely applied? Shall we hold men res
sponsible for the consequences, the natural
results, in acts. and give them perfect
liberty to go on producing these results.
In Bunyan's inimitable allegory, one stands
before CRATE casting on water, and Chris
tian murvels that the fire burns the
brighter. But his amazement is at an end
when he is shown by his guide another
behind the CRATE pouring oil upon the
flames. Just how far does that illustra
ton fit the question in hand 1t has
been clear enough to this time that all
manner of gag laws are intolerable, but it
is by no means clear now that we shall
under the cover of free speech permit one
man to incite another to commit crime.
But Just where to draw the line and in
whom to repose the awful trust of dis
eliminating between what is and what is
not Indictment, is living question of the
,f,v