Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1886-01-08
THE RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH.

The proposed ordinance regarding sand
lot meetings in San Francisco engages
daily more and more of thoughtful atten-
ton. And that the subject is being de-
bated dispassionately indicates the extreme
Jealousy with which the American people
regard any attempt whatever to trespass
upon their sacred rights. We have be-
heved that the ordinance in question is in
the interest of peace and good order, and
that it is justified by the Interpretation
lately given to the law by the Supreme
Court of the United States At the same
time, the idea of limiting the guaranteed
sacred right of free speech would be intol-
cradle. "Gag laws" are repulsive to the
genius of American institutions. The
people viii not, and should not, tolerate
them. There is broad distinction. how
ever, between the right and duty of the
local legislatures of municipalities to con-
serve the public peace and prosperity, and
the right of any citizen to occupy the
grounds of city building for the purpose
of noisily haranguing, and indulging in
such invective and inflammatory language
as is likely to provoke breach of the
public peace. In the refusal to permit
public squares to be pre-empted for such
purposes, there is not, of necessity, in
volved the suppression of the right to
assemble and discuss public grievances.
But if the practical result of the proposed
order should be to prohibit constitutional
right of the citizen. it must go to the wall,
and the right remain supreme. As to
whether or not the utterances upon the
sand lots have been harmful, and are evil
or tend to provoke a disturbance of the
peace-these are questions of fact to be
determined according to the best obtaina-
bic evidence. Official power must never be
clothed in this country with such authority
as to encroach upon the inaleinable right
of the freeman. There is expressed the
opinion by some of our contemporaries at
San Francisco that the ordinance pro-
posed to be adopted is in the direction of
such encroachment. If judicial interpre-
tatlon and calm examination shall so de-
termine, that will be an end of the matter.
The Courts stand as bulwark between
the right of free speech and all attempts
to narrow or negative it. 1t is not there
fore, matter to excite any fear, for so well
grounded are the individual rights of the
citizen under our system, that no munich
pal legislation is competent TO overthrow
them. The Constitution of the United
States does not itself define what is free
dom OF speech. The Interpretation of the
first amendment-ratified December. 1871
rests upon long line of undisturbed
decisions of the highest judicial tribunals
of the land, and we entertain no fear that
they can be now shaken. And in precisely
the same situation are the unexpressed
rights retained by the people And so we
repeat there can come no possible harm
from the enactment of the proposed ordi-
nance. 1t does not, we think, abridge the
right of free speech, and il appears to us
to be warranted by the decision of the
United States Supreme Court of January
4th, that State may prevent armed as
semolagess for, as we understand it, those
OF the sand-lot are frequently and openly
armed.