Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1888-02-21
EXECUTIONS AND THE LIBERTY OF
THE PRESS.

I0GSO 14SUc AM LIE L1bEhI1 UE
THE PRESS.
Replying to this journals advocacy of the
principle OF the New Jersey bill forbidding
under penalty for neutrality-suspicious.
of sensational accounts of executions, our
valued contemporary, the MarysvilIe Ap-
peal, says:
1t may be better to have executions private
than public, aud the Legislature has an nm
doubted right to make them private. But the
truth remains that no Legislature should have
the right TO say what events the press shall or
shall not publish with attention to details, 1t
was 70 the denial of any such right of reStric-
ton that the AppedtS article was directed This
paper does not contend for sensational" re-
ports OF anything, bnt the RECoRD-USloN should
not be sensational" If the principle were
admitted that Legislatures should have the
right to prohibit the publication of particulars
OF any public event, who could say where the
application OF night would stop?
Originally, as We understood ii, the chief
objection of the appeal to the bill, was
that the limitation would prevent public
knowledge of events relating to executions,
essential for the people to know, that these
scenes may not become more revolving.
The idea was that publicity was conserv-
ator of carefulness and humanity on the
part of officials. The appeal dwells with
more particularly now upon the danger
OF the supposed previous restraints to be
laid upon publication. When our con-
temporary admits that it is better that
executions be carried out in private, and
that the Legislature has L" an undoubted
right to make them private" it gives away
Its case The right and propriety being
conceded, il follows that the legislative
Judgment as to what is private and proper
must be the one only standard. If, there
fore, that representative body judges that
newspaper Observation-Disclosures use the gem
eral term-defeats the end of privacy, it
may declare it to be unlawful.
The Appeal hastens to disavow advocacy
of sensational reports, yet that is all at
which the New jersey bill strikes. 1t ex-
piicitly and afirmatively declares that the
press may publish the fact, the official re
cord, the verdict of the witnesses provided
10y the law, and be protected in so doing.
What more need the public know? Is it
essential TO the liberty of the press that it
shall be permitted to indulge in the sickly
sentimental twaddle that has so long char
acterized reports by the sensational news
papers of executions? After admitting the
right and propriety of legislation to secure
privacy of executions, our worthy con-
temporary perplexes US by asking in the
next breath if the right to prohibit publi-
cation OF particulars of any public event is
conceded. who shall say where the appli-
cation of the right would stop? Legisla-
tive discretion is limited by the Constitu-
ton as interpreted by the Courts when it
invades an inalienable right, a constitu-
tional guarantee, the judicial arm of the
Government intervenes. The people them
selves, the authors and source of all legis-
lativ e power, stand behind it, for it is but
the reflection of the sovereign will, and the
sovereign is the people. If we cannot trust
our liberties to them, then confidence can
be reposed in none.
But, says the appeal:
Why should they not prohibit the publication
OF the details of murders, suicides robberies
ana All other crimes, for the reason that such
publication may be supposed TO tend to the in
crease of crime? Why not prohibit even re
ports of trials of or inlnsl ofenses beyond the
mere mention of the result?
If our contemporary will overhaul its
knowledge of the law it will find that
there are very many so-called "restric-
lions " upon publication already, and that
neither public justice nor the liberties of
the people have suffered in consequence.
The law of our system excludes the press
from executive sessions of one of the
branches of the legislative arm; it wisely
closes the door to impertinent inquiry into
the use Of secret service funds of the Fed
eral and every State Government; it pro-
hibits examination of documentary proofs
IN divorce cases, and shuts the portals
of the Courts against the press in
scandalous trials. 1t permits any commits
sion to hold sessions without notice to the
press, and leaves only the cold record of
their Secretaries for newspapers to publish.
In short, the law does not provide for the
press being taken into partnership In any
official proceeding. Whatever publication
the superior authority-the people, through
their chosen representatives-deem to be
opposed to public policy, injurious to the
morals of the people and subversive of
peace and order, they may and do prohibit
within the constitutional limits Thus
New York expressly prohibits certain put
locations, and authorizes the seizure Of