New Ulm weekly review. [volume] (New Ulm, Minn.) 1878-1892, 1891-08-05

tne postmaster upon evidence SATISFACTORY
to himself" Yet this evidence cannot be
obtained, SO the statute is careful to say by
opening the letter. Oh, no; that would be
breach Of confidence; and, besides, it is ex-
pressly prohibited by law. Then how is the
postmaster to ''obtain evidence which is
satisfactory to himself?" He is to GUESS,
just guess? A private citizen who libels
SANDER evidence OF the truth of his state
ment which is merely satisfactory to HIM
self" 1fthis were so, 1t would vastly SIM
plliy many a libel case. This evidence
must be satisfactory also to o Jury of IL
men, but it is different with the postmaster.
most upright business man in the land on
the M ere suspicion and be held not in the
least accountable. The proprietor of
newspaper who fails, perhaps through the
death of witnesses or through some other
accident, to establish the truth of charges
made in the interest of the public, from
good motives and for justiiable ends, is
none the less mulcted in damages, but your
postmaster, no indeed. He can libel any
body from any motive or for any end, and
when he is called to account he is sure to
have '.evidence satisfactory to himself"
Again. the provisions of the statute are
not restricted to the mailing Of lottery tick
cover much wider category OF any
scheme" in fact or "dovice, for obtaining
money OF any kind through the mails, by
means OF false or fraudulent pretenses or
promises is equally prohibited, and all tho
subterfuges and devices of the statutes are
equally applicable in this as in the case of
the lottery.
Now, at first blush. there seems to be
we'll meaning provision. Lottery compa-
MES are not necessarily fraudulent, whereas
ali such schemes, such as described in the
section, undoubtedly are-but who is to be
the Judge OF whether or not they ere fraud
ulent? The court and jury? Not bit OF it.
The postmaster, again. He can put his lit
tie stamp on the printed envelope of an in
surance company or bank if he is not salts
he'd with the ''pretenses or promises upon
which they are doing business. But he will
not?' Why not? He has the power. What
guaranty have ~e that he win not abuse 1t?
Postmasters are not always obliging or
just. Newspapers have found that out to
their cost long ago. But to what proper
tons will the petty exactlons of conse-
Guential officials and their employees rise
when these added powers are in lull opera
ton?
Suppose the case-every newspaper man
knows how possible such case is-of the
business manager ofa newspaper who, in
entire good iaith, accepts the advertisement
or prospectus of some land improvement
company, which turns out as matter of
fact, to be mythical. HIS is liable to arrest.
his good faith and the absence of any in
tent to commit the crime This we will
concede. Though why he should be put
to this inconvenience by the postoffice de-
partment we cannot imagine. But how
about the edition OF his paper in which the
unfortunate advertisement appears? 1t
will not be delivered. 1t may contain news
OF the greatest importance to itssubscribers
the sentiments OF the greatest thinkers and
moralists of the day, but because of this one
| advertiser ent-the true character of which
the publi> hers of the paper could not pos
s1bly be expected to know any more than
the public it was designed to decieve-it is
excluded from the mails,
However, II one class of advertisement is
to be excluded, why not any other? Could
not, indeed, will not the law be extended
to take in medical advertisements, those Of
wine and liquor houses, in fact all adver-
| tisements Of any character except those Of
church or lodge meetings? 1t is easy to see
that the tendency of such legislation is to
seriously abridge the liberty, of the press,
besides deprving it of its legitimate reve-
nues without due process of law.
The mail service. we repeat is the eF
elusive franchise of the general government,
restrictions and conditions. What, then.
becomes OF the liberty OF the press? Evil
IDENTIFY the men who framed this bill
thought little, or cared less about the lfRer-
ty Of a press in the habit of criticisfng
their acts. But the public has an interest
in the press. and newspaper men have a
right to carry on their busin ess without in
reference except by the due process OF law,
The constitution expressly declares not
only that this liberty shall not be de-
stroyed, but also that it shall not be
| abridged.
And why is the liberty of the press
| abridged? Simply to suppress lottery
| company incorporated under the laws of
| the State of Louisiana. These laws have
| never been declared unconstitutional. The
| right of the State OF Louisiana to authorize
or maintain q lottery company has never
| been questioned. The supreme court OF tho
state has in TACT declared that the question
| Of the extension OF the company's charter
| is properly before the people, and no one
! doubts but that this extension will be rati-
| tied by as large vote as cast at the last
election lor that purpose. The State OF
| Louisiana its charities and its works Of
| improvement receive large sums yearly
| from the revenue of the lottery, and it IS
| absurd to say in this land OF raff1es and
church fairs that the State OF Louisiana has
no moral right to maintain lottery. Any
number of governments and states have
approved OF lotteries whether conducted
for private gain or for the public benefit.
! 1t is rather late in the day to import such
| new distinctions into the practical business
OF carrying On government.
| Besides, who can tell where this prose-
T lytisn, through the postotice will stop?
Shall Maine impose her prohibition laws
upon wine growing California? Shall the
Sunday laws OF Connecticut be saddled
upon those states, whose history, the very
character OF their populations. lead them
to regard Sunday day to be differently OBJ
served? All these questions are matters OF
| opinion. oten OF theological opiniQ6,
| questions which are at leas. open to debate,
and yet it might be sought. through the
postotfice department, to make thShn the
| rule Tor all.
| Nothing could be more monstt ous, nor,
| in the light of history, so absurdi In 1886,
law similar to the present one was intro
duced in congress. TO, bidding the delivery
of seditious documents relative to slavery.
| Senator. afterwards President Buchanan,
| supported the law; Daniel Webster opposed
1 it. But what were these seditious docu-
ments? They were the criticisms of the
| Abolitionists upon slavery as it then exist
| ed in.the Southern states.
The bill proposed to fnuzzle these express
sions OF public opinion was undoubtedly