Los Angeles herald., 1891-07-08

the paper could not possibly be expected to
know any more than the public 1t was designt d
to deceive-it is Excluded from the mails.
However, III one class of advertisement is to
be excluded why not any other? Could not, in
deed will not, the law be extended to take in
medical advertisements, those of wine and
liquor houses, in fact all advertisements of any
character exc pit those of church or lodge meet
ings? 1t is easy to see that the tendency of such
legislation is to seriously abridge the liberty of
the press, beside depriviDg IL of its legitimate
revenues without due process of law.
The mail service, we repeat, is the exclusive
franchise of the general government, and yet
1t is to be administered under these restrictions
and conditions What. then, becomes of the
framed this bill, thought little or cared less,
about the liberty of press in the habit of criti
cising their acts. But the public have an in
right to carry ON their business without inter
ference except by the due process of law. The
constitution expressly declares not only that
this liberty shall not be destroyed, but also that
it shall not be abridged.
And why is the liberty of the press abridged?
Simply to suppress lottery company incorpor-
ated under the laws of the state of Louisiana.
These laws have never been declared unconsti-
tutional The right of the state of Louisiana to
authorize or maintain a lottery company has
never been questioned. The supreme court of
the state has in fact declared that the question
of the extension of the company's charter is
properly before the people, and no one doubts
largeal vote cast at the last election for that
purpose. The state of Louisiana, its charities
and its works OF improvement receive large
sumo yearly from the revenue of the lottery.
and it is absurd to say in this land of raffies and
church fairs that the state of Louisiana has no
moral right to maintain lottery. Any number
of governments and states have approved of lot
teries whether conducted for private gain or for
the public benefit 1t is rather late in the day
to import such new distinctions into the practi-
cal business OF carrying on government.
Besides, who can tell where this proselytism
through the postoffice will end Shall Maine
impose her prohibition laws upon winegrowing
n hn do In nfN Nnn-
necticut be saddled upon those states whose
history, the very character of their popula-
tions, lead them to regard Sunday as day to
are matters Of opinion, often of theological
opinion; questions which are at least open to
debate; and yet it might be sought, through the
postoffice department, to make them the rule
for all
Nothing could be more monstrous, nor, in the
light of history, SO absurd In 1886 law sim
liar to the present one was introduced in con-
gress. forbidding the delivery of seditiOus docu-
ments relative to slavery. Senator, afterwards
President, Buchanan supported the law; Daniel
Webster opposed it. But what were these sedi-
tious documents? They were the criticisms of
the abolitionists upon slavery as 1t then existed
in the southern states.
The bill proposed to muzzle these expressions
of public opinion, was undoubtedly blow at
the liberty of the press. 1t failed of enactment.
Does any one doubt, if the same measure had
come up later, say in 1862, that what would
have been considered 'seditious documents
would be reflections upon the right of the north
to deprive the south Of their property in slaves
without their consent and without compensa-
tion. Few now question that the aboli-
tion of slavery has been blessing
to this country and was. dictated by the
| best sentiment of humanity. But how was
| this sentiment aroused but through the press?
And how was it proposed to nullify this senti-
ment but by just such means as we are now in
voked to enforce the opinions OF dominant
| party, which even If toey do not vary with re-
| gard to this matter, are certain to do SO with
regard to great many questions which fall
1t is impossible however, that the supreme
| court of the United States can uphold such a
| statute, however much it may care to do so.
| Such a decision would not only be contrary to
all its precedents, and contrary to the organic
| law Of the land, but. were 1t lived up to- would
make life in the republic we'll nigh intolerable.
statute, saps the very foundation of liberty in
| substituting for the despotism of the absolute
monarch the oppression and tyranny of parti-
san power intrenched behind the irresponsible
| authority of its officers.
| During the Mexican war communication be-
| tween the troops under General Scott and the
government at Washington was y very imperfect;
| and reports could be transmitted to and from
| the seat of war.
| It so happened that although the then domin-
| ant party who opposed General Scott succeeded
! in securing his removal from the command OF
| the army the order to that effect did not reach
| him until after the City of Mexico had capitu-
lated.
1t is needless to state that the hero of this
brilliant campaign wag Immediately re-instat-
ed and as little possible said about the injus-
| tice done him. General scott made, however,
| this one remark:
'"The long arm of power" he said. "has taken
me away from the head of my troops"
The eplthet as applied TO the general govern
ment is certainly expressive "The long arm
| of power" is not always accompanied with WIS.,
| ion, foresight or self control. 1t sometimes
impatience to act, overrides liberty and justice.
San Francisco Cal, Examiner.