The Hawaiian gazette., 1891-09-01
FREEDOM OF THE PRESS.

The courts are to be called upon
to determine whether the Legisla-
ture has any constitutional right or
power to restrict the liberty of the
press by making it crime to pub
lish the details of an execution. 1t
is great principle that is involv-
ed, but the issue raised is one-sided.
The constitution of New York
contains this declaration
Every citizen NAV freely write, speak
and publish his sentiments on all sub
iects, being responsible for the abuse OF
that right, and no law shall be passed
to restrain or abrige the liberty of speech
or of the press.
A similar declaration is embod-
led in the constitution of the
United States and in that of every
other State in the Union. 1t is a
fundamental principle of our insti-
buttons, an essential of republican
government. With this freedom
guaranteed there can be no tyr
amy, no despotism, no star cham
Der secrecy in public affairs. Every
public officer, every official act,
every proceeding in the making
and the administration of the law
is open to publication, discussion
and criticism.
That is right which the people
have reserved to themselves in
their fundamental law. No Legis-
lature has any power to infringe
it. No court can rightly impair it.
Law makers and judges must bow
to it as to the commanding voice of
the people.
When the Legislature declared
that no details of an execution be-
yond the fact that the convict was
executed should be published in
any newspaper it violated the car
dinal principle of our institutions,
the priced guaranty in our fun
damental law that the freedom of
the press shall not be restrained or
abridged. Such n statute is a vio-
lation of the Constitution of the
State, and hence can have no vital
ity or rightful force.
No one denies or questions the
power of the Legislature to control
the press within certain limits
which are well recognized. News
papers are forbidden to publish lot
terry advertisements. 1t is criminal
to print obscenity. Statutes against
Hbellous publications have been en-
acted. These laws do not infringe
the liberty of the press. They are
aimed at the abuse of that freedom.
But the Legislature has no more
Constitutional right to prohibit
newspaper from publishing an ac-
count of an execution in Sing Sing
than 1t would have to forbid the
publication of an account of an exc
cutlon in Paris, murder in New
York, mob in New Orleans, or
battle in Chill.
The number of persons permitted
to witness an execution may be
limited, but law can seal their lips
when they leave the prison or en-
join secrecy upon newspapers with
out violating the Constitutional
guaranty of freedom of speech and
liberty of the press.
In this country the people have
as much right to know how their
laws are enforced within prison
walls as they have to know how
they are made in legislative halls
or administered in courts. A star
chamber execution is repugnant to
the American idea of government.
The function of an eXecutioner is
no more to be yelled with secrecy
than is the function of a Judge
Both are public officials, servants
of the people. The doings of one
as we'll as of the other are fit mat
ters for publicity.
The Importance of this principle
is we'll illustrated by the very ex-
ecutions which have given rise to
the discussion. They were practic-
allythe first test OF the new mode
of inficting the death penalty. Net
only New York but the world
awaited the result with keen inter
est. Was the experiment a success
or failure? Was death Instant
aneous and painless? Was there
brutality or torture? Was cleo
tricity proved preferable to the
gallows? These are vital questions
which might have remained unan-
swered had the press cowed before
the law which attacked its liberty.
Such a law mas no proper place
on an American statute book.
Popular sentiment demands its re-
peal by the Legislature. Consti-
tutionaI considerations cali for its
annulment by the courts.-[New
Y