St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1893-01-20
utely no concern with the private
\, nrnIc Of khn ir,di idrnnI nitirnt,

OuuCt IllO " pOoI-
offices and post roads conferred upon
congress in order that the citizen might
have the utmost facility for obtaining
extensive and varied information,
whereby to regulate his own morals
and conduct his own affairs. congress
has usurped the function of inquiring
into the morals and affairs OF every one
who contideS either to the mails. This
case of Benefits is an example OF the
readiness with which religious fanatics
seize upon such laws as means of &C
complishing Ievenges upon their OPP
pOnents, and should be warning
against permitting the state to arrogate
to Itself a censorship in such matters.
The question has been asked: Free
mails, or moral mails. whicn@' If moral
mails; whose morals? In this lies the
danger, that the most Ignorant, narrow
and intolerant in any community are
always the ones who wish to regulate
morals in accordance with their own
standards, and when the regulation of
morals is once entered upon there can
be no discrimination upon moral
grounds between acts which may be
legally right and similar acts which
may be legally wrong; and often when
fanaticlsm raises the cry of mad
dog" after an innocent victim,
ignorant superstition is Mortified by the
cry, and conviction is galned.aS Ill the
Bennett case. If American independ-
ence means anything, it stands for the
right of private Judgment in morals. Ii
a person sends me lottery circular or
an offensive letter. | want to receive
that circular or letter just as it was sent
to me. L do not want an official to pry
into my correspondence to ascertain
whether i'll his opinion it is good or bad
for my morals. | will determine the
moral question for myself, and. If l do
not like the matters sent me IN the mails.
L nave an ample and complete re medY
by throwing them i'll my waste basket.
Of1clat interference i'll such matters is
an outrageous Impertlnence. MI. lay
Tor makes another error III saying that
the act against the circulation of i'm
moral literature was not drawn Ill
parOXySm of excitement.
The drafting of the act certainly
shows gross incompetency on the part
of whoever did it, and the confused,
contradictory. irreconcilable tumble of
decisions under it proves that no two
Judges have understood its purport in
the same way. AS an actual fact. this
law was passed amid the confusion
and debauchery of the closing hours OF
the most corrupt congress ever con-
Vened IN this country. OF the close OF
this coSgreSs the New York Sun said
edtorially March 5, 1878: This is the
congress which some Maeaulay of the
next century will describe as more in
famous than that parliament which
originated Laws celebrated Mississippi
Scheme, and more corrupt than those
parliamentS which Walpoie used to
purchase as he bought MerIno sheep
u lon ri. En- nlY h 10 ytnrr
in Sussex" and the New York Times
of the same date said: The Forty-sec-
ond congress, which finally adjourned
at noon yesterday, took part during its
term in some of the most important
parts of our recent history. Pub
lie attention is now fixed on the exciting
and painful scenes in the midst of
which it closed its career" And snch
is the testimony, Dot OF the partisan
press merely, but of all the newspapers
in the country universally. 1t is therefore
prepOSterOuS to attribute to the congress
which enacted this law any intelligent
design whatever in doing so.
1t is difficult to see wherein the law
under which Mr.. Taylor came into
court differs in its entertainments upon
the constitution from the original law
of 1875 If the law of 1878 was not di-
the freedom of the press, then the word
abridgment has no meaning. If Mr..
Tayior'S argument is worth anything,
the first amendment nullitieS the law Of
1878 tOthe same extent and in the same
way as it nuliheS all similar laws SubSe-
quently passed. Notwithstanding dicta
TO the contrary, l maintain that the COM
mon law of Eng land never took cogniZ-
ance of immoral publications, but juris-
dictiOn in such matters was assumed by
the ecclesiastical authorities, who diScl-
pinned men for the health of their souls
and uSurped the power to regulate prl-
vate morals very much as the theolo-
gians endeavored to regulate Mr.. Ben
nett'S morals. jefferson said $40 suf-
fer the civil magistrate to intrude his
powers into the field of opinion. and to
restrain the profession or propagation
of principles on the SuppOSitiOn of their
ill-tendency, is dangerous fallacy,
which at once destroys all religious lib
erty. 1t is time enough for the rightful
purposes of civil government for its
officers to interfere when principles
! break out into overt acts against peace
and good order" The growth of the
censorship has been steady and persist
ent since the passage of the first of
these laws in 1878. In those days earnest
men pointed to the little cloud, mo
bigger than mans hand" which arose
in the horizon, portending mischief, and
they quoted the words of Jefferson:
I'VE should take alarm at the first en-
croachment upon our Liberties" The
mischief has Increased, as MIR. Taylor
has aoly shown. Must we await the
storm-b burst before we reach the inevita-
Bile fulfllment of MIR. Taylor's prophecy
at a time when 1.-The despotic and
| irresponsible power over opinion will
be applied to some subject which will
arouse and quicken the public COLI
! science?" Ed w. CHAMBERLAIN.