St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1893-01-20
THE PRESS FREEDOM.
A Recent Decision of the Supreme
Court Which Has Deal
y" of Meaning.
Blow at the Newspapers Of the
Country Which Merits
Attention.


yet one which is deliberately made,
without any qualification whatever, that
under the constitution of the United
States. as lately construed by the SUI
preme court. congress possesses the
same cenSOrlal and deSpotic power over
the intellectual contents of all cOmmu-
nications, written or printed, open or
under seal. which pass through the
mail, that was exercised at the end of
the middle ages under those European
systems which denied the right of all
literature to circulate, save "Such as
should be first seen and allowed"
Thus writes HannIs Taylor in the
North American Review for December,
1892, under the above heading. Also
luteiy true as Mr.. Taylor'S statement
is, it can hardly be called startling, for
years ago the possibility of the con-
structiOn against which he inveighs
alarmed discerning and thoughtful citi-
zenS, and the construction itself has at
last been reached only by ruthleSSly
disregarding many earnest pro-
tests from wise and clear
sighted patriots. The establishment
of an inquistorial censorship by the de-
clSion of the supreme court i'll the free
dOm-of-the-press cases has not come
upon US suddenly nor Unexpectedly.
We have been prepared for it by twenty
years of persistent disregard of conSti
tutiOnal guarantees by the lower courts
in similar cases; and whatever of aEXi-
ETY. the decision may have inspired i'll
the minds of liberty-lOving Americans
they have become accustomed to, by a
long series of outrageous inquisitOrial
cases, until the constitution, as safe
guard of liberty, has become practi-
Caliy useless, and its principal purpose
seems to be to ornament the clap-trap
of demagOgueS and em6elliSh Fourth of
July OratOry Mr.. TaylOr'S structure is
much too mild to do adequate justice to
a uSuTDatiOn which, as he very truly
says, hampers the progress of our times
with conditions of the middle ages. The
laws thus upheld by the supreme court
in the observation-disclosures cases forbid
admission to the mails of two classes of
matter. First, matter relating to lot
Uerles, and, secondly, so-ealled OIL
scene matter. 1t is curious
fact that while the protests
of 7disnterested patriotic citizens in.
Guided both these classes of cases on
broad general grounds, the practice in
our courts has almost universally shown
lottery law defending attorneys have
conceded the justice and constitu-
tionaity of the law as applicable to OBJ
scenity, but denied its application to
lotteries, ana i'll prosecutions against
obscenity- defending counsel have
granted the right and c0nstitutionality
of the law when applied to lotteries, but
commended against its application to
their especial cases.
This weakness of lawyers has been
productive of great mischief. for all
laws of this nature are so obnoxious to
the principle of Americansn, and so
defantly yi0lative of constitutional
rights, that an admission of their pro-
priety as to one class of cases is giving
away of a constitutional safeguard in
the other class. 1t is greatly to be re-
GREETED that Mr.. Taylor, whose very
erudita brief i'll the Rapier case has
furnished some of the most cogent
points for his mastery article, has
fallen into this error. He says:
stitutional statute forbidding the cir
culatiOn through the mail OF immoral
and obscene literature expressly pro-
vided that in all such cases the fact
whether the contents OF any given pub
LEGATION is immoral or obscene can only
be considered and passed upon by
jurieS alone;" and he cites the case of
rheUnited States VS.. Bennett as lead
ing case. Now, the case OF The United
States VS.. Bennett is i'll no sense Lead
ing case. unless fragrant, WantOn viola
ton of all known principles of law cOu-
stitutes leading case. Mr.. Bennett was
prosecuted for mailing an alleged OBJ
scene book. The book was "Cupid's
YOkeS." of which several enormous
editions were sold through the most
reputable booksellers in the land. 1t
was in no sense obscene, nor was there
any suggestion of obScenity about 1t.
The indictment utterly failed to set
forth any substantial charge of OBJ
scenity, and the defendant was not
Informed of the nature and cause of
| the accusation against him." nor did he
know what he would be called upon to
meet until upon the trial he was con-
fronted with passages marked with
| pencil in the book.
These passages were not what the
| defendant mailed. Hemailed the whole
book. but by the trick of separating
| these passages from their context and
putting false Interpretation upon
| them the pretense of obScenity was
maintained, and by refusing him the
right of proving the purity of his in
| tentionS. by withholding from the jury
| all information which they might nave
gained by comparison of the book in
| question with standard writings, by
permitting prejudice to be unduly eX-
| cited by the introduction OF matters
! foreign to the issues and by submitting
| to them the vague question of the tend
ency" of the book, conviction was OBJ
| tanned. Ii is also remarkable that np0n
a trial OF precisely the same issues IN
another case before another Judge the
action was dismissed as entirely ground
I less The underlying reason for this
! conviction was that Mr.. Bennett had
| excited the luminosity of certain ortho-
| dOX theOiogianS by his publication of a
| very radical free thought paper which
| they were endeavoriug by means of his
! conviction to suppress. In this case,
| therefore, obseenity was merely pre-
/ text for conviction.
! Referring to this conviction, one OF
| these theologianS made use of the fol-
lslnwiug extraordinary language: DE
| ceiving them! l tell you, gentlemen. l
l. believe in deceit when you have a right
/. fnl enemy to Destroy" OF tie book
/ Charles Devens, then attorney general
I of the United States. said: In regard
TO the book itself. while it seems to me
! publication not desirable to be made,
| | am aware that there may be much diff
| ference of opinion upon the subject. and
| do not confound it with those obscene
! publications the effect and object of
which IS to excite the Imagination and
intiame the passions" OF the trial
/ Charles Bradlaugh said: Il trust it
may be the last of its kind in America. 7"
Col. Robert IT, Ingersoll SAID i'll a letter
to mir. Bennett: Livery man on the
Jury that convicted you committed a
crime. You have violated no law.
committed no wrong. and made no be-
ing unhappy" The so-called trial of
MIR. Bennett was one of the most afro
cious pieces of judicial rascallty ever
perpetrated in this country. Inc case
of The United States vs.. Bennett Is not
leading case. | have been thus eX-
pIicit. not merely to refute MIR. Taylor's
assumption that it is a leading case, but
to emphasize the principle winch lies at
the foundation of the whole business,
which is that our government has abso-