New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1895-03-26
An INSTRUMENT OF OPPRESSION

An INSTRUMENI OF OfThEcciON'
The attempt to remove Mr.. Dana to Washing
ton to be tried in a criminal court OF the District
of Columbia for libel on account OF an article
published in THE New-York Sun furnishes some
startling suggestions to all who are interested In
the freedom Of the press One or THESE Is that the
law Of seditious libel which Is generally under
stood to be practically extinct in this country,
still survives. and Uay be capable Of enforcement
in the most arbitrary and oppressive form against
the editors and publishers of every considerable
newspaper in the United States. IL Is not claimed
that Mr.. Dana has been personally in the Dis
trict of Columbia for years or that he has done
anything but edit and publish his newspaper In
the city of New-York He Is charged with vlolat-
ing the laws of the District Of Columbia because
some Of the papers published in New-York came
I'm the ordinary course OF business 10 be sold and
circulated in Washington. OF course, some copies
Of every important paper in the country find
their way to Washington IL any such paper con-
tans an article which Is a libel under the law OF
the District Of Columbia, the editor and publisher
may be arrested at their homes and taken to
Washington for trial just as lawfully as Mr.. Dana
can be taken there now
What is the law OF libel in the District Of CO.
lumbia? The United States Attorney was asked
by Mr. Dana's counsel. before Judge Brown the
other day, upon what statute Of the United States
the indictment against Mr. Dana was based. and
he answered that he knew Of no statute declaring
or defining the crime of libel in the District OF
Columbia except the act Of Congress OF February
o7 1so1 which continued In the District the COM
mon law OF Maryland as 1t then existed. lie also
conceded that he knew OF no statute Of Maryland
prior to February 81, 1901. which declared or de-
fined the crime Of libel except the provision Of
common law OF England as 1t existed on the 4th
Of July 1776 The law Of criminal libel In the
District OF Columbia, then, Is the law as It ex-
lsted I'm England before the American Revolution.
That law received its form from the Infamous
court of Star Chamber. and was the most terrible
OF all engines for the suppression OF free press
at the hands Of arbitrary and tyrannical power
Under IL any publication which tended TO produce
An III opinion of the administration Of the govern
ment was crime. 1t was clearly stated by LORD
Holt In Tucthin's case reported in IA State Trials.
1895 Tucthin had published some articles in
periodical called THE Observator charging that
the Ministry was corrupt and the Navy lii-Han-
aged. Lord Holt charged the jury as folIo"s'
They say they are innocent papers ana no
.ubcls and they say nothing IS "A libel but what
reflects upon some particular person But this
is very strange doctrine to say 1t Is not a lbel
rejecting on a Government endoavorins 70 pos
"sess the people that the government Is malad-
"ministered by corrupt persons that are en-
"ployed I'm such or such stations either in the
"Navy or Army To say that corrupt officers are
appointed 10 administer affairs is certainly re-
election upon the Government. IL people should
mot be called to account FOR possessing the peo-
..ple with an i'll opinion OF tho Government, no
Government subsist. For IL is very neces-
.sary for all governments that the people shall
have n good opinion OF them. And nothing can De
worse to any Government than TO endeavor TO
produce animosities as TO the management or III
This has always been looked upon as CRIME
and 70 Government can be safe without IL Is
punished Now. you are 70 consider whether
"these words have read to you do not tend to
"beget an III opinion Of the administration OF the
government" Tdcthn convicted.
In 1881 the publisher of The Craftsman" was
convicted for censuring in his newspaper the for-
eign policy OF the Government In reference 70 the
treaty then recently concluded with spain. In
ITO the bookseller who sold the celebrated letter
OF Junius to the King was convicted. In l''
Horne Tooke was convicted for publishing an ar
ticle which condemned the firing by the BRUSH
troops uuon the Americans at Lexington. In 1888
the Dean Of ST. Asaph's was convicted before
Lord Mansfield. against the strenuous and mag
nlAcent efforts OF Erskine. for publishing in
pamphlet "a dialogue between gentleman and a
farmer" which contained the most ordinary ex-
preston OF political views
The expression OF opinion. criticism and con-
demnation Of public measures and the conduct OF
public officers which Is permitted by the law o.
every state In this Union and BY the present Law
OF England would have been criminal under the
law OF England lr l776 and is, therefore. criminal
-dov In, ha Diqtr ~ ~ Judge
change that law in the district because ninety
four years ago Congress enacted that 1t should be
continued 1t Is safe to say that during the last
year every important newspaper in the country
has published scores of articles about our Ha-
waiian policy the Income Tax law. tho sugar
Trust scandal and other acts OF the Administa-
ton and OF Congress- which are lawful ana proper
criticisms in the state where the newspaper Is
published, but criminal libels In the Dis'rict
of Columbia. 1t certainly is matter Tor serious
consideration whethe any Administration has the
power TO enforce such IA law throughout the en-
tire country by taking persons charged uhuer II
from their homes to Washington to be tired there
before judges and by prosecuting oihcers whom
the Administration appoints ana Deiore Jures
selected and drawn by other appointees Of the
Administration from population largely depend
ent upon the Administration for its support. 1t
IL idle to say that Mr.. Clevelands Administration
would not attempt such a prosecution. we do
not feel too sure on this point about all the per-
sons welding administrative power In the City
OF Washington 1t is conceivable that In this
very proceeding the action Of public officers in
the city of Washington having the power to
prosecute is affected by Mr.. Danas hostile criti-
cisms OF the Cleveland Administration. Two ef-
forts have been made before this to take Mr..
Dana to Washington both Of which have been
clearly traceable to persons in official power In
that city.
But the reason why such disclaimer Is en-
filled 10 no weight rests upon a broader founda-