Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1895-03-30


cept the provision of the Maryland con-
stltution, which adopted the common law
OF England as it existed on the 4th of
July, 1875 The law of criminal libel in
the District of Columbia, then, is the law
as 1T existed in England before the Ameri-
can 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 a free press
at the hands of arbitrary and tyrannical
power. Under it any publication which
tended to produce an i'll opinion Of the adj
ministration of the government was a
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 Observa-
tor, charging that the ministry was cor
rupt and the navy i'll managed. Lord
Holt charged the jury as follows: "They
say they are innocent papers and no libels,
and they say nothing is a libel but what
reflects upon some particular person. But
this is a very strange doctrine to say it
is not libel rejecting on government
endeavoring to possess the people that the
government is maladministered by cor
rupt persons that are employed in such or
such stations either in the navy or army
To say that corrupt Off GERS are appointed
to administer affairs is certainly re-
Election upon the government. If people
should not be called to accou Mt for pos
sessing the people with an i'll opinion of
the government, no government can sub
sist For it is very necessary for all gov
e,nments that tho people shall have good
| mi of ND
w )rse to any government than to endeav-
or to produce animosities as to the man
agement of it; this has always been looked
b. safe without it is punished. Now, you
are to consider whether these words | have
read to you do not tend to bcget an ill
opinion of the administration of the gov
eminent" Tucthin was convicted
| In 1871 the publisher of the Craftsman
was convicted for censuring in the news
paper the foreign policy of the government
| in reference to the treaty then recently
concluded with Spain. In ITO the book
seller who sold the celebrated letter of
Junius to the king was convicted. In
1777 Horne Tooke was convicted for pub
fishing an article which condemned the
firing by the British troops upon the
|
| Dean of st. Asaph's was convicted before
Lord Mansfield, against the strenuous and
| magnificent efforts of Erskine, for pub
| fishing in a pamphlet "a Dialogue Be
ween Gentleman and a Farmer which
contained the most ordinary expression
of political views.
The expression of opinion, criticism and
condemnation of public measures and tht
| S,f nfffcprs
mitted by the law of every state in this
Union and by the present law of England
would have been criminal under the Law
Of England in 1776, and is, therefore
criminal today in the District of Column
bia. No JUDGE can change that law il
the District, because ninety four years age
Congress enacted that it should be con
tinued. 1t is safe to say that during the
last year every important newspaper IL
the country has published scores of ar
ticles about our Hawaiian policy, the in
come tax law, the sugar trust scandal, AND
other acts of the administration and OF
| Congress, which are lawful and proper
criticisms in the state where the newspa-
par is published, but are criminal libels
in the District of Columbia. 1t certain
ly is matter for serious consideration
whether any administration has the power
to enforce such law throughout the en-
tire country by taking persons charge I'M
| der it from their homes to Washington, to
be tried there before judges and by prose
cutting officers whom the administration
appoints, and before iurles selected and
drawn by other appointees of the admin
istration from population largely Deepen
dent upon the administration for its sup
mort. It is idle to say that Mr.. Cleveland's
administration would not attempt such
a prosecution. We do not feel too sure
on this point about all the pers OBS WELD
| ing administrative power in the city OF
Washington 1t is conceivable that in this
very proceeding the action of public OIL
GERS In the city of Washington having the
power to prosecute is affected by Mr..
| Dapas hostile criticisms of the Cleveland
administration. Two efforts have been
made before this to take Mr.. Dana to
Washington, both of which have been
clearly traceable to persons in official pow
er in that city.
| But the reason why such disclaimer is
entitled to no weight rests upon broad
er foundation than any consideration re-
lating to the present case Liberty is
matter of right, not of administration
1t matters little how harmless may be the
action proposed in any particular case ip
which power is asserted, If the power
asserted be arbitrary power If its asser-
ton under any circumstances would be
| inconsistent with liberty of the person
or Of the press there is no safety but in
prompt and uncompromising denial OF
the right to exercise it in any case. Once
Welded to and established upon the firm
| footing of judicial precedent. it cannot
well be lawfully disputed. II is liable
to be made at any time an instrument OF
oppression The assertion now made Of
the power to take the editor of newspa
per from his home to the District OF Col
umbia to try him for an article IN his
newspaper which constitutes libel IN
der the laws of that district Is a threat
against the liberty of the prsss in every
state of the Union. The establishment
of that power would limit, infringe upon.
and reduce the liberty of the press The
time to protect and defend that liberty Is
now. when the power is asserted. by o
universal and indignant denial that such
a power exists in any case whatever.
rs-a poochar Hooker. Mrs. Har-