The Ohio Democrat. (Logan, O. [Ohio]) 1886-1906, 1897-09-28
For whom Is Freedom Of
Speech.

1t is announced that Louise Michel
ore of the smoothest tongued anar-
chists of Europe. is on her way to
this country to SOW the seeds OF pois-
on in the despairing minds OF our
helpless, hungry, discontented peo'
pie. 1t is expected that she will
shortly land in New York and tour
the great cities of our country, scat
tering her baneful doctrines at a
time they are most likely to take
root.
Already the question is being agi-
tated whether she will be permitted
to pour her lurld harangues into the
ears of the great crowds of idle men
in our large cities.
This is, no doubt, country of free
speech and free press, but to whom
is that freedom of speech and of press
guaranteed2 1t could hardly have
been the intention of the trainers OF
the federal constitution or the con-
stitutions of the various states, to
guaranty to foreign nihilists, anar-
chists or communists freedom to
visit our shores and preach and print
doctrines destructive to our govern
ment, and disorganizing to the very
structure of our society.
Those guarantees of freedom to
speak and print were made for the
enjoyment of our own people, and to
promote and secure their liberty and
general welfare. They could not
have been meant to extend an invit-
tation to professional agitators to
visit our shores to inoculate the peo-
pie of this country with the social
or political poison that is distilled
from the injustice and oppression of
kinglY government.
These constitutional safeguards
were designed for the protection of
the inhabitants of this country, and
not for such officious visitors as may
come from abroad to sell opinions for
revenue or peddle them for notoriety.
AS this is question of transcen-
dent Importance to the peace ana
safety of the people, it may be well
to make inquiry of both state and
federal constitutions to ascertain the
spirit and scope of their provisions
touching this inestimable privilege
of free speech and free press. Article
of the First Amendment to the
Constitution of the United States
provides:
Congress shall make no laws re. |
specting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise there
of; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of press; or the right of
the people peaceably to assemble
and petition the government for
redress of grievances"
AS this is the only provision in the
federal constitution touching free
speech and free press, and as it is u
prohibition upon congress to abridge
either, the obvious purpose was to
relegate this question for settlement
to the people of the several states.
Because congress is prohibited
from restricting freedom of speech
and printing press, that in nowise
prohibits the legislatures of the sew
eral states from legislating upon that
subject. In fact it leaves them full
power to do so.
a Nf 10 In |
L of the Bill of Rights provides: I
Every citizen may freely speak,
write or publish his sentiments on
all subjects, being responsible for the
abuse of the right, and no law shall .
be passed to restrain or abridge the
liberty of speech or of the press"
From this it will be seen that it is
only "citizen" who is protected in
the right to ''speak, write and pub {
lish his sentiments on all subjects" |
The inhabitants Of Europe find no {
such guarantees In our state consti-
tuition. These are only for our "citi-
zens." And 1t is presumed that the
provisions of other state constltu-
lions are similar. ,
If so, when this witch Of Endor ,
lights upon our coasts and begins to I
brew her double distilled poison for {
ase on stage or in the public press. {
then tho civil authorities can inter- {
ere without doubt. And it Is {
proper they should. Our wrongs
must be righted at the ballot box,
lot by revolution and bloodshed.
revolution by force of arms is never y,
ustidable, SO long as any other I
possible remedy remains for the d
lbatement of wrongs.--Columbus
Press. I