The Farmington times. (Farmington, St. Francois County, Mo.) 1905-1926, 1909-02-05
JEFFERSON VS.. ROOSEVELT.

JEFFERSON vs.. ROOSEVELT.
1t Is notable that Mr.. Roosevelt
Ia trying to do now, under the COM
mon law, what the Federalist party
tried to do, more than n century
ago, by the enactment of statutory
law. AS the New York World says
truthfully, the Federalist party invent
to wreck and RUM In consequence.
The most Objectionable section of
the sedition law of 1898 was that
providing that any person who
should write, print, utter or pub
lish, or aid in doing so, any false,
scandalous or malicious writing
against the Government, congress
or the president. with intent to de-
fame them, or bring them into dis
repute, should be liable to fine not
exceeding 5000, and imprisonment
not exceeding two years.
The circumstances ut that time
were vastly different from now.
This was young and struggling re-
public, and French emissaries,
headed by the notorious Genet, were
busy striving to incite the American
people to rise against their own
government. II circumstances could
ever justify the course adopted then
and which Roosevelt is now adopt
ing, circumstances justified IL ut that
time. But, to quote from that in
valuable handbook, The American
Statesman, 1.-THE law did not accord
with the disposition and liberal
views Of the American people. 1t
was Of doubtful eXpediency, even
under the circumstances that gave
rise to it. Much less liberation
would il find at ihe present day"
Nearly forty years later that
stanch federalist, John Quincy
Adams, discussing the alien and Sc
dition acts, said: 1.-THE prosecutions
under the sedition act did but aggra-
vate the evil which they were in
tended to repress. Without believ-
ing that either of those laws was an
infraction of the constitution, il
may be admitted that they
were not good and wholesome laws,
inasmuch as they were not suited to
the temper of the people"
Matthew Lyon, member OF Con-
gress from Vermont, was imprisoned
for four months and fined 81 900 UNI
der the sedition act. In 1893, many |
years after his death, law was
passed refunding to his heirs the
amount of the fine.
Thomas, Jefferson, when, largely |
because Of the odium attached to
this act, he became President, d.
rected nolle prosequis in all the
prosecutions which had been insti-
tuted under IL. Later he wrote, in
explanation-and his attitude Is one
to be commended now TO President
Roosevelt:
"Those prosecutions were chiefly
for charges against myself, and /
had from the beginning laid 1t down
as rule to notice nothing of the
kind. believed that the long course
Of service In which ! had acted on
the public stage, and under the eye
Of my fellow-citizens, furnished
better evidence to them Of my char
ncter and principles than the angry
invectives of adverse partisans in
whose eyes the very acts most APP
proved by the majority were sub
jects of the greatest demerit and
censure.n II
II was III years ago that the Fed
eralist party asserted the right Of
the executive to punish, under
written law, the public press for
the government, on the
ground that such criticism was Sc
iition. That attempt sent the Fed I
eralist party to its grave.
To-day the successor Of that party
the administration at wash
ington, is asserting the same right,
though the sedition act expired by
on March 3, 1902, and
none has since been so hardy as TO
propose It's revival.
1t remains to be seen II, after these
hundred years, the American peo-
pie are prepared to reverse, by CIV
ng their approval to the course of
he present President, the over
verdict rendered in favor
u the press by their patriot fore
'athers. -Oma Worid-Herald.
1t is the same story in all the big