The Alaska citizen., 1912-01-22

some kind We mean the approval of lynch law"
 The present editor of the Citizen wrote the article on which Messrs. Caskey X Bellows were indicted and he therefore is quite certain of the motives back of its publication.
 lie can swear before God that no animus against Peter Steil or any other particular person actuated him and that the editorial was hon. estly written in the interest of public policy. As to whether or not the article was directed against Steil is a matter which the public must determine for itself. in the light of the evidence furnished by Steil himself that II has at its disposal. As to the charge made by the Times that we advocated lynch law. The old-timers acquainted with The Old Way" in vogue in Circle are fortunately more broad minded than
 the editor of the Times. and are not likely to believe that our edi.
 torial seriously counseled "mob-mur- der for claim jumpers
 Lynch law, We are told by an encyclopedia. is the name given to a mode of trial and punishment of offenders in popular assemblies without reference to the ordinary laws and institutions of the coun- try Getting down to the ethi- cal discussion of the efficacy of this offhand method of dispensing jus | tice we may say that we are inclin- ed 10 the personal belief. without in
 any sense urging it's adoption. that
 in certain cases expeditions treat
 ment is warranted. This being es- | pecially the case where there is a doubt that the law can or will be | invoked. The old miners meetings | have received the sanction of the | courts and their laws, based on
 the honest dictum of fair play. have i been granted the full fierce of con | gress-made statutes until such time
 as more formally constructed legisla-
 ton has been enacted. We believe,
 to quite as full an extent as does | the editor of the Times. in the recti-
 tude, probity and efficiency of our | courts, but we are evidently not quite so much afraid of lynch law. i We admit that our editorial, while not urging, at least indorsed the
 administering of summary punish
 ment to any person who tried to appropriate that which belonged to
 another, and, in spite of the Times i rebuke, We remain in the same state
 of mind, knowing that our intent
 was an honest one. But the Times editor says that he is satisfied that
 the sentiments which were express
 ed in the editorial article in uues- ! tion were such as should subject any publisher to punishment of
 some kind.' If the Times stand
 is correct one any publisher would
 be subject to punishment for advo-
 eating the suppression of any kind
 of crime, and if our editorial had
 been directed against any sin in the | category of crime, from cradle rob
 bery to islander, we have no assur-
 ance that the editor of the Times. or someone else, might not have pro-
 ceeded against us for criminal libel
 asserting that our strictures fitted 1 his particular case.
 Fortunately the freedom of the
 press still permits publisher to
 unhesitatingly apply the knife to
 remove fostering sores that threat
 en the social body, and the Citizen will be little concerned as to the depth to which the cut has to be
 made so long as its management is
 assured the operation is necessary
 in the public welfare.
 Usually other newspapers stand by contemporary whose right to l this freedom of the press" is as
 sailed, no matter how bitterly ar
 raigned against it, by reason of
 partisanship of politics, they might
 have been; but, we presume, the
 Times editors opposite course was dictated by the axiom that birds