The Manchester journal. [volume] (Manchester, Vt.) 1861-current, 1915-01-28
THE TRIBUNE WINS IT'S FIGHT
TO MAINTAIN THE FREE
DON or THE PRESS

1lBtEk N@NWfA N0@H GtNlA&9n 9teWF
day sustaining as in our resistance q
formidable process Of intimidation
employed against US b. the c1ecutiy,
departments before the grand jur,
and In the lower federal courts.
All the power Of the present admin
istration was cnerted TO eoerce two
members OF The Tribunc's staff, Mr.
Rurdick and Mr. Curtin, into giving
testimony which the Secretary Of the
Treasury assumed whether rightly OF
wrongly would help him in disciplin,
ing Treasury employees suspected Of
having diyulged information about de-
partmental activities without authoriz.
alton from him. At his instigation the
Department OF Justice called Mr.. Bur
dick and Mr. Curtin before federal
grand jury, and the District Attorney
for this district demanded that they
disclose the sources OF the news which
they had secured and published about
proceedings taken in certain smuggl-
ing cases.
On their refusing to testify and
claiming immunity on the ground that
what they said might tend to incrim-
mate them the Department Of Justice
resorted 10 the unusual expedient of
getting pre-indictment and pre-convic-
ton pardons for them from the Presi-
dent and then claiming that such par
dons automatically invalidated the
immunity plea. The two witnesses de-
clined TO accept pardons or to testify
on The theory that they had been par
doned, whereupon they were brought
before federal district judge in this
district and were adjudged in con
tempt Of court.
The peril Of such a procedure to the
liberty Of the press is obvious.
What the Secretary of the Treasury
and the Attorney General combined to
do (eyen perverting the Presidents
pardoning power for that purpose)
was to establish an iron-clad official
censorship within the executive de-
partments.
A star chamber regime was to be |
set up, under which the public was to
depend for all its news of what the
various branches Of the government
were doing on communiques colored to
suit the ideas of department heads.
There is a Treasury Department
regulation which forbids any employee
TO divulge information of public ma
ture without proper authorization
from superior officer. That order
may not have been intended at the
outset to interfere with the legitimate
activities Of the press. But one abuse
of the proper purposes Of such a pro-
vision has been followed by another,
and under this administration it has
been seized upon by officials overanx-
ious to regulate all the channels of
publicity in order to clap down the lid
of universal censorship, terrorize
federal employees and prevent news
papers from publishing news Of an
exclusive and non-vised sort, even
though it might deal entirely with acts
done by public officials in their official
capacities.
IL the newspapers are to be de- {
barred from obtaining and printing Z
news from sources inside the govern
ment service the press ceases to fulfill
its duty as the free mouthpiece of l
free people.
Criticism is smothered and publicity /,
is disarmed as regulator of folly, in /,
competency or corruption in the con- :
duct Of public affairs. One Of the in G
safeguards of the democratic
sytem Of popular responsibility, free
speech and free inquiry is surrendered J
at the behest Of bureaucracy impa- I
tient of criticism and greedy for I'M !
restricted power.
Relying on the freedom guaranteed )
TO the press in Anglo-Saxon countries, :
can defy any attempted s
government censorship of news affect t
ing governmental cativities. But il v
men can be made to testify
as to. the sources of their information
all sources worth having within the :
government will soon be closed. The !.
principle for which The Tribune has !
been contending is the only thing :
which keeps the channels Of publicity /
open. r
II pardons can be forced upon un- S
willing newspaper representatives, the :
iron circle Of bureaucratic censorship
becomes complete.
That was the exact issue in The
case. We denied that fac +
titious pardon itself decoy for the '
purposes Of prosecutionl could be {
forced on Messrs. Burdiek and Curtin. S
The Supreme Court has now unani- J
anetdoA thos .r. u-n~a rieyht ayd