Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1915-01-19

appropriation Dill:
"Whenever it shall be established to
the satisfaction Of the postmaster gen.
eral that any person Is engaged or rep
resents himself as engaged In the bus
iness of publishing any obscene or i'm
moral books, pamphlets, pictures,
prints, engravings Autographs, photo
graphs or other publications, matter or
thing Of an indecent, immoral, sour
rilous, or libelous character, and If
such person shall, in the opinion Of the
postmaster general, endeavor to use the
postoffice for the promotion Of such
business, 1t is hereby declared that no
letter, packet, parcel, newspaper, book
or other thing sent or sought to be sent
through the postoffice by or on behalf
Of or to or on behalf Of such person
shall be deemed mailable matter, and
the postmaster general shall make the
necessary rules and regulations to ex-
clude such non-mailable matter from
the mails"
The Menace goes into elaborate de-
tail to prove that this amendment was
intended primarily to bring about the
suppression of itself and generally to
put 1t within the power Of the party
in control to suppress any publication
that might be Objectionable to it, or
which is unwilling to take orders from
the powers that be.
Replying to Mr.. Fitzgerald, who had
discussed the merits Of the amendment
at some length, Hon. D. E. Finley
made some sensible remarks, in con-
nection with the point Of order he had
reserved, as follows:
Mr.. Chairman, the proposition con-
tanned in the amendment offered by
in order where offered, and it Is fairly
Objectionable from every standpoint.
But he said something about the mer-
its Of it. We have a postmaster gen.
eral today. He Is in office now. He
will go out at some future time. Who
will be there five years from now or
ten years from now we do not know.
The power that Is proposed to be lodged
in the hands Of the postmaster general
under that amendment should not be
lodged in the hands Of any one man In
all this country. (Applause). 1t
should not be left to the decision Of
any one man, and he an executive Of
ficer and appointed by another man.
So this proposed amendment, II you
analyze it, means going back in a
measure to the sedition laws, and we
remember that the execution Of those
istence.
Now, am not in favor Of scurril-
Gus or obscene matter going through
the mails. I am opposed to 1t, but /
think when we legislate here for all
the people Of this country each and
every individual should have redress
somewhere, some place Of appeal. Un-
der that amendment an ipse dixit Of
whomsoever happens to be postmaster
general at the time is absolutely con-
elusive Of what Is and what Is not OBJ
jectionable under the proposed amend
ment. So, in my view there Is law
enough at present, and II the postmas-
ter general will exercise to the full his
discretion in the premises as to what
is scurrilous and libelous and tends to
incite or create q disturbance Of the
peace or good order the law Is ample.
But assuming that it is not, yet here
Is a matter that effects free speech, so
to speak, in this country. Free speech,
to my mind, does not mean license,
nor should 1t mean that to any fair
minded man. 1t does not mean license
to abuse the law-not at all. But this
proposed amendment, as proposed by
the gentleman from New York, has
not been considered or reported by
any committee. 1t Is a matter OF the
greatest importance. So the house
should not be called upon to pass on
great question like this under the cir
cumStances."
Although recognizing as we do, that
this is a subject in which the average
individual is liable to get seriously
mixed, it will have to be admitted that
Mr.. Finley has covered the ground full
ly and conclusively.
There are newspapers and newspa-
pers, good ones and bad ones, some
presided over by the highest and pur-
est ability that humanity affords, and
others presided over by men who
would put old Mephistopheles himself
to shame. But who is to be the final
Who, for instance, is to say that the
editor of the Menace is a worse man
than Mr. Fitzgerald, and who is to say
that Mr.. Fitzgerald Is a worse man
than the editor Of the Menace? Why
ther should one have full swing while
the other is held in check? 1t is known
or should be known that the only ef-
fective weapon against error Is truth.
All Of us think we know the truth;
but If we are honest in our belief and
continue searching we certainly find
that we are mistaken. Then suppose
you should undertake to suppress by
law any class Of publication or put an
absolute censorship in the hands of
any one man, would there not be as
much chance Of shackling the truth as
there would be Of shackling error?
That provision in the constitution OF
the United States and most Of the
states as to the freedom Of the press,
is a wise one. and it is best to leave it
alone