New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1921-07-21
Protecting Press Freedom

In another column is notable let
ter from William H. Lamar, who
argued the Milwaukee Leader case
before the Supreme Court and ap-
peared for the government in the
New York Call case.
Confusion exists in many news
paper Offices concerning what is in
correctly feared is an invasion of the
liberty of the press. The Baltimore
Evening Sun has given $500 to de-
fend The Call and exhorts other
newspapers to join in the defense.
But if Mr.. Lamar's clear statement
could be brought to the attention of
all editors it is not likely many
would respond.
The issue involved in the two pro-
ceedings is solely and singly wheth
er, in the guise Of discussion, it is
legal to advocate a forcible over
throw Of the government. To par
ticipate in instruction is treason;
but deliberately to incite insurrec-
ton is not reasonable. Fortunately,
the Supreme Court does not join in
this affront to common sense. In
any particular case, it holds, the
question is one of fact-namely,
whether or not there is Indictment
to violence. IF there is, it finds an
offense is committed and that the
publication may be excluded from
the mails even as one that adver-
tises a lottery or INDUCES in lewd-
ness or indecency of utterance.
The man above all others who
helped to establish the. liberty of the
press was the great Erskine. In
one of his noble arguments he de-
clared that the starting point Of
criminal inquiry was examination Of
intent-that the guilt of the mind
was truly the crime and that overt,
bad conduct was merely valuable as
furnishing evidence of the presence
of inner corruption. The principle
has not become archaic. 1t is still
necessary to discover when there is
a purpose to advocate resort to vio-
lence. The matter of securing even
the most sweeping changes by peace
able means has no relation to the
other problem.
The Penal Code of New York, in
the statute against criminal an
archy, draws the proper line. 1t is
a felony to promote revolution by
forcible means. In the cases of The
Milwaa kee Leader, The Call, The
Liberator and other publications of
similar class the interrogatory to
be answered is whether they have
urged, directly or indirectly, the use
Of force. The Tribune criticized the
Legislatures expulsion of it's Social
ist members, but not on the ground
that the accusation against them
constituted no offense, even though
committed, but on the ground that it
did not seem fairly established that
they were personally guilty. But
will any one say that The New York
Call, for example, has not favored
forcible revolution?
In the old laws the person of the
king, as representative of the social
whole, was of peculiar sanctity. Any
che who Imagined" his death was
traitor, even though he made no
attempt to compass it. In our mod
ern world, with popular rule, organ
lied democracy has taken the place
Of the king.
There seems need of new defini-
ton of treason. This definition is
being slowly matured by courts and
legislatures. 1t is time to push on
this work. Confused intellects
which cannot see the difference be-
tween peaceable advocacy Of change
and attacks on the life principle of
democracy need to be cleared of
their vapors.
The Baltimore Evening Sun doubt
less is well meaning. 1t thinks it is
defending liberty; in fact, except on
the theory that The Call does not
| preach the use Of violence, it is
laboring to destroy liberty in it's
cradle. AS Russia discloses, when a
minority rules by force, one of the
first things to go is liberty of the
press.