Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1931-10-21

The EN I'm Ing s.
ing the law and the Postmaster Cen
eral, who, be 1t said to his credit, did
not seek the legislation in question.
II had the privilege of arguing the
constitutionality of this law in the Su-
preme Court, and to show how far we
had drifted from the ideals of the
contention of the then Solicitor Gen
eral in defense of the law. He con-
tended that Congress had the power to
exclude from the mails-I quote him
all papers advocating lotteries. prohibit
ton, anarchy or a protective tariff If
majority of Congress thought such
views against public policy If this
were true-and it amazed me when the
contention was made-then dry Con-
greSs could exclude from the mails any
newspaper which advocated the repeal
of the eighteenth amendment. or
free-trade Congress might exclude from
the mails ell printed arguments In
favor of a protective tariff; and If
newspaper or periodical were largely
dependent upon the post office for its
distribution it is obvious that freedom
of publication would be abridged, If not
altogether destroyed.
while the Supreme Court sustained
the validity of the statute by con-
struction which interpreted it as mere
means of determining whether a news
paper was entitled to second-class rates,
the court in concluding its opinion
pointedly said We do not wish. even
by the remotest implication. to be re-
regarded as asserting to the broad con-
tentions concerning the existence of
arbitrary power through the classical
ton of the mails or by way Of condi-
ton embodied in the proposition of the
Government which we have previously
stated.
Il thought then. and still think, that
the Supreme Court should have given
the statute its natural construction, and,
SO constituting it. should have held that
the postal. power CT the United States
could not be perverted to abridge the
freedom of the press.
Cites Minnesota Case.
THAT the battle for the freedom of
thought must be refought by each gen.
Grafton is significantly illustrated by
very recent decision of the Supreme
Court. when by the narrow margin of
one vote the court invalidated as con-
trary to the freedom of the press
Minnesota statute which provided for
the abatement as a public nuisance OF
malicious, ScandalouS and defamatory
newspaper. magazine or other periodi-
cal by the unjunctive process of court
of equity. In that case a Minneapolis
newspaper had charged-and 1 shall
assume falSely-that there was gross
corruption in the municipal authorities
of that city. The District Court of
Minnesota. without even the interven-
ton of jury. held that the newspaper
was a public nuisance and its further
publication was enioined. either under
its former name or under any other
name or title The Supreme Court of
Minnesota affirmed the Judgment. 1t
may be assumed from the findings of
the court that the newspaper was a
Scandalous sheet. and if we considered
only the ponderables of the problem the
public interests we're served by its sup
PRESTON but the great imponderable
of the question was the power of the
judiciary to suppress a newspaper by
an Injunction. Concede that and the
constitutional guarantee of a free press
would be little more than a scrap of
paper
Fortunately. the Supreme Court de-
clared such a statute void. but the
menace to the freedom of thought can
be measured by the fact that if one
Supreme Court justice had voted differ
emily the law would have been sus-
tanned. In view of this close decision
and narrow escape, the present occa-
sion is by no means wanting in sig
nificance.
Many of us who claim for ourselves
the liberty of thought are quite intol-
Grant Of its exercise by people whom
we regard as evil in purpose and act
We recognize the right of freedom of
thought among the well disposed. but
rlpnU IL IN q rodiro1 .,,I,o
views are abhorrent to us. especially
where the agitator is man of evil
character and vet history has repeat
edly shown us that the greatest battles
for liberty have been won by men
whose private lives were a just affront
to their fellow citizens.
There is another and more pernicious
form Of such pragmatism. 1t is the
idea that while most men have a right
to express their thoughts. yet that Ger
tain thoughts, held only by minority.
are so 1nimical to the public welfare
that they must be suppressed. This is
a very dangerous doctrine.
Like all fundamental rights. the
state, If it is to preserve itself. must
have the right to stop the perpetra-
ton Of crimes, or the dissemination of
immoral ideas, or the overthrow of our
Government by violence: but with these
Cne SCaJe mas no power to
put the human mind in shackles. This
was the philosophy of Mr. jefferson.
and it may be well to remember his
statement that the natural progress of
things is for liberty to yield and gov
eminent to gain ground
Recall that night of July 3, 1926, in
Monticello. when the dying jefferson
struggled to live to see the dawn of
the 50th anniversary of the Declaration
of Independence. In that noble decla-
ration of human freedom he had written
that man possessed certain inherent
and inalienable rights. among which
were the right to life, liberty and the
pursuit of happiness and that these
were not the gift of government but
of God himself, and that governments
were ordained not to destroy these
rights but to protect them. To him
life without the freedom of thought by
any medium of expression was value
less; liberty without such freedom
mere rhapsody of words. and 'happi-
ness impossible of attainment if a man
felt that he could not express his
thoughts without the permission of the
state.
Thus we do we'll today to dedicate
room in this historic shrine to the
Liberty of the Press Nav the light
thus enkindled shine forever!"