Year: 1862

fishing matters pertaining to the force movements
of cur armies has called forth some learned lucu-
brations upon the dangers of the precedent and
protests against the policy itself. Much may be
said ON both sides of the question: but usual the
truth lies between the two extremes. Under ordi-
nary circumstances penal enactments against the
freedom of the press would call forth the indignant
condemnation Of every lover of liberty, provided
the restrictions went beyond wholesome provisions
against licencousness but we are not prepared to
to say that in a state of war, the public safety may
not justify, nay even authorize, rigid restrictions
Were all editors wise as we'll as patriotic-cautious
as well honest-this question could never arise,
but they are men, and, therefore faiule, and the
press, for the last twenty-five years, so far from
having been the palladium of public libeIty and
the conservator of pdblic morals, has sgualized it.
self the promoter of strife, the corruptor of pop
ular integrity, the dssemnator of political error,
the oseer of sectional discord and the chief agent
in the overthrow of the late Republic


| Why, then, this claim to exemption from the
penalties which ougot to attach to very man, what
ever may be his vocation, whose folly or wickedness
cndangers the hest interests OF the country? Free
dom Of speech and of conscience as fully guar
anteod under the Bill of Rights as the freedom OF
the press; yet editor uplifts his voice against
the stringent prosecution of those deuded men, in
our own Ssats. who still cling to the old Federal
Union nor of those less culpablc ones who exercise
their freedom of speech in giving to the enemy in
formation of ali tst is transpiring in our midst-
In time of peace citizen of Tennessee may freely
and safely express his preference for any other gov
crnmcnt over his own, and may write the current
history of the latter and publish it to the whole
world but in time of war, no questions the
right of the Goyernment to restrict the freedom of
the disaiiected and punish the treason of the spy
What is it that lifts the editor above these consde-
ratons of public safety? Nothing, that we can
discover in law, or equity or common sense Nor
can we discriminate between the man who imparts
his knowledge to the enemy by word of mouth,
aud the who mparts it through the medium of
the press II is true that the former may do it
with evil intent md the latter with no thought Of
evil. But if boti work the same degree of mis-
chief every consideration Of public safety demands


that the guilt of the one shall be punished aud the
folly of the other restrained by such penal enact
ments as shall be deemed sufficient to silence both.


The freedom of the press is too dear right to be
lightly tampered with; so is individual freedom of
thought and speech and as it is universally conce-
ded that both may and shoild be restricted within


limits promotye of good morals, we can not sec
why state of war should authorize the narrowing
of the one, and leaving the other untouched The
publication, by letter, Of information dangerous to
the safety of the country, is not more criminal than
the publication of the same in a newspaper provided
the same intention prompt both aud the same may
be shid of oral communications. But the Govern
mcnt can not and ought not, pending the trying
crisis of war to stop to investigate motives and its
only safe policy is TO silence the berayers of the
country, whether the act be committed by letter
word of mouth or through the press. The guilty
alone will be punished, and the innocent can find
no hardship by being required by law, to Withhold
from the enemy information of dangerous char
acter. With as the wonder is, not that such re-
strcions should be contemplated but that the con-
due, Of the press should make it necessary and in
stead of denying the power Of Congress to impose
them, and questioning the wisdom of the polcy,w
would rather urge the justice of placing all inform
ers upon the same footing without regard to the
medium through which they communicate. The
intention in moral point of view, constitutes the
guilt but in order to avert the disastrous conse-
quences of acts suggested by no evil design, laws


must be enacted against the acts themselves-leaV-
: ing no peg upon which to hang plea of good in
, tentions; and we sec no reason why such laws
should discriminate in favor of any class Of men,
Editors are but men, and the press but a means Of
publication, like pen, ink and paper and the gift
of the CAB" and if the two last means of commit
nicaon with abe enemy may be interdicted for the
good of the country, any discrimination should be
against the first because of its greatly increased
l power to do mischief in the same direction. The


right to restrict in either case, rests upon the same
broad principle, aud the danger to be apprchended


from he exercise of that right toward the press is
the extension of the restriction beyond the point
essential to the public safety and interference
with Legitimate subjects. This is danger we dc


not appreheud, nor do fear the precedent in this


case more than Others which are temporarily setuT
by the exigencles of the war.


Let il be distinctly understood, however, that We
, hoye reference only TO such measures as may be
absolutely necessary To prevent the publication


articles calculated 10 thwart the intentions of on


Generals aud cripple the movements of our armies
% by epPrising the enemy Of such intentions anj
movements. This may be done without infringing


the freedom of the press TO deal with all Legitimate
G questions, and without giving fair protext 70
e complaining Of a tyrannica surveillance. At tn
y Moth, the subject wears different phase. There
: Congress has enacted no law upon the subject an,
N the restrictions upon the press are tue work Of al
= absolute despot whose will is the law, and who's
/ tyranny the press allows no opposition to hi
q will, 10 such a state Of thiugs 20 IL attempted
I, Sou,rern man wouiA sahmit