Year: 1878

There seems to he strange fatality
which clings to men who attempt to
gag" the press. Two years ago Colonel
Lewis, Esq, attempted to muzzle the
press, and his character was disemUow-
cled ut once. Before he made an effort
to muzzle the press he was prominent
candidate for Governor; but Immediately
after he made the attack, presto, change!
He may be thankful to remain II village
lawyer. His true inwardness was up
turned hy the press to the sunlight OF
heaven, and, it the charges were half true
revealed character that was revolving
to chastc minds, During the present
session of the Legislature Assemblyman
johnson of Sacramento has been trying
his luck at the same business by introdu.
cling villainous Retractiun bill. He
has also suffered the same fatality which
visited Lewis. From prominent, in.
tluential, honored Representative he has
rapidly deteriorated to the level of the
felon in the public eye, Since he has
commenced this warfare on the press his
inner self has been revealed, and from
his proud position he Is forced to answer
to the charges of forgery, thievery and
felony. 1t is strange coincidence that
only men who are very vulnerable make
waretare upon the press when they get
to the Legislature. There is peculiar
ignticance in the fact that men of spot.
less reputation, of honorable, unsulled
character, are not solicltons of the dress,
are not anxious te abridge its usefulness,
Only the men who are vulnerable, and
amenable to disgracetul charges, exhibit
adispositior to muzzle the press. Truly,
this is significant. AS to the Retracton
bill of Mr.. Johnson, it is SO discrimina-
ting in its character and so evidently the
child OF spleen and malice-or virtuous
criminals iear-that it at once stamps
itself as being ridiculous and unjust.
1t does not provide against any OF the
evils of virioos Journalism, but its effect
will be to cOndone licentiousness and
throw the mantle OF oblivion around
INSCRIPTIONS and corrupt men. 1t pro-
tects the guilty at the expense of the
innocent. 1t not only destroys the press
as purveyor of news, but compels it 10
indirectly iDdorse all that is corrupt.
AS a practical illustration, we will sup
pose case. We know of u man on Mare
Islam |, who enjoys a lucrative position,
who IS reputed to have been guilty lew
years ago OF the most heinous crime
against nature and society in Portsmouth.
New Hampshire. OF course we have no
occasion to expose his character now, for
we are assured that the power which put
him where he is was fully conyersant with
the facts, and any expose we might make
would amount to naught. But suppose
he should come up for Il county office(and
such thing is possible), what would be
the result if we would follow our plain
duty in giving our readers detail of the
crime he has perpetratcd1 Under the
Rctraction bill we would be compelled
to publish that the truth was lie Or go
to jail. OF course if the crime had been
committed in this county instead Of
Portsmouth, New Hampshire, we could
have our evidence in shape Immediately
and substantiatc; but as it would be some
time before we could secure documentary
evidence from the East, we would be
thrown into prison, and this would cause
the people to think we had grievously
wronge9 him, and thus villain and
scOundrel might be elected out OF SYM
pathy before our evidence arrived. This
would be the practical operation OF
Johnson's Rctraction bill. Does it strike
our readers that virtuous society needs
such lawI Are not the laws thar pro-
vide for libel and SANDER sufficiently
strong already to protect the innocent9
DO you wish tn go still further and COM
pei the press to protect the guiltyl Is
not society entitled to the protection
afforded by that free and independent
press, which protects the innocent, culti-
Yates good society, nor suffers the vicious
and unscrupulous to impose 'npon the
A.