called him, who has always done that duty fearlessly, faithfully and well, "Aloha, Aloha."

But as the ripe scholar and the genial gentleman everywhere and always, I say to him, "Aloha, Aloha, Aloha.”

Mr. Justice Brown will now address you upon "The Liberty of the Press."

THE LIBERTY OF THE PRESS.

As the State of New York contains a larger reading public and a greater number of men and women devoted to literary pursuits than any other, as more newspapers, magazines and periodicals are published here, and as they have here exerted their widest influence, catered most successfully to the popular taste, scored their greatest triumphs and been guilty of their most grevious faults, I have deemed the place an appropriate one to speak for the hour allotted to me upon "the liberty of the press."

The right of every man to express his opinions in speech or print is justly esteemed as one of the most sacred prerogatives of a free people. The very first amendment to the Constitution declares that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press. A like restriction is found in somewhat varied phraseology in the Constitution of every State, with an express proviso in some cases that the person so uttering or publishing shall be responsible for an abuse of the privilege. No clause of the Constitution has been more sacredly cherished, and none more carefully upheld by the judicial power.

A temporary law passed in 1798, during the administration of President Adams, punishing the publication of false, scandalous and malicious libels upon the Government, Congress or the President, with the intent to excite against them the hatred of the people, to stir up sedition or combinations for resisting the laws, or the executive

The

acts of the President, commonly known as the "Sedition Act," was so obnoxious to popular sentiment that it probably contributed more than any other one thing to the downfall of the Federal party. At the expiration of the three years fixed for the continuance of the act, it had already fallen into desuetude and largely into contempt. A perusal of the reported trials under the act gives one the impression that the libellers were, as a rule, a lot of violent and worthless fellows, who sought to foist themselves into notoriety by vicious attacks upon the President; that the trials were not conducted with the judicial decorum and impartiality which are observed at the present day, and that the law itself was unnecessary and impolitic. line between a legitimate opposition to the Government,a feature indispensable to the liberty of the press, and to a free Constitution, and a false publication intended to bring the Government into disrepute, is altogether too shadowy in its practical application to be made the basis of a criminal statute. It is not strange that the act was looked upon as a distinct breach of privilege, and as pointing to still further encroachments upon the freedom of speech. While libels upon the Government, Congress and the President are by no means unknown to this generation, they are usually regarded as harmless, and frequently as strengthening the administration in the estimation of its friends. A law punishing them criminally would be thought to deprive the political press of its most valuable prerogative.

Inestimable as is the constitutional privilege of speaking, writing and publishing what one pleases, it is one which is not only susceptible, but actually productive of gross abuses. Probably some of these are inseparable from entire freedom of discussion; others are the offspring of personal spite or political persecution. And

here let me say that the magazines, and what is ordinarily known as the periodical literature of the country, very rarely offend against the rules of fair discussion or the canons of good taste. Indeed, our monthly and weekly periodicals may safely challenge comparison with similar publications in the most enlightened countries of Europe. Their leading articles are as able and as interesting, and their illustrations much superior specimens of the engraver's art. There is nothing to apologize for in that regard.

Too much cannot be said in praise of our daily press as newsgatherers. Their enterprise in this direction is superior to every obstacle. No quarter of the globe is too remote; no expense too great; no difficulties so insurmountable that they cannot be overcome in pursuit of the latest and most authentic intelligence. Relays of reporters are kept within call, ready to be dispatched to the most distant city. Steam vessels are chartered to meet incoming steamers, to watch naval maneuvers, or to reach places inaccessible by land. Telegraph wires are burdened with messages passing to and from the office of publication, and special trains are hired for the prompt dissemination of their several editions. If their editorials do not always equal in ability those of the leading English journals, and I am not prepared to admit even this,their news columns are a refreshing contrast to the deadly dullness of the continental papers.

All this, however, does not blind us to the fact that many of these papers are guilty of a grave abuse of their privileges. Indeed the sins of the press have been a fruitful subject of discussion ever since the foundation of the Government. Nothing more severe has ever been said of them than was said by Benjamin Franklin, himself the father of American printers, in an article published by him

in September, 1789, entitled "An Account of the Supremest Court of Judicature in Pennsylvania, namely, The Court of the Press." Of the power of this court he says: "It may receive and promulgate accusations of all kinds, against all persons and characters among the citizens of the State, and even against all inferior courts; and may judge, sentence and condemn to infamy, not only private individuals, but public bodies with or without inquiry or hearing, at the court's discretion. This court is established in favor of about one citizen in five hundred, who by education or practice in scribbling, has acquired a tolerable style as to grammar and construction. * * * This five hundredth part of the citizens have the privilege of accusing and abusing the other four hundred and ninety-nine parts at their pleasure; or, they may hire out their pens and press to others for that purpose." After saying that the court is governed by no rules; that the accused is allowed no jury; is not permitted to know the name of his accuser, or of seeing his witnesses, he says: "Yet, if an officer of this court receives the slightest check for misconduct in this his office, he claims immediately the rights of a free citizen by the Constitution, and demands to know his accuser, to confront the witnesses, and to have a fair trial by a jury of his peers." As this article was written one hundred and ten years ago, it is evident that the abuses of which we complain are of long standing.

Premising that there has been a manifest improvement in the particulars in which Dickens satirized the New York press in "Martin Chuzzlewit," and that there has since arisen a class of papers tasteful in appearance, wholesome in tone and decent in morals, which deserve to take rank with the ablest of English journals, it is still true, and greatly to be deplored, that much of the daily

press is lacking in good taste, the high moral tone and the general fairness that should characterize those who aspire to be considered leaders of public opinion. It should be said in extenuation of these abuses that many of them arise from no mean motive, but from a simple excess of enterprise. The zeal which in times of war, or of great public excitement, spends itself in the collection and dissemination of the latest intelligence from the scene of action, is sorely tempted in piping times of peace to work up sensations by trivial details of criminal proceedings, domestic scandals or invented animosities among public

men.

Thus, it was clearly an excess of enterprise certainly no lack of patriotism - which induced the press at the outbreak of the late war to embarrass the operations of the Government by the publication of the departure and destination of troops and vessels, the contemplated points of landing, the strength of the armies, and all the facts of which an enemy would wish to be informed. Of course, these facts were known in Madrid as soon as in New York, and, had Spain been as alert and sagacious as one of the greater Powers of Europe, the consequences might have been exceedingly disastrous. The Government was finally driven to adopt a censorship as a military measure, which sufficed for a partial remedy of the evil. In this one particular, namely, the ability to hoodwink the enemy as to their movements, the Spaniards showed themselves our superiors in military tactics. While we were fortifying our coasts, maintaining a vessel of war at every port, and scouring the Carribean sea in search of Cervera's fleet, we were kindly apprising them of our every movement and aiding them in selecting a point of attack.

Granting all that can be claimed for the promptness, accuracy and fulness of news from the seat of war, let