was like the right to breathe the air, or walk
the earth,
Since the adjournment yesterday, I have
taken the pains to look over the volume of
the Constitutions of the several States, to see
what provision has been made for this im-
portant privilege, so essential, so indispensa-
ble, lying at the foundation of all idea of
free government by the people. Why, sir,
if the people are not, to be unrestricted in the
discussion of all questions, civil, political,
philosophical and religions, how are they to
come to a proper enlightened conclusion?
If men may not compare ideas upon all ques-
tions that come up, though they are the
source of all political power, how is it possi-
ble that any reasonable conclusion can ever
be reached? In denying that liberty you
deny a principle lying at the very foundation
upon which all our institutions are based.
in restricting it, in transcribing it, inputting
it under a ban, you subvert the very idea of
a free government.
I desire to read to this Convention some of
the articles which have been incorporated
into the bill of rights of other States, with a
view of showing what idea has been enter-
tained in those States where it has been
deemed necessary to advert to this question
at all, and to provide safeguards to be thrown
around it. I begin with the Constitution of
the United States. In many of the State
Conventions that adopted and ratified the
Constitution of the United States, an objec-
tion was made to it upon the ground that it
did not contain a bill of rights. In all the
Conventions the reply to that argument was
that the Constitution of the United States
was intended to constitute a government of
delegated and limited powers, by necessary
implication no power could be exercised by
it except it was expressly granted; and there-
fore it was not necessary to have a bill of
rights, as in State Constitutions, where the
great mass of powers were conferred upon
State governments, unless reserved to the
people by the Constitutions. But so im-
portant was it deemed by the people who
adopted the Constitution, that certain rights
should be recognized expressly, and restric-
tions upon them prohibited by an amend
ment of the Constitution, that in several of
the States the Constitution came near being
rejected—especially in Massachusetts and
New York—because they desired to have
these amendments, and they were afraid that
unless they were made previously to the
adoption of the Constitution, they might no
afterwards be adopted. New York was very
near putting those amendments in the shape of
conditions; that if the Constitution was no
amended by the insertion of the clauses she
deemed essential to the preservation of lib
erty, she would reserve the right, after a cer-
tain number of years, of resuming her sov-
ereignty and retiring from the confederacy |
But upon being advised that a conditional
ratification was a rejection, that she would
not be included in the confederacy at all, or
be numbered among the States necessary to
adopt the Constitution in order that it should
go into operation, that proposition was nega-
tived. But she trusted to the assurance
given on every side that there would be no
doubt about the incorporation in the Consti-
tution, of the amendments that were deemed
so important. And hence directly after the
adoption of the Constitution by the States,
after it went into operation among the States
adopting it, the very first amendment which
was adopted by universal consent, by all the
States, is in the following words:
"Congress shall make no law respecting
the establishment of religion, or prohibiting
the" free exercise thereof, or abridging the
freedom of speech or of the press; or the
right of the people peaceably to assemble
and to petition the Government for a redress
of grievances."
There is an express prohibition upon Con-
gress to interfere with the freedom of speech.
Then bow is it in reference to the States that
formed and adopted Constitutions? I begin
with the State of Maine. The provision in
the bill of rights in the Constitution of the
State of Maine is in these words :
"Every citizen may freely speak, write
and publish his sentiments on any subject,
being responsible for the abuse of this liberty.
No laws shall be passed regulating or re-
straining the freedom of the press; and, in
prosecutions for any publication respecting the
official conduct of men in public capaci-
ty, or the qualifications of those who are
candidates for the suffrages of the people, or
where the matter published is proper for
public information, the truth thereof may
be given in evidence; and in all indictments
for libels, the jury after having received the
direction of the court, shall have a right to
determine, at their discretion, the law and
the fact."
Massachusetts did not deem it worth while
to put such a declaration formally in their
bill of rights. She never dreamed that that
right would be questioned in any government
that pretended to be free and to be founded
upon the will of the people. The provision
in the Constitution of Vermont is in these
words:
" That the people have a right to a free-
dom of speech, and of writing and publishing
their sentiments concerning the transactions
of government, and therefore the freedom of
the press ought not to be restrained."
The next is New York :
"Every citizen may freely speak, write
and publish his sentiments on all subjects,
being responsible for the abuse of that right ;
and no law shall be passed to restrain or
abridge the liberty of speech or of the press.
In all criminal prosecutions or indictments |
