bas-reliefs of the same general character as that described above, while the walls on which the piers rest have carved on them monstrous colossal figures nine or ten feet high. The court is encumbered with growing trees and with débris, so that excavations have to be made in order to obtain a view of the figures. Above the piers is a heavy cornice highly ornamented. "Every time we descended the steps," says Stephens, "the grim and mysterious figures stared us in the face, and it (the courtyard) became to us one of the most interesting parts of the ruins. We were exceedingly anxious to make excavations, clear out the mass of rubbish, and lay the whole platform bare; but this was impossible. It is probably paved with stone or cement; and, from the profusion of ornament in other parts, there is reason to believe that many curious and interesting specimens may be brought to light. This agreeable work is left for the future traveler, who may go there better provided with men and materials, and with more knowledge of what he has to encounter; and, in my opinion, if he finds nothing new, the mere spectacle of the courtyard entire will repay him for the labor and expense of clearing it."

The pyramidal tower of the palace is in itself an enigma. It is thirty feet square at its base. Stephens, on entering this tower from one of the corridors of the palace, found within it another tower distinct from the outer one, and a stone staircase so narrow that a large man could not ascend it. This staircase ends at a stone ceiling which closes all further passage, the last step being only six or eight inches below it.

Among the most remarkable bas-reliefs found in the palace is a stone tablet set in a wall of a corridor adjoining the tower. This now famous tablet, which is four feet long and three feet wide, contains two figures with hieroglyphics in the spaces to the right and left of them. The principal figure, which is nude, sits in the Buddha attitude, cross-legged, on a couch ornamented with two heads of jaguars. The other figure bears a ludicrous likeness to an old woman arrayed in old-fashioned modern gown and cape. She is offering to the god, if god it be-or perhaps goddess-what appears to be a plumed bonnet, to take the place of the incomprehensible head-gear of the deity.

All of these bas-reliefs have inscribed on them hieroglyphics, but there are in the palace no hieroglyphical tablets, such, for instance, as exist in casa No. 1. In that building both of the corner-piers of the façade are covered with hieroglyphics, and besides these there

are three great hieroglyphic tablets, two of which are each thirteen feet long and eight feet high, and each divided into two hundred and forty squares. These tablets are a sealed book, and toward their interpretation not even a beginning has been made.

Whether or not it will be in human power to decipher these and the rest of American hieroglyphics, and to give to history the annals they so vainly strive to tell, is a question yet to be settled. In any event, however, one of the main objects of the expedition, the reproduction of the most important inscriptions, has every prospect of accomplishment. This will bring within the reach of all concerned, both in Europe and in America, problems not unworthy the attention of the highest human intellects. Nor is it unreasonable to expect that some new Champollion will do for the early annals of our continent what has been already so amply done for the history of ancient Egypt. It is true that the quiet student at Paris or Washington will, of necessity, remain cold to some of the emotions naturally evoked by the monuments which attest the prosperity of what once was one of the fairest and most populous regions of the earth. He will, perhaps, not be stirred by the feelings which have moved enthusiastic travelers. It will not be in his power to feel with Stephens when, in the midst of desolation and ruin, he conjured up the past, dispelled the gloomy forest, and fancied every structure perfect, with its terraces and pyramids repeopled, and overlooking an immense inhabited plain. The scholar will not, perhaps, so readily as the traveler, call back into life the strange people whom Stephens fancied gazing at him in sadness from the walls of Palenque-the same people who had once, clad in fanciful costumes, adorned with plumes and feathers, ascended the terraces of the palace and the steps leading to the temples. But, though the future investigator may have no share in the genial enthusiasm of the traveler, he will have at his command all the materials that the most diligent research can obtain, for throwing light upon the origin and history of this interesting population. In careful casts and distinct photographs he will possess faithful representations of every monument. In effect he will have before his eyes Copan with all its mysteries, its columns scored with hieroglyphics, its rows of death's heads on the sculptured walls, its nameless kings and gods; and to his unimpassioned research we must trust to bring before us once more the old faith of an ancient and mighty priesthood, and the lost knowledge and strange arts of a cultivated and vanished people, whose ruins can be compared only with the ruins

of Rome in her glory. America, it has been said, is without traditions, has no past. But, just as geology shows that this Western Continent is really the "Old World," so archæological research will perhaps show that man and human civilization are as ancient here as in Europe. However that may be, these venerable monuments appeal with special force to Americans of the present day, not only on account of their value as purely scientific data, but also because they supply the links which connect us with the past.

THE EDITOR.

THE LAW OF NEWSPAPER LIBEL.

THE liberty of the press has been the boon for which patriots have struggled and many suffered. It has been the watchword of progress, and the shibboleth of party. It has been the battle-cry of those who contended against arrogant pretension and arbitrary power, as it has been the terror of irresponsible rulers. Claimed by its champions as the safeguard of the rights and rewards of freedom, it has been decried by its enemies as destructive of order, and inimical to the public safety. Its attainment has been signalized by determined struggle and effort from the time of the public prosecutions in England over a century ago, until now, when the freedom of the press is recognized and established under the supreme sanction of constitutional guarantees in every one of the United States.

However inestimable the right may have been once regarded, it is certain that at the present time the phrase "the liberty of the press" conveys no such idea of a public blessing as it formerly did. Unfortunately, it now suggests a dangerous and unrestrained license in the vituperation of private character, in the publication of much that is vile and demoralizing, and in the misrepresentation of public men and measures. On all sides we hear complaints of this license and abuse; and the courts are more and more resorted to for redress.* So now it is not so much a question of enlarging the liberty as of circumscribing it; not one of guarding it so much as restraining it. The nature and limit of this liberty have perhaps never been more aptly and elegantly stated than by Wirt, on the impeachment trial of Judge Peck, in December, 1830. The Judge was tried for punishing, as a contempt, a party for the publication of a criticism in refer

The "New York Herald" published in 1869 a statement in reference to libel suits against the press; and it appears that there were then pending no less than 756 libel suits of this character, wherein the complainants demand no less than $47,500,000 damages. (See this article, reproduced in Hudson's "History of Journalism,” p. 747.)

ence to an opinion he gave in a case. At the close of his argument for the accused, the famous Maryland orator said:

"What is the liberty of the press, and in what does it consist? Does it consist in a right to vilify the tribunals of the country and to bring them into contempt by gross and wanton misrepresentations of their proceedings? Does it consist in a right to obstruct and corrupt the streams of justice by poisoning the public mind with regard to causes in these tribunals before they are heard? Is this a correct idea of the liberty of the press? If so, the defamer has a charter as free as the winds, provided he resort to the press for the propagation of his slander; and, under the prostituted sanction of the liberty of the press, hoary age and virgin innocence lie at his mercy. This is not the idea of the liberty of the press which prevails in courts of justice, or which exists in any sober or well-regulated mind. The liberty of the press is among the greatest of blessings, civil and political, so long as it is directed to its proper object -that of disseminating correct and useful information among the people. But this greatest of blessings may become the greatest of curses if it shall be permitted to burst its proper barriers. The liberty of the press has always been the favorite watchword of those who live by its licentiousness. It has been from time immemorial, is still, and ever will be, the perpetual decantatum of all libelers. To be useful, the liberty of the press must be restrained."

The full and unrestrained license accorded the press has resulted too often in the aspersion of private character, and the invasion of domestic privacy; and therefore the tribunals of the country, by means of libel suits, are called upon very frequently to protect and vindicate one of the dearest rights of individuals-reputation. It will be, therefore, instructive, and of practical importance, to inquire what are the limits which the law has placed upon this liberty of the press; and how far it can invade private life and violate reputation without incurring a liability for libel. Let it be premised that it is rather in respect to civil liability that we intend to examine the question; for it is seldom now we witness criminal prosecutions against the press on behalf of the State for an abuse of its liberty. The prosecutions familiar at the present are those by individuals for damages for defamation, or by the State for criminal injury to such individuals. It is not intended to point out what charges or imputations are libelous, or to what extent newspapers can go, in commenting on men and things, without exposing themselves to a charge of libel. To do this we should have to enter into an ex