CHAPTER XLII. Of the rights of Conscience; Writ of Habeas Corpus; Lib erty of Speech and of the Press. § 1. THERE are certain important rights secured to the people of this state, which have not yet been noticed. The guaranty of these rights is in the 3d, 6th, and 8th sections of the 7th article of the Constitution. § 2. The first of these sections (§ 3) secures to every cit izen liberty of conscience; which is the liberty to discuss and maintain our religious opinions, and to worship God in such manner as we believe most acceptable to him. This is a privilege heretofore denied to the people of many other countries, even in some called Christian and civilized; in which many thousands have been put to death for their religious opinions. §3. But the rights of conscience are now more extensively tolerated. In some countries, however, there is still what is called an established religion, where some religious denomination receives the support of the government, as in Great Britain. This is called "union of church and state." But in this country the government does not interfere in religious matters, except to protect and secure to every denomination, "without discrimination or preference, the free exercise and enjoyment of religious worship." § 4. Another of the rights alluded to, is the privilege of the "writ of habeas corpus. This is a Latin phrase, and means, have the body. This privilege was long enjoyed by the people of Great Britain before the independence of these states; and it is not strange that a people loving liberty should, in establishing a government of their own, insert such a provision in their constitution. 5. A person committed, confined, or restrained of his liberty for a supposed criminal matter, or under any pretence whatsoever, may, before the final judgment of a court is $2. What is liberty of conscience? Has religious liberty always been enjoyed? 3. To what extent are the rights of conscience secured in this country? 4. What is the meaning of habeas corpus? $5. In what pronounced against him, petition a competent court or judge, stating the cause of complaint. The judge then issues a writ against the party complained of, commanding him to bring before the court or judge, the body of the person confined; and if he shall refuse to do so, he may be imprisoned. § 6. If, upon examination, it appears that the complainant has been illegally confined, the judge grants relief. If a person has been discharged upon habeas corpus, he may not be again confined for the same cause; but it is not to be deemed the same cause if, after a discharge, he shall be committed for the same offence by due process of law; or if, after a discharge for defect of proof, or defect in commitment, he shall be again arrested on sufficient proof, and committed for the same offence. For reimprisoning a person unlawfully after having been duly discharged, the law imposes a penalty of $1250, to be paid to the party aggrieved. § 7. The section which remains to be noticed, is that which secures to all the right "freely to speak, write, and publish their sentiments;" that is, the liberty of speech and of the press. A press is a machine for printing; but the word is also used to signify the business of printing and publishing; hence liberty of the press is the free right to publish books or papers without restraint. $8. In many foreign countries, persons were not allowed to speak against the government or its officers, however bad their character or acts might be. In some of these governments, books and papers could not be issued without being first examined by persons appointed by the government. In this country no law can be passed which shall prevent the humblest citizen from censuring the conduct of the highest officer of the government. § 9. But it must not be supposed that men may speak or publish, against others, whatever they please; for the same section which secures freedom of speech, makes us “responsible for the abuse of that right." Without some restraint, cases, and how, is this writ obtained? 6. What does the judge then do? Can he be twice confined for the same cause? For so doing, what is the penalty? What is not considered the same cause? 7. What is liberty of speech? Liberty of the press? 8. Is this liberty every where enjoyed? 9. May we speak of others whatever we please? Why should we not? wicked men might, by false reports, destroy the good name, the peace, or the property of others. Nor may we, in all cases, speak even the truth of others, if thereby we should injure them. § 10. To defame another by a false or malicious statement or report, is either slander or libel. When the offence consists in words spoken, it is slander; when in words written or printed it is called libel. As a slander in writing or in print is generally more widely circulated, and likely to do greater injury, it is considered the greater offence. Hence damages may sometimes be recovered for slanderous words printed, when for the same words merely spoken, a suit could not be maintained. § 11. It has just been stated, that we may not always even speak the truth of others. By the common law of England, the libel was considered as great when the statement was true as when false, because the injury might be just as great; and therefore when prosecuted for libel, a man was not allowed to prove to the jury the truth of his statement. Such may be considered the law in this country, except where special provision to the contrary has been made by law or constitution. § 12. But it may sometimes be proper to speak an unfavorable truth of others: therefore the framers of our constitution inserted this provision, that "the truth may be given in evidence to the jury; and if the matter charged as libel. lous is true, and was published with good motives and for justifiable ends, the party shall be acquitted:" § 13. The wisdom of this provision is easily seen: suppose you know a person to be accustomed to steal, or to commit other secret injuries, you have a right to inform others of his practices to put them on their guard against him. But though a man has been guilty of bad conduct, if you pub .ish the fact to injure him in his business or to expose him to public scorn, you are liable, because you did it not from good motives. 10. What is the difference between slander and libel? 11. If a person is prosecuted for slander or libel, may he, by the common law, prove that what he said is true?? 12. What does our constitution provide respecting nis? 13. Suppose a case in which it would be lawful to publish a man's bad character? $ 14. For what is a person liable in case of slander? For §14. In case of slander, a man is liable only for damages in a civil action; but for libel, a person is not only liable for private damages, but he may also be indicted and tried as for other public offences. CHAPTER XLIII. Of the Government of the United States. 1. Having treated of the government of the state of New York, and of our rights and duties as citizens of this state, I proceed, as proposed, to show our relations to the government of the United States. §2. It is thought by many persons, to be very difficult to understand the relations which the state and national governments bear to each other. But if the scholar will attentively study the following chapters, he will find that children may learn what many of our adult citizens have never learned, and what some think none but men are able to comprehend. 3. To learn the nature of the general government, and of our relations to it as citizens of the United States, we must go back to the time when the colonies were subject to Great Britain. Though they were all subject to that country, they had no political connection with each other. They were, in this respect, as independent of each other as so many different nations. Hence there was no such thing as being a citizen of the United States. Every person was only a citizen of the state in which he lived. 4. During the controversy with Great Britain, it be came necessary for the colonies to agree upon some general measures of defence. For this purpose, the first great continental congress, composed of delegates from the several colonies, met at Philadelphia on the 4th of September, 1774. The next year, in May, another congress met to propose and to adopt such farther measures as the state of the country night require; and the same congress, on the 4th of July, what in case of libel? $3. Had the colonies any political connection while subject to Great Bri in? Of what were the people then citizens? 4. For what purpose did 1776, declared the colonies to be free and independent states. § 5. This declaration was called "the unanimous decla ration of the United States of America: " but the states were united only in certain measures of safety. There was no government which exercised authority over the states. The people were subject to their respective state governments only. They were not yet incorporated into one nation for the purpose of government, as now, under a constitution. Hence, they were not properly citizens of the United States. §6. To provide effectually for the future security, as well as the immediate safety of the American people, congress deemed it necessary that there should be a union of the states under some general government; and in November, 1777, that body agreed upon a plan of union. The articles were called "articles of confederation and perpetual union between the states ;" and were to go into effect when adopted by the legislatures of all the states. Some of the states were slow to agree to the articles; but they were finally adopted, March 1, 1781. §7. The states were now united in a kind of national government, but it was not such a one as the present; as will appear by noticing a few points of difference between them. In the first place they were different in form. The confederation was a union of states; it was scarcely entitled to be called a government. It had not, as the national government now has, the three departments of power, legislative, executive and judicial. It had only a legislature, and that consisted of only one body; and to that congress the several states, large and small, were entitled to send each an equal number of delegates. § 8. That government differed from the present also in regard to its powers. The confederation was a very weak government. Its powers were vested in congress. The congress was to manage the common affairs of the nation, and the first great congress assemble? When and where? What was done by the next congress? 5. What was the declaration called? For what purpose were the states united? Was there a national government at that time? 6. What kind of union was agreed upon by congress in 1777! When did these articles go into effect? 7. Was that a government like the present? In what general respects was it different in form? 8. Ilow |