OCR Text |
Show r P T ASK CREEL. THE able editor of the New York TRIBUNE .wants to know whether, in view of his slurring remarks against Congress, our censor-in-chief is not liable under the sedition act, which provides imprisonment im-prisonment for uttering "scurrilous," or "abusive language about the form of government of the United States," or "language intended to bring the form of government of the United States" into "contempt, scorn, contumely or disrepute." That is hard to answer, for Creel seems to be a privileged character and immune from all the restraints that hold in check the average citizen. There is no doubt that the extraordinary chairman of the Committee Com-mittee on Public Information allowed his tongue to run away with him during his notorious New York speech. He even admits to having hav-ing said in substance : "I don't like slumming, so I am not' going to explore the heart of Congress." But we are reminded by one of Creel's defenders that he promptly apologized for the hasty utterance, and that there the matter should be allowed to rest. That is one way to look at it the charitable view, perhaps. But suppose the department of justice were as easily satisfied satis-fied in every instance where the spirit and letter of the sedition law has been violated; would the law not soon lose its force? Were this rule to hold good, then all that would be necessary for the person who indulges in seditious utterances is to say "I am sorry," in order to be pardoned without prejudice. As we view the law, it aims to compel a wholesome respect for our American form of government and free institutions, and to punish such persons who speak disrespectfully of the government in any of its forms. If this be true, then Creel has violated the spirit of the law, if not the letter, and the amends should call for something more than a mere apology. |