Nor have we selected this as a solitary instance of popular violence. Others have followed, of a character equally exceptionable, and they, therefore, show the necessity of lifting up the voice against them. The mobs of Boston, New-York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and other places, have all been but an exhibition of the same spirit of insubordination of the same disposition to usurp the powers of the magistrate, and set the laws at defiance. We know, indeed, that these violent movements are not peculiar to our country, nor to popular governments. Neither a monarchy nor an aristocracy is exempt from these tumultuous assemblages, and those excitements which lead to similar deeds of desperation. But where have we a similar example, on which the government of the country did not look with indignant disapprobation at such deeds of violence? Where else have we an example, where the people were encouraged to a repetition of their outrageous conduct, by the silence of the supreme power? Such a dangerous precedent will be pleaded in future, unless it shall have been frowned upon by those to whom the administration of the laws is committed. And even in those places where the authority of the magistrate was brought to bear upon the mob, and the military power of the country was called into action to enforce law and restore order, the slowness of their proceedings in some instances, and the manifest reluctance with which they discharged their duties in others, seemed but to add fuel to that destructive fire which was raging to such a fearful extent. We do not mean to question the purity or patriotism of the magistrates. They, doubtless, acted from the best of motives. They hoped that mild measures and remonstrances would have the effect to calm those turbulent spirits, and to bring them to a sense of their duty. They found, however, that this experiment failed; and after the mischief was done, and the deeds of violence were perpetrated, the mobs were dispersed by a show of authority. This we consider a mistaken policy. The law should be enforced with a promptness and energy which will teach the lawless that they cannot indulge in the violence of passion, in robbery, and murder, with impunity.

We need hardly stop here to say, that no man in the community is safe while this lawless spirit is permitted to vent itself: this is known to every one. Any citizen, however innocent, becoming obnoxious to the populace, is liable to be outraged in his person or property, whenever they shall see fit to indulge their splenetic disposition against him. This, therefore, is one of the evils to be deprecated. The law. less despotism of the mob must be destroyed, or the iron despotism of a military government will take its place. We must destroy it, or it will destroy us.

2. Another fearful evil which prevails to an alarming extent is, the abuse of the press. The freedom of the press, under proper regula. tions and restrictions, is one of the greatest blessings with which a free government can be favored: its abuse is one of its greatest curses; and unless checked and controlled, will, sooner or later, contribute to the destruction of that very freedom which is its safeguard.

It is not, therefore, the freedom of the press against which we speak; but it is that abuse of this freedom, which is exemplified in personal detraction and slander, and more especially in that rancor

which is manifested by one party against the other. The highest authority has said, "Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people." And one of the most comprehensive set of moral rules for the conduct of a religious community, has forbidden its members to 66 speak evil of ministers and magistrates." But such rules are no more heeded by the generality of our citizens, than if they had been written in the sand. On the contrary, the character of our magistrates is assailed uniformly by the adverse party with all the virulence of partisan madness; not chiefly because their conduct is morally or politically bad, but because they belong to the dominant party, and must therefore, if possible, be put down. And while the adverse party thus indiscriminately denounces its antagonist, the latter sets up its plea of justification, and manifests its sense of injury by retaliating upon its opponent in a similar strain of abuse and invective. Thus each party is immaculate in its own estimation, while its antagonist is every thing that is bad. Is this conduct likely to serve the interests of truth? to promote virtue? or to exalt the character of the nation?

The suffrages of a free people in the choice of their rulers is considered one of the safeguards of our liberties. But while partisan politicians are chiefly intent upon blackening the characters of each other, and as eagerly engaged in justifying their own party, what be. comes of the freedom of elections? Instead of selecting the best man in the community to serve the public interests, because he is the best, or the most competent, the chief, if not indeed the only inquiry is, Does he belong to the party, and will he, therefore, serve its interests? Thus the interests of the party are sought to be promoted at the sacrifice of the interests of the country. Is this the wisest course to preserve our liberties, and to secure the peace, the prosperity, and permanency of our government? We do not say that bad motives always influence men in this partisan warfare. No doubt they often persuade themselves that their party is right and the most patriotic; and that if their measures can be adopted, it will secure the best interests of the country. Nor do we deprecate the existence of all difference of opinion on the subject of politics. These differences, were they stated and conducted in a suitable manner, free from those violent expressions of wholesale slander and personal recriminations, might produce a healthy action in the body politic, and serve to purify the political atmosphere. A perfect calm is as much to be dreaded as a violent storm. But what we condemn is, that spirit of blind zeal which sees nothing good and true in an antagonist, nor yet any fault in those of its own party. Do not those unqualified censures, this impugning of motives, and this mutual recrimination, tend to destroy confidence in our rulers? Who, if he believe what is said in these vehicles of abuse, is willing to confide his interests to their keeping?

We allow, that "great men are not always wise." We allow, that magistrates may err; that bad men may get into office; that when "the wicked bear rule, the people mourn.' This is admitted. But how is the evil to be remedied? Is it by wholesale abuse and slander? Is it by a sweeping condemnation of the whole, merely because they dissent from us in political views? Does not every body see, that this unwise course of conduct goes to destroy all confidence in the ac. cuser as well as the accused? For our part, we have become so ac.

customed to this sort of abuse, that when we look into a strong partisan paper, and read the violent strictures upon public men and measures, we do not allow ourselves to be influenced by it. So little confidence is reposed in what is retailed under the influence of this bitter spirit, that we immediately suspect the whole as the tricks of the party, resorted to for the purpose of securing patronage, and or sustaining some particular interests. This is the natural, the unavoidable effect of those measures of violence. If, then, the press would inspire confidence in its integrity, let it give evidence that its sole object is to promulgate the truth, and to seek, not the interests of a party, but the good of the country. Let it, in its animadversions upon public men and measures, discriminate "between the righteous and the wicked;" give due credit for every thing which is good, let it be found wherever it may; make suitable allowances for human weak. nesses; and then its censures upon those who are at fault will be believed, and its warnings be heeded. We are no more in favor of wholesale and indiscriminate praise and mere partisan eulogy, than we are for those broad and sweeping accusations which pass sentence of condemnation upon all, because they happen to belong to a party. Discriminate between truth and error, between the good and the bad, right and wrong, and evince an honest intention to deal out equal justice to all, and the press shall become a faithful sentinel to warn the people of their danger, and at the same time a powerful prop in support of our liberties and our civil institutions. A love of country requires this: much more does Christianity sanction and command it.

But were this abuse of the freedom of the press confined to the political newspapers, there would not be so much reason to apprehend danger. Within a few years, religious periodicals, of various sorts and sizes, have been multiplied in our country. At the commencement of these, they were hailed by the Christian community as harbingers of peace and good will, and it was hoped that they would tend greatly to purify the moral atmosphere, and to present the rays of truth through a clearer medium to the minds of the people. Nor have we been altogether disappointed. Through this medium religious intelligence has been widely diffused, the benevolent enterprises of the day have been greatly aided, and many truths but partially known, have been announced and promulgated far and wide; and hence there can be no doubt, but that this sort of periodical literature and intelligence has been beneficially increased, carrying with it light and love to many hearts; nor would we say a word to limit its circulation, or to circumscribe its influence. Let it fly as "upon the wings of the morning," until it shall reach the utmost bounds of the habitable globe.

But we have, nevertheless, feared that even these papers have not al. ways been free from the defects we have already noticed. Instead of manifesting that strict regard to truth, justice, and love, which should characterize a religious journal, the spirit of party, of denominational jealousies, and of personal recrimination, has too much predominated. We, doubtless, must come in for our full share of censure on this subject. With whatever care and cautiousness an editor may have watched against the demon of party, it is to be feared that he has not always been frowned into silence. Nor has this partisan warfare been confined to a difference between one denomination and another,

but brethren of the same family have lifted up the heel against each other, each one contending for his peculiarities and opinions with much of that asperity of feeling and biting sarcasm which mark the conduct of political journalists. This spirit and conduct, so far as they have prevailed, have been productive of animosity, strife, and Hence some denominations are now bleeding at every pore, envy. and are literally torn to pieces by factions. How much the injudicious management of the religious press has contributed to this unhappy result, it would be well for all concerned to examine, and be more guarded in future. Editors, like all others, are fallible men. They have, equally with their readers, prejudices to combat, peculiar opinions of their own either to be sustained or sacrificed for the public good, and are liable to be biased by the same influences, unless well fortified by a prudent regard to the good of the community, which move and determine the conduct of all other men; while their position gives them a command over the opinions and feelings of their numerous readers, which involves a fearful responsibility. They sacrifice, therefore, either for good or ill, to a vast amount. Should not this thought suggest the necessity of a cautious conduct on the part of those who have command of the public press, and more especially of the religious press?

Such, indeed, is the vitiated taste of the public mind, that a paper which deals in personal abuse and individual detraction is more likely to be extensively patronized than any other. Hence the avidity with which such are sought after and read-a melancholy proof this of the depravity of the human heart, and of the facility with which means can be furnished to feed and pamper its vitiated appetite.

The unrestrained freedom of the press, when wielded in the cause of truth and virtue, is one of the greatest safeguards to free institutions. But, like all other good things, it opens a door for the most flagrant abuses; and in the hands of raw and inexperienced men, is susceptible of incalculable mischief; and more especially so, when it is controlled by those who are destitute of moral principle, urged on, as they frequently are, by a malignant hatred to a wholesome restraint, and to that order and subordination, which are essential to the wellbeing of human society. In this state of things, no sooner does a man take it into his head that his own interest can be advanced by resorting to the press, than he hastily puts his thoughts to paper, and, if he can enlist a sufficient number in his favor to commence the pub. lication of a daily or weekly sheet, he pours forth upon the community the effusions of his distempered and distorted brain, regardless of truth and honesty, reckless of the reputation of his neighbor, and equally indifferent to the interests of his country. And what is more astonishing still, if you presume to lift up your voice against this violent abuse of the press, you are denounced as an enemy to its freedom! These moral vampires, who feed themselves upon the characters of their countrymen, assume to themselves the right not only to dictate what shall be published, but they also seem to flatter themselves you are bound to read them, and pay them for their slanders. If you warn the people against their vituperations, and endeavor to guard the community from their contaminating influence, you are instantly stigmatized as an enemy to free discussion. Should not such men

consider that we have the same right to refuse to patronize and read as they have to publish? that we have the same right to condemn their vile trash as they have to pander it upon the public? Or, are they so blinded to the perceptions of equal rights that they have persuaded themselves that the freedom of the press consists altogether in the right to slander unmolestedly, to pour forth their political and moral heresies without opposition, and to poison the fountains of truth without censure!

Who will say that these things have not a deleterious influence upon us as a nation? Shall we become a nation of personal revilers? Shall we become distinguished for reciprocal recriminations? Will not such a course of conduct weaken the bonds of our civil compact, and ultimately drive us into that anarchy which is subversive of all order and good government? When mutual respect and confidence are destroyed, where can mutual safety be had? All those, therefore, who wish well to their country, should unite in frowning such principles and practices into silence. Let all such make the voice of reprobation be heard against this vile abuse of the freedom of speech and of the press, which leads to the indulgence of a licentiousness so hateful in its character, and so destructive to the tranquillity and prosperity of our beloved country. Let, indeed, the press itself take a bold, decided, and unflinching stand against such flagrant abuses of its freedom and independence. This it owes to its own character. What man, who values his reputation as an editor, is willing to identify himself with those hireling vassals who shout for the multitude, regardless of the rights of truth, probity, and honor, and who cater for the raven appetites of those who fatten themselves upon the spoils of such as are slain by those who delight in butchering the characters of their fellow-men!

We say, therefore, that every honest patriot who has any thing to do in controlling the press, owes it to himself and to his country to refrain from this merciless warfare upon human beings. And if such men would come forward fearlessly, and lift up their voice with that independent boldness which becomes men of truth and probity, in favor of morals and against that desecration of freedom we are now deprecating, the augean stable would soon be cleansed, the demon of discord would be compelled to confine himself to those only who are worthy of his society, while the virtuous and good would rally to the rescue, and seize on the golden moment to save our land and nation from the grasp of its hireling enemies.

3. Another evil, of no small magnitude, is the tendency which is manifested, in all our public men, to throw the government into the hands of the populace, and then to call their voice the voice of public sentiment. We confess that we have been no less disgusted than astonished at hearing our public speakers, apparently with a view to court popular applause, harp upon the "sovereignty of the people," and the "voice of their constituents," when they have been solicitous to carry some favorite measure; knowing, at the same time, that this sovereignty and constituency knew no more about the measure in question, until they heard it announced by their delegate, than they did of the secret movements of the caucus which nominated him to his office. And these men have rung the changes upon the "sovereignty of the people" so long, and with such a sick