But there is another attempt to grasp and to wield a power over public opinion, of a still more daring character, and far more dangerous effects.

In all popular governments, a FREE PRESS is the most important of all agents and instruments.  It not only expresses public opinion, but, to a very great degree, it contributes to form that opinion.  It is an engine for good or for evil, as it may be directed; but an engine of which nothing can resist the force.  The conductors of the press, in popular governments, occupy a place, in the social and political system, of the very highest consequence.  They wear the character of public instructors.  Their daily labors bear directly on the intelligence, the morals, the taste, and the public spirit of the country.  Not only are they journalists, recording political occurrences, but they discuss principles, they comment on measures, they canvass characters; they hold a power over the reputation, the feelings, the happiness of individuals.  The public ear is always open to their addresses, the public sympathy easily made responsive to their sentiments.  It is indeed, Sir, a distinction of high honor, that theirs is the only profession expressly protected and guarded by constitutional enactments.  Their employment soars so high, in its general consequences it is so intimately connected with the public happiness, that its security is provided for by the fundamental law.  While it acts in a manner worthy of this distinction, the press is a fountain of light, and a source of gladdening warmth.  It instructs the public mind, and animates the spirit of patriotism.  Its loud voice suppresses every thing which would raise itself against the public liberty; and its blasting rebuke causes incipient despotism to perish in the bud.

But remember, Sir, that these are the attributes of a FREE press only.  And is a press that is purchased or pensioned more free than a press that is fettered?  Can the people look for truths to partial sources, whether rendered partial through fear or through favor?  Why shall not a manacled press be trusted with the maintenance and defence of popular rights?  Because it is supposed to be under the influence of a power which may prove greater than the love of truth.  Such a press may screen abuses in government, or be silent.  It may fear to speak.  And may it not fear to speak, too, when its conductors, if they speak in any but one way, may lose their means of livelihood?  Is dependence on government for bread no temptation to screen its abuses?  Will the press always speak the truth, when the truth, if spoken, may be the means of silencing it for the future?  Is the truth in no danger, is the watchman under no temptation, when he can neither proclaim the approach of national evils, nor seem to descry them, without the loss of his place?