New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1842-12-12

Some said this was Hawk1sh, but we consider II
good, and think it told We have different the
cry as TO what the girls were crying for, but we
went state it les, another dose of Supreme Cour.
law be administered TO US. Not any more at
present, thank ye.)
FeRimore closed something before 2 o'clock,
having spoken over an hour and half. 1.-The had
not wasted so much time IN promising to make but
short speech and TO close directly, he would
have got through considerably sooner Then he did
wrong to Richard BY continually recurring to and
fulsome eulogiums on the argument OF my learned
| kinsman." Richard had made good speech and
an effective one-no mistake about it-and Feni-
more must mar it first by needless provoking inter
ruptions, and then by praises which, though de-
served, were horribly of place and oat of taste.
Feninore, my friend, you and had better absn-
don the Bar-we are not likely either of Us to cut
much of figure there. Let quit before we
make ourselves ridiculous.
His Honor Judge WILLARD occupied a brief
half hour in charging the Jury. We could not
desently appear occupied in taking Down this
Charge, and no one else did it-so must speak
of it with great cumspection. That he would
go dead against US on the Law of the case we
knew right well, from his decisions and charges
similar trials before. Not having his Law points
| before Us, we shall not venture to speak OF them.
Suffice it to say, that they were Newly ork Supreme
and Circuit Court Iaw-no better and no worse
than he has measured off to several Editorial Gull
| prts before US. They are the settled maxirhs of
the Supreme Court of this State in regard to the
law of libel as applied to Editors and Newspapers,
ard we must have been goose to expect any bet
ter than had been served out to our betters. The
Judge hardly, If it all, at liberty tie know or
tolerate any other.
But, while we could not have the vanity to sup
pose His Honor would abandon his law and adopt
ours, we did expect tina; he would consider our law,
even though he had considered every crumo OF 1t
before He OF course understood that we had con-
tested this issue for the very purpose OF bringing
before the Bench, and thence before the Public,
certain considerations connected with the Law OF
Libel as applied to the Press which we thought
our State Tribunals had not duly regarded. Mr.
Cooper, so far as we could Judge, never wanted to
bring this case into Court any more than we did
we always supposed he thought it would cost, one
way and another quite as much as it would come
to-and we know he was willing to let US off very
easily. But we never wanted to be let of. We
wanted to 60 into Court and be instructed as to
the point in which we had Inexperienced the
spirit of the Common Law in its application to
such cases as ours This we did not get. Ga all
we said with regard to the Right of Free OPln-
ions, and the inapplicabty of the Law of Libel to
what is obviously and avowedly an expression Of
Opinion founded on accompanying facts, ne did
not so far as we could gather) deign to bestow
SYLLABLE. The Law that we tried to bring to bear
on the case he set aside at brush as wholly in
applicable part oft applying only to the dis
cusson of public affairs and the character and mo-
tiyes of public men, where necessarily larger lib
erty is allowed, and the residue as applying to ger
bal defamation or SANDER only, with regard to
which the law is far less strict than with libelers
by writing and prescibes that the person slandered
must have been charged with some infamous crime
or offence calculated to exclude him from Society,
before an action will lie These two classes, Judge
w. charged, absorb all the principles and cases
from the Common Law cited by US.
Perhaps we ought to submit to this dictum with
out question; and, lift were mere matter OF opln-
ion on legal lore we should of course do 80 with all
humility. But where the point at issue appears
to be simply the meaning of remarkably clear
sentence of plain English. "a language we have
studied some,) it does not seem so very presumP'
tuous in Us to have opinion, after all. Let Us
look, then, to the first authority cited TO His
Honor:
the case of battery of the person The law can, with
out hesitation I amy amy eu,s the compaioan
TO his remedy hut communications concerning reputation
cannot Pqs every tx Ss Sou reors
quently the hazard If ,ndIvidual reputation ana CON
mainly to the ends OF morality and goa Jraf 70 ne
SHOULD be afforded to such Communications. Ihe aaea q
public and disgrace is not only the osI elscaua
and therefore the most important but in numberess ipan
ces only security 1chch society Jo INC
ton of aecency and III: performance Of the pirate du'
THE law may indeed, define particular offences, ano
diminish their frequency by the threat OF punishment oal
il cannot define and therefore cannot compel an oos"rv
ance of the duties upon the discharge OF which me app
ness of the community most essentially depends ~ po,
sibe short, for strict observer OF every esdi
me to be destitute of honorable feeling and pnc
pie utterly unfit tor supporting any use'ui 'e"'h W
iba society in which his existence Is tolerated..
There are il is true, Other add strong motives ior gooo
conducts but however powerful such are or ought 10 pc
common experience proves that their practical operation
rpon the mas OF mankind weak when compared TO the
love of character and strongly suggests even 20
the state OF nlDgs WHICH "ouu
us. and blame 10 become alike indifferent Hence II IS
at he rery liability reputation" to public esrs tends IN
very considerable The OF lis purify
49, lStarlie on Siander- Introduct,on,P III.
We have great respect for Judge Willard
oninien though he has none for ours; butwe will
oiv, opr head for q football if the author is not
here maintaining the wisdom, justice and lawful
ness of publications and structures affecting 'naa-
riaual and pirate character, if the Same be In
tended to rebuke immortality, injustice and wrong
doing In other words, he is maintaining the