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

,,,s with regard to the essesrial facts, for have
reaailv admitted all the plaintiff has desired TO
-rove. excep, the malicious and ibeious intent OF
he articles complained of. In deciding on their
40 character. bearing in mind that am charged
with :. falssiy toickedLy and mslicionsly'' pub
I;sbi, ar,;c.s intended to subject the plaintiff TO
ignomuy and contempt, beg you to consider,
lar That indignation IS not malice IT yeu
should sse n large, powerful man holding down
and hea,joo feeble and inotensive one, you would
naturally be indignant and might express your In
dignation without mourning the lmPuta'ion OF ma
lice. So if YOU were TO see plaintiff in this Court
press his cause to verdict unoPposed, white Inc
defendant was detained away at the BEDSIDE Oh
dying wife or child, and wholly undetended' you
would naturally feel indignation and express H.
yet without being justly chargeable with malice.
2dly. ask you to consider my rocattoa OF Puot'c
journalist In tha, vocation it my duty to speak
out in apprehension of injustice, oppression and
wrong, when another citizen may innocently tor
bear. To this end, the Freedom of the Press Is
carefully guarded by Federal and State Consti-
tutions. This Freedom of the Press is no unmean-
ING abstraction or barren generality-itim implies the
Freedom of Opinion and Utterance. The practical
Distinction between fearless discussion OF acts and
motives and an abuse of this Freedom TO purposes
of private erudge and personal malice, Is under
stood and acted on throughout the Country lake
ND any newspaper you choose in the nearest tavern
and YOU will therein see John Quincy Adams de-
nounced as fanatical and factious; Henry Clay as
corrupt and aristocratc; or Martin van buren, as
n iuegler, q magician; Levi Woodbury. as oiun-
dering and incompetentin Finance, Nc &c. Now,
Gentlemen of the Jury on reading these assertions
in the newspapers against the most emlnent men
in the land, you are not led to adopt these coaci.
sions or any of them implicitly; 1t is not expected
that you should do So You understand that these
are but expressions of the Editors opinions,
founded on facts of general notoriety; OF when
facts YOU take YOUR own view, and adopt the kdi-
tors conclusions only so far they are warranted
in your judgement by the facts to which they ap-
peal. Beyond that the epithets or opinions of the
writer's have no force or effect For instance, one
NAV saw that John Tyler, Pesidentofth the T. States,
is traitor, in that he has removed from office
many unexceptionable incumbents who ardenty
supported his election and the principles on which
it was effected, and pu, in their places those who
yehemently opposed him and them. Now,
YOU read this denuncaton in my paper, for
instance and does it have any of the effect OF
libel on your minds 7 Certainly not. You accept
and understand it as my conclusion from certain
notorious facts; you concur in or dissent from that
conclusion in your own Judgement the facts
shall require. My statements of fact, if make
any, will trust have weight with you; my opin-
ions you receive and regard my opinions only.
But suppose were to assert that had secret but
positive evidence that John Tyler is bargaining
with foreign foe to deliver up the Government
and the National defences into the hands of that
foe, and call upon every citizen to prepare for
resisting this treason. Here is fragrant libel,
unless i, be solemn truth, in which case it would
be my imperative duty publish it, looking to the
truth and my duty for my Justification. Here Is
no deduction from preceding or accompanying
statements Of facts, but from alleged evidence In
my possession, and withheld from the public
But is there any thing like this in the case now
before you Do not all of you understand, in
reading the whole of the article complained of by
the plaintiff in this suit, that the passages he OBJ
lects to are the writer's differences from the &C
complaining facts? Take the FIRST sentence otmy
correspondents letter, which IS rected IN the dec
laraton as libel.
"cupied The legal grieS OF Mr.. Fenimore Cooper,
"havng contributed to bis waning popularity as novelist
500 how completely this 10 qualified by und rest
ed upon the undoubted facts stated in the very
sentence:
"The handsome Mr. Efingbam has three causes at IS
sue here two OF which are against Col Webb Editor the
Courier and Enquirer 7nd against Mr. Weed, Editor
OF the Albany Evening .onrna.'
Does not every reader readily understand that
the first sentence is the writer's inference from the
facts stated in the second Does he not adopt
reject the inference, according a, he shall judge
of those facts trust, gentlemen, that this dis
tinction between libel uttered and frankly ex-
pressed conclusion Fl ON notorious facts, clear
TO your minds as to mine.
Gentlemen of the Jury, have been for years an
Editor of public journals, and ardenty engaged in
Political controversy when party feeling ragged
fercely. Though always intending 10 be just,
have often given utterance to harsh judgements OF
opponents-Possibly unjust ones; yet never was
complaint made Of my that did not con-
slider and endeavcr to satisfy. Thus did | i'll this
case, as the evidence before you has established.
Ler me endeavor to make the distinction on
which rely still more palpabe. There was lately
a famous exhibition of ruianism, called Prize
Fight, q. Hastings in Westchester County, some
twenty miles from New-York, which resulted in
the death of young man, the sole support of a
widowed helpless and destitute mother, and
sister--of tender years. This sacrifice at
tended BY circumstances of revolving ferocity, cal
culaled ali the guilty parties with execra-
ton and nfalny. Those circumstances detailed
to the publc--l depicted them, so far as could,
in all their unnatural horrors-l denounced the
sacrifice and its guilty promoters in language as
strong as | could command | held them up to
public ignominy and reproach painting their con-
duct in the most vivid and hdeeus colors. Many
of these men had committed no offence for which
the Law could take hold of them; and yeti sought
to call down upon their heads the seyerest male
dictions of a shocked and outraged Public Opinion.
Now, if the doctrines assumed in bringing and
prosecuting this suit be indeed the Law of the
Land then [ am liable to prosecution for Libel
from each one Of these actors at Hastings, and