New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1842-12-13
r.s pres. and sheLnw OF Libel.

We invite the general attention Of the Press,
and not less of the People, to the principles in
yoved in the application made of the Law Of
Libel TO Public Journals and Journalists by the
Supreme Court Of this State. Those principles
viii, very broadly appear to those who may have
patience TO peruse our long Report of our Trial
for Libel on J. Fenimore Cooper, published in
Yesterdays paper. We cannot doubt that the
Press must feel as do in regard to this matter,
for our cause is indeed that Of the whole profess
sion This suit is over, and settled; for we know
great deal better than to appeal to our Supreme
Court. Let us sink, then, entirely the personal
issue as to whether we did or did not libel Mr..
Fenmore Cooper and if we did how much we
ought to pay him therefor, and look only to the
principles involved in this case, as involving the
Rights and Independence of the Press.
II was hard for to sit quietly and hear Feni
more argue and the Judge charge that we claimed
for the Press mpunity from prosecution for
Libel-a dispensation from the Law-and there
upon invoke exemplary damages upon our devoted
head, because Of our audacity and nrrogance-and
we not allowed to open our lips in correction OF
the error. But that is gone by. Let US now pu'
few cases, to show more clearly, if possible, what
we did maintain, and the ground on which the
Press stands in relation to Libels and the Law Of
Libel
Suppose, for instance, Walter Trego has beer
murdered in this city, and onas Jackman, who has
absconded about the same time, is strongly sus
pected, from various circumstances, as the muir
derer. Thercupon Gov Seward or Mayor Nor
ris issues Proclamation, offering reward Of
$1,000 for the apprehension and delivery of Jack
man, describing his person and apparel, which is
advertised in columns Now this publication
i. inevitably damnatory to Jackman be he where
he may; and he may, after al, be wholly innocear
of the murder. But is there sane man in tht
State (the Judges of the Supreme Court excepted
if they say coy who does not see that an action 70,
Libel brought by Jackman against US would not
lie, because the nature of the case and the nature
of our business peremptorily forbid the presump
ton of malice on our part.
Well: try it again: Suppose the Proclamation
has been issued but not officially published in ou
paper, and we had inserted it as matter of news,
and from desire to subserve the ends of Justice
(Herc is your case, Fenimore; our duty is wholly
"self.imposed," syou informed the Jury; and we
are performing it wholly if you are the proper
Judge, (" to make money"-"to see how many
six-peuces can pick up &C. &c. But is all
this peculiar to Editors Tor does it extend I"
Novelists also7) Jackman comes home innocent.
and some needy pettifoger coaxes him to prose
cute as for libel Ought this action to hold agans'
us7 Can we plead only in mitigationof damages
We know how it is under our Supreme Court
decisions but is it not otherwise in the eye Of the
Common Law and of Justice
Well, take third supposition Jackman has
gone off, he is strongly suspected of the murder
for the circumstance. are very dark against him ;
and (no Proclamation having yet issued) see sa,
that suspicion fastens upon him, and he would do
well to manifest himself, if innocent: meantime,
ne can be recognized by scar over his left eye
Now, if there be circumstances or evidence to
show that we have done this wantony or mnli
ciously for the sake of iniuring Jackman-,Eat Is,
If it appear that he not suspe cted Of the muir
der, but were his enemy, and said what did
merely to iniure him, of course mus, smart for
it, es VIC ought but, tntil something like this is
shown, we insist that the Common Law as well as
common sense--if we can understand the former
and are not deetitute of the latter-presume ou,
innocence, and not our guilt.
Blu, let US show more distinctly the reason 70,
this fighiful prelogative of Editors-,her a.,
sun,ed right to SANDER and destroy every body,
which our Supreme Court 80 frewn upon-whch
Mr.. Fenimore has bestrided his Rosinante and
done spch f,r;ous ha,tle aoo;pst x,;,b lcse honor
possibly. but certainly profit, than Don Quix-
ote. We make the statement above quoted and
the Common Law presumes innocence until
some evidence to The contrary be shown. Blu
suppose there is no such suspicion, and no whisper
of il in the Journals but Waiter Trego has been
murdered, and Jacob Kemper puts advertise
ment in our paper stating that he suspects Jonas
Jackmsn will turn on, the murderer. Now the
law puts him on his defence for Libel, and LAYS
MIN under the presumption of malice towara Jack
man; because it says What business had yen
to meddle in this way with the ma,,erl Why.
you had any grounds to suspec, Jackman, did
You not state them to magistrate7 What good
enc could yoa hope to sabserve by your publica-
aonf SIR, your conduct in this matter Is primo
J"''s eV,oence that you were sctus,ed by malice
Against 'eeSman. and you must rest under tina,
Presunpuon till you disprove it.'-Does not ever,
clear miad see tia, the reasons for impu,ina
malice at the outset TO hemper do not apply 70 the
Edi.or'-f this distinction is no, broadly sns.
tanned by the Common Law, then we canno, read
fit be just and necessary, then we are insane.
That if it be denied, the Press can exis, only a,
-...,,... ,,a,.,, of 81, ,ba o,;, So~,. n ,