New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1843-01-09
The Press and the Law of Libel.

We should do injustice TO our own feelings did
we no. give expression ts the grateful~sensauens
with which we have read and treasured the mani
festations of approval and sympathy which have
reached US from more than I'teo Hundred OF the
most respectable and influential Journals OF the
Union, in reference to our course and fortune IN
the Trial at Ballston of the Libel-sult brought
against us by J. Feninore Cooper We cannot
find room to make our acknowledgements to each
particularly, but their frank and faternal kindness
is not the less deeply appreciated. Each OF them
appears to recognize at once that the cause which
we were required to defend was in essence that of
the vital Liberty Of tho Press against assumptions
which would deprive it of every element of power
or usefaIness-of all ability to rebuke injustice,
meanness or oppression. That defence has cost
us triHe, but since the cause has been traversed
before tho high tribunal of Public Opinion, we feel
moro than ever sure that the result is substantial
victory to tho Rights Of the Press. We are conf
dent that no American Jury can henceforth be
driven into the rendering Of more than nominal
damages, if any, upon such state of facts as was
presented at Ballston. Thanks, then, renewed
thanks to our brethren Of the Press through whose
exertions this victory of Freedom has been
achieved
We would not speak at all of the two or three
presses which have been induced, by the madness
of party or personal hatred, to express contrary
opinion in the premises were it not for single
imputation which they have cast upon the great
body of the Press which they contradict in ca
deavoring to make out case for Mr.. Cooper
They undertake to represent him as the victim OF
Political hostility asserting that it is the Wing
Press which has assailed him in consequence of
hs party predections There is no approach to
truth in this. Mr.. Cooper, we recoect, once
wrote political pamphlet, but we never read ii,
and have only general idea that it talked some
on both sides but rather more against the Wings
than for them. We never wrote q line with regard
10 it. nor considered il of the least consequence in
any way. On the only political topic we ever
heard him discuss (the Tariff we heartily agreed
with him.
But there cannot, surely, be need OF any vindi-
cation on this point. 1t is settled by the most
notorious, everyday facts. Here is in our midst,
WILLIAM c. BRYANT, not only an active and
prominent, but bitter Political writer--we are al
most weekly brought in collision with him on ques-
tions Of Political Economy ofthe Theory of Govern
ment, and of Practical Administration. fctis not
his Literary fame proudly cherished by the
Wing Press az the Loco-Foco2 Have not we
done what we could, through years, to evlnce our
admiration of his Poetry? Have we ever suffered
our differences with the Politician 10 affect our
appreciation Of the Poet7 So of BANCROFT,
HAwrHoRsE, and the lamen.ed ROCKWELL and
W.P. HAYES. Where have the merits of these
gifted ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS US in politics, but not
les. admired for their genius and their Literary
achievements, and proudly regarded as our coun,
trymen--been more heartily acknowledged and
steadily commended than in the columns of the
Wing Press7 But we need not, surely, enlarge on
This head
Gerryrnandcring the CITY.