New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1845-06-09
THE TRIBUNE.



,bps in your remarks Of this morning the subject in
,1a more simple and succinct than have seen else
where beg therefore 10 make yor article the text OF
,word m explanation. TO De- fair you can require
,.ke he case o. yol have put H. in the most lorcbo
,,a,emeni you could frame in the mos; familiar ilustra
bon you can md Here H. is:
alfI say John smith stole pin he who steals q pin
would stcsl a dollar If he had good chance John
Smith may fairly hold prove that he stole pin
psy him the damage have done him in making the
charge but AN ready TO prove this that Is all hc has
night rex Of me. BY iHfrenoe from the fact s either
wuranied OF uuwauantod II the former he has no
cause Of acton if the latter j, DO him essential
harm
Now, why is II that the Court allows you 10 justify
or peai the truth the former but does not IN the
after Simply because in The instance sou have
charged tad and in The other an hfv0oe; aud thar
facts are proper subjects Of judicial and evidence
differences or opinions not And the Of thi-
exemption il not less sound than the fact il sanitary
Were the Court admit proof Of the truth (s'rcty the
sa.onaboness) Of an Inference" it would thereby be
taking coguzancc Of the logic Of the nforcr and Of the
moral character Of the beedan extension Of jurisdic
ion which would be found suspect, improvement
preference the purse Of the Editors any more than to
The peace OF the community.
TAKE TO compel me To pay for making an inference
il is not for making an inference, bat for publish
ing an impuiaton is not because your inference
good bad bui because injurious to party whose
nshis the law is bound TO protect The law and the
court IT, organ proceeding only upon acfs regard
In,he matter only an oct done and injury sufered-
This the distinction which explains the familiar para
dox. "7he greater the truth the greater the libel" The
H. ii. .I.t Ill, ...f
apt to be more injurious than II were false and the
Court in the in question is confined 10 the consd-
erstion Of the injury.
Hence appears that an inference" however " way
rsn;ablo' tmay be in logic must be always unwaI1ani
able In qv Your alternative consequcnts are therefore
bo,l untrue the "causc of action" depends in wise
upon the Legitimacy" Of your inference but exclusive
IL on lie iac Of the injury done by having published II
As little maniiesy does The quantity az least the
ally. Of his injury. On the latter point twin spare
some detail to confront you with yourself You affirm
OIL apprehend you that IT can do man no essential
harm TO charge hun of being capable Of siealing dollar
yroriied the charge be troo Yet you admit in the
sentence Immediately preceding TINT il would be just 70
mue' you damages for having charged the theft OF
pin ifGf clcres uers false Can the reason that
condemned you for making the lesser charge exculpa,e
you from the responsibility of having made the much
more heinousi
Such sir the consequence of poking in the dark
Marx what light the principle above indicated sheds
upon the whole subject Reyicwyo opinions the Law
dLbcl by rs guidance and YOU Will own, think that
Vrdio,s are regular and Willard plain
Theprncpe it, That our Courts have sht.ul cognizance
hpsnd adjudication only of acts and OF certain conse
Quences by The law attached 20 them other words OF
faas as conIodstnguished from opinions. This exposes
the sophst5 Of charging the Courts with Furnishing
opinions It has been shown they punish but acts The
principle will farther mend very materially the law
which you have put in the mouth Of the Court IN It's col
ioquy with Mr.. Weed, where you make il say No, Mr.
Weed the fbel is no, that your narrative was false but
hsiyol inference thereirom unioundcd -igjari- !
cas- the Court would have said more correctly. well |
U' Gour HonorO IL VIII prove that such bang TIE
fees the inference rgs Ultimate" "No sir you can't
eealowei TO do hi. dec3 that the facts set forth do
no; justify your inference" The Court If allowed 90
speak for itself would presume have rather said some
ting TO his effect 81 decide tha, your inference is not
snong the LEGAL con equcnccs OF the facts you set forth
tchi. tie sole condition upon which only You but
sssn l. would be warranted in making nieronccs ~.
'rricas 10 third parties
Proper to avoid ,cchnicales expect, in turn not 10
Nsnswercd by book, but considered with all your COM
relensyencss and candor These remarks have. more
over been thrown together with hurry and brcvty
"aiea " comport with a subject complcme in consu
'uaon and darkcncd by discussion II would require
song essay introduce the torch OF an uural cling and
nt'hodians analysis into this and other less dark and
'-ucus abyrnths OF the Common Law. For the rest.
ia0re the attempt may soon be made though il should
Sbui with rush-lght J. orc.
Tuesday Msy a7h
70 The above is a bona fdc aucmp, at defence
Of the Libel decisions IN our State bv LAWYER Of
oI City. We do no, know that We can add any
Ans to is unconscious exposure Of the absurdit,
md wrong Of those decisions, bu, we Will waste |
lew words upon the matter
l. Malice implied in the vc-v natur, and always
Specified IN the definition OF a libel The essential
Hea OF libel is a publication specially designed 10
inl0re some one and mpclcd 10y an cnyious or ma
hgnant spirit But can Malice fairly be- presumed
I'm the absence Of any other proof than tina, afforded
by the article itself to have impcned some zoalou.
Protestant for instance who writes that tho pone.
assumptions are impious and fraudulent DoYb,
less the Pope would feel agericvca b, ,ls f. mann,
were led by 1t 10 concur in the writer. vie,y of I'M,
natter; but would it be just and cxpelieut IN ,,,;,
an on these words an action for hbcll or s,,
Posc an architect were 70 make design for grand
Washington Monumcn, about 20 be- erected OK
pciinc 20 receive a large sum for H. and an Editor
having accepted an invitation 20 inspcc, H. should
write and publish his opinion that the design WA,
es0rd and eyinced utter incompeicncy in the author
would it be wise and just to maintain an action
y hoel against the Editor
Our correspondent cannot perceive q dis;inc
W between charging o man Falsely with commit
crime. and inierung warTantably from the
." 'hat he bad committed one crime that he might
= "a to commit a greater. we regret il, We are
ing tha' his distinction between maxim. an In.
s'0oe aud Publishing an importation shall pas.
"AA' MS worth. We maintain the bread ground
- ac'' OF public character, or which rigba.lly
e0"e public, are legitimate subjects OF commer,
'uen common; cannot righifully be eulosistic Of
winch art culpable; and tha, censure honestly
D sl Is not necessarily nor presump,ively
gsss q. .ne Manchester Mil. No. l. now in pro. |
bon .on vii require II Is said more than |
VA