New-York daily tribune., 1845-05-27
Mr. Cooper, the Press and the Law.


The Albany Argus is the favored recipient OF Inc
following bule,n-the last, so far-irem the Gas
SIC banks of the Otsego
CONGRESS HALL, May 2l, lSt5.
v- r5;,,-. In n,,sing through Albany this morning,
, .o.n an article in last nights Eren,n9 Journal, IN
which MI Weed after once retracting AL MS Ioes o e'
when published has seen mt substantially 10 repeat ei'
ror This article he and will again appear before jury
, viii make no here. MI Weed says he has al
WAYS been ready and able 10 prove tie truth oil all ne mas
ever said about me- Now prepared 10 show as an ev'
dence of this accuracy he has himself admitted
nuhiIclv In his Journal his inability prove OF his
ibeous accusations; and shall give him as early an op-
porunity the law will allow, 20 prove some more OF
them This admission was entirely disconnected i'o MS
retraction.
The pretence that Courts have overrued that
the truth Is not complete defence in libel suit in the
civil action only gain credit with the supemey sno
rant. Your ooeclent servaht,
j. FENNIMORE COOPER.
Editor Of Argus.
We hope our republication Of the above cannot
be twisted into libel on Mr. Cooper; for II 1t be
calculated to hold him up TO opprobnum or rldl-
cule, such is certainly no part OF our intention.
w. seek only to make this the text for some
homely illustration of the New-Y"Ik Law OF Ii
bel, az set forth in the cases OF Cooper Us. Weed.
The Albany Evening Journal, as we understand
the matter, copied from another paper paragraph
stating that Mr. Cooper had acted thus and so IN
taking judgment by default against Mr. Weed, IN
the absence of the latter caused by dangerous
sickness in his family; and lhcrenpon remarklng
in substance that one who could do this must be
as savage as some of Cooper's savage:t Indian cha
racters Hereupon Mr.. Cooper brought libelsuit
against Mr.. Weed for publishing this article Mr.
Weed gave due notice that he would justify. But
Justify ,rhat He came into Court prepared 10
proye that Mr.. Cooper Ind done thus and so, as
stated But the Judge shut out this evidence
THAT is not the libel, Mr.. Weed; the complaint
is not that your narration was false, but that your
infcrencc therefrom was unfouuded." Well, SIR,
then will prove that, such being the facts, the in
ference ,cos legitimate No. sir you can't be
allowed to do this decide that the facts set forth
do not justify your inference" So here is man
in fix he has undertaken TO Justify, and thereby
aggravated the libel: but there is no way IN which
he can justify-nolhng tangible tojustliy. So the
Judge cooy tells the Jury TO render verdict for
the plaintiff, and give such damages as will punish
the beler for the aggravation of his offence in at
tempting to justify
Our Courts have treated the Press with undue
severity in two respects; first, in punlshlng miss
talements clact arising from imperfect OF erroneous
information, as libcls, where the imputed malice
was clearly wanting and only supplied by violent
and unfounded presumption secondly, in requir
ins us to justify opinions at all If | say, John
Smith stole pin he who would steal a pin would
steal a dollar if he had good chance )" John
Smith may fairly hold me to Provetha he stole pin
or pay him the damage have done him in making
the charge but. if am ready TO prove this, that
is all he has right TO ask of me. My inference
from the fact stated is either warranted or unwar-
ranted if the former, he has no cause of action
if the latter, it can do him essential harm. 1t is the
man who draws an absurd conclusion from knewn
premises who suffers thereby, not he of whom he
is dscoursins. 1t seems TO us incredible that any
fair mind could see this matter in different light
Certain we are that no cases at all similar 10 these
Of Mr.. Cooper's were ever sustained by an English
Court, and we think there have been hone such up
held out of the State of New-York
INDlANA.-EpwARD McGAUGnEY is the Whg
CO. Cono