New-York daily tribune., 1845-05-17

ysr, t5es aubor,ties Does the Counsel maintain
that we ought 10 do 20 :.
Mr. seward have not lie presumption 10 ASK
90 much. Although humb!y iIisis, tfa' "fial "as
ttie Common Law al first Is ana oush' 10 p1 i.s
Common Law now, until changed by Legislative
on,vrr And think ii not above The power noI
unworthy the wisdom Of this high tribunal 20 II
store the ancient aw. Such restoratlonS nave oeeh
made ln other Instances. SlXty years eidFeco a.
The Kings Bench sustained tTover ior d EsSto Sidr
before tue sane high judiciary. so!eniniS uecIa'cu
tIat !. Slave could not breathe the air OF tnsland
The House of Lords in the case OF Daniel O-Con-
nell have restored The rsht OF chaienee IN Jury
trials alter il had been judlelally abolished Tor !
know not how long perlo' m
But ii NAV not ask so much, my argument VIII
hold at least against carrying any iuTiher the con
f-ssedIv unreasonable and oppressive distlnc'ioh De-
tween verbal SANDER ana Libel >.
The sairit OF the law OF libel, as contend L
should be, is maintained IN the Courts oi SCUM
Caroline The Supreme Court OF that state decided
in IN. ca.c Of the State against tariy, SicCoro'
3l1, that the following letter was not lloeious ;
AS Mrs Raynal SAYS she has been most cIueiiY
c.nsured without a cause, when Is apsoia'si! t,!
false. would advise her 10 beware, lest tactS,
winch are Stubborn things, be brought TO ilsh',
. and you will thea see who you keep under our
root She need not 60 among her iemaie friehGS
land say she has been cruelty censured without
cause as from her general character, when Is
g perfectly and universally known, we are sure 10
Sc hear all she saws" The Court decided that the
Litter contained in itself specific charge ct any
thing immoral or criminal, or which IS calculated 10
render th, prosecutrx ridiculous, or 10 exclude her
from society, and therefore was not libeous
Such, too ls the spirit OF adJudications IN Massa-
chusetrs for find the learned opinion oi cir James
Mansfield before cited reviewed and approved IN
the case of Clark vs.. Birney, I'd Pickering, llb
MIR Seward here cited the case OF Robinson vs.
.T.rmvn in Exchseuer in England, Price, ii,
where an association who kept Casino hoom
published notice that the Rev Mr. Robinson, a
Clereyn an, was not deemed proper person 10 oe
associated with and therefore he was excluded
from the Room, Graham, Baron declared that ne
agreed with Sir James Mansfield, ana could not
consent 10 extend 10 libel. severity which was not
applied TO verbal SANDER. ,
Thlsseverc discrimination began 10 be enforced in
the Court of Star Chamber during the time OF Eliz-
abeth who sustained prerosative with high hand,
and II was perfectly established during the odlouS
reign of the second Stuart. Justice BEaRpsLEY; Can
we receive proposition 10 restore the Old law oil
libel any more Than we can TO open the question
whether an action of assumpslt lies on promssory
note Hasnot this whole question been seiIled since
Lord Cokes time put the question To the Coun-
sci Mr. SEWARD: will reply 10 your Honor IN
the language of Lord Coke. Coke, Attorney
General was an advocate OF the utmost rgor and
severity in the law of libel. When ne became
iudg. and one day out OF every fourteen the Couit
tDgiStQ IN SldDutI sullS, CdsC VI SieiS
Burr came before The Court The wordswe Sir
Herbert Crofts keepeth men 10 rob me-" Lord Coke
said ssWe will not give more favor unto actions
on the case for words than OF necessity we ought 10
DO whea the words are not apparently scandalous..
! There actions being now too frequent.
was contending, If your Honors please, for the
distinction between words OF mere censure of VI
tuperation and those which necessarily tend TO de-
| grade party Such distinction was recognized
| IN The case of Forbes Us. King, Il Downing. 7. C.
672) The defendant writing OF The plaintiff. cali
ed him his Man FRIDAY This Was held not libel
Gus without an inuendo that the defendant thereby
meant 10 degrade the plaintiff.
Having thus stated what rules think ought 10
| be applied in determining whether words are ac,
tionable, return to examine the libel complained
Of here This libel charges no act criminal or I'M
moral, or tending TO degrade The plaintiff, or 10 ex-
surdiiy of the Law OF Libel, IT this publication be
adjudsed libellous If Horace Greeley should say
| of = woman-a bcreaved and lone wonlan-tbat she
was an adulirress, she has no action; but II he
write of James Kenmore Cooper, max whose
! fame pervades perhaps the civilized world, that he
is known in Otsego County, and therefore would not
prefer to lay the OF this cause there, then he Is
! gully of Libel, and liable 10 be punished clvily
| and criminalIy for each and every several copy OF
The Tribune which cont ms the alroclous pubIlca.
| iion. Such absurdtles may be declared and adj
udged to be law, but who will credit, or credltng
them, whe can respect the Jurlsrrudcnce OF The
Country that adopts them!
But again. what If We do write OF the plaintiff
that he is held in bad repute IN Ot.ego County, how
or why does 1t follow that he is injured? Does he
live there l-that is not averred has ne wife, chill
dren, family or friends there mo such thing Is
avcrred. Ithed IN dIsesteem or dsrepute in Osrgo
I County. how can that impair the fame OF a man
who for aught that appears on the record, ls cos.
mopoIilc, and lss home as comprehensive as his
! fame
The next point in our case is that the plea to the
| first count is good.
The substance OF the plea is
The defendant. put several pleas, and In relation TO
the rst alleged libel that plaintiff 2Sth Nov. 1874
caused printed in the Albany Argus notice charging
The defendants the publication OF false satemeDis that
said words published by them were In reply 10 and COM
mentiug said notice; that plaintiff for ten years was
known 10 many good citizens OF 0tssgO County, and had
the reputation there OF proud captious cesoous. arbi
rary, togmstics malicious iberal reyengeul and i:i
slous wherefore lie In bad repue that by means
OF plaintiff being IN such bad repute there, plaintiff would
like and did like bring action against defendants
| for words, &c. in tine County Of otsego.
am obliged 10 concede that if tae Declaration
! be bad, then this Plea must be also bad. My argu-
ment therefore, is under favor, that the Plea sut-
! fcient if the Declaration be good.
First-The Plea uslifies the Publication. But
my learned adversary says that the attributes ap-
Piled TO the Plaintiff in the Plea are merely foibIes
This is singular indeed, that PRIDE alleged IN thl.
/ Bir1, IS reTtneSS SenSOTlOuSueSS Is a fdult
Degmatism. Malice and Revenge are bleiashes ;
and even l!llberality and Liusiousness are only
oibles Yet in the Plaintiffs Declaration, mere
want of generosity Of kindness, or of the polish
Of the Drawing Room Is an immortality aud an
offence.
in truth, The plea is more severe than the libel.
The libel only charges the plaintiff with being
known in Otsego County, or at most with being
unpopular there. The plea affirms that he is known
there untavoraby as to all the points by which the
esteem OF his fellow citizens could be conciliated
| The plea answers the inuendo, which is that tie
| plaintiff is held in bad repute. Certainly no man
need to wish his enemy a worse reputation.
| But it is contended that the plea is bad, because
| 1t ayers no acls of misconduct showing that the
glaintlii deserved 10 be held in such bad repute
Bat the accusation is not o: acts but OF repute and
must be proved true not by specific acts, nor by con-
duct. but by repuJe. Proof OF specific acts, offences,
OF errors, would not be allowed briggs vs. Dem
nistOn, ) J. c. R.; ii Price, 225) Suppose we
had pleaded that the plaintiff had committed a
crime. aud thereby had forfeited and LOST his cha
rac;er, or had pleaded acts showing want of kind
ness, gen'eness and courtesy TO his neishbors such
as DENYING them access to his beautiful grounds Oh
the shore of the Oseso Lake, or in the forest where
Leather Stocking held his retreat-should not we
nave been told that had not accused the plaintiff