New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1848-03-04
The Press and Libel-Suils.

The fac; that the Editor of the Herald has sued
Bishop HUeHEs FOR q lbel-damages laid at $4,000
-bas already become the subject Of newspaper
discussion, and We are moved to say a few words
sPon IL. But ais. as to the facts;
Bishop Hughes is supposed to be the owner, as
trustee or otherwise, of the 'Freemsn's Journal
ne Catholic organ in our City. Into that paper an
article was copied from a Halifax journal csstisa-
ting Bennett in view Of his recent attacks on the
Bishop. The article was tolerably severe in the
way Of epi.hets, but we cannot now remember that
any specific charge Of crime vice was made in 1t.
The severest allegation we recollect was to this
effect. that respectable persons who had drawn
seats at the Opera adjoining Bennetts bad insisted
or a change Of location from that dsagreesble prox
unity. Whether this be true or false, We should
think il would take good deal o. such to make
10000 worth of libel
Ba: this whole business Of courting notoriety and
advertising ones business By means of libelsuts
strikes Is as very shabby, as tie case before US
iorcibly illustrates. Here is James Gordon Bennett
who for years has been indusriously decrying Bish
op Hughes a. a humbug. a religious quack, polit-
ical intri guer, and almost everything which 10 q
man Of toe Bishops calling and station would be
base ard contemplate Protesting to be after some
loose fashion Catholic and circulating his paper
very largely among the quasi Catholics who throng
70 oar cities from Europe and the West Indies, and
indastriously pushing it into currency throughout
Europe Is the organ Of American opinion, Bennett
has probably been able to annoy and dispsrage the
Bishop ss much az any one man could do. To all
this there has been scarcely ever word OF reply
-. in "
Bishop 10 supposed to own and in some manner
supervise, though nobody imagines him to be the
sctual writer selecter OF its paragraphs, and this
Is seized upon az the basis of hbelsuit, and the
Bishop summoned into Court to show why he
should not pay Bennett the Of 600 for copy
ing this article. 1t don't strike probable that
the experiment will pay.
For man in public life, already talked about,
written about written at, like the Editor Of a
widely circulated journal, we can imagine hardly
anything that will justify resort to libelsuit.
Merely calling him a blackguard scoundrel, swim.
dlea thief or cutthroat 10 excuse; for these cpl
thets, vaguely applied. do little harm. We have
known men assailed with such for years yet in very
good general repute throughout and sfterward A
specific and definite charge of felony other crime
swindled c. ID. on, of his house, is the only valid
proyocs;ion to lbelsuit by an Editor or public
man in any capacity. Rsking criticism, harsh
Judgments and occasional vituperation are among
the incidents of q consp icuous positions If man be
thin skinned, he may avoid these Inconvenience
by choosing a more secluded pathway If he does
not. Let him take things ooolly.
But in 4 case like the present where a most un-
sparipg sssaant through cycles of years and scores
Of columns, sees fit to be net;led into bringing 4
libel suit by almost the first rstc he encounters
We cannot believe that the Law will lend itself TO
DO the Instrument of his spleen or his malice. We
are confident the Herald man will make a losing
Job OF IT, and advise him to discontinue his suit and
pay the costs, His denuncstion Of all lawyers who
appear In such cases against the Press is too recent
and too sweeping to have been soon forgotten by
the Bar and he will hardly be able to retain able
counsel In = suit like this
CRcswELL rs. Vas BuREs.-The veteran Editor
OF the Albany Areas, who was placed and long
kept in Office a. State Printer by the influence Of
late President and who was leading spiri; in the
Old Regency, thus pOrtrays the patriotism OF his
old scqu aintance in the Argus o. the % mat
.who believes .hs: The Van Bcrens ard the Csmbre-
ierss ana the rest feather about soil or se
sscecA or the poor ssve, except Of contrib
rtnx 20 their schemes Of sectional division and Irritation
Toe rsrshsng Of the North sgss the south. csrup
ros and defeat OF the Democratic party CT he Onion p
What politician would have supposed in Marco
1887. that be could live long enough to hear the
then editor Of the Argus thus dcnosEce the then
President Of the United States As perfectly regard
less Of freedom for white or black, esger to mar
shal the Morris against the South II ard painting
e. TIM Ssfsst and dis-on,ion nj ,ba Dcmorr1tic