New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1850-06-21
Campbell ON Libel.

Among all the efforts and expedients Of
the last dozen years for a Legal and Judi
cial Reform, there has been one strangely
overlooked or neglected which seems to US
more hopeful and practical than any other:
namely, the infusion of a small quantum of
common sense into the heads Of our Judges.
In the absence of this, New Codes will in
a short time be turned wrong side out and
bewitched until they shall be found just as
absurd and mprehensible as the old
ones; with the help of this, the anomalies
and absurdities of darker ages might be
gradually melted away, even without the
help of special enactments. What might
not our State afford to give, to have our SUI
preme Bench for a time irradiated by lit
tie homely common sense?
Mr.. William w. Campbell is gentleman
whom We personally respect and who oil
the Bench has Except in once consenting
to be Native American candidate for Con-
gress eyinced liberahty of sentiment as
well as fair ability. Had he come into our
Office some day about the 1st Of December
last, and asked us what news was stirring,
and we had told him in reply that Prof.
Webster of Cambridge had just been arrest
ed and committed on q charge of numbering
DR.. George parkman, we are perfectly GER
tain that as man he would not have sus-
pected US of libeling or slandering Prof.
Webster by stating that fact. If he were
coming down from Court some day, and we
should ask him what was going on before
him, we are confident he would not suspect
himself of being hbeler should he civilly
reply that MIR. A. or Mr.. B. was on trial for
or under an Indictment charging him with
forgery. Nor did it ever occur to him, as a
man, we are entirely confident, that The
Courier and Enquirer was morally guilty OF
libeling any body when it chrOnicled the
fact that Peter Wiggle had been committed
on a charge Of larceny and Jerry Stoker on
an affidavit charging him with assault and
battery. But let him be seated on the bench
and his ears filled with what this pompou:
tory ruled in Stiles VS.. NOkes, and that sol
emn ass decided in Doggle VS.. Nogglc, anC
he forgets his common sense entirely, anC
falls to twaddliDg about privilege and pro
lection, and the rights of this class, and thu
duties Of that, and the consequences Of de
Gliding this way or the other, as if he were
called ON to enact the part Of Rhadamanthu'
and probe the cOnsciences and discern thu
motives of all mankind. What he has to do il
his vocation would seem rather to determine
whether A. B., defendant in the suit before
him, has wronged @. D. the plaintiff, and i
so, to what extent In the case on which
he was commenting, J. Watson Webb, de
PENDANT, had published in his newspaper an
account of a preliminary judicial proceed
ing, wherein Geo. I. Stanley was incul
pated. Stanley sued, per William Mulock
attorney, for libel, and Webb pleaded in de-
tense that the alleged libel was an essential
ly true, fair and correct account Of the jul
dicial proceedings in question. To this de
PENDANT demurs as no proper answer to his
complaint, and Judge Campbell sEstaiai
that demurrer in o column Of condensed
British Jurisprudence, closing with the
following delectable specimen Of Judicial
logic and mOdesty:
an A, not TO DO denied that occasionally the publication
OF such proceedings productive OF good. and promotes
he ends Of justice.
,, moi 10 privilege but In The ruth OF tbs charges The
nsesssi,y Of the ssu1y rule 10 farther evident from tho
frt raj Of these eompan large portion are never pros
s~nte6 syen 10 TRIAL much less 10 conviction IL would be
dcu 70 point out comp etc remedy Tor the evil which
ssiss viii us % EGG and The Law which consider
~ well ssed and which repeat aod lay down Ia this
easa thai tbe publication Of such preliminary gars pro
csedinxs Unauthorized and not privileged. II oosery'