New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1850-07-20

merchant for fraud other crime and iortiies the
complaint with false sfidsvits, which you know
are easily obtained In your city the accused is
arrested and brought before the magistrate and
the examination is adjourned Before that day
In fact, 80 40 the papers are fed-the report
ers Sc ne them and the complaint and all avits are
published to the world, and the complainant having
attained bis Purpose, perhaps disappears and the
accused IL discharged. This, you will admit, IL in
substance not very uncommon case The print
ed complaint 30 so abroad IN community, and the
more known and estimated is the character of the
accused, the wider the statement circuates and is
read. IL creates n seven days wonder, makes its
impression and gives place to something new,
while the acquttal, Il II hnds place In an OBJ
scure part Of some Of the papers, is seen and
noticed by few. Now will you tell me who
can estimate the damsge done ~ the accused
The public rarels examine into complaints OF
this Kind TO learn their truth and even, when the
complaint is dis missed, are very apt TO think there
must be some cause for il, though not susceptible
Of proof. The merchant may meet its effects
every day OF his life; IL may impair the confidence
Of all who deal with him. His creditors may be-
come suspicious, his credit impaired, and his usual
bank facilities cufta'ed. lf engaged in extensive
business transactions, this false accusation may
color or change the result Of every act that can be
affected by bis character. He may not feel its
worst effects for " ars, and in some way which
il NAV be impossible 10 foresee or provide against.
In all the innumersbe rsmihcatons Of business,
ard Of social and political relations which follow
men through li'e ROW is il possible TO furnish EVIL
dence OF the injury man may suffer from the pub
Hcatou of false accusation! Is It not so 1t Is
this inpossiblity Of proving the actual damage
that doubtless led to the exclusion OF evidence OF
absence Of malice ss q defense Nov, as e clti-
zen and not editor, ask you, is not this rule
iust onei Ii there was any great public
necessity for these publications, or any great
public bene6 t derived from them, the case might be
altered; but they originate, as you know, In the
rivalry between newspapers and 10 make papers
more esieuble. This motive Ia lsudable and proper,
and find 10 fault with it bat when it leads 10 ag-
gresson upon private rights and character It Is ust
that they " no rea p the profit should bear the re-
sponsiblhty. ! do not advocate the alteration o.
existing laws, except that would admit proof Of
the truth of the charges in all cases as defense
would have il proclaimed by law, and fully under
stood, that psblshers, il printing preliminary pro-
oeedpgs in Grimm cases, for il 10 In reference 10
that practice that write,l subject themselves to
all the consequences Of malicious Publication II
the charge turns ont 10 he false. Such is now the
common law but would incorporate it into the
statute that no man could plead ignorance II sncn
was the statute Yourself and other respectable pub
fishers would allow no Of preliminary charge 70
be published without careful scrutiny and perfect
assurance OF its truth, while the vutures who 1--we
by panderng 10 the worst passions and most de-
PRAYED tastes oil the public would soon DO driven
out of the community
Ihave not and do rot say that oil police reports
should be ip secret nor is II fair deduction from
my reasoning. l would make the Police Court as
open TO all as the bsrTOOm, where the sanderer
holds forth, and in either case would make the lis
teper liable for his own acts in circulating false
hood IfinnOcentpe persons desrethe charges against
them published II is quite easy to say So and then
no one can complain r.
Remarks.
Having given place above to full and
fair presentment Of the Judge Campbell doc
tine, we propose to answer it here, and then
ask the popular verdict on the whole contrO-
versy. If the interest of our readers in the
subject were equal to our own, we should be
glad to debate the matter weekly, for a |
yes.r; but we know that the theme is unat-
trxc.ive to most readers, and we shall en-
deayor not to tax their patience further
l. We say once more that the laws Of the
land mot the Judge made, but the laws en-
acted by the Legislature) authorize US to
publish the truth, and when we publish the
fact that j. B. was yesterday arrested and
committed to prison on charge of forgery
or false pretense, we do publish the truth,
and it is a subversion of our constitu-
tional rights and q usurpatiOn of power in
Judge Campbell or any other Judge, on the
strength of q string Of British decisions, to
subject us to damages therefor. The Brit
ish decisions were not based on the c0nstitu- |
ton and laws of New-York, and are not |
conformable thereto. The assumption of
Judge Campbell sets Justice and Common
Sense at defiance. We have stated one
thing-that j. B. was arrested and commit
ted as aforessid-and Judge @. holds us
bound to prove, not what we stated, but
something totally different-to wit, that the
charge on which such arrest was made was
well founded and will be sustained on the
trial. We never stated any such thing, and
there is no reason in asking US to prove any
such thing. That is the District Attorneys
business.
2. The question as 10 malice, which 'P.'
muddles up with this, belongs to a totally
different case altogether. We hold that in
the case above considered, we have done no
wrong and are not justly amenable to any
one. But take the totally different case
Of misstdtement in the columns Of a news
paper, affirming that John Stone has been
arrested for or convicted ofhorse.theft, whom
nothing Of the kind has taken place. In
this case the Editor is clearly responsible
to Stone for the amount OF actual damage sus-
tanned by the latter in consequence Of this
publication, no matter how innocent of in
territorial wrong. Bat while the mere fact
that neighbor or acqnaintanee was found