The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1850-06-21

has been dropped till the next session of the Gene
raj Assembly.
The Law OF Libel-Diversity OF judicial
Opinions-Campbel versus Oakley.
Within a short time, some very interesting and
important opinions have been pronounced by two of
the eminent judges of our courts-Judge Campbell
and Judge Oakley-on the law Of libel, in connec-
ton with the rights, privileges and freedom of the
newspaper press. In two cases of prosecution
against The proprietors of the Courier and Enqui-
Tu and the 7fIbune-two daily journals published
IN the city Of New York-the respective Judges
before HON they were tried pronounced opinions
on the law Of libel, Numerically opposite to each
other, in a very important respect
The first case arose out of a libel suit insti-
fued against the proprietor of the Courier and
Enquirer, and the circumstances Of the case are
briefly these "A made affidavit, charging with
an offence, which b was arrested, and held 10
answer; b then turns round, charges, by a similar
affidavit, A with having likewise committed an
offence, on which was arrested. That journal an
nounced the facts and published both affidavts A
1.-THE party who first complained) Immediately COM
menced alibe suit against the propretors Of the Co
,isr and Enquire, the ground that they are liable
for the truth ofthe charges contained in BIS affidavit
on account Of having given il publication. In the
course Of the proceedings had in the case the ques
tion Of whether the Courier and Enquirer was
privileged in publishing the preliminary affidavits
or not, Judge Campbell pronounced that il was
not-ihat in doing so, that journal acted illegally,
and left itself open to damages under the law Of
libel.
In giving this decision, Judge Campbell quoted
several antiquated and musty decisions Of the Eng
Itch courts, in times gone by, applicable TO the
case under consideration, but did not refer 10
the law Of libel in this State, to the constitutions
OF the State Of New York and of the United States
which guarantee the freedom Of the press. Ii
those instruments mean anything, we under
the impression, with all due Difference as before,
that the opinions laid down by Judge Campbell are
not tenable, and that his decision should be ap
pealed from Immediately, and set aside. The
eighth section Of the fret article Of the consii-
sutton Of this State. says that Every Citizen
may freely speak, write, and publish his senti-
menis on all subjects, being responsible for the
abuse OF that right, and no law shall be passed
TO restrain or abridgc the liberty Of speech,
or Of the press II, therefore, newspapers in pur-
Of the liberty Of the press which the con-
sti,ution says emphatically. shall be strained
or abridged by law, canno, pHbsh the occurrences
that come under the cognizance Of our magistrates
in police and other courts that section Of the
of the freedom Of the press, il is a mockcry, a non
entity, aud signifies nothing. II might as well be
contended that il would be an abuse Of the free
dom Of the press to publish structures on persons
holding high places 10 expose corruption in public
officers. TO mention merely that persons were ar
esied fer dishonest rrectiecs. Such a viev Of tn.
freedom u the press is not compatible with our
ideas Of IT, nor it consonant to the spirit Of our
institutions, that of the ace. II the press can
not legally publish correct report of preliminary
proceedings in courts Of law. or in our police
courts the temples Of justice will be converted into
tar chambers. Ifthe press cannot look into them.
neither can the public. And yet we do not sup
pose thst the Judge viii 60 far 10 say that the
public con be prevented from hearing the prclirn-
nary proceedings in thcif courts, which they
have organized, and which they support II would
be quite different matter II such preliminary pro-
oeedings were msquoted, nterpolated, or
altered for bad purposes nv the press II any
paper published garbled or fllse copy Of matters
before the courts, admit that il would be abusing
the freedom Of the press but we cannot perceive
that to publish them correctly, without comment
can be 30 considered. II man commit murder
and, through some cause or other, some legal
trckery OF through the ignorance OF the jury. he Is
acquitted, Notwithstanding that twenty credible wit
nesees may have seen him do the act yet the muir
dersL after his acqutal, could commence libel suits
againss all newspapers which published accounts Of
the urder, and obtain damages Of the proprieiors,
ifthis principle should be carried out
The other case TO which we have referred was
a prosecuiIoa against the PROJECTORS Of the Tri.
bune, Of this city, for publishing like repor, q.
that which wee published in the Cosrio and En-
siu,r in the other case. In reference to the point
TO whether the Tfibuss was justhed in publish
ing the complaint. Judge Oakley, before whom
the suit ives tried, gave !, a. his opinion that II
90 justified, for aught he knew to the contrary.
The verdict. we may add, amounted to Spanish
sixpence wbsp we compare these two opinions,
no one can help observing how much more in sc-