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

nTbe truth ofthe charges" says this learn
Cd .Judge: What charges? Whose! The
ministers ofjusfice have charged the alleged
cuIprit with crime, and if they sec fit to con-
Wet each other of libel therefor, it is none of
our business. But The Editor has charged
nothing Of the kind. lie has stated simply
that Mr.. Stanley was arrested on such
charge, and that such and such proceedings
were had thereupon; and if he has truly and
fairly reported these proceedings, he is inno-
cent Of all blame in the eye Of Eternal JUS
tice and according to the plain purport OF the
Constitution Of New-York, Art |. Sec. 81
and of all law except some manufactured by
British judges to subserve the ends OF arl'-
tocratic tyranny and corruption.
The Pharisees of old made void the Law
through tradition; the Judges of our day 90
the same. Even the much execrated Sedltlon
law of old John Adams's time provided tha'
man might defame and heap odium on the
President and Co. if he only told the truth.
No matter bow palpable the malignant, yin-
dictiye impulse, let the accused but prove
that what he said Of the highest dignltary
in the land was true, and he left the Court
unscathed Yet here is Judge Campbell,
in this year Of light 1850, warping and
twisting the law SO as to prohibit and pun
ish true and just publication of proceed
ings had in open Court unless the Editor
can prove, not that what he said was correct
but that what the Ministers of Justice mare
done was warranted by actual guilt on the
part of the men they have sent to prison, or
held to bail-a latitude of underwriting
which the boldest and frankest Editor, even
under q more liberal and rational admins
tration Of the law, might very we'll de-
mur to.
The judges talk of what is unauthOriz-
ed and not privileged is utterly wide of
the question. We are authorized by the
Constitution to publish the truth, and that
we DO when we state that John Jones was
arrested and committed yesterday on such or
such charge We don't require any pri-
vilege at His HonOrs hands in case of that
kind. Should we be miSled, and publish as
true that which never took place, then
we plead our position and its duties to
rebut the presumption Of mGltce-nothing
beyond that. If Peter Nokes should
60 about telling every body that his late
crony John Stodger had just been sent to
state prison as chicken-thief, when nothing
Of the sort had ever occurred, the law would
rightly presume his story a libel, impelled by
personal malice, and deal with him accord
ingly. But if three lines were to creep in
to a newspaper, affirming that }. Stodger
had been convicted of chicken-stealing and
sent to the island therefor, and the Edit,r
should be able to show that he was not in
New-York at the time and hadn't the honor
Of knowing Mr.. Stodger from a side Of sole
leather, then we insist that the presumption
Of malice which did lie against Mr.. NOkes
would not lie against the Editor and that
he ought to be dealt with accordingly
made 10 pay Mr.. Stodger the amount Of ac-
tual damage sustained by that parsonage in
consequence of the blunder, but not con-
yicted of malicious libel nor mulcted in what
are called exemplary damages. As the dis
tinction here insisted on is founded in SIM
ple common sense, and not so far as we
know or care) in any thing propounded by
| ' ,ot In that a Nnw.
York Judge can comprehend it, but We are
very sure an average schoOlbOy can do so.
The identical principle we contend for is
abundantly recognized in Starkie on Slar-
der. with ample citations from the mos, en-
inent British Jurists. True, it Is not appli-
ed by them to Editors, but to Masters Civ
ing characters ofservants, and to many 9TH
er classes. The essential question is this
Were the relations of the parties, the voca-
ton or position of the alleged libeler, such
as to forbid the implication of malice ?'-if
they were, it is not to be presumed, but
must be proved. Weask no more than that.
As to the depraving influences of pub
fishing accounts of men being committed
on charges Of forgery, burglary, &c. we
think there are two sides to that story. We
: know class Of men who are brought in
frequent collision with criminals-who have
a great deal to do with them-and yet don't
seem to be much greater rogues than man
kind in general. Ii mental qualities were
easily transferred, this class ought to be
made sbrewder by its contact with clever
roguery, but they don't seem to improve
| much in that resnect. Telling Editors 70