Richmond daily times. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1853, 1851-04-05
From the N. Y. Express.

From lands beyond the sea!
| -
| From the N. Y. Express
| THE PRESS AND THE TELEGRAPH.
To test very important principle, upon which
the existence of a Press, and the salvation of the
commercial community depended as long as
Morses old line of Telegraph had the exclusive
monopoly for conveying intelligence over these
wires, the Editors of the Express, sued the New
York and Washington Morse line, for withhold
ing from them dispatch the tolls on which were
S. 9S The dismissal of the Freuch Minister
Poussin by the United States Government, Sept
18th, lS49 was dispatched to the Express by the
Washington correspondent,-and The Telegrap f
People in order to enforce the collection of an ole
account (not due) withheld the Dispatch, which
they went to the Office of the Editors, and tanta
| zing them by pronouncing important" The
| Express declined to submit to this summary pro-
cess of the new court for the collection of debts
Ohe Court of Lightning) and suffering the loss OF
its dispatch, went into the Court OF Law, sueing
the Telegraph for damages. The counsel for the
Express, (Hon. J. l.. White,) in very able argu-
ment contended, that Telegraphs were subject to
Laws, as other people are, who do the work OF
common carriers that disputed debt on an old
dispatch was no lien on new one,-that inteli-
gence thus conveyed had known marketable
value, and that as newspaper was in good de-
gree, dependent upon the fidelity of the Telegraph
the CORPORATION should be made to suffer for their
wrong-dong in this case.
The counsel for the Telegraph, (James Smith,
ESQ., made the very best of his side of the case.
He denied that Telegraphs were common carriers,
or anything like it, and asked the Court to nom
suit the Express, upon the ground, that Tefe-
graphs only agreed to carry messages for people,
who were not in debt to them, and that as in
this case, no special damage was proved, there
was nothing to sue for The Court declined to
do any such thing but held the Telegraph to u
contract to receive and deliver messages, and
failing in its contract, subject to the damages &C
tually done-not exemplary. but real damages,
and the Court also declined to try within this
suit for breach of contract, an action of debt al
legged to be due for an old dispatch.
The question thus being one of mere damages,
the Court ruling the law in favor of the Express,
the difficulty then left was to prove the actual
damage DONE The Express did not show any
loss Of subscribers, nor any actual damage; but
only grave the opinion of several Editors in the
city, as witnesses, that the existence of news
paper depended upon the early publication of
news, and that Withholding telegraph news from
them was serious injury. The Court however,
told the Jury to bring in only actual damages not
exemplary, but real, immediate, proximate DANA
49, HS~~s
hour, brought in a verdict OF $500.
Thus have been settled some principles of the
highest importance to the Press and to the Public
and the settlement of these principles is of good
deal more importance thanthe verdict Telegraphs,
like common carriers, are subject to the legal La
bilities of common carriers. Telegraph companies
have no right to withhold despatch in conse-
quence of any unsettled accounts. News is u
commodity, the value of which can be estimated
in Courts of Iaw,and parties Withholding it can be-
held responsible in damages, as for the non-de-
livery of any species of goods they inferentially
contract to carry. Telegraphs are thus made SUBJ
iect to the Laws, with their "domesticated light
ming" as other people are who deal with the les
ser powers of nature. To settle all these things
was important, because the holders of this new
mode of conveying intelligence have often put
out rules different from other Incorporated compa-
MES, and have, and do yet, in some cases. exercise
powers seriously injurious to the welfare of the
community AS differences from the principles
settled in this case, follow
Telepraphs, like common carriers, are bound to
receive messages, on payment, and to deliver them
in good faith, with as much rapidty as possible.
Telegraphs are responsible in damages, as are
common carriers.
The Court, following the rigid rule of the COM
mon Law Books, held, as we Think against the
prlHClpleS vi I1vuuy, anu osa''iS. ''' 'No-So -
the Law in parallel cases, that in this case the
Telegraph was not subject to exemplary damages.
1t is difficult to make Court set proper esti-
mate upon the value of news to newspaper, Con
ly an Editor or Publishercan do that and to COM
prehend that about all newspaper is worth Is Its
reputation its character; and that hence, when
the Telegraph withheld the important Poussln
dispatch, it malicously damaged the reputation
and character of the Express, and was therefore
subject to such damages as should be given
in cases of libel or SANDER. This principle will
be reached by Courts by and by, who infer malice
often from most innocent publication respecting
private character; and hold the Press, therefore,
responsible for exemplary damages unless it can
be positively shown, against the inference OF
the Law, that there was no malice in the case.
Here the Telegraph maliciousy, to damage the
character of the Express, withheld an important
piece of news; but the Court, following Old ca
SEES, charges as the rule of damages only actual
loss, when in a similar case of party suemg
newspaper, exemplary damages would be given,
though no actual damages were sustained at all.
Nevertheless, we are highly gratlfied with the
establishment by the Court off correct though
new application of "a legal principle, and with the
verdict of Jury which teaches corporation that
finger aud monopolize an all-pervading clement
of nature that they must do such things no more,
and walk in the straight ways of the law hereaf-
ter
DR.. FooTE, of the Buffalo Commercial Adverti-
ser, gives the following scene at Bogota:-
tits less thana year since we were personal wit
mace of a verv striking illustration in q sister Re-