The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1852-07-13


TON One day last week, one Of the Seward organs
Of this city stated in very positive terms that Web
ster, in a conversation with Mr.. F. A. Tallmadge,
had distinctly committed himself in favor of rally
ing upon Gen. Scott the regularly nominated whig
candidate for the Presidency, and that Mr.. 7. had
communicated this valuable information to meet
ing of the Ninth Ward Lundy's Lane Club. Tie
Boston Journal puts an extnguisher to this state
ment in the following correction Of the record:-
We authorized to state directly and authorita-
lively. that tseEs &c Truth Whatever In the above
ported convsr alton between Mr. Webster and faimadge
We nrysume Thai MIR Webster desires 70 commu9lcste
with the pubic he ID 50 dreetly ami not through
the medium another party TIE reports which in
circulation With regard TO his future course entitled
to credit
But the Bosto~ Courier, Mr. Webster's special
organ, is still emphatic in this matter. 1t in
dignatly repudates the report that Mr.. Websterhad
given in his adhesion to Scett's nomination, and
says:-
We are authorized to state that the story is pure
invention Not word Of what Is sscribed to Mr.. Web
ster on the hority Of Mr. Tallmadge, Is true
we have good to believe has Mr. Webster made
any decaI aions of nature similar to the above, to any
person whatever
In addition TO all this, a personal friend Of Mr..
Webster, Of this city, advises us that Mr.. Webster
has said, in regard to the statement attributed to
Mr.. Talmadge, by little Raymond, that there is
not ono word Of truth in it," Our informant also
says, that Daniel Webster will not discourage any
efforts Of his friends to bring him before the Amer
can d. ople as candidate" Here then, is chance
for the Webster wings Of this city, and Of Boston,
and the Union Let them corporate in the Phila-
delphia movement, at once. Why not That'sthe
question.
THE Law or LrBEL-JUDGEs EDWARDS AND
CAMPBELL The law of libel is an enigma which
seems to puzzle the bench and the bar Of our city,
and We therefore seldom two concurrent opinions
on the same point. One Judge-we refer to Judge
Campbe-decdes that it is libellous for q news
paper to publish the proceedings Of police court !;
whilst another decides-as did Judge Edwards, yes
terday, in the case Of Stanly against James Watson
Webb-that a report was libelous because more was
stated in it than in the original complaint. The
decision Of Judge Edwards is probably nearly right
A newspaper report ca parte statement, and
before the accused has had time or opportunity to
defend himself, or explain the accusation, should
not contain any comments or remarks aggravating
tbp case. In this instance, the article headed
"Extortng money to hush up complaint" which
was an aggravation Of the simple complaint
A full, fair, and correct report Of trial in q
court, high or low, is admittedly privileged
publication But Judge Campbell, Of the Superior
Court held in this same case, that the simple re-
port of proceeding in Police Court was libelous.
This opinion based on English decisions, whore
the law with regard to Police Magistrates Courts
is quite different in this respect from In Eng
land the magistrate is merely committing func-
tionary Here, by the laws of our State, accused
party can demand q hearing before the magistrate,
who is empowered to dismiss the complaint or COM
NIT the party and the report Of such proceedings is
as justi6able and as privileged" as if it were q
trial in the Superior Court, even before his honor
Judge Campbell, himself. Judge Campbell is wrong
is his construction of the law Of libel, and we would
seriously recommend this branch Of jurisprudence
to the study of many Of our expounders Of the law
A newspaper editor, in the faithful discharge
of his duties, does not desire, in reports, to
give anything more than the facts as they trans
pire in court; and for this, no law, nor no contor-
tion or construction Of the law, should hold him
responsible. When case has been adjudcated, and
his opinion cannot influence for or against the lit
giants, q newspaper editor has right to comment
fairly upon the facts as they have appeared and, in
due bounds, to approve disapprove Of the result.
But Justice Campbell, forgetting the laws of his
own State, or the State in which he sits as Judge,
cites EDglish authorities to guide and govern him
in his decisions here, where the laws based upon
totally different constitutional principles.