The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1852-02-16

sons Reports psge 45 Ths truth fAlsehood not
the question. 1t could not be sustained BY showing
It was false, or negstived by proving 1t Was true
1t must be OF character TO produce personal injury e
sslkeld "a the King vs. Alms) It must de'cend to
particular indivdusls and the OF the rule
that 1t sheud be such would tend tn inote the nd
vdual TO breach of the psace and were not within
tho reason 1t was not within the rule. These remArks
not such that any could say It he that
was meant. 1t shown by the act, which was
70 referred to as to become part OF the indictment
that The Board consisted Of twentyone members, aud
there pretenoe that the libel pointed out whoh
Of them was pointed at, and the article excluded q
portion beosuss it said Perhaps this diversion Of the
funds may not be known to all the members but 1t is
well known to the abolition clique In the direction
CouDsel then read from Hots Treatise, pages 2i8 and
217 on the question whether it material 60 the
libel being true or false, and ceptnued-The act de-
scrbed must be such as prompted to . bresch OF
sns peace ana .ns x0,as ,aey seaioasy, ana
tho appropriation Of the funds there nothing
to show that dvo,ing them to the purpose of estsb
lishing an abolition paper was msapptcato m
there was no inducement, nothing to thow that 1t
ves the duty OF these gentlemen to make any other
disposition Of thsm or that the term abolition was
zoe ieproach TO the character Of any individual Tae
court could not that ana many persons north
o. Mason DxoDs limo would esteem IL com pliment;
ard they could not say that these complSnants Instead
OF teng ashamed and hanging their heads before their
fellow citizens. would not walk erect, fourshng this
article as feather in their oaps; and Il 1t were not op
psobiious or Injurious, II was not belous For these
ccpdersiors ne confidently submitted the indictment
was untounded and ought to be quashed
The District Attorney rose to reply He commenced
by citing authorities, the Republic Ceaver, 4
Yates go, Republic We. Burlington, go, aud Wharton'B
Teatiss page M 80 show that it was error 70 ouseh
Indictment except the face Of 1t in the caption
there obvious defect. Courts always looked
upon there motions with distrust and never granted
th N but IN IN, ceaiest cases. and IL was Ia their dis
erection TO quah Tor insuciency leave defendant to
bis motion In arrest, or to semur. (People vs. L,m
bert, 7 Cowan Sc.) with this established rule he
started and 1t founded Ia good for thesa
decisions were not the subject OF review at all They
would see, whether on the lace of this indictment,
tbs matters arged properly the subject Of
criminsl action libel They stated prefsory that
under certain acts certain officers spponted This
bis learned friend had called an inducement but 1t was
an averment which nuet be- proved And they then
set forth that the libel Intended TO reflect dcredt
on these persons It was true that 1t did not aude
to any by name; but i. mentioned them In
generic tern; and the indictment having shown
the ohsracter OF the association cot forth what had
been ohsrged with regard TO them BY their BY laws
and constitution they bound to distribute Though
nc individual nsmed IL libel 20 charge the
sgsrs With alehood and disregard TO TRUTH and stat
ed that the they gave for the postponemsnt
were false and impudsnt end charged them with vio
ation OF the duty eLjoined them by law. 1t he
admitted the right-in fact, the duty-of the conduc
tors OF the public press to observe within fair scops
bus having tEe management Of public nsttuEions
they beware that they confne thcm.eves truth
ana he would prscecd TO shsw that this beyond
peTsdventsre libel The learned gentlem then read
through the indictment, making some few comments
ana having concluded said he would no further COM
meat nor read any more.
MIR. sandford There is more. "a laugh)
Mr. Blunt knew there was no more, but he meant he
would not comment further. He did not think there
oonld be language calculated to lead to breach Of
The peace the feelings OF an honorable man.
His Learned friend travelling out Of hs record alleged
the compainants hsd violated Fundamental Law Of tho
constitution He conceded that lotteries prohibit
ed by the conrtu ution OF 1921 and lS4T and he would
for the purpose OF shs Argument ADMIT that ths was
lottery; but, II they had violated the Law, they
weie NOT, on that account to be charged with being
thieves Was q man. therefore, authorized to charge
them with robbery or any oher offence! What had that
violation OF the law to DO with this Indictment Nothing
He did not wish here to argue that point For eleven
twelve years past some of our had
hxfn lint ranIit
for oprnrds Of ten years they had pro-
ceee in what they supposed and believed aud stu be-
Aes, authorized by law but II they mad violated
the law, because they were mtaken, they to De
cbsTped with fraud? In other words what had the mode OF
distribution do with IL Tn. libel did not charge them
with that bnt alleged that they had received money for
the purpose OF encouraging art and that these funds had
been squandered in champagne suppers and in estab
shDg certain newspaper. That was the question to
be put before jury for II Was question what the court
lad to do with IT, contrary to all others in OF libel
the jury by statute the judges Of tho and thsac
body OF might be libelled without setting forta
the OF any and criminal prosecution would lie We
all knew tlats criminal indictment would lie in all
civil action would but the Of tho pro
position would not hold He then read from Bura's
Justice Gate editior) page 2o citing cass Of the KIM
sin't burdstt Bsrnsrdistons REPORTS and othsrs
showing that criminal information had besu allowed
where the clergy OF particular diooe,s had been belsi
ard ia another statement that unofending aud na.
simed people had been inhumanly butchered by the
" Brsgconsn without naming any person or regiment
held libel on the Kings troops He also read from
Archbod's Criminal Law 633 on the same point
Mr. sapdiord replied. He sgresd with Mr. Buuts 6rst
proposition, that the defect must appear on the
face Of the Indictment add he thought it did here
the bylaws and constitution BY being referred To-
became part Of It. II. ALEC ded to the second that
must be clear but he dissonted from bis third
propotion. He glad his friend had not argued for
the legality Of the Art Union and II it Was as no con-
foenty asserted Illegal the respsctablity OF ths
comrlsnantf could give no validity tot The mostthat
could be urged for them that they had, without
proper consideration gone into occupation contrary
to and rendered themselves snenabie TO Its penal
ties, though not morally guilty Ct any oGsnce Tnc
District attorney had said this q matter Of
sysrment II was very essential matter Of avsrnent
These scts made the foundation and they e
gal and admitted then IL took away all The ground
II they had any authority to naks such dst:i
button Ii could be no libel TO they not going to
do This wn the absurdity OF this indictment (rhs
Of Taller vs. rlotson was cited and Hole Trtetise
2i3 read In support Of counEes argument As to The
pressing difference cf opr Ion TO their reason for not
drawing tbst was far expression OF opinion and tie
court OF to sit judges CT etiquette and courtesy
The sire nsth OF the terms in which expressed,
would not make it libel Some men hsd NOT learned
III. very refined expressioEs but Used short and
per gent ones. There vas abort little Saxon word,
"a ne which considered very unGour.e .eOus
one, but still haa precisely the satae sisudcstop
Qnd no more) a. tslse," or the ntgasye parase
not trusn "eIror," or "i1aecusasen Hero
Sas another shsurdy II quite competent for any
one to Hsr Ctherwte there end to a freedom IL
dscusi o. and If it lswful to do In form, 1t
in another. There no Law 20 regulate the Orn
Of speech TIE rasssge was nothing bat an Argument 10
answer TO an srgSmert The writer ksys he tniDks 10
net 40 Rua 10 vss tnpudUnt 70 ray f1ere
dGerent cAssos OF AID thsy shoud sa into
tofuey within t. IL always held libel 10 say
utc hing r,fectng OH nsers Of the State
Fsrisfrau e induce disrespecsf0T them snong
the people; and tins u the church In Engiaud, vheh
srt ii tha State snd 81 tAe sgmy portion Ok
the government Thee ust therefore, ba diiu.
gnieaed But be said that IL libel whers the par
ties rpoktn Il dtvidua5 of clac, and could not
De pointed ont All the nd rnents and nodtacat,1s
o lava Ct England went 20 enlarge the liberties Of ue
prffs aEd would now b. contrary 70 the genius OF this
country and bottle 70 the fpnis Of the 10 ersa'e
csss oi cases As pffvsfson Of tho funds Though
tie Article charged peTr,rrion yetn 10 isot snsre
could be no p.Ivereion, it no libel, IL does
hot spptsr that II 70 apply them 20 aa
abolition Newspaper, aud IL s not, then the atti.
Gle ray ing no would not make II mlssppi
cation IL would be Necessary 20 ststs that
the purchase Of oysters and champagne was pervsrsion
but he did not rec there eny .ning Illegal In tns
1hsy contributsd very much TO the comfort Of foma
peepe II not to their health snd the enjoyment OF them
IN modsrr'on, would continue 20 bs quits legal uatn
Tie aair, lswn passed, when We would bs Obliged
70 drink thirty gallons at time. (Lsue hter) IL nit
yduss IN puthc positions could not os spoksn of and
then actions caHvasfed It would be most u1Ig
resction Of the liberty of tho prsss la conciusion
the learned counsel several extracts showing that
The individual must be clearly pointed a. - eoas ute