New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1853-12-19
LIBELS AND THE PRESS.


We once had the honor of being held up to a jury
by Justice of the Supreme Court of our State as
claiming for Editors an indefeasible right to libel
whomsoever they might fit to expose to such dis
cipline, without responsibility or appeal. We could
not reply to him then and there but We had already
carefully explained that so far from holding an Editor
entitled to libel at will held him subj to sterner
responsibility than person who had 10 command of
the press.
What we did ASK and have at all ines insisted on
il simpy that the rules of Common Sense should be
applied to the adjudication of charge of Libel and
THAT an Editor should not be pronounced lbeler where
the facts clearly showed that lie not For in
stance if there should appear among our telegraphic
reports tomorrow statement that Capt. Turner of
the bark Chippewa, had been arrested at Key West
and held Tor trial for having designedy wrecked his
vessel near that sand-it would be perfectly proper
for sad Turner to sue us for libel and offer to prove
the trial that there had been no such arrest but that
we were personally nimcal to him and had fabricated
the dispatch in order to deame and njure hn-and, in
case Of his proving this ought to be made to suffer
for it, less but more than an Ignorant and witess
chap who, also impelled by personal malice, should
cOncoct such story and procure IFS insertion in a
newspaper. But, if he should sue rs for libel and we
were able TO show the trial that never saw nor
heard of this Capt. Turner, never cherished any
feeling toward him whatever and had published the
dispatch exactly as it reached through the proper
channel and in undOubtng belief of its truth, why then
we say would be monstrous perverson of the ma
chinery of Justice to hold guilty of libel and sub
ect US to heavy damages for an act mpeled by no I'M
WORTHY motive and for which sensible person could
deem us in any degree blamable Is not tls reasona
bic
That an Editor is often msinormed misjudges, is
notorious and lis of fact opinion may do in
jury to those thereby affected. We claim no immunity
from responsibility for the injury we may however
innocently) inict others but we do claim that
Editor should be adjudged guilty Of libel where it is
clear that he cherished lbelOus ntent-that, II
have inadvertently damaged our eghbor by publishing
erroneous statements respecting him, shall be made
to repair the wrong done him through a verdict in
action for damage but not for libel In other words
we demand that twelve men in jurybOx shall not be
constrained by the machinery of litigation to fni that
A. B. has " wickedly, malciousy and falsely lbeled
C. d. when every man Of them knows that he has done
no such thing.
Now consider few facts
We were once required to appear at Catskill and
show cause why we ought not to pay $4,000 to a man
we had never heard Of for wckedly maiciously and
falsely OBTAINING him. lttoOk us some time to find out
what all this meant but at last discovered that
of hisneichbors had advertised in columns ac-
count sale against the plaintiff whereupOn he sued
not the man whom he certainly knew had beed him IF
any body had but us, who he likewise knew had done
nothing of the sort We defended the ease and beat
him. proving the advertisement fully justifable but
we were obliged pay round for costs including
ten dollars 10 the very who had inserted the adj
yertisement and who f any one) was the real beler
His testimony was essential TO our defense, and be
would Mt 90 to Catski to give it unless paid him
/ ten dollars so we had 10 stand it,
Ina more recent case, a. poor wdower's child was
spirited away from him by neghbor, and he has not
yet been able 10 procure its return. We published the
poor mans statement in the hope of aiding him in the
recoTerS; whereupon the woman implicated sued us
for libel, although we didn't know her from the Queen
of sheba. After we had been put to the expense OF
preparing for trial several times, collecting witnesses
&c, the Judge discovered that the plaintiff did not
mean to come to trial. and turned the case out OF
! Court But for the expense and trouble to VIII ch
had been waniory objected We had no redress
Some wears since, man died. in our City under the
treatment Of steam doctor and the Coroners jury
adiudred it ease OF ralpractice We knew none Of
the parties but published the testimony adiuccd in the