New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1853-10-10

hS,i,g .orne harsh though substantially just illusions
20 ,te 1;eneraI's condition and general habits Here
,,or Root sued for libel and Delaware County jury
urder the guidance Of Regency Judge gave the plain
ta verdict Of 81 400 and costs 1t was On ths trial
If we mistake not that il judically ruled that
ran could not justifably be termed common drunkari
unIes he WIS accustomed to be drunk at least half the
time
Now lie; us look at tie other side Of the picture
In 1s27, Thurow Weed was an ardent effective An
tMasonic Anti Regency Editor at Rochester. WI
liam Morgan had been spirited sway from Batavia the
year before, and as was alleged) drowned in the Nj
acara river, near its entrance into Lake Ontario.
month before the Election Of 1327, body was washed
ashore from Lake Ontario, which was declared to be
that Of the missing Morgan. Intense excitement pre-
vailed throughout Western New-YOrk, and Mr. Weed
was accused Of having mutaed this dead body in order
TO make il resemble Morgan This partisan libel ha7-
ing no shadow OF basis except in bantering CONVERSE
ton between Weed and political adversary-:he Tor
ner in answer to fling about this body as manuiac-
tured Morgan. having in the same spirit Observed that
the Masonic party would probably find good enough
Morgan till after Eection-was reiterated and every
change rung upon it in the Regency presses throughout
lioent persons we're made to believe that Weed had
really been guilty Of the detestable fraud alleged
against him. Nay, down to this hour though the cal
umny was long since exploded and retraeted some Of
the most unprncipled and reckless journals in the
land-such az Tie Netc- York Herad-from time to
time revive and repeat it.
MI Weed appealed to the Law for the punishment
Of bis libelers; but TO no purpose. The judges were
all Regency men, appointed by the Central Junto at
Albany: so were the District Attorneys of the
strongest Wing Counties; and it not possible to
bring the cuprts to trial Year after year passed on
one pIetext for delay serving until another could be
trumped up-unt at last these cases were thrown out
of Court on the prete1t that they had grown sene and
moudy-and there no redress.
Such were the different measures of justice meted
out to Wings and Democrats accused of libel by the
Regency Judiciary Of New.York twenty-five to thirty
years ago.
Some years later, the novelist j. Fenimore Cooper
cot into row with bis neighbOrs OF Cooperstown
about the occupancy of point in the Lake adjacent by
picnic and other festive parties. Mr. Cooper, Ike
most natural aristOcrats, was partiwise Democrat
and had written some things respecting manners, &C.
in this land of liberty which had neted good many
of his couDtrymen He had also written letter on
Politics, which had been treated with Indignation or
derision by the Wig Press Some caustic comments
were made BY number of our Wing Journals on his
conduct toward the people of COOperstown as aiore
said and be began to sue them for libel Each action
generally provoked new structures from other Wing
journals aording basis for libelsults We believe
all of these which were prosecuted crminally failed
while most of those which called for pecuniary damages
were successful having the most efficient backing from
the Bench Mr. Weed, who never dreamed Of libeling
Cooper, was made to pay some $1,000 IN damages and
costs awarded him our direct contribution toward the
support of the great American Novelist was only S2J)
but the costs sweed this abominaby; AMI few New
York Wing Editors who deemed worth suing
escaped scot-free. Fenmore gave out that he IN
tended to erect public monument Of his triumph with
the proceeds of these suits but never heard that
he did so, and suspect that if he ever built any 1t
must have been composed of the bones OF the turkies
roast pigs and other edible bpeds and quadupeds that
the most outrageous Judicial ruling enabled him TO de-
YOUR at the cost of Wing Editors as Aforesaid.
That this ruling ,cas outrageous, does not depend
on our opinion and that of fellowsuferers We
have seen letters from Justice Story Prof Greeneai
of Harvard, and other high legal unccnaries express
ing surprise at the vide departures from tie standard
definitions Of libel and rules OF determining its exist
ence which our Judges had seen fit to make. Emf
nent LAWYERS in other States at the time expressed TO
us the wish that FenimOre could be induced to sue
somebody for libel on one Of these before heir
Judges ntimatng their willingness to defend the
cases for the luxury of so doing. The independent
Press out of our State cried shame these leg per-
secutions; but still they went on the comments on
each trial usually afording the material for any
number ofnew cases.
Let us illustrate the sort of law that dealt ont to
us from the Supreme Bench of our State by familiar
example. A. b. has stolen a sxpence whereupon a
journal states the fact and adds The man who would
steal a sixpcnce would steal a hundred dollars il
"he thought lie could do so with IMMUNITY Hereup
on B. sues for libel declaring the last clause Of
the foregoing citation
Now the Editor must either attempt 70 Justify his
observation or else he is udcially held to have admit
ted the Preparation of libel shutting him out from
an, opportunity to dsproye the charge and leaving n
question for the jury but that concerning the amount
Of damages But having been stuck twice or thrice
by pleading the general issue (under which on
judges would only admit proof that The defendant
had not really uttered the libel in question: h
would resolve to justify and give notice accordingly
80 he comes into court to justify and SAYS Il offer q
prove that A. r. did steal a si1pence. az charged
Stop, Sir" interleTes tie Judge "yoa can't be al
flowed to prove hat The decaration'oas E0t ane1'
3: that SIS liiel, lut the clause following Well.
saws the Editor then ! viii prove that-tle fact o
sail stealing being adnitted-my deduction tLe.eir0n
D.. was war.antabe" No sir, says the Juise ii