New-York daily tribune., 1856-03-17

ever, no matter how Innocent its character or
abstract its subject II one writes letter and
signs it Index, or dos not sign il at all, on the
subject, say Of squsrDg the circle, or OF an open
Polar Sea. or Of what ia the true spelling Of Shake
speare's name, and any editor chooses to publish
such letter or communication, ne IL, on con-
victop, if Mr.. Mills can have his way 10 nc
fined not exceeding fifty dollars. But why
fine man for publishing communication
vbicb does no harm TO anybody, and which By
the amusement or instruction it afiords--or though
it affords neither yet merely by setting the reader'
Of il 10 thinkiDg-may do great deal OF gooa
Mr. Mills msy have unusual faculty OF seeing INTO
miIl.stone. Ifso, we think he will need II all 10
penetrate into the darkness of his own Intentions
and 10 zee what he would be at What can be the
objection to the publication of anonymous letters or
communications from which nobody suffers any
harm Besides, how utterly unavailiDg would
be this proposed fine Of not exceeding fifty dol
lars, TO prevent the sort of publications to which
Mr.. Mills seems to have such antipathy.
To eyade and utterly nslify his law, it would
only be necessary to do what is often done
in a newspaper offce-strike out the " Mr.
Editor" at the beginning of communication
or letter ard adopt and print it as editorial.
If facts were narrated, it would only be neces-
sary to change the form little, and instead
of letting the correspondent speak in the first
person, to say, edtorially-We learn so and So
In truth the only consistent and sensible OBJECT
which Mr. Mills can be supposed to have, In this
proposed inAiction of criminal penalties on the
nublication of anonymous letters and communica-
tions. could only be obtained by adopting the
French system of prohibiting the publication OF
sly article in any newspaper unless 1T bear the
signature of the writer. Whether the Jealous
Mills is prepared to go this length, is more than we
know. If he is, we doubt very much whether he
will be able to induce the Legislature to follow
him. At all events, we shall defer the discussion of
that point till Mr. Mills more fully explains himself
If the law in relation to newspapers is to be
changed at all-and no doubt like most other parts
of our code, it is capable of great improvement
the change ought TO be in an entirely different
direction. Newspapers in this State have had, from
the beginning, to struggle against the hostility of
the Judiciary, aiming at the maintenance of old
hostility of men, and especially of men in au-
thority, to be cited before the tribunal of the
public there TO give on account OF them
selves but entirely unsuted to the exist
ing condition of society. The attempt made in
colonial times, on the occasion of the famous trial
of ZeDger, to ntimdate and silence the New-York
press by establishing the doctrine "the greater
" the truth the greater the libel" was renewed so
late as 1904, by the sO.calod Democratic party in
this State; and though exposed by such men as
Hamilton and Kent, and partially defeated by legis
lative interference the same disposition on the part
of the Judiciary continues to be exhibited to this
days. and verdicts of damages for alleged libels are
constantly rendered, which, if they are warranted
by the law as it stands, not warranted either by
common sense or common fairness, and only go to
show that the law greatly needs amendment.
There are only two cases in which, as it appears
to us, taking duly into account the rights and In
terests of the public to be informed of what is 60
ING on-for in this matter the Press is but the agent
aud servant of the public--a libel suit for damages
ought to be maintained. If a man can show
that by reason of false publication he has suffered
any special and specific injury, then, to the extent
of that injury be ought to be entitled to damages,
even though it be shown that the publication
of which be complains was made in perfect good
faith, without any malice or intent to injure, but
in the full belief that the facts stated were true.
In the second place, even though no special
injury can be shown, yet if the false statements
were of character to do some serious harm,
in such case-uness the party charged is able
TO show the express absence of malice, and that
the charges were made upon probable grounds
for believing them to be true, or that he offered,
when informed of their falsity, to publish retrac-
ton of them-in case like this, it would be fair
to presume malice, and to levy damages accord
inely In these two classes Of cases, and only in
these does there seem to be any reasonable ground
for sustaining suits for bels. AS to criminal pro-
eeedipgs for bels upon private individuals, as they
have become obsolete in practice so they ought to
be formally abolished or if criminal proceedings
are to be maintained, then suits for damages ought
TO be abolished.
1t is, we think, quite sufficient, and is conform
able to the spirit OF the law in every case in which
passion has not got the better Of reason, to hold
the newspapers responsible for malice proved and
not rebutted and for injuries either proved or
fairly to be presumed-and not, as the law now does,
for merely legal malice, which the defendant is
not allowed to disprove, and for damages merely
possible, and often purely imaginary.
YOUNG SOUTH CAROLINA.
W. lstal, rorrinta1 from "A North Carolina