Edgefield advertiser. [volume] (Edgefield, S.C.) 1836-current, 1857-03-25
From the Charleston Co r.r.
TRIUMPH OF RIGHT, OF PRINCIPLE, And OF
THE FREEDOM OF Tile PRESS.

Gibbes Us. E. j. Arthur and John Burdell, the
afayor and the Chief Police officer of the City
of Columbia, for torcibly objecting DR.. GibbeS,
the Editor of the South Caroliuia", from the
Council Chamber, at public meeting OF the
City Council, in consequence OF his refusal 10
submit to an inquistion, whether he designed
or not, to report their proceedings, came on, III
the Court of Common Pleas, at Columbia Judge
Withers presiding. on Thursday last. The
whole of Thursday was consumed IN taking tue
evidence, and in hearing the argument on a mo-
tion for non-suit, which signaiy failed; ana the
whole of Friday was occupied, by the argument
of counsel to the jury, until I o'clock, P. III.
His Honor, Judge Withers, at 10 O'clock, on
Saturday morning, fully sustained the plaintiff,
on every point of law and ground OF principle,
in charge, to the jury. of more than an hours
duration. The jury then retired, and, alter
brief interval, returned with verdict OF 80
damages against Mr.. Arthur, (nore than douo'e
the amount, requisite to carry coSts,) ana ol
Ct cents against Mr. Burdell, the mere mlniste-
rial officer and agent of the Mayor and Coun-
Gil, in their outrage on the person and rights OF
the plaintiff Although the verdict (doubtess
wrung, from a reluctant jury, by the invincible
force of the Judges charge, on the law, Is ut-
terly inadequate, either to reimburse the ex-
penses of the plaintiff, or 10 atone for the out
rage on private and public right, it Is yet full
vindication Of the plaintiffs position, that, as
corporator and proprietor OF public press,
lie had perfect right, without challenge, or
question. to attend the public meetings Of the
City Council of Columbia, and, at will, to re-
port their proceedings, and his forcbe election
therelrom was trespass on his person, ON hts
rights, as corrorator, and on the freedom ot
.ni;tla5 lin, tn Iomooas for
the unjrlStified and unjustitiable accumulation of
wrong That the verdict was SO small is no re-
proach To him. His Is the triumph of right and
principle, and he can well afford, thus crowned
with victory, and the champion Of the freedom
Of the press, to deSplSe the paltry consideration
Of dollars and cents.
The case was argued, for the plaintiff by
J. hn Bauskett and Richard Yea,lon, ESquireS
and, for the defendants. by James d. Tradewell
and Maxcy Gregg: ESquircs.
The following are the most important points
of the Judges charge:
"It is u right in every corporator to attend Il
public meeting of the local legislature of the
city of Columbia lie may be expelled for dis
turbng the debates, deliberations, or proceed
ings of such body, though tie meetings and
proceedings be public or open to the corporators
TO exclude corporator from such public meet
ing or to expel him from it, at mere pleasure.
or for no reason connected with the free, full and
undisturbed exercise of their functions, or the
discharge OF their duties is not 4 lawful exercise
of power-and if force upon the person bc used,
it is IN assault and battery.
"It is matter of common right in every Spe-
cieS Of our elective representative governments.
that the voter shall be allowed, upon condition
Of good behavior in his delneanor. to hear the
public debates and witness the public proceed
ings Of his representatives, engaged i'll the per-
formance Of public trusts.
"To exclude q reporter and to exclude cUr-
porator is not one and the same thing. To eject
corporator from public meeting merely be-
cause it is suspected, or avowed by him, that he
means to publish report Of its proceedings, is
not lawful Yet if such corporator has shown
by previous conduct that he calumniateS, aSper
ses, or msrepresents the Council, and misleads
the people, their constituency, it would present
question Of some difficulty TO say whether he
might MOI, or ought not to DC excluded 1t is
not this cause, upon the evidence, and neel not
be decided. Any corPoratOr who attends may
give unfair or false verbal accounts of proceedings.
and the difference between him and the owner
of q paper is only that the latter may give his
account wider scope anu more permanent
form. But if under gni;e Of the Liberty Of The
Press common calumniator seeks in clarac-
ter of ccrporator to magn maliciously and to
InisrepreScnt fraudulenty the acts and debates
of public body Of any sort, it would be diff
cult for him, if that fact were made to appear,
to show right to damages, if he be foiled in
such purpose. 10 assume beforehand that
this will be done, however, would amount to u
censorship over speech Or the pre- $.
without some legal and satisfactory reason
adduccd to the contrary, DR.. Gibbcs had right
to publish true account Of the public proceu.
ings.f