The western Democrat. [volume] (Charlotte, N.C.) 1852-1870, 1857-03-24
From the South carolinian.

we claimed to attend their public meetings,
and to report proceedings if we thought pro-
per, without s.let, hindrance or question:"
and it will be remembered were treated
with indignity by the Mayor, and elected
by his order by one of his officials, u ct
arnris, from the Council Chamber.
Under the advice of counsel. we brought
an action for assault and Battery a ct
armis,'' for damages. as the proper course
of proceeding to bring out all the points of
the case, and to vindicate our corporate
rights and the freedom of the press.
The case created much interest at the
time, and the verdict of public opinion, not
only in the city and State, but throughout
the Union, was in our favor. In addition
to that testimony, we have now the highest
satisfaction to add that of a Court of Law,
and the verdict of a jury of our countrymen.
We have been fully sustained in every
point of the issue we made, and we are
proud of the distinction of having been the
humble means of presenting for adjudica-
ton. for the first time in the history of the
government. the principle now decided,
that every citizen has right to attend a
public meeting of municipal council with
out being questioned as to his purpose.
AS the case presents many points of in
terest to the press and to citizens. we have
made arrangements for full report of its
details; and as soon as our reporter can
prepare his notes for publication, we will
present them to the public. In the mean
while, we will only give from bis Honor
Judge Withers' charge to the jury a few
of the propositions which he impressed up
on them as the opinions of the Court They
are founded upon truth and justice, and
sustain US in the issue we made with E. j.
Arthur, representing the municipal corpor-
alton of Columbia.
The jury has given a verdict even against
the ministerial officer, John Burdell, who
carried out the high handed order of Mayor
Arthur--and although the damages are
nominal, being $25 against E. j. Arthur,
the Mayor, and Ct cents against his agent,
they are enough to show that the jury re-
cognized the former as the chief offender,
and the latter as having offended only un-
der an official order from his principal, but
still that he deserved to be condemned for
the act.
We are highly gratifed at the result
which has restored US the legal possession
of rights, of which we have been uniustly
deprived by the assumption of authority on
the'part of men elected by the people to
serve them as agents or trustees, and not
as autocratic oppressors.
The following are the most important
points of the Judges charge:
1T is right in every corporator to at
tend public meeting of the local legisla-
ture of the city of Columbia. He may be ex-
PEELED for disturbing the debates delibera-
| tions, or proceedings of such body, though
the meeting and proceedings be public or
open to the corporators. To exclude a
corporator from such public meeting 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 lawful
exercise of power-and if force upon the
person be used, it is an assault and battery.
at is matter of common right. in every
species of our elective representative gov
ernments, that the voter shall be allowed,
upon condition of good behavior in his de-
meanor, to hear the public debates and
witness the public proceedings of his rep
resentatves, engaged in the performance of
public trusts.
ITO exclude a reporter and to exclude
a corporator is not one and the same thing.
To eject corporator from public meeting
merely because 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, asperses, or
misrepresents the Council, and misleads
the people, their constituency, it would pre-
sent a question of some difficulty to say
whether he might not, or ought not, to be
excluded. 1t is not this case, upon the evil
dence, and need not be decided. Any cor
porator who attends may give unfair or
false verbal accounts of proceedings, and
the difference between him and the owner
of paper is only that the latter may give
his account wider scope and more per-
manent form. But if under guise of the
Liberty Of the Press, a common calumniator
seeks in character of corporator to malign
maliciously and to misrepresent fraudulent
ly the acts and debates of public body of
any sort, it would be difficult for him, if
that fact were made to appear, to show a
right to damages, if he be foiled in such a
purpose. To assume beforehand that this
will he done, however, would amount to a
censorship over speech or the press.
Without some legal and satisfactory
reason adduced to the contrary, DR.. Gibbes
had right to publish true account of the
public proceedings"
THE CROPS.
TENNEssEE.--TheW West Tennessee Wing