New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1857-01-24


seek TO limit the rights and prerOgatives of the
press in denouncing abuses, condemning wrong and
branding corruption. We freely admit that the
evidence upon which newspapers are often obliged
to speak is lot precisely that which is accepted
in courts of Justice. Yet the difference is by no
means so grea. as certain parties connected with
the pending charges of bribery aud corruption at
WashiLg ton are disposed to represent it. In vast
mary cases, and those Of the grayest character,
which come before the courts, the direct evidence
of eye or ear witnesses cannot be mad. Even In a
court of justice, an Indictment for bribery would be
very apt to be sustained, not by positive testimony
but by the proof Of circumstances tending to the
conc uson that bride had been given or received.
Now, this, which the lawyers call circumstanlial
evidence or at least the conclusion OF guilt derived
from it, il, we apprthend, neither more nor less
than that "moral conviction which is alleged to
afford sufficient basis for editorial denunciatons.
But as no newspaper has right to denounce any.
body as guilty. of any wrong or Oiiense except upon
evidence either direct or circums santa, 50 1t would
seem not to have right to deuounce anybody with
out being ready to lay before the public, or at least
before the parties charged, the evidence, whatever
il may be- on the strength Of which the editor has
arrived at "mOral conviction" If there are rea-
sons legal personal, polite or professional, which
require him to withhold the evidence, the same
reasons would seem 10 require hun TO withhold the
charge since without the evidence the charge, even
though well founded, is little more than mere
brutum fulnen, affording no basis on which the
public can either judge or act.
In the case Of the recent charges Of corruption
in Congress an attempt has been made TO set up 8
distinction between charges against individuals and
charges against public bodies This distinction
does not seem to have any rational foundation, GER
tainy not 90 far as individual Members OF Congress
are concerned. According to our idea Of the mat
ter. the action of individual Members Of Congress,
in their public character, is ast as open to news
paper comment and censure az the action of the
entire body to which they belong; nor has news.
paper any more right to throw ont charges OF which
it is not ready TO produce the evidence against the
whole body than against any individual member OF
it.
Nobody, if we except plaintiffs in Libel suits, re-
quires or expects the editor Of newspaper to go
into court and there TO produce proofs which come
up to the technical requirements OF the law as to
the truth of what he alleges but surely the public,
iu whom lie seeks to produce q moral conviction
correspo1 ding to his own, have right to know
and most surly the parties charged have right to
Knoxville evidence upon which his own published
moral conviction is founded. An editor is at full ber
ty 10 indulge to any extent he peases in denuncatons
Of corruption and in lamentations over the extent
to which it prevails; but when he goes further and
proceeds TO charge it particularly and specifically,
whether upon public bodies or public functionarie',
whether upon committees OF two hundred or CON-
mittee, of one, we consider that be is bound, espe
cislly when called upon by the parties charged, to
specify the particular facts on the basis Of which
the charge was made.
Surely press claiming to be, not the conduit and
vehicle of private rancor, bu. censor of public
manners snd guardian Of the public good, ought to
be the last to make grave charges of corruption Of
which it is 10. in POSITION to produce any evidence
How is ANYBODY TO know in such case what weight
to give 10 the charge whether the editors refusal
10 specify the grounds Of bis moral convictions may
lot be, that he has nothing TO specify which he
would not be ashamed 70 put into print