The weekly Anglo-African. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1859-1861, 1860-05-19
The Late Philadelphia Libel Suit.

The Late Philadelphia Libel Suit
Mr.. EDITOR :-Inasmuch as you have 70
two weeks past opened your columns t.
statements in reference to the case recent
" disposed Of in our criminal court--tht
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania VS.. VIM
Still. YOU will not, of course, refuse to state
the case fairly through the same medium
ION our first page will be found a briei
history of the trouble, agreeing substan-
folly with the statement of our correspon-
dent, which, consequently, can be omit
ted.-ED.
There are, however, several considera-
tions upon the bearings of the case, which
have been put forth through the public
press and public meetings, and which are
therefore presumed to be fair matters for
criticism.
Il has been sought to create the impress
e;on that the case was one of very little
moment to any one. Is a mothers or a
u;fes honor of no moment Mrs. Wells
ia wife and mother. Judge Thompson,
whom, unlike his associates, we have never
heard accused of unfairness or Partially, }
who having heard and investigated all the
facts in the case, may be believed to have
thoroughly understood the matter from be-
ginning to end, said: at is not my de-
sign to infict any serious punishment
certainly not a punishment aohich aoould
be adequate TO the aolcked and ScaadalouS
libel which yOw published"
2. 1t has been stated several times in
the public journals, and we heard Mr.. Still
himself say, in public meeting, that he
did not plead guilty-that he did not &C.
knowledge his guilt, Or his error. The
language of Judge Thsnpson-the very
FIRST remark in his review of the case-is:
"Wm. Still, yOu haze entered the plea Of
guilty to the charge Of issuing scandal
ous and malicious taLsehoOd." Yet it is
claimed that he did not plead guilty Can
this be possible
8. 1t has been freely said that Mr.. Still
was merely performing conscientious du-
ty to the public. He stated in court,
through his witnesses and counsel, that he
had no design that the letter should be
read by any one except theperson to whom
twas addressed. Now, how was this con-
fdential communication to single person
to benefit the public7 Was that one per-
son the publicI But there might yet be
force in this assumption if he had not him.
self pleaded guilty-if somebody else, a
Jury, for instance, had said SO. But he was
conscientious. Maybe he was. But is a
man e1cuSabLe if he strikes at your honor,
your character, your all, without evidence,
on flimsy hearsay--on caprice, perhaps
We do not wish to go into motives, but the
point of the conscientious performance Of
duty on his part has been made much Of
and upon it the public have been asked to
side with and for Mr.. Still 1t is there
fore certainly fit subject for public re-
mark Let it, therefore, be asked, if he
was simply and only DESTROYS to guard the
public, why did he continue to write CONT.
Dental letters rejecting upon Mrs. Wells.
after the hearing before an Alderman
Why those letters to Cincinnati and ST.
Louis 4 letter before us from Mr.. Gar
rison WIN. Lloyd states that at least one
more such letter was sent to parties in
Boston than has come to light. Is there
any excuse for such conduct, or ought the
public to be called on to endorse and sane,
ton it?
And now just word about the public
meeting of which you gave an account in
your last. One not knowing the facts in
the case would gather the impression that
for instance, Rev. VIM. Douglass was al
the head Of a faction that came to the meet
ing expressly to raise a disturbance. l
will be matter of surprise to PHILADELPHIA
ans to see any one taking liberties of thi
kind with gentleman of such unusual SO
Der and weighty character as MIR. Douglas
bears wherever he is known, unless it b
for the strongest Of reasons. Neither Nh
Douglass nor anyone else, as far as W
know, was there to disturb the meeting
The public we're called together to give
"proper public expression" As part of tn
public, Mr.. Douglass and other were Their
to aid in shaping that proper expression.
They were ready to say many things il
Mr.. Stills favor; but, feeling and knowing
that he had acted very wrongly in the cas-
between himself and Mrs. Wells, the,
were unwilling to countenance an attemI
to palm off wrong for a right, as if nj
Still (who seems to need endorsing" tw
or three times a year lately could do n