New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1861-09-17
JUDGE BACON's RULING NOTIONS
OF PRIVILEGE.

OF PRIVILEGE.
We print herewith the testimony given for the
defense In the late libel suit of Litteiobn against
Greeley, together with Judge Bacon's rulings by
which the great body of the evidence offered on
that side was excluded, as also the remarks
elected by that ruling from John X. Porter,
esq, Of Albany. Jurists, lawyers, and oil who
take an interest in questions vitality affecting
legal rights and remedies, will find herein matter
of the deepest and gravest interest.
We do not propose to discuss those general
doctrines respecting libel and evidence laid down
by Judge Bacon, Viii h took our counsel entirely
by surprise, aud which seem to US novel, peculiar,
extraordinary. We leave them without remark
10 the consideration of those whose legal acquire
meuts aud dsinterested position give weight to
their structures which would not be accorded TO
those OF an sggrieyed sutton. Our own comments
shall be restricted to the topic of Privileged
Of the Press to libel with IMMUNITY. And we
mean To make the way of reason and justice IN
the premises so plain that henceforth the way
farng man, though judge, shall not err therein.
BE il forever understood, then, that there is
no right no privilege, nbering IN any man or
station to libel or SANDER with impunlty. Libel
or SANDER i, always actionable punishable,
though uttered by tue President in his message,
the priest at the altar, the Judge on the bench.
The vulgar notion that lawyer in pleading may
SANDER at will has no foundation IN reason or
morals, and lawyer at bar, judge charging a
jury, who should really libel any one, would
find no immunity for the wrong in law or fact,
The Rev. DIR. Cneeyer was once convicted of
libeling a neghbOr 10 q Temperance Tract,
wherein that mans name not mentioned.
We are not affirming the justice Of that cOnyic.
ton; we are SIMPLY illustrating the truth that
there is no immunity for libel or SANDER.
What, then, in this regard, is Privilegei and
what is q Privileged Communication Let Us
give familiar example:
We will suppose that Ben Quieg and Joe
DObbs were friendly ostlers at rival liyery-stables
in Oswego last October and meeting casually in
the street, Joe inquiries,
"By the way, Ben, are you going to vote for
Littejohu this Fail 7" sHr
coyote for Littejohn' not III wouldn't
touch him with a ten-foOt pole !"
Why not ?"
"Why, be was up to bis eyes in that corrupt
legis alton last Winter, aud | have done with
him forever"
Now, supposiDg Mr.. Ltttejohn to hear of
this coloquy, and to be uNyise enough to sue
Qugg for his part in it as saDderous, We insist
that the proper answer to his complaint is that
the communication for which be sues was priv
iedged-that, Lttlejohn having appealed to his late
constituents for reelection-that is, for verdict
upon his past career as a legislatOr--it was their
right aud duty to canvass that career with entire
which attaches to accusations and ordinations
affecting private character and uncaed for by
any public transaction or interest has here no
application.
But, may public men and candidates for lofty
trusts be slandered with impunityi
BY no means.
We hold it perfectly competent for Mr. Little.
John to come into Court aud Prore that Qagg,
in denouncing him, was impelled by mace--that
the legislation referred to was not the cause but
only the pretsIt for such denunciation--that the
charges affecting said Littlejohn's public conduct
had been maliciousy invented or trumped up by
Qqgg to enable hun TO traduce the sand plaintiff,
cover him with odium, and prevent bis TO
election. Aud IL that case, the Objectionable
words tOOntd be sIauderous because proved to be
impeled ty malicg. Otherwise, we hold them
Privileged--just 4 much and as sacredly as
those Of any ediSr. lawyer, priest, or Judge,
when spoken in Be discharge Of recognized
duty.
And THU is all shere 10 or can be of Privilege
in the preoises aDyone-Dot right to libel
or Islander with ihpunity, but right to rebut
the legal tYesuml kon of malice by showing that
the WORDS cOuI ID on were uttered in the
apparent ssschsrE Of duty. 1t is the right
of voters n. con, ~ aud confer with each other
respecting Tue Its of candidates for their
sua.sees--Sg 10 Esir Pri-i.oge " M.-r.aso.o