New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1861-09-19

VS. ANoteo 70 pr0hI1t railroads forever n
zee enc, avenues OF NewYOrk, uless by tire consers
% named end nsioeless grantees and tbs under color
| " a grant OF further railroads iu New.York now
no,aS your verdict declaring that Was not corrupt
to an r;Sco po west Washington Market bill. IvoeA
,.ra,J nv ~ eity OF the State which had bees
wrestsa IRON the ocean by an unusu 4, r,sasure v;ch
tended 70 pat public rights in jeopardy and sdysnSs
eeinsry aSminjs,,a,;oyy Interfering with the or.
these measures voted for UNDERSTANDINGS Thsi
notice from the Governor Of their fagrant shora,ss
! ielt sne Speakers char to advocate them on IT,
hocr OF the lloase Through my pronipeu, s.n,sa,s
OF those bile, they are recorded IN yonr 1870
| books. The measures were corrupt but an limo
cent took no bride. l made no gain. Horace
Greeley SAID was prominent in this legislation. lie
ia wantOn hbeler. demand your verdict"
hope my friends will be able to present bis oa.
more fvo1ably; but have given its Learning feature.
they Impressed my mind durng the progress Of hs
trIl need scarcely reeur to the prominent chsr4o
teistis of the GIidiron bils admirably anaISssI
in the mastery opening argument Of my associate.
YOu remember that they grants 10 perpeini,v.
obviously framed 70 evade the Constitution and with
the usual reservation Of the power TO alter ana
repeal You remember they were grants OF francLies
invaluable for USE in vsuabe for dSuse made market
able alike TO those who would build roads and
those who would prohibit their construction fog
the purpose Of excluding rivalry and perpetuating
monolOlies already oyergrown. They were granH
not TO corporations subject to general laws, bat 10 An
whose unknown as beneiacorsof their
try, who are SCARED with wounds, unless they bs
parties--men who have not augmented your revenues
by public works, illustrated your history by thoB
genius, OF enhanced your glory among The nationa-
NO, uhey are grants 70 lawyers OF whom you neysa
heaTd to brewers whose names are new to your carr
10 haekneyed politicians whose regulations are
too familiar TO commend them 10 your rrg.rd.
To such mel, OF whom at liberty 10 say nothing
except as you happen 70 know of them, or as you
yourselves ignorant Of them, thcse graats
made by Speaker Littleohn and his associates. And
here too we have another attempt to ntermedds with
tic administration Of justice, and to carve for ths
Geo &c Laws Others who may have control Of these
roads, u convenient judicial district, within which
alone all to lie ried in which the propreio
OF the roads may be concerned, and for what
1t Is not difficult 10 conjecture. Was this scheme
fraudulent upon lis face as disclosed in the statue
book Does it reek with shameless, open. un.is-
sembled fraudl SO Horace Greeley thought, and in
this respect L DO not understand the learned counaA
for the defendant 10 differ from him.
Mr.. FosI ER-Tbe counsel said no snch thing.
think il il time TO interrupt this course Of argument.
Dr. PORTER--Mr. Sedgwick stated in bis argunent
yesterday, which Mr. Williams replied, that rbey
would admit that oil these bills were corrupt If We
those.
Mr.. FosrEr-No, Sir, he said M snch thing.
Mr.. SEDGwIcK--Ws do no, 80 coy ~.
Mr. PoRrER-When the counsel make I'll adnls-i-.
Il becomes the property Of the cause. L. belongs
to both parties. cannot concede the right Of coap.
% withdraw an admission made In presence OF the
Jury, even on the ground that be CID not mean "
make 1t.
say il. / say expressly / did not say any such
thing.
MP. wrLInNs-We certainly 60 understood il DIS
tnctly.
bIr. PORTER have no donbt my eloquent friend
thinks be did not make tie admission oiten In the
earnestness of discnesion ssy what we do Lot rerem
Der afrerward our minds bel engrossed by the mann
question involved in tho discns.ion aid 1t Dot unre
quenty happens that say than Al the time Ne
intend L heard What my friend said, and called Sie
attention of my associate 10 it at the tire. felt ihs
importance Of The admission, and took occasion 70
alude IN Il 10 my subsequent argument TO NE
Cont. and there wss at that time disclaimer. We
have acted upon il the tnal and cannot eontens
that II be withdrawn from the Jury. bos
nei her the counsel nor myself can be unrn
embarrassment on that subject for ha
client bss chosen 20 make evidence OF the
settlement Of Mr. Greeley in The TRIBUNE of Sept. lis
and the corrupt character Of those measures Il tbos co
tabished by the concurrent aseen, OF both parties.
These were the measures advocated By Speaker Little
john with notice from Gov. Morgan u their " ia
grant" character. 1 am not called, az the evidence
now sends, to argue the question "a 70 bis motive
legged libel did NOT charge him with corruption In The
preyious article he conceded that all not eorus-
e.. lie claimed that some were bought oS' re u'sas
sisted were bought and paid FOR They MADE sale -
their sous. They thought they were only seiI.
irg their votes. Some voted for the bils Dos
knowing what they did, but he was oppoeed 70
n reelection Of all excepting Speaker littieon
I'm, we are furnished by the plaintt with Othcs
evidence, which he could introduce, though we eonh
not and which utterly excludes the only construction
That can render the publication libelons The PLAN
tiff introduces Mr.. Grreleys statement In bis letter o.
oath November III YOU believe il, the plaiu'it n
bound by il. In that letter which you have nea'o
twice read already, Mr.. Greeley discaims any in'cn,
corrurtion 70 Speaker Li'tlejohn. Both sides sgro
that in The light of this evidence You are to read ths
aIleg lihel-that they all written 10 tie sans
.piriithat in each you find the heart and purpose o.
Iic,aco Greeley VIVA, then was the intent and I'M
rort of the article know those measures wee cor
r,,pt L do rot know that Speaker Liuiejonn
was corrupt / do not know that be wAs
bribed. / do know that he was their promineat
advocate, and knowing that l cannot advise n,s
re.lectiop-certsinly not by Repu licsn votes. IL
This Is the fair import and inten, Of the article u w
fair and iuht criticism upon bis public aefs IL wss
made il good fh from sense OF pabile uuy n az
not OF malice. II You read this anigle, u ~m 70
your hight and your dnty to nd verdict Tor the oc
fsndaut Iassime that the Court will so instruct yoa
A, I do not know what may be your conclusion on
,h;s suhiect will advert briefly 10 such other qass'
,ions as you may find il necessary to consider'
In this case we have proved sfirmatiyeiy the Cd
sence of all malice That thls matter OF ce,eose
the claim for damages beyond the amount OF proved
snd actual injury will probably be conceded. Bot y
a bonpd 10 submit 20 the Cour another view OF tfks
subject which has been considered and elaborated en
authority by my learned $3.50 iste. IL Is tnAt wesS
mali,e ia afmatiyely dsproyed, the gravamen OF ne
action Ia gone and there Il civil remedy In sues
ease even for actual damages. do not aver 70 %
the law but submit question for decision ips
earliest and latest authorities agree IN the propoasss
that malice is the gist Of the action, and without ao1o
malice established either by proof or preaumpio1 ,oess
can be no recovery The authorities further ~
nropositon that the presumption OF malice iiom me
slsshood of the publication may be repelled oy pros.
The principles involved In the consideration y, |"
question ere discussed in luminous oti.iOn o' MI.
,iuslise Selden in case to which will give yo9
-. q rsfarsnr. Tho coumOnly -re,eived opl1tn