Litchfield enquirer., 1862-06-12
Yittkftla Guqnirer.
THURSDAY, JUNE I2, lse2.

b~ We presume VIC might properly make some allusion to the articles which have lately ly appeared in this paper relating ts the course of our county contemporary, and also even more properly to some articles in that paper reflect inr upon ourself which have called forth our hearty contempt, with expressions of our appre cissisn sf the author. But VIC conceive it to be shs more dignifed course to dismiss the un- plssssnt subject frsm our columns here, es- pecialIy ss our contemporary has incontinently withdrawn frsn the field in which he has hither- to taken such an amiabls delight in endeavoring to nsnopelizs, and has sought the broad shelter of tho legal fraternity to afford him . dubious balm for his doubtful wounds.
 It is proper, however, to say to our readers, to eur editorial brethren and the public gener- ally, that the enly apology we can offer them for the strong grsund we have taken and strong words ws have used in relation to the editor in question, is in the constant, mean, malicious attacks which have been repeatedly made upon us through the columns of that sheet, culminat- ing in an article of May 2sd, which for it's un-
 
 passed even by its authors versatile pen. It is not necessary for us to quote that article here, or any part of it. The readers of that sheet, what few there are about Winsted, will readily call it and ethers to mind, as sufficient exten- uation for all ws have said of the writer. These articles will appear as proper time snd before [ pSopsS tribunal. 1t is snfy necessary for us te alluds te them ROW as our apology for our course before cur readers and friends. In view sfthem ws hsss no apology to make to their author. On the contrary we trust he will labor ss valiansly in the new field he has undertaken ss hs hss in the cid he has deserted. Very possibly he will meet with the same success.
 We append some very sensible remarks upon the subject from the New Haven Journal and Courier. -.a
 s EoesHsH BUsrNEss.-Clark, of the Winsted Hsral5, has sued Humphrey, of the Litchfeld Esqsirsf, for libel, claiming $10,O00 damages. Hunphfey msy perhaps feel glad that his rival 1otFoses 10 has got 90 much money, but aside from that temporary satisfaction, we cannot lconceive vhat good will come of the suit. In 6ur day &nd time we have observed quite num- har of aueh cases, and never knew of one in which the plaintiff got paid for the trouble and expense he had been st, nor in which anybody received better or worse idea of either of the parties in consequence of the developments made in court. An editor must necessarily have Q pretty thick skin, and be willing to stand all the assaults made upon him. When we first took up the quill, we were sensitive to every insinuation or attack, but 8 little experience convinced us that the public was, after all, pretty fair judge, and that we could trust to it's verdict without unsasiness. We found that if an editor is self-conscious of honest intentions and fair dealings, he has no occasion to resort to any court to have his character whitewashed, and, indeed, that he need never take the trouble to defend himself against any attacks of those who are publicly understood to be his rivals. In this particular case, bitter personal con- troversy has been going on for some time be tween the two editors, and they both, probably, have good grounds for libel suits, but if they knew how little their criminatiOns and recrimi- nations affected their standing, they would not give the thing a second thought. A verdict of the Litohfeld County Court for five cents or five thousand dellars damages would not change the opinion of Q friend or enemy of either of them. We take the liberty of suggesting to our friend Clark, that he withdraw his libel suit and sub mic his case to a jury of editors. We warrant him that their verdict will do, not perhaps his pocket, but his ssul, more good than the decis- ion of all the courts held on Litchfeld Hill.