The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1865-10-14

The Right or Literary and Political
Crlticism-Ths Law Of Libel in . New
Forn,-Thc Editor or the Fcderaiist
Versus john Jay.
COUNT or coAA0R PLEAS.
Before Judge Cardozo.
Henry B. Dauson o. John yay.-The question Of
the right Of free and uutsammecd literary and political
criticism up very novel and interesting form
on Friday morning before Judge Cardozo Of the Court Of
Common Pleas The parties involved the controversy
are two gentlemen well known TO fame the plaintiff BE-
ing Mr. Henry b. Dawson, editor of the edition Of
the Fsderal and the defendant Mr. John JAY the
individual who figures frequently in the public prints
as a writer and dcbater questions theological social
political and universal
Mr. Dawson, appears in his introduction TO the work
delivered himself of certain views and
doctrines not considered orthodox according TO Mr.
jays code Of patriotic and historic principles
Mr. Jay, therefore, felt himself In honor bound
to throw down the gauntlet and summon Mr.. Dawson
10 a solemn literary and political combat Mr. Jay
did So writing two letters in which he reviewed
with great severity the Dawsonian theories and
anmadyersons. Considering himself unjustly misrepre
scented and beled in the Jay criticisms, Mr.. Dawson
hurried from the field OF letters TO tho arena OF law TO
seek compensation for his damaged feelings. Two
for libel were commenced in the Court Of Common
Pleas the FIRST based the first letter of Mr. Jay and
the action alleged ibellous matter contained
in the second letter written by that gentleman Damages
in the laid at ten thousand dollars and in
the other at fifty thousand dollars The second action
came up yesterday on demurrer by Mr. Jays counsel,
Messrs. VIM. NJ. Evarts and Joseph H. choatc, who
moved TO dismiss the complaint for want Of sufficient
cause of action.
The lbeous matter complained Of by Mr. Dawson is
principally the words contained the title page OF the
second letter, which has appeared in pamphlet form
New rstngs in Aid Of the Rebel Doctrine Of State seys,
70 The rde,aa exposing its Falsieaton q the History
and Hamilton and It's Relation 70 Recent Efforts BY Traitors
q lone and abroad to Maintain hs Rebel Do s ~, Of
pubic and the Supreme Sovereignty Of the American People
him The spotn-Dx.
Also the following words sentences contained upon
the fifteenth page Of the pamphlet
Not forener who in the least appreciated the his
In the of freedom deaed
Mh s md the highest s"osa% 9S o% he lips
Of history il 70 evs a%S With oaaa
fame Easy perye facts and
% e @ n ana nave g o % % ase '
their unpleasant eyinm hardly polluted our Amos
phce generations easy as q disnt, these deeayed
an. them * the world as yeaSs
volume demorazng the American people in regard 70
lion was assigned to or Voluntarily assumed by Mr. Henry
b. Dawson.
planned Of thcrc some eight other extracts from Mr.
Jay second letter too lengthy TO given in fall in
report The above will suffice as specimens
Mr. Choate on behalf OF the defendant read the
entire complaint, making running comments thereon,
and then moved 10 dismiss it for want OF sufficient cause
OF action.
Mcssrs. J. T. Williams and j. B. Andrews opposed this
motion on behalf Of Mr.. Dawson
Mr. Williams contendcd that the language specified In
the complaint showed very good cause Of action for
libel, and that the libel Of the most fragrant he
had read II the language meant anything meant
tyat nntroA di,lru anil tran hat ha
covert y combining 10 assist the rebellion; that he
has distorted and WHOLLY iasind history, and published
Livingston Jay and Hamilton What worse the counsel
asked, could be said Of than that he traitor
TO his country and wifuy libeIled such great men
those named in the painphlcY The counsel also asked
what was the meaning Of having such motto on the
pamphlet as the famous words Of General Dix about
shooting down whoever might attempt haul down the
American flag? Was II not intended convey the sig
Dicance that Dawson was traitor, who ought 10 be
shot down for dishonoring the American flag? What else
could IL mcanY Shoot down what2
M. Cnoate-The book, not the man. tlAughterl
Mr. Williams continued that the whole object Of Jays
representing HIM traitor Was II not grave libel
TO charge with want Of appreciation OF the his
sy nr Es smiled q This =" ouastou Tho learned
cosise may smile and take up the time In trivial mat
ters, but hold TO what said that such an imputaton
Is highly lbcous.
MI Evares-The gentleman may be sure shall only
deal in TRIES in following up the gentlcmans own argu-
ment
Mr. Williams proceeded with his argument at great
length and alluded to certain authorities and presidents
In support OF his position.
Mr.. Evars followed In behalf OF Mr. Jay in very
elaborate and learned argument Of which We can only
give n very brief sketch He said that almost next IN
importance "a judicial independence the freedom OF
the press and the right TO crcise literary and political
subjects of public nature. This, he sid Is the very
material and breath Of political institutions. and UNI
css enforce the primary doctrine OF the independence
OF the press have no true liberty. There was
very well marked line TO be distinguished In the
else Of this cardinal right and thisthat orator
nm Tho stiurs or n
writer in pamphlet could freely and without fear discuss
topics CT public controversy criticse them severely,
provided he rcfrained from attacking individuals per-
sona, in their private relations This right could be
exercised to The extent Of inveghing against the
government even 70 the degree Of accusing Of being
note counereing might be written down fool and AN
by literary critic but the critic would not be JUST
fled IN calling the writer counterfeer himself. That
would be libellous and there is the exact difference.
Sospe might call Lngard's History OF England" gross
classification Of facts others might regard Humes his.
reason that the critic imputed personal dishonesty to
those ilnguishcd authors? Certainly not. In the
sons woSk Was on subject OF pubic controversy,
which the property or the public, and therefore
open 10 public criticism This was all that MT jay
IL could not he contended that he had attacked Mr..
Dawson In his personal family relations. Treason
consisted in levying war Did MT Jay accuse M.
Dawson Of lcvying war against his country Certainly
not; he had merely stated that Daweon's ideas and
views were libel on certain gres, men o. the Revolt
historic grandeur or The Revolution, who could say In
what that appreciation should consistY Some thought
nationality consisted In resistance TO our government
some thought aboitonsm not national, and some
thought the word naton altogether out OF place In
country A. regards the motto Of hauling down the
American nay, Mr. Evarts commended that Mr.. Jays
meaning simply moral hauling down Of the
moral h'y Of the sentiments Of the American consti'
tuition
After some further discussion, Judge Carozo took the
papers the and sgnined his intention Of giving
a decision 1t an early day
The Fire Department.