The Bedford gazette. [volume] (Bedford, Pa.) 1805-current, 1867-12-13
PROSECUTED FOR LIBEL.

| The editors OF the Lancaster HL6Jtt-
gencer have been prosecuted for pub
fishing a libel upon certain clergyman
who shall be nameless in this article.
With the 'merits" of this case we have
nothing to do, and, therefore, shall
not attempt to discuss them. But we
deem it our duty, as public journalist,
| to say word in regard to the kind Of
suit by which Rev. - seeks vindica-
ton.
Under the laws of Pennsylvania, there
are two kinds of action for Libel, viz:
Criminal Prosecution and action for
Damages. In Criminal Prosecutions,
the Commonwealth is the Plaintiff and
the person who complains of having
been libeled, is merely witness for the
Prosecution. In this species of cases
the law, also, proceeds upon the anti
quated maxim, "The greater the truth,
the greater the libel" No evidence
in justification of the publication COM
planned of, is admitted by the courts
upon trial of cases of this description.
Indeed, if the defendant were to prove
the truth of his allegations, how could
such proof avail him when the greater
truth only makes the greater libel /?
The fiction of law upon which this par
adoxical theory is based, is, that li6eLOus
utterd1lceS tend to q breach Of the peace.
Hence the intention of the law, in au-
thorizing criminal prosecutions for Lii
bel, is not to enable the person who
brings such prosecutions, to Vindicate
his or her priUdte character, but to
maintain the peace and dignity of the
Commonwealth. On the other hand,
upon the trial of CjUH Actions for the re-
cOUeyy Of Damages, the rule, "The
greater the truth the greater the libel"
does not obtain, and the defendant will
be allowed to put in a plea of .jtIstJfcd-
ton, and under that plea, the Court
will admit evidence to prove the truth
of the utterance alleged to be liOelous.
This species of suit is always brought
by persons who desire to vindicate char
acter or to recover damages for injuries
sustained on account of the libelous pub
lication.
Now, Rev. - has chosen the form
er of these actions. He prosecutes the
editors of the HatetIigeRcer in order that
the peace and dignity of the Common
wealth of Pennsylvania may not he
impaired. There was imminent peril
that "a breach of the peace" would
result from the alleged libelous utter
ances of the LateHigencer. In other
words, such publications might lead to
fistic collision between the reverend
gentleman and the fighting editor of
the Iatelligencer. Therefore, in order
to prevent so great a public calamity,
it was necessary to institute this pros
ecution. Now, we are constrained to
believe that Rev. - has taken bad
legal advice. He certainly intended
to bring suit for the purpose of vindi-
| eating his character. He certainly
did not intend to bring such an action as
would prevent the editors of the Lttelti-
ge1tcer from putting evidence before
the jury to prove the truth of the publi-
cation which he has sworn is libelous.
A minister of the gospel would never, i'm
tenti0nally, do such thing! Nay, he
would rather say to the editors OF the In
telligencer and to all mankind, Tell the
truth and shame the Devil." Hence,
we conclude that the legal advisers OF
Rev. - have made great mistake.
Doubtless, having learned the duties OF
citizens at the feet of the Radical Ga
maliel, Stevens, those advisers have
so great regard for the "peace and
dignity'' of the Commonwealth, that
in their anxiety to do 1.-The State some
SERVICE" they forgot that their client
seeks vindication of his own DETAINED
character and that he desires that the
| editors of the Hateltigemcer shall make
good, by lawful proof, before jury of
his and their countrymen, the allega-
tions contained in the article which
he alleges to be false and defamatory.
We have written these lines, "with
malice toward none, with charity for
alp concerned, having only in view
an exposition of the righteousness of
the popular idea that a conviction of