Litchfield enquirer., 1869-09-09

InAles the elaimy though with what truth we do not knew, that he iias been uniustly treated, and that aR unfair advantage has been taken Of him, bseSs tSs se Cn.rss si
 It will be remembered that some months since, Scott called upon Mir. Ihas, Parker, asking that justice be done him-and that justice was measuxr before the police court the next morning, on . charge of s'assaulting bis honor, the mayor" though the court found that the extent of scotts offending was the telling MT. Parker, to his face some very unpalataple truths. k gassas9 li ssrti
 Meeting Riggs in the morning young Parker enquired if he wrote the article in question 1' Riggs answered that he did not. but that it was true, remarking, also, that he would publish any counter-statement of Mr. Parker .dt Thereupon Parker knocked Riggs down, either with his fist >or with the bntt end of D cow-hide, and proceeded to maal him with the whip ''till the fesh was cut in several places and MT, Riggs bledo quite freely. ,"li The young man was: then arrested lpfobably bx his own pro- cufemsnt) :; and fined 20 dollars. In the evening according toan account in the Pduadium, Che was serenaded by the Mer- iden cornet bahda and host of his fellow citizens, who presented him with mag niHcent ivory cane in recognition of his skill as a 'whippist. !. c,.. . - j..s, :. 1
 It will be observed that there is nothing in the slightest degree scurrilouss in the ar ticle complained of. It may be very false and libellous, bat it is not discourteous in expression towards either of the Parkers, on the contrary it's language is entirely re-. spectful towards the elder of those gentle men. In such case as this what is the true remedy? Are we to adopt the customs of portions of the South and West where an, editor is shot with impunity for mis-. statement, or slashed with bowie knives for letting out an unwelcome truth? It is of- ten partof an editors duty to say things that must be intensely disagreeable to cer- tain individuals. It will be noticed that in localities where they may be subject to personal assault, editors put such things in the most insulting and scurrilous forms. They do. not intend being shot or slashed for nothing. Hence, in such localities, this important part of an editors duty is over done, or remains undone. The local column deals in mud or white-wash exclusively; there is no room for the plain statement of of disagreeable facts. R aiese --.5~.,5 .'i a.Tis
 Now, the common sense. old.iashisasn issps ed ment published in newspaper,to insist on correction, or to prosecute for libel The latter course would naturally be adopted only in case of evident malice, or of wilful and oieontinued misrepresentation. We cannot but regret that the public distaste for political libel prosecutions has so gen. erally extended to the case of private in- juries of that nature We heartily wish editors were more oftsn compelled to prove in, court the statements they publish so fecklessly. Nothing so tends to degrade. the press as to treat it as utterly irrespon-
 btWepcannot deny that the Meriden Re- cordsn is often atrociously scurrilous; that its editor probably deserves criminal pros. ecationa and severe punishment. But the trne remedy is the legal one. The career of MT. James Gordon Bonnet proves pret- ty5eonclusively that blackguard, cannot be converted into gentlemen by SO sim pie process as cow-hiding. Appropriate legal punishmanta would have wrought a eureeor imprisonment for life. In one case only can we conceive that persoSnal, assault qn an editor would be iustifable. There are possible libels of women that are ae- gtavated rather than redressed by an ap- peal to the courts. It was for such an of. fence that Pollard was lately shot like . mad dog from fourth story window in Richmond Local opinion justified the act, but the Northern press denounced it as a murder lade and an atrocious instance of South. ern barbarisna.a 4o osuss!e7 @ g,, rrr.+, .,st
 We cannot but notice. also, the cowardly manner 0s1 in which these personal assaults ana chsstisements are almost inyariablv iva,
 conducted. The style in which Grant er. tlnguished Pollard is a sample of tho Int
 The assailant arms himself as he chooses
 se'that all risk on his part is avoided and then proceeds to infiot such bodily in;urv on his opponent as to his brutal ,imaeina. ton seems fit. Fair play is the last thing thought of. Now, ,Re confess that we can see 10 substantial difference between that notorious piece of Southern brutality--the e Brooks Simmer affair--and this Meriden busineas.a Thereis . striking lsimilarit ' throughout the crime. the legal farce, the the cane presentation seem adapted to ai. warmer latitude. Yet no one will be likely to claim that the time, place, and actors in this drama are in the least ssDem- '. tsy slsf fioEa Tlcs E s5 s 9S s 9T- Pe-ssse' eet q ea.5aaoa ssQall .. hr5 gsef
 One other consideration is suggested by .nls disagreeable fraeas Do not the public
 mc'se editors tos osido exactly what they
 applaud their being punished for. when aonsa We observe that the Meariden Raooy. se asr E 1aost most flodriahing journal Do moi sae same men who cheerfuliy snbscribe. f for cane to thrash it's editor, subscribo. a,so. k~As .Gz.re -1zs [