The New York herald., 1869-06-01

invoked thscourt decided that the hanging OF man
Of death pronounced over HIM By court Of cOmpe
tent Jurisdiction, ana what was said and done wniie
sa Hs dooea %Ss not In pubic oca pToceedns nor %
dicial proceeding 1t Is To be hoped that IN tne i
tare the courts saea upon 70 % nefIe fsEs
more liberal view OF the question: that they VIII look
INTO the nature OF the publication OF modern news
paper, and not apply to the modern lightning press
principles OF jurisprudence dug out from musty law
reports OF centuries ago.
A FEW nisTOric "REMINISCENCES OF THE TRIALS OF
TIE PRESS IN THE PAST.
One OF the most remarkable evidences OF the de-
sire OF the iederal goyernment 70 imt anc ~,
and influence has already been referred to. Directly
IL conld not be done, for there stood constitutional
provision prohibiting 1t in express terms; but ind
rectly 1t was attempted by pretending to restrain
the excesses OF the press and its so-caled
licentlousness. This 1t sought effect through
the alien and sediton laws, where certain pubica-
tions and criticisms OF federal oiccrs we're declared
orences against the United States and subjected to
printers thrown into prison during the last two
years Of John Adams until the result
OF the Presidential election OF 1900 opened the doors
Of their cells and tie first Congress thereafter re-
the oflcal acts OF all public oficers, was again the
subject OF long and earnest discussion in Congress
Judge James i II. Peck United States District Judge
for Missouri. II all came about newspaper article
and the course Of the Judge IN regard to It. There
widow and heirEat-law OF Antoine Sonlard against
the United States about some old Spanish land grant,
the heirs and they appealed In March, 1925, Judge
Peck published in the Missouri Republican an Ella
borate opinion, to which Luke Edward Lawless, the
attorney Of the heirs published respectful reply
over the signature OF "Ctizen," /" In the Inquirer:
s ed s1 pa
arrested, and then Mr.. Lawless, who admitted hav-
ing written the article. After various proceedings
Lawless was sentenced TO twenty four hours OF m-
prsonment and suspended from practice as an attOr
ney for eighteen months. For this the Judge was
1880, and the trial commenced before the Senate in
December. The leading counsel for the Judge and
tor Of Virginia, William Writ. The following sen
tences quoted from his closing argument, contain
all that has ever been sald-and never better-on
this side Of the argument
the Judge invaded the liberty the press What the
IN ns e % sSss Ss oo to
ns Of s Doss consist IN
obsuc and the streams Of justice BY the
hey are IsaGdi tsIs SoTrsc. iasa d ;ss liberty C r.
ss: ma under ss g;SsSsa :.sstisS is:sy oi ~
the Of As or hs S an sober v
ne greatest Of blessings cyi and political long ss 4 !;
s nc: the @ % %
permitted Burst iss proper Ssrrers The liberty s Of tie
11 H. the Of wo
S 4 . and eyer win bs The porpe.a. ae.s.'a.m q az
restrained III: principle of restraint Imposed upon
S 4s s Il: % Tsss1 ssB
Sy the restraint Of the ;n centrifugal force T.
restraint Of NE laws Of nature BY which sVsryhing
Viz W H nd nS %.. sc s
sy 81 The pres. TO 30 restrained to ths psrormanss of its
This argument proved successful at the tme and,
as the result showed, not all the eoquence OF
McDuf1e, of South Carolina, storrs, Of New York.
and Buchanan, OF pennsylvania, arguing for the
right OF free and unrestralned criticism Of all the
acts OF those IN public o1ice could convince the
TWENTY-FIVE pronounced Judge Peck not guilty or
''high m1sdemeanor," as charged. Thus the liberty
in Soue rs e Ss
Of the United States The proceedings In this city
few years ago, when Judge of our Supreme Court
was seeking to punish the editor or O mo rnng
paper as for contempt, on account OF law report
published in that journal the day before, was un-
aouptedly patterned after the anair Of Judge Peck
Much more numerous than these and similar en-
croachments upon the freedom Of the press have
been other attempts to compel its silence and d.
minlsh It's usefulness. These were and are resored
to BY individuals who claim to have been DETAINED
ana libeed, and brought into contempt and ridicue
among all good citizens Of the community py some
publication Of and concerning them, and for which
defamation OF character they generally are willing
dote, Q judgment in their favor Of some thousands
libel suits In this state is unavoidaby reminded
OF some very interesting occurrences Of our early
There is ior instance the case of Genet vs. Mitch
ELL reported In Johnson, 100. Monsieur Genet was
the Minister Of the newborn and rather turbulent
French republic to this country under wsshington's
administration. Everybody knows the troubles that
the enthusiastic French republican fell into when he
attempted to violate our laws-wage war against
England from our shores-and being peremptorily
stopped by washington, venturing to appeal from
the government to the people. IL was about this
time that the defendant Mitchell charged Genet pub
liciy with having betrayed his own government by
For this action for libel brought by the irate
Frenchman which was q little more sensible than
calling for "cofee and pistols for two" But he got
Another somewhat historical libel suit was that
commenced by Lieutenant Governor Root, In 1924
against King Verplanck publishers OF the New
York american, which paper had stated that some
day in August 1924, while presiding over the senate
Lieutenant Governor Root was 30 drunk as TO be
unit for his place and a disgrace 10 the station.
The evidence for the defence was very volumlnous
and tended 70 prove that the editor acted on good
and sufficient information; but under the ruling OF
the court as to what was necessary TO make the
proof Of justification available and successful the
The case OF Lttlejohn against Greeley had its
origin in the philosophers" habit Of growing and
and hence calling one day Mr. Littleohn one OF the
most corrupt members OF the Legislature brought
him summons and complaint for libel and small
J. Fennmore Cooper took umbrage at the way and
style In which the C0mnte1cidi Advertiser and The
Tribune criticised his naval history. lie denounced
t a. defamatory brought his actions and recovered
sman verdicts In both cases.
rather humorous case was that OF Mezzara, an
Italian portrait painter In this city, He had finished
the portrait OF gentleman, who afterwards refused
to take and pay for It, Mezzara sued the refractory
customer, obtained O judgment and, under the exc
cuton, the Sheriff seized the picture, on which the
painter had added 70 the head Of the portrait pair
Of asses This, the complaint OF the original
OF the picture was held by the Criminal Court OF the
city to be libel.
An interesting rcminiscence is offered In the libel
case OF Jacob Could against Thurlow Weed, which
originated IN the anti-Masonic excitement--the al
legged kidnapping and murder OF Morgan, who
enough Morgan till after the election Weed
edited at that time-1S27-2s--the Antt-Mdsonfc
InQulrey, at Rochester and charged Gould with
act on an ant1-Mas committed. Reading the mass
OF testimony offered on the trial and the sage and
ponderous reasonings OF the judges, now by the
light or subsequent experience, evokes hearty
smile. But Gould got verdict OF e40O.
AZ Gould successful IN his libel suit against
him, Thurlow Weed may have believed II the best
means OF healing his own onended honor and IN 1886
or thereapouts, he rushed into court himself ana
sued Foster a Stmson, OF the Ddv Book, for libel
because they asserted that In 184O he had received