Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1870-08-24
From tho st. Altans Mo-.
An Important Case TO Publisbom
Newspapers. VI

ANtUoHdItINs
At the recent Term of the Val.
County Supreme Court, a suit wos ,;''Igol
result of which is Of the highest impo, ,, ,a'
to publishers aud proprietors Of news d.,Ou''
1t will be recolectod thatsomo tbrdro
ago John Gregory Of Mortified. bron yuan
suit against Hiram Atkins, of Mtuslt
editor and proprietor Of the Arqls a. plP,e.pl'f
for libel alleged to have been nnli.t',ol
that paper. The suit was defended .sS 10
truth Of the libel was attempted To bo,. WV l'
but the defense was unsuccessful onSg,l
Gregory recovered in damages md WI
about nine hundred dollars. This .nn, ' %
Atkins paid. 1t appears that at the fin W.
alleged libel was published, James n '' ~. ue
son, Esq, Of Mortified, the writer If IL Doua'
ticle, assured Mr.. Atkins that the artoi. l'
all true that the statements and a.. was
therein made against Mr. Gregory ooni5g
proved by good witnesses, and he acrooi
indemnify and save harmless Mr.. Alta
publishing the same Under this osgr... wv
Of the truth, and the agreement to be nan
nihed, Mr.. Atkins consented to publish ~.
article. Itis said that Mr.. johnson w,, '.'
ing with and for certain other prominent owe
in Northfeld-soycra Of them being lo,5 l4.l
republicans lin procuring the articls as
published, but how this may be we A, ~.
know, nor is It material After Gro.
brought his suit against Atkins, johnson ,ai
these men employed counsel for the it,.
Of that suit, and Atkins supposed that sL..
ever might be the result-Johnson and ~.
associates would take care of the case.
1t appeared, however, that when iul,ms,,
was rendered against Atkins johnson a9J h,
coadjutors left him to pay the whole nr
which Atkins did pay, together with m.
other bills as johnson aud others had loG r,
paid, growing out Of the defense Of the .p5
Atkins then brought a suit against johnson
on his written agreement Of indemnity. Ta
case passed by demurrer to the declaraii~
into the Supreme Court. and involves t,
question whether publisher and rroprie,5,
Of a newspaper has any right Of action una
such au agreement Of indemnity The c,..
was argued by G. j Gleason, Esq. of Nom.
polier for plaintiff, and by H. Carpenter
| ESQ Of Mortified, for the defendants and /.
now in the hands Of the Court.
The decision Of this case is Of great I'm.
portance to the press. To us, it seems to ba
simply whether publishers are to have Bs
same legal protection that is extended %
other men. We understand that an agree.
ment Of indemnity for the acts Of sheriff
auctioueer or employee in due course Of bg.
sness is good even if trespasses against ,bs
rights of others are committed And 10 was
a surprise to US to learn that the right Of
publishers Of newspapers to the same indem.
nifty for acts done, and articles published 70
good faith upon the representation and under
the belief that they are publishing the truth.
could be questioned In Court Of Justice.
We did not hear the arguments 10 this case
but doubt not the defense relied upon h,
old maxim that there can be no contribution
in tort wi Go, that a willy lawyer can makli
cats paw Of ana editor uudor an agreement 20
stand 10y him, aud then can desert him With
impunity because, ior-ooth. the article was
libel upon 10. face But do we not, 10 dis
country Of free speech aud free press, hay, %
give frequent uttcauce to things which
would be ISLANDERS if they were not trles
The people look 20 the press 10 onlightea
them on topics of public interest, to ac4uai1t
them with the characters and conducted Office
holders and politicians ,who often are not our
best mem and 70 strip of all DISCUSSES How
can this be done without boldly telling what
they believe to be the truth ? An editor Of.
ten writes with his own hand prina ta,e
libel but he knows it Is true and Therefore
takes the risk Is it any worse for him 70
publish one written by another and guaraa.
teed to be true2 OF course, it can have no
worse effect upon the public and can do the
person spoken Of no greater injury. We
fail therefore to see any reason Of public pol.
icy why the real offender should not be the
sufferer, especially in view Of the high Office
Of the press which appears to US not inferior
to that Of constable or servanD in its du.
ties 10 the public the country and to truth.
We express no opinion upon the libel itself
that We did at the time-nor whether, eycl
/ If believed to be true, as it undoubtedly W..
| by Atkins, good policy would permit !,
to be published These questions are by.
cones and do not affect the point at issue IN
the least. Those pertained to the single pub
Usher interested this affects us all.
a man must have very little sense Of hon.
or or decency who, having misrepresented to
an editor in the manner above described,
leaves him TO suffer the consequences, even if
no agreement to idemnify has been made
But when he agrees to idemnify, if that agree.
ment cannot be enforced at law, there mus.
be, ms it seems TO Us, a radical defect in the
rule Of right Editors and publishers are
more dependent upon the statements and rep
reservations Of Others, than any other class or
profession and IT, can be contracted with,
and lied to with IMMUNITY, all Of US are liable
70 be imposed upon, and particularly by those
who wish to use the press for the accomplish.
ment of private ends The decision Of this
case involves matters Of greatest importance
to the press Of the United States, as well as
Vermont, and will be looked for with great
interest.