Daily national Republican. (Washington City [D.C.]) 1870-1872, 1870-06-22

paper iiA responsibility IN reference 10 thc |
publication Of those articles, 40 far o. they |
purport TO be editorial, Is not denied. A large |
portion Of them are extracts from other
papers printed IN various sections Of the
May u please your honor, the dlrcct ques-
tion wa propounded 10 The witnnss W tel the
court and jury the source Of these articles,
when they wero prepared, aud By whom
written. | suppose that the proprietor OF the
newspaper holds himself rs your honor has
rulnd responsible for Whatever appcara, I'M
less he disclalms and ahows that disclaimer ~
the satisfaction Of the curt and ipry. sup.
pose that his responsibility Is completo without
regard 10 all the transactions that may have
occurred behind that Now, do not under
stand anything about it, being controversy
between Mr.. hcflarrahan and this mining
company, % Mr.. Merrick represented; and
tho fact that this ia, may II please your honor,
TO let this Jury and court understand thai the
United States Government has no interest In
this controversy, and therefore, that All that
newspaper editor and proprietor may cheoao
W do 70 guard tho public lntcrost- the benefit
Of all that Is 10 bp taken from our client
the defendant hera. upon The ground lhat i9r
certain sum Of money these parties (this
mining company arc IN possession Of the
precious four leagues q ground, and are
seeking 10 defeat Mt. hcGagrHhans claim
because they can get II themselves for spec
| fled sum- which the gentleman named.
tnJcrstand 4. betwech M. Mclarrahan
| and this defendant for having publlahed Ger
tain articles which he alleges 10 he llbcious,
to wit; That ], McGarrahAn, am tho owner Of
this tract Of country In controversy as Il
aycrred In the very frst clause OF MA deciarn-
ton, "and In order 10 defeat my ownership
you have made certain qualifications dcrUga-
tory 10 my claim and derogutcry tomy char
acter." Now how is that 70 be elucidated by
asking Mr.. Peck the source Of those articles.
I
pen Of the proprietor OF some instrument
| through whom he Thought proper 10 bring
forth tho publication, II scems 10 me that
the proof Is wholly Irrelevant, but I am not
much Inclined TO circumscribo the inyestlga-
ton Of this case, for when We plant ourselves
upon the solemn adjudication Of the highest
tribunal OF tnls country, and say ina. h,s
claim. Is but dust and ashes, do not somuch
rear INC conselnGncos.
regret may please INC court 70 gay
| uls-l reBIeth on INC same gryuhu mat ny
learned AND Sloluen. brother, MI ~ Me' NJ
| docs IN relation 70 my friend heFel VT: mur-
tagh. Tho pcrsonal klndnos q Mr. Mcaar'
rnhan has made me admire HIM; ont w Il,
nnls OF our country have denounced thls
claim as fraudnlent and an editor has INC In
dependence to tel the country that II y a
shameless fraud 70 take from the public
treasury Of the United statos million OF
dollars, do not think he ought 70 10 made
the victim Of judicial suit Tor libel In
court OF JUSTICE Lct inc lnNesugatloh conlo
before this court or THIS Jury as 70 the char
a. n,,.ss,i,.. m. \. - H., H., ,I,s ~
rT pm iryS os,ce and andtng mi Who Sro,c
articles lar the naneT AZ mad lending 10 elnd.
date the question before the court he says
that they were all Publlhhed win tbe appro-
baton OF the proprietor, and they import
upon their face what they are; they measure
ny, ~ a"S M o,IJanc,
LII p'sy w. wy ~ ,, ,sJ ~ n scc,s \,
U,s y r.,chIna ~ nh. ~ syidonss haSod
iG sueng .ne ,u .IS,, =, e''uo"0o WYNN
I any u'e'oo y, 'os", P'oPpoS'
Justice Oln.. Perhaps We have heard
enough Of argument upon the subject. N
the defendant oblects 70 this evidence i an
inclined 70 exclude ~ and Tor thia reason,
think the implication OF law i that he u re
a sponsible, and 80 regarded. do not thlnl
II these articles were proven 10 hare boei
! writton by somebody else. 1 do not see hov
: II could be. t"
MT. Mcrrlrk here offered 70 show that oui
articles sued on. f...r....... .-
Justice DIN. 1ou may show that these ar
ticles purportlng 70 be editorial articles In IN
paper were pubhshed TOT pay, and were no
! emanatlons from tho editors own brain.
Mr.. herrick. This Is ono link In the NAH
|
Justice Olin. That you may do.
a Mr., Wilson. May II please your honor,
! desire 10 state briefly our objection. You
, honor will observe that the publication tina
Is set up In the plaintiffs declaration does no
on Its face puTport 10 be an editorial, but pur
ports 10 be an extract from paper publlshes
J In California. refer 70 the one Of the Ii
Of April and the ono Of the Sth Of April pur
ports 10 be an extract from some other pape
!, published In California at another place AM
: at another tlmo.
q In error about e. ~
Mr.. Wilson. Correct me, then, n yo
please. -. EHa .
Mr.. Mcrrick. think one libel charged i
: the declaration Is for the publication OF libel
ous matter contained In an extract, and th
. other libel, II am not mistaken, Is for llbCl
: Gus matter contained In an editorial.
Instlcc OIin. That Ia not very importan,
rrria nncsiian doca not Affect that matte,
Q ,,hI. y an Ina,Iry AZ 10 what riTcpmstancs
NAV be given In evidence tending TO prove o
y dIgproyo malice.
N NJ MerricL Yea air ..F