Orleans independent standard. [volume] (Irasburgh, Vt.) 1856-1871, 1870-09-06
An Important Case to Publishers of
Newspapers.

the highest Importance TO puDllsnerS
and proprietors of newspapers.
1t will be recollected that some
three years ago John Gregory, of
Northfeld, brought suit against Hi
ram Atkins, Of Montpelier, editor and
proprietor of the Argus & Patriot, for
libel alleged to have been published
in that paper. The suit was defend
ed, and the truth of the libel was at
tempted to be proved, but the defense
was unsuccessful, and Mr.. Gregory
recovered in damages and costs about
nine hundred dollars. This sum Mr..
Atkins paid. 1t appears that at the
time the alleged libel was published,
James n. johnson, ESQ.,, of Northfeld,
the writer of the article, assured Mr..
Atkins that the article was all true !;
that the statements and charges there
in made against Mr.. Gregory could
be proved by good witnesses, and he
agreed to indemnify and save harm
less Mr.. Atkins for publishing the
same. Under this assurance of the
truth, and the agreement to be indem-
nifed, Mr.. Atkins consented to pub
lish the article. 1t is said that Mr..
Johnson was acting with and for cer-
tain other prominent men in North
feld-severa Of them being leading
republicans-in procuring the article
to be published, but how this may be
we do not know. nor is it material.
After Gregory brought his suit against
Atkins, Johnson and these men en-
ployed counsel for the defense of that
suit, and Atkins supposed that what
ever might be the result-Johnson
and his associates would take care of
the case.
1t appeared, however, that when
/ judgment was rendered against At
kins, Johnson and his coadjutors left
him to pay the whole sun, which At
kins did pay, together with such 9TH
er bills as Johnson and others had
left unpaid, growing out of the defense
Of the suit. Atkins then brought a
suit against Johnson, on his written
agreement Of indemnity. This case
passed by demurrer to the declaration
into the Supreme Court, and involves
the question whether a publisher and
proprietor of a newspaper has any
right Of action upon srch an agree
ment Of indemnity. The case was ar
gued by c. J. Gleason, Esq, of Mont
pelier, for plaintiff, and by Il. Carpen-
ter, Esq, Of Mortified, for the defen-
dant8, and is now in the hands of the
Court.
The decision of this case is of great
importance to the press. To US, it
seems to be simply whether publish
ers are to have the same legal pro-
lection that is extended to other men.
We understand that al agreement Of
indemnity for the acts of a sheriff, auc-
tioneer, or employee in due course oi
business, is good even if trespasses
against the rights of others are COM
mitted. And it was surprise to US
to learn that the rights Of publishers
of newspapers to the same indemnity
for acts done, and articles published
in good faith upon the representation
and under the belief that they are
publishing the truth, could be ques
toned in Court of Justice.
We did not hear the arguments il
this case, but doubt not the defense
relied upon the old maxim that "there
can be no contribution in tor" t"--i. e.
that willy lawyer can make cats
paw Of an editor under an agreement
to stand by him, and then can deser
him with impunity because, forsooth
the article was a libel upon its face
But do we not, 10 tnis country of fre'
speech and free press, have to Civ,
frequent utterance to things which
would be SANDERS if they were no
true? The people look to the press tt
> enlighten them on topics of public in
, terest, to acquaint them with the char
! acters and conduct of Office holder
q and politicians (who often are not on
best men) and to strip off all disguis
: es. How can this be done withou
o boldly telling what they believe to b
y the truth. An editor often write
/ with his own hand prima tacie libel
o but he knows it is true and therefor
takes the risk. Is it any worse 70
: him to publish one written by anotl
er and guaranteed to be true? c
i course, it can have no worse effect "
on the public and can do the perso
:, spoken Of no greater injury. We ia
o. therefore to see any reason of publ
8 policy why the real offender shoul
IS not be the sufferer, especially in vie
d Of the high Office of the press (whic
p appears to US not inferior to that {
y a constable or servant) in its dutit
r to the public, the country and to trut
" We express no opinion upon tt
d libel itself-that we did at the tin
,e nor whether, even if believed to I
t, true, as it undoubtedly was by Atkin
ID good policy would permit it to be pu
to lisled. These questions are oygont
to and do not affect the point at issue
ID the least. Those pertained to Il
TX single publisher interested; this 8
IL fects US all.
is A man must have very little sen'
k of honor or decency who, having mi
~ represented to an editor in the ma
IS ner above described, leaves him
er suffer the consequences, even if I
w agreement to indemnify has bet
er made. But when he agrees to indel
IS nifty, if that agreement cannot be e
as forced at law, there must be, as
er seems to US, a radical defect in "tl
Id rule Of right" Editors and publis
a ers are more dependent upon Il
a statements and representations
a others, than any other class or pr
De fession; and if we can be contracts
k, with, and lied to with impunity, all
as us are liable to be imposed upon, al
particularly by those who wish to u
go the press for the accomplishment
al private ends. The decision of Il
n case involves matters of greatest i
IN portance to the press of the Unit
OF. States, as well as Vermont, and W
p ~ j i I e :. II