New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1871-04-28
No IMMUNITY FOR SLENDER.

Libel suits are generally regarded az de-
vice for the persecution Of newspapers: they
sbould be held wise provision for their pro-
lection. We dissent from the declaration Of
a prominent editor, the other day, when an
acquaintance claimed his congratulations
on the recovery of substantial YER
dict for wanton SANDER, "Oh, you
"know newspapers are all opposed
"to libel suits" THE TRIBUNE is not opposed to
libel suits it is in favor of them. 1t heartily
wishes there were ten times as many Of them
that the laws delays might be losscned, the
process of forcing verdict simplifed, the
probability of heavy damages for clear
malicious libel increased hundred fold
In short, THE TRIBUNE is not in favor
of SANDER; wants no impunity for
SANDER longs for the day when tho IMMUNITY
wherein so many other papers riot to the dis
grace of journalism and the incalculable re-
duction of it's power, shall be summarily ended,
by short, sharp justice, impartially and relent-
lessly administered.
Here is the case of Mr.. E. L. Sanderson OF
Brooklyn, against whom this libel was printed
in The Sunday Mercury, in the Autumn of 1857:
"Enathan L. ssnderson, extra Radical candidate for
Brooklyn did good thing In his sober moments In the
way OF collecting soldiers claims against the Govern
ment for fearful per centage. The blood money ne
got the Boys In Blue in this way supposed 10 pen
big thing and may elect him to the Assembly on the
loyal ticket although the soldiers and sailors are ou'
IN full force against him."
1t was not till this month of April, 1871,
that three OF four days ago, MIR. Sanderson
was finally able to secure from the court OF
last resort judgment for five thousand dol
lars damages for this wantOn libel, the means
for determining the falsity of which were In
the possession of the Editor when he reck-
lessly sent it out. A verdict was obtained IN
the Kings County Court. The case was ap-
pealed to the General Term, and the Judgment
of the Court below was there affirmed. The
case was then carried to the Court OF Appeals,
where the Judgment was again reafirmed, ana
Mr.. Sanderson was given, after three and a
half years OF vexatiohs litigation, his order on
responsible men fer his five thousand dollars.
Now who does not see that it would have
been better for the cause of honest, reputable
journalism, if the damages had been made
twice az heavy, and awarded five times as
soonf We have looked through the copy
of the paper in which this libel was
printed and do not doubt that that iden-
teal sheet contains a dozen others as
gross and malicious. But there was
only one of the victims uniting the means
and courage to prosecute with the pertinacity
to fight through three Courts and three and
half years for his verdict. Suppose the others
had been ready to do the same, and
the verdicts had been irrevocably rem
dered in each case within six months -
"a hot he
Mercuru would thenceforth have thought it
profitable to indulge more sparingly in whole
sale slander-that swarm of lesser organs OF
personal defamation would have taken warn
ing by the example-that honorable journals
would have gained in repute and influence by
this process of cauterizing the excrescences of
journalism
There are papers in this city that never
print an issue without libel. Sometimes 1t
is the offspring of malicious hate, more often
of malicious recklessness. In not one case in
a hundred is fair correction ever made. A
few angry victims go to the office, intemper-
ately threaten suits, find their threats not I'M
naturally met with defiance, and then, re-
membering the cost interminable delays,
and great uncertainty, abandon the matter;
while the newspaper, accepting this as
triumph, refuses any explanation, and either
blackens the libel or avoids the subject, as its
estimate of the probability that the victim may
be goaded into an execution of his threat may
dictate Others ask corrections ceurteOusly,
and are so Disguised at finding these adroitly
put in such guise as to conceal the fact that
there is any correction Cor perhaps even to
make the original libel worse), that they
II yhn Tha uyifn sir
these results, do nothing; but lament the law
less tyranny of hcentious press. Meanwhile
the profession is degraded, and the influence
of every honest paper is curtailed. Angry and
wronged men do not draw fine distinctions;
too many are ready to believe that an inhe
rent vice of the system which is really only
the depravity of its baser members.
On many well-meaning journals, too, there
comes reflex influence. Finding slap-dash
personal abuse one of the profitable things in
the market and the organs of SANDER ap-
parently free to say what they please without
restraint of any kind whatsoever, the wants of
their business and the spirit of competition
gradually draw them into the same cur
rent of miscellaneous libel. Here was a
reputable journal, the other day, SO
demoralized AZ to charge a United States
Senator with an infamous ofiense without
scintilla of evidence or even of probability
for it, and SO brazen as to refuse correc-
ton. On our table lies another reputable
journal with an article gloating over
story it has wantonly invented that
young lady, prominent before the public, is
secretly married. Political malignity may ex-
plain the one; a mere goatish love for pruri-
ence the other but would it not be better for